[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 116 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5046-S5049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DEBT CEILING

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, too many Ohioans are struggling--as 
are people all over the Nation--in this economy. They are watching 
Washington with disgust as some politicians are risking economic 
catastrophe. The House of Representatives continues to waste time as 
our Nation stands just 4 days away from a catastrophic default. Instead 
of working with us on a bipartisan basis in the Senate on a compromise 
measure to prevent a crisis, House Republicans are cutting closed-door 
deals to find votes on a bill that has no chance of becoming law. We 
are simply running out of time for these kinds of games.
  Only a bipartisan bill coming out of the Senate, negotiated with 
Republican Leader McConnell and Democratic Leader Reid, provides hope 
for a way out of this impasse. As the majority leader moves forward, I 
ask my Republican colleagues across the aisle to proceed with its work 
and not delay the resolution with filibusters and procedural tricks.
  In the spirit of compromise, Majority Leader Reid has come forth with 
a plan to reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. It is truly a compromise 
because it meets the Republicans' main criteria. It incorporates some 
of Senator McConnell's language. It contains spending cuts to roughly 
match the debt ceiling increase through 2012--the spending cuts in the 
Reid plan are ones Republicans had previously agreed to and, in many 
cases, advanced--and it contains no revenue increases, all criteria and 
demands from overwhelming numbers of Senate Republicans.
  The majority leader's plan is not perfect. It is not the balanced 
approach I hoped it would be. But most importantly, right now, it 
prevents a default, it reduces the deficit--a critical imperative for 
our children and grandchildren--and it protects Medicare and Social 
Security and Medicaid.
  My office is being swamped with calls and e-mails from Ohioans who 
cannot believe we are so close to default. I can't either. Let me read 
a couple letters from Ohio voters. Both of these individuals self-
identify as Republicans when they write to me. The first one is from 
Representative Marcy Kaptur's district, which is in northern Ohio, 
along the lake. He says:

       I am a 40-plus-year-old Republican who has tried to work to 
     eliminate the tax money we use that is now paid to oil and 
     gas companies as tax subsidies. I don't like my tax money 
     being given to these companies with Senators' blessings. I 
     would like to ask both of you--

  He sends this, apparently, to myself and my colleague, Senator 
Portman--

     to support a balanced approach being proposed by the 
     President and put debt and deficit to bed until an election 
     can be held and the American people can determine who should 
     be in Congress. We should have listened to Ronald Reagan when 
     he said this should not have been undertaken.

  Meaning the debt limit issue.

       The debt limit is on past bills and should not be raised 
     and not be used as a political volleyball and upset our 
     financial institutions.

  Another letter writer--again, a Republican--says:

       I did not vote for our current President, but I have to 
     side with him on the debt ceiling issues. I am exhausted by 
     the political bickering that goes on in Washington. Quit the 
     child-like fighting and get this thing done. The American 
     people are tired of it all.

  A default would risk what amounts to a permanent tax hike on all 
Americans. Interest rates could rise for anyone applying for a home 
mortgage, a car loan or a college loan. Credit costs for all borrowers 
would climb. Governments at every level, businesses, not for profits, 
homeowners, credit card holders, even several States have already been 
placed on a credit watch. Every State would be hurt by a Federal 
default, which is why Governors of both parties are calling for a deal.
  There could be repercussions for pension funds and money market funds 
that guard the retirement savings of middle-class families. A default 
on our obligations would be a knockout blow to the financial security 
of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System. These are public 
employees who have spent their lives working in Ohio's courts and 
schools and many other public positions in local and State government. 
That is why the Director of OPERS--the Ohio Public Employees Retirement 
System--sent a letter with nine of her colleagues pleading:

       America is now a debtor nation and must show the world the 
     nation's word is its bond. It is critical that the debt 
     ceiling be raised to avoid a default.

