[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 9 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S174-S183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory 
     limit on the public debt.

  Pending:

       Baucus (for Reid) amendment No. 3299, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Baucus amendment No. 3300 (to amendment No. 3299), to 
     protect Social Security.
       Conrad/Gregg amendment No. 3302 (to amendment No. 3299), to 
     establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal 
     Action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic 
     security of the Federal Government of the United States, and 
     to expand future prosperity and growth for all Americans.
       Reid amendment No. 3305 (to amendment No. 3299), to 
     reimpose statutory pay-as-you-go.


                Amendment No. 3305 to Amendment No. 3299

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is amendment No. 3305 the pending amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion at the desk with respect to that 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid amendment 
     No. 3305 to the Baucus for Reid substitute amendment No. 3299 
     to H.J. Res. 45, a joint resolution increasing the statutory 
     limit on the public debt.

[[Page S175]]

         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Patrick J. Leahy, Christopher J. 
           Dodd, Edward E. Kaufman, Mark R. Warner, Paul G. Kirk, 
           Jr., Tom Udall, Daniel K. Inouye, Jeff Merkley, Robert 
           Menendez, Byron L. Dorgan, Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Tom Harkin, Roland W. Burris, John D. Rockefeller IV, 
           Richard Durbin.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion on the substitute 
amendment at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Baucus for Reid 
     substitute amendment No. 3299 to H.J. Res. 45, a joint 
     resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Patrick J. Leahy, Edward E. 
           Kaufman, Paul G. Kirk, Jr., Tom Udall, Daniel K. 
           Inouye, Jeff Merkley, Robert Menendez, Byron L. Dorgan, 
           Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Harkin, Roland W. 
           Burris, John D. Rockefeller IV, Christopher J. Dodd, 
           Charles E. Schumer, Richard Durbin.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion on the joint 
resolution, which is at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.J. Res. 45, a 
     joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public 
     debt.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Christopher J. Dodd, Patrick J. 
           Leahy, Edward E. Kaufman, Paul G. Kirk, Jr., Tom Udall, 
           Daniel K. Inouye, Jeff Merkley, Robert Menendez, Byron 
           L. Dorgan, Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Harkin, 
           Roland W. Burris, John D. Rockefeller IV, Charles E. 
           Schumer, Richard Durbin.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorums with respect to each cloture motion be waived.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today is the Senate's fourth day of 
consideration of the joint resolution to increase the debt limit. I 
remind my colleagues this is the legislation that allows the government 
to honor its commitments to pay its bills.
  Four amendments remain pending: The substitute amendment raising the 
amount of the debt limit; this Senator's amendment to protect Social 
Security; the Conrad-Gregg amendment to create a fast-track process to 
consider the budget commission's recommendations; and the majority 
leader's amendment reinstituting the statutory pay-as-you-go budget 
law. Up to seven other amendments remain in order to the joint 
resolution.
  The Senator from Alaska has the right to offer an amendment on the 
Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding. We expect she 
will seek to address this matter through a freestanding resolution of 
disapproval rather than an amendment.
  The remaining six amendments in order are a Coburn amendment 
proposing a package of rescissions; a Sessions amendment creating caps 
on appropriated spending; an amendment by the Republican leader's 
designee relevant to any on the list; an amendment by the majority 
leader relevant to any on the list; and two amendments by this Senator 
regarding the budget commission.
  Under the previous order, every amendment to this joint resolution 
will be subject to a 60-vote threshold. The Senate will not, however, 
conduct any rollcall votes on the debt limit today. We are hopeful 
Senators with amendments on the list will offer some of those 
amendments today.
  Under the previous order, at 5:30 this afternoon, the Senate will 
return to the nomination of Rosanna Peterson to be district judge for 
the Eastern District of Washington. At 6 o'clock this evening the 
Senate will conduct a rollcall vote on the confirmation of the Peterson 
nomination.
  Under the previous order, at 11:30 tomorrow morning, the Senate will 
proceed to a vote in relation to the following two amendments to the 
debt limit: First, this Senator's amendment to protect Social Security; 
and second, the Conrad-Gregg amendment to create a fast-track process 
to consider a budget commission's recommendations.
  So the Senate is open for business this afternoon for Senators to 
offer their amendments. We will work toward developing an agreement for 
the offering of all amendments by a time certain, perhaps as soon as 
tomorrow, and we hope to conclude action on this measure as soon as 
possible thereafter.
  I thank all Senators.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Bernanke Nomination

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this weekend there was some discussion and 
writing in the papers and elsewhere in journals about the nomination of 
Mr. Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, for another 
term as chair on that Board. The Washington Post had an editorial 
entitled ``Scapegoat at the Fed.'' I don't normally come to the floor 
of the Senate to respond to the Washington Post editorials, but I do 
wish to respond to a portion of this editorial, and then in a broader 
way describe why I think this is an important moment for the Senate.
  ``Scapegoat at the Fed.'' The editorial begins:

       There are many ways to interpret the election results in 
     Massachusetts last week . . . But one thing Massachusetts did 
     not represent was a mandate to make a national scapegoat out 
     of Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve Board chairman.
       Yet two Democratic Senators seeking reelection in November 
     . . . plus another planning to retire . . . appear to read it 
     that way. They took the occasion of last week's political 
     upheaval to announce their opposition to another four-year 
     term for Mr. Bernanke, whose current one expires January 31. 
     These senators' attempt to burnish their populist credentials 
     by making Mr. Bernanke the fall guy for all the sins, real 
     and perceived, of Wall Street fuels the right-left anti-Fed 
     chorus in Congress that has already produced troubling 
     attempts to subject the Fed to intrusive and 
     counterproductive audits of its monetary policy.

  Well, that is a partial recitation of the editorial.
  I can just condense the editorial by saying the editorial board at 
the Washington Post, as is always the case, has taken the position that 
if anybody wants to know anything about what the Federal Reserve Board 
is doing, it is none of their business. It is none of Congress's 
business; it is none of the American people's business. Stay out of it. 
Keep your nose out of the Federal Reserve Board. That is kind of the 
position of the Washington Post.
  It is not since the Massachusetts election, however, that I have 
expressed reservations about the Federal Reserve Board. In fact, on six 
occasions I have given speeches on the floor of the Senate just since 
December 10, 2008. That day, plus on five additional occasions, I came 
to the floor to talk about the issues that persuaded me to say, as I 
did last week, that I don't even believe we should vote on Mr. 
Bernanke's nomination until he has decided to provide the Senate and 
the American people with information that he is now withholding. Let me 
describe what that is.
  This is a Bloomberg report. It says:

       The U.S. has lent, spent, or guaranteed $11.6 trillion to 
     bolster banks and to fight the longest recession in 70 years.

