[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.

                          ____________________