Establishing the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays

Floor Speech

Mr. President, I rise to address this issue of the debt limit and how we are going to go forward. I think it is important, given the conversation I have been hearing this morning, to understand some of the key features that are under discussion.

The first is that the plan that came from the House last night, the Boehner plan, requires the second half of the debt ceiling to be lifted only if a balanced budget amendment is passed and sent out to the States. In other words, it puts a two-thirds vote of each Chamber basically on the process 6 months from now.

What that does is it says to our Nation that we are going to be in continuous debate over this issue the next 6 months, facing a two-thirds vote that is very unlikely to happen. So this crisis is not going to end, not on August 2, not on August 3, not on August 4 but not for 6 months into the future. Then it is not going to end because we are not going to have a two-thirds vote.

It sends exactly the wrong message to our business community which is waiting for a sense of stability that we are through this moment. It sends the wrong message to the international world that is looking at the question of whether they are going to buy Treasury bills. It sends the wrong message in regard to our reputation in the world.

This plan of continuing the crisis for 6 months in order to bring this Nation to its knees just so folks campaign on the fact that they will do better, if you will, does not represent the best of the American spirit. We should be coming together to solve problems, not to extend problems, not to amplify problems, not to hurt families across the United States of America and hurt small businesses across this land.

The second thing the proposal did that we faced last night is it took defense spending off the table for 2 years. Why is this important? It is important because defense spending has grown by over 300 percent in the last decade. It is important because the recent Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, said there are over $100 billion of defense programs that do not contribute to our national security. We must be looking at programs that do not contribute for their intended purpose if we are going to take and address our fiscal situation with the best possible path for America.

Then the Speaker said: Do you know what. There is going to be a supercommittee, but I, the Speaker, am only going to allow it to consider cuts to direct spending, and I will not appoint anyone who would look at the full range of options that is to include programs tucked into the Tax Code.

Just a few minutes ago, my colleague from Florida said if there are tax programs which are there not because of good policy but because of good lobbying, those need to be on the table. He is absolutely right. It is a situation where every citizen understands that whether we spend $10,000 on a grant or spend $10,000 on a tax credit, it is the same $10,000.

There is a reason the Boehner plan has put tax loopholes and tax earmarks and tax programs off the table; that is because inserted into the Tax Code are programs for the wealthy and the well-connected. Why do they want their programs in the Tax Code? Very simply, they avoid the annual authorization process. They avoid the annual appropriations process. In a way, we can think of them as superprograms because they don't get reviewed regularly. That is where the well-connected and the wealthy want to have their programs placed, and they have been very successful. It has been over a quarter century since we have had a systematic review of these programs. But here we are in a fiscal crisis. It makes sense to examine the tax loopholes, many of which have outlived their use, and many others which may still be very valid--and those are the ones we should keep--but we need to examine all of them.

I had a colleague come to the floor the other day, a colleague across the aisle, and he made this argument. He said: There are some tax programs that benefit the middle class, and he proceeded to put up all these charts and all these numbers about programs that benefit the middle class. He concluded that because some of the tax programs benefit the middle class, no tax programs should be discussed as part of this issue.

Well, let's apply the same logic to our appropriations programs. Can't anyone say there are some direct spending programs that benefit the middle class? But then do we turn around and say all these programs should be left unexamined as a result? Of course not. Nor was my colleague across the aisle willing to make that argument. But why did he make such an absurd argument that because some programs are useful, we shouldn't look at any of the programs in the Tax Code? Because he wanted to protect the programs for the wealthy and well-connected. I will tell you, today, there is something terribly wrong with coming to this floor to protect the programs for the best off in our society and doing so under the false claim that they are here to fight for working families. That is wrong, and that is why we must look at every single program.

There is another problem in the bill that we have; that is, if you take Boehner at his word and he is going to take the $1.5 trillion in the Tax Code under tax expenditures and not allow them to be examined, then the only place we end up going to reach the numbers involved is Medicaid and Medicare: Medicaid, health care for the poor; Medicare, health care for our seniors.

It seems there are Members of this Chamber who want to think of health care as a special privilege for only those who are wealthy in our society. Maybe they should come and live in my community, where we understand that the quality of life is deeply dependent upon one's health.

There was indeed a very interesting experiment in Oregon over the last few years. We did not have enough funds for everyone to participate in Medicaid, called the Oregon Health Plan, and so there was a lottery. So for the first time anywhere in the Nation, there was the ability to study those who got to sign up against a control group of those who didn't. We found out Medicaid made a profound difference in people's lives. It shouldn't come as any surprise that health care makes a profound difference, but many people on this floor have questioned whether health care matters. It is always interesting to hear people who have access to health care, who have it because they are wealthy, who have it because they have a job right here that gives them health care, wondering why we should bother to care about health care for others. These issues are issues we must address as we go forward.

Let me note then that if we proceed with a plan that is guaranteed to paralyze this Chamber over the next 6 months, with an impossible hurdle at the end of that period, we will destroy this economy. We are flat right now. We are not gaining ground. We had a bill, small business innovation bill, research bill on the floor, debated it for 6 weeks, a routine bill. My colleagues across the aisle voted not to end debate so there couldn't be a vote on taking this bill forward.

They were deeply determined to prevent bills creating jobs from getting to the President's desk. Indeed, because we have not been able to take those key pieces of legislation and go forward, here we are with a flat economy.

Now they want to take it to its knees. If we create this uncertainty over the next 6 months, the interest rate goes up on the Treasury bills, the interest rate goes up on home mortgages, the interest rate goes up on car loans, the interest rate goes up on small businesses, and we get greater unemployment. Is that the outcome we want? Interest is an empty tax, a tax on every family. The estimate is it would be about $2,000 a year and it buys us nothing, nothing but destruction of the economy. That must not happen.

Source