[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 115 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4976-S4980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEBT CEILING
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak to the need
to come to an agreement. We need to come to an agreement on how we
handle the debt ceiling. We need to come to agreement on addressing our
Nation's deficit and debt.
Let us review where we are right now. If you look at our fiscal
situation, right now the Federal Government takes in revenues on an
annual basis of $2.2 trillion--$2.2 trillion--a year, but at the same
time we are spending $3.7 trillion. That is a shortfall, or a deficit,
of more than $1.5 trillion a year.
I look at these young people here in this Chamber--these great pages
from all over the country--and I think about what that means not only
for us today--for our economy, for our standing in the world, for the
security of our country--but I think about what it means for future
generations. What is it we leave them? Do we leave them a country that
was founded on the concept of freedom and liberty, that people could
pursue life on their own terms, raise their families the way they
wanted to raise their families, live the way they wanted to live, do
the work they wanted to do, have an opportunity to start a business, to
build a life, and be successful and pass something of value on to their
children?
I think that is what we all want. That is the Nation we have--the
Nation we have had for over 200 years. That is the Nation we want to
pass on to these great young people.
So we have had tremendous debate for an extended period of time--for
a long time. Many good ideas have been brought forth by both sides of
the aisle, by Republicans and by Democrats, on how we should address
this debt ceiling agreement, how we should address the deficit and the
debt. Nobody has the corner on good ideas. There have been many good
ideas brought forward, but now is the time we have to realize we have
to come to agreement. The American people want us to come to an
agreement.
Today the House is considering the Budget Control Act of 2011,
referred to as the Boehner proposal, and they are over there working on
it right now. As with any agreement, somebody can certainly find
something to criticize. That is always true. No agreement is perfect.
But it does represent many of the ideas that both sides have brought
forward as a way to come to agreement on this debt ceiling and, more
importantly, as a way to start to get our fiscal house back in order.
Let's talk about it for just a minute.
Under the proposal, first there would be a reduction in spending, a
savings of more than $900 billion, and that would also provide for a
$900 billion increase in the debt ceiling to get us past this immediate
issue. Then, at the same time, it appoints a committee--not a
commission but a committee--of Senators and Representatives, 12
members--6 Senators, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat; 6 House Members, 3
Republican, 3 Democrat--who are required to find at least another $1.8
trillion in savings. Those savings have to be found before there is
another increase in the debt ceiling.
That is the right way to do things. That is getting the horse in
front of the cart, not the reverse. So they have to find those savings
in a bipartisan way, and they have to bring those concepts back to the
House and to the Senate, and the House and the Senate will have a
straight up-or-down vote--the elected representatives of the people
doing their job for the people in an open and transparent way.
Think about this committee for a minute. Again, there are 12 members:
6 Republicans, 6 Democrats; 6 Senators, 6 Members of the House. They
can bring forward all of these great ideas that have been debated in
recent months. They can bring forward ideas from the Simpson-Bowles
Commission that have gained support. They can bring forward ideas from
the Gang of 6 that people believe are meritorious. They can bring
forward ideas for savings. They can bring ideas forward for reform.
They can bring ideas forward for tax reform that don't raise taxes but
actually eliminate loopholes, reduce rates, create a progrowth
environment, and the revenues come from a growing economy, not from
higher taxes. They can come forward with all of these ideas and more.
But the important point is they must come forward by November with
$1.8 trillion in savings to help get us back on the right path, the
right path to good fiscal management. The debt ceiling is not increased
in that second step until they do. That is making sure we fulfill our
responsibility and do things in the right order.
Then this bill also provides that we have a vote on a balanced budget
amendment, and that vote on the balanced budget amendment must be
sometime between October 1 and the end of the year. Myself and others
have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment, and I strongly believe
that is what we need.
