Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate  CSPAN  May 25, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
under the republican plan, those seniors will pay an additional $80 million for prescription drugs next year, and by 2020, new jersey's seniors currently in that doughnut hole would pay an additional $1.6 billion. nationwide, nearly 4 million seniors would pay $2.2 billion more for prescription drugs in 2012 alone under the republican plan. by turning medicaid into a block grant program, the republican plan could cost america jobs over the next five years and threaten our economic recovery. but that's not all. nationwide, the republican plan could cut more than $500 billion in medicaid funding for seniors and the disabled, including life-saving nursing home care. leaving us with the uncomfortable and unanswerable question i pose to my republican
5:01 pm
friends: what will those people do? where will they go? and what happens to them under the republican budget plan. these are people, not budget numbers. what happens to them? now, who pays to lower the deficit and who does not under this republican budget proposal? the answer is clear and simple. middle-class families pay, seniors pay, but nothing is asked of the wealthiest americans, and big oil still gets billions in tax breaks. if we were serious about reducing the deficit in a balanced way, we would start with the obvious -- subsidies for big oil. the top five oil companies earn nearly $1 trillion over the last decade. passing my bill to repeal oil subsidies would save taxpayers taxpayers $21 billion over ten years. we can safely assume oil profits will be much greater in the decade to come with higher oil
5:02 pm
prices, but let's assume the top five oil companies only get another trillion dollars in profits over this next decade. is it too much to ask them to forgo $21 billion in profits that they are getting because of the tax cuts we're giving them? when oil is trading at $100 a barrel and they produce it for for $11? the answer to that question is no, madam president. and so let's do this in a balanced way. we can do much better. we should reject the republican budget. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: madam president, thank you. i rise with deepest hope that we're going to be able to defeat the house budget plan that we're about to vote upon.
5:03 pm
this republican budget is a scheme that would endanger the quality of life for millions of americans who now struggle to get by. just look at the gas pump and you'll see what i'm talking about. the republicans want to make sure that the wealthy get wealthier with a new trillion dollar tax cut and put the burden on seniors, the middle class and young people to pay for it. paul ryan, the house republican member who hatched this scheme, has said, and i quote him here -- quote -- "this isn't a budget, it's a cause, and if -- it's a cause." and if you ask me, it's a cause for alarm. the other side wants to terminate medicare, one of the most successful programs in america, and turn it over to private insurance companies where c.e.o.'s now make millions. under the republican plan, many seniors will have to choose
5:04 pm
between medication and food to get by, and seniors' out-of-pocket health costs will cost more than double the present rate to $12,500 a year. the republicans would hand seniors' health care over to insurance companies where computers instead of doctors decide which benefits they will receive. the republicans also want to reduce federal medicaid spending in half, taking away vital services like nursing homes for seniors and health service for expectant mothers. all told, the tea party republican budget would rip away health care coverage from 50 million americans. but health care for seniors and other americans isn't the only place republicans want to go to punish them. the house budget plan doesn't just protect the bush tax cuts for the rich. it reduces them to even lower
5:05 pm
levels at the expense of working families. instead of more tax breaks for the wealthiest, we should be lifting up the foundation of our country. the middle class. in the past decade, the average mcof the bottom 90% of workers has declined while prices for everything escalates and the top 1% saw incomes go up by a quarter million dollars each. imagine, the average income of the bottom 90% decline while the top 1% saw incomes go up by a quarter million dollars each. madammr. president, this budgeto cuts pell grants which help reduce the cost of back-breaking tuition for millions of college students. mr. president, i never would have been able to attend columbia university without government help from the g.i. bill. it enabled me to cofound a.d.p.,
5:06 pm
one of america's most successful companies, employing over 40,000 people today. in the post-world war ii era, we created the greatest generation. i say invest more in our people so they can create the next greatest generation which cannot be done without our help in education. we need help to a more balanced approach to solving our fiscal problems, including asking the wealthy to carry their fair share of the load. now, i was a c.e.o. for many years and i learned that you can't create a great company or a country without sufficient resources. this is no time as we fight our way out of recession to penalize the middle class, the senior citizens or the young. this is the time to invest in tomorrow without penalizing
5:07 pm
those who pay the largest price now for their very existence. let those who can pay for the rebuilding of an america we all love. that's the way we ought to do it, and i urge my colleagues to vote no on this ryan budget. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the ongoing budget negotiations. as a member of the senate budget committee, i have jumped into this debate head on, but we are -- we are all here together. this is why i have asked the alaskans in my state, in my communities all across the state to share their ideas with me on how to cut the budget and to put forward a series of cuts and spending management programs. from ideas of my colleagues and members throughout the state but also ideas i have picked up in
5:08 pm
my budget hearings. we know we're all going to feel the pinch if we're serious about getting our budget and spending under control. but i have made it crystal clear. i absolutely will not balance the budget on the backs of seniors. for me, the budget is a moral document. it reflects our values as a nation and it demonstrates our commitment to supporting our elders and protecting our children. it is the future pathway of our great country. but the republican house budget that has passed the house and is proposed for us today to vote on does not reflect these values. that's why congressman ryan received an earful from seniors when he went back home to wisconsin. after rolling out his plan, his scheme on, in my view, setting us back decades. it's why voters in new york yesterday rejected republicans and their extreme plan to eliminate medicare as we know
