Transcription
Mr. President, Senator from Louisiana, thank you.
Mr. President, with me this evening is Mr. Nick SS, who is one of my colleagues in my office, on whose judgment, counsel, and advice I rely regularly.
Mr. President, as you know, on any given day, the halls of the Senate Office Buildings and the Capitol itself are teeming with people. We have a lot of visitors, which is a great thing. We have a lot of staff members, very able. We obviously have 100 senators, and we have many, many, many—did I mention many?—members of the press.
Today, many of those folks—not the tourists, excuse me, Mr. President—today, many of those folks, not the members of the public, our visitors, our people who are visiting us, but some staff members, some senators, and some members of the media have been catatonic. Catatonic. They've been foaming at the mouth, and it all has to do with a simple memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget dealing with spending.
I want to talk about that for a few minutes, Mr. President, and try to put it in perspective. I thought about starting my talk today off by saying, "If it weren't for double standards around this place, there wouldn't be any standards at all." And actually, that's true, but that's too cynical for the point I want to make today.
The point I want to make today is that in Congress, we're headed for a multiple vehicle pileup—a multiple vehicle pileup, which I will describe in a moment. It's going to be messy, and dealing with it is going to be messy. We've got to deal with it in accordance with the Constitution and our laws as passed by Congress, but we're also going to have to try to do some things a different way, and it's not going to be altogether pretty.
Now, we can all debate. I haven't met a dummy yet in the United States Senate. Some people would disagree with that, but that's been my experience. Every single member of this body is very clever, and they can get us bogged down in procedure and debate forever about how many lawyers can dance on the head of a pen. All that's important; I've done it myself before.
But we're also dealing with reality. Did I mention we're dealing with a multiple vehicle pileup?
Mr. President, I remember back when President Obama was president. He repeatedly refused to enforce laws that he didn't like when certain provisions— I remember it like it was yesterday—when certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act proved to be controversial. It was law, but some of those provisions of law that he passed were controversial.
I'll give you an example: the mandate that large employers provide insurance to their employees or else pay a big penalty. President Obama just unilaterally delayed implementation, said, "I'm not going to enforce it." Nobody went catatonic around here. Nobody started foaming at the mouth. Maybe everybody had taken their meds that day; I don't know. But there was no human cry like we've heard today as a result of that OMB memorandum.
I remember also when Congress took up the issue, at President Obama's suggestion, of dreamers. Remember the Dreamers Act? Congress wouldn't pass it. Dreamers are children brought to the United States of America illegally by their parents, who've come here illegally. But the children are children; they don't know better.
President Obama proposed the Dreamers Act; Congress didn't pass it. So President Obama just ignored the law. He protected them from deportation through executive action. It's called the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It broke the law. Nobody around here foamed at the mouth. Nobody around here went catatonic, including but not limited to the media.
I remember when President Biden did a very similar thing. He sought to preserve and fortify DACA, as we call it, and he also took a number of steps unilaterally to weaken immigration enforcement. We know that—that's why the border under President Biden was an open bleeding wound. He wouldn't—he refused to follow the law. Nobody foamed at the mouth around here. Members of the press didn't become catatonic.
I don't remember anyone, Democrat or Republican, calling for President Obama's impeachment after a federal court criticized his administration for spending money unlawfully. Remember that? The President Obama decided to pay subsidies to health insurers in 2014. He had to give them money. Just one problem: Congress hadn't appropriated the money.
The GOP House, the Republican-controlled House, sued him. A federal judge ruled against President Obama, but the money was spent. I remember when the GAO concluded that the Obama Health and Human Services Department in 2016 illegally spent money Congress didn't appropriate by paying insurers instead of sending the money to the Department of Treasury. Nobody around here foamed at the mouth, including members of the press. Nobody around here went catatonic.
Now, I didn't come here today, Mr. President, to debate the Take Care Clause of the United States Constitution. We're all familiar with it. The president has a constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That's the law; it's in our Constitution—bigger than Dallas, right there. And I believe in it.
