Lloyd Doggett

In my home state of Texas, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program has provided funds to help children in my home town in Travis County that are affected by substance abuse in the home.

These funds are a critical part of the efforts to ensure that children are raised safely in their homes.

These programs have been renewed, and have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. And I hope that we can work together to extend and improve these services.

I am hopeful that we share not only that interest, but an interest in seeing that we put every taxpayer dollar to the most effective and efficient use possible to provide some of our most vulnerable children the services that they need.

There are some here who believe that we ought to borrow from the Chinese and our other creditors or shift more of our tax burden onto small businesses and individuals so that a few large multinationals can pay even less than the relatively…

I will yield my time, but I will never yield to those Republicans who don't demand any sacrifice from Wall Street and all those big-bonus recipients but do demand that the rest of us pay for balancing their budget. Oppose this Republican…

That's not balanced. Fair and balanced? Yes, I know it's a distorted slogan, but I think it could have real meaning for our budget. But this budget is balanced on our young people and our future. We need a budget that's fair. This is not…

They need to come forward with their study, and it needs to be well-founded.

We actually passed it through the House in 2008, despite a lot of bureaucratic obstacles.

I strongly agree with that recommendation and the need to take a look at corporate tax loopholes, such as those that allow General Electric to avoid paying its fair share for our national security.

I do, however, vigorously oppose efforts to use terms such as 'efficiency' and 'streamlining' as an excuse to eliminate help to people that need it most.

Well, they have had it there since November. When you say 'soon,' they will be completing their current session in April.

Is it correct that we have been attempting to get a tax exchange agreement with Panama since 2002?

If we fail to include the revenue side... we will fail to get our fiscal house in order

We need a serious discussion with the American people about these issues

There are millions of Americans that really have a stake in not going back to the old system.

So they can call it repeal, but to a young person who is counting on that insurance, it means terminate their insurance coverage.

And all we get out of that, other than seniors having to pay more, is that the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund declines by over a decade if they are successful with their Senior Insecurity Act.

It means seniors pay more out of their pockets for prescription drugs. It means seniors pay more out of their pocket for a cancer screening.

While I think that Dr. Berwick did an outstanding job last week in explaining the increased costs that seniors will face if what they call repeal and what I would call the Republican Senior Insecurity Act were to be approved.

I think it actually ought to be revenue increasing to help deal with this problem, but that is a non-negotiable position in the administration.

If you look at the work the Fiscal Commission did, one of the places where I think they made a real contribution was in having a conversation about spending on both the revenue and direct spending side.

What the Republicans are proposing in repealing that law is to hike the cost for prescription drugs to seniors in America this year by over $2 billion

The average individual who would reach this donut hole gap in coverage... will get a little over $500 in benefits under existing law

And so if we repeal that guarantee of no copayment, seniors will have to pay more for those services. Their health care costs under the Republican plan will increase, will they not?