[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 117 (Saturday, July 30, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5092-S5132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PROCESSING
DELAYS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to refer the House
message to accompany S. 627, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 627, an act
to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act
Processing Delays with an amendment.
Pending:
Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House of
Representatives to the bill, with Reid amendment No. 589, to
cut spending, maintain existing commitments, and for other
purposes.
Reid amendment No. 590 (to amendment No. 589), to change
the enactment date.
Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill
to the Committee on the Budget, with instructions, Reid
amendment No. 591, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 592 (to the instructions (amendment No.
591) on the motion to refer), of a perfecting nature.
Reid amendment No. 593 (to amendment No. 592), of a
perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
from 1:30 to 7:30 is equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees in alternating 30-minute blocks, with the
majority controlling the first block of time.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, those who are following this debate--and I
think many across America are--should understand what just happened.
There was a discussion about the filibuster. A filibuster is a Senate
rule that does two things: It says you cannot move an item to a vote,
and you have to wait a period of time to have what is called a cloture
vote. In order to pass a cloture vote, you need 60 votes, not a
majority. So I would just correct, if I can, the record. A filibuster
does more than delay the vote; it establishes a higher vote
requirement--60 votes, not a majority.
Yesterday, the Speaker of the House brought before his body of 435
Members
[[Page S5093]]
the proposal to end this deadline. He received 218 votes--one more than
half of the membership. He had a majority vote--not one more but a
majority vote. We are asking for the same opportunity. Let us bring our
proposal forward for a majority vote. The Republicans have refused.
They have put us into a filibuster. They have said: No, we will require
60 votes, and we will delay the vote until possibly 1 a.m. Sunday
morning. That is where we are.
Let me say a word about the underlying issue. This morning, as many
Members of the Senate, I wanted to get away from this place and spend a
few minutes reflecting on something other than the give-and-take of the
political debate. I got up early, walked over to Eastern Market, bought
a cup of coffee, and sat on a bench for about 3 hours just watching
people walk by and trying to clear my mind. While sitting there, I got
an e-mail from a buddy of mine from high school. Now, that goes back a
few years. His name is Eddie Renollet, and he lives in Florida. I would
like to read into the Record what my buddy from high school wrote to me
this morning. He said:
I sent this e-mail to our Republican Senator from Florida,
too. I have rode out the storms of many high seas in the last
20 or so years, but this one has me worried. Let's get the
ship on the right course and get this fixed. You all need to
get past being Democrats and Republicans. Many mistakes have
been made over the past years. Compromise and get this
squared away. I am in the later years of my life, and I will
be damned, if I want to see it go down the drain because you
all can't agree on the debt issue. I am neither a Democrat,
Republican, or Tea Party person. I'm an American. And I
believe that you both have my best interest at heart.
Eddie Renollet from Florida. I would just say, under these
circumstances, he expresses the views of many people across America.
This is not a crisis which we couldn't control. This isn't an
earthquake or a tornado or a hurricane. It isn't a war. It is a created
political crisis.
The extension of the debt ceiling has been done routinely 89 times
since 1939--55 times by Republican Presidents, 34 times by Democratic
Presidents, and President Ronald Reagan holds the record having
extended the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years, without confrontation,
without the American economy threatening a collapse. This is a
manufactured political crisis, and it is time for both parties to rise
and come up with a solution.
What the majority leader has put on the table--half of it--was a
proposal by Senator McConnell, the Republican leader. Some people
didn't like it. Majority Leader Reid said it will be bipartisan; I am
putting McConnell's proposal on the table. I will put a proposal, as
well, on the table from our side, make it bipartisan, and move it
forward. Now 43 Republican Senators have said they are not voting for
it, so we are at a standoff.
A word about the President's role in this: President Obama--and I
know this because I attended the meetings as a member of the
leadership--spent more time on this issue than any President I can
recall. He met at least six or seven times for 2 and 3 hours at a time
with the leadership of the House and Senate--Democrats and
Republicans--and tried to work out differences. He proposed the
creation, under Vice President Biden's leadership, of the group that
would negotiate. It sat and met for months, and then, finally, the
Republican leader in the House, Eric Cantor, walked out. He made quite
a noise as he left the room, and said: I don't want to be part of this
anymore.
