[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4501-S4503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           DAUNTING CHALLENGE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been participating in the White 
House meetings with President Obama and the leaders of the House and 
Senate from both Democratic and Republican Parties for the last several 
days discussing the deadline we face of August 2, where we are required 
to extend the debt ceiling of the United States and the larger question 
about what we will do with our Nation's deficit and debt. It is a 
daunting challenge but one with a sense of immediacy. Most people 
across America would just react intuitively and say: Please, no more 
debt. They wonder why we want to extend the debt ceiling. It is a part 
of our government and part of our economy that needs at least a little 
bit of explanation.
  Imagine that you have decided to purchase a home and you have a 
mortgage. To stay in your home and enjoy it, you have to make your 
monthly mortgage payment. When the time comes, if you do not make your 
monthly mortgage payment, you run the risk of being pushed out of your 
home, evicted, foreclosed. That is what we face on August 2, in a 
different form. If we fail to extend the debt ceiling, we are, in fact, 
missing our mortgage payment, and it creates problems. The credit 
rating of the United States of America will suffer as the credit rating 
of any family would suffer if they did not make a mortgage payment. The 
likelihood that the United States could borrow more money soon without 
higher interest rates is diminished. In fact, we would face higher 
interest rates--our government would--if we did not extend our debt 
ceiling. That is not the only problem. Higher interest rates for our 
government mean more taxes have to be paid by our citizens to finance 
our debt, and interest rates across America will go up as well. So 
average citizens and families who had nothing to say with this 
extension of the debt ceiling are going to face higher interest rates 
when it comes to purchases that they might make for cars and homes and 
appliances. It would be the height of irresponsibility not to extend 
the debt ceiling.
  Since 1939, I was told this morning, we have consistently, time after 
time, extended the debt ceiling of America without fail. We have never 
defaulted. We have never called into question the full faith and credit 
of the United States. We have never jeopardized our credit rating in 
the world by failing to meet this responsibility, and we cannot do it 
now. With an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent, with an economy still 
recovering very slowly, we cannot run the risk of creating more 
unemployment and hurting businesses with higher interest rates, and so 
we have to do it.
  At the same time, though, we are embarking on an important, strategic 
national discussion about our deficit and debt. I don't know whether I 
am fortunate or unfortunate. For the past year and a half I have been 
engaged in this conversation in a much more focused way than at any 
time in my career. I was appointed to be a member of President Obama's 
deficit commission. There are 18 of us, and I have stayed on to work 
with 5 of my colleagues, 2 Democratic Senators and 3 Republican 
Senators, to see if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to deal 
with a very difficult problem.
  Let me give a few facts and a little history that puts it in 
perspective. Today, for every dollar our government spends in America, 
we borrow 40 cents. I just left the meeting of the Chinese-American 
Interparliamentary Union where members of the Chinese Parliament are 
just a few steps away. China is our No. 1 creditor in the world. China 
loans more money to the United States, buys more of our debt, than any 
other Nation. That is worrisome because China, though it is our largest 
creditor, is also our largest competitor.
  Go to your local Big Box store and flip the product over and see 
where the product is made. Time and time again they are made in China. 
So this country that is financing our debt is also competing with 
American producers and workers. It is not a healthy situation. The more 
dependent we are on these countries to finance our debt, the weaker our 
economy. So reducing the amount of money we borrow is in our economic 
best interest, and it lessens the chance that our children and 
grandchildren will have to pay off the debts we incur.
  What is the status of the debt in America? It is about $14.5 
trillion, but it has not been at that level before, and it has not been 
at that level for a long time. It is likely to go up. Just to give a 
perspective on it, 10 years ago--just 10 years ago--the national debt 
of America was $5 trillion. Now it is $14.5 trillion. Mr. President, $5 
trillion. It was the end of the Clinton Presidency, and as President 
Clinton left office we had 3 straight years of Federal budget surplus. 
We were bringing in more revenue than we were spending. It was healthy 
because the excess we collected we put into programs such as Social 
Security to make sure they would be there for years and years to come. 
President Clinton, as he left office with a $5 trillion national debt, 
which was the debt accumulated across the history of America, and 
surpluses coming in each year, said to the incoming President, George 
W. Bush: Next year's budget is going to generate another surplus, $120 
billion. Welcome to Washington.
  President Bush became President, and now fast-forward 8 years later. 
What happened? The $5 trillion national debt during the Bush 
administration grew to almost $11 trillion. It more than doubled in an 
8-year period of time. Instead of leaving President Obama a surplus, 
President Bush said: Next year's budget is going to have a $1.2 
trillion deficit. Mr. President, a $1.2 trillion deficit. So the 
President

