[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 115 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5007-S5012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAA REAUTHORIZATION
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before turning to the issue of the moment,
I want to thank my dear friend for his good remarks here on the floor
of the Senate. He is a great leader, a great human being, and he
certainly outlined, I think in a fair way, some of the problems and
some of the solutions we might have here on the floor.
But before turning to the issue of the moment, the need to restore
the Nation's fiscal stability by reducing our deficits and debt, I want
to return to a matter I discussed on the floor yesterday, and that is
the FAA reauthorization bill.
I must respond to some of the comments made by two of my colleagues
earlier today regarding one of the major sticking points in our efforts
to pass the FAA reauthorization bill. Their arguments are, to put it
quite simply, fallacious and cannot go unanswered.
As you might expect, these comments were regarding the provision in
the House bill affecting the way votes are counted in union elections
in the airline industry. My colleagues, the senior Senator from West
Virginia and the junior Senator from Iowa, characterize the House's
actions as some sort of radical endeavor, a change that lacks
justification and common sense.
In fact, the Senator from West Virginia even argued that the House's
provisions would ``undo 75 years of labor law.''
These were his exact words. Well, nothing could be further from the
truth. In fact, the claim is so far from being accurate I simply have
to assume that my good friend, Senator Rockefeller, simply misspoke. I
know this is the line the labor unions and the administration are
peddling, but here is the truth: The House of Representatives or Senate
Republicans are not trying to undo 75 years of labor law, it is the
National Mediation Board--or NMB, I will call it--that has already done
so in a highly partisan fashion.
It is the NMB, controlled by pro-union appointees of President Obama
that in a partisan way unilaterally undid 75 years of labor law, and
put their finger on the scale for the unions that bankroll Democratic
political campaigns.
I know what I am talking about. I won the American Jurisprudence
prize for labor law. I have led labor fights on the floor for our side
for the last 35 years. House and Senate Republicans are only trying to
restore long-lasting labor law following its highly partisan corruption
by the National Mediation Board. This is not an opinion. This is fact.
Put the talking points and revisionist history aside, this is what
you have: a highly partisan NMB changing 75 years of settled law,
settled labor law, to benefit the Democrats' political allies. For 75
years, NMB-supervised elections required that a union receive the votes
of a majority of the entire workforce before it can be certified. That
has been the law. There is good reason for it. This was not just a
mathematical trick to disadvantage unions, as my colleagues have
argued. It is plain common sense.
Let's suppose, for example, that only 50 percent of a proposed
bargaining unit votes in a union election, and the union wins by a very
slim majority of the votes cast. In that case, a union representative
would be certified with only the demonstrated support of one-fourth of
the bargaining unit. That is what would happen if we follow the
language the NMB fallaciously put into their ruling. One-quarter of a
workforce could vote to certify a union and bind every other coworker
to have to live with that decision. Apparently a commitment to
Democratic and true majority rule only matters to the left when it
suits them. What is going on in this country is outrageous, not just at
the National Mediation Board but the NLRB as well. Democratic radicals,
very brilliant labor lawyers, who do not give a darn about what the law
is, are now starting to change the laws by regulatory fiat.
Apparently a commitment to democratic and true majority rule only
matters when it suits certain people's politics.
The Senator from Iowa compared these votes to Senate and schoolboard
elections, suggesting that only a majority of those voting is necessary
to prevail. This is a misguided comparison. First, union elections are
not a choice among competing representatives. They are, instead, held
to determine whether the workers want to be represented at all. Even
setting that aside, how many schoolboards are going to be empowered to
make decisions that affect every hour of every day an employee goes to
work? How many Senators are elected to serve a small, narrowly defined
group of constituents? And, in the end, if your vote is not counted in
a Senate or schoolboard election, you will get another chance to vote a
few years down the line.