5:09 pm
it. by electing a democrat in a republican district. i mention new york not because this was a win for democrats or a loss for republicans but because this was a win for our seniors. and because the stakes are too high. americans all across the country are saying no to the current republican plan that could fail to automatically enroll our seniors in medicare and instead force them to buy health coverage from a private insurance company. and let me make it very clear on the private insurance company. medicare today to administer costs about 1.5%, so all the rest of the money for medicare goes to services, to programs to ensure health care for our seniors. the insurance companies got a hold of this, their cost to administer would be 20% to 30%. clearly, less services for seniors. in alaska, over the next ten years under this republican
5:10 pm
house plan that passed that's here in front of the senate for us to vote on, it will move the cost for medicare for my constituents of alaska from $5,000 of their costs and in ten years over $10,000. on top of that, it will force seniors to pay an average of of $3,500 more for prescription drugs over the next ten years. again, adding to about $8,500 from seniors in additional health care costs. at the same time, this budget that they want us to approve -- which, of course, i'm not going to -- will give millionaires another $1.2 trillion in additional reductions, at the same time sticking it to our seniors. it will truly end medicare as we know it today. in alaska, our elders are revered. we respect their wisdom and they guide our decisions. as a people, it is our duty to
5:11 pm
care for our elders as they grow older. the republican plan, the ryan budget, will cost, as i said, alaska seniors dearly, thousands and thousands of dollars per year. seniors who are on fixed incomes. in alaska, we have one of the fastest growing senior populations in the nation by percent. so i continue to look forward to my colleagues with my colleagues on the other side and my colleagues on this side to figure out how we're going to move forward on this budget, but let's not do it on the backs of seniors by throwing them over the ship and never looking back. seniors paid into it, seniors expect it, and we have an obligation to ensure they have the health care that ensures that they have a quality of life and live in dignity in their later years. mr. president, thank you for the opportunity and i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president,
5:12 pm
first, thank you for the courtesy of taking my time in the chair so i have a chance to deliver these remarks. it is very much appreciated. we are gathered here on the senate floor to face a very stark fact, and that is that the house republican budget would end medicare as we know it for future generations. the house republican budget would increase costs for current beneficiaries right away, and the house republican budget would do real damage to seniors across this country and in my home state of rhode island. with gas prices at near record highs, unemployment numbers still in double digits, most folks are focused on making ends meet. they deserve a budget that will improve economic opportunity in our country, balance our budget and maintain medicare, medicaid and other programs on which so many americans rely. the house republican budget fails every one of these tests. it ends medicare, it lowers
5:13 pm
taxes for most corporations and the most fortunate who already pay less often than the average american, all while failing to balance the budget. the house budget committee chairman has claimed that -- and i quote -- "our budget makes no changes for those in or near retirement." this claim that this budget resolution won't affect americans who are already retired is simply flat-out false. the house budget reopens the medicare part-d doughnut hole that we closed in the reform bill. that will cost nearly $17,000 rhode island seniors in 2012 alone nearly $9.5 million out of pocket. seniors at the difficult incy -- at the divinci center in
5:14 pm
providence and so many other places who have gone without a cost of living adjustment in their social security benefits for two straight years, even as costs have steadily risen at the pharmacy, at the grocery store and at the pump, taking away their prescription drug assistance, charging them an additional $9.5 million. that hits them too hard and too soon. in 2012, literally right away. the republican budget also ends medicare as we know it for future generations. planning to retire in 11 years, no medicare. you instead will be forced to buy private health insurance from insurance companies standing between you and your doctors instead of the reliable, affordable insurance provided by medicare. the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates that this would double what retirees would pay out of pocket under the current system. more than $6,000 extra per
5:15 pm
retiree. and the republican attack on medicare overlooks a basic fact, that all health care costs are skyrocketing, irrespective of who the insurer is. defense secretary gates just said everybody knows that we're being eaten alive by health care. there is a cost problem in health care, but attacking medicare fundamentally misdiagnoses the problem. but that's another speech. i recently held an official senate aging committee hearing at the johnson senior center in rhode island to give rhode islanders a chance to get their feelings heard. audrey brett who relies on social security and medicare said this -- "for all those americans who worked, paid their taxes, added to the betterment of the country, served in military and civil service, we cannot let them live and die in poverty. we owe them their final days of security and dignity." audrey's right, but the
5:16 pm
republican budget gets rid of that promise of security and dignity contained in medicare. medicare, as we know it, is lost, and here is what's protected: tax cuts for the super rich who already pay lower tax rates than the average american tax-paying family, protected. tax cuts for many large corporations, many of whom now pay no taxes at all, protected. and remember, the republicans just voted last week to protect big oil tax subsidies. wreck medicare, protect those tax cuts and subsidies. those are not america's priorities. let's put real priorities first, medicare and allowing our seniors to enjoy a stable and dignified retirement. i see the majority leader is here on the floor. i yield back the reminder of my time and yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president?