  I have not come to the floor of the Senate critical of the Fed's 
policies by which they have lent, spent, or guaranteed $11.6 trillion; 
although it is fair to say the $11.6 trillion is not theirs. That 
represents the risks of the American people. That is the full faith and 
credit of this great country of ours.
  The Federal Reserve Board has taken a number of actions to try to 
address this economic crisis. However, I would

[[Page S176]]

suggest this economic crisis was caused, at least in significant part, 
by the malfeasance of the Federal Reserve Board and its previous 
Chairman, and, in some respects, this Chairman, who were content to 
take a long slumber, a very long nap, while the predatory lending was 
going on, the housing bubble was growing, and a massive amount of bad 
securities were finding their way--along with the payment of a lot of 
generous bonuses and fees--into the financial background of a lot of 
financial institutions in this country.
  It says:

       The Federal last year began extending credit directly to 
     companies that aren't banks for the first time since it was 
     created in 1913 . . . it has refused to divulge the details 
     about the companies participating in the 10 lending programs.

  For the first time in the history of this country, during this 
response to the economic crisis, the Federal Reserve Board did this, 
which previously has only lent money directly to FDIC-insured 
commercial banks. That is the only group of interests that can come to 
the Fed and get direct money from them. For the first time in history, 
the Fed said, during this crisis, we will open that window to allow 
investment banks to come and get money directly from us.
  So I began coming to the floor of the Senate, and I didn't come 
criticizing the Fed at that point because I don't know if what they did 
was necessary, but they did it. I wasn't critical. We were in the 
middle of a crisis. Then I began coming to the floor and saying: All 
right. Now that we have some amount of stability, let's at least make 
certain the Federal Reserve Board tells the American people who got the 
money, who ended up with the money, and what were the terms of its 
being made available to these investment banks.
  Well, a Federal court, as a result of a FOIA request and a lawsuit 
said this, and it was reported in Bloomberg:

       The Federal Reserve must, for the first time, identify the 
     companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a 
     Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
       The judge said the central bank improperly withheld agency 
     records. He said you have to disclose who got the money.

  The Federal Reserve Board said we are going to appeal the judge's 
ruling. We don't intend to comply with that. We are going to appeal it 
and get a stay. The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the 
recipients of almost $2 trillion in emergency loans from the American 
taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as 
collateral.
  The Federal court says you have to do it, and they appealed the court 
ruling and got a stay and they are saying we don't intend to do it. In 
the meantime, I and Senator Grassley authored a letter with eight of 
our colleagues to the Federal Reserve Board last July and said: We want 
you to disclose to the Congress and the American people who got the 
money and how much and what the terms were.
  We got a letter back from the Federal Reserve Board, dated September 
16. It has a lot of paragraphs in it, but you can summarize it this 
way: No.
  It is interesting to me that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve 
Board has said: We believe one of the hallmarks of what we are doing is 
transparency. I don't understand, if transparency means you are going 
to disclose things and give people the opportunity to understand what 
happened, why is there no transparency? Even after a Federal court said 
you improperly withheld records, even after Members of the Senate said 
make this information available, even after the American people said we 
deserve to know who got our money, the Federal Reserve Board said: We 
don't intend to tell you a thing.
  There are a couple trillion dollars out there that the Fed has made 
available. It was a risk to the American taxpayer, and $2 trillion is 
not a small amount; it is a very large amount. The Fed said: That is 
our business, not yours. That is the business of the Federal Reserve 
Board. We, in effect, have a right to operate in secret and we intend 
to continue to do that.
  My problem with Mr. Bernanke--as I have said last week, I don't think 
his nomination should be voted on in the Senate until and unless he 
discloses to us and the American people the details about this $2 
trillion and who got it. What were the terms? We now see some of the 
investment banks reporting the largest profits in their history, and 
they are preparing now to provide bonuses, we are told, of $120 billion 
to $140 billion. These are firms, by the way, that would no longer 
exist were it not for the Federal Government. These are firms perched 
on the edge of a financial cliff, ready to go under, except for the 
guarantee of the Federal Government in all kinds of ways. Of course, 
they are the first to get well. No, it is not a company back on Main 
Street, not a company back in my hometown. The first to get well in 
this new economy are the investment banks.
  Did they get well because they were able to get a couple trillion 
dollars from the Federal Reserve Board, probably at zero interest 
rate--I don't know--and invest back into Treasury securities and get 
paid interest on it? Were they arbitraging money? I don't know. I think 
we ought to know. We have a right to know.
  Mr. President, the issue, from my standpoint especially, is, we have 
a right to know, and the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board has a 
responsibility to tell us and the American people. I noticed last 
weekend, when these writers, including editorial writers and others, 
were having an apoplectic seizure over this issue: Oh, My God, somebody 
might vote against Bernanke. Then they say: You know what. More than 
that being what they call Fed bashing--it is not--it is also the case 
that this Congress is thinking of tightening the rules on financial 
regulations to prevent those who were doing what they did to create 
this crisis from ever doing it again. Shame on them. That is 
antibusiness.
  Isn't it interesting how this has morphed into a situation where, if 
we want to close the gate and create rules that prevent the kind of 
nonsense that happened from ever happening again, which drove this 
country into the ditch, somehow that is antibusiness. I don't think so. 
I think what is antibusiness is this notion of Alan Greenspan--and I 
will put up his quote--came to Congress after the fact, after the 
collapse, and he said:

       I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of 
     organizations, specifically banks and others, were best 
     capable of protecting their own shareholders and their own 
     equity in the firms.

  His point was, we don't need to regulate or oversee anything. Self-
regulation will work best. They will be fine. Leave them alone and they 
will come home. What an unbelievable, tragic mistake by the Chairman of 
the Federal Reserve Board.

       I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests . . . 
     were best capable--

  It is a suggestion that somehow capitalism works and you don't need 
any regulatory oversight at all because the free market is best left to 
its own devices. The free market is the best allocator of goods and 
services I know of by far, and I support the free market. I also 
understand that, such as in any other area of competition, you need a 
referee, somebody with a striped shirt who blows the whistle when there 
is a foul. There are plenty of fouls in the free market system. That is 
why you need a referee. You need regulation. That is not a 4-letter 
word. It is called regulation. You need effective regulation to make 
sure the free market system works the way it was supposed to work.
  There are a lot of interests in this free market system that want to 
clog the arteries of the free market and cause some sort of substantial 
problem in the free market, as long as it exists in their self-
interests to do so. There are plenty of interests wanting to do it. 
That is why effective regulation is important. I am not talking about 
overregulation or underregulation; I am talking about effective 
regulation that is anticipated and which, for about 8 years, took a 
vacation by the hiring of regulators who actually boasted they were 
going to be willfully blind and say: You all do what you want to do in 
this system because we will not look.
  I brought, again--and I know it is repeating--some of the things 
nobody looked at. The biggest mortgage company in the country that 
helped set up the subprime scandal that fed itself into the balance 
sheets of banks--commercial banks and investment banks--and caused a 
massive collapse and about $15 trillion of lost value to the American 
people. We all have seen Countrywide's advertisements:


[[Page S177]]


       Do you have less than perfect credit? Do you have late 
     mortgage payments? Have you been denied by other lenders? 
     Call us. . . .