I understand there are differences of opinion, but when we look at
the situation we recognize we need that fiscal discipline in
Washington, DC. If we just think about it for a minute, a balanced
budget amendment, how does it work? Well, it works in a way that gets
everybody involved, not just in Washington, DC, but throughout this
great Nation--because what are we doing? By passing a balanced budget
amendment in the Congress, which we have to do with two-thirds of the
Senate and two-thirds of the House, what we are doing is starting that
balanced budget amendment on its way traveling throughout this country
and saying to the people of this good country: What do you want to do?
Why not ask the people? That is how our democracy works. Why not ask
them: Do you want to make sure we have a balanced budget that requires
Congress to see that, year in and year out, we are living within our
means?
Forty-nine States have either a constitutional or statutory
requirement to balance their budget to live within their means. Cities
do, counties, families, businesses. Since three-fourths of the States
would have to ratify that balanced budget amendment as well, we say to
them: Look, we think we need a balanced budget, and we are going to
make sure you have an opportunity to say what you think. I believe that
is exactly what we should do.
I bring experience as a Governor. I served as a Governor for 10
years, and we were required to balance our budget every single year. We
went to the people and we talked to them.
We said: Here is the plan. We don't have the dollars right now to
fund all the things you want. This was back in 2000-2002 when we
actually had to reduce our budget, make reductions across the board. We
said: But do you know what we are going to do? We are going to make
sure we live within our means and we create a progrowth environment,
legal taxes and regulatory certainty that will enable business
expansion, business growth, entrepreneurship, private investment, and
get this economy growing, get jobs, get economic growth. Then with that
growth we will make sure each year we fund our priorities; that we set
some aside, some reserve aside for a rainy day, and that we do our best
to continue to reduce the tax burden on our hard-working citizens. It
doesn't happen in a week, it doesn't happen in a month, a year, or 2
years. It takes time to build to the position that you want. But we can
do it. We have done it before.
If we look at the late 1980s, coming out of the stagflation of the
1970s and the early 1980s, in the late 1980s we had stagflation--
meaning high inflation, meaning high unemployment, an economy that was
moribund, people weren't working, a growing deficit. But by creating a
progrowth environment and good fiscal management from the late 1980s
over into the decade of the 1990s, we not only put people back to work,
we eliminated that deficit and we built a surplus. We can do it again.
It is all about the right approach.
So here we are today. Today we need to take that first step, and I
come back to where I started. It may not be the plan exactly the way
everybody wants it, but it is a plan that we can approve, and it brings
together concepts that people on both sides of the aisle have brought
forward. So now we need to come together and do our work for the
American people. We need to come together and pass this agreement.
[[Page S4977]]
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
looming August 2 deadline. This is when the Department of the Treasury
estimates the Federal Government will officially hit the $14.2 trillion
debt ceiling. We all know we are at the point where we are because we
have a fundamental difference in principle on how our government should
be run. At the same time, most agree that our country cannot go into
default, so we are in a very tough situation with a very short time
period.
That is why I am concerned about the delay on this issue. Delay means
harm--harm to Americans and harm to our economic recovery, especially
as we grapple with a 9.2-percent unemployment rate, which is the
elephant in the room. We must address jobs if we are going to have an
economy that is thriving and in a recovery period. A jobless recovery
is not a recovery.
The administration's reluctance to resolve this crisis has brought
the very real potential of a downgrade in our country's triple A bond
rating. As we get closer to next Tuesday, Standard & Poor's and Moody's
and other rating agencies await the details of the final debt
agreement. Then they will determine if our Nation's triple A credit
rating will be downgraded. The implications of the rating could affect
consumers at a very bad time. It could include a rise in interest rates
on home loans, on small business loans, on student loans, and credit
cards.
Yesterday the stock market fell nearly 200 points, a 1.6-percent
drop. That was the third straight day of stock market decline. It
leaves the Dow Jones Industrial Average down 3.3 percent and nearly on
track for its worst week since August of 2010.
The threat of a downgrade is also hurting our dollar. The dollar's
value fell and hit a new 2011 low against the Japanese yen and a record
low against the Swiss franc.
