Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, well, we have arrived. We are here at last, another government shutdown averted. The government will remain open.

I am not sure if that is good news or bad news. People need to know, yes, the government will stay open, and it will not be chaotic. Congress can adjourn, which is probably a good thing when Congress adjourns.

But the thing about government staying open is we will pass something called a continued resolution. What does that mean? It means we are resolved to continue, continue as we have for, really, decades.

We will continue to spend money, regardless of whether we have it or not. We will continue to spend money at a pace such that we will accumulate about $2 trillion in debt each year; the deficit will be about $2 trillion.

Now, the spending is comprised of a lot of different areas. It is about $6.8 trillion in spending, and we bring in about $4.8 trillion in revenue.

So it is about a $2 trillion mismatch. A lot of the spending is entitlements, probably two-thirds of the spending is entitlements, but this body refuses to address entitlements, so as part of the continuing spending tonight, keeping government open, all of the entitlements will be taken off board, and there will be no reforms to entitlements, no reduction in spending in entitlements. They will continue growing; some will be about 5 and 6 percent per year.

Almost everybody on both sides of the aisle acknowledges that entitlements are the problem; entitlements are driving the debt. What we vote on, people call it a budget, or another word they call it is ``discretionary'' spending. It is about $1.7 trillion or so, about $2 trillion. Of that $2 trillion, about half is military, half is nonmilitary.

Well, the military has been taken off the table also, primarily by Republicans, but Democrats are complicit as well. No military spending will be addressed; no waste in the military will be addressed; and the Pentagon will not be audited.

They have said for decades the Pentagon needs to be audited, and the Pentagon says: We are too big to be audited. Leave us alone. We are too big.

Occasionally, we will find some things, $500 toilet seats or $800 hammers, things like that, but overall, we have no idea where the money is going and neither do they. They sometimes talk about hundreds of millions of dollars really literally missing that they have no idea.

But it is taken off the table because the powers that be say that military is sacrosanct, cannot be looked at, and must have increased spending. So all the entitlements are going up. That is two-thirds of $6.8 trillion. The remaining $2 trillion is half military. It is going up, and nobody is looking at it either.

So we have discretionary. Nonmilitary discretionary spending is part of the budget also. And we couldn't come to an agreement, other than we are going to be resolved to continue spending at about the pace we are. It will be short term, and that would be bad enough because the spending will accumulate and is accumulating about a $2 trillion deficit. But that is not enough.

This has been a horrendous week for fiscal conservatives because we are not going to just continue as we have been doing, continue loading on the debt, we are also adding to it in a dramatic fashion.

This week, there will be $330 billion added on to the spending; $200 billion of it will be for Social Security. You say: Well, we should want to help people. Why wouldn't we give people that are senior citizens more money? Well, if we give new people more money, we have to take it from somewhere. We are going to have to either borrow it or we are going to have to print it, but it has to come from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees.

So $200 billion increase in spending for Social Security. Where is the money going to come from?

Now, I will offer an amendment that would pay for it. My amendment would be to raise the age gradually of Social Security 3 months a year for about 12 years, and that would pay for the expansion of benefits.

I think that is the only responsible way to do this. You want more benefits for people? You can't just, you know, push the bankruptcy of Social Security and say: Well, yeah, it will go bankrupt in about 9 years, but maybe I won't be here, or maybe I won't be alive, and maybe it will still exist for people.

But shouldn't we care about what is going to happen to the future of Social Security? Shouldn't we care about how this is going to be paid for? But it will be interesting to see how the vote is. I suspect I won't win, but we are going to have a vote on gradually raising the age.

But here is the rub of how difficult it is and how far behind the eight ball we have become. I proposed this solution 12 years ago, 13 years ago. When I did, it fixed two-thirds of the shortfall. If you raise the age gradually from 67 to 70, about 2 or 3 months a year, it wiped out most of the shortfall and fixed the problem 13 years ago. If you do it now, it only gives us 1 more year of solvency before bankruptcy comes.

