[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S545-S548]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the minority 
leader and our Democratic caucus to ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill to increase 
the debt limit. I will explain in just a moment my intention and the 
reason I offer this unanimous-consent request.
  All of us understand what we have just been through in this past 
year. We have been through a pretty difficult time. We have struggled 
as between different philosophies on a range of issues, and we have 
seen Government shutdowns on two occasions. We have seen and heard 
people boast about potentially not extending the debt limit and causing 
a default on the debt. So we have been through a very difficult period.
  I think most Members on both sides of the aisle would like very much 
never to see that repeated. I do not know of anyone who has a continued 
appetite to see another Government shutdown. I frankly do not know of 
anyone who, at this point, thinks it would be a good idea if this 
country were to default on its debt. And yet, we are now at about 
February 1 and at the end of this month, the Secretary of the Treasury 
indicates that he will not have the resources with which to meet the 
requirements to repay the bonds that exist, and there would be a 
default unless the debt limit is extended.
  Some say, ``Well, let us wait until the end of February, until we 
have done certain things to find a way to reach an agreement between 
this party and the other party.'' I understand that, and I understand 
the reason why some would like to postpone this for a while.
  On the other hand, there are others of us who are anxious that we 
move as quickly as we can to get something into a conference so we have 
some movement on extending the debt limit, so we can tell the people of 
this country that we are working on it and making progress on it. To 
wait for the final 3, 4 days or the final week prior to the need for a 
debt limit extension, prior to default, does, it seems to me, given the 
circumstances of the last year, create a condition that could provide 
some risk. That is why some of us feel that this would be the time to 
move a piece of legislation that would increase the debt limit and move 
that into a conference.
  So with that purpose in mind, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill, now at the desk, to 
increase the debt limit, that the bill be read a third time and passed 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Is there objection?
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader and Senator from 
Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I certainly understand why the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota would make this effort at this time. I point 
out, I still believe, I still hope that there is an opportunity for a 
budget agreement. I am an incurable optimist. The President has 
indicated he is willing to continue that effort. I know there are 
informal discussions going on at the staff level.
  The problem with debt limits, as the Senator well knows from his days 
in the House in particular, even in the Senate, is that there are some 
Senators and some Congressmen who would prefer not to vote for a debt 
limit going over $5 trillion for the first time in history until there 
is some guarantee that there is going to be fiscal restraint, that 
there is some budget agreement that will control the rate of growth of 
spending, control the annual deficits and the debt.
  If there is any hope that we might get an agreement, then certainly a 
good place to consider putting that would be on the debt limit. Plus, 
there also continues to be an effort across the aisle in a bipartisan 
way, in the House and Senate, to come to a bipartisan coalition 
agreement. It looks to me like good progress has been made in that 
area. 

[[Page S546]]