Employees voting in these union elections have no such options. That
is why the law has been completely different from what my two friends
and colleagues have said on the floor. Requiring the support of the
majority of the whole unit before certifying a union representative
only makes common sense. This is why the procedure at NMB used for
these elections went unchanged for 75 years. Boards appointed by
Democratic Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton
all agreed with that process that the House bill is only attempting to
restore.
In fact, the NMB appointed by President Carter unanimously ruled it
did not have authority to administratively change the form of the NMB's
ballot used in representation elections, and that such a change, if
appropriate, can only be made by Congress. That makes sense.
Yet today we have an administration bent on greasing the rails in
favor of the unions, and a Democratic Senate all too willing to go
along with it. They are so willing that they have opted to stall
passage of the FAA reauthorization to prevent Congress from restoring a
system that served the Nation and airline industry well for decades.
This is another example of the administration showing its true colors.
Rather than provide certainty to travelers, the transportation
industry, and airports, they are holding up a long-term FAA
reauthorization in order to benefit their union allies. It is wrong.
This type of thing should not go on. Nor should the National Mediation
Board be issuing what ought to be congressional decisions.
[[Page S5008]]
I wish we were not having this debate. I wish we could get this FAA
reauthorization done. I want to get it done. I don't want anybody
furloughed, but these are important issues. This isn't some itty-bitty
nonessential issue. I am not going to yield on this issue. I will not
let an out-of-control National Mediation Board and their patrons in
Congress and the White House rig the rules so a small minority can jam
unionization on unwilling employees.
I expect we will be debating this issue for some time. I am willing
to have the debate in full view of the public. But, at the very least,
I expect my colleagues to acknowledge the truth as to what has
transpired at the National Mediation Board. It is not the House of
Representatives that has taken a radical position; it is the Obama
administration, and some of my colleagues on the other side should know
better.
Let me add a couple of other things. I don't enjoy the fact that
people are being furloughed. But it is not Republicans who are holding
this bill up. It is those people demanding outrageous changes in the
law by individuals who were never elected to make those changes. We
ought to fire that whole doggone National Mediation Board--or at least
the Democrats on the board, who don't seem to care about what the law
is.
And it is the same with the NLRB. At least one of them, and maybe
more, could not make it through this process and had to be recess
appointed. They could care less about what the laws are, and they want
to change them without proper congressional approval. It is outrageous.
It is not something my friends on the other side should encourage. It
just makes sense.
All those Democratic Presidents, until now, have honored that 75-year
history of how votes should be taken in union elections. Unions win
over 60 percent of their union elections. The system is not unfair.
They lose some, sure. But to stack the rules so they can win every time
is not right either. It certainly isn't democratic. It is wrong for
those employees who didn't have the opportunity, or didn't vote. It is
wrong. You can have 10 people vote in a 100-person union, and if 6 vote
for it, under their rule, that would change the rule for all 94 of the
others. That is what we are ignoring. So much for that. All I can say
is I don't want to have anyone whining from the other side, because
they are the ones who are holding up the FAA reauthorization. And they
are doing it for the most crass of reasons.
The Debt Ceiling
Turning to the matter that is consuming the Nation, I want to address
the so-called August 2 deadline we hit next week.
In early April of this year, Treasury Secretary Geithner informed
Congress that Treasury might run out of ways to stay at the debt limit
and have enough cash to pay its bills around July 8. About a month and
a half later, on May 16, the Treasury Secretary updated his guess to
August 2.
This August 2 deadline, which the administration has insisted is when
Treasury runs out of sufficient cash to pay bills, was estimated back
in the middle of May. It is only reasonable to expect that Congress
would be kept apprised of Treasury's cashflow status and estimates. If
we indeed face an economic catastrophe on August 2, it is only
reasonable to expect warnings from those in government responsible for
issuing such updates and monitoring threats to our financial stability.