So we have taken a problem that was eminently fixable a decade ago, and at this point, if we were to do it and my amendment were to pass, it would pay for the expansion, but still the system is going bankrupt because we just keep adding stuff to it.

Most people don't realize this, but Social Security actually will give you money no matter what your income is if you have teenage children and one of the parents is over 65. Now, somebody thought up this program and said: Wow, this would be good. We should help out elderly parents that are taking care of teenagers.

You can be a billionaire and--I know people who are wealthy whose kids drive Porsches who are getting $1,500 a month for each of their kids because the dad is 65.

Why would we do a program that is not based on income at all? Why would we let anybody join in that? Is that why Social Security is going bankrupt? No. That is just an element, though, of where the money is going.

But everything that happens in this city is based on compassion. I feel for people, and I want to help people, but nobody does anything based on math. Nobody really looks at this and says: Well, shouldn't we do something to make sure it is paid for? What about next decade? What is going to happen to Social Security? Not a care. They just expand it, and it is feel-good.

You know, the free lunch, the mantra of free lunch is good. Here is stuff. Here is manna. We are going to give you more money. Just be content. Take some soma. Just relax. Here is some more money.

But we are destroying the entitlement programs. Social Security is going bankrupt, and we sped up the bankruptcy this week by adding $200 billion. That is going to be concluded tonight.

That is $200 billion in brandnew spending to a system that was already $2 trillion short. Now, we also gave $30 billion to farmers. That is going to be in the package tonight, too.

Now, why do the farmers say they need money? Many farmers are actually pretty well-off and doing pretty well actually. But they say that the tariffs during the first Trump administration hurt them so badly that they are still having to reduce exports, and they need more money. So we are still paying them for the tariff wars that were begun 4 years ago, and still half the people in the country are jumping up and down and saying they want more tariffs.

What are we going to do, pay off everybody that doesn't benefit from the tariffs? Think about it. If you put tariffs on a steel mill and you say: Well, we are not going to let the Chinese sell any steel over here. You have this bright, shiny steel mill and all the thousand workers stand in front of it, and they love you because you are going to help them with their jobs, and they are going to be more secure.

But for every person making steel, there are 80 workers working somewhere buying steel. So what you do is you just ignore the other half of the equation. Why? Because it is easy to see the shiny steel factory. It is easy to see those workers.

The 80 workers that are working for other industries, car industry, building warehouses, anybody that uses steel, fences, all these people buying stuff are scattered through small industries, and you don't see them.

But their economic impact at least equals but probably exceeds the one you are trying to benefit. We do so many crazy things. So $200 billion to expand Social Security that won't be paid for and speeds up the bankruptcy and demise of Social Security; $30 billion for farmers, many of whom have other resources and really are not desperately in need of this.

What happens to the borrowing--$230 billion. Well, it is not over. We also are adding $100 billion for disaster. And you say to yourself: Well, you know, we have got to help people in need. They have had storms. They have had flooding. We have got to help them. Well, shouldn't we try to root out the waste and fraud in those systems, the people that are stealing money from these things? If you want to know how people are stealing things and how many people are stealing things, when we did all that COVID stuff, we stopped the economy and gave free money to everybody.

We actually had foreign scoundrels, foreign fraudsters come in and take tens of millions of dollars, but we also had U.S. citizens buying Lamborghinis and Bugattis and all kind of fancy cars on their government.

We had people signing up for the program. One of them used an ID that had a picture of Barbie on it and got money. Many of them said: I have 500 workers, and they didn't have any workers. They didn't have a business.

So just fraud was rampant throughout it. This happens also in the disaster relief programs as well. People claim things they lost in disasters that didn't exist. But let's put that aside, the waste and fraud in the program, and say: We have to help people. We have to do something about disasters.

Well, maybe there ought to be a decision-making process where we say: What is more important? Ukraine or Asheville, NC?

Do we have enough money to do both? Well, we do if we borrow it. But when we borrow it, we add to the debt. The Fed buys the debt, and you create inflation.

