[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 24, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3520-S3522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about
debt, and more precisely, how the Republican party has been driving
massive increases in debt over the last couple decades, both in two
ways. The first way is by particular legislative acts, primarily tax
bills that have created enormous debt; and the second is by steadily
eroding the framework for budgeting and controlling our difference
between our revenues and our expenditures that was created in 1974.
If we want to think about the big factors that have been driving up
deficits and, therefore, debt, well, the big factors in recent
history--war in Afghanistan, massive; war in Iraq, massive; the Bush
tax cuts of 2001 and 2003; the Trump tax cuts of 2017--these were huge
factors in vastly reducing revenue, primarily by giving enormous
giveaways to the very richest Americans.
Well, that is not all the Republican party has been up to in terms of
driving massive increases in deficit and debt. They have also been hard
at work destroying the infrastructure that all hundred Senators agreed
to back in 1974 to get a handle on debt.
Now let's return to the deficits of 1971, 1972, 1973. Those deficits
were, on average, $20 billion--$20 billion compared to $2 trillion now.
And yet that $20 billion in deficit, average deficit, over those 3
years was enough to have the Members of the Senate and the Members of
the House say: We have to get this under control. If we don't get this
under control, we are going to undermine the ability of our work to
provide a good foundation for families to thrive in the future through
good, strong programs for housing and healthcare and education, good
strong programs to create good-paying jobs, and good programs for the
security of the United States of America. We are going to undermine all
of that--the future for the next generation--if we run up these
deficits.
So they created that 1974 act. That 1974 act had a couple of
different visions. One was a regular budgeting process. That regular
budgeting process was laid out--this is the way that you can, at the
front end of each fiscal year or preparing for each fiscal year, you
can lay out a vision for how much you are going to spend and how much
revenue you are going to create. Those expenditures will be laid out
committee by committee, and then we will hold people to it, and we can
basically do what a family does--have control over our income and our
outgo, our revenue and our expenditures, and therefore control over
deficits. That was the vision.
That bill also created something completely separate from that, and
that was called reconciliation. Reconciliation is a special fast-track,
filibuster-free path--for one reason it was created; all 100 Senators
agreed--to reduce the deficit.
[[Page S3521]]
You can think of Robert Byrd, who was the fiercest defender of the
filibuster--that is the 60 votes required to close debate. Yet even he
said: Yes, I am fine setting aside that power that gives strength and
leverage to the minority for the purpose of reducing the deficit--that
one purpose. That was in 1974.
Now let's fast-forward to 1996, 22 years later. You have a Republican
House and a Republican Senate. It is the back end of the Gingrich
revolution, the election that occurred in 1994 and the people serving
from 1995 to 1997. There were several interesting things that happened
in that year, in 1996. One was that Congress said: Let's give the
President a line-item veto so that programs can be struck down by the
President of the United States.
The Supreme Court said: Not so fast. The Constitution is very clear.
It gives the power of the purse to Congress, not to the President of
the United States. If you want to give the power to decide what is
spent to the President, well then you have to do a constitutional
amendment.
Well, that was the end of the line-item veto.
Then the next thing that was turned to was, let's do a balanced
budget amendment. Well, a balanced budget amendment requires two-thirds
of each Chamber of those duly elected to say yes to the bill, and then
it has to be sent out as a constitutional amendment to be confirmed by
two-thirds of the States. That is a big undertaking.
In the Senate, it was 1 vote short of having the 67 votes it needed
to be passed. Well, that was a very frustrating situation to be in, one
vote short. Then the leaders of the House and Senate--the Republican
leaders of the House and Senate said: Well, you know, we have this
other objective. We want to do a tax bill that will give vast sums of
the U.S. Treasury to the very richest Americans, and we know Democrats
won't stand for that, so we can't do it through regular order. Let's
take that special reconciliation process created in 1974 only for
deficit reduction and let's repurpose it to do deficit increases.
But there is a problem there. The whole history was quite clear. You
had 22 years of precedent to back up the playing language. So what has
to be done? Well, the leader of the Senate, Robert Dole, brought in a
new Parliamentarian, Robert Dove, who then created a ruling saying that
despite the bill--what it says--and despite the 22 years of precedence,
this fast-track can be used to do tax breaks and increase the deficit.
Well, that was a core pillar of the 1974 bill--a fast track only for
deficit reduction, a filibuster-free path only for deficit reduction.
My Republican colleagues tore it down. They didn't use it immediately
because President Clinton, a Democrat, was in the Oval Office. As it
turned out, a deal was worked out on other issues, so they didn't do
that tax bill until Bush came in 2001. Then they used that power
created in 1996.