5:17 pm
the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: it's my understanding that we have five minutes left. i take that time, is that right? the presiding officer: the leader is correct. mr. reid: the vote that we're going to have shortly is more -- is more -- is about more than just public policy, mr. president. it's really about priorities. it's about whether we hold fast to our values or break our promises. there's a lot wrong with the house republican budget on which each senator is about to cast a vote, but the most irresponsible and defensible ideas in it is a radical plan in medicare, as we know it. doing so would break a solemn promise between our society and our seniors. it's a promise that for more than four decades has saved seniors from poverty, illness and worse. the promise of medicare is this: if you work hard and contribute, america will make sure you are protected in your golden years from the hardships of affording health care.
5:18 pm
the republican budget would break this promise. it would make life significantly more difficult and painful for america's seniors. it's as simple and as serious as that. the republican plan would kill medicare. even the conservative "wall street journal" admitted this, even though most republican united states senators still refuse to face this reality. that is, that as "the wall street journal" said the republican plan would kill medicare. "the wall street journal." here's what it would do. it would turn over seniors' health to profit-hungry insurance companies. it would let bureaucrats decide what tests and treatments seniors get. and it would ask seniors to pay more for their benefits for their health care, charging every senior $6,000 more every year in exchange for fewer benefits. that's a bad deal, mr. president, all around. those voting for this republican
5:19 pm
plan would be forcing seniors in nevada to pay more than twice as much as they pay today in out-of-pocket costs. sadly, mr. president, that's just not a nevada problem. it's an alaska problem. it's a problem that faces every state in the union, $6,000 more for every senior. those voting for the republican plan to kill medicare would be voting to reopen the doughnut hole that we closed to help seniors afford expensive prescription drugs. opening the doughnut hole would send drug prices literally through the roof, costing, for example,27,000 seniors in nevada thousands of dollars more between now and the year 2020 and every other state. those voting for the republican plan to kill medicare would also be forcing our seniors to pay almost $1 million more for annual wellness visits that we put in our health care bill. they would make it harder for seniors to access nursing homes
5:20 pm
and long-term care and make at least 34 million more americans uninsured. the republican plan to kill medicare was written in the name of saving money, but listen to this, mr. president: it costs seniors so much money that it doesn't do anything that they said it would do. one study found that seniors would spend $14 more for every dollar the government saves. that's $14 to $1 in the wrong direction. that's not effective economics anyplace. it's certainly not worth endangering the health of our seniors. the republican plan to kill medicare is a plan that tries to balance the budget literally on the backs of america's seniors. this is a clear window into the other party's priorities, though. while it asks new seniors to pay more and more, it allows the wealthiest to pay less and less. it gives even more tax breaks to those who need it the least -- oil companies, billionaires, multinational companies that
5:21 pm
ship jobs overseas. it comes down to this, mr. president: the republican plan to kill medicare is a plan to make the rich richer and the sick sicker. a metaphor characterizes this body that we serve as a saucer, as a deliberative body that cools the intense heat and the educational -- occasional zeal of the house of representatives. voting down the radical republican house-passed plan to end medicare and keeping our promise straight and our promise to seniors to bring that image to life, the image our founding fathers have of this united states senate. i would ask that we now -- mr. president, i ask that we proceed to calendar numbered 36, h. con. res. 34, and i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the motion to proceed. the clerk will call the roll.