I didn't come here today to debate the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which the courts have ruled to be constitutional, which says that Congress gets to appropriate the money and the president has to spend it. I don't want to get into all that.
But I guess my point, Mr. President, in light of this OMB memorandum, which I'll talk about for a moment, my point is that having embraced non-enforcement when they like the results under President Biden and President Obama, my Democratic friends have very little standing—in fact, none, zero, zilch, nada—no standing to complain when President Trump employs the same legal theory for different purposes.
I'm not saying—I'm not suggesting that we ought to follow the rule; two wrongs don't make it right, but they do make it even. I'm just gently suggesting that maybe I should have started this speech with, "If it weren't for double standards around this place, there wouldn't be any standards at all."
Let me say it again: I support the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and I can read the law. I know a law book from a J. Crew catalog. I know what the Impoundment Act says, and I can read the court opinions holding that it is constitutional.
Now, why am I talking about all this stuff? As you know, since he's been president—I don't know, week, ten days—President Trump has issued about a squillion executive orders. I think it's the most executive orders issued by our president in this short period of time in the history of ever. I'm still trying to read them.
Most of his executive orders—this is a general statement, but I think it's fairly accurate—intend, as is his right, to reverse many of the policies implemented by President Biden. I think it was yesterday the Office of Management and Budget, under President Trump, under an acting director, issued a memorandum.
The memorandum went out to all agencies of the federal government, and it said, "Look, you've seen the president's executive orders changing federal policy," which he has the right to issue, "so hold up spending any money," OMB said to the various agencies, "that would implement President Biden's policies as have been changed by President Trump."
The OMB was very careful in its initial memorandum and in its explanation later to say, "Look, I'm not—we're not talking about direct payments to people. We're not talking about Medicaid. We're not talking about Medicare. We're not talking about Social Security. We're not talking about SNAP benefits." Very careful.
Well, people around here today have been screaming like they're part of a prison riot. "Oh my God, the president's not following the law!" Like this had not happened before. Again, I'm not saying that two wrongs don't make it right, but they do make it even. I'm just trying to give you a little context for this.
Mr. President, my good friend Senator Schumer—and he is my good friend—I went on a trip with Chuck to China, and I don't want to personalize this about Chuck. Let me put it another way: some of my Democratic friends have been running around, and some of my friends in the media have been running around like a five-year-old in a Batman t-shirt, screaming that the world is coming to an end and the Impoundment Act is being violated and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution has been thrown into the garbage bin.
Is this sort of hesitation to spend money has never happened before in Washington, D.C.? Why is the Trump administration doing this? Look, I don't know. I don't talk to the Trump administration every day. People have a multitude of reasons for doing what they do, but I can see what's going on and what is going to be going on.
Mr. President, over the next six months to a year, did I mention we're headed toward a multiple vehicle pileup? Here's the problem: we've got to extend the tax cuts from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. We don't have a choice. Like it or hate it, if we don't extend those tax cuts when they expire shortly, taxes are going to go up $4.3 trillion on the American people. Not $4.3 million, not $4.3 billion—$4.3 trillion.
And 60% of that tax increase is going to impact middle-class and lower-income Americans, and that's just a natural fact. If we don't extend those tax cuts, it is going to drive our GDP and our economy on a journey to the center of the Earth. Even my Democratic friends know those tax cuts have to be extended.
But we've got other things we have to do too. We're deficit spending. We're spending money around here like it was pond water, like it was ditch water. Hold up the other chart. I don't want to blame it all on President Biden, but if the shoe fits, wear it, Cinderella.
This is what President Biden spent. He didn't spend this from tax revenues; he borrowed it: $1.9 trillion on the American Rescue Plan, $1.2 trillion on the Green New Deal, which they called an infrastructure act, $1 trillion on the Inflation Reduction Act, the Chips Act, where we gave money to some of the biggest companies in America, big tech, because they said they needed it.