Then the President started working with Speaker Boehner directly to
get something worked out, and twice Speaker Boehner walked away from
that.
So to fault the President in this is not fair. He has engaged all the
leaders time and time again. Last Saturday, Senator McConnell said: We
no longer need the President in this picture. We are going to do it
ourselves.
Well, we spent a week at it, and we have not achieved that. I am sure
the President is ready and willing to do everything in his power to get
this back on track.
What is at stake in this debate is the fate of the American economy
at a point when we are recovering from a recession with millions of
Americans out of work. Those who are showing great bravado and giving
great political speeches are calling bluffs with other people's chips.
What will happen at the end of the day, regardless of what the
politicians say back and forth, is that ordinary people are going to be
affected--their lives, their businesses, their savings are going to be
affected by what we decide to do in the next few days.
I think what we need to do is clear, and Senator Reid's proposal
addresses it: No. 1, reduce spending. Let's get this deficit under
control. Senator Reid's proposal does just that--$2.4 trillion in
spending reductions--all of which have been voted for by Republicans
already. So there is no controversy there. It is bipartisan.
Secondly, we cannot lurch into another round of this debate every few
months. The President is right, and this bill reflects it, that we need
to move this debate until after next year so our economy is strong
again, and the next debt ceiling vote will be in 2013. Let's not face
this again and again. America doesn't want to see this movie over and
over.
I would also say the provision in Senator Reid's bill, proposed by
Senator McConnell, that would, in fact, say the President has to
personally ask to extend the debt ceiling, is a responsibility the
President will accept, and he should accept it.
I think what Senator Reid last offered is a balanced approach, a
bipartisan approach, and it should be the basis for a compromise. But I
certainly hope one thing comes out of this exchange on the floor this
morning. I hope Senator McConnell will finally agree to sit down with
Senator Reid, on a bipartisan basis, work with the House leaders and
the President, and get this done. The American people are running out
of patience, if they haven't already run out of it, and we are running
out of excuses.
We have a limited amount of time left to avert a crisis that will
affect a lot of innocent people across America. It is time for us to
roll up our sleeves, on a bipartisan basis, and get this job done.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. LEVIN. The Republican leader, a few moments ago, said this
happens around here from time to time--that 60 votes are required. Is
it not true the reason 60 votes are required from time to time is
because there is the threat of a filibuster unless the opponents
succeed in getting an agreement that there be 60 votes?
It is the short way to find out whether the debate will be had. Is it
not true, though, that it is the threat of a filibuster the opponents
make which produces an agreement to get 60 votes?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Michigan has been here longer than I
have. He knows this better than I do. But he is right. This threat of a
filibuster has raised the vote requirement from a majority to 60, and
that is the issue that was being discussed on the Senate floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Is it not true--if I may ask my friend--whether the threat
is carried out, we will know tonight at 1 a.m.? Because at 1 a.m.
tomorrow morning, we will vote not on the Reid measure but on a motion
which 18 Senators signed which reads as follows: That we, the
undersigned Senators, in accordance with rule XXII, hereby move to
bring to a close the debate on the Reid motion. Is that not true?
Mr. DURBIN. That is what the vote will be at 1 in the morning.
Mr. LEVIN. So what we will be voting on is not, as the Republican
leader characterized it--which he says he is willing to vote on right
away--the Reid motion but a vote on whether we will end debate on the
Reid motion?
And is it not further true that people who vote no tonight are voting
to filibuster the Reid motion?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Michigan is correct. Those who say they
want to bring this to a vote will have an opportunity to join us in
doing so by producing at least 60 votes when we vote at 1 in the
morning.
Mr. LEVIN. Finally, would the Senator from Illinois agree, if tonight
Republicans refuse to bring this debate to a halt and to allow a vote
on the Reid motion, would the Senator from Illinois not agree there
will be a strong negative public reaction to a filibuster on a measure
in the face of an economic calamity which would avoid that calamity?