5:22 pm
vote:
5:23 pm
5:24 pm
vote:
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
5:32 pm
5:33 pm
vote:
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
5:36 pm
5:37 pm
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
5:40 pm
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
the presiding officer: does any senator still wish to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are 57. the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to -- the presiding officer: would the republican leader suspend for one moment while we get a little order here on the floor of the senate. the presiding officer: may we have some order on the floor of the senate so that the republican leader can be heard. please proceed. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i move to proceed to s. con. res. 18, a resolution setting
5:45 pm
forth the president's budget request, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
5:46 pm
5:47 pm
5:48 pm
5:49 pm
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
6:00 pm
6:01 pm
6:02 pm
6:03 pm
6:04 pm
6:05 pm
6:06 pm
6:07 pm
the presiding officer: are there any other members wishing to change their vote or to vote? if not, on the motion to proceed does not move forward. the ayes are 0 and the nays are 97. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, for the information of everyone, this next rote is going to be a ten-minute vote and the vote after that will be a ten-minute
6:08 pm
vote as well, so i wouldn't go too far from the floor. mr. president, i move to proceed to s. con. res. 21, a resolution submitted by senator toomey setting forth the congressional budget for the u.s. government. and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays. is there a sufficient second? we have a sufficient second. does the senator seek consent to limit the vote to ten minutes? mr. mcconnell: ten-minute vote. and did you get the second? the presiding officer: we have a sufficient second. mr. mcconnell: we got the second. the presiding officer: without objection, the following votes will be ten-minute votes. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
6:09 pm
6:10 pm
6:11 pm
6:12 pm
6:13 pm
6:14 pm
6:15 pm
6:16 pm
6:17 pm
6:18 pm
6:19 pm
6:20 pm
6:21 pm
6:22 pm
6:23 pm
the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this, we have 42 yeas and 55 nays. the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the next vote be a ten-minute vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to s. con. res. 20, a
6:24 pm
resolution submitted by senator paul setting forth the congressional budget for the u.s. government, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. with that, the clerk will call the roll. vote:
6:25 pm
6:26 pm
6:27 pm
6:28 pm
6:29 pm
6:30 pm
6:31 pm
6:32 pm
6:33 pm
6:34 pm
6:35 pm
6:36 pm
6:37 pm
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
6:42 pm
vote:
6:43 pm
6:44 pm
6:45 pm
6:46 pm
6:47 pm
6:48 pm
the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the -- motion, we have seven ayes and 90 nays. the proceedings to proceed is not passed. and agreed to. rye reid mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only for two hours, that senator sessions control the first hour, senator conrad control the second hour. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank the majority leader for allowing us to have a few remarks at this time, after the process has been completed tonight. the senate has not fulfilled its responsibility of the united
6:49 pm
states code that we passed -- congress passed that requires that the budget -- that there be a budget. it requires that congress commence marking up a budget in the budget. as the presiding officer officer knows, by april 1. and the concurrent resolution be passed by april 15. setting forth what the congress authorizes to be spent in the next year, and if anybody attempts to spend above that amount, the budget act allows a point of order to be raised, and it would require 60 votes to go above that level. so a budget says what we want to spend and makes it difficult for anybody to spend more. it's what we do in our households, it's what our cities and counties do. it is what our state governments
6:50 pm
do. i know senator mansion, the presiding officer, had to deal with his state's budget. my governor is prorating 15% of the spending for the rest of the year. we are not talk about those kinds of cuts in washington. i was in estonia up near the soviet union on the baltic sea, and the proud estonians had a larger deficit, larger economic decline than we did, and the estonians told us that every cabinet official took a 40% pay cut, every employee took 10% to 20%; the health system -- were-- system-- one said my wife is a doctor. she very unhappy. they intend to complete the recovery in estonia without adding to the debt at all.
6:51 pm
their debt-to-g.d.p. is 7%. we will by september 30 of this year -- our debt to gross domestic product will total 100%. and according to the rowing who have-reinhardt study, the study that has gained a great deal of aplashings when your g.d.p. -- the debt amounts to 90% of g.d.p., economic growth declines by 1%. and 1% decline in g.d.p., experts tell us, is the equivalent of a million jobs. so we will be in a position where because of the debt we have accumulated the economy will grow 1% less and we could have a million less jobs. we don't know what our economic growth might be. it looks like it could be less than 2%. we're talking about a huge difference in what our economic
6:52 pm
growth could be this year. maybe it will be 3%. but fitz 53%, it would have been 4%. if it was 4%, it would have been 5%. if it's 3%, it would be 2% because of this debt. so these are the circumstances that we're dealing with. every witness has told us we need to do something about it, and the nation is in a most serious fix. so there has been a decision made by the leadership of the senate -- the democratic leadership of the senate -- not to produce a budget. it was interesting when the president's budget was brought up, every single member of the senate, republicans and democrats, voted "no." you could say, why did they do that? well, the president's budget deserved not a single vote. and considering the severe, serious financial condition we are in, the president's budget
6:53 pm
was the most irresponsible budget i think that has ever been presented to congress. it is a stungl stung stunninglyf anything necessary. erskine bowles, the man president obama appointed to head the fiscal commission, said that the president's budget was nowhere close to where they will have to go to avoid a fiscal nightmare, nowhere close. but our colleagues, what have they done? they complain about the ryan budget. they vote against their own, and they vote against any other budget. they vote against the ryan budget saying that it is going to eliminate your social security, and you won't receive -- i mean, medicare. and you won't receive your medicare because of paul ryan and the mean republicans. but the ryan budget made no
6:54 pm
change in medicare in the ten years in the ryan plan at all. except to cancel the president's health care bill and save hundreds of billions of dollars. what it did was to propose in the future that we develop a new way of administering medicare that would save money and make it more responsible to individual needs, and we refused to even move to that legislation, to discuss it, and to analyze whether or not it should be done that way or whether it could be done another way. but nobody denies that this budget -- that any budget that we pass must confront our entire programs. surely they don't. so whatever you do, you're
6:55 pm
attacked by it. and our majority leader, who i admire and enjoy working with, was quite frank. he said, it would be foolish for us to pass a budget. he didn't mean it would be foolish for america. he didn't mean it would be foolish for the public interest. he didn't mean it would be foolish in terms of containing the reckless spending and the dangerous path we're on. he meant it would be foolish politically because he had a plan, and the plan was to attack the people who had the courage, the gumption, and the hard work to produce a budget dealing with the long-term fiscal challenges of america. paul ryan and his budget committee wants to attack them, bring up their budget, and vote it down. and not produce anything in response. and i really believe that's an embarrassment to the senate.