  That is unbelievable. You may think: How on Earth can that be a 
business model? They were advertising to say: Are you a bad credit 
risk? We want to do business with you. If you have missed payments or 
been bankrupt, come see us.
  This is Zoom Credit. Here is their advertisement. We saw these on 
television and heard them on the radio and saw them in newspapers. We 
thought: How did this work? They said this:

       Credit approval is just seconds away. Get on the fast track 
     at Zoom Credit. At the speed of light, Zoom Credit will 
     preapprove you for a car loan, a home loan, or a credit card. 
     Even if your credit's in the tank. Zoom Credit's like money 
     in the bank. Zoom Credit specializes in credit repair and 
     debt consolidation, too. Bankruptcy, slow credit, no credit--
     who cares?

  Can you imagine that? This is an advertisement from a mortgage 
company saying if you have been bankrupt or have slow or no credit, who 
cares.
  Finally, this is Millennia Mortgage:

       12 months, no mortgage payment. That's right. We will give 
     you the money to make your first 12 payments if you call 
     within the next 2 days. We pay it for you. Our loan program 
     may reduce your current monthly payments by 50 percent and 
     allow you no payments for the first 12 months.

  We saw all these things as they were creating the rot at the bottom 
of this system from which the house of cards collapsed. By the way, all 
this put mortgages out there in the country and the result was those 
mortgages were wrapped into securities and those securities were then 
sold from mortgage companies to hedge funds and investment banks, 
selling the risk north so they didn't have the risk anymore. There is 
no underwriting at the bottom because you don't have to underwrite if 
you sell the risk ahead.
  Then we saw the spectacle of very large commercial banks with their 
financial belly loaded with this rot--CDOs, credit default swaps, you 
name it. There were securities rated AAA that were worthless. Then we 
all stood around scratching our heads wondering: How did this happen? 
It was unbelievable, unprecedented greed. A lot of people at the top 
made massive amounts of money. The guy who ran Countrywide got away 
with about $200 million, I believe. That is now under investigation. A 
lot of them got away with a lot of money. Then this country and the 
American people got stuck with about a $15 trillion bill and an economy 
that has been limping ever since.
  One asks the questions: Is it Fed bashing? Is it antibusiness? Is it 
Fed bashing to say the Fed owes the American people information about 
who got the $2 trillion and what the terms were? Is it antibusiness for 
those of us who are trying to put together rules and regulations that 
say this cannot happen again, we will not allow that?
  I wish to close with one additional quote. This one is from me. It 
was almost 10\1/2\ years ago on the floor of the Senate when we passed 
legislation at the request of all those big financial institutions, the 
investment banks, you name it. They wanted to strip away protections 
that were put into place after the Great Depression, saying it was old-
fashioned; let's compete with the Japanese and Asians and others in 
commercial finance--one-stop financial service centers, create big 
holding companies and put it together, commercial and investment and 
securities, all in one big tub and put up firewalls and we guarantee 
you will never be hurt and we will be able to better compete.
  On the floor of the Senate I said this:

       This bill will, in my judgment, raise the likelihood of 
     future massive taxpayer bailouts. It will fuel the 
     consolidation and mergers in the banking and financial 
     services industry at the expense of customers and others.

  It certainly did that. For those of us who decide: You know what, 
let's begin to put some of these pieces back together, let's begin to 
provide some protection for this country's economy, let's get rid of 
this orgy of speculation, that unbelievable greed, this bubble of 
incompetence of people who were supposed to be regulating but didn't--
yes, that includes the Federal Reserve Board. Let's do this right and 
put it back together. That is not antibusiness; that is probusiness. 
The businesspeople in this country who go to work in the morning and 
put a key in the door and open are going to work all day, risking 
everything they have. They want an economy that is working, not in 
collapse but one that is providing opportunity. That certainly cannot 
happen, and it doesn't happen, when you allow this kind of unbelievable 
speculation and the rancid behavior and the things that happened at the 
bottom with the predatory lending and exotic things such as CDOs and 
credit default swaps, so complicated that those on both ends of them, 
in many cases, didn't understand them. Will Rogers once described, a 
long time ago, people who bought things they will never get from people 
who never had them and both smiled because both made money.
  That is the sort of thing that was going on in this country, and that 
does not work. The real economic health and the real wealth of this 
country is what we produce, not trading paper and especially not 
trading paper as a matter of speculation to try to build the bubbles we 
saw in the last decade or so.
  We have a lot to do to fix what is wrong. I say to those who wrote 
the Washington Post editorial, the smallest amount of effort could have 
avoided that mistake in terms of the six speeches I have given on the 
floor of the Senate on this subject. This is not a revelation since the 
Massachusetts election. I have been coming to the Senate floor for a 
long time to talk about these problems.
  Let me finally say, I think as we move from here to the issue of 
financial reform, aside from the Bernanke nomination, the question is: 
Are we going to do that right? Are we going to allow the kind of 
pressures that have built on the outside to influence what we do?
  We should certainly know by now that if you are too big to fail in 
the financial industry, then you are too big and we ought to do 
something about it. We ought to know by now that putting together 
commercial banks that are insured by the taxpayers with investment 
banks is a recipe for disaster, and there is a way to separate them. 
That ought to be our business as we turn to financial reform in the 
years ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, let me say to my good friend 
Senator Dorgan, first of all, we all know he has served his State for 
40 years. Many of us will be talking about that service and applauding 
him. It has been a real pleasure to have him chairman of the Senate 
Indian Affairs Committee while I have served on that committee. There 
will be many more things I will say about him and his fine public 
service. I thank him because I think what he has said about the Fed and 
transparency is something that needs to be said. I look forward to 
debating that with him. I thank Senator Dorgan.
  (The remarks of Mr. UDALL of New Mexico pertaining to the submission 
of S. Res. 396 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of 
Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 3302

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg to create a bipartisan budget 
commission to address our Nation's long-term fiscal crisis.
  The Conrad-Gregg amendment would create an 18-member bipartisan 
commission which would be charged with developing a specific plan to 
correct our government's long-term fiscal imbalance. All options would 
be on the table. The commission's legislative recommendations would 
require expedited consideration by the Congress, a supermajority vote 
in both Chambers, and Presidential approval.
  While I would prefer that Members of Congress have the ability to 
offer revenue-neutral amendments to the commission's legislative 
recommendations, it is imperative that we move forward on this 
proposal. For this reason, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
legislation.
  I would note that I have not always thought the creation of an 
independent commission was the right approach. I was hopeful that 
Congress could tackle

[[Page S178]]

the issue of the looming fiscal catastrophe confronting us. But I have 
concluded that the only way we are going to achieve urgent action on 
the very serious fiscal problems we face is through the creation of 
this independent commission.
  The fact is, America's out-of-control debt is a grave threat to our 
future prosperity. Just last month, the Senate voted to increase the 
debt limit to an astonishing $12.4 trillion, and yet here we are again 
today considering another increase in the debt limit--this time by $1.9 
trillion, to $14.3 trillion. Last year, this body approved the 
President's budget which will double our debt in 5 years and triple it 
in 10 years. In other words, we are facing an explosion in the Federal 
debt.
  As bad as that sounds, our Nation's debt problem is actually far 
worse. America has nearly $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for 
programs such as Social Security and Medicare. These unfunded 
liabilities amount to $184,000 per person living in our country, or 
$483,000 per household. By contrast, median household income is just 
over $50,000.
  As David Walker, the former Comptroller General and now president of 
the Peterson Foundation, put it in recent testimony before our Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:

       It doesn't take an economist or a mathematician to realize 
     that this is unsustainable.