[[Page S5094]]
Mr. DURBIN. I would agree with the Senator from Michigan. Time is of
the essence. Any delay at this point jeopardizes any possibility of a
compromise to avert this economic crisis.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would just add to what Senator Reid,
Senator Durbin, and Senator Levin have said: that a 60-vote requirement
is a filibuster. It is to block this.
Now, speaking of how long people have been here, I came here when
President Ford was President. I have served under President Ford,
President Carter, President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush,
President William Jefferson Clinton, President George W. Bush, and now
President Obama. I cannot remember, with any of those Presidents prior
to President Obama, of this insistence for a 60-Member vote to raise
the debt limit ceiling.
Certainly, with the number of times we raised the debt limit under
President Ronald Reagan, I do not remember one single Republican
suggesting that we needed 60 votes. The same was true I believe under
President George H.W. Bush, and under President George W. Bush. The
numerous times the debt ceiling was raised, not a single Republican
said it is so important we must have a 60-vote margin.
Yet all of a sudden, with President Obama, the whole criteria
changes. Suddenly the rules that were good enough for Republicans with
a Republican President are something to be changed with this President.
The American public, Republican or Democratic, can see through that.
This is a different standard. We are saying this President must follow
different rules from every President before him--Republican or
Democrat. There is no way that can be considered fair; no way that can
be considered anything but a gimmick.
It is unfortunate that a partisan faction first manufactured this
debt limit crisis and now continues to prevent a bipartisan solution.
An unwillingness to compromise and find a bipartisan solution has led
us to the brink. The United States of America is now just 3 days away
from defaulting on its obligations for the first time in the history of
this country. And Senators are demanding we have to have a
supermajority vote to stop this from happening.
That is not responsible. We are needlessly risking financial turmoil
throughout this great country, and it will send ripple effects
worldwide. A temporary solution is no solution at all. It would
undermine the stability that our economy needs to grow.
Now is the time to set aside partisan bickering, pass a bill. It is
the time for the grownups in the room to take over and reach a
bipartisan solution on the debt ceiling, as has been done every time in
the 37 years I have been here.
A my-way-or-no-way faction in the other body has had no qualms about
playing Russian roulette with our entire economy and with every
American family in it. Regrettably, as we all saw so clearly again
yesterday, the House leadership's response to win this faction's votes
has simply been to shift their bill even further away from helpfulness
or reality. Everybody knows the House debt bill, written under this
duress, was a sham, with no chance of passing and with no chance of
averting a debt catastrophe.
On Friday, at the finish line, shortly prior to a vote on their debt
bill, House leaders added to their package the idea of amending the
U.S. Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. This was done as a
desperate attempt to win a few more votes. This is not the time for
bumper sticker politics. It is a time for real leadership and real
bipartisanship.
Many in this body recall, as I do, the period just two short decades
ago when we were able to not only balance the Federal budget but to
create budget surpluses that were on their way to paying off the
national debt. On the one hand, we had people who said let's pass a
constitutional amendment for some time a decade or two decades in the
future. We actually voted to balance a budget. Not a single Republican
voted to balance the budget. They talked about it, but not a single
Republican voted to balance the budget. We had to actually have Vice
President Gore vote to break a tie vote. But we balanced the budget. It
created enormous surpluses, it started paying down the national debt,
over 20 million new jobs were created, and President Clinton was able
to give a huge surplus to President George W. Bush. Unfortunately,
decisions made by that administration and ratified by the new Congress
squandered the surplus and started, once again, piling up debt.
So this good and great Nation does not need the straitjacket of one-
size-fits-all change to our Constitution to do what needs to be done.
We have done it. What the American people want and need and deserve is
a return to wise and disciplined leadership. We need the return of
willingness by those of us chosen to serve within the Halls of
government, to cooperate and to forge bipartisan solutions.