  I have looked at the numbers from the coalition group and the numbers 
in the House and both of them are actually better than the results of 
the discussions between the President and the leaders in Congress from 
both sides of the aisle.
  That may be the way to do this: Get a budget No. 3 that we can vote 
on that would have broader bipartisan support than we had earlier. Once 
again, maybe put it on the debt limit and move it forward. Or in 
addition to that, I do know the House is meeting this week and they are 
looking at other alternatives as to how that might be considered.
  So, in an effort to get it through the House and get it through the 
Congress and get it to the President, we want to make sure we thought 
it through carefully, have done it right. We do not want to go through 
a futile exercise of getting something to the President he will veto.
  I assume there is a time sensitivity, although the Secretary of the 
Treasury indicated there were going to be real problems last November, 
and while he was working to avoid those problems, now we do not really 
know where the problem does develop. Is it the middle of February, the 
first of March, middle of March, or can we go on indefinitely by 
actions of the Secretary of the Treasury?
  I do not think he can go on indefinitely, but I do know that the 
intention of the majority leader is that we act on this in a timely 
fashion, and the House and the Speaker are acting on some legislation 
that will allow us to act probably the week of February 26, maybe 
before that. If we can come to some sort of agreement, maybe we can do 
it before that.
  But I think just to move it here at this point would be a futile 
exercise and maybe even would be unhelpful in trying to get an 
agreement.
  So at this point, Mr. President, I object to the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi is absolutely 
correct that a logical place to increase the debt limit would be in a 
budget agreement, and if there is a budget agreement--and I hope there 
is--then obviously the debt limit should be increased in that 
agreement.
  The dilemma is, the Moody's organization last week served notice 
publicly, because of the potential of a default, because of the 
potential that perhaps the debt limit will not be extended, because of 
the potential that there might be some who want to use the debt limit 
as leverage, and the ultimate leverage, of course, being default if 
there is not a budget agreement, because of that, Moody's has indicated 
they are taking a look at whether to downgrade the creditworthiness of 
U.S. Government bonds.
  It seems to me that ought to be a warning to all of us that we ought 
not fool around with this question of the grading of Government bonds 
and the creditworthiness of Government bonds.
  This is a very important issue. The Senator from New York, Senator 
Moynihan, has spoken at some length on it. I say to the Senator from 
Mississippi, I know that Senator Dole is not in any way suggesting that 
he would want to default. In fact, I do not think Senator Dole felt 
that the Government shutdowns were the way to run the Government. So I 
am not suggesting that there are those whom we are discussing at this 
point who believe this would be a wise course. I think there are some 
in the Congress who probably have said in the past, ``It does not 
matter to us if we do not pay the bondholders 30 or 60 days 
afterward,'' the implication of that suggesting that default certainly 
is an option as one of the pieces of learning we will use in the 
negotiations.
  So many of us feel that rather than waiting until it is too late, let 
us start early here and be offering some UC requests to see if we 
cannot move this along. I know the minority leader has indicated that 
when the Senate is in session during this month, he feels that we 
should be offering requests. I am offering this on his behalf today to 
extend the debt limit. And, again, I understand the reasons for the 
objection today. My hope would be that in the days ahead we will find a 
way to advance this through the Senate and go to conference so we can 
send a message to the country and the world that no one around here 
will play with the creditworthiness of this country. No one will use 
the issue of default as leverage in this context. I think most of us 
believe that would be terribly, terribly risky, and a very 
unsatisfactory outcome.
  So I understand the point the Senator from Mississippi has made. I 
hope he understands why I have offered this today. He would expect to 
see it offered again in the days ahead when the Senate is in session.
  I would like to, if I might, Mr. President, propound a question to 
the Senator from Mississippi. Although we are in session today----
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield first, because I think he is 
fixing to change the subject, I want to get this into the Record.
  I think there is some question, also, just for the information of the 
Senators, about the Senate acting first on a clean debt ceiling, 
whether this is a revenue effort under those conditions and therefore 
subject to a point of order. I make that observation. I am not pursuing 
it at this point.
  For the information of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record at this point the history, going back to 1984 
through 1990, of how debt ceilings were extended and the riders that 
were added to those debt ceiling bills in order for them to be able to 
complete and go through the process.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Legislative Riders on Past Debt Limit Extensions


                            1990--H.R. 5355

       Passed by the House, but not by the Senate. Would have 
     increased the debt ceiling by $322 billion to $3.444 
     trillion. Rider: Amended the rules on sequestration to exempt 
     Social Security.


                            1989--H.R. 3024

       Increased the debt ceiling by $70 billion for the period 
     from August 7, 1989, through October 31, 1989. Rider: Made 
     changes regarding the current accrual value of certain 
     obligations issued on a discount basis.


                          1989--H.J. Res. 280

       Increased the debt ceiling to $3.1227 trillion. Rider: 
     Repealed Section 89 of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to 
     health benefits provided under certain discriminatory 
     employee benefit plans).


                          1987--H.J. Res. 324

       Increased the debt ceiling to $2.8 trillion. Rider: Gramm-
     Rudman II, which contained provisions relating to 
     sequestration, overall budget caps, and budget process 
     reform.


                          1986--H.J. Res. 668

       Increased the debt ceiling by $189 billion for the period 
     from October 21, 1986, through May 15, 1987. Rider: This debt 
     limit was attached to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 
     of 1986.


