Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 432

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this discussion be taken from the resolution time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want all of our Members to understand that the second amendment we will be voting on tonight is the Ryan budget. Now, there seems to be some resistance among my Republican colleagues in bringing up the House Republican budget for a vote, and it is pretty easy to see why that is. Last year's Republican budget was, in fact, soundly rejected by the American people in the election. Since then, it continues to be very clear the American people prefer a balanced and fair approach that puts our economy and our middle class first--not an extreme, irresponsible approach. Unfortunately, House Republicans put forward a budget last week that doubles down on the rejected ideology that the American people spoke about. They have a new talking point about their same old budget. They now claim their budget would eliminate the deficit in 2023. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has even said it does not really matter how their budget eliminates the deficit. Americans across our country who will feel the impact of the choices we make in the coming weeks and months believe that it does matter. So while some of my Republican colleagues would probably prefer not to hear about it, I think that the impact of the House Republican budget is a crucial part of this debate, and we owe it to the American people to put our opinions on the record. We have come a long way, but there are still far too many Americans today who are unemployed or underemployed, which is why our Senate budget's first priority is boosting our economic recovery. Speaker Boehner has actually agreed with President Obama that our debt does not present ``an immediate crisis.'' So you might think the House budget would phase in cuts responsibly so we can protect our fragile recovery. Instead, the House Republican budget would do serious damage to job creation and job growth, and it doubles down on the harmful cuts from sequestration, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates will lower employment by 750,000 jobs this year alone and slow economic growth. The House Republican budget will weaken our economy in the long term as well. As any business owner will tell you, in tight times, the last thing you want to do is cut investments that help make you stronger. Well, that is what the House Republican budget does. It cuts investments in education, so our students and workers are less prepared for the jobs of the future. It would undermine our ability to upgrade our roads and bridges and highways and ports even though our national infrastructure just got a D-plus from the American Society of Civil Engineers. And the House budget would greatly reduce our ability to support research and development, making it so much harder for us to maintain the innovative edge that helps us attract new industries and new businesses to the United States. Americans want to see a budget that puts the middle class first and asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to do their fair share too as we work toward deficit reduction. So our Senate budget locks in tax cuts for the middle class while closing loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the Tax Code. Our budget uses that new revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations for deficit reduction and for investments that support our economy and strengthen our middle class. The House Republican budget, which we will vote on tonight, does the opposite. According to the Tax Policy Center, the tax plan in the House Republican budget would cost nearly $5.7 trillion in lost Federal revenue, and the majority of that lost revenue would benefit the wealthiest Americans. Just like past House Republican budgets, it is once again pretty unclear how this budget would pay for all those tax cuts that are skewed toward the wealthiest. But the reality is that to achieve the goals that are laid out in their budget, House Republicans will either have to add to the deficit--meaning their budget might not actually balance, as they claim--or they are going to have to raise taxes on the middle class. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, to keep from increasing the deficit while lowering rates--which they propose to do-- the House budget would have to raise taxes by an average of $3,000 on families making less than $200,000 a year who have children. But in their plan, the wealthiest Americans will see a net tax cut averaging about $245,000. There is no reason middle-class families should have to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. That is bad for our economy. It is very unfair. That kind of unbalanced approach is what made Americans reject the House Republican budget in the first place. The same is true of Medicare. We just heard Senator Stabenow talk eloquently about the importance of Medicare. Well, the House Republican budget would replace the Medicare guarantee with a voucher, capped at growth levels below projected health care costs, forcing our seniors to pay more and more out of pocket, and ending Medicare as we know it. That is not a solution that our seniors deserve. AARP said, in their critique of the House Republican budget: Removing the Medicare guarantee of affordable health coverage seniors have contributed to through a lifetime of hard work is not the answer. That is not me, that is AARP. The Senate budget offers a much better answer. Let me remind everyone, in our budget we uphold the principle--consistent with Simpson-Bowles and all other bipartisan deficit reduction proposals-- that the most vulnerable families should not be asked to bear the burden of deficit reduction. Our budget maintains the safety net that has kept millions of families and children above the poverty line during the recession and strongly supports efforts to help our low-income students and others, as they try to get back in the job market. House Republicans say their budget balances. Nothing in it sounds like balance to me. I would like to remind my colleagues as this debate continues that unlike what House Republicans have said about how a budget achieves its goals, how it achieves those goals really matters a lot. The American people have rejected this plan, and, understandably, some of my colleagues across the aisle would prefer not to vote on it. Our Senate budget offers a credible, serious approach to a fair and bipartisan agreement. It puts jobs and the economy first and provides a credible, balanced path forward. We are going to have to make some tough choices in the coming weeks and months, and I recognize moving away from the extreme approach in the House Republican budget is going to be a tough choice for many of my Republican colleagues. But I hope, as they consider the effects of the House Republican budget on our economy and on our families throughout the country, and the fact that the House Republican approach has been thoroughly reviewed and rejected by the American people, they will now be willing to come to the table, end the gridlock and dysfunction, and discuss a fair, comprehensive budget deal. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this next amendment is the Ryan budget. The House Republicans have doubled down on failed policies by passing the same budget that was rejected by the American people just a few months ago. Now Senate Republicans are going to have to decide whether they agree with this approach. This budget would be devastating for the middle class and the economy. It would cause millions of our workers to lose their jobs and dismantle programs such as Medicare that seniors and families depend on. It relies on gimmicks and tricks to eliminate the deficit by an arbitrary date and does all that while giving the wealthiest Americans a tax cut. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield back all time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to take 3 minutes off of our side of the 30 minutes to allow the Senator from Alaska to proceed, and then we will continue on the debate.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, our Members have been waiting for 2\1/2\ hours to get to a vote. I know we have had a lot of time to debate. We will have additional time after the votes as well, as the Senator knows, tonight and tomorrow morning. I would respectfully ask if we could stay on time because a lot of Members have been waiting for the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. I assume that means the time will be divided equally, which means the Senator from Alabama would only have 1 additional minute.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the baseline, which we are very clear in what we are using--we are not hiding the ball, as he is trying to do when he is mixing numbers here--we reduce the budget by an additional $1.85 trillion, absolutely.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as I have stated many times out here on the floor--and our budget is very clear--we replace sequestration with a balanced mix of spending cuts and revenues, exactly as we have stated. There is no reason to misconstrue this. That is exactly what our budget does.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is a matter of semantics. We replace the sequestration, very clearly, because it is very damaging to our country.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes off the resolution.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are having this debate in hopes of ultimately reaching a fair and bipartisan budget deal. We all know that is not going to be easy, so the least we can do is get our facts straight. It is kind of disappointing to see that rather than engaging in a productive conversation, some of our Republican colleagues prefer to launch some pretty inaccurate attacks. I would like to take just a moment to correct some of those inaccuracies so we can focus on the urgent task at hand. Some Republicans continue to claim the Senate budget includes a $1.5 trillion tax hike. I talked about this last night, but I wish to make it clear again. This is not true. Here are the facts: Of the $975 billion in new revenue from those who can afford it the most, $480 billion is matched with responsible spending cuts to fully replace sequestration, $100 billion goes toward targeted, high-priority infrastructure repairs and job training to help boost our economy and put Americans back to work. The rest goes to reduce the deficit. But, unfortunately, rather than seriously considering the credible path we have presented in our budget plan, some Republicans have decided to play some games with these numbers and are not telling the truth. Instead of subtracting the sequestration replacement portion and the investment package from that $975 billion in total revenue, they are trying to say we should add it all together. They are taking one side of the ledger, combining that with the other side of the ledger, and coming to a conclusion that makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't make sense. You don't have to take my word for it. Fact checkers and reporters have called this claim false. They have called it a step too far. The Washington Post fact checker even gave it two Pinnochios. Republicans have also made the argument that this budget actually only includes $300 billion in deficit reduction. That distorts the facts. It is not true, and it is inconsistent actually with what Republicans have claimed in the past. Our budget includes 1.85 in deficit reduction, evenly divided between responsible spending cuts and new revenue. That revenue comes from closing loopholes and cutting wasteful spending from a Tax Code that has been skewed toward the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. But some Republicans say that because part of what we are doing is replacing sequestration with smarter deficit reduction, that this somehow diminishes the savings. I actually find this kind of interesting because I served on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction when Republicans and Democrats discussed ways to replace sequestration, which was, of course, well after sequestration had been signed into law. We didn't reach an agreement because Republicans refused to include revenue. But we did agree then that deficit reduction to replace sequestration was deficit reduction. In fact, my colleague Senator Toomey put forward a plan to replace sequestration--to replace sequestration that he said would have ``reduced our deficit by $1.2 trillion.'' I find it odd that some Republicans were willing to count replacing sequestration as deficit reduction when they were putting forth plans to do it, but they will not treat the Senate budget the same way, especially since