At this point, Majority Leader Reid's debt reduction package of $2.2
trillion in spending cuts is Congress's best chance to avoid default
and prevent a disastrous credit-rating downgrade. Unlike the House
plan, the Reid solution is an invitation to consensus. The Senate
solution incorporates spending reductions reached in bipartisan
negotiations, yielding greater overall budget savings sooner than the
House proposal. But it would also save the country the ordeal of going
through this torment again just a few months from now. We have seen how
this current debate has taken much longer to do what we need to do.
As this calamity has unfolded in slow motion, it has been smothering
the chance for action on nearly all other national priorities, from
jobs to national security, to air traffic control. The congressional
deadlock has prevented passage of a routine renewal of the Federal
Aviation Administration's charter to operate. Today, the Senate could
be considering the America Invents Act that is a bipartisan, bicameral
bill ready to move across the finish line that creates hundreds of
thousands of jobs and unleashes American innovation and does not add a
penny to the deficit. But instead of acting on constructive and
necessary priorities such as these, we are stuck playing a dangerous
game with our economy. The deadline for default would not change. I
commend Leader Reid for his willingness and desire to work in the
spirit of compromise with the Republican leader and others to find a
bipartisan solution to halt this perilous march to the edge of the
financial cliff.
All American people want this solved now, with a fair solution and
through the give-and-take of our representative government, not by some
extra special vote but just vote it up or vote it down. I am confident
that if we can work together, Congress will avert this looming, man-
made economic calamity. It is late but it is not yet too late for
Republicans and Democrats to come together, for the sake of our
country, in fashioning a bipartisan solution to raise the debt limit,
reduce our long-term debt, and give our economy the long-term
foundation to prosper.
I have had the privilege to represent Vermont in the Senate for 37
years. I have been blessed enough to witness many times when the Senate
has shown its remarkable ability to rise to reflect the conscience of
the Nation. I believe now is such a time for Democrats and Republicans
in the Senate, for the good of the country, to once again rise to the
occasion and to have us be the conscience of the Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator
from Michigan is on the floor, who is one of the best legal minds in
the Senate, I wanted to engage him to further to take us through the
delay tactics that are presently now underway.
Given the fact that we have a solution right underneath our noses, a
solution that is so close between the two opposite sides that all we
would have to do is to have a majority vote or all we would have to do
is to have a few Republican Senators but we are engaged in this
stalling tactic that is literally going to take us all night, I would
like to ask the distinguished Senator from Michigan, given the rules,
given the fact that a filibuster is now underway, what can the minority
in the Senate hope to achieve, since we are so close to agreement?
[[Page S5095]]
Mr. LEVIN. The reason people filibuster is to try to defeat a measure
and stalling and delaying a vote is much worse than just defeating a
measure. It is defeating the American economy. It will be putting the
economy in a ditch if we do not resolve this issue.
So we have to be very clear on what the vote is tonight. It is not a
vote on the Reid measure. It is a vote on this motion to bring the
debate--and these are the words of the motion: We, 18 Senators, move to
bring to a close the debate on the Reid motion.
That is what we are voting on and the Republican leader tries to coat
that or characterize that as a vote on the Reid motion. It is not. We
want to vote on the Reid motion. We want to vote. But we will not be
allowed to vote on the Reid motion, on the proposal which the majority
leader has offered which has a majority support in this Senate; we will
not be allowed to vote on that if debate is not ended, if the
filibuster continues because 60 Senators are not willing to end it. We
will have at least 50-plus to end debate.
But let it be clear, let the public understand that if we are not
allowed to vote on the Reid measure tonight, the Republicans presumably
will continue their filibuster, and we are not going to just simply
allow them to defeat it. We are not going to just simply sit down and
say: Well, we couldn't end the debate and the filibuster; we didn't get
60 votes--if we don't--tonight. We are not going to do that. That is
not going to happen tonight. This is too important to simply let a
minority defeat the will of the majority by a filibuster.
The Republican leader wants to characterize this again, and
mischaracterize this, saying he is willing to have a vote right now on
the Reid motion. No, he is not. If we were allowed a vote on the Reid
motion, that would be fine. That is a regular majority vote. But what
the Republican leader wants is to require 60 votes on the Reid motion
in order for it to pass. That is not the way things happen under our
rules. Under our rules, 60 votes are required to end a debate if the
minority threatens a filibuster and insists it will filibuster unless a
measure gets 60 votes.
