I stand in strong support of the comments of my distinguished colleague from Alabama. Of course I agree with virtually every single Member of the Senate that these programs need to be extended. But I also agree with many Members here, and the huge majority of the American people, that we need to pay for it. We cannot keep running up the deficit as though it had no consequence to us and our economy and our children and grandchildren. The American people get it. Certainly my constituents in Louisiana get it. They say of course you need to extend necessary programs and of course you cannot run up the deficit to do it every 2 months. Mr. President, $18 billion--the distinguished Senator from Alabama has used the figure over and over, and he is right, $18 billion, but it is $18 billion for 2 months of extension. So we are supposed to come back every 2 months and put another $18 billion on our kids' and grandkids' tab? It is $108 billion over a year of increasing deficit and debt that is already at historic levels. That is crazy. We can do better. We can meet both of those commonsense objectives of the American people. We can extend necessary programs and we can do it in a way that does not add to deficit and debt. We have several ways to do that. We have a menu of proposals. We will have votes a little later on about doing that.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses the need to extend programs while also emphasizing the importance of paying for them to avoid increasing the deficit.
Share
More from David Vitter
I rise to honor two of my longest serving staff members who have been tremendous team leaders in our office: David Doss, my State director, and Nicole Hebert, my deputy State director. They are both, sadly, departing the Senate later this…
if the majority leader will yield for one moment, I want to thank the majority leader for his very kind words. Serving in the Senate for two terms has been the highest honor of my professional career. I have enjoyed it so much and have…
The only way that Wall Street will change is if executives face jail time when they preside over massive frauds.
That is a very important question and the clear intent of Congress is the answer is yes. This is because, to be legally sufficient according to EPA's own technical assistance, EPA's Section 6(a) rule must ensure that the chemical substance…