bipartisan groups, including Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin and the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, all used the same starting point that the Senate budget does. Like us, these groups knew sequestration was not deficit reduction. It was there to trigger deficit reduction that would come from replacing it. That was the whole point. In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that the Senate budget uses the appropriate starting point: ``Bowles and Simpson received no criticism when they did the same thing for their new budget plan of a few weeks ago.'' I didn't hear any Republicans complaining then. This just goes to show that, sadly, some of our Republican colleagues appear more interested in politicized attacks than serious consideration of our plan. The American people deserve better. They deserve better. They want an honest conversation. That is what we are trying to have with the credible approach we put forward. Finally, I wish to strongly dispute the criticism I have heard that Democrats somehow don't take reducing our deficit and debt seriously. Despite what you may have heard, Democrats care deeply, as we both know, about restoring our Nation's fiscal health. We think it would be absolutely wrong to pile up unsustainable debt and hand it to our children. That is exactly why the Senate budget presents a serious, credible, and sustainable approach to getting our debt and deficits under control. Experts on both sides of the aisle have generally come together around a few principles for a responsible deficit reduction plan. The Senate budget builds on the work of the last 2 years to meet each of those benchmarks. In 2010, the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission recommended finding roughly $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. This has now become the benchmark of other serious bipartisan proposals. The Senate budget builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction that has already been done in the last 2 years since Simpson-Bowles, with an additional $1.85 trillion in new deficit reduction, for a total of $4.25 trillion in deficit reduction since the Simpson-Bowles report. What the Senate budget does is it takes us the rest of the way to that $4 trillion goal and actually beyond it. Following the recommendations of Simpson-Bowles and the Senate Gang of 6 plan, the Senate budget importantly reduces the deficit to below 3 percent of GDP by 2015 and keeps it well below that level for the rest of our 10-year window in a responsible way. It pushes our debt as a percentage of the economy down, moving it in the right direction, as we have been told is an important goal. So our budget reaches these benchmarks the way the American people have consistently said they want it done and the way economists and experts across our political spectrum have recommended--with an equal mix of responsible spending cuts across the Federal budget and new revenue raised by closing loopholes and cutting wasteful breaks that, by the way, primarily benefit the rich. This budget responsibly cuts spending by $975 billion. As a member of the Budget Committee, the Presiding Officer knows we made some pretty tough choices to get there. We think every program, including the ones that we know are important, needs to be wringing out the waste and trimming fat and reducing costs so our taxpayers get that benefit. So $500 billion of our deficit reduction comes from responsible savings on the domestic spending side, including, by the way, and I remind all, $275 billion in health care savings that we do in a way that does not harm seniors or families. There are no sacred cows. We have put everything on the table. But we do it in a responsible way to preserve and protect and strengthen programs such as Medicare and Medicaid that the American people support as well. Our budget saves $240 billion by carefully and responsibly reducing defense spending while giving the Pentagon enough time to plan and align the reductions to time with the drawdown of our troops from overseas. The remainder of the savings, $242 billion, comes from savings on interest payments due to lower debt. Taking the balanced approach the American people have consistently called for, our Senate budget matches those responsible spending cuts with $975 billion in new revenue, which is again raised by closing loopholes and cutting unfair spending in the Tax Code while locking in tax cuts for the middle class and low-income working families so we protect them from paying anymore. There is bipartisan support for reducing the deficit by making the Tax Code more fair and efficient. During the fiscal cliff negotiations, Speaker Boehner proposed that we reduce the deficit by $800 billion by closing what he called special-interest loopholes and deductions. So the Senate budget takes him up on that. Every bipartisan group that has tackled this issue in a serious way recommended a lot more revenue than the $600 billion raised from the wealthiest Americans in the yearend deal. If our budget passes, the total deficit reduction since the Simpson- Bowles report will consist of 64 percent spending cuts, 14 percent tax rate increases on the rich, and 22 percent new revenue from closing loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the Tax Code. That is a responsible approach. It is a balanced and fair approach. It is the one endorsed by bipartisan groups and experts and it is one that is supported by the vast majority of the American people. I want to say this again. Here are the facts. Our budget does not include a $1.5 trillion tax hike. It does raise $975 billion, again from closing loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in our Tax Code. It reduces the deficit by $1.85 trillion when analyzed the same way Republicans have analyzed their own proposals. And Democrats do care deeply about our country. We do want to reduce our debt and deficit, which is exactly why we have put forward a responsible proposal to put our debt and deficit on a downward sustainable path. As we continue this debate over the next day I urge my Republican colleagues to stick to the facts. Let's end the misinformation. Let's work together on the job the American people want us to focus on and get a comprehensive budget deal and get our country back on track. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes off the resolution to Senator Wyden.

Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator would withhold, because we have two Senators waiting to talk. I will be happy to answer that. Can we let two of them go on our time?

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Wyden and 35 minutes to Senator Levin.

Mrs. MURRAY. I believe they are yielding time off the Republican side. MS. AYOTTE. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment I heard that is going to be filed, the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. I think we have need to rename this legislative proposal for what it is, the Internet Tax Collection Act. I come from a State, New Hampshire, that does not have a sales tax nor do we have an income tax. One of our famous Governors said low taxes are the result of low spending, and that is how we do it. There has been a lot of talk on the floor today about somehow this Marketplace Fairness Act is about States rights. This act, which really should be named the Internet Tax Collection Act, infringes on the rights of retailers in New Hampshire and businesses that have thrived and grown over something great called the Internet. It forces them to become tax collectors for the rest of the Nation. In fact, they would be forced to become tax collectors for nearly 10,000 tax jurisdictions across this country should this proposal go forward. I have heard a lot of talk about leveling the so-called playing field. There is nothing level about this playing field. These are cash- strapped States looking for more money and asking Washington to impose burdens on other States that have chosen to have a low tax burden, like States such as mine which doesn't have a sales tax. In fact, this is another attempt to turn our businesses into tax collectors. I think it is wrong. It is the opposite of States rights. There has been some discussion of conservative support for this. There is absolutely nothing conservative about this proposal because, again, what this is about is officials in cash-strapped States across the country looking for new ways to plug their budget holes. They are attempting to make New Hampshire businesses, and other businesses across this country, use the Internet to collect their taxes. This is not just about the State of Tennessee handling its own taxes, it is making New Hampshire, which has no sales tax, collect for the rest of the Nation, and it is wrong. The exemption for small businesses is a red herring. This so-called exemption doesn't even match up with what the SBA defines as a small business retailer. We know what will happen with the small business exemption. When the States don't get the revenue they want, they will be right back here again looking for us to repeal the small business exemption, saying: It is not fair that this category of businesses has been exempt. They will be looking for more and more, and here we are in Washington letting them trample on the States that made the decision not to have a sales tax. This bill should not go forward. I want to share some stories from New Hampshire. My constituents have written to me about this. A company in Franconia, which is in the northern part of New Hampshire, calls this a job killer. From Pittsfield, an online coin and stamp dealer says: If policymakers decide to impose new sales tax collection burdens on small businesses and force them to collect and remit 9,600 tax jurisdictions nationwide, the legal compliance and administrative cost alone would undoubtedly make it harder and, in many cases, impossible to enjoy the opportunities and benefits of the Internet marketplace. This is from a business in Amherst: Our company is a poster child for small family-run Internet businesses. We have over 80,000 customers nationwide. The burden of collecting and distributing sales tax for this would be prohibitively expensive. Finally, another constituent from Boscawen believes this would open the door for States to begin taxing across their borders for many other different taxes. Another company from Rindge says: This bill is absolutely terrifying. I think I may not be able to survive. I may not be significant to many in Washington, but my little machine shop is the center of my family's livelihood. When I hear my colleagues come to the floor and call this a States rights issue, what about States such as New Hampshire? Why are we going to make this vibrant part of our marketplace, the Internet, a tax collection haven for other States? So businesses in New Hampshire and other States are going to collect taxes for Indiana, and this is all because cash-strapped States are coming here and asking Congress to do this. By the way, for those who believe this is some kind of conservative bill, this is not my idea of conservative. The Americans for Tax Reform are against this, the Heritage Foundation is against this, the Campaign for Liberty is against this, the National Taxpayer Union is against this, Cato is against this, and the Heartland is against this. This is not about small government. This is about forcing businesses in States like mine, with no sales tax, to become the tax collectors for the Nation. It is wrong. This is not about small businesses. I urge my colleagues to vote against the online tax collection act because that is what this really is. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, who is a member of the Budget Committee and has worked hard to get us to where we are. I appreciate his input to get us to this point. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the chair of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I note the time will come off the resolution on this.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois off the resolution.

Patty Murray

Speeches

Manage analytics