  We are talking about debt levels that are unsustainable and threaten 
the very future economy of our country. Our problem, in a nutshell, is 
that government has promised more than our citizens can afford to pay.
  One columnist described this as the collision between the high and 
rising demand for government services and the capacity of the economy 
to produce the tax revenues to meet those demands. Historically, 
Americans have paid about 18 percent of gross domestic product in 
Federal taxes. But with the explosion in entitlement spending tied to 
the retirement of the baby boom generation, plus interest on the 
national debt, Americans would need to pay taxes equal to 34 percent of 
GDP to keep pace with spending 25 years from now. That is right, the 
tax burden would have to soar to 34 percent of our gross domestic 
product.
  I am looking at the young pages who are on the floor right now. It is 
their future we are talking about. They are the ones who are going to 
be faced with this enormous debt.
  Even if it were possible to raise taxes in order to finance this rate 
of spending, that remedy would do tremendous damage to our economy. It 
would crush job creation, devastate our already battered small 
businesses and dash the aspirations and can-do spirit of our people. 
Thus, our decisionmaking must begin by reconsidering spending that, 
although popular, simply cannot be justified during this fiscal crisis. 
It is wishful thinking to hope we can simply grow our way out of this 
problem. Economic growth helps, there is no doubt about that, but it is 
itself endangered by this enormous debt.
  Becoming more efficient and productive helps reduce our long-term 
financial challenges, but economic growth alone will not rescue us from 
the predicament we face. If we fail to stop this approaching tsunami of 
red ink, then the futures of our children and our grandchildren will be 
swamped by our negligence. The American dream as we know it, where each 
succeeding generation can achieve a higher standard of living and 
quality of life than the previous generation, will be over. It will not 
be easy, even with this commission, but we must confront the conflict 
between what we want and what we can afford. It is time to reassess our 
priorities, to make the hard decisions and to set a new fiscally 
responsible course for our country.
  The budget reform commission proposed by Senator Gregg and Senator 
Conrad would begin to move us forward as a nation in facing these 
serious financial challenges. I know it is not easy for many of my 
colleagues to give away some authority to this commission. I remind 
them that the commission's recommendations would still come back to us 
and could not become law without our voting for them and without the 
President deciding to sign the recommendations into law. But I have 
concluded that the only way to jump-start the process, to do what needs 
to be done, to right the fiscal boat, to help us face these challenges, 
to help us move forward as a nation, is to enact the Conrad-Gregg 
amendment. I urge all my colleagues to support their effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I notice other speakers who wish to speak 
are on the floor now. I will make a very short statement here and defer 
to those Senators.
  I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be temporarily set 
aside so I can call up one of my amendments under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3306 To Amendment No. 3299

 (Purpose: To establish a bipartisan task force for responsible fiscal 
action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security 
 of the Federal Government of the United States, and to expand future 
                prosperity and growth for all Americans)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Pursuant to the previous order, I send an amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3306 to amendment No. 3299.

  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will briefly explain my amendment. This 
amendment would achieve all of the same objectives of the Conrad-Gregg 
amendment but with one exception, and this is an important exception. 
In the amendment I just offered, there are no fast-track procedures for 
consideration of the commission's recommendation. Thus, for Senators 
who want to have a commission consider our fiscal situation and report 
back to us, this is your alternative. But this alternative would 
protect the rules of the Senate and the prerogatives of the Senators. I 
urge my colleagues to support this alternative.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.


                   Renomination Of Chairman Bernanke

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes about 
the upcoming confirmation vote on Chairman Bernanke of the Federal 
Reserve Board. I should begin by stating very clearly that there is no 
way to overestimate the severity of the economic downturn that began in 
this country in 2007. To date, our Nation has lost 7.2 million jobs. In 
my home State of New Mexico, unemployment is now 7.8 percent. That is 
more than twice the rate it was 2 years ago. But even at that it is 
considerably lower than the unemployment rate in many States--in fact, 
in a majority of States. American households have lost $12.6 trillion 
in wealth; more than 5 million American families have seen their homes 
foreclosed, many have lost their businesses, and many have lost their 
farms. In short, there are millions of families across our country who 
are and have been experiencing severe economic pain and dislocation. 
While indicators suggest the recession has officially ended, our 
economy is hardly out of the woods.
  In the face of such pain, it is tempting to grasp for ways to 
demonstrate disapproval of the economic downturn or to put distance 
between ourselves as elected officials and the policies involved with 
the economic downturn. It is tempting, particularly in this political 
climate, to want to seize on a particular individual to take the brunt 
of the criticism.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues not to use Federal Reserve 
Chairman Ben Bernanke's renomination for any such exercise. I rise to 
offer my strong support for his reconfirmation. With the benefit of 
hindsight, it now seems the Fed might have done more to prevent the 
economic downturn. Some have pointed to financial institution bailouts 
and have argued that the Fed should not have provided financial support 
or guarantees to vulnerable financial institutions. Some have argued 
that the Fed's support should have

[[Page S179]]

been structured differently. Historians, with 20/20 hindsight, will be 
able to argue those issues for years to come. But hindsight also tells 
us that without the bold and aggressive actions Chairman Bernanke in 
fact took, the outcome of this economic downturn could have been 
considerably worse. I can imagine no Fed Chairman since the Great 
Depression who has faced such a Herculean task. If ever there were 
praise for averting a disaster, then in my view Chairman Bernanke 
deserves that praise. He deserves praise for working effectively with 
other domestic and foreign agencies to ensure the continuity of our 
global banking system, for taking significant steps to boost banks' 
access to funding, and for establishing targeted lending programs to 
restart the flow of credit in critical markets.
  It is because of this skillfulness and aptitude that Chairman 
Bernanke demonstrated he has had the strong support of President Obama 
for reconfirmation to his position. President Obama said the Chairman's 
``bold, persistent experimentation, has brought our economy back from 
the brink.''
  Similarly, in nominating Chairman Bernanke to his first term, 
President George W. Bush said he was choosing Chairman Bernanke for his 
``reputation for intellectual rigor and integrity'' and the ``deep 
respect he enjoyed in the global financial community.''