So we know what is happening. We saw it last night. We saw it here
today. It is clearly the threat of a filibuster, in the hope we will
say that Reid will be pulled down and defeated if we don't get 60
votes. That is what this is all about. This time, we simply cannot
allow this measure to be talked to death and a vote denied. We cannot
be thwarted because the American economy is at stake.
So tonight, if we don't get 60 votes--and let me repeat this so
everyone understands it. Tonight, if 60 votes are not there to end
debate, if the Republicans intend to filibuster, then tonight that is
what is going to happen. The public will see very clearly it is a
filibuster, if they haven't seen it already.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will make comments later. I see the Senator
from New Hampshire is here.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are allocated 30
minutes each. But I have no objection to the Senator having 5
additional minutes as long as 5 additional minutes are added to the
Republican side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senator from
New Hampshire will have 10 minutes and the Republican side will have an
extra 5 minutes.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. I appreciate the consideration of my colleague from
Georgia.
Mr. President, I come to the floor because I wish to share with
people what I am hearing from my constituents in New Hampshire about
the situation we are in in Washington.
I have heard from small business owners, from retirees, from working
people all across the State, and one of the things that struck me about
the majority of people whom I have heard from is they are willing to
make sacrifices to help this country address our debt and our deficits.
But they want to see us in Congress act and they want to see us
compromise. Let me just take a few minutes and share some of the
comments I have received from the people of New Hampshire.
First is from Diane, who is from Manchester, our largest city. Diane
says:
Please get off the party line and work together. My welfare
and the welfare of my small business is at risk. I only
employ 5 people, but it's 5 people that don't need to collect
unemployment or take another job. Don't take away what's left
of my retirement by crashing the market. Work as a ``we,''
not as an ``I,'' and get it done. This is not the first time
the debt cap needs to be raised and it won't be the last.
Please do what will have to be done anyway so we can continue
to bring this country back. I don't want to lose my business.
Who is going to win the next election is not what any of you
should be thinking about. I believe if you don't act, all of
you will lose.
David from Meredith says:
At the age of 25, I am already the owner of a small
software company in the lakes region. We currently have five
employees with plans to grow. We are expecting our profits
for next year to exceed $1 million. As an employer, small
business owner, and at my age, I feel as though I will be
greatly affected by budget decisions we make during the next
week and into the future. I want to make sure that America
stays as one of the best Nations in the world. I have never
written a letter to any Member of Congress before tonight.
Then we have Janine from Auburn who says:
Settle the budget now. The dysfunction in Congress is
embarrassing this country. As a small business owner, I can't
afford the uncertainty of a political fiasco. If interest
rates rise, I can't keep my business afloat. I would rather
pay increased taxes.
Eric from Hollis says:
As a small business owner, I am unable to plan and hire
employees due to the uncertainty the current standstill in
Washington has created. Please get the USA back to work and
making progress and stop the bickering.
Then Brenda from Enfield says:
My 77-year-old husband retired last year. I am planning on
retiring this year collecting Social Security at full
retirement age of 65. We have been good citizens, running our
own small business for 40-plus years, and we have been
diligent in taking responsibility for our own retirement
savings. As you know, over the past 2 years, due to economic
pressures, we have faced substantial reductions of our
retirement portfolio and, again, now face irreparable damage
just as we retire. My husband and I urge you to do whatever
it takes to build a cooperative bridge in Congress to protect
the economy from further trauma.
Cynthia from Exeter says:
I am receiving Social Security due to a disability, but I
would gladly give up $5 a month if everyone shared in the
idea of balancing our Nation's budget issues and deficit. I
would like to see revenue raised at the same time I would be
willing to sacrifice some of my Social Security.
Finally, Sue from Campton says:
My husband and I would be willing to pay higher income
taxes--and we would be in that higher tax bracket--to come up
with a compromise to save this great Nation. I hope that when
you read this message you will understand that there is a
majority of Americans who are willing to sacrifice for our
country. Please find compromise. Our great State of New
Hampshire and our country depends on it.