Two things are clear. First, uncertainty and anxiety are prevalent,
domestically and in the global markets. Second, this anxiety
underscores the need to address our debt ceiling and deficit reduction
simultaneously. While the fundamental principles on which we base our
solutions to this crisis are vastly different, I do believe that both
sides of the aisle in Congress and both Houses of Congress share the
same goal.
The Senate majority leader and the House Speaker have put forward
plans. I believe we must find a common ground between the House and the
Senate with the proposals that have been put out by the Group of 6, by
the majority leader, by the minority leader on our side as well as the
Speaker on the House side. There have been a lot of proposals and there
have been good parts in several of these proposals where we need to
come together and find the best parts that we can agree on, knowing we
are a divided Congress and a divided government, and move forward to a
conclusion.
We can get meaningful immediate spending cuts as well as caps on
future spending. That would be a very important achievement. It would
be a major step forward because that is not where we were when we
started. Spending cuts and caps on future spending would be a major
step in the right direction. We can allow the debt limit to increase in
proportion to the cuts, the real cuts. We can do this without tax
hikes, because the fact is, the idea that we can tax our way out of
debt has been completely repudiated. So we can cut spending, we can cap
future spending, we can raise the debt limit in accordance with those
caps, and without any new taxes.
That is a significant achievement as well because certainly the
President was talking about increasing taxes, increasing taxes,
increasing taxes when this whole negotiation began. We on our side have
stood firm against new taxes, knowing this is a very fragile economic
time in our country. If we want people to be hired, if we want the
unemployment rate to come down, we cannot saddle our small businesses
with new taxes.
We can send a clear message to the markets and to our debtors that we
can stop spending too much so we will not need to tax any more, and we
certainly do not want to borrow as much and have the drag we see on our
economy. Americans know that in Washington we are spending too much, we
are taxing plenty, and we are borrowing too much.
There is more we can do. We will not get to a balanced budget without
looking at entitlements because the discretionary spending is such a
small part of our total budget. Our entitlement programs are the major
part of the need for reform. Our entitlement programs are nearly
bankrupt. If left unchanged, our promises to current and future
beneficiaries will be broken.
Mandatory spending is the long-term driver of our debt problems. The
Federal Government spends approximately $2.1 trillion a year on
entitlement programs, about two-thirds of our total Federal budget. I
have introduced a bill, the Defend and Save Social Security Act, that
would put that very important program on a fiscally sound path without
cutting core benefits or raising taxes. My proposal will cover the 75-
year shortfall, and anyone who is currently 58 years old and above will
have no effect whatsoever with the gradual increase in retirement age.
The beginning of the increase in retirement age would start with people
who are under 58, and then it would be only 3 months a year. So if you
are 57 you would only retire 3 months later. If you are 56 it would be
6 months later to start on Social Security.
The Senate majority leader and the House Speaker have offered
proposals that call for a bipartisan, bicameral congressional committee
to fix the fiscal imbalance in our Nation's finances. It is imperative
that this joint committee--if it is passed by both Houses of Congress--
confront entitlement reform. Entitlement reform is at the core of any
long-term solution to our Nation's financial problems. If we act now,
we can make progress in a very gradual way, and if we wait, it is going
to be much more stark and much more problematic for people who depend
on Social Security or Medicare. The opportunity to raise our debt
ceiling is a defining moment in the future of our government. Let us
confront the problem today and not delay the inevitable.
The more we delay, the harder it is going to be, and we have seen how
hard it is already. We know this has not been an easy process because
the talks between the White House and Members of Congress have fallen
apart. The talks between Members of Congress on both sides of the
Rotunda have fallen apart. We know this has been hard, so let's try to
act now to stop it from being harder in the future, which it will be if
we don't address our entitlement reforms.