6:56 pm
it is an utter failure to meet our statutory obligation. more important, it is a failure to meet our moral obligation. many have said, well, we need to do something because we're putting debt on on our childrend grandchildren. and that's absolutely true. but w we've been told by numeros experts, including mr. bowles, who chaired the debt commission, that we could be facing a debt crisis in two years, give or take a little bit. that was his opinion. his cochair, alan simpson, said it could be one year. so we could have another debt financial crisis that could put us back into a recession as a result of our fiscal irresponsibility as soon as two years.
6:57 pm
according to erskine bowles, accomplished businessman. president clinton's chief of staff, chosen by president obama to head the commission. that's what he told us in the budget committee just a few weeks ago. how serious is he? well, our highway spending this year is about $40 billion. last year, this country spent in interest on our debt $200-plus billion, five times the highway bill, just for example. and we need to do something about our infrastructure and highways in america. i am really worried about it. i see the majority leader. if he would like to -- mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i will dwreeld him if he -- session significance know he has many things on his agenda.
6:58 pm
keep us all under control. mr. reid: i appreciate, mr. president, very much my frents friend yielding to meevment even though i have said this on the floor, we have on occasion some political differences. no one has been more generous and kind in their statements about me over the years than my friend from alabama. and i appreciate his very much yield fog meevment i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived and a cloture vote on the notion concur on the house amendment occur at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, may 26. without intervening action or debate. further, if cloture is invoked, the time postcloture be counted from 1:00 a.m. tonight, thursday, may 26. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: in shorkts we don't have to have the vote at 1:00. everyone has been most cooperative to get us past that point. welcome in tomorrow early in the day to have good news. we will move forward to make hopefully virtually everybody happy and again i want the
6:59 pm
record not to appear interrupted, so my friend can finish his statement. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snrr bathesenator from alabama. mr. sessions: it is moo easy job being majority leader. i enjoy working with him. we disagree about this budget matter. i indicated that just, for example, the highway budget is about $40 billion, a federal department of education is about $70 billion, but we spent last year in interest payment on the debt that we've accumulated over $200 billion. now, the president submitted his budget. it was favorably commented on by a democratic colleague and represented what appears to be, i guess, the mainstream
7:00 pm
democratic view, although i'm pleased to see nobody voted for it. but according to the congressional budget office, who's analyzed -- which has analyzed the budget the president submitted to us, it would result in an interest payment in the tenth year of $940 billion. that is an amount of money that exceeds our imagining. it's larger than the defense department budget. it's larger than medicare. it's larger than medicaid. it's the fastest growing item in our entire budget. that assumes slightly increased but modest interest rates. below the 66% historical average. so if interest rates were to go up faster, and that's quite possible instead of
7:01 pm
of $940 billion, we could have trillion dollar-plus interest payments every year. crowding out the ability of the education department, the transportation department, the noaa, the e.p.a. and every other agency in government that gets funds. we just would crowd out that spending by placing an annual burden on our people of of $940 billion a year. it's this trend, this path that is unsustainable, and we have been told that. and i just want to repeat and make clear what happened just a few moments ago. what happened? four votes were brought up by the majority, and they were brought up with the full knowledge that nothing would
7:02 pm
happen. there was a couple of hours of debate, several hours of debate. we ved on then four tremendously important items. four budgets for the united states of america. with no real ability to discuss each one of them in any depth at all. it was a political exercise. the majority leader said it would be foolish for us to pass a budget. in other words, it's foolish for us, the democratic majority, to commit ourselves to any plan for the future of america. that's what it was, an avoidance of responsibility. they wouldn't even vote for the president's budget because if they voted for it, they would be responsible for it. what they did was attack the one group of people who have done the right thing, the responsible thing, and that is to produce a historic budget that would
7:03 pm
basically solve our debt problem. it didn't overreach, and this is the house budget. it was long term, short term. dealt with entitlements and discretionary spending and taxes. it was a thoughtful, important, historic budget. the "chicago tribune" praised, "the wall street journal" praised. the debt commission chairman, the fiscal commission chairman bowles and simpson praised it for its courage, its integrity, its lack of gimmicks and being honest. and you know what they said? they said again that anyone who opposes the ryan budget or opposes any one of the budgets, if you don't like it, you should put forth your plan. and so has our leadership in the senate done that?