[[Page S4502]]

faced the largest single annual deficit as he came to office, President 
Obama, and a national debt that had more than doubled in the previous 8 
years. How does one double the national debt of America in 8 years?
  From George Washington until the end of President Clinton, the net 
national debt of America was $5 trillion. How did it more than double 
in 8 years? Here is how: You wage two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
you don't pay for them. You add them to the national debt. Then you do 
something that no President has ever done in the history of the United 
States, in the middle of a war, with annual deficits: you cut taxes. It 
is counterintuitive. You are taking revenue away from the government 
when it needs it to pay for a war and to continue the functions of 
government. So there were unpaid-for wars and tax cuts primarily for 
the wealthy people in America, followed by programs that were not paid 
for. Put those three together and build into it an economic theory that 
if we just keep cutting taxes on high-income individuals, America will 
get well. The theory fails, and the debt of America doubles in 8 years. 
That is what happened. It is a fact. It went to $10.5 trillion from $5 
trillion in just 8 years, and we know what we have gone through since. 
People are out of work, folks are struggling to get by, and businesses 
are struggling. That is a reality of where we are.
  So when we come together to talk about dealing with this debt, it is 
a painful topic, and it affects every single American. Here is what we 
found on the Bowles-Simpson Commission: Any serious conversation about 
reducing America's debt requires cutting spending and raising revenue. 
If we do not do those two things, it will not work. What do we cut? 
Well, almost everything. We take a look across the board at all Federal 
spending, whether it is discretionary spending for domestic purposes or 
for defense purposes. We take a look at the entitlement programs, 
programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, agriculture, and we see 
where we can save money there. And we look at revenue. Where can we 
come up with revenue that will not hurt the economic recovery but will 
help us bring our debt under control? The deficit commission came to 
that conclusion, other Senators have come to that conclusion, and now 
we are debating it again with the President on a daily basis in the 
White House.
  This morning my colleagues from the Republican side of the aisle came 
with their solution--at least one of their solutions. It is not a new 
idea. In fact, it is an idea that has been around a long time. It is 
called a balanced budget constitutional amendment. We first saw the 
move for a balanced budget constitutional amendment in modern times 
during President Reagan's Presidency. It was interesting.
  President Reagan increased the debt limit of the United States more 
than any other President. He ran up the highest deficits of any 
President in history before him and had this push on to amend the 
Constitution. It is ironic that at the same time members of his party 
were spending the money and plunging us in debt, they said the answer 
was to change the Constitution--not change their conduct, not change 
the way they managed the government, but change the Constitution. It is 
like saying: I will not tell you I am going to stop stealing, but I 
will tell you I will vote for the Ten Commandments. It doesn't work.
  We have it within our power, as Members of the Senate and the House, 
to change the way we spend money in Washington. To say we are going to 
wait for a constitutional amendment to get it done is to submit it to 
the States and let them see if three-fourths of the States agree we 
should amend the Constitution. How long does that take to amend the 
Constitution? The last amendment to the Constitution took 203 years 
before all the States--three-fourths of them--got around to ratifying 
it. Some of them take much shorter periods of time, but there is no 
guarantee when the States will get around to doing this if they agree 
with amending the Constitution.
  So I ask my friends on the Republican side of the aisle: Instead of 
focussing on the Constitution, why don't you focus on the here and now, 
the authority we have as elected Senators and Members of the House to 
do something, not to give speeches and preach about changing our 
Constitution.
  I have to tell you, when it comes to this Constitution, I don't 
address it with fear but with humility. This is a document which is 
revered not only in the United States but around the world. To say 
that, well, we are just going to change the Constitution to deal with 
today's problems, I am skeptical and I am reluctant and I am humbled by 
the fact that those words have created the greatest, strongest 
democracy on Earth.
  Before we start changing the words of that Constitution, I always 
say: Is there another way to do it? The answer is, yes; clearly there 
is. Instead of speeches on the floor of the Senate about constitutional 
amendments, why don't we have speeches on the floor talking about the 
bipartisan deficit commission and what we can do about our debt? Why 
don't we honestly come together and say everything has to be on the 
table--everything? All spending programs, all entitlement programs, all 
taxes have to be on the table, and let's take an honest look at how we 
can address them and make this economy strong and moving forward. That 
is what we face.
  We have had a bad track record from some Members on the other side of 
the aisle who give speeches about constitutional amendments but don't 
stick around for the hard choices. We had a chance to put a bill 
together into a law that would have made a vote of Congress mandatory 
on bringing the budget deficit down dramatically. Seven Republican 
Senators who were cosponsors of that bill when it came to the floor 
voted against it and defeated it. They walked away from it. We have had 
conversations here where Senators have come together and tried to work 
out our differences on deficits and come up with a plan. In one group I 
have been part of, one of the Republican Senators walked away from it, 
and it basically was put on hold because of that.