                          1985--H.J. Res. 372

       Increased the debt limit to $2.0787 trillion. Rider: Gramm-
     Rudman Deficit Control Act, which contained provisions 
     relating to sequestration and set overall budget caps.


                            1985--H.R. 3721

       Increased the debt ceiling to an amount no greater than 
     $1.9038 trillion for the period from November 14, 1985, to 
     December 6, 1985. Rider: Contained riders that delayed the 
     effective dates of the following provisions by one month: Tax 
     increase on cigarettes; section 285 of the Trade Act of 1974; 
     section 10(d) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act and, 
     section 5(c) of the Emergency Extension Act of 1985.


                            1984--H.R. 5692

       Increased the debt ceiling by $30 billion to $1.520 
     trillion. Riders: Allowed the Treasury to hire experts or 
     consultants as contract employees. Reimburse the State 
     Department for health and medical services provided to 
     overseas employees; maintain uniforms provided to Treasury 
     employees; provide athletic services for students at the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia; 
     install fencing, guard booths, lighting, and other 
     maintenance for Treasury Department facilities and enter into 
     reciprocal assistance with state and local law enforcement 
     agencies.

  Mr. LOTT. Now I will respond to another question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I think it might be worthwhile to put in the Record the 
reports of last week by the Moody's organization about the evaluation 
of the potential downgrading of Federal bonds. That might describe in 
some more detail the issue of the risks that some of us are concerned 
about. I ask unanimous consent that the report I cited be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S547]]


                      U.S. Debt Rating Threatened

       Alarmed by the protracted budget brawl in Washington, a 
     venerable Wall Street credit rater is threatening to 
     downgrade America's prized triple-A rating if the deadlock 
     forces the government to default on its debts for the first 
     time.
       The unprecedented warning Wednesday from Moody's Investors 
     Service, which has been judging borrower credit worthiness 
     for nearly a century, would mark a stunning blow to the U.S. 
     government's credit standing and sully the pristine status of 
     $397 billion in Treasury debt with interest due in coming 
     months.
       The warning marked the bluntest negative reaction from the 
     financial world so far to the possibility that Uncle Sam 
     might renege on a pledge to repay borrowed money, which has 
     never happened and has helped make U.S. government IOUs the 
     safest and most coveted securities in the world.
       ``This is a wake-up call,'' said Mike Casey, an 
     international economist at Ramirez Capital Consultants Inc., 
     a New York investment research firm.
       Moody's said it was obliged to make the warning because 
     ``the positions being taken in the current debate over the 
     budget and the debt ceiling have significantly increased the 
     risk of a default on the above-mentioned security 
     obligations.''
       It said the possible downgrade doesn't reflect ``any 
     underlying deterioration in the fiscal position of the United 
     States Government, but rather from the peculiar circumstances 
     surrounding the present political controversy over the 
     direction of federal economic and social policy.''
       Some congressional Republicans have threatened to allow the 
     government to default if the Clinton administration doesn't 
     capitulate on spending cuts in the battle to balance the 
     federal budget. The administration has said Congress must 
     raise the $4.9 trillion debt limit by March 1 or a default 
     could result.
       Although most economists say the possibility of default 
     remains extremely remote, many still regarded the Moody's 
     warning as a sobering reminder that it's not possible.
       ``In a sense it's like nuclear warfare,'' said Robert 
     Brusca, chief economist at Nikko Securities International in 
     New York. ``If it happens it's a terrible problem. But 
     nobody thinks it's going to happen.''
       The Moody's warning coincided with conciliatory moves in 
     the budget battle, and House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he 
     wanted to avoid a default. But it was unclear whether 
     Gingrich also was speaking for more militant Republicans, 
     many of them freshmen in the House, who have used the threat 
     of default as a bargaining tactic.
       After a meeting with Gingrich Wednesday evening, one 
     freshman congressman, Rep. David McIntrosh, R-Ind. said his 
     class was ``pretty much on board'' with the speaker.
       Moody's said it was placing Treasury bonds and notes with 
     interest payments due Feb. 29 and April 1 ``on review for 
     possible downgrade.''
       The rating agency didn't make clear what these securities 
     would be downgraded to. But the loss of triple-A status could 
     make it more expensive for the Treasury to borrow, adding 
     billions of dollars in extra interest to the government's 
     overall debt and reverberating throughout the economy with 
     pressure for higher interest rates.
       Bond prices were sharply lower by midday today, continuing 
     a slide that began late Wednesday afternoon as word of the 
     Moody's announcement spread. But traders said prices were 
     falling for other reasons as well.
       Standard & Poor's Corp., another leading debt-rating 
     service, made similar warnings on Nov. 10, when the issue of 
     a possible default first arose in the budget negotiations. 
     Still, the wording of the Moody's announcement was far more 
     blunt and specific, referring to particular groups of medium- 
     and long-term Treasury bonds that would be affected.
       S&P said a spokesman that it is examining the spillover 
     effects of a potential default of U.S. Treasury securities 
     and expects to make an announcement about that in the next 
     several days.
       Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin responded to the Moody's 
     announcement with a brief statement expressing his belief 
     that the debt impasse will be resolved by the end of 
     February.
       Some Wall Street economists theorized that Moody's made the 
     warning partly because of sensitivity to the credit-rating 
     industry's past failures to forewarn of brewing financial 
     debacles.
       Just in the past few years, for example, both Moody's and 
     Standard & Poor's have been rebuked for failing to sound the 
     alarm on impending crises in Mexico and Orange County, 
     Calif., which cost investors huge losses.
       ``Moody's and S&P have caught a lot of grief in the past,'' 
     said Casey. ``They have lot of history of locking the barn 
     door after the cows have gone.''

