We have to be careful about falling prey to lofty rhetoric about somehow finding a magic formula, a magic non-political formula for project selection.

But clearly, as Henry Clay realized, and Abraham Lincoln, and President Eisenhower, and a lot of others, it can't finance all the roads and projects that we need.

It is clear, obviously, that it will take some time to get an infrastructure bank up and running.

The chairman's mark for the service transportation bill would be a 35-percent cut in funding. That is exactly the wrong direction to be going in.

We have to leverage private funds. I am not saying this is a substitute for public funds. It is not.

We shouldn't put ideological choices into the Constitution.

Social Security is flush--flush--for at least 75 years if you assume that the annual growth rate, the economic growth rate of the United States, will be 2.4 percent or more.

Whatever anyone may think of the debt or how to reduce it or the proper level of Government expenditures as a percentage of GDP, those kinds of policies are to be enacted as legislation which can be modified, amended, or repealed by future…

A written Constitution should provide procedures for decision-making, procedures for governance, and protection of individual rights.

Does it make sense economically to pass a balanced budget amendment without a capital budget, which means we can never borrow money under any circumstances for any purpose without a three-fifths vote in Congress?

If adopted, a balanced budget amendment, especially the ones proposed, would have catastrophic consequences for the Nation, for the economy, and for the future.