I am happy to be the first to take the distinguished majority leader up on his offer and be here on the Senate floor to talk about this very important matter. I plan on voting no on this proposal. It is a very important matter. It is in many ways the greatest challenge we face as a nation. So I don't come to this decision lightly, but I do come to it firmly for three primary reasons. First of all, this bill, this so-called solution, doesn't fundamentally change our spending and debt picture. It just plays around the margins. It doesn't make any big change whatsoever. To put it differently, I don't want to default under any circumstances, but I don't want a downgrade of our credit rating either. From everything the markets and the credit rating agencies-- Moody's and Standard & Poor's--have said for months, this would result in a downgrade. This would result in higher interest rates--first for the government and then for all of us--on our home mortgages, on our car payments, and everything else. Why? Because, again, it doesn't fundamentally change our spending and debt picture. It only cuts $7 billion in the first year and $3 billion in the second year, a total in the first 2 years of $10 billion. That is basically a minuscule rounding error in terms of the size of the Federal budget. Over the next 10 years, we continue to mount up $7 trillion worth of new debt.…
Share
More from David Vitter
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…
I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 16, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without…
we rise together with so many other Members of the Senate on a bipartisan basis to strongly support the chemical safety bill which passed the U.S. House of Representatives with enormous bipartisan support and is ready to pass here in the…
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…