I want to tell Diane and David and Sue and all the others who have
called and e-mailed and written to me that I agree with them. We must
act and we must compromise. That is what I am trying to do. That is why
I have supported a comprehensive approach to dealing with this
country's debt and deficits. It is an approach that has been
bipartisan, offered by the so-called Gang of 6. It addresses all
aspects of our budget: domestic discretionary spending, defense
spending, mandatory programs, and revenues. But I understand we are not
going to be able to get that done between now and Tuesday, so that is
why I am willing to support an approach that only makes cuts to the
budget, because I know we have to compromise. But compromise means that
everyone, all sides--the House and the Senate, Republicans and
Democrats--all sides have to give up something. I believe we have good
people in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, the majority of whom
want to see a resolution to this impasse. The time is now for all of us
to compromise and to do what is in the best interests of this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today when the Chaplain opened the
Senate, he prayed for divine guidance to end
[[Page S5096]]
the paralysis of analysis in Congress. I thought it was an excellent
point. When I heard the two leaders speak today I realized where that
paralysis was. We were paralyzed by analyzing our differences and
failing to look at what we have reached common ground on already.
I have been worried about a default on our debt for some time, but
right now I am worried about Congress defaulting on our country.
Failure should not be an option for us in this case and it is time we
started finding common ground. So for the purpose of discussion, I want
to put forward some thoughts about where we agree, some identification
of where we do not but where we could be.
We have already agreed, in one form or another--whether it was the
Vice President's group or the Speaker's group or whoever--that we ought
to have a $1 trillion downpayment in initial cuts to bring about
deficit reduction.
There is common agreement between both sides in the Senate and I
think in the House as well that we need a short-term committee, equally
divided in a partisan way, to come up with at least another $1.8
trillion that results in reductions in debt and in deficit. We have
agreed on those two things.
Third, we have agreed we do not want to default on our debt. There
may be a handful of people around here who think that is a good idea,
but with all due respect it is not a good idea and the ramifications of
default are already showing themselves in small measures in the market
but will show themselves a lot greater next Wednesday if we fail.
Where do we differ? We do not differ on raising the debt ceiling, we
just differ on when we raise it, how we raise it, and how long we raise
it. The President favors raising it past the election in November 2012.
There are others who want to have votes every 6 months or 10 months.
Frankly, there is something to be said for waiting until after the
November election of 2012 so we have 18 months of stability and
predictability in the United States of America; there is not the
uncertainty of us coming back.
There are a lot of differences on the other side about whether we
have a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget vote. Frankly, I
cannot understand why in the end anybody would reject both bodies being
able to have a vote in regular order on a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. We are supposed to vote. We are supposed to
confront those decisions. I think an agreement could be reached between
those two differences that would ensure us moving closer to an
agreement on the entire package.
Third, and probably toughest, we do not disagree on the committee
that is appointed to find the $1.8 trillion or better in savings or
cuts, but we disagree on the mechanism with which that is enforced. I
want to talk about that for a minute. There is a fear--and a lot of it
is justified because of the way we are acting right now--that if you
had a committee of 12, 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans, charged with
finding $1.8 trillion or more in reductions, they would never agree;
therefore, they would be gridlocked; therefore, those reductions would
not take place. I understand that fear and agree with the concern for
that fear. So we need a mechanism where there is a risk for them to do
that.
One of the discussions that has been floating around--last night it
was in a discussion I had with the officer presiding right now--is you
should allow the Congress itself to create a committee with an equal
number of Democrats and Republicans of some accountable number, such as
10 or 20, to come together. If the committee fails to make its
recommendations and make alternative recommendations, that must by
requirement of the law be voted on on the floor of the House and
Senate. If for some unbelievable circumstance that did not happen,
there has to be an absolute fail-safe to ensure that failure is not an
option. I have suggested automatic sequestration. I know that causes
heartburn with some. But somewhere there is a silver bullet. The Lone
Ranger had it. Tonto had it. Wyatt Earp had it. Why can't the Congress
find it? Why can't we find the majority bullet that is the enforcement
mechanism that ensures we come together on the $1.8 trillion or more?