  It would be shortsighted for this Congress to second-guess the 
judgment of our current and our former Presidents in this regard. 
President Obama's call for the reappointment of Chairman Bernanke is 
echoed by some of our Nation's most distinguished economic thinkers. 
Former Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker have both said it would 
be irresponsible not to extend Chairman Bernanke's term. Douglas Holtz-
Eakin, who was Senator McCain's chief economic adviser in the 2008 
election campaign, says ``it would be a disaster not to confirm'' 
Bernanke.
  Warren Buffett has said if he could vote for Mr. Bernanke's 
confirmation he would--twice. As Mr. Buffett explained:

       We talked about [the economic downturn] being an economic 
     Pearl Harbor, and he did what should have been done in 
     response to that Pearl Harbor.

  These respected economic thinkers know that emerging from our 
Nation's deepest and most protracted economic downturn since the Great 
Depression will require continuity of policy. Financial conditions 
might now suggest that our economy is in fact turning around, but a 
complete turnaround will require that families and businesses, 
investors and financial markets see consistent policy actions. Central 
to that consistency and that continuity is leadership at the helm of 
the Federal Reserve Board. If we were to change chairmen now, we would 
add considerable uncertainty to our already fragile business and 
financial markets and almost certainly trigger a sell-off of the dollar 
and a sell-off of equities. This could have the unfortunate effect of 
prolonging the economic downturn we are now experiencing.
  Finally, while I rise to support Chairman Bernanke's reconfirmation, 
I also renew my call for policymakers in all positions, ourselves 
included, to make job creation the centerpiece of any economic recovery 
agenda. We in the Congress must also press forward with the urgent task 
of reforming our financial regulatory infrastructure, the cracks and 
holes of which have been exposed by this recession.
  Our Nation faces considerable and urgent challenges. In my view, that 
is why it is essential that Ben Bernanke be confirmed for another term 
as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 3302

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the Conrad-Gregg amendment. I believe the issues this amendment 
is designed to address--our national debt and deficits as far as the 
eye can see--are two of the most important issues Congress and our 
Nation face. Our failure to address these issues will damage our 
economy, our Nation's security, peace in the world, and the kind of 
future we leave to our children and grandchildren.
  The greatness of the issue has resulted in the chairman and ranking 
member of the Senate Budget Committee, Senators Conrad and Gregg, 
coming together and introducing the Bipartisan Task Force for 
Responsible Fiscal Action Act, which is supported by 29 Senators--14 
Democrats and 15 Republicans. I am pleased to say I am one of those 15 
Republicans.
  I think those who followed the recent operations of the Senate will 
appreciate that in this Balkanized Senate, where nothing seems to get 
done on a bipartisan basis, this commission has significant bipartisan 
support. The Conrad-Gregg proposal would create a statutorily based 
commission of 18 members, 16 of them Members of Congress, who would 
study the long-term fiscal imbalance of the Federal Government and 
submit recommendations as a legislative proposal that would receive 
expedited consideration by Congress resulting in an up-or-down vote. 
The commission would consider all options on both sides of the ledger 
and would require the approval of 14 of its 18 members, ensuring a 
bipartisan product.
  I want to emphasize to my Republican colleagues who may be skeptical 
of this bipartisan commission, half of the congressionally appointed 
members will be appointed by the Senate minority leader and the House 
minority leader, which guarantees that the Conrad-Gregg commission will 
protect the concerns of my colleagues.
  For example, large tax increases are unlikely, given the makeup and 
procedures of the commission. And, finally, three-fifths of the Senate 
and three-fifths of the House must vote for passage of the 
recommendations, ensuring strong bipartisan support from both Chambers.
  The bipartisanship is the key to success because this is not a 
Democratic or Republican problem. It affects everyone. I believe this 
special process is the most practical and effective method to deal with 
the looming debt crisis that endangers the economic future of all of 
us.
  A commission to address our Nation's fiscal issues has been 
recommended by outside budget experts from across the political 
spectrum. These experts have declared that the regular process is 
incapable of dealing with long-term fiscal issues. Just ask me. This is 
my 12th year in the Senate. The regular process does not work.
  In February 2009, groups including Brookings, the Urban Institute, 
the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Concord Coalition, AEI, 
Progressive Policy Institute, and the Heritage Foundation issued a 
statement calling for the establishment of a commission to address our 
fiscal issues.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Recently, on PBS's nightly business program, Maya 
MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal 
Budget, who has been working on this problem for a dozen years, made a 
strong statement in support of a commission. I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed her full statement in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks, and I would highlight that in her statement Ms. MacGuineas 
notes her early opposition to such a commission, but she has changed 
her mind based on the urgency of our Nation's fiscal situation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. VOINOVICH. David Walker, President and CEO of the Peter G. 
Peterson Foundation, former Comptroller General of the United States, 
has long advocated a special process to get our Nation's fiscal house 
in order. Mr. Walker has testified:

       Clearly escalating Federal deficits and debt levels, 
     combined with our growing dependency on foreign lenders and 
     the deepening Federal financial hole, represents challenges 
     that must be addressed. A commission could make 
     recommendations in connection with needed statutory budget 
     control, social insurance program reforms, tax reform, 
     additional health care reforms, and other appropriate areas.
       Importantly--

  This is the most important thing--

     everything must be on the table with the commission to be 
     credible and to have a real chance of success.


[[Page S180]]


  Recently, Mr. Walker released a book entitled ``Comeback America: 
Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility.'' In 
his book, Mr. Walker explains the nature of the crisis and why we must 
act now. Rather than describe all of the frightening statistics myself, 
and many people have heard those statistics, I would recommend this 
book to my colleagues if they have any doubts about the seriousness of 
this fiscal crisis facing our Nation.
  Of course, throughout the debate on their amendment, Senators--and I 
heard them earlier today--Conrad and Gregg have described the dire 
fiscal future our Nation faces without action. We just heard another 
presentation from my distinguished colleague from the State of Maine. I 
have, in my prior floor speeches on this topic, which probably are 
dozens, described the significance of this fiscal crisis our Nation 
faces. For any of my colleagues or members of the public, you can 
access these speeches on my Web site.
  I would note that the American people agree. This is important. The 
American people agree with Senators Conrad and Gregg. In fact, the 
latest bipartisan public opinion poll commissioned by the Peter G. 
Peterson Foundation this past November indicates that 80 percent--80 
percent--of American voters are concerned about escalating debt and 
deficits.
  Voter concern about debt and deficits exceeded concern about health 
care access and affordability by 24 percent--by 24 percent--and 70 
percent of Americans believe the regular order in Washington is broken. 
They think the regular order is broken, and it is time for a fiscal 
reform commission to become a reality.
  I was pleased last year that the distinguished minority leader, the 
senior Senator from Kentucky, spoke eloquently about the merits of the 
bipartisan Conrad-Gregg Commission. In a July statement on the Senate 
floor, Senator McConnell said:

       This means that in order to face our problem head on, we 
     will have to address the problem of entitlement spending. And 
     the only serious option on the table is the Conrad-Gregg 
     proposal which would provide a clear pathway for fixing these 
     long-term challenges by forcing us to get debt and spending 
     under control.