We have a group in government that is charged with that
responsibility. It is called the Financial Stability Oversight Council,
or FSOC, set up in the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. The FSOC is
chaired by the Treasury Secretary and composed of members such as the
Federal Reserve Chairman and banking regulations czars. Indeed, the
FSOC was sold by Democrats as a body that would be able to spot threats
to our financial system and then warn and protect us all.
The President, Treasury officials, the President's Press Secretary,
and others in the administration daily warn of catastrophe, crisis, and
the potential for conditions even worse than we saw during the
financial crisis. They seem to be channeling Dr. Peter Venkman, who,
faced with another catastrophe, once predicted a disaster of biblical
proportions--human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass
hysteria.
Yet through all these predictions, the FSOC has essentially remained
silent. That body of unelected bureaucrats either doesn't see an
impending threat to stability from the debt limit impasse, or from a
ratings downgrade for the United States, or it is too busy writing a
mountain of new regulations to make a warning.
I sent a letter, which I wish to have printed in the Record, to eight
voting members of the FSOC yesterday, asking two basic sets of
questions. I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC, July 27, 2011.
Hon. Timothy Geithner,
Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ben Bernanke,
Chairman, Board of Governors, The Federal Reserve System,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Gary Gensler,
Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Mary Schapiro,
Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Washington, DC.
Martin J. Gruenberg,
Acting Chairperson, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Washington, DC.
Edward DeMarco,
Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Debbie Matz,
Chairman, National Credit Union Administration, Alexandria,
VA.
John Walsh,
Acting Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Geithner, Chairmen Bernanke, Gensler, Matz,
Shapiro, Acting Chairperson Gruenberg, Acting Director
DeMarco, and Acting Comptroller Walsh: The President, on July
25, spoke to the American public about risks associated with
failure to raise the statutory debt limit, saying that: ``We
would risk sparking a deep economic crisis. . .'' The
President warns of a deep crisis and risks to financial
stability.
You, the voting members of the Financial Stability
Oversight Council (FSOC), are charged by the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act with the
responsibility to identify risks and potential emerging
threats to the financial stability of the United States.
Does the Council agree with the President's assessment that
possible failure to raise the statutory debt limit by
sometime in early August represents an emerging threat to the
financial stability of the United States?
Does any voting Council member dissent from whatever is the
majority view of the Council? If so, please explain precisely
why.
Neither the Minutes of the FSOC July 13, 2011 meeting nor
the Annual Report of the FSOC, which was approved on July 22,
2011, identify possible failure to raise the statutory debt
limit by August 2 as an imminent risk to the financial
stability of the United States worthy of a warning to the
American people, and do not come close to recent statements
by Treasury officials warning of ``catastrophe.''
In addition to inquiring about the Council's views on
possible risks to financial stability, I write to ask the
Council and its voting members about their current knowledge
of recent Treasury cash inflows and outflows and projections
of those cash flows, daily, through the month of August.
Treasury officials have warned that based on actual and
projected revenues and expenditures, along with potential
exhaustion of available ``extraordinary measures'' to avoid
breach of the statutory debt limit, the United States will
exhaust its borrowing authority under the limit and possibly
run out of available cash to pay obligations of the federal
government that are due.
Unfortunately, Congress and the American people do not have
sufficient information about Treasury's actual and projected
revenues, expenditures, and cash flows to make informed
judgments. Many Americans and members of Congress are,
unfortunately, relying on estimates and projections from
either large Wall Street financial institutions
[[Page S5009]]
or non-governmental organizations often labeled ``think
tanks.'' The lack of information is unsatisfactory.
In a May 2, 2011 letter to Congress, Treasury Secretary
Geithner stated that as a result of stronger than anticipated
tax receipts, Treasury then estimated that extraordinary
measures to provide headroom under the statutory debt limit
would be exhausted on August 2, 2011. Since that time, more
data have become available. Some reports since that time have
indicated that receipts may have been turning out higher than
previously expected. Further, the Federal Reserve's July 2011
Monetary Policy Report to the Congress identifies that
``Federal receipts have risen rapidly lately--they are up
about 10 percent in the first eight months of fiscal 2011
compared with the same period in fiscal 2010.''