7:04 pm
have they proposed any plan? in a shocking display of irresponsibility, i don't have words to describe the degree of irresponsibility i think has been shown here tonight. they have said we're not going to produce anything. we're just going to attack what you have done. many of our colleagues have said we have got to deal with entitlements and confront the surging debt that's caused thereby, that medicare and social security are endangered. they could go belly up. we have got to change what we are doing. the house wrestled with that. it wasn't within the ten-year window. it was everybody that's 55 and above, everybody that's on medicare today would have no change, none. yet we have people going around and telling our seniors that
7:05 pm
this ryan house budget would change their social security and they wouldn't get it. in fact, it would save the social security program, put it on a sound basis, and it guarantees the people now receiving it and people over 55 who would soon to be receiving it would have no change whatsoever. in fact, in some ways it was strength for them. this is not correct, not correct. well, do we have a better plan? what about the becerra rule? i assumed that's javier becerra who served on the civil commission they named that for, a democratic congressman from los angeles. did they produce anything they think is better? do they have any plan that changes the debt course we're on? zero, nada.
7:06 pm
i really believe that this is not the responsible way to deal with the challenges this country has faced. i'm deeply disappointed. the matter is not going away. as ranking republican on the budget committee, i feel a great sense of responsibility and that to defend the legally required processes of a budget act -- i mean, how good -- what would -- what kind of ranking member or member of the budget committee would i be if i sit by and acknowledge and accept these four votes as somehow disposing of the situation? what should happen? what should have happened is by april 1, the chairman of the budget committee, senator conrad, with whom i enjoyed working this year, he should have produced the chairman's mark and it should have gone to the budget committee as the act
7:07 pm
requires, and we would have had an opportunity to amend it and vote on those amendments and debate the budget and discuss all the issues relevant to getting our country on a fine, sound fiscal path. but i think the majority leader decided that was not a good path. senator conrad, if you read the newspapers, apparently brought up his budget, his proposal to the democratic conference. it received a chilly reception, according to the newspapers. senator conrad has said repeatedly he knows we're on an unsustainable path. once he said we're heading to the wall at warp speed. we have got to change, he said. we're on an unsustainable path. but they thought, i suppose, he was too frugal. and so, apparently, according to the papers, he came back the
7:08 pm
next week with a budget that senator sanders and some of the others apparently blessed. we thought then we were going to have a markup maybe and he would bring that budget forward, and they have said publicly, well, we have got a budget. we basically agreed on the budget, but we're just not bringing it forward. but it should have been brought forward to the committee, marked up in committee, passed out of committee and come to the floor. say it won't pass the committee. what do you mean it won't pass the committee? we have got to pass the budget. the budget act provides it can't be filibustered. it allows the budget to be passed with a simple majority. the democrats have a majority in the committee. they could pass their own budget just like they like it. whatever they like, they had the votes to pass. why not? well, i think it's because they thought it would be foolish
7:09 pm
politically, foolish for them to commit themselves to any plan that dealt with taxes, that dealt with spending, that dealt with the debt. they didn't want to commit themselves. they decided that the smart thing to do would be to attack the foolish republicans who actually had the responsibility and the integrity and the sense of duty to lay out a plan for this country's financial future. now, make no mistake about it, a budget is a serious matter. it sets forth your vision for america. how big you would like the government to be, how much taxes you want to impose, how much spending you want to incur. how much debt you'd like to incur. and it sets forth before the
7:10 pm
whole world, and we were waiting to see. the house had done their duty. what will the senate do? nothing. so i don't think that's responsible, i don't believe it's acceptable, i don't accept it. i'm going to continue to resist this kind of no-action policy, and i hope that the american people will register their complaint and concern with their constituents and demand that this senate do its duty to set forth a budget that can help contain spending in america and put us on a path to financial stability and allow our economy to begin to grow at a robust rate, because i do truly believe the debt and the interest we pay is -- is weakening our economy,
7:11 pm
as the expert economists have told us. mr. president, we can't quit now. we're not going to quit now. we're going to keep pushing for the kind of budget that will allow us to put this country on a sound path, and i'm deeply disappointed that we have totally shortcutted the entire process, we have entirely avoided the responsibility of casting serious votes on a budget, bringing one up where we have the opportunity to amend it. people can debate it and calculate it out and study and make sure that there are no conviction in there and hidden manipulations that hide the way the numbers appear. we have seen that too often. in fact, the american people knew the extent to which this
7:12 pm
congress year after year has manipulated the numbers to hide the serious, irresponsible spending programs that we're executing, they would be more angry with us than they are, and 70% of the americans think we're on -- this country is on the wrong track, and finally i believe that's based on the fact that they think we're spending recklessly, running up too much debt and endangering the future health and welfare of generations to come. i would thank the chair, mr. president, and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
7:13 pm
7:14 pm
7:15 pm
7:16 pm
7:17 pm
7:18 pm
7:19 pm
7:20 pm
7:21 pm
7:22 pm
