Press Stakeout With Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader
Press Conference
Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.
SEN. MCCONNELL: Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you had a good week last week. We didn't miss you at all. (Laughter.) And nevertheless we're glad to see you here.
Back in January, I suggested to the Democratic leadership that we take up the omnibus appropriation bill first. And I did that because I wanted to make sure that we were not engaged in duplicative spending when we finally went to the stimulus.
Regretfully we decided to do it in reverse order. We passed the stimulus bill first. And now we're going to be asking taxpayers to choke down an omnibus bill that's $20 billion above what it should be, based on the budget.
The Democrats are asking taxpayers to pay for over 100 accounts -- asking taxpayers to pay for over 100 accounts in the omnibus bill that are also in the stimulus bill. It strikes us that we're on a spending spree of gargantuan proportions here. And a good time to stop it would be getting this omnibus appropriation bill slimmed down to a size that was consistent with the current budget.
With that, I'd like to call on Senator Murkowski.
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): Well, I was back home in the state this weekend, and everyone wants to talk about the stimulus, what's in it, what's not in it. An awful lot in it for an awful lot of people.
But I think we need to be honest -- and I was trying to be as honest as I could with the people of Alaska -- that when we're talking about the spending that is going on back here in Washington, D.C., it's not just related to what we saw last Friday before we left.
Put it in the context of the whole -- little bit of truth in advertising in terms of what the numbers are, the fact that we had a stimulus bill last February, what we've seen this summer, what you're looking at with the TARP, (the fact of/back to ?) the stimulus just last week, moving to the omnibus now. As they say, you know, a billion here and a billion there, after a while it adds up to be real money. And we're dealing with the American taxpayers' dollars here, and it's all real money.
We've got to figure out how we -- how we're honest with folks about what we're spending. And when we have an omnibus bill, as we will have before us in these next couple days now, we've got to figure out how we -- how we truly tell the people what they're on the hook for and what they're getting for it.
SEN. MCCONNELL: (Inaudible) -- take questions?
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): Maybe just one thing.
Yesterday, several of us were honored to go to the White House and attend the Fiscal Responsibility Summit with -- that the president convened. And I congratulate him, and our colleagues congratulate him, on his commitment to honesty and transparency when it comes to the financial conditions of the federal government and the challenges that lie ahead.
But while his goal of cutting the deficit in half by the time his first term is up is laudable, we think it falls far too short of what should be his goal.
Our goal should be to deal with unfunded liabilities of the federal government in their entirety, which at present time constitute roughly $67 trillion, when you consider Medicare and Social Security.
So we embrace and congratulate the president's proposal for fiscal responsibility and honesty when it comes to the financial conditions that our country faces. But we would suggest that, instead of just looking at the annual deficit, which is significant enough, that we look at the true unfunded liabilities of the federal government, currently about $67 trillion, if we're really going to be honest, if we're really going to be truthful and if we're really going to solve the problem that confronts our country.
SEN. JOHN ENSIGN (R-NV): Well, I would simply say that we haven't seen anything yet from the administration or from the Democrat leadership in the Congress that suggests any willingness to address the issue of spending.
We had a trillion-dollar spending bill that passed out a year -- a week ago, and now we're talking about an omnibus appropriation bill that increases spending at twice the rate of inflation, at a time when American families, households, businesses, are having to cut back, and in many cases going through reductions in force and pay cuts for a lot of their employees.
And it seems like, if you look at the -- you put the two together, the stimulus bill and the omnibus appropriation bill, a lot of these agencies of government are being funded -- the Labor-H bill, for example, 91 percent increase over FY 2008. And now we're told the 2010 budget, when it's rolled out, is going to include tax increases. They're going to put some things back on the budget that haven't been on the budget in the past. But it seems to me at least that there hasn't been any emphasis or any focus whatsoever on the issue of spending by the administration or the Democrat leadership in the Congress.
And as Senator Cornyn mentioned, you've got the bigger issue, which is the entitlement programs, which create unfunded liabilities into the trillions and trillions and trillions into the future.
So I hope, in all this discussion of fiscal responsibility and holding of summits to deal with the issue of fiscal discipline, there is actually something put forward that is meaningful, in terms of getting spending under control for the American people.
SEN. MCCONNELL: Let me take one more shot at putting the figure in -- the figures we're talking about in context. We've been throwing trillions of dollars around like -- like it was Monopoly money.
A way of looking at it is, we have spent more in the first 23 or (twenty-) four days of this administration -- in other words, charged more -- than it cost post-9/11 for the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq and the response to Katrina, already.