  The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, obviously, represents 
Republicans and Democrats alike.
  As a member of the Senate Banking Committee, I heard Chairman Ben 
Bernanke, a Republican appointee, speak in March, and he said default 
would be ``an extremely dangerous and very likely recovering-ending 
event.''
  Just today, several mayors of Ohio's large- and medium- sized 
cities--for example, the cities of Hillsboro, South Euclid, 
Chillicothe, North Royalton, Lancaster, Akron, Middletown, Shaker 
Heights, Reynoldsburg, Dayton, Steubenville, Solon, Newark, Fairfield, 
and other cities, Republicans and Democrats alike--wrote:

       As Mayors, we rely on the partnership of the federal 
     government to help us create jobs and grow our communities. 
     Uncertainty surrounding the federal budget puts key programs 
     like Community Development Block Grants and Community 
     Oriented Policing Services in jeopardy. Job-creating 
     infrastructure projects would come to a halt without the full 
     support of our federal partners. Inaction on the debt ceiling 
     threatens programs like Social Security that our citizens 
     rely on to survive.

  I have heard the Presiding Officer--in a meeting today, in fact--talk 
passionately about the uncertainty this would inject into our economy--
to follow the House lead--and do this again in 6 months and the 
irresponsibility of that proposal. As difficult as this has been for 
people on all sides and the contentiousness and anger, it doesn't 
matter whether we are angry or it is contentious around here, but what 
does matter is the message it sends to main street--Main Street 
Connecticut, Main Street Hartford, Main Street Columbus, Main Street 
New Haven and Toledo. When businesses are thinking about expansion, 
when they are thinking about taking a loan out or thinking about 
borrowing money, they are not going to do it when we are in the midst 
of a financial crisis such as we are in now. If we were going to do 
this again in 6 months, you can bet we would have the same kind of 
divisions, the same kind of arguments.
  The assistant majority leader told the story today about a Chicago 
businessperson who is terrified of this and what would happen if we 
didn't raise the debt ceiling, if we went into default; what might 
happen 6 months from now if we went through it again.
  So the responsible position is for this body, on a bipartisan basis, 
to work on

[[Page S5047]]

