[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 114 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4930-S4933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DEBT CEILING

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we have three separate issues facing the 
Congress. First, the authority of the Treasury Department to borrow to 
meet the Nation's obligations will be reached on Tuesday. In order for 
borrowing to continue after Tuesday, Congress needs to raise the debt 
ceiling. That is the first of the three issues.
  The second issue we face is the need to help our economy to become 
prosperous again. Unfortunately, the debate in Congress has totally 
lost sight of this issue, the issue of how we can grow the economy and 
how we can create jobs.
  The third of the three issues is the need to put in place a long-term 
plan to reduce the deficit and the debt. The issue of raising the debt 
ceiling and reducing the long-term deficit and debt have, 
unfortunately, come to be seen by many in Congress as a single issue. 
So I want to urge all colleagues to take a step back and to recognize, 
first, that these issues are separate and, second, that failure to 
responsibly deal with the first of these issues; that is, failure to 
raise the debt limit, will greatly hamper our ability to deal with the 
other two issues that I mentioned.
  The failure to raise the debt limit will not return our economy to 
prosperity; instead, it will postpone the day when that prosperity 
returns. Failure to raise the debt limit will not help reduce our debt 
and deficit. It will add to the debt and deficit by raising interest 
rates for the government and for all Americans.
  So let's review how we got here.
  Since the beginning of this Congress nearly 7 months ago, the 
Republican majority in the House has had a laser focus on one issue; 
that is, cutting spending. To achieve that objective, the first 
strategy adopted by the Republican leadership in the House was to 
threaten a shutdown of the government unless sufficient spending cuts 
were agreed to. Spending cuts were agreed to, and at the final hour 
Republicans agreed to pass the bill that was needed to fund the 
government for the balance of the fiscal year. By that I mean through 
September 30 of this year.
  So as soon as that crisis was averted and the threat to close down 
the government was behind us, at least for a few months, the effort 
shifted to a new strategy. This strategy was to threaten a first-in-
history default by the government on its financial obligations if 
enough additional spending cuts were not agreed to; that is, spending 
cuts in addition to what were agreed to, in order to avert a shutdown 
of the government. The device for bringing about that default was 
refusal to extend the debt ceiling when the government's borrowing 
authority was scheduled to be reached August 2, next Tuesday.
  We should remind ourselves of what an artificial device is being used 
for leverage in this negotiation. Congress passes the laws that 
determine how much revenue the Federal Government collects, and 
Congress passes the laws that determine how much we obligate the 
government to spend. When the revenue we collect is less than the 
amount we are committed to spend, the Secretary of the Treasury has no 
alternative but to borrow money to meet the obligations that Congress 
has taken on.
  So in a period like today, when the government is receiving in 
revenues much less than is required to meet its obligations, there are 
two logical actions for Congress to take. First, it can raise more 
revenue; second, it can reduce the obligations of the government. But 
in refusing to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to borrow, we are 
taking neither of these logical steps. Instead, we are telling the 
Secretary of the Treasury to default on the obligations which this and 
previous Congresses have already taken on on behalf of the American 
people.
  We are told by the Secretary of the Treasury that unless Congress 
acts he will be forced to default or renege on our obligations 
beginning next week, August 2. The refusal to raise the debt ceiling 
and the threatening of default on our obligations has achieved much of 
what Republicans set out to achieve in this Congress. It has 
precipitated a crisis and in order to avoid that crisis,

[[Page S4931]]