I recognize that receipts and Treasury's cash inflows and
outflows can be lumpy and are stochastic. However, the date
at which extraordinary measures available to Treasury become
exhausted, and cash inflows may prove insufficient to meet
incoming obligations that are due, has almost surely changed
from the August 2 date estimated by Treasury on May 2. Given
incoming data since May 2, does August 2 remain the date with
the highest statistical likelihood of being the point in time
at which Treasury will run out of extraordinary measures to
provide additional headroom under the debt limit and will
face insufficient cash inflows relative to obligations that
are coming due?
Please provide, by 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time on
Thursday, July 28, detailed information known by the Council
and by any voting member on:
Actual revenues and expenditures through July 27;
Projected or actual daily Treasury cash inflows and
outflows for each day between July 28 and August 31, along
with methods used to make projections;
Whether, given current projections of cash inflows and
obligations coming due, Treasury would run out of cash and
not have sufficient cash available to meet all obligations
that become due on any date between August 2 and August 31
(projections here mean point estimates, with the
acknowledgement that projections are inherently uncertain);
Any cash or liquid accounts available (presently or any
time during August) to Treasury, such as Treasury's $5
billion liquid balance sitting idle in its Supplementary
Financing Program Account at the Federal Reserve, established
to allegedly assist the Federal Reserve with management of
its balance sheet during the financial crisis (the Daily
Statement of cash and debt operations of the United States
Treasury for Monday, July 25, 2011 indicates that the $5
billion was available to Treasury on that date);
Current values of securities and other marketable assets
available (presently or any time during August) to Treasury,
including mortgage-backed-securities and other financial
claims amassed by Treasury during the recent financial
crisis, which could be liquidated and converted to cash (my
request is for total values, not an assessment of the
advisability of asset sales);
Contingency plans for generation of cash within Treasury in
the event that the statutory debt limit is not raised by
August 2, 2011;
Contingency plans of regulators of financial institutions,
including any plans for regulatory forebearance, in the event
of a ratings downgrade of United States Treasury debt
securities;
Contingency plans of the Federal Reserve System and the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the event of a ratings
downgrade of United States Treasury debt securities,
including plans related to ``breaking of the buck'' by a
money market mutual fund, disruptions in the tri-party repo
market, disruptions in payment systems or systemically
important financial utilities, or creation of programs or
facilities with broad-based eligibility under authorities
provided by Section 1101 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act;
Any private assurances by any government officials to any
financial institution or significant financial market
participant that the United States Treasury will not fail to
pay principal and interest on Treasury securities even if the
statutory debt limit is not raised.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, with a
responsibility for oversight of our sovereign debt and
Treasury's cash management practices, I am deeply concerned
about the lack of information about upcoming cash flows and
reliance of Congress and the American people on
nongovernmental projections of those flows in decisionmaking.
Time is of the essence, and I require, as I stated, the
information that I have requested by 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time on Thursday, July 28. Please contact Jeff Wrase
at 202-224-4515.
Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch,
Ranking Member.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one is whether they see any imminent threat
to financial stability from the debt limit impasse, or from an
impending downgrade to our Nation's credit rating. Of course, we face
warnings of downgrades of our credit rating not merely because of the
debt limit impasse; we have had dozens of such impasses in recent
decades, with no effect on our credit rating. Yet we do face warnings
of a ratings downgrade because of President Obama's acceleration of
deficits and debt along our unsustainable fiscal path and unsustainable
entitlement promises.
With spending as a share of the economy up to levels not seen since
World War II, and a lack of willingness by the administration to break
its deficit spending addiction, ratings agencies have been brought to
the edge and warn of impending downgrades. Those downgrades would
immediately harm job creation, the economy, the cost of credit for
every American family and business, and, indeed, overall financial
stability.