  He goes on to say:

       I have had a number of good conversations about this 
     proposal with the President. Based on those conversations, I 
     am hopeful it will be given serious attention. For the safety 
     and security of our Nation, the Conrad-Gregg proposal 
     deserves broad bipartisan support.

  That was the minority leader of the Senate. Senator Reid has been 
silent on his support, but based on conversations I have had with him, 
I believe he also appreciates the dire financial situation our Nation 
faces. Still I want to say that I have been disappointed there has not 
been more of a recent effort by leaders of both parties embracing the 
Conrad-Gregg Commission, which is one of the most bipartisan pieces of 
legislation we have seen in the Senate during this Congress--in fact, I 
believe the most bipartisan legislation that has come before this 
session of Congress.
  My question to Senators Reid and McConnell is, If you are not in 
favor of the Conrad-Gregg Commission, what bipartisan proposal are you 
for? In other words, if you do not like the commission, then what 
bipartisan proposal are you for?
  I was also disappointed that the President initially threw in the 
towel on the Conrad-Gregg Commission on the grounds that he understood 
the votes to pass this proposal were not there. Instead the President 
proposed issuing an Executive order establishing a debt commission. An 
Executive order commission, I believe, will be looked upon by many on 
my side of the aisle as nothing more than an exercise in political 
messaging. But I say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle: If you 
are not for the Conrad-Gregg proposal, what are you for? What are you 
for?
  Thus, I am grateful that this Saturday the President has changed his 
position and stated:

       The only way to solve our long-term fiscal challenge is to 
     solve it together, Democrats and Republicans. That's why I 
     strongly support legislation under consideration to create a 
     bipartisan fiscal commission to come up with a set of 
     solutions to tackle our nation's fiscal challenges, and call 
     on Senators from both parties to vote for the creation of a 
     statutory, bipartisan fiscal commission.

  The President of the United States made it clear. He wants this 
bipartisan statutory commission to pass the Senate. The beauty of 
creating the commission through legislation is it would force Congress 
to deal with the Nation's looming fiscal catastrophe, rewarding the 
work of the commission's members by ensuring that if their proposal 
gets 14 out of 18 votes, the bill will not be placed on a shelf to 
gather dust.
  I can tell you, as I watched this Senate during the last 11 years, if 
someone would ask me to sit on a commission and spend the time I would 
have to spend to deal with the problems that would be confronting the 
commission, I would want a guarantee. I would want a guarantee that if 
the majority, 14 out of 18 members were for it, it would get expedited 
procedure; that I would get a vote, up or down, on that labor of work 
in which I had participated.
  I think the President understands if we are going to respond to the 
fiscal crisis facing our Nation, it has to be bipartisan. I am 
prayerful he will use his political capital with Senator Reid and 
Senator McConnell to secure the 60 votes needed for this landmark 
legislation and then urge our House colleagues to do the same.
  Some of my colleagues have other proposals. Many of them are worthy 
of consideration. However, none of these proposals is bipartisan. In 
the end, such proposals might result in great messaging. Boy, we do a 
lot of messaging around here. For some it would provide a way to cover 
their behinds or, more tactfully, to provide a fig leaf to cover their 
unwillingness to support something that is bipartisan and ultimately 
good for the country. Moreover, of course, these folks would save 
themselves from heartburn, heartburn that they might suffer when 
special interests complain, and perhaps give ammunition to someone who 
might be running against them in a Republican or Democratic primary for 
the Senate.
  Since the possible passage of this commission has become a reality, 
it is interesting how this starts to work. Special interest groups on 
both sides of the aisle have assailed it as terrible. The taxpayer 
organizations on the right warn that the commission will increase 
taxes. The liberal groups on the left warn it will result in cuts to 
Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs.
  You know something. If the left and the right are so unhappy with 
this, this has to be good legislation. Others, frankly, want to use the 
debt limit issue to embarrass our friends on the other side of the 
aisle because of the large increases we have approved, particularly as 
a result of the recession and the collapse of our financial markets. 
Other members continue to blame President Bush and earlier Congresses.
  The truth is, none of us, Republicans or Democrats, has clean hands. 
Since 2002 there have been nine votes, nine votes to increase the debt 
limit. They have occurred both under Democrats and Republicans when 
they controlled Congress. In that time, our debt has gone from $6.4 
trillion to roughly $12.4 trillion. All of us, all of us have done it.
  The American people know the chickens have come home to roost, and we 
better understand that. That is what I hear when I go back to Ohio. If 
one thing came out of Massachusetts, the people are tired of the--to 
put it in the vernacular--BS coming out of Congress. Congress's numbers 
continue to be among the worst they have ever been because the folks 
back home think we are more interested in protecting our political hide 
and who is going to control the next Congress than working in a 
bipartisan way to solve our Nation's problems.
  They know when their elected representatives are scrapping, their 
interests are scraps falling off the table. They also know, as I know, 
that even when we work together, it is often difficult to get things 
done because many of us have sincere differences of opinion. I learned 
both of those lessons as mayor of the city of Cleveland and Governor of 
Ohio.
  The eyes of the American people are focused on what we are doing. The 
American people will be watching to see if we got the wake-up call from 
Massachusetts. They are telling us they are mad as hell with business 
as usual and they are not going to take it anymore. The American people 
want us

[[Page S181]]