It is no mystery why your goods cost more. During the last 4 years, groceries, meat, poultry, gasoline, rent, everything has gone up on average at least 20 percent. Now did it become more precious? Did we all of a sudden lose a supply of things? No. The dollar became weaker; the dollar became diluted because we had to buy all of this debt.

So it is a bait-and-switch. What we do is we expand, you know, this week 200 billion for Social Security, hundred billion for disasters-- that is 300 billion--30 billion for farm subsidies. That is $330 billion unpaid for. But the people here are gathered. The vast majority of them who will vote for this will go home, pat themselves on the back, and say: I brought you stuff. Isn't that what you want me to do? Bring you free stuff?

Well, it is not free. It has ramifications. They are destroying the dollar. They are destroying the country, and yet it goes on because it seems to be easy just to promise people something for nothing.

So I have a couple different solutions. To pay for the Social Security, let's gradually raise the age 3 months each year. And what it does is it actually pays entirely for this $200 billion expansion and then some. It has to be done. It will be done at some point. I offered it 13 years ago. And every year we have waited, we have gotten further behind the eight ball. And every year we have waited, we have gotten to the point where it is much more difficult to dig out of this hole.

As far as the shutdowns, I will admit that it is chaotic to go through this every 3 months, every 6 months, every year. There could be a way that we could actually say, when there is an impasse and both parties don't agree, we agree to continue spending but not at the same level.

See, the vote today on at least some of the budget, the part that is not going up like this, on a small portion, we will continue at the same level. But realize three-fourths of it is going up. We are not keeping it steady.

So if we vote to keep it steady, does that really fix the problem? No. If you keep it steady and even if you didn't increase spending, the budget never balances. Why? Because you are only keeping a very small portion of the budget steady. It is really about 16 percent. Two- thirds, 66 percent, entitlements; the remaining third: half military, half nonmilitary. Military is going up at 3 percent.

Oh, that is right. I forgot. Republicans have a great plan. Come spring, the Republicans are, by simple majority, going to bust through the military caps.

The military caps are put in place like all other caps to try to restrain spending, and they are ignored. But in the spring, the first reconciliation package the Republicans will pass with a simple majority is to bust through the military caps.

Military doesn't have enough money. We spend more on our military than the next eight countries combined, and yet it is never enough.

People say: We are going to find waste and fraud. I am all for it. I am a big supporter of looking for waste and fraud. I am a big supporter of getting rid of it.

Guess what. If you don't look at the entitlements, you are not a serious person. If you don't look at the military, you are not a serious person. The trouble will go on.

In the first Trump administration, $8 trillion were borrowed. I am a fan of Donald Trump. I supported him. I voted for him. But we borrowed $8 trillion. During the Biden administration, coincidentally, we borrowed another $8 trillion. They were equally fiscally irresponsible.

Now, at least during the Trump administration, you could argue there was COVID and the pandemic and all of that. But the reaction was too much, and the lockdowns were not necessary. They didn't save any lives through the lockdowns, and we spent a ton of money that we passed out for people not to work.

But the bottom line is, when you look at all of this, we have this enormous problem. I am all for eliminating the waste and fraud. It is not enough. You have to look at the entitlements. You have to look at the military.

Currently, we look at only about 16 percent of the budget. If you eliminated all of that--it is called nonmilitary discretionary; it is part of the budget. You eliminate all of it--which isn't going to happen--the budget still never balances. You have to look at all the spending. We are not looking at any of the entitlement spending.

In fact, it is worse. Entitlements are driving the debt. Almost everybody agrees with it, and we are expanding the entitlements.

Social Security--beginning in 2021, Social Security, for the first time, pays out more than it brings in in taxes. It was the opposite for many years; Social Security brought in more than they spent, and they actually developed and had a reserve. For the last 3 years, Social Security has been paying out more than comes in. In 2021, they paid out 50 billion more than came in. In 2022, they paid out 22 billion more than came in. Last year, we paid out 40 billion more than came in.

