Patent Reform Act of 2011
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the debate that has been going on in the Chamber about spending proposals and how we get through the balance of this current fiscal year and ensure that we do not end up with a government shutdown and some of the repercussions that will come about from that.
I am blessed to represent a State that has not only a disproportionate share of Federal employees but also has a large number of private sector employees who rely upon predictability from the government. Unfortunately, with these lurchings from 2-week extensions, we are not providing that kind of predictability.
As you know, I strongly believe this is a moment in time for this body, colleagues in the House, and the President and others to come together regarding the question of how we no longer simply look at our debt and deficit on a piecemeal basis but we actually take on this issue on a comprehensive basis as so many, both elected officials and financial officials, continue to suggest. That came in earlier today in testimony from former Senator Alan Simpson and former Presidential Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles about the consequences of our failure to act if we do not get our comprehensive deficit and debt under control. It is a problem that is not going to get easier. Every day we fail to act we add $4 billion to our national debt.
Unfortunately, some of the proposals that are coming, particularly from the House at this point, the House budget plan, do nothing significant to address our long-term deficit and debt issues.
I travel around Virginia. Yesterday I was down with our colleague from Georgia, Senator Chambliss. We met with literally hundreds of business leaders from across central Virginia, and their message was clear: No more games, no more showmanship, get something done. That ``something'' they want done is a comprehensive approach to our Nation's fiscal challenges. That will mean, yes, cutting down on spending. That will mean, as well, making our Tax Code more efficient so American business can grow and compete.
It will also mean at the same time that part of that tax reform effort adds revenues because trying to deal with this problem by simply cutting or simply taxing will not be sufficient. Instead, the folks across Virginia, and I imagine across Montana as well, are saying: This is a moment in time we have to put everything on the table, and we have to ensure we actually provide a long-term solution.
One of the things that has been most frustrating as I listened to this current debate about CRs and what we are going to do for the balance of this fiscal year is that the debate has focused almost entirely, the spending cuts proposed from the House, on domestic discretionary spending. The $60-plus billion the House has celebrated all comes from that one narrow slice of the pie. Domestic discretionary spending accounts for less than 12 percent of our Federal spending. We cannot solve the $1.5 trillion current-year deficit or the over $14 trillion long-term debt without going beyond that 12 percent of our budget.
What should be particularly challenging to our colleagues is that every day we fail to act, we are seeing not only our debt grow, but we are seeing the amount of taxpayer dollars that we have to spend to pay off current interest rates--current interest payments continuing to rise. As a matter of fact, it is expected at some point over the next 3 or 4 years the amount that we pay out of every dollar collected, simply on interest, will exceed the 12 percent of our current domestic discretionary spending. So all of these current fights about these current cuts that are being proposed, all will be subsumed in interest payments we will all have to make as Americans; dollars that, quite candidly, do not go to build another school, to make another investment, to build another road; dollars that are not recycled in this country but increasingly are owned by folks abroad, increasingly by our bankers in Asia and a disproportionate number from China.
When we have the chance to vote on H.R. 1 this afternoon, I will be voting no. I will be voting no because I think this narrow focus on domestic discretionary spending only for cuts will not get us to the point we need to be in terms of long-term deficit reduction.
Let me again point out where I think the House proposal is so shortsighted. One of the things that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson said today: There is no silver bullet in this challenge we have in front of us. It is going to take significant spending cuts. It is going to take looking at the revenue side through the aspects of tax reform. But those two things, revenues and spending alone, still will not get us out of this problem. We have to get a third leg on the triangle, and the third leg on the triangle is a growing economy. How do we grow an economy in a place where America, while still the world's leading economy, does not drive the economy the way it did even 20 years ago?
We saw 20 years ago where the world would have to wait on America to get its financial act together. The world is not waiting now--China, India, Brazil, countries abroad are moving ahead. If we are going to remain competitive, we have to continue to invest smartly.
The President said we have to make sure we educate, we have to invest in our infrastructure, and we have to be able to out-innovate. That means targeted research and development. Unfortunately, the House proposal, which not only focuses on domestic discretionary to the exclusion of other areas of spending but also focuses these cuts on the remaining 6 or 7 months of our fiscal year, takes a disproportionate whack out of these key areas where we must maintain certain levels of investment if we are going to grow the economy to make sure the other cuts and other revenue raisers won't have to be as Draconian.
Let me give a couple of examples. I know the Presiding Officer comes from an energy-rich State. He also realizes we have to diversify our energy mix in this country and no longer be dependent upon foreign oil. One of the things that those of us who have hallowed the benefits of the Internet over the last 20-plus years are quick to point out is that the Internet came about because of initial government investment through ARPA. That led to the development of the networks that created the Internet that have spawned tremendous economic growth in this country.
I believe, and I think many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle believe, that we need a similar investment in the energy field. That was created, the RPE Program, at the Department of Energy. If we move forward with the House budget proposal, that will cut $1 billion out of the kind of basic research we need to make sure we have a full portfolio of domestic energy sources, renewable energy sources. I, for one, believe it also has to include conservation, nuclear, increased--continued domestic oil and gas, coal--all these have to be part of the mix. But we have to do it in a smarter and cleaner way. Right now, at this point, to cut $1 billion out of that kind of basic next generation research and development, the same kind of research and development that in the IT field created the Internet, would be shortsighted. I think that is true in the minds of most business folks.
We have to get our health care costs under control. Part of getting our health care costs under control means continuing to unlock innovation. Perhaps one of the greatest growth fields of the next 20 years, and something I know the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has been working on in terms of his patent reform, is making sure in the life sciences area America continues to lead in terms of innovation.
Well, where does that innovation come from in terms of government dollars being leveraged four, five, six times? That comes from an investment in NIH. Unfortunately, the House budget proposal cuts $1.3 billion from NIH funding. Well, if you are in stage 2 or stage 3 of the next-generation cancer development drug, to have those kind of trials cut back, to have that kind of basic research cut back, not only in terms of American economic growth but the personal toll it could take on folks who are desperately waiting for solutions to a disease, I believe, is again not a good policy choice at this moment.
As we move forward as well, we have to make sure we outeducate our competitors. No one believes America's future is going to be based on low-wage labor; it is going to be based on a well-educated, innovative, and well-trained workforce.
I think one of the areas this President has not gotten the appropriate credit for is the fact that he has advanced forward dramatic education reform within his proposals. Unfortunately, the House bill will cut $5 billion from the Department of Education and over $1 billion from the Head Start Program.
When we are trying to look at our kids competing against kids from India and China, does it make sense, if we are going to grow our economy, to slash education programs, if we are going to have that well-trained workforce?
So I do believe the House proposal is shortsighted. I believe it does not do anything to take on the structural deficit our country is facing. I will continue to work with the Presiding Officer and I think a growing number of Members from both sides of the aisle. Our suggestion is to go ahead and take the good work that was put forward by the Presidential debt and deficit commission as at least a starting point and put in place as consequences if we do not act; that we will not solve this issue--which, I believe, is the issue of the day, which as Chairman Mike Mullin said is the No. 1 national security issue for this country, to get our deficit and debt under control--unless we can broaden this debate from the 12 percent of domestic discretionary to include, yes, defense spending, entitlement spending, tax reform, trying to make sure everything is on the table.
The House approach does not do that. The House approach is shortsighted. The House approach will not allow us to grow our economy in a way we need. I will be voting against that proposal when it comes to the floor. But I look forward to working again with all my colleagues to make sure we get a true comprehensive deficit and debt reduction plan that this Congress can vote on and put into action.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source