to work together. They do. They want us to work together. They do not 
want messaging and back-room deals that favor one group or another.
  Americans always hear from politicians about how they will work for 
bipartisan solutions to America's problems that will strengthen our 
future. How many times have they heard that on the floor of this 
Senate? Well, here is the opportunity for Members of the Senate, the 
House, and President Obama to show when they make such statements they 
are serious.
  I came here in 1999, and one of the major reasons I came here was to 
deal with paying down our Nation's debt and balance budgets. I can 
remember back in 2000, I was the only Republican that voted against the 
Republican legislation to reduce taxes because I said that money should 
be used to pay down debt.
  I am leaving the Senate at the end of this year, as is the Presiding 
Officer. I have three children and seven grandchildren. The wife of my 
youngest son Peter is expecting their first child. I have always 
believed it is my responsibility to try to leave this world and 
particularly our Nation in better shape than how I found it. It was 
something that was ingrained in my first-generation parents: George, 
you have a responsibility to leave this country a better place than 
that which you found. I am running out of time to do something. So is 
the country. On too many occasions, Congress has been unwilling to 
experience short-term pain to achieve long-term gain. We have been 
unwilling do without or pay for things that many folks have wanted us 
to do.
  Our Nation has put the financial costs of the two wars on the credit 
card, even while the soldiers and their families continue to bear the 
human cost of these wars. To me, this lack of effective action is 
absolutely immoral. It is absolutely immoral. I recently talked with my 
oldest son George, the father of four beautiful girls, who genuinely 
feels there will be no Social Security for him, that Medicare may not 
be there either. He understands the global competition facing his 
generation and his daughters' generation is greater than at any other 
time in our Nation's history, that global competition is greater than 
at any other time in this Nation's history. The burden we have created 
because of our fiscal irresponsibility brings into question whether his 
children will enjoy the same opportunity for a standard of living that 
we have had.
  I said in the beginning of my speech, I believe the issues this 
amendment is designed to address, our national debt and deficits as far 
as the eye can see, are two of the most important issues Congress and 
our Nation face. Our failure to address these issues will damage our 
economy, our Nation's security, peace in the world, and the kind of 
future we leave to our children and grandchildren.
  The future of our Nation is in our hands. The future of our Nation is 
in the hands of these 100 Senators. I pray the Holy Spirit will come 
down and inspire us to make the right decision. My two mottos have been 
over the years: ``Together we can do it'' and, Ohio's motto, ``With God 
all things are possible.'' Working together on a bipartisan basis and 
with God's help, I am positive we can solve our problems, meet our 
challenges, and take advantage of the opportunities before us.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

             Statement on the Fiscal Responsibility Summit

                                                February 19, 2009.
       President Obama's intention to convene a fiscal 
     responsibility summit is a very welcome development. It 
     offers a valuable opportunity to focus public attention on 
     our nation's unsustainable budget outlook and to highlight 
     various approaches to meaningful action.
       As a group of budget analysts and former senior budget 
     officials, we view this summit as the first step to 
     addressing the enormous long-term fiscal problem facing the 
     United States. Without decisive action this problem will lead 
     to serious harm to our economy and a huge financial burden on 
     our children and grandchildren.
       Tackling these problems will require a degree of sacrifice 
     impossible under the existing policy process, which 
     discourages bipartisan compromise and encourages 
     procrastination and obstructionism. Unless those procedures 
     are modified, and the American people are engaged in the 
     process, future legislative attempts to address the looming 
     fiscal crisis will almost certainly fail.
       In our view, the American people are ready to confront the 
     challenge. For the last three years several of us have 
     traveled around the country as a group, discussing these 
     issues with thousands of Americans in dozens of cities, in a 
     bipartisan effort known as the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour. We have 
     found that when Americans are given the facts and options in 
     a neutral and bipartisan way, they want action and are 
     willing to make difficult trade-offs.
       We therefore urge the President to lead a major public 
     engagement effort--beyond a one-day summit--to inform 
     Americans of the scale and nature of the long-term fiscal 
     crisis, explain the consequences of inaction and discuss the 
     options for solving the problem. This should be bipartisan, 
     and involve a serious conversation with Americans to help 
     guide action in Washington. As a group with some experience 
     in this domain, we stand ready to assist if needed.
       We also believe that for this policy commitment to produce 
     tangible results, the President and others who share the goal 
     of fiscal responsibility must address the fact that the 
     regular political process has been incapable of dealing with 
     long-term fiscal issues. We see no alternative but to create 
     an independent and truly bipartisan commission or other 
     mechanism capable of bringing about decisive action that has 
     broad public support. We therefore urge the President to 
     support such a commission. For this commission or some other 
     mechanism to break through the legislative logjam it will 
     need four key elements:
       It must be truly bipartisan and develop solutions that 
     command wide support.
       It must have a broad mandate to address all aspects of the 
     fiscal problem while fostering strong economic growth.
       There must be no preconditions to the deliberations. All 
     options must be on the table for discussion. Nobody should be 
     required to agree in advance to any option.
       Recommendations must go before Congress for an up-or-down 
     vote with few if any amendments. Such a game-changing process 
     is not without precedents; controversial military base 
     closings or the ratification of international trade 
     agreements, for example, have long been governed by special 
     rules along these lines, not by business as usual.
       We are deeply worried about the long-term fiscal imbalance 
     and the dangers it carries for the economy and for our 
     children and grandchildren. We know the President is 
     concerned as well, as are many Members of Congress in both 
     political parties. We are ready to help in building public 
     understanding of the problem and the options, and in crafting 
     an approach that will enable the legislative process to deal 
     with the problem.
       This statement is offered by members of the Brookings-
     Heritage Fiscal Seminar. The views expressed are those of the 
     individuals involved and should not be interpreted as 
     representing the views of their respective institutions. For 
     purposes of identification, the affiliation of each signatory 
     is listed.
       Signatories:
         Joe Antos, American Enterprise Institute; Robert Bixby, 
           Concord Coalition; Stuart Butler, Heritage Foundation; 
           Alison Fraser, Heritage Foundation; William Galston, 
           Brookings Institution; Ron Haskins, Brookings 
           Institution; Julia Isaacs, Brookings Institution; Will 
           Marshall, Progressive Policy Institute; Pietro Nivola, 
           Brookings Institution; Rudolph Penner, Urban Institute; 
           Robert Reischauer, Urban Institute; Alice M. Rivlin, 
           Brookings Institution; Isabel Sawhill, Brookings 
           Institution; C. Eugene Steuerle, Peter G. Peterson 
           Foundation.

                               Exhibit 2

              [PBS Nightly Business Report, Jan. 12, 2010]

                   ``Commentary''--Budget Commission

       SUSIE GHARIB: Tonight's commentator says with a budget deep 
     in red ink and a Congress that hasn't cut spending, she's 
     taking a fresh look at things. She's Maya MacGuineas, 
     president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
       MAYA MACGUINEAS, PRES., COMMITTEE FOR A RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL 
     BUDGET: For years there has been a push to create a budget 
     commission and even though many of my fellow fiscal worry 
     warts liked the idea, I just didn't. I couldn't avoid the 
     nagging feeling that coming up with a workable plan to fund 
     our national priorities is supposed to be the core work of 
     Congress and that Congress should just do its job. Well 
     enough time has gone by without that job getting done and the 
     recent deterioration in the country's fiscal health has 
     caused me to change my tune and so I say bring on the 
     commission. We no longer have the luxury of time. For every 
     year we wait, we dig the deficit hole billions of dollars 
     deeper. Recently a heated fight over creating a commission 
     has broken out with those who oppose it on the left arguing 
     it is a secret, well-funded plot to cut entitlements and 
     those on the right arguing it is a devious strategy to raise 
     taxes. Well, yeah, we are going to have to do both. Creating 
     a commission won't make those policy choices much easier, but 
     at least it will lend an important layer of political cover. 
     I will say that the need to create a commission is a poor 
     reflection on politicians more generally. So as a reluctant 
     budget commission supporter and an avid congressional reform 
     supporter, I'd suggest that once a budget commission comes up 
     with a plan, Congress turn the mirror on itself and ask what 
     it is doing there if it can't perform