However, instead of a forthright discussion of this threat, the FSOC
chose to instead bury an academic discussion of it in their annual
report. Let me remind everyone how important Democrats said the FSOC
would be as an early warning system, protecting us from the imminent
threats to stability. It was supposed to be a watchdog, a cop on the
beat combing global financial markets for imbalances and stability
threats, and then giving warning to everyone.
The President, the Treasury Secretary, ratings agencies, Secretary of
State, Fed Chairman Bernanke, admirals, investors, former
administration officials across party lines--all have issued warnings
of threats to financial stability from our fiscal crisis. Yet the FSOC
buried whatever observation it has about our crisis in its annual
report.
Another set of questions I asked the FSOC involves Treasury's
cashflows through August and the date at which Treasury now believes it
is most likely to run short of cash. I asked about contingency plans
that Treasury, the Fed, and bank regulators have if there is a ratings
downgrade. Reports of meetings of Treasury Secretary Geithner, Fed
Chairman Bernanke, and New York Fed President Dudley suggest that
contingency plans certainly are in the works.
Yet as the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the
administration has provided me with no information on what those plans
might be, in spite of my responsibility for oversight of debt and cash
operations at Treasury. I wish I could say I was surprised, but the
fact is, the promise of the most open, deliberative, and rational
administration in history has given way to a highly secretive and
partisan operation that denies the people of this country the
leadership they are owed.
Perhaps I am supposed to wait, as in the past, for news reports on
Sunday afternoon before the opening of financial markets in Asia to
find out what we would do if an economic catastrophe in fact unfolds.
It is an unsatisfactory and unacceptable state of affairs that the
American people and Members of Congress do not have updated and
sufficient information about Treasury's cashflows and liquid assets, or
the contingency plans of our financial regulators. It is disturbing to
me that in recent days Members of Congress in both Chambers have gone
to their respective floors to discuss Treasury's cash and liquidity
position using information supplied either by large Wall Street
financial institutions, or by nongovernmental think tanks.
Press reports of the U.S. Treasury's financial condition have also
been relying on these sources. Why? Why do Members of Congress not know
details of Treasury's projected cashflows for August? Why are we
relying on dated numbers Treasury gave us months ago? How can we decide
whether August 2, a threshold date estimated by Treasury back in May,
is even close to some sort of deadline date for dealing with the debt
limit?
Maybe the date is July 29. I don't know, and neither the
administration nor the FSOC has told us. Maybe the date is August 15. I
don't know, and neither the administration nor the FSOC has told us. I
don't know. The American people don't know. This is unacceptable.
Wall Street firms have recently put out their own projections and say
that August 2 may not be relevant at all. Maybe it will be August 8
when Treasury runs into a cashflow problem. Maybe it will be August 13.
Does Treasury still believe August 2 is the date when cashflow problems
are most likely to arrive, given new information on
[[Page S5010]]
government receipts since early May? If not, we need to know, and we
need to know how that assessment has been made. If so, then why is
Treasury not telling us and showing us why?
My letter to FSOC members, which includes the Treasury Secretary,
includes a request for updated information about Treasury cashflows and
liquid assets. Given warnings from the administration that there is
special urgency to act by August 2, time is of the essence, so I asked
to receive responses from the FSOC members by 5 o'clock today, which is
now an hour and a half ago. I have received no reply about Treasury
cashflows and liquid assets. Nothing. Radio silence.
Television cameras can't be turned on in this town without capturing
some administration official reminding Americans about the looming
default, but they are unable to provide Congress with the numbers that
would show when the default would happen, after all these months of
recommending we should know, and after warnings months ago.
Let me say this again. I asked for, and have not received, critical
information about the state of our Nation's short-term finances that I
specifically requested from eight voting members of the FSOC, including
the Secretary of the Treasury.