Spending is a serious issue. And then to take up the regular appropriations and have them to be 8 percent above where they should be sends the further signal that we're on a spending spree. And we're not sure when it's going to end.
With that, let me throw it open for a couple of questions.
Yeah.
Q Senator -- (off mike) -- $8 billion worth of earmarks in the omnibus? (Off mike) -- the other side -- (off mike) -- your side. I wonder if that's -- (off mike) -- you called for -- (off mike) -- earmarks in the name of fiscal responsibility.
SEN. MCCONNELL: What we need to do is to shrink the overall size of the pie. In other words, the overall size of these bills is too large. So we ought to shrink it down to the size that it should be, which is 8 percent less than it is now.
Q And the earmarks?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Look, you can -- you can haggle about what's in it, but the pie is too big. And rather than focus on the pieces of the pie, the thing to do is to shrink the pie down. That's the overall spending amount.
Q But Republicans said --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Yo.
Q What do you -- what do you think of the poll that shows a high level of satisfaction for the president's handling of the economy and the recession? Are you afraid that Republicans will continue to be perceived, as they were on the stimulus votes, as negatively bipartisan?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, I think the president's off to a very popular start. He's a very capable individual. He's likable. We all like him. And I think the polls reflect the confidence that people have in him that was expressed last November.
Everybody wants him to succeed, but that doesn't mean that we're going to have a debate-free environment. I just finished reading a couple of -- more terrific books about the period right around the 1800 election. You think the discourse in this state -- in this nation recently has been -- of course, it's nothing compared to that.
We're not here to attack the president. We're here to talk about spending.
And we think we're up on the wrong foot with the rate of spending that we're engaged in by running up the bills and sending them to our grandchildren.
Q What spending would you like to see removed from --
SEN. MCCONNELL: We want to shrink --
Q But what specifically? You keep saying "shrink." Earmarks, transportation --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, I mean, the composition obviously is something we haggle around here about. But this bill is way too big. It's 8 percent over what it was last year. And it's way too big. That -- as Senator Thune pointed out, that's twice the rate of inflation. And we'll have an opportunity to have that debate when the omnibus comes to the floor and we'll have amendments to offer and suggestions to make.
Q I'm sorry. Senator McConnell, could you talk about --
SEN. MCCONNELL: Jay?
Q (Off mike) -- position on the latest iteration of a D.C. voting rights bill? What will you and your party do now that there has been cloture invoked or not invoked?
SEN. MCCONNELL: Well, I think there are different views among members of my caucus. I can give you my view. My view is that it's unconstitutional. There is a way to give the District of Columbia members of Congress, and it's to go through the constitutional amendment process. This is to try to do by statute which -- that which the Constitution requires you do by constitutional amendment. So I think we all know on both sides of this question, it'll end up in court. And ultimately, the Supreme Court will determine whether or not you can do this by statute.
Q Would you support -- (off mike)?
Q Question for Senator Murkowski. I'd like to ask Senator Murkowski, you differed from your colleagues and voted for cloture today. Previously, you had not. Why did you change your position?
SEN. MURKOWSKI: The people of the District of Columbia have expressed quite clearly that they want to have this debate. I think we should have this debate.
I happen to agree with Leader McConnell that the provisions that we will vote on are unconstitutional. I'd like to see a constitutional amendment, just as was passed by the House and the Senate back in the '70s and unfortunately only ratified by 16 states. I'd like to take it back to that.
Q So why did you change your position? Last time you -- (off mike).
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Because I think it's important that we have the debate here in the Senate, have an opportunity to look at the options that are in front of us, whether it's a constitutional amendment. You've seen the discussion about how you might be able to have the residents be essentially covered by the state of Maryland, the retrocession issue. And I think it's important for the people here to know that this debate is going on and to allow for that to proceed.
(Cross talk.)
I'll be voting against the bill.
Q What about statehood -- (off mike) -- 51st state?
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Alaska is happy as the 49th. But you know, we just finished. We just finished 50 years of statehood. I'm in a pretty young state. We just -- you know, it's fresh in our mind what it means to not be one of the 50 states.
But look at our Constitution. How the District of Columbia is treated is entirely different than the territory of the State of Alaska or our 50th state, which was the territory of Hawaii.
Q Would you consider a constitutional amendment?
SEN. MURKOWSKI: Yes, I would.
Q Senator, how does the Republican Party make the case? (Off mike.) How do you make the case that the Republican party wants to be diverse? (Off mike.)
SEN. MURKOWSKI: I don't look at it that way. I'm not looking at it that way at all. I'm looking at whether or not the people in the District of Columbia have an opportunity to be represented in the Congress.
Thank you.
Source