If you had a business or even if you had a social program and you were paying out more than you brought in, wouldn't you try to reverse that trend? No. What we did this week is expand Social Security by $200 billion over 10 years. It is 20 billion a year. So if the debt next year for Social Security is going to be about the same as this year, it would be $40 billion. We added 20 billion to that. What is the math? A 50-percent increase in our debt.

So for someone who is fiscally conservative, this isn't a very good Christmas. This is a Christmas of just doing the same old thing.

So when you hear ``CR,'' continuing resolution, realize your government is resolved just to continue doing the same thing. They are kicking the can down the road. The debt is going to continue to accumulate, and they are not doing anything to fix it. So don't be pleased with your people. Look closely. Who are my representatives, and are they doing the right thing?

So we are going to offer a pay-for for Social Security. That will be one of my amendments tonight. We are also going to offer something called the Government Shutdown Protection Act. And what it will do is it says: When there is an impasse, when Republicans and Democrats don't agree, that the spending would continue at a reduced level. The level we chose was enough to try to bring both sides together to actually form an agreement; but also, we chose a number that would be enough of a cut to actually put us on a path to balance.

So if my amendment were to pass, government wouldn't shut down from here on out. But the spending would be at a 6-percent reduced level. This actually balances the budget, and it is a pretty significant cut. Most of them will say, Oh, it is too much. We can't vote for it.

But the thing is, is: Even if my cuts were to go into place, even if my amendment were to pass, a 6-percent cut would take 5 years to get to balance in 1 year. Not to get rid of any debt that we have accumulated, but just to get to an annual balance.

And they are like, Oh, woe is me. We can never do it. We can't cut people. People deserve money. People deserve stuff. We have to give them more stuff.

Do you know that in the European Union, 16 out of 28 countries in the European Union, who many are considered to be socialist, actually balance their budget? I met with a socialist from Sweden. He was more conservative than everybody across the aisle. He was more conservative than half the Republicans up here, because they thought that actual entitlements should be based on the economy. Their entitlements actually go down when the economy goes down. If the economy shrinks, their entitlements shrink. Everyone knows it is going to happen. If it is a bad year, we get a little less.

People would go nuts here. We do the opposite. During the last 4 years, they created so much inflation that people's costs went up 20 percent. What do we do? We have to give cost-of-living adjustments to those on Social Security, and we did; but we were short even more money. And it made the problem even worse and sped up the bankruptcy of Social Security.

So my amendment would say: We actually have to reduce spending. Now some people say to conservatives--both in my party and the others--they say, Oh, you people are unrealistic. You will never vote to raise the debt ceiling. But even if I had my way and we got cuts significant enough that I think the American people would accept, but most of this body wouldn't, and we balance the budget in 5 years, we would still accumulate debt over those 5 years. And I would vote to raise the debt ceiling during that brief period of time as we were on the way toward balancing our budget. But none of that is going to happen.

What we are doing this week and what both parties will be complicit in--and I mean both parties. Every Democrat here will vote for this bill, I assume. Every Democrat will vote to continue to be resolved to spend money at a rate that is $2 trillion more than comes in. And half the Republicans will join them.

There will be a minority of Republicans who will say: We are conservative, and we shouldn't spend this much money.

But we will offer amendments tonight, and people will get to decide where they are. And people at home will have to decide: Are we going to live this way? How long can we live this way? What causes inflation? Can we not have representatives who believe that balancing our budget is the appropriate thing to do?

So the amendments I offer today are such that I think they are necessary. I think they will help us to save Social Security from bankruptcy, but they won't be very popular here. But I offer them in hopes that people will see them across America and say: At least somebody cares about the solvency of Social Security. At least somebody has the guts to say, This is what we would do to try to save and preserve Social Security, rather than just giving free stuff to everybody and saying, No big deal. You can have more. You want more? Here is more.

Somebody's got to ask: How are we going to pay for this? Someone has to be responsible up here. And if you watch closely who votes on this amendment, you will see who are the truly fiscally responsible people in the Senate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source