Providing for Expedited Consideration of Certain Nominations

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TEXT

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, we have had a lot of discussion on the floor of this Chamber about the challenge of our deficit and our debt, and these are indeed very important issues.

It is important to remember exactly how we got here because it was only one decade ago that we were running large surpluses at the conclusion of the Clinton administration. In fact, these surpluses were so large that economists were starting to argue over just what would we do if we paid off our entire debt. Didn't there need to be instruments of last resort, of great security, such as Treasury bonds? Didn't we need to preserve some deficit or debt in order to have that instrument available to stabilize society?

Well, would it not be great to have that debate now? I remember being absolutely thrilled that we were going to turn over a debt-free America to our children. But what ensued? President Bush had a different view. He said: You know what. Let's spend these surpluses we are generating and do breaks for the best off in our society. Let's take and establish a new, major program--Medicare Part D--and not pay for it. Let's embark on wars around this planet and not raise funds to pay for them.

The result of that was that those tremendous surpluses were reduced to huge deficits in short order.

Indeed, the 10-year projection went from a $5 trillion surplus to a $5 trillion shortfall. It is why some folks call President Bush the $10 trillion man--because he managed to do $10 trillion worth of damage to our economy. But that was only the beginning because then there was deregulation of the mortgage industry which resulted in predatory lending, liar loans, teaser rates that exploded after 2 years, and kickbacks allowed to the originators so that they didn't even have any sort of fair presentation to families negotiating the most important financial instrument in their lives--their home mortgage. The meltdown that came from that extraordinary regulatory abuse resulted in another $5 trillion in debt. So that is how we got there.

Now we have a certain pattern we see on this floor in which Members of this Chamber--many of the Members across the aisle stand up and say: We want to protect the programs for the best off, but we want to cut the basic programs that serve working Americans in our Nation. Quite frankly, I think they have it exactly backward, and if you think I am making this up, let's just review recent history.

The December deal on the continuing resolution--this increased our debt by $ 1/2 trillion, and virtually every Member across this aisle voted for it. I voted against a $ 1/2 trillion increase. And a big chunk of that $ 1/2 trillion increase in our debt was there because of the insistence on providing the continuation of the President Bush breaks for the best off in our society. Now, I don't know how one can rise and talk about cutting our investment in infrastructure in America. I don't know how one can rise and talk about cutting support for those who are needing to get food from food banks and at the same time be defending bonus breaks for the very best off in our society.

The December deal wasn't an anomaly because it has happened repeatedly. We had a vote on oil and gas subsidies for the most powerful five companies in our economy, five very large oil and gas companies. Instead of getting rid of an anachronistic provision that was put there when the cost or the value of a barrel of oil was very low and the oil industry said it needed to have some support, instead of cutting that, many in this Chamber voted to continue it, continue this break for the most powerful corporations, a break that was designed for a very different period of time when oil wasn't $100 a barrel but was a fraction of that--$20 a barrel.

No, these aren't the only two recent cases. We have the attack on Medicare. Indeed, we have the plan that has been widely supported by my colleagues across the aisle, both in this Chamber and across the building, in which they say: Let's end Medicare as we know it because we need to save money, and we are going to do it on the backs of seniors, but we are not going to take a look at the breaks we voted in over the last quarter century for the best off in our society.

Well, this systematic plan works like this because these breaks for the best off have been done through the Tax Code, and every American understands that whether you give somebody $5,000 in the Tax Code or you give them a $5,000 grant, it is exactly the same thing. We had that debate over the ethanol subsidies just recently. Everyone understands it is exactly the same thing, but by putting these programs for the wealthy and well-connected in the Tax Code, now my colleagues are rising to say: We will not touch those programs because they are in the Tax Code. Now, if they were in the appropriations bill, then we would be willing to talk about it, but because we were clever enough to put them in the Tax Code, no, they are off limits.

This is a sophisticated way of saying that the programs for the wealthy and well-connected in America are off limits, but the programs for working families are the ones we are going to cut. It is those programs for the hungry, it is those programs for the unemployed, it is that health care program for our seniors, it is the investment in infrastructure that will build America--those are the ones we will cut.

My colleagues and citizens of the United States, we must have a national debate, a debate that doesn't employ this type of smoke and mirrors to try to protect the programs written for the wealthy and well-connected while attacking the programs for working families. That is unacceptable, and I and others will rise on this floor and point it out time and time again, that using that simple ruse by saying only the appropriations bills on the table but not the tax bill is unacceptable.

I am going to tell you that it must not be that we make our kids' education more expensive by diminishing Pell grants, that we make our parents' health care more expensive by obliterating Medicare as we know it, that we impoverish the future of this Nation by not investing in our infrastructure, while continuing to defend the programs that were developed for the best off, the wealthy, and the well-connected over the last 25 years and saying those are off the table. They must be on the table. We must fight for an America that works for working Americans.

BREAK IN TEXT

Source