7:23 pm
7:24 pm
7:25 pm
7:26 pm
7:27 pm
7:28 pm
7:29 pm
7:30 pm
7:31 pm
7:32 pm
7:33 pm
7:34 pm
7:35 pm
7:36 pm
7:37 pm
7:38 pm
7:39 pm
7:40 pm
7:41 pm
7:42 pm
the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask that the quorum call be terminated. officer without objection. rioted reid i ask consent that the armed services committee being discharged from proceeding further with s. res. con13. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 13 honoring the service and sacrifice of members of the united states armed forces for serving in or have served in operation enduring freedom, "operation iraqi freedom," and operation new dawn. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and i further ask that all senators be listed as cosponsors of this resolution. the presiding officer: without
7:43 pm
objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: at the end of this day, mr. president, i have the pleasure of asking unanimous consent that when we complete our business, we adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow, may 26. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders being reserved for their use later in the day, following any leader remarks #-rbgs the senate resume consideration of the motion to concur in the house message to accompany srz -9d 90, legislative vehicle for the pay cut paiblght extension, with the time equally divided and controlled tweent two pleerds or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be a cloture vote on the motion to concur around 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. working on final agreement, a lot of progress has been made in that regard. and there likely will be more roll call votes tomorrow in relation to the amendments to
7:44 pm
the patriot act. so if ther there's no further business to come before the senate mr. reid: mr. president, before we terminate here tonight, there is some additional business. i ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be at 9:40 a.m. tomorrow morning. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: if a no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until
7:45 pm
the significance of the results of yesterday's special election in new york's 26 house district where a democrat won in a historic --
7:46 pm
now, former president bill clinton on the significance of the results of yesterday's special election in new york's 26th house district where a democrat won a historical republican district. he also talks about federal budget negotiations and the middle east peace process with pbs news our senior correspondent gwen ifill.
7:47 pm
>> [inaudible] i am thrilled to be here today to talk about an important topic, and in the interest and in the spirit of the conversation that the peterson foundation has been having so far, i want to talk come start by talking to you in a bipartisan manner terry. tim pawlenty announced he's running for president and said last week he feels americans are not looking this in the eye, that the need to slash budgets without regard to sacred cows. is that even possible? >> i think it is, but i think it needs to make sense. let's not forget the terrible bind america is in right now is that in a classic economic terms this is the worst time to cut
7:48 pm
deficits. that's the relentless stream but paul krugman writes in the new york times every day. there is a chance that if there is zero demand for private capital it's not that low interest rates eventually zero and less activity in the private-sector if you cut public investment at the same time that actually you will lose more revenue in the declining economic activity and tax revenue than you get from the spending cuts and it's going to be interesting to see what happens in the united kingdom on that because the early results are not particularly encouraging. the fury of the budget is the same one, the same theory the european central bank seems to be driving that even though interest rates are zero the benefit you normally get from reducing the debt is to ease interest rates and you get a big increase in investment they think there's some sort of
7:49 pm
confidence premium in doing it right now when things are fairly flat. i thought the genius of the simpson report was the recommended big structural long-term changes and ask that we not start until next year when the recovery was clearly plainly under way, and the work that pete peterson and michael and the whole group in the peterson foundation had done is based on dealing with this over the long run, so my view is if you deal with it over the long run and tell the american people the truth i think that we can work through this. now i know some people will say the election in new york yesterday for congress proves that's not true but i completely disagree with sat. the republicans ran to the left of the democrats on medicare in the last election. the excoriated us for all the
7:50 pm
savings that is now embedded in congressman rye in's budget carroll and the plane to the claim we cut medicare when what they did is to cut the reimbursement rate for medicare advantage and put the money into lengthening the life of the medicare trust fund and closing the doughnut hole, which according to kathleen sebelius of the paper is saving money because we are also requiring a discount on the drugs bought in volume which we should do i think. >> but do you think that the recent new york was a referendum on this issue or was it about something else? it's sometimes easy to over interpret. >> it was about medicare that the only point i'm trying to make -- [laughter] the only point i'm trying to make was an inevitable consequence of the fact the republicans ran to the less of the democrats. the attack the democrats for cutting medicare it wasn't a true charge and the democrats decided to keep what they had
7:51 pm
done a secret so the attack would certainly work, go figure. so it happened. but all i am saying is you shouldn't draw the conclusion that the new york race means nobody can do anything to slow the rate of medicare cost. i just don't agree with that. i think what you said to draw the conclusion that the people made a judgment that the republican budget is not the right one. i agree with that, but i am afraid that the democrats will draw the conclusion that because congressman ryan's proposal i think is not the best one that we shouldn't do anything and i completely disagree with that. there's lots of things you can do to bring down medicare costs. when i was president, we passed the medicare reform bill bipartisan, and it saved 50%
