[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 113 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4883-S4884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           DEBT CEILING PLANS

  Mr. REID. Madam President, there has been a lot of talk in the last 
24 hours about so-called dueling plans to raise the debt limit and 
avert a dangerous default to this nation's financial obligations. As 
far as I can tell, the only dueling going on in Washington today is 
between the Republican Party's multiple personalities--and there are 
quite a few.
  Last night I introduced an amendment that I thought was fail-safe. It 
would prevent default using only proposals Republicans have already 
supported. Yet House Republicans had harsh words for the Democrats' 
plan yesterday--odd, considering every bit of our proposal was taken 
from the Republican playbook. Let me explain the plan.
  It would avert default while cutting $2.7 trillion from the deficit 
in the next decade. It would cut more money, more quickly, than the 
competing proposal introduced by Republican leaders yesterday, and it 
would last for a long time, not just a few months so we would be back 
in the trenches doing the same thing at Christmastime we are doing now.
  The proposal includes no revenues, as House Republicans insisted it 
must not. It holds harmless even the most wasteful of tax breaks and 
giveaways to big oil companies and billionaires, which Republicans have 
vowed to protect even if it costs our economy in the process.
  It establishes a joint congressional committee to find additional 
savings this year and guarantees that the committee's recommendations 
will be an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor, no amendments, no 
filibuster, yes or no. We have done this before. It worked well with 
our base closing legislation a few years ago.
  Every single spending cut in the proposal has already been endorsed 
by Republicans. I repeat: Every single spending cut in the proposal has 
already been endorsed by Republicans. The cuts have already been voted 
for by Republicans in both Houses of Congress.
  In short, it is everything the Republicans have demanded wrapped up 
in a

[[Page S4884]]

bow and delivered to their door. But now Republicans say their demands, 
which have been met in full, are not enough. They insist instead that 
we pass their plan, a similar plan in many respects, save for several 
crucial details.
  Their plan also raises the debt ceiling but for only a few months. It 
cuts spending and includes no revenue increases. These are the major 
differences: It does not cut as much from the deficit as the 
legislation I introduced last night--in fact, not nearly as much. It is 
a short-term fix that Republicans know is untenable to Democrats and 
the White House and Congress. In short, the Republican plan they know 
will not pass the Senate of the United States.
  Not long ago, it was untenable for the Republicans. This is what 
Speaker Boehner said about short-term measures in May. Speaker of the 
House of Representatives John Boehner said this in May:

       I am not really interested in a short-term increase in the 
     debt limit. Our economy won't grow as long as we continue to 
     trip it up with short-term gimmicks from Washington.

  House Majority Leader Cantor echoed the sentiment in June:

       I'm not sure how if we're not willing to make tough 
     decisions now, we'll be willing to make them later. . . . It 
     is my preference that we do this thing one time. . . . 
     Putting off tough decisions is not what people want.

  We agree. We agree. Certainly we agree.
  This is what the Washington Post said about Republicans' bizarre 
about-face yesterday: ``It seems that perhaps the only meaningful 
difference between the two plans is that the Democratic plan gets it 
done in one fell swoop, while the GOP proposal does a short-term deal 
followed by another a year later, something that financial analysts say 
could lead to a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and that 
Republicans themselves once opposed.''
  In fact, rating agencies have said as late as last night that the 
plan that I introduced will not cause a downgrading of our credit. The 
one the Republicans introduced will.
  The Republicans are insisting we relive the endless negotiation and 
partisan wrangling of the last 6 weeks again 6 months from now with no 
good outcome guaranteed. I have said a short-term solution is no 
solution at all. It puts us right back in this untenable position a few 
short months from now. It gives the markets no stability, it gives the 
American people no certainty, and it gives the credit rating agencies 
no choice but to downgrade U.S. debt, a move that would cause interest 
rates to rise and effectively increase taxes for every American--every 
American.
  Market analysts and credit rating agencies have said a short-term fix 
would risk many of the same effects as a default, and that is a risk 
our economy cannot afford. If Republicans continue to oppose the 
reasonable proposal I brought to the floor last night--and which we 
will vote on here in the Senate soon--it will be for political reasons 
driven by the ideological tea party. It will be crystal clear that 
Republicans do not care if we default on the debt. That is sad but 
true. After all, we have given them a plan that should, by all rights, 
be guaranteed to pass the House, and with Senate support here, which we 
should have, it should pass both Houses. Yet they have trashed it right 
out of the gate.
  Yesterday, the Washington Post called this debate over whether to 
default on the full faith and credit of the United States of America 
``surreal'' and ``bizarre.'' Those were their words. This commentary is 
valid. Reasonable Republicans have been offered absolutely everything 
they have asked for. Still they refuse to take yes for an answer, all 
because of a cadre of unreasonable tea-party-driven House Republicans. 
That is too bad.

                          ____________________