  Mr. DORGAN. Let me ask the Senator from Mississippi a question about 
something that will come up later this week that I know is important to 
many of us, including the Senator from Mississippi. We are in session 
today on Tuesday and we do not have recorded votes and will not have 
recorded votes Wednesday. We will have recorded votes on Thursday. My 
understanding, from the discussion I had with the majority leader last 
Friday, was that on Thursday of this week we would be turning to the 
issue of the farm bill. I am very concerned about trying to get us to 
move a piece of farm legislation.
  I know there are people with very different views about what kind of 
farm bill would best serve the interests of family farmers in this 
country in the future. Some say, the so-called Freedom to Farm Act must 
be passed, or else. Others say that there is the Farm Security Act's 
marketing loans, and other things. In your part of the country, in 
Mississippi, we are in the circumstance where farmers are ready to go 
into the fields at some point soon. I confess that, as of an hour ago 
when I last talked to somebody in North Dakota, there is not anybody 
close to starting up a tractor and going into a field today because it 
is awfully cold there today. But down south people are close to 
starting to want to do spring's work. In our part of the country, 
farmers want to talk to bankers and to their agribusinesses about the 
farm plan. They want to know under what conditions will they plant this 
spring, and what will the farm program be? We were supposed to have 
passed a 5-year plan last year. There was one put in the reconciliation 
bill, which everybody knew would be vetoed. We have nothing at this 
point.
  My hope is that we can work together, Democrats and Republicans, and 
if we need to demonstrate a burst of bipartisanship here, there is no 
place better to do that than on a farm bill. Your farmers have the same 
needs as mine. I have strong feelings about what we ought to do, and I 
know others do as well. Especially, we owe them an answer. I hope very 
much that, come Thursday--I think we will have a couple of cloture 
votes on a couple of different plans, and perhaps we will not invoke 
cloture on either. If that is the case, I hope we can find a way 
Thursday to advance some kind of basic farm plan in order to put it 
into conference so we can work hard in the next week or so and finally 
move a farm plan out of the Congress. Farmers deserve that. We owe that 
to them.
  I ask the Senator from Mississippi his view on the urgency of this, 
and whether he thinks that we are going to be able to move forward 
Thursday with some dispatch to deal with this issue.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in responding to the Senator from North 
Dakota, he brought back memories of bipartisan efforts in the past on 
the farm bill. I think it was maybe 1982. I remember that at the time I 
was in the House and I was the minority whip. At that time, the 
majority whip was a fellow named Tom Foley. We were working on the farm 
bill. It was very delicate and tedious. Everybody wanted a farm bill, 
but some of the people did not necessarily want to go on record voting 
for that particular version. I remember even exchanging vote counts 
with the majority whip. We managed to get a pretty good farm bill 
through, but one that was pretty evenly divided between the two 
parties. So that is always the way it should be done. I think usually 
that is the way agriculture policy is developed, in a bipartisan way.