I have received no response at all regarding the cash and liquid
assets Treasury has and expects to have available. But worse than the
refusal by the Treasury Secretary and the FSOC members to inform us
about the Nation's cash position is their refusal to keep the American
people duly informed about the state of our finances. It is, quite
simply, a shirking of their responsibility to the citizens of this
country. Rather than providing transparency--which we were promised--
the administration has chosen to scare Social Security recipients about
their benefits in politicized debt-limit negotiations.
We are debating debt and deficit plans that involve trillions of
dollars. Yet we only have guesses about how much cash the Federal
Government expects to have in August from a nongovernment think tank
and from Wall Street firms. This is unacceptable.
Mr. President, one of the most troubling aspects of this lack of
disclosure is the way it is affecting our Nation's seniors. I listened
to my constituents in Utah, and many of them who rely on Social
Security are very worried, and they are, frankly, scared. The Obama
administration has been hard at work frightening them about the
prospects of default. More concerned about his election prospects than
resolving this crisis, President Obama commented recently that he could
not guarantee Treasury would be able to make Social Security payments
in early August.
Really? This fearmongering is shameful--absolutely shameful. For the
President to threaten not to send out Social Security checks is a stain
on his Presidency. Those relying on Social Security benefits rightfully
count on timely payments. They worked hard and paid taxes, and timely
benefit payments are due to them. These payments can and should be
assured, no question.
Why is the President using the politics of fear on our seniors? I
think we all know the reason. Given the information that is available,
it appears that roughly $50 billion of Social Security payments are due
during August. Recent estimates from outside sources put flows in the
Treasury of between $170 billion and over $200 billion in August from
various tax receipts and other sources. That alone is more than enough
to pay $50 billion in Social Security payments, with cash left over for
the $30 billion due on our debt in August and more.
Perhaps the President is worried about the timing of cashflows in
August. Yet even if all $50 billion of Social Security payments come
due on August 3--and they won't--Treasury can easily get its hands on
cash to pay those bills. According to the Daily Treasury Statement for
July 26, Treasury has $5 billion sitting idle at the Federal Reserve.
Treasury can call that up. They can call up the Fed right now and get
that $5 billion in cash.
Treasury has roughly $90 billion in mortgage-backed securities that
it bought in the financial crisis to bail out the housing markets. It
sold $10.6 billion of those just last month. Treasury can go out and
sell more next week if it is worried about not having cash to pay
seniors. It could raise almost $80 billion.
There are many more options for Treasury to get cash, and if the
administration had any concern for seniors it would have had its
officials working hard since at least May to ensure enough cash is
available in August. Treasury could easily have $50 billion of cash on
August 3 to pay our seniors if it wants to do that.
Why, then, did the President choose to strike fear into all of our
Nation's seniors? Why would the President say to our seniors that he
could not guarantee there would be cash available to pay benefits in
August when he can absolutely guarantee there would be cash available?
It seems clear the President has chosen to use fear and to scare
seniors in order to boost his chances at reelection and to strengthen
the hand of our friends on the other side who are insistent on raising
taxes as a means of deficit reduction. If we raise taxes, I guarantee
you the other side will spend every dime of it. It will not be used to
pay down the deficit, and especially with a Presidential election in a
couple of years.
Using Social Security and the financial security of our seniors as
bargaining chips in a political poker game over the debt ceiling is, to
put it bluntly, shameful. To do so to try to raise taxes at a time when
unemployment is 9.2 percent and trending up--and that doesn't even
include the underemployment rate, which is hovering around 17 percent
when you count those who will not even look for jobs anymore, and
others who will not work--well, it represents an odd way to express
concern about jobs.
The only reason Social Security payments would not be made in August
by the administration would be a conscious choice by the administration
to stiff seniors and to blame Republicans. It would be a conscious
political choice, not a choice forced by the debt limit or lack of
cash.
Well, Mr. President, it is time for me to conclude, but I want to be
clear. The American public has been shortchanged by the new Financial
Stability Oversight Council that was created by the job-killing Dodd-
Frank financial regulation act. That is one of the worst bills I have
seen in all of my 35 years.