the McConnell-Reid plan, to pass this, send it to the House of 
Representatives, and for them to pass it. We can then focus on job 
creation and on deficit reduction, but we will have moved forward 
together in a way that we have not for far too long a period of time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Of course.
  Mr. DURBIN. There have been Members of the Senate and House who have 
gone before the cameras and come to the floor in each of those bodies 
and argued that defaulting on the national debt is really not a big 
deal, although we have never done that one time in our history--we had 
one technical default for a few days but never really defaulted on our 
debt one time in our history.
  I ask the Senator from Ohio, in the response he is getting back from 
Ohio and I am getting back from Illinois from people who are genuinely 
concerned about a default on the national debt, I wonder if he has been 
hearing from Social Security recipients who are asking whether they 
will be receiving their checks after August 2 if we default on their 
debt. I wonder if he is getting calls from disabled veterans whom we 
promised to stand by the rest of their lives who receive monthly checks 
for their medical care and other things. Has he heard from small 
business leaders in Ohio, as I have in Illinois, who are suggesting 
that an increase in interest rates at this moment in time is exactly 
wrong when it comes to job creation?
  I would like to ask the Senator from Ohio, when one of our colleagues 
from Pennsylvania comes to the floor and says defaulting on the 
national debt can be easily managed and no one will notice--I would 
like to ask the Senator from Ohio whether that is his impression.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. That is surely not my impression. I appreciate the 
comments from the assistant majority leader from Illinois.
  I listen to the words, as I have read, that Ronald Reagan said. The 
debt limit was raised 18 times in the 8 years of the Reagan 
administration, and each time it was, there were people who didn't like 
doing it. Nobody likes to vote for that. But there was never this: 
let's go up to the edge and take a chance. President Reagan always 
preached--as Presidents have since in both parties--that this is not a 
risk we can take, and I know this.
  I hear from Social Security beneficiaries, I hear from veterans, I 
hear from small businesspeople, and I hear from contractors around 
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base that they don't think we should take 
this risk, that they are--some use the word ``terrified'' getting this 
close to default, and most can't really believe we are this close. I 
can't, either.
  The Senator from Illinois and I have talked about this many times 
over the last few months, that we figured there would not be these 
lines in the sand and this belief that it doesn't matter if we default 
and we would get to a solution. But we haven't been able to.
  But no responsible people in elected office that I can think of in 
the last 30 or 40 years have wanted to go this close to default and 
play chicken and just think, well, maybe it won't hurt us much. We know 
what happens with interest rates. We know what might happen with Social 
Security checks and veterans' benefits and prison guard pay and airport 
safety and food inspectors--all of those functions that matter. I don't 
know why any responsible leader in this body or the other body would 
want to take that risk.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask through the Chair if the Senator from 
Ohio would yield for this question.
  He may recall the time not that long ago when we closed down the 
government of the United States for a period of time, and there were 
some radio talk show hosts who argued that America wouldn't notice, 
just as they are arguing now that America won't notice if we default on 
our national debt. I know the Senator from Ohio can recall that and the 
fact that America did notice, and those who engineered that crisis paid 
a heavy political price.
  What I am really getting to at this point, though, is to ask the 
Senator from Ohio--Monday night, when the Speaker of the House, John 
Boehner, went on national television with the President of the United 
States and announced he had a bipartisan plan, he called it, that he 
could pass in the House of Representatives, many of us had the 
impression that was going to be done on Tuesday. Well, it wasn't done 
on Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday. It is only today that they are 
voting on it, some 5 or 6 days later.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Ohio, losing that 4- or 5-day 
period of time when we could have been moving forward to a compromise--
the impact that has as we face this looming deadline of a default on 
our national debt on August 2.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank the Senator for that comment and question. 
This is clearly more dangerous for our economy and our country, from 
Wall Street to Main Street, than what happened when they closed the 
government down 15 years ago or threatened to a few months ago. That 
was troubling, and that was damaging to our country, but we don't know 
what exactly would happen here. We are almost sure interest rates would 
go up. We are almost sure many people who benefit from government 
services directly would see those benefits go away. Whether it is a 
Social Security check or whether it is food safety or running the 
airports safely, all of those things would be at risk.
  I have heard a lot of sort of brouhaha or a lot of strong words out 
of the House and a lot of promises, but there seems to be too many 
people in that Chamber who don't really see the seriousness of this, 
don't see that this really does put our economy in jeopardy.
  You know, it is not just our economy. That is the most important 
part, but it is also our reputation around the world. It is the 
strength of the dollar. It is the blot on our national reputation. I 
haven't been to Europe in a long time, but I hear reports from people 
around the world that they are saying: What is going on in the United 
States of America that you can't even agree on raising the debt ceiling 
so you can really focus on things such as jobs?
  I had a meeting just last week--Senator Rockefeller and I, earlier 
this week--and there were eight or nine Senators who joined us to talk 
about focusing on a jobs agenda and what we need to do to restore 
American manufacturing. In a State such as Illinois, and in 
Connecticut--the other Senator from Connecticut was in our meeting and 
talked about Bridgeport and New Haven and all the manufacturing that is 
done in this country. We are still a major manufacturing country. This 
is going to hurt manufacturers. It is going to mean they can't borrow 
to meet payroll or borrow to expand or borrow to create more jobs.
  Why would we risk any of this instead of getting this done by 
focusing on job growth, and focusing on getting our budget in order? We 
know how do this. In the 1990s--and the Presiding Officer and the 
assistant majority leader were very much part of it--in the 1990s, we 
got to, one, a balanced budget and, second, we got to 21 million 
private sector jobs net increase because we passed a responsible 
budget. It had some tax increases for upper income people. It also had 
some tax breaks in it for middle-income people. It also had major cuts 
and major investments. And we did all of that because we wrote a 
thoughtful budget--didn't get a lot of help from the other side, but 
put that aside, we did it right, we got to a budget surplus, and we 
created 21 million jobs. We know how do this. But we didn't see anybody 
playing these kinds of games: Maybe we just let the debt ceiling go and 
go into default. We just could not take this chance.
  I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Ohio for 
talking about this issue because it is on the minds of everyone here on 
Capitol Hill and across the Nation. We are getting a lot of e-mails and 
phone calls and letters, and it is understandable because this is the 
first time in our Nation's history that we face default on our national 
debt.
  I received a letter from Amy in Germantown, IL, downstate. We have a 
lot of German families in our State, and we have a town named 
``Germantown.'' Amy contacted me and said:

       Please do your utmost to compromise on a budget solution 
     before the deadline expires. Our family has already weathered 
     multiple economic downturns due to the dot-com bubble burst, 
     9/11, and most recently the sub-prime mortgage crisis. We are 
     responsible

[[Page S5048]]

     with our income, saving for our children's education and our 
     retirement. However, we are extremely nervous about our 
     savings and investments once again. If the United States of 
     America defaults on its loan obligations, it is likely we 
     will see a significant reduction in the value of our 401K 
     and 403B investments, as well as the investments we have 
     made for our children and grandchild's education.
       . . . I cannot stand by another day and listen to all the 
     elected officials in Washington talk about their convictions. 
     Please remember your constituents and their situations.

  Another letter from Scott in Bloomington, IL:

       Dear Senator, I thought I'd offer you a real life personal 
     example of what you are doing to common Americans by dragging 
     out to the last minute the resolution of the Federal debt 
     limit. Ironically, every August 1st, I receive a distribution 
     from a tax-deferred retirement account. That account includes 
     a variety of investments, not the least of which are equity 
     mutual funds. The failure to provide leadership in Congress, 
     along with the President and House leaders, will probably 
     cost me about $5,000 this year. I will never see this money 
     again. The recent fall in the equity markets is a direct 
     result of the nervousness you are creating by failing to 
     resolve the Federal debt limit issue, playing the usual 
     political games. I respectfully request that you share this 
     message with all of your colleagues as a reality check. Stop 
     your games played for your own personal advantage, and start 
     thinking about the people you are supposed to be serving.

  A letter from David in Casey, IL:

       I am retired and don't look forward to having my Social 
     Security or veterans benefits cut. Why is it the rich get by 
     with no additional taxes and we are taxed and our benefits in 
     jeopardy? So why don't you elected officials wake up, start 
     living like the rest of the population, put politics aside 
     and do what is right for the country.

  From the Lincoln Courier newspaper:

       ``From what I'm hearing, interest rates would go up,'' said 
     Jim Muschinske, revenue manager for the Illinois Commission 
     on Government Forecasting and Accountability. ``Some people 
     may be more hesitant to buy big-ticket items they would have 
     to finance.''

  As a result, sales tax revenues are going to suffer for local 
governments. ``That could start a ripple effect,'' the newspaper went 
on to write.

       ``If the consumer pulls back, corporations would be more 
     hesitant to add to their payroll,'' Muschinske said. ``They 
     may cut or, at the very least, not hire. At this stage of the 
     recovery, we would hope hiring would be further along.''