  I do agree that there is an urgency, too. During the years I have 
been a Member of Congress, I never had to go back home in February--
that is when we start going into the field in my State--to tell farmers 
that we do not have a farm bill. They do not know what to expect. There 
has never been an instance where I recall where we let existing law 
expire, which opens the door to utilizing outdated, expensive, and 
ineffective 1938 and 1949 so-called permanent laws. That is what is 
about to happen. If we do not do something on this, we are going to 
revert back to the so-called permanent law. That causes all kinds of 
confusion not only for the farmers, but the lenders and the suppliers, 
which are an important part of the economy in my State and, I know, in 
your State. Even the Secretary stated that reversion to the permanent 
law has all kinds of problems. Authorization for wheat, feedgrains, and 
rice programs under current law have already expired. So there is an 
urgency.
  I know the Senator from North Dakota knows that an effort is underway 
now where Senators and their staffs are working on what is the best 
approach. We did have the farm bill that was in the reconciliation 
package, as 

[[Page S548]]
the Senator said. It was vetoed by the President. Some of us would like 
to look at that as a base and maybe make some changes. I know the 
Senator has a different approach. We are working on what is the best 
procedure to get an agreement, and we are going to try to have some 
understanding worked out later on today--hopefully very shortly--as to 
exactly what votes will occur Thursday on or in relation to agriculture 
legislation. We are going to be very careful to be fair in how we 
proceed and give those who have different views a chance to make their 
case, and have one or more cloture votes, but try to make an effort to 
get this issue moving in such a way that maybe we can get into 
conference and work out an agreement that we can get to the President 
in the shortest possible period of time. So we are working right now on 
a unanimous-consent agreement that would get us into consideration on 
Thursday that would allow for a vote or votes to occur and try to find 
a way to move it forward.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
  One of the dilemmas here is that the farm bill, which was placed in 
the reconciliation bill and passed last year and vetoed, would have 
eliminated the permanent law, the 1949 act. Many of us had great 
concern about that. There are new and innovative ways to deal with the 
issue of payments, and other approaches in the short term. But in the 
long term we feel strongly that the needs of a network of family farms 
will only be met if we retain some kind of permanent authority for farm 
legislation. But I guess the point I was making--and I am comforted 
some by the Senator's comments--I think at the end of Thursday we need 
to have found a way to reach agreement on something that we can move 
into conference that builds a bridge between the various proposals that 
now exist. I think we have not seen much bipartisanship in the last 
year or so. In fact, it has been some while beyond that, I guess. If 
ever we need a burst of strong bipartisanship, it is to find a way to 
move this farm legislation forward.

  I look forward to working with the Senator. There is an effort 
underway; we have a lot of staff people on a bipartisan basis searching 
for some common ground. Perhaps that will result in the ability to move 
something on Thursday. Time is very short. It is very urgent that we 
provide farmers an answer about what will be the conditions under which 
they plant this spring, what kind of a farm program will exist in this 
country.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we also 
still hope there is the possibility that we would have a vote or votes 
this week on the telecommunications issue. That has not been clarified 
yet.
  Speaking of bipartisan efforts, that is one where last year a lot of 
work went into that legislation. It is a very important piece of 
legislation. I believe it passed by a vote of something like 81 to 18. 
It is on the verge of being ready to come out of conference. We hope we 
can get an agreement worked out on that also sometime today. If we can, 
we would hope maybe we could have a vote on that also on Thursday.
  We could have at least two or three votes on Thursday, both of them 
on very, very important issues: agriculture and telecommunications. 
That is almost a year's work. Time is short on both of them. We are 
going to work very hard to try to get an agreement worked out.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________