7:52 pm
more than it was estimated to save in the first two years so much so the congress went back and actually increased the reimbursement rates and over a ten year period to keep in mind this is more than a decade ago it saved 23% more than congressional budget office more than $700 billion over a decade. so you can do this. >> how different are things more than a decade ago when he faced 300 billion deficits when you came in office and there were surpluses as far as the eye could see? >> the deficit problem is worse because let's go back to the bidding. this started, we had never run permanent structural deficits of any size before 1981 when the american people what the argument and the a.d. election that the government was a source of all evil and there was no such thing as a good tax or a bad tax cut. that was the beginning of
7:53 pm
america's involvement with structural deficits. the deficits -- the debt of the country was quadrupled between 1981 to 1993. then we had for surplus budgets about $600 billion down on the debt, and my last budget obviously was mostly president bush's first year. we were in a recession. he proposed tax cuts, but continued to propose them so we doubled that again in the next eight years and then we had the financial meltdown which devastated the revenue stream of the government. so, this is a more severe problem, and it's more severe because i became president at hill land of the traditional cycle recession, and when we had a clearly high interest rates because of the debt this recession was caused by a financial meltdown and the recovery has been slow even with
7:54 pm
the interest rates it's more like what japan went through after their collapse. these financial real-estate collapse is normally take longer to get out of the in traditional business cycle recessions, so it's tougher now. >> democrats can oversells the idea that in the years when you were president everything was rosy and now that the republicans have been in charge for eight years and the democrats are just taking over the should be able to fix it. they are overselling that? >> i think that they are fundamentally right that the approach the took was better, but the americans if you look at the last 30 years we only get higher when things are messed up so people want to feel fixed. in 1994 we lost the congress because people didn't feel fixed yet and we were vulnerable to claims that we were socialist and all this stuff and then in 2010 people didn't feel fixed yet but in fact a lot of good
7:55 pm
things were going on underneath the surface, including the return of america to prominence in manufacturing and the race for clean energy technology. and i hope those two things will not be reversed in whenever bipartisan resolutions workout. i still believe that essentially the same dynamics will take hold and we will have a bipartisan resolution vote because the work vice president biden and the gang of six, now fight is doing, and because they want to get reelected and people will want to see some progress on this. >> the debt ceiling there's a new poll today in "the washington post" that he research center did that shows more people are concerned about the potential of raising the debt ceiling the and of the government default. the argument that this administration is making that there will be disaster of the debt ceiling is not raised its going to send the wrong message to the world it's not taking
7:56 pm
hold with the american people. why is that? >> because they never lived through it. nobody knows what will happen. i don't think in a lot of these areas pulling can be useful, but they can't be paralyzed because in the end people hire the president and the converse to win for them coming and to win for america, and a lot of the most important things i did as president or on popular. 80% of the people were against the mexican bailout, 74% were against bringing troops home, majority were against what we did in bosnia and kosovo when we did it. lots of other things in helping brazil and the things we did in america on the economy were not wildly popular. but i think you have to make these decisions based on where
7:57 pm
you think the end will bring you out. of course if the end doesn't bring you out for a decade then your toast. but we have elections every two years it's impossible to guarantee the results for all of these structural changes within that amount of time, and i think that's what happened in '94 and in 2010. >> isn't leadership about bringing people along even for the tough decisions? >> absolutely. but i think what you have to do there is as far as i know there's been no national address and the consequences of america defaulting on its debt. >> should there be? >> yes but not yet. i'm not sure it's going to happen. whatever the polls say. if we default on the debt once for a few days, it might not be calamitous, but if people felt we were not going to pay our
7:58 pm
bills anymore than they would stop buying our debt. one of the really troubling things to me about the decision to maintain all these big tax cuts and not address some of the other structural problems of the debt is that we borrow increasing amounts of it from countries that enjoy with us and as a result of that, what we should have been doing in the last decade which is going to a future debt was less totally dependent on finance housing and consumer spending and have more manufacturing and green technology that required us both to have more trade agreements and more vigorously enforce the ones we've got. and since the people who were learning us money were the same people that had big trade surpluses with us are treated for slight drop to 80% in the last decade, 80% for good reasons.
7:59 pm
get up tomorrow and have an extra cup of coffee and knock the living daylights out of your personal kitfield ander could you get a loan that they? so this is going to take some time to work out, but the main point i want to make that we started with is i don't think that the democrats or the republicans should conclude that we can't allow ourselves to be so paralyzed by the president and by people's preference for present certainty in the benefits that we stop reading the future. america has always been about the future can and if we stop being a future country we are going to be in real trouble.

66 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on