I support a two-step approach. Let's take the first major step--a
downpayment of almost $1 trillion. That is the first step for all of
us--to cut spending by nearly $1 trillion. The second step is long-term
deficit reduction that will cut more spending over a 10-year period and
address entitlement reform. This can be done in a gradual way but
without touching the core benefits, but we have to act now. If we
don't, it will not be able to be done.
The financial viability of our country is at stake. The time is
here--it is past here--to take the necessary steps to get our fiscal
house in order, and I implore my colleagues to take those steps now.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from California is
recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have served in this body for 19
years, and I will say I have never been more dismayed, more concerned,
or more frustrated than I have been these past few days. Every day it
gets a little bit worse because day by day our country grows closer to
defaulting on our sovereign debt. That is something which has never,
ever happened in the history of this country.
The repercussions of this protracted and public debate on whether our
government will honor its financial obligations are already evident.
This is what
[[Page S4978]]
we know for sure: The stock market has seen several days of decline as
investors sell off securities. The United States is at high risk of a
credit downgrade. Gold prices are climbing as people try to protect
themselves from a rating downgrade and a drop in the value of the
dollar. In short, default may well have catastrophic economic
consequences domestically and internationally.
What is the message we are communicating to the world? Secretary
Clinton told me in an evening conversation I had with her--she had just
returned from visiting five countries. She said everybody was asking
her: What is wrong in your country? What are you going to do?
This is now a worldwide crisis and one we must address. What we are
seeing here is, in a sense, a broken government that can't take care of
the affairs of its people in a prudent and practical way.
It is absolutely amazing to me that 20 to 70 Members of the House of
Representatives believe they can run the government of the United
States despite the fact that the Presidency and the majority in the
U.S. Senate are controlled by another party. Essentially, they appear
willing to allow this great Nation to default rather than compromise
and reach a practical solution.
What are the consequences of default for American families? For sure,
default would raise interest rates, driving up costs for everyone. For
sure, the cost of owning a home, buying a car, buying food, filling a
gas tank, and sending children to college will become even more
expensive. It will squeeze already tight family budgets and damage this
fragile economy. Many people predict a second dip recession. In
essence, default causes an immediate tax increase in the form of these
rising interest rates on families.
The talk of default is disrupting financial markets and will trigger
a sharp fall in the stock market, causing huge losses in retirement
accounts and wiping out the gains of 2 years. This morning, I saw a TV
story about a man who was selling his mutual funds because he has no
confidence in our ability to resolve this crisis--not a good thing to
do.
Higher interest rates will also drive up costs for both the Federal
and State governments because every 1 percent increase in interest
payments for the Federal Government means an additional $100 billion
cost to the government. A default will be devastating for State
governments that would see their borrowing costs dramatically increase
because their ability to borrow is tied to the interest rates paid by
the Federal Government.
The cost of borrowing for States, for municipalities, and for local
water districts will all rise. Let me give you an example. My own State
of California recently took out a $5.4 billion loan from five major
investment banks ahead of a possible default to ensure itself against
rising interest rates. Here is the sixth largest economy on Earth
worried that their interest rates are going to jump, so they take out a
$5 billion loan from investment banks to be able to meet any increased
interest on obligations owed.
For the broader economy, default would mean hundreds of thousands of
jobs lost every year, according to the Federal Reserve. Chairman
Bernanke said:
The economy may be thrown into reverse and employers would
start cutting jobs if Congress fails to raise the Nation's
legal borrowing authority.
I have heard some say that on August 3, the Treasury will still have
enough money to meet our obligations and avoid default. That is simply
false. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.S. Government
has $306.7 billion in payments due in August and will take in an
estimated $172.4 billion in revenue for the month. That is a $134
billion shortfall for the month of August, so the Treasury will not be
able to pay its bills. In other words, 44 percent of U.S. Government
bills will go unpaid if the Federal Government fails to raise the debt
ceiling by the August 2 deadline.