The reason I am going through this is to convey that my colleagues
who have talked about fiscal responsibility have been misleading
America because while they talk about fiscal responsibility in
practice, they have been running up massive deficits and debt for the
people of this country--through the war in Afghanistan, through the war
in Iraq, through the 2001 tax bill that Bush put forward, through his
2003 tax bill, through the Trump 2017 tax bill--and they have been
destroying the discipline for the special reconciliation process that
was designed only for deficit reduction.
But that nuclear event of 1996 in which black became white and white
became black, the total betrayal of those Senators who voted--100 of
them--for a special filibuster-free process only for deficit
reduction--the total betrayal of them. But two things survived. One was
that there would be no ability to use reconciliation for deficit
creation--increases outside of the 10-year window. The third was
continuing to use honest numbers--the Joint Committee on Taxation for
revenue and the Congressional Budget Office for expenditures.
In fact, CBO was created by that 1974 bill so nonpartisan entities
would give us honest numbers so we would quit lying to ourselves every
time there was a bill about what it cost, quit lying to ourselves about
what a tax provision change would mean. We would be honest with
ourselves.
You know, it is like a family doing their budget. If they say ``Well,
we are only going to go out to dinner once a month to save money,'' but
the reality is that they know they are going to go out to dinner 10
times a month, they are just deceiving themselves. They are putting
something in their budget that isn't real.
The idea was integrity--integrity with ourselves, integrity with the
American people.
But this brings us to this moment right now on the reconciliation
bill because those two pillars of fiscal responsibility that survived
the 1996 nuclear action by my Republican colleagues, the two pillars
that survived--one, no increase in deficits after 10 years and, second,
using honest numbers--those are under complete assault right now, and
it is through something that is called by my Republican colleagues a
current policy baseline.
Let me explain what this means. Normally, you have a bill, and there
is a provision in the bill, and that provision says ``Do this,'' and it
goes to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
They say: It is a revenue measure. Here is how much money that it
will raise as compared to not having that provision in the bill.
Not having that provision in the bill is current law. Putting the
provision in the bill is the vision that is being costed out for honest
decision making. So here is a provision. How much will it cost? Here is
a change in a program. How much will that cost? That is the normal
process. That is the normal process of integrity in any budgeting
process. We are going to make a change in what we are doing. How much
will it cost?
But along comes the decision by my colleague--whom I work with so
well on so many things, but on this, I profoundly disagree with him,
the chair of the Budget Committee--and he says: Let's stop doing that
process where there is a provision in the bill that changes the law and
therefore we will estimate how much it costs. Instead, he says, we will
simply pretend that a provision in the bill that ended a tax break and
now the provision continues that tax break and therefore it costs
money--we will pretend that, all along, we knew that it would go on
forever, and therefore it costs nothing.
Well, this is the type of smoke and mirrors that the entire 1974 act
was designed to stop. Let's stop pretending. Let's stop trying to
camouflage what things cost when we make decisions, when we pass laws
here. Let's be honest with ourselves. Let's be honest with the American
people.
This strategy--how is this to be accomplished? Well, my colleague the
chair of the Budget Committee looks to a provision--section 312--in the
law.
Let's talk about Section 312. Section 312 is a provision not in
Section 313, which is for reconciliation. Section 312 is completely
separate, and it has never been used in reconciliation. It was designed
to resolve small technical changes.
Let's look at the record of 312. Again, this provision says the
chair--actually, it says the Budget Committee, not the chair--the
Budget Committee has authority to resolve some technical problems that
occur in the process of normal budget bills--not reconciliation; normal
budget bills.
Here are the times it has been used, this provision from 312. It has
always been used in a bipartisan way, always with consultation, support
from Democrats and Republicans, to resolve a technical issue.
For the first time, my colleague the chair of the Budget Committee is
saying: We will use it in a partisan fashion where there is no
agreement worked out on how to solve a technical issue. We are going to
do something that is pure partisan because we want to hide the cost of
this reconciliation bill.
A second point is that section 312 has never been used in a broad
fashion. It has always been about a narrow provision--again, not in a
reconciliation bill. It has been used routinely to enforce spending
allocations by committee. It has been used for the Crime Victims Fund.
It has been used for the Power Marketing Administration. It has been
used to prevent double counting of a dairy program. It made some
[[Page S3522]]
adjustments to the Fiscal Responsibility Act. It was always done in a
bipartisan way on a very narrow issue.
Then there is now, where it is no longer a narrow issue; it is about
the entire cost of the bill. Section 312 has been used to resolve
ambiguities--again, each and every time, resolve an ambiguity in a
bipartisan way on a narrow issue--except now, it is not about resolving
ambiguity; it is about lying to the American people about what the bill
costs.