Democrats have agreed to or acceded to the primary demands the 
Republican majority in the House have made.
  What are those demands? There are two primary demands. The first of 
those demands was that all of the deficit reduction be accomplished 
with cuts in spending. No revenue could be raised from the wealthiest 
in our society to help close this gap between revenues and spending; no 
loopholes could be closed; no subsidies could be eliminated from the 
Tax Code.
  Democrats have agreed that the deficit reduction would not be 
accomplished with a balanced package of spending cuts and revenue 
increases as the previous deficit reduction packages have been under 
President Reagan, under President George H.W. Bush, and of course under 
President Clinton. This deficit reduction that we are now considering 
would be done with spending cuts only. So that was the first demand and 
it was one that Democrats have acceded to.
  The second demand of the Republican leadership was the totally 
arbitrary demand that the size of the increase in the debt ceiling not 
exceed the amount of spending cuts projected in the Federal budget over 
the next 10 years. This is a demand totally lacking in any logical 
justification, but, again, Democrats have agreed in order to achieve a 
solution to the immediate impasse.
  In order to avoid the threatened default on our obligations, Senator 
Reid has put forward a proposal that would lock in, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, about $2.2 trillion of deficit reduction 
over 10 years with cuts in both discretionary spending and mandatory 
spending. The Treasury Secretary would be given authority to borrow to 
meet the obligations that Congress has undertaken for approximately 
another 18 months. The proposal also puts in place a bipartisan and a 
bicameral committee with responsibility to present Congress with 
legislation to further reduce the deficit.
  Unfortunately, it appears this proposal that Senator Reid has made 
will be opposed by many on the Republican side. Some say the cuts are 
not sufficiently deep and that they would rather push the country into 
default rather than agree to a mere $2.2 trillion in spending cuts.
  Some others say they want to extend the debt ceiling for a shorter 
period so we can have another showdown with another threatened 
government default 6 or 7 months from now. Some say that causing the 
Federal Government to default will not have the adverse consequences 
the Secretary of the Treasury has predicted and that in fact it will 
have a salutary effect on both our economy and our politics.
  I strongly disagree with all of these views. I believe a refusal to 
honor our obligations will have a major adverse consequence for our 
economy. I believe Congress should act now to raise the debt limit in 
order to avoid these adverse consequences and that, although the 
proposal Senator Reid has brought forward fails the test of balance 
between spending cuts and revenue increases which I would prefer, it is 
a plan I am willing to support in order to head off a default on our 
Nation's obligations. I understand additional deficit reduction will be 
required in the months and years ahead, but clearly the responsible 
course is to do what can be done today and that is adopt the Reid plan. 
Only by doing so can we once again focus on the steps we can take to 
return our economy to prosperity. That is the first priority for most 
Americans today. It should be our first priority as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, this week we have a unique 
opportunity to reduce the deficit to the tune of $2.2 trillion. That is 
$2.2 trillion to protect Medicare, to protect Social Security, to 
protect Medicaid, and to make sure the United States of America doesn't 
do something we have never done; that is, go into default.
  We can debate how we got here. We can debate why we have this huge 
budget deficit. We can debate whether it is Barack Obama's fault or 
George Bush's fault. We can debate whether it was the Recovery Act or 
whether it was the two wars President Bush didn't pay for. We can 
debate whether it is the health care bill of President Obama or the 
giveaway to the drug and insurance companies that President Bush did in 
the name of Medicare privatization. We could talk about President 
Bush's tax cuts. We could do any of that, but the urgency of this 
situation is not a question for debate. Never before has the full faith 
and credit of the United States of America been held hostage to a major 
budget agreement.
  In the past three decades before President Obama--so let's take him 
out of this picture for a minute--we have avoided default by raising 
the debt limit 38 times in the last 30 years before President Obama. 
Out of those 38 times, 34 of those times--almost 90 percent--were under 
Republican Presidents. Again, 34 of 38 times were under Republican 
Presidents. We didn't do a hostage-taking. We didn't try to scare 
people. Even if we didn't like doing it, we simply raised the debt 
ceiling.
  As I and many Democratic colleagues have said, we can balance the 
budget as we did under President Clinton. I came to office in 1992 in 
the House. I voted for a controversial budget. No Republicans joined 
us. We had almost 8 years of economic growth, with 21 million net 
private sector jobs created, and we got to a balanced budget. We know 
how to do that. We do it with a balance between spending cuts and 
revenues, especially closing tax loopholes, giveaways to the oil 
companies, tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs, and tax breaks 
for hedge fund operators on Wall Street. We can close those tax 
loopholes. We can do spending cuts, and we can do what we need to do to 
move toward a balanced budget.
  During those 38 times, there were freestanding votes. Each time it 
was raised, there was a freestanding vote. Neither party played these 
games. Neither party held our Nation hostage to these political games.
  Rather than a freestanding vote on the debt limit, we are in a last-
minute scramble. Democrats have said: OK, we will reach an agreement. 
Never has one party insisted that the amount of the increase in the 
debt limit be offset by an equal amount of spending cuts. We have even 
agreed to that approach. Never before has one party insisted that a 
major budget agreement exclude provisions that address revenue. We have 
even said yes to that. Now having had their demands met, the people in 
the party who insisted on all these conditions are saying no. They are 
saying no again.
  The debate on the debt and the deficit has been complicated, it has 
been contentious, it has been angry, but a default should be 
unimaginable. A default should be unimaginable. A default would risk 
what would amount to a permanent tax hike.
  I hear many of the radicals in the House of Representatives who say 
they will never vote for a debt increase, as if it is something we 
should never, ever do in a country. They all talk about tax cuts, but a 
default on the part of the United States of America would amount to a 
permanent tax hike on all Americans. Interest rates would rise for 
anyone owning a home, paying a home mortgage, applying for a home 
mortgage, anyone with a car loan, anyone with a college loan. Credit 
costs for all borrowers would climb for governments at every level, 
businesses, nonprofits, small businesses, large businesses, credit card 
holders. There would be repercussions for pension funds and money 
market funds that guard the retirement savings of middle-class 
families.
  Basically, everybody in the Presiding Officer's home State of 
Minnesota, in my home State of Ohio--everybody would be afflicted with 
this tax increase, if you will, from higher interest rates. Several 
States have already been placed on a credit watch. Every State would be 
hurt by a Federal default, which is why Governors of both parties are 
saying: Make a deal; get to this. This is not alarmist thinking.
  There is a reason Ronald Reagan went to Congress 18 times to raise 
the debt ceiling. Here is what President Reagan said:

       The full consequences of a default--or even the serious 
     prospect of a default--


[[Page S4932]]


  That is where we are right now, in a serious prospect of default--

     by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to 
     contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the 
     United States would have substantial effects on the domestic 
     financial markets and the value of the dollar.

  None of us is being alarmist because we really don't know, but we 
know people whom most Americans respect--President Reagan, President 
Clinton, others who have asked for a debt ceiling increase, economists, 
businesspeople--nobody knows for sure what would happen, but nobody has 
ever wanted to take that risk. We have always paid our bills. Default 
could affect Ohioans receiving Medicare and Social Security. It could 
affect veterans in hospitals and universities. President Obama has said 
he can't guarantee payments to senior citizens, to bondholders, or 
other obligations of the United States of America. You cannot fake 
cashflow. These are real consequences.
  When it comes to jobs, to seniors living on fixed income, in the 
midst of an economic growth that is as fragile as ours is, lawmakers 
ought to suspend their politics. Today, the harm of inaction would be 
immense.
  President Obama put several proposals forward to reduce the deficit 
in a big way, modeled after these bipartisan commissions where there 
has been pretty good bipartisan agreement. But efforts to forge a grand 
compromise bringing the deficit down by $4 trillion have been abandoned 
by Republican leaders over and over.
  I have not supported every detail on these grand compromise efforts. 
I don't want to do anything to undermine Medicare or Social Security or 
Medicaid, programs that have worked for generations now and programs 
that millions of Ohioans depend on, from Middletown to Ashtabula, from 
Toledo to Athens and Gallipolis. I wanted a more balanced approach. I 
know the Presiding Officer did too. But as days and weeks and months go 
by, we are now only days away from default. We are simply running out 
of time. That is what the Senate bill is about--protecting us from 
default.
  In the spirit of continued compromise, again, the majority leader has 
come forth with a plan to reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. It is 
truly a compromise because it meets the Republicans' main criteria. It 
contains spending cuts to roughly match the debt ceiling increase 
through 2012. The spending cuts in the Reid plan are ones to which 
Republicans have previously agreed. It contains no revenue increases. 
All three of those have been what Republicans asked for. But now it is 
not good enough. What do they want to do when we basically met their 
demands?
  Beyond all that, this compromise we have offered--mostly what they 
have asked for--contains an important priority of mine--not one of the 
Republicans, to be sure--and that is that we protect Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid.
  I know that major Republican budgets--the so-called Ryan budget, the 
Republican House budget--undercut our major important programs, 
Medicare and Medicaid especially. We know the so-called cut, cap, and 
balance proposal the Republicans have passed that is being voted on 
here didn't protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. So we know 
Republicans want to go after those programs. Under this compromise, we 
have been able to protect that, but we need to make sure we put country 
ahead of party, national interest above partisanship. That is why we 
have been willing to compromise.
  Speaker Boehner's plan is being revised, but so far it provides 
significantly less than the savings in the Reid proposal. By design, 
the Boehner plan would put us back in this situation in a few months. 
What rational economist, what responsible elected official, what 
businessperson in St. Paul or Columbus, in Rochester or Mansfield--what 
businessperson would say: Let's put the U.S. in this situation again in 
6 months?
  We know what has happened in this country in the last month or so. As 
we approach default, as businesses particularly watch the way this is 
being debated and how this is being handled, people are way less 
certain, people are way more concerned about our ability to raise the 
debt ceiling and keep us out of default. Businesses are holding on to 
their cash reserves because they are not willing to invest now because 
they don't want this to happen.
  So why would we want to go through this again in 6 months? Why would 
we possibly think this is good for the United States--for people in 
Chillicothe and Dayton, in Youngstown and Akron, in Canton and Kenton, 
Wauseon and Bowling Green? Why would we want businesses in our country 
to go through this again in 6 months?
  We need to get this done quickly. We have to raise the debt ceiling 
to keep us out of default. We need to make sure we focus on deficit 
reduction, and we need to put our efforts into job creation. People all 
over my State--when I am in Dayton, Springfield, Cuyahoga County or 
Mahoney County, as I was this past weekend--people are mostly saying 
they want us to focus on job growth. We need to do budget cuts and 
raise the debt ceiling to keep us out of default. We mostly need to 
make sure we move forward on job creation.
  We prevent a default and reduce the deficit with the Reid plan--a 
critical imperative for our children and our grandchildren. It protects 
Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid.
  My office is being swamped with calls and e-mails from Ohioans who 
simply can't believe we are this close to default. Within the week, 
Congress must pass and the President must sign an increase in the debt 
ceiling. It is essential if we want to prevent an absolutely 
unnecessary, an absolutely uncalled for, yet catastrophic default. It 
is necessary to move on to address the issue of jobs. Too many recent 
college graduates, too many people who have been in the workforce for 
too many years, too many people who are unemployed are looking for 
jobs. That is where our focus should be.
  We need to pass the Reid plan, work on deficit reduction, and work on 
job growth.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, as I 
think many of my colleagues have, to speak to the topic at hand, which 
is the debt ceiling debate we are having in the Congress of the United 
States.
  I have to say, I think Americans across the country are looking at us 
with disbelief, anxiety, and--I think rightly--anger. They awoke this 
morning hoping to find that cooler heads had prevailed and that all of 
us were working together on a plan that keeps our country from default 
and our economy from looming collapse. Instead, the headlines read that 
the Speaker of the House was again refusing to negotiate and that he 
is, in fact, delaying action in the House because of Republican 
upheaval against his own plan.
  I have to say, even if the House of Representatives passed a bill 
preventing default this evening, within hours, we would still be 
pushing our country right up to the edge of an economic catastrophe. In 
other words, what I am saying is, even though economists, market 
analysts, business leaders, credit rating agencies, world leaders, and 
the American people are begging us to find an agreement to avoid 
default on our debt obligations, we are no further along today than we 
have been in the many weeks we have been debating this issue.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, as a former Member of the House, I 
take no pleasure in criticizing the people's House. But it does take 
two to tango, and when it comes to courting the House of 
Representatives, it feels as though they have one shoe nailed to the 
dance floor. I can't figure out for the life of me what it is going to 
take to reach an agreement on behalf of the American people. The House 
of Representatives just can't take yes for an answer.
  The real problem, at least in my estimation, seems to be that a small 
group of people are set on running up the political score rather than 
doing the