Treasury would be forced to spend all income inflows covering just
six major items: interest, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,
unemployment insurance, and defense vendors. That would mean entire
Federal Departments would have no funds, including Justice, Labor, and
Commerce. It would mean no funds for veterans' benefits, Active-Duty
military pay, IRS refunds, special education, Pell grants, and more.
There is simply no way to escape it.
Let me give you an example. On the next day, which is August 3, the
Treasury will take in $12 billion in revenues, but it will still owe
$32 billion in revenues. Let me tell you what that includes. It
includes $23 billion in Social Security payments. I understand 45
million checks are ready to go out during those days. It is $2.2
billion for Medicare, $1.8 billion for education, and $1.4 billion for
defense.
If the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2 or if we only reach an
agreement for a short-term extension, the already-spooked credit rating
agencies could react unfavorably. And here is the problem: Do you want
to go back to this same situation in 6 months and go through this all
over again? It makes no sense. If the marketplace wants stability and
constancy, they are clearly not going to get it knowing this is going
to be coming up in 6 months again.
Moody's has said it is possible our credit rating would go down with
a short-term increase and warned that an agreement should get us
through the year 2012. All right, don't pay attention to it, but that
warning is out there. It is going to take getting through the year
2012, according to at least one of the rating houses.
Fitch has said a deficit deal must be credible and sustainable or
U.S. ratings could still be downgraded. Does anybody believe it is
credible and sustainable to do this for 6 months and be right back
where we are today? I don't think so.
Standard & Poor's has said it may lower the country's long-term
credit rating if it concludes that future adjustments to the debt
ceiling are likely to be the subject of political maneuvering--not my
words, their words. Do you want to go through this in 6 months again
with the same results and creating all of the uncertainty for the 6
months between now and then? I don't think so.
In other words, these rating agencies have very real questions about
the willingness and ability of this Congress and the administration to
timely honor scheduled debt obligations.
Now, I have to say this--and I have been here for 19 years--I have
never seen a time when Republicans just do not want to come to an
agreement with this President. The President, I think by any standard,
has bent over backward, and still Republicans walk away from the
negotiating table. Well, let me tell you, I have done a lot of
negotiations in my time with big labor strikes and work stoppages----
I would ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CORKER. I was given an 11:10 time and saw that we were
alternating. I have a conference call. I am glad for the Senator to
finish, but if she could make it even shorter than that, it would be
appreciated.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How about 3 minutes?
Mr. CORKER. OK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request for 3 minutes? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there were 2 months of negotiations
with the Vice President, and Majority Leader Cantor walked out. There
were negotiations with the President and Speaker Boehner, and the
Speaker walked out. House Republicans do not like Simpson-Bowles, nor
do they like the Gang of 6 plan. These are the two big plans which
offer a solution for the future. Instead, they want massive cuts to
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and discretionary spending and
absolutely nothing from those Americans who are doing very well in this
economy--actually, the top 1 percent.
Well, I represent 37 million people. California is bigger than 21
States and the District of Columbia put together. Fifteen million to
twenty million people in my State depend on programs the Republicans
want to take a meat axe to--not a scalpel, but a meat axe--SSI, Social
Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. We have gotten these numbers. We have
looked at them for overlapping, and I can truthfully say the
[[Page S4979]]
number is 15 million to 20 million. Well, look, I want to know how a
cut is going to affect these programs.
We could do this if we agree to take 6 months, draft in bill language
from the Gang of 6, mandate the hearings, and fast track a bill to the
floor of the Senate. Every Member of this body knows it is bill
language that spells out what we need to look out for. I need to look
out for what happens to the Medicare provider tax because so many
hospitals in my State depend on it. If it lasts until 2014, it is OK,
but I don't know.
I very strongly believe there is a solution and that reasonable
people can work it out, and I hope the leadership of this body will
talk with the leadership of the other body.
I thank the Chair, I thank Senator Corker for his courtesy, and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, it is interesting. I have some of the same
concerns, maybe with different outcomes, as the Senator from
California, but I agree we have not done our work.