  Vice President Biden was given the authority to sit down in a 
bipartisan conversation and come up with an approach to the deficit and 
the Republican House majority leader walked away and said, I am not 
going to participate. This last week, President Obama was working 
directly with the Republican House Speaker, trying to come up with a 
plan over the weekend and the House Speaker said, I am walking away 
from it.
  So the Republican Party has become the ``walk away, Renee'' party 
when it comes to this deficit. We have to keep them in the room. They 
have to stop theorizing about constitutional amendments down the road 
months and years from now and deal with the here and now. The reality 
is we need to extend our debt limit, we need to deal with our deficit 
in an honest way, and we need to put everything--underline everything--
on the table. That is painful on our side of the aisle when it comes to 
entitlement programs and it is painful on their side of the aisle when 
it comes to taxing those in higher income categories. But until we 
reach that point, this conversation is going to continue to lead to 
more debt, more money being borrowed from China, and an economy that is 
not going to get back on its feet.
  I think we can do this in a responsible fashion. I hope we can have a 
bipartisan approach to it. It is the only way it will work. With a 
Republican House and a Democratic Senate, we need a bipartisan 
approach. We will be returning this afternoon with the President to 
deal with this, to work on approaches to it, and I hope we can get 
something done in a positive fashion.
  This morning Senator McConnell said some interesting things I wish to 
address. Senator McConnell is the Senate Republican leader. He implied 
that this debate should be fairly easy. I wish he were right. He said 
the Republicans have been the party that has brought an open mind to 
these discussions. Well, I don't think that is a fact that can be 
proven based on what I said earlier.
  He said:

       The suggestion has been made that this debate was hinged on 
     the question of whether or not the two parties could find a 
     solution to our economic problems without raising taxes. 
     Wrong. We could have done that without breaking a sweat.

  He added:

       It's no secret how to solve the entitlement crisis either. 
     Any one of the people involved

[[Page S4503]]

     in these discussions could write it out on the back of an 
     envelope.

  Perhaps that is part of the challenge here. I know the Republican 
approach to Medicare is much different than the Democratic approach. 
The House Republican budget would have dramatically changed Medicare as 
we know it. It would have doubled the out-of-pocket expenditures of 
senior citizens. It would have put the Medicare Program in the hands of 
private health insurance companies. Unfortunately, it would have put 
many seniors in their sixties, seventies, and eighties at the tender 
mercies of health insurance adjusters. That is not a good approach to 
health care for our seniors.
  The challenges we face are not easy, they are not cosmetic, and they 
can't be solved by letting the market--meaning insurance companies--run 
Medicare.
  In these negotiations, I believe many Democrats, myself included, are 
willing to sit down and talk about reductions in government spending. 
Even though I believe in my heart of hearts our economy needs a 
stimulus at this point and reducing spending may be exactly the wrong 
thing to do, I am still prepared to sit at the table and find a 
consensus if we can when it comes to spending cuts.
  But we shouldn't make this economic challenge be subject to 
dramatically changing the benefits under Social Security and Medicare 
and Medicaid. These programs are critical for families across America. 
Some of them have watched their savings disappear, their pension plans 
evaporate in a bankruptcy court, and they count on Social Security. We 
have to be there to make sure Social Security will be there for them.
  Senator McConnell also wants the Senate and the American people to 
think Republicans are negotiating in good faith and the Democrats are 
not. He said:

       We showed a willingness to sacrifice all along even as we 
     made it crystal clear from the outset that tax increases 
     would not be a part of the agreement.

  So I have to ask Senator McConnell: What is it the Republicans are 
willing to sacrifice in this debate? He went on to say:

       There can be no question by anyone involved in these 
     discussions that Republicans are willing to make tough 
     choices.

  Again, which tough choices? Right now we are at a stalemate in our 
conversations with the President because the Republicans have been 
unable to come up with an approach that will meet the needs of deficit 
reduction.
  So we need to work together. Both sides need to be willing to make 
these tough choices and face these challenges. Unless and until we do 
this on a bipartisan basis, we will not be serving the people who 
elected us.
  It struck me as I sat in that room the other night--the Cabinet Room 
with the President--what a rare honor it is for me and for every one of 
us in that room to be there, to be entrusted with this responsibility 
for this great Nation of over 300 million people who are counting on us 
to do something historic and maybe politically bold. I am prepared to 
do that. I hope others are as well. I think if we approach it on a 
bipartisan basis, with both sides willing to give, with everything on 
the table, we can solve this, and we should do it as quickly as 
possible.

                          ____________________