The FSOC, chaired by Treasury Secretary Geithner, has refused and
ignored my request for basic information about government finances and
government contingency plans in the face of dire warnings of threats to
our Nation's financial stability.
I don't enjoy coming on the Senate floor and excoriating this
administration and the President and FSOC. But this is shameful. The
American people deserve transparency, and they deserve accountability.
Yet the administration and its regulators chose instead to withhold
information from the people and their elected representatives in
Congress. The refusal by members of FSOC, including the Treasury
Secretary, to provide simple basic information about government
finances is unacceptable and requires investigation and action.
Mr. President, we have to get to where this government starts to work
again. We shouldn't have to rely on Wall Street for these figures or
rely on Wall Street to know what the administration's plan is. We
shouldn't have to rely on anybody except those who are designated to
provide this information. Unfortunately, they haven't done that.
I admit, I only gave them a few days, but they have been working on
this for months. I don't know about their office, but I tell you one
thing. We get things done on time. We are at rug-cutting time on the
floor of the Senate and in the House of Representatives. We know August
2 is the heralded date by this administration. Since they chose the
date, I think they should justify what they are going to do and how
they are going to do it; to make sure if we don't somehow increase the
debt ceiling, which I am not going to do, we at least know what their
plan is.
I hope the administration will get a little more active on some of
these things that are so important on Capitol Hill--important to
Democrats as well as Republicans. We need to have the facts. We need
accountability, we need transparency, and I am calling on the
administration to get on the ball.
[[Page S5011]]
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the urgent
need to act on the debt ceiling before the August 2 deadline. While I
believe we have reached a defining moment as a country, which has not
been wasted--we need to reduce our debt--we also can't afford to play
Russian roulette with our economy by toying with the debt limit.
We have had months to work this out. Yet less than 6 days from a
possible default that would plunge this country into a serious crisis,
here we stand in opposite corners of the boxing ring. The markets are
jittery, investors and businesses are deeply concerned, but, most
importantly, the people of this country are fed up with this political
stalemate. They do not want their interest rates to rise, the value of
the dollar to fall, and they do not want to see their retirement
savings decimated again because some in Washington believe if they
refuse to compromise, the resulting crisis will score them political
points.
Ever since the economic downturn, families across the country have
sat down at their kitchen tables to make the tough choices about what
they hold most dear and what they can learn to live without. We all
know those conversations. They have to end with compromise.
A poll released Monday by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 68
percent of Americans say lawmakers who share their views on this issue,
on either side, say those lawmakers should compromise. So people who
actually share a view with a particular lawmaker, 68 percent of them
say lawmakers should compromise, even if it means striking a deal they
disagree with.
Just 23 percent say lawmakers who share their views should stand by
their principles even if it leads to default.
My colleagues and I don't need polls to tell us that. We have all had
our offices flooding with calls and e-mails in the last few days from
well-meaning constituents with advice and from those who are mad and
asking us to work it out. Just this morning I received this e-mail from
Dave and Cheryl of Northfield, MN. This is what it says:
Dear Amy,
The political positioning and wrangling over the Federal
Budget and debt ceiling limit has gone on long enough! It's
time for our elected leaders to step up and resolve the debt
ceiling and budget crisis in a mature, adult fashion. We
realize that this is easier said than done, but after
experiencing the shutdown of the State of Minnesota, it is
unconscionable to even have the possibility of the crisis
that we will face as a nation if we don't raise our debt
ceiling and begin reducing the deficit. We urge you and your
colleagues to do all it takes to resolve this issue prior to
the deadline. There has to be some compromise that can be
identified. Each side will need to give to make this happen--
let's focus on the art of compromise and get this wrapped up.
It's time to show the world that we are still a truly great
nation and can step up to resolve the challenges placed
before us. The greater good of the nation has to be placed as
a top priority. Hoping and praying for successful resolution
to the outstanding issues.