Over the course of a little over a year, I have been traveling around
the State of Tennessee making citizens aware of the unsustainable
deficits our country has. I am sure people on the other side of the
aisle have been doing the same. After townhall meetings all across our
State in almost every forum my colleagues can imagine--I am sure the
Presiding Officer has done the same--people are very aware in my State,
as they are across the country, of the fact that we are on an
unsustainable course. We are now beginning to have investor
publications--the Wall Street Journal this morning wrote an editorial
about the fact that no matter what we do regarding the actual proposals
before us today, it is likely our country is going to be downgraded.
So, here we are, faced with a situation where the types of legislation
we are looking at--in both Chambers, I might add, in both Chambers--
probably will take us to a place where our country's debt is
downgraded.
I wish to first applaud both leaders--Senator Reid for bringing forth
a proposal today or over the last few days, and Speaker Boehner, the
leader of the House, for doing the same on the House side. What I wish
to say about that is while to me they don't meet the goals or don't
meet the test our country needs to have met at this time, at least we
are finally talking about proposals that will reduce spending in this
country and put us back on a sustainable path. So I appreciate the
leadership of both bodies. Finally, after many months, we are on the
right topic.
What I have said all along is that as we approach the debt ceiling,
we need to dramatically change the character of spending in this
country. My concern is that our work is not quite done. The fact is
there is no question of the deadline coming up. Everybody agrees it is,
at least the minimum, August 2. I don't think there is any dispute that
we have until August 2 to deal with this issue. I also don't think we
have yet come up with a solution we need to come up with to
dramatically change the character of spending in this country.
What I would say is, look, our work is not quite done. The House has
a bill that basically reduces spending over the next decade by $1
trillion. Candidly, I think we all know that is not a solution that is
going to prevent a downgrade in this country. It does have the goal of
kicking this to a select committee of some kind that is going to try to
incorporate another $1.8 trillion in cuts. Candidly, that is a big step
back from where I think we were a weekend ago, where at least on the
cut side--even on the cut side--even the President had agreed to at
least $3 trillion in cuts. That is our understanding. So what we have
coming out of the House right now is a bill that doesn't cut as much as
the President had agreed to last weekend. We have on this side a bill
that cuts about $1 trillion after it has been scored. Again, I applaud
the leader of the Senate for putting forth a bill that at least begins
moving us in the right direction, but, again, it is $2 trillion short
of where the President had been with leaders a week ago, or at least
that is our understanding, and I am pretty sure that understanding is
correct.
We also know the general mantra adopted by Wall Street and by people
who are looking at our country around the world is that we need to do
something that is at least a $4 trillion solution.
I would say to the Senator from California who just spoke, I couldn't
agree more. We have not addressed this situation the way we should. I
don't think there is anything anybody--well, there may be a few--the
vast majority of this body does not want to see our country default on
its obligations. I don't know of anybody who wants to do that. I want
to see dramatic changes in the character of spending for our country,
and many people have sought that. Our work is not yet done.
What I would say is, let's have a short-term extension. There is no
question that we do not want the sovereign debt of this country to be
downgraded because we default. Nobody wants to see that happen. We are
at least finally on the right topic. We are talking about spending
reductions. We certainly haven't done the work necessary to achieve the
goal we need to achieve in this body. But I couldn't agree more. Let's
have a short-term extension. Let's extend it another week or 2 weeks or
3 weeks. A lot of people say, Well, the fact is that will roil the
markets. I don't think it will roil the markets. I think they are used
to us waiting until an hour before the deadline to work out a solution.
I think that has become customary, if you will, in the Senate and in
the House of Representatives.
So what I would say is if we don't do the work now--we have a
historic opportunity right now. Right now, the whole world, all of our
country, all of our citizens are all frustrated. The Members of the
House and the Senate are all focused on one thing and that is what kind
of a package can we put forth to actually cause our country to be more
solvent at this time.