[[Page S4933]]

right thing for our country. If that is the case, now is the time to 
finally come to the table.
  Here is the truth: Many of us here are trying to prevent our economy 
from driving off a cliff, but others seem to be busy cutting the brake 
lines. On that point, I was proud of the Senate and the Democrats and 
Republicans who came together on the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson 
Commission and came up with a plan on reducing the deficit. They were 
willing to be a part of the solution.
  The Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended taking important but 
difficult steps to reduce our debt by $4 trillion over the next decade. 
That plan is the right one for the country, and despite the significant 
political risks attached to taking those positions, Senators in both 
parties were willing to support it. The House Members, on the other 
hand, when the fiscal commission offered them the bipartisan deficit 
reduction plan, walked away, both Democrats and Republicans, to be 
fair.

  Unfortunately, this has become a pattern. When Vice President Joe 
Biden and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor were close to finally 
reaching an agreement on a deficit reduction plan, it was the House 
Republicans who walked away. When President Obama and Speaker Boehner 
sought to strike a ``grand bargain,'' to do something great for the 
country, the House walked away. President Obama likened this to being 
left at the altar, but I cannot think of any description that is more 
apt than ``irresponsible.''
  For my friends and my colleagues who know me, I am not quick to 
anger. But I have to say, time is not our friend here and we cannot 
delay action any longer. I was pleased to see Senator Alexander, the 
third ranking Republican in the Senate, say last night:

       What would be best, instead of having a Republican plan 
     competing with a Democratic plan, would be to have the 
     Speaker, Senator Reid, and Senator McConnell recommend to us 
     a single plan.