That is Dave and Cheryl of Northfield, MN--just citizens who sent an
e-mail today. I wish everyone in this Chamber and everyone over in the
House would listen to this today. I think it sums it up very well.
Outside the Halls of Congress there isn't much disagreement over the
urgency to act or the consequences of failing to do so. There also
isn't a lot of disagreement over the importance to our economy of a
long-term extension. Who seriously believes dragging this country
through this again in 5 or 6 months will help our economy get back on
track?
Economists and experts from across the political spectrum have warned
that a short-term approach would likely lead to a downgrade of our
credit rating, which would cost us billions of dollars more in interest
payments on our existing debt and drive up our deficit. For families
and businesses, it would mean a spike in interest rates, making
everything from mortgages, car loans, and credit cards more expensive.
I think the most common refrain I hear from the business community in
Minnesota when we talk about what it will take to spur investment and
create jobs in this country is a need for certainty--certainty in the
Tax Code, certainty in expenses, certainty in our government's budget.
Let's provide some certainty.
After months of debate, it is clear what sort of plan is needed to
garner the support necessary to get us across the finish line. We will
all ultimately have to accept things with which we don't necessarily
agree. It is time to get serious about advancing a deal that is both
fair and achievable.
On August 2, the borrowing authority of the United States will be
exhausted. No one benefits if we are unable to reach an agreement by
this deadline. Every day that passes without a deal only increases
uncertainty in the markets and puts the brakes on economic activity.
Failure to bring the national debt under control also threatens
America's future, but the danger of default threatens our economy
today.
We have two options: We can either set a precedent of holding our
debt hostage to political maneuvering, raising the cost of borrowing
and increasing our deficit at the same time or we can show the world we
are serious about working together to address our fiscal challenges to
reduce the debt, reduce the cost of borrowing, and strengthen our
financial outlook. I believe the choice is clear, and I believe a lot
of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that.
The sooner we can agree on a long-term package, the better for our
economy and the better for our country. It is time to put our political
differences aside and work on an agenda that strengthens our economy,
promotes fiscal responsibility, and increases global competitiveness
because if we refuse to have an honest conversation, if we insist on
using the debate as a vehicle for rhetoric only, we will not just be
doing ourselves a disservice, not just be doing this institution a
disservice, we will be cheating our children and grandchildren out of
knowing the America in which we grew up. If we are committed to our
country and not to unmoving ideologies, we will get this done.
Last month, I received a lesson in what commitment as a public
servant means when I attended the funeral of Jack Murray, who was the
former mayor of International Falls, MN, right on the Canadian border.
It is a town where they often test cars to show that they can withstand
the cold, but it is a hardscrabble, thriving town.
Mayor Murray was a decorated marine who served for 14 years as a
member of the city council and for 14 more years as mayor. He
figuratively and literally wore ``I love International Falls'' on his
sleeve with a button he was never without. At his funeral--and he was
89 years when he died--we heard countless stories of his commitment to
his city that didn't end when he retired. The priest at the funeral
told this story. He said that every morning, including the morning
Mayor Murray died, he would rise early and walk the streets of
International Falls. He would wear his orange highway vest to keep him
safe, at 89, and he would have a cup of coffee and a bag for trash, and
he would walk the streets of his beloved town collecting trash up until
the day he died. He was a public servant to the end. He believed in his
town, in his State, and in his country. And that is an example for all
of us now.
We are all public servants. We must have a commitment to the larger
good, to our country, and to the people we represent. None of us wants
to see our economy crippled. Democrats don't want it. Republicans don't
want it. So what are we waiting for? It is time for Congress to step
forth and show some leadership. It is time for us to work together to
show the American people that Washington isn't broken; that, instead,
we are willing to put aside our politics to do what we were elected to
do, to do what is right for America.
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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
[[Page S5012]]
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________