We are finally on the right topic, yet we haven't even, in these
aspirational bills that are laid out--we know that with all the
actuarial assumptions that exist, with Medicare and Social Security and
Medicaid, that if we don't touch trying to make them solvent for the
longer haul, we haven't even done our work. The bills before us don't
even have as an aspirational goal--for instance, the House bill that is
coming over with a select committee that I know Senator Reid and
Senator McConnell have been involved in--and I thank them for their
work--doesn't even lay out that one of the things we are looking at is
ensuring Social Security is actuarially sound. The future of these
young pages who potentially down the road--not potentially, hopefully--
will benefit from Social Security, I think they would like to know that
during this historic time we are actually looking at the real issue.
What I am afraid of is we are missing the opportunity for this to be
the seminal moment we all thought it was going to be because we don't
yet have a product that solves the problem. The product we are looking
at in both bodies--and I thank the leaders of both bodies for bringing
them forth--does not meet the test. It doesn't dramatically change the
character of spending in Washington. It doesn't even stave off a
downgrade in U.S. sovereign debt.
We are on the brink of actually doing something great for our
country. And because we now have our country's focus and everybody in
both bodies is focused on this problem, let's have a short-term
extension. I agree. Let's don't default. Let's move back a week or 2
weeks or 3 weeks. But let's don't miss this historic opportunity to do
something great for our country, which is exactly what we are doing
now.
It is hard for me to believe, seriously, that what we have before us
is a $1 trillion downpayment. It is also hard for me to believe,
candidly, that we are going to set up a select committee that is going
to report back in 4 or 5 months when all of us know what the issues
are. We understand the math. I know we get ridiculed a lot for the way
we act in this body, but I think most of us candidly pretty well
understand what the solutions are. We all know nobody gets to work on
anything around here until there is an imminent deadline. So even with
this committee being potentially set up by mutual discussion down the
road--I know there are a lot of negotiations--to me they should report
back. I agree with the Senator from California. Let's report back at
the end of this fiscal year, September
[[Page S4980]]
30--there is no reason to wait--and if that type of bill were to pass
where we have a two-stage process, let's go ahead and get the work out
of the way.
I want to go back to the bigger picture for a moment and I will
conclude momentarily. We have an opportunity right now where we have
never been focused in the way we are right now--in the 4\1/2\ years I
have been here--on something as important as this as it relates to us
getting our house in order. We have never been this focused. What I am
afraid of, in the name of political efficacy--people saying, Hey, look,
let's take what we can get and get on out of here so we don't mess up
our potential, on both sides of the aisle, for the 2012 elections--take
what you have on both sides. Basically, let's think about it. For the
other side of the aisle, the way all of the proposals before us are
laid out, there is no dealing with trying to make the entitlements
sustainable, so they can run in 2012 on the entitlement issue. With all
of the proposals laid out right now, we don't deal with spending
appropriately, so our country is probably going to have its debt
downgraded, so Republicans can run on the fact that we haven't reduced
spending enough. So if we look at it, this works well for everybody,
except the citizens of our country.
Again, we are finally on the right topic, which is a rarity here. We
are finally focused on the problem. We have two bills that don't go far
enough. Again, I applaud both the Democratic leader and the Republican
leader for putting forth proposals. We all know they don't do what they
need to do--either proposal. We know the aspirational goals of each
proposal don't take us far enough.
I would say to all: I agree. Let's don't default. Let's don't buck up
against August 3. Let's pass a short-term time extension. Let's take us
through the end of August or the first 2 weeks in September, or let's
take a week, but let's finish our work in this body. Let's don't miss
this seminal opportunity where everybody in this country and everybody
in this world is looking at how undisciplined we have been and the
opportunity we have before us to actually be disciplined and send a
signal to the world that our future is not the future that Greece is
seeing today; our future is the continuation of American exceptionalism
all around this world. We are squandering that opportunity right now in
this body at a time when we are finally focused on the right topic.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer, as I always do.
____________________