We gave them $280 billion for semiconductor manufacturing. It was just announced yesterday: China just kicked our ass on artificial intelligence. I don't know if I can say "ass" on the Senate floor, but by God, I just did. They did. I don't know how else to describe it after we spent $280 billion.
I mean, this is just under President Biden: $4.38 trillion of money we didn't have. We are deficit spending every day. I don't know how many millions we have had to borrow since I've been talking. We're taking in about $4.5 trillion, give or take. We're spending about $6.5 trillion.
And when we deficit spend, that money doesn't just fall from heaven. We thank heaven for it, but we have to borrow it, and we have to pay it back. And those annual deficits, daily deficits, monthly deficits roll over into national debt, and we've now got $36 trillion worth of national debt. We're going to run out of digits.
That's the most debt we've ever had—well over 100% of GDP. So we've got to renew the tax cuts, which is going to cause short-term, before they stimulate the economy, short-term loss of revenue. And we've got to stop the deficit spending, and we've got to reduce our debt.
But there's more. There's more. We've got to increase defense spending because President Xi is working with President Putin, who's working with the Ayatollah in Iran, and their goal is to have Putin dominate Eastern and Central Europe, to have Iran dominate the Middle East, have China dominate the Indo-Pacific and the South China Sea, and be free to ram into sub-Saharan Africa and South America.
I don't want America to be the world's policeman, but I don't want President Xi or President Putin or the Ayatollah in Iran to be the world's policeman either. Weakness invites the wolves, and we've got to start spending more money on defense.
Now, you don't have to be Einstein's cousin to figure out that all the things that I just described that we've got to do in the next year to six months could be called competing interests: tax cuts, stop deficit spending, reduce the debt, but find more money for defense. Something's got to give.
And all this is a long-winded way of saying we're going to have to reduce spending. We're going to have to do it. The numbers are the numbers. Since 2019, the American population has gone up 2%. We're not having babies—2%. And that's after all the illegal immigration.
You know what has happened to our budget? It's gone up 55%. I know we have a pandemic; we had to save the economy. 2% growth in population, 55% increase in spending. Yeah, we've had inflation; we haven't had 55% worth of inflation.
We're going to have to be able to afford tax cuts and more defense spending and pay down deficits and pay down debt. We're going to have to reduce spending to pre-pandemic levels. And that's what this OMB memorandum today, which temporarily held up the spending of some money consistent with President Trump's executive orders, was the first baby step toward.
That's what this is all about. That's what it's all about. The world is not going to spin off its axis. And again, I support the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. I understand what the Impoundment Act says, but this is reality, and this is what we've got to solve over the next year.
And we're going to have to solve it together because the debt is $36 trillion. Our population is 355 million people. That's $102,000 per man, woman, and child, and it's increased. And we're about to extend the tax cuts and start spending more on defense.
There's a lot of excitement around here about the reconciliation bill or bills. I'm excited about it. You can write this down, Mr. President, and take it home to Mama: those reconciliation bills, which we have got to pass to get through this multiple vehicle pileup that I just described, are going to contain substantial spending cuts.
They are. Because you know what? If they don't, that reconciliation bill or bills will never pass the United States Senate, and I know it will not pass the United States House of Representatives.
And then we will have failed to do what we told the American people that we were going to do, which is to get the federal government right-side up, to try to put the high prices behind us by growing out of them, by stimulating the economy and increasing wages, by making energy cheaper, by paying down our debt.
And that's what's going on. So I hope all the folks today will go home and take off their Batman t-shirts, wash them—probably a little sweaty. I hope everybody will go home, those who drink, have a cocktail, take their meds, and put this all in perspective.
That's what that OMB memorandum was all about. And I'm going to say this one final time because maybe some members of the media are listening: I am not advocating to ignore the Constitution, and I am not advocating to ignore the Impoundment laws of this Congress.
What I am saying is, if you don't believe we're going to have to cut spending substantially in order to get out of this mess that has been created, then you shouldn't be driving.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.