[[Page S182]]

     its most basic job. Perhaps the next commission policymakers 
     create should be one to reform Congress. I'm Maya MacGuineas.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes to speak on the 
judicial nomination coming before us at 6 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Murray are printed in today's Record under 
``Executive Session.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Unfunded Mandates

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a serious 
problem with the way Washington has done business for years. The 
problem is passing unfunded Federal mandates on to the States that 
throw State budgets into disarray. Everyone in Congress has to decide 
how to best look out for their State. A little over a month ago, I 
decided to look out for all their States and mine too. But the efforts 
I made to protect my State and all other States should not be the 
issue. The issue should be, why wasn't everyone taking steps to protect 
their States and why weren't the critics reacting to the real issue 
rather than coining names to describe this effort to protect State 
budgets from the effects of yet another unfunded Federal mandate?
  The reason is, all along they wanted to derail health reform. 
Misrepresenting this issue would help that goal. So it was too easy, 
too convenient to come up with a catchy name and to impugn motives. It 
was too easy, too convenient to ignore the problem facing Nebraska and 
every other State--another mandate without money.
  Unfunded Federal mandates are not just bad for Nebraska; they are bad 
for all States, from sea to shining sea. They are a fiscal injustice 
that I fought for two decades during my tenure as a Senator and through 
two terms as Governor. They are a burden on the States that I will keep 
fighting to eliminate as long as they continue.
  Unfunded Federal mandates are pretty simple, but they appear in many 
unexpected and unwanted ways. They are orders that arrive from 
Washington on State Capitol doorsteps with too little or no money to 
carry them out. Unfunded Federal mandates force States all across the 
country into no-win choices: cut spending on State priorities or raise 
revenue with tax hikes. They are a fiscal injustice States have no 
option to avoid. Unfunded Federal mandates are both bad Federal policy 
and bad fiscal policy.
  As a Senator, I have said I will put Nebraska first, Nebraska always 
but not Nebraska only. That remains the case with questions about how 
the Senate health care bill dealt with an underfunded mandate for 
expanding Medicaid. First, my goal has always been to draw attention to 
and fix, with one approach or another, any unfunded Federal mandate 
that would be passed on to every State through the Senate's health care 
bill. The bill sought to expand Medicaid to provide health insurance to 
millions of Americans who do not have it today. The Federal Government 
would pay 100 percent of the cost for the first 3 years through 2016. 
In 2017 and thereafter, States would have to pick up a portion of the 
cost. In other words, they would pay for a new unfunded Federal 
mandate.
  I sought an opt-in or opt-out for all States to ease the Federal 
unfunded mandate. But because there was no Congressional Budget Office 
analysis for that approach, a provision was placed into the bill for 
Nebraska. It is not something I sought. It is something I accepted to 
launch the larger battle against the unfunded mandate affecting all 
States. I have taken criticism over this issue. If I have received it 
because I drew attention to unfunded Federal mandates, fine. But the 
larger question is: How do we in Congress eliminate this practice of 
passing these mandates on to the States? Rather than criticize me, 
others should join in fighting the war to stop all these burdens on the 
States. It is an effort I welcome the Governors to join in, too, for 
they have a direct interest in the success of this battle.
  The Nebraska provision was a victory in the battle against unfunded 
mandates necessary to win the war. What otherwise had gone completely 
unaddressed is now part of the debate, not only in the Nation's Capital 
but in State capitals across America.
  We only have to look back a few years to see what trouble unfunded 
mandates cause for States. When Congress passed the No Child Left 
Behind Act, it was hailed as a landmark that would improve education 
nationwide. It established new standards to measure educational 
achievement in our schools and required States to develop assessments 
in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades. States 
had to make sure that happened for their schools to receive Federal 
aid. But the law provided far too little money to meet its 
requirements. This was a fact acknowledged by its chief sponsor, the 
late Senator Kennedy.
  He said:

       The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally 
     in place, but the funds are not.

  Was that ever a true statement. States have paid and paid and are 
still paying for that whopper of an unfunded mandate. In fact, No Child 
Left Behind, which I opposed largely because of its being an unfunded 
Federal mandate, has cost my State of Nebraska at least $382.7 million. 
Nationwide, it has cost all States a total of $70.9 billion from 2002 
through 2008, according to U.S. Department of Education data. Those 
costs have kept piling up ever since, and that is not right.

  I fought another unfunded Federal mandate in the 2003 major tax cut 
bill. At the time, cutting Federal taxes would also have forced cuts in 
State taxes. That, in turn, would have blown holes in State budgets. So 
I teamed up on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues, Senator Collins 
from Maine and Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia, to help the 
States. We won a provision that provided $20 billion in Federal funding 
to the States to make up for the lost money they needed to pay their 
ongoing Medicaid costs.
  Today, here we are again hearing from financially strapped States 
across the country asking for additional Federal money to pay for other 
previous unfunded Medicaid mandates. I do not blame them for asking. 
The government tells them they have to pay a share of certain social 
services and medical expenses, and in tough economic times such as 
these they just do not have the money. Unfortunately, neither does 
Washington. Then, while States are currently seeking aid from Congress, 
we are busy creating this new unfunded mandate set to hit States 
beginning in 2017. When would that one be addressed? In 2018, 2019, 
sometime later? Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right 
hand is doing.
  I have been asking: Why not deal with that now in this health care 
reform legislation and change the paradigm from unfunded mandates and 
do it in a different way? Just last week, we learned how big this 
unfunded mandate would be. The Congressional Budget Office estimated 
that covering the Medicaid expansion costs for all States would cost 
the Federal Government $35 billion. That means Congress was about to 
pass a $35 billion unfunded Federal mandate on to the States--until I 
got wind of it. Let me say that again. Congress was about to send a $35 
billion bill to the States, until I blew the whistle.
  We need to stop this madness of passing these fiscal timebombs on to 
the States. I would hope my colleagues, on a bipartisan and a bicameral 
basis, would work with me to make sure Congress stops passing unfunded 
mandates of any kind on to the States and that the Governors would join 
in also. They certainly do not like Washington telling them how to 
spend State money.
  I hope people put aside the spin, the partisan talking points, and 
misrepresentation they have heard on this issue, including the media. I 
hope people stop citing the inaccurate interpretation of it as an 
excuse to avoid working for health care reform that provides coverage 
to millions of Americans who today do not have insurance and lower 
costs to all other Americans who pay ever-rising costs for health care. 
I hope we can also stop the practice of Washington burdening the

[[Page S183]]

States with unfunded Federal mandates which are truly bad for every 
single State--not just mine but every State--from sea to shining sea.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________