[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 108 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4648-S4649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE ACT

  Mr. REID. Madam President, today the House will consider legislation 
that would force the Nation to default on our financial obligations for 
the first time in history, unless Congress adopts a new--well, let's 
put it this way: What the House is working on today would force the 
Nation to default on our financial obligations for the first time in 
history. They are going to do it with a radical--radical--new 
constitutional amendment.
  That amendment would impose arbitrary, reckless budget caps. It 
would, without a doubt, force massive cuts to Medicare, Social 
Security, and other crucial benefits. At the same time, it would 
constitutionally protect wasteful loopholes and tax breaks for 
millionaires and billionaires.
  To meet an arbitrary spending cap frozen at 18 percent of gross 
domestic product, it would shrink benefits and services back to the 
levels not seen since 1966. In 1966, Medicare was 1 year old, and there 
were 100 million fewer people in this country. In 1966, the country had 
200 million people. We now have 300 million people, and they would take 
us back to the levels then. It is obvious it simply would not work.
  For those who think rewinding 45 years is a good thing, consider how 
much America has changed since 1966. For example, life expectancy is 9 
years longer today than it was 45 years ago. One reason it is longer is 
because of Medicare. Medicare has made people healthier to live longer 
and lead more productive lives.
  This legislation would roll back the progress that has been brought 
about by these programs but especially Medicare. It would enshrine in 
this thing they are trying to do in the House today a set of priorities 
so backward even advisers to President Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush 
have called it unwise.
  In the first decade alone, it would mean more than $3,000 a year in 
cuts to each senior's Social Security check. It would slash our social 
safety net, decimating Medicaid and cutting Medicare benefits by $2,500 
for every senior. This is per year, every year.
  In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that within 
25 years, it will slash government benefits and services in half. 
Everyone within the sound of my voice hear what I am saying: slash 
benefits in half--veterans, Medicare, Medicaid. Seventy percent of the 
people on Medicaid are in convalescent centers. It is obvious there 
would not be people in convalescent centers. They would be at home 
having their sons, daughters, wives, and others trying to take care of 
them in their so-called golden years, which would come to a screeching 
halt.

  When I talk about slashing benefits in half, I am talking about 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, and every 
other government service, no matter how essential. Yet it would make it 
almost impossible to end even the most wasteful tax breaks and 
loopholes already in place, such as the subsidies to oil companies, 
which are making market profits with subsidies from American taxpayers. 
It would allow benefits to go to corporations that are shipping jobs 
overseas and to rich people who buy yachts and private jets. If I were 
rich, I wouldn't buy a yacht. It would be nice to have an airplane 
though. But this will not stop people from buying airplanes. It will 
allow the tax program to treat the rich people similar to everybody 
else. It would require a two-thirds majority in the House--if the House 
issue prevails, it would require a two-thirds majority in both Houses 
of Congress to raise even a penny of new revenue.
  Meanwhile, the so-called cut, cap, and balance does absolutely 
nothing to protect our economy from the kind of recession from which we 
are beginning to recover. In fact, if the economy wasn't already in a 
recession, this legislation would quickly produce one.
  Bruce Bartlett, an economic adviser to President Reagan, a fine man, 
and a Treasury official under President Bush, said the kind of rapid 
spending cuts called for in this House legislation would 
``unquestionably throw the economy into a recession.''
  This legislation goes beyond the Draconian budget Republicans passed 
earlier this year. That budget would have ended Medicare as we know it, 
and it would have cut clean energy by 70 percent, axed education 
funding, and cost hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs. It 
passed the House, but it didn't pass here.
  What they are trying to do is even more Draconian than the so-called 
Ryan budget, the House-passed budget. They are trying to do something 
worse. It would attack all the same programs, but its cuts would be 
deeper and deeper. It would slash Social Security as well, which the 
House budget didn't have in it.
  This legislation they are debating in the House is so restrictive, 
the Republicans' own budget--the budget they passed earlier this year--
would not meet the standards they are now asking to be passed. It is so 
restrictive, not 1 year of either the George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan 
administrations would meet its standards.
  Of the last 30 years, the only 2 years that would make the cut were 
during the Clinton administration. As the Washington Post said:

       Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a 
     constitutional amendment that would've made Ronald Reagan's 
     fiscal policy unconstitutional. That's how far to the right 
     the modern GOP has swung.

  Bruce Bartlett--we talked about him before--said this about the 
legislation:

       This is quite possibly the stupidest constitutional 
     amendment I think I have ever seen.

  I repeat the direct quote:

       This is quite possibly the stupidest constitutional 
     amendment I think I have ever seen. It looks as if it was 
     drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.

  That, in my opinion, is being awfully hard on interns.

[[Page S4649]]

  Bill Hoagland was on this floor working with us, and he is a fine 
man, a close adviser to Senator Domenici and other Republican Senators. 
I worked with him on the floor trying to get bills passed. He is a fine 
man--a Republican first, wanting to get things done for our country 
second. Bill Hoagland was a Republican budget adviser for a quarter 
century. He described it best when he labeled this legislation a 
``misleading political cheap shot.''
  A balanced budget is something we can all get behind. But this 
legislation isn't about balancing the budget; it is about scoring 
political points. Based on 30 years of evidence and the Republicans' 
own measuring stick, the stunt falls flat.
  After all, who do you think helped President Clinton balance the 
budget during the only 2 years of the last 30 that actually lived up to 
the restrictive rules outlined in this legislation? It was Democrats in 
Congress.
  Today, Democrats are trying to rein in spending again and are trying 
to avert a catastrophic default on our Nation's financial obligations. 
Republicans are the ones standing in the way of a deal to avert 
default, refusing to move an inch, despite our offers to cut trillions 
from the deficit.
  It is not just me. Read today's Washington Post and see again what 
David Brooks says. David Brooks is a card-carrying Republican 
conservative. Read what he says. As the conservative columnist Ross 
Douthat wrote in the New York Times yesterday, we can already be on the 
way to a deal if ``more Republicans had only recognized that sometimes 
a well-chosen concession can be the better part of valor.''
  We are arriving at a point, 2 weeks from today, when we will default 
on the debt. I have not heard a Republican leader--and I have my friend 
on the floor today from our sister State of Arizona. He always has said 
there will not be a default on the debt. Senator McConnell, Speaker 
Boehner, and Majority Leader Cantor have all said that.
  The proof is in the pudding. We have 2 weeks to prove they are right.
  Would the Chair announce morning business.

                          ____________________