Has it ever been used in reconciliation before? No, because it is not
part of the two sections that control the reconciliation process--310
and 313. It is not part of that at all. It has never been used in
reconciliation, not once, not ever, because it is not part of the law
that guides reconciliation.
Finally, I want to emphasize that because it has been about narrow
issues, the amount of money involved has been related to those more
narrow provisions. Yes, they sound large when they are in the
millions--even once, on the adjustments to the Fiscal Responsibility
Act, about $3 billion, $2.8 billion--but now we are talking not about a
couple of billions, we are talking about more than $3 trillion. Wow,
that is something.
In every possible way, 312 power giving the Budget Committee the
ability to resolve small technical issues outside of reconciliation
doesn't fit with using it now to create a magical baseline to, well,
obfuscate what things cost.
Now, the cost of this bill, the provisions in this bill, as compared
to not having the provisions in the bill, is a cost of about $3
trillion over 10 years. I think the most recent estimate is $32
trillionish--$37 trillion, and that is over 30 years.
Here, we have the effort to tell the world that no, no, no, don't
worry. It is only a couple hundred billion, the cost.
I was struck this morning by the estimate that came from the Joint
Committee on Taxation which laid out that the revenue portion debt of
this bill will now reduce revenue over a 10-year period by over $4
trillion while my colleagues are telling the world: No. No. It will
only reduce it by less than $1 trillion.
Let's stop that type of destruction of the budgeting process. It is
not just--not just--that we are lying to ourselves and to the American
people about the cost of this bill, we are also destroying that
boundary that survived in 1996, that said there will be no deficits in
any single title, in any single year after the budget window. The
budget window is a 10-year period.
This morning, I read back through section 313. And right in section
313, it lays it out again: No deficit creation in any title, in any
year after the budget window.
So I am coming to the floor to say to my colleagues: Do not corrupt
the very instruments we created in a bipartisan fashion to control the
deficit. Do not use a fake baseline to lie to the American public about
the cost of the provisions in this bill. Do not breach the boundary in
which you are now going to create deficits beyond a 10-year period.
The reason we had that estimate of $37 trillion over 30 years is
because now the measures in the bill continue on that create deficits
as far as the eye can see, and CBO said we could only estimate it out
30 years. So that is the number: roughly, $3 trillion over 10 years but
$37 trillion over 30 years.
CBO also told us, the Congressional Budget Office--that nonpartisan
keeper of integrity in budget discussions--if our estimate of the
interest rate is 1 percent off, it will cost about another $24 trillion
on top of this. So what are we talking about then? We are talking about
over $60 trillion over 30 years.
How does that compare to what we have now? Well, we are actually in
the midthirties right now in terms of our Federal debt. We are now over
100 percent of debt to GDP. I had thought, as I got into this
discussion, that we were at the 100 percent mark and that our amount of
national debt had reached the amount of our gross domestic product. But
when I rechecked it, no, we are over it. We are beyond it.
How are we going to be responsible architects of our national journey
if we are going to keep pretending that things don't cost in the bills
that we pass, if we don't use honest numbers, if we destroy the
framework created in 1974 that said no deficits after 10 years? That is
not the right course.
We, the Democratic side of the aisle, will keep raising this issue
because this bill should never go through this body on a false premise,
on a fake cost estimate.
Why is that so important in reconciliation? Because the budget
resolution lays out how much revenue change can be tolerated and how
much spending can be done by the various committees. So if you don't
have honest numbers, you have a completely phony process.
So let's come together and rebuild the bipartisan consensus that we
are going to have a stronger framework, a stronger budgeting framework
for the national enterprise.
As we build up this massive additional part of debt through wars and
through tax bills that deliver the national Treasury to the richest
Americans, as we do that, we are undermining the future of our country.
Please, to my Republican colleagues, do not come to this floor and
talk about fiscal responsibility. If you can't walk the walk, don't
talk the talk. It is that important. It is that important.
I am going to conclude by noting that even without this breaching of
the boundaries regarding deficits that run as far as I can see, even
without the process of lying to ourselves about what this would cost,
even without that, this is a terrible bill.
This bill is families lose, and billionaires win, as simple as that:
cutting nutrition programs, which means an estimated 4 million children
will go hungry; tax breaks for the richest Americans, tax breaks for
billionaires; and 16 million people losing healthcare. Why? To fund tax
breaks for billionaires. That is just wrong.
There is a better plan. It should be a bipartisan plan, where we seek
to have families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share. That is
a vision we should all be able to get behind.
So let's take this terrible bill, this bill that creates a debt as
far as the eye can see, this bill that creates an estimated $37
trillion in additional debt or even more than $60 trillion, if the
interest rate predictions are off by 1 percent over 30 years--let's
take this bill, and let's put a stake through its heart and start over
and instead have that vision of a bill crafted along the lines of
families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share.
____________________