  What troubles me the most is this is a manufactured political crisis. 
This is a self-inflicted political wound. Eighty-nine times since 1939 
we have routinely--except for one little glitch--extended the debt 
ceiling. We have done it under Republican Presidents 55 times and 
Democratic Presidents 34 times. It is bipartisan.
  All the President is asking for is the authority to borrow the money 
to pay for what Congress has spent. Members of Congress who come to the 
floor and pledge ``I will never vote to extend the debt ceiling'' are 
the same Members of Congress who just weeks ago said to the President: 
Stay in Afghanistan, stay the course, spend the money. We have got to 
do it. Mr. President, $10 billion a month in Afghanistan. For every 
dollar we spend, we have to borrow 40 cents. So for President Obama to 
keep the promise made by these same Members of Congress, he has to 
borrow funds to do it. Now that he has asked for authority to borrow 
it, they are saying: Oh, no, we want nothing to do with borrowing the 
money. And that is why we are here today.
  Mr. President, let me say a word about the other issue that is being 
debated; that is, the deficit. And I know you feel as seriously about 
it as I do. The deficit in this country has to be addressed. We are 
leaving a debt to our children that is unimaginable, and we have to 
change it.
  I have been working for a year and a half with the deficit commission 
the President created and with a group called the Gang of 6, and we 
have come up with a bipartisan approach to deal with this. It is 
sensible. It spreads the pain--and there will be pain--to everyone 
across America and puts everything on the table--everything. We don't 
spare anyone except the poorest and most vulnerable in our Nation.
  We basically said to people: We have to raise revenue, and we have to 
start by increasing the tax burden of those in the highest income 
categories. I think it stands to reason. If we are asking for sacrifice 
from working families who are paying for college student loans, why 
wouldn't we ask the wealthiest people in America to pay a little more 
on their taxes?
  Secondly, we put all of the Federal spending on the table, and we 
make dramatic cuts in Federal spending--not just on the side of the 
ledger that deals with nondefense but also in the Defense Department. 
There are some Members of Congress who argue that you cannot cut a 
penny from the Department of Defense.
  When I was on the deficit commission, we had experts who came in from 
the Pentagon, and we learned that the Pentagon and the Department of 
Defense is the largest Federal employer in America.
  But then Senator Conrad of North Dakota asked an important question. 
He said: Beyond those Federal employees in the Department of Defense, 
how many contractors, how many contract employees work for the 
Department of Defense?
  The expert said: I have no idea.
  Senator Conrad said: Well, give me a range.
  Well, he says, between 1 million and 9 million.
  That is quite a range. I think it is evidence that we ought to look 
at every single contract in the Department of Defense. Believe me, 
there are some of them that shouldn't be there where we are paying too 
much money and not getting the security we expect for our Nation.
  So we need to look at both sides of the ledger--the defense side and 
the nondefense side--and save the money. Keep our troops safe and keep 
America safe, but don't waste money on that which doesn't make us safe.
  Finally, the entitlement programs--and this is where many people 
across America do get nervous. I believe in Social Security and 
Medicare and Medicaid. I particularly believe we have a commitment to 
seniors who paid their entire working lives into these programs 
expecting them to protect them when they reached the age of retirement.
  This year, on January 1, 10,000 Americans reached the age of 65, 
qualifying for Social Security and Medicare. On January 2, another 
10,000; January 3, again. And for 19 more years, every day 10,000 more 
people will qualify for Social Security and Medicaid. Welcome to the 
baby boomers. Those who were born after World War II are now reaching 
retirement age and with that expect, because they paid in for a 
lifetime, to receive Social Security and Medicare. Now we need to look 
at those programs and ask, What can we do to make them stronger longer? 
We may have some disagreement about exactly how that is done, but we 
both agree that if we don't touch Medicare and leave it as is, in a 
matter of 6, 7, or 8 years, it will be insolvent, unable to pay its 
bills. That is unacceptable. We need to find ways to make Medicare a 
strong, viable program that will pay the medical bills of seniors and 
the disabled when they need them.

  Social Security, the same. There is good news in Social Security; it 
is solvent for 25 years. We cannot say that about many programs, if 
any, in Washington. But the bad news is at the end of 25 years, 
benefits would have to be cut 22 percent. That is tough. A lot of 
people have no other source of income.
  What I have suggested, and I hope people will listen carefully: Small 
changes we make today in Social Security will play out over 25 years to 
buy the solvency we need in this program for decades to come. Every 
penny of savings in Social Security needs to be reinvested right back 
into Social Security so we do not take the savings from Social Security 
for general deficit reduction--not at all. Whatever savings are there, 
put them back into the Social Security Program.
  There are ways to do this. We could do it in a sensible fashion, and 
the only way I can say that with some confidence is I have done it. 
When I first got elected to Washington in 1983, they said: Welcome to 
Washington. Social Security is broke.
  We sat down and fixed it. We bought over 50 years of solvency at that 
time. We can do it again. We have to think about this in thoughtful 
terms, preserve the basic benefits of these programs but give them a 
longer life so they will be there when they are needed in the future. 
Our Gang of 6 came up with a bipartisan agreement to deal with this. 
Thirty-six Senators of both parties have agreed to join us in this

[[Page S5049]]

effort, and I hope it becomes the basis for us addressing our deficit 
crisis and that we avert what clearly is a manufactured political 
crisis coming August 2 and that we extend this debt ceiling so we do 
not hurt our recovering economy. We cannot hurt the innocent businesses 
and families across America who count on us for leadership.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________