  I understand the Senate leaders are speaking frequently, and I have 
all the faith in the world that the Senate could work this problem out. 
But that is only half the problem. We need statesmen, we need patriots, 
we need problem solvers over in the House to emerge. Campaign politics 
and partisan talking points do not take courage. Now is the time for 
courage and leadership.
  Instead of going back to the drawing board on the Boehner plan, we 
need to refocus our efforts on a plan that meets three tests. Such a 
plan has to, No. 1, raise the debt limit to avoid a first ever Federal 
Government default; No. 2, provide enough certainty to investors that 
America will pay its bills to stave off a downgrade in our credit 
rating; and, No. 3, reduce the deficit enough that we can begin the 
hard work to get our fiscal house in order.
  The Reid plan, in my estimation, achieves each of those goals. While 
I am disappointed we could not all come together on a larger $4 to $5 
trillion deficit reduction package that would be both bipartisan and 
comprehensive, the Reid plan adequately addresses the most pressing 
issues that confront us, which are preventing a default and staving off 
a downgrade in our credit rating.
  The Boehner plan, on the other hand, is only a short-term fix, and a 
host of economic forecasters and business leaders have said it would 
almost certainly lead to a downgrade in our, in America's, credit 
rating, which would raise interest rates, could sabotage seniors' 
retirement savings, and increase consumer costs on almost every 
American.
  Bank of America, Standard & Poor's, JPMorgan Chase, and other major 
players have all warned us that future economic instability and short-
term political solutions will almost certainly lead to a downgrade in 
our credit rating. That is some serious business.
  What is sad about all of this is that the unstable political 
climate--which one observer called ``amateur hour on Capitol Hill''--
itself may lead to a downgrade.
  I respect the Speaker's desire to go back to the drawing board to try 
to secure more Republican votes, but the fact is we do not have time. 
The Reid plan is ready to go, and it meets the three-part test I laid 
out. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office stated that the Reid plan 
reduces the deficit by twice as much as the House Republican plan. As 
reported this morning ``in the battle of budget scores, the Senate 
Democrats deficit reduction bill is the clear winner thus far.''
  Our economy has been in critical condition, and I think we are 
feeling recently that it is beginning to come back to life, that we 
have been nursing it back to health. The last result we need is a self-
inflicted heart attack caused by an overdose of partisanship. People 
wonder why we cannot get it done.
  I know the Presiding Officer is a mountain climber, as am I, and we 
are both, I guess, old mountain climbers in more ways than one. I can 
tell you that there are some similarities between attempting to climb 
the world's highest peaks and our work here in Washington. But the 
difference seems to be, especially when the going gets tough here on 
Capitol Hill, that not only are you trying to conquer mountainous and 
challenging and difficult terrain, you seem to have a team of saboteurs 
here who are trying to push the rest of us off the mountain as we are 
trying to climb it. The Scots have a saying: It is not the falling off 
that hurts. It is the sudden stop at the bottom. I can tell you, if we 
do not raise the debt ceiling, that is going to involve a sudden stop 
at the bottom for all of us.
  The people of Colorado have told me--and I suspect the rest of the 
Nation feels this way--they do not care who wins politically. Frankly, 
I do not care who wins politically either. What I care about is passing 
legislation that will stave off government default and a downgrade in 
our Nation's credit rating. At this point, the Reid plan is the only 
option that meets that criteria. Let's get it done. Let's get it done.


                       Tribute To Hillary Daniels

  Mr. President, as I close, I want to change the tone of my remarks a 
little bit because there are wonderful people who work here on Capitol 
Hill and make a difference day in and day out, and I want to recognize 
Hillary Daniels, who has been one of my budget and appropriations 
legislative assistants, who joined my team when I first came to the 
Senate 3 years ago.
  She is a native of Colorado's western slope, the great county of Mesa 
and the town of Grand Junction. She is going to be leaving my office 
next month to go to law school at Washington University in St. Louis, 
MO.
  She has been an invaluable team member, and I can speak for my entire 
staff when I say we are both excited for her to take this next step in 
developing her career and I am very grateful for the guidance she has 
given me over the last few years.
  It is for the Hillary Daniels of the world, who will be leaders of 
our country in the next decade and the decade after that, that I think 
we owe an obligation to getting this job done as soon as we possibly 
can, assuring the markets that the full faith and credit of the United 
States will be preserved and protected and nurtured.
  Let's turn back to job one here, which is to focus on our economy and 
job creation. The longer we are stalled out in a political crisis of 
our own making, the less we are concerned and focused on putting the 
American people back to work.
  Mr. President, thank you for your interest, thank you for your 
attention.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

                          ____________________