The following is a transcript of an interview with Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania that aired Sunday, July 31, 2022 on “Face the Nation.”
JOHN DICKERSON: Let’s go now to Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. He is in Zionsville this morning. Good morning, senator.
SENATOR PAT TOOMEY: Good morning, John.
JOHN DICKERSON: Let’s start with what the Democrats call the Inflation Reduction Act. You and the other Republicans are not a fan. What is your main criticism?
WITHOUT TOOMEY: Well, it’s going to make inflation worse, actually. So they have a big corporate tax increase that will probably make this recession that we’re in worse. All this expense is unnecessary. It will exacerbate inflation. It will not reduce the deficit. And what did Senator Manchin get us? Look, I’m a big fan of Joe Manchin. We’re friends, as I was saying, and I like Joe a lot, but I think he was taken to the cleaners. He accepts all this bad policy in exchange for being promised some kind of pro-energy infrastructure bills in the future. But first of all, I thought we did that in the infrastructure bill. Second, what is the text? But more importantly, why isn’t this in this bill? And the answer is because Democrats don’t support it. And so this will do a lot of harm and there will be no corresponding benefit.
JOHN DICKERSON: There’s a lot of line in there. Let me focus on inflation, which everyone else is focusing on. The Committee for a Responsible Budget, which has been admired in the past and even in the present, had this to say: “Although reconciliation was designed to reduce the deficit, this will be the first time in many years which is actually used for that. purpose. With inflation at a 40-year high and debt approaching record levels. That would be a welcome improvement from the status quo.” They and others who have looked at this say it will affect the, it will affect the deficit, it will reduce the deficit in this legislation.
WITHOUT TOOMEY: Yeah, so — here’s why we’re not going to do it, because they’re using the same trick that Senator Manchin said he opposed in the past. They claim the revenue over a 10-year period from their big tax increase and price controls. And then the expense they recognize, they pretend will only be for three years. Here are the Obamacare subsidies for wealthy Americans. This is an obvious political benefit. The last time they had to do this, they said it would only be for two years. It is about to expire. And they can’t, they can’t let it expire before the election. So they’re extending it, but only for three: They have no intention of ever ending the Obamacare subsidies for a 10-year period that would eliminate the supposed deficit reduction.
JOHN DICKERSON: But, so you’re assuming bad faith going forward. But in this case, they’ve expanded it and found payments to make it deficit – to reduce the deficit at this time. So it’s plausible, given what’s ahead of us, that this could happen again in the future. I understand what you are saying. Politically, maybe not. But based on what we have in front of us, which is an expansion of the ACA and deficit reduction, it is possible that it will happen.
WITHOUT TOOMEY: They’re also counting on large amounts of additional tax revenue to give more tax money to the IRS, which the CBO disagrees with. They are also not taking into account how much our economy will slow down from this huge corporate tax increase that will hurt manufacturing and domestic investment in particular. These numbers are very, very dubious.
JOHN DICKERSON: Quickly on this matter of production. I mentioned to Senator Manchin that the idea of supply goes down when you tax these companies. He said that it’s a question of fairness, that these breaks that they have, they represent from a previous tax cut, and that this is a question of fairness in the United States.
WITHOUT TOOMEY: So, look, what’s the source of this tax increase? It’s very simple. When we did our tax reform in 2017, what we did is say if a company takes its profits and reinvests them in its business in the form of capital investment, new equipment, new plant, expanding the your ability Back then we said you could deduct the cost of it in the year you incur the cost. Democrats say we need to end this, despite the huge increase in capital spending it brought us. And instead, they will say, you only recognize a small part of it. Let’s go to: They will increase the cost of investing in a business.
JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about this week’s legislation, the PACT Act, which I know you want to talk about. Provides healthcare to millions of veterans who were exposed to toxins. 123 Republicans in the House voted for it. 34 Republicans in the Senate have voted for it. Same bill. This week, the bill has not changed but the Republican votes have. Because?
WITHOUT TOOMEY: No, the Republican votes did not change the substance of the bill. Republicans have said they want an amendment to change a provision that has nothing to do with veterans’ health care. Republicans support it. Democrats added a provision that has nothing to do with veterans’ health care, and is designed to change the government’s accounting rules so they can spend $400 billion:
JOHN DICKERSON: –But–
WITHOUT TOOMEY: –My amendment, if we do it, if I’m allowed to offer it, will eliminate that provision and not cut veterans’ spending one cent.
JOHN DICKERSON: You mentioned that this is — the Democrats inserted this, but they got 134 Republican votes, and you still have a lot of Republicans voting for it. It seems that making this look like a Democrat gimmick obscures what your real goal and lifelong interest is, which is that this is about budgets and whether the rules should be tightened now, or if, as the advocates say this bill, allow Congress to work in the future to be fiscally responsible. Isn’t that a more accurate way of thinking about what you’re offering?
WITHOUT TOOMEY: Well, well, let’s be careful here because, JOHN, you mischaracterized it when you were talking to Senator Manchin. We are fully accepting that new spending under the PACT Act for veterans exposed to toxic chemicals will add to the deficit. And we accept that as a price we have to pay for the people who serve the country. What I am opposed to is a budget gimmick, a sleight of hand on the accounting rules, that will allow $400 billion in totally unrelated spending over the next 10 years. This is what we believe should not be in this bill. It never should have been.
JOHN DICKERSON: Well, there’s a debate about that. And as you know, some Republicans don’t think it’s a — it’s a gimmick. They are still supporting it and believe it can be fixed later. But let me ask you this. I read your language in the amendment, that your language is not just about that other thing. In fact, it limits the annual expenses of the toxic fund. And after 10 years, it disappears…
WITHOUT TOOMEY: – No, so, John, that’s totally wrong. What is limiting is how the government accounts for these transfers, but there is no limit to the amount of money that goes over, there is no limit to the total program. Look, if an honest Democrat who evaluates this will tell you that if my amendment passes, not one penny has changed in spending on veterans programs. What changes is how the government explains it.
JOHN DICKERSON: I understand. But the accounting change, as you know, is a result – the reason they put it in this other bucket is that it doesn’t subject it to normal budget triage. And the argument is that the values at stake here are more important than leaving it to normal budget cut and thrust. And so, I would ask you this:
WITHOUT TOOMEY: – Yeah, but that’s…
JOHN DICKERSON: –but it’s worth protecting is his argument. Let me, it’s about priorities. As you know, budgets are a way of talking about priorities in a government. This week, many of the Republicans who switched votes voted for semiconductors. In 2017, Republicans lifted the limits on discretionary spending. We have also had a situation where there is a lot of spending on defense. You have been consistent with deficit reduction. But many other Republicans when they think it’s in their interest, say let’s raise the limits, let’s not be so demanding with the budget. So why is it important to be picky when it comes to veterans, but less so when it comes to supporting chipmakers?
WITHOUT TOOMEY: Because John, once again, you’re completely misunderstanding this. We all agree that there are no changes to the projected spending path for all veterans programs, existing veterans programs and new veterans programs under the PACT Act. What we oppose is an accounting gimmick that will allow for $400 billion in totally unrelated spending over the next 10 years. And most Republicans think we shouldn’t loosen the budget rules so Democrats can spend on things that have nothing to do with veterans’ health care.
JOHN DICKERSON: Of course, the Democrats have to be responsible in the future when this spending happens, and they may not be, but thank you, Senator, for being with us. We appreciate your time.
WITHOUT TOOMEY: I would impose, I would also impose the restriction on the Republicans.
JOHN DICKERSON: And you have the last word, Senator Toomey, thank you. We’ll be right back with more face to the nation to stay with us.