If we do those things, we have an agreement. We have already agreed in
principle on most of them and we understand our differences on the ones
we have not agreed on. We ought to be spending the next 24 hours
finding out where our differences are and coming to find common ground
because we are not that far apart.
I want to go back to the prayer of Barry C. Black this morning. I
listen to his prayer just about every morning because it is very
insightful. In fact, there is a clear message in it and he is usually
talking to all of us because he watches all of us and he is concerned
and I am concerned.
I have three children and nine grandchildren. I said in my campaigns
the rest of my life is about leaving them a country as prosperous,
free, and great as the country my parents left me. If we blink on this
issue before us, that is not going to be the case. There is irreparable
harm that can come from a failure to act. It doesn't harm me as a
politician, it harms my kids and my grandkids. It harms those people I
know on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and it harms those
standing right now on a firing line somewhere in Afghanistan, realizing
today could be their last day on this Earth so America could live to
see another day. That is how serious the consequences are.
I suggest instead of being paralyzed by our analysis of where we
differ, let's come to an analysis of where we find common ground. We do
on raising the debt ceiling; we know we should raise it. We know we
could find $2.8 trillion and hopefully more in cuts in the deficit and
spending over time. We know we have to extend the debt ceiling to some
point in time, and if it is past the Presidential election of 2012,
let's ensure that each body in regular order can vote on a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, which leaves us with
one difference, and that difference is what is the enforcement
mechanism on the $1.8 trillion cut that the joint committee, equally
divided, is supposed to come up with.
I submit we can find the common ground to find the silver bullet that
causes that to happen and I encourage all of us to forget now where we
differ and recognize where we agree and then work on building a bridge
on those differences so the United States of America does not default
on its debt and the Congress of the United States does not default on
its obligation to the people of the greatest country on the face of
this Earth, the United States of America.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the discussion has boiled down to a
desire by the President to have the largest debt increase in the
history of America at a time when our spending is out of control, and
this debt ceiling limit that we have now reached is at a point where it
does need to be raised.
I thought we had a national consensus that as part of raising the
debt ceiling we would begin to change our habits around here; we would
do things better; we would not be running up so much debt because every
witness who has testified before our Budget Committee has said we are
on an unsustainable path. They mean that. We cannot sustain the debt
path we are on. We have never been in a deeper fix.
The President wants this huge debt increase, but he only wants to
have a very modest decrease in spending. The bill that is before us
would decrease spending about $927 billion. It might sound like a lot,
but over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget
Office, we will increase the debt of America by $10 trillion--$10,000
billion, not $927 billion. That will not change the debt trajectory. We
have to have more than $927 billion in spending reductions.
It appears we are not going to be able to get that. The Democratic
majority in the Senate will not allow it and say they are prepared to
let the country default if we try to cut any more. So we have to
continue the dialogue and the debate about the course we are on.
[[Page S5097]]
Why is it so important to get a bigger debt ceiling increase? I
thought and believed we had an agreement that the debt ceiling should
not be increased more than spending is decreased, that spending is
decreased over 10 years. We cut it $1 trillion, we raise the debt
ceiling $1 trillion. We give 10 years of spending cuts, but immediately
we get a $1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling.
Why are we in this fix? I hate to say it, but this is why, there is
no doubt about it: The President said last week:
The only bottom line that I have is that we extend this
debt ceiling through the next election, until 2013.
Through the next election. It is all about him. It is about politics.
It is about his desires, what he wants. That is not correct. This is
about America, what is good for our country.
The House of Representatives submitted a fabulous budget earlier this
year. It reduced spending by as much as $6 trillion over 10 years. This
bill would only reduce it $1 trillion. Why would the House of
Representatives, after much debate, pleading, hard work, why would they
agree to send a bill over here that only does $1 trillion in spending
cuts over 10 years? The reason is they love our country. They know this
is a dangerous time. They know at this point in history we don't need
to create more uncertainty on top of the tremendously dangerous debt
path we are on.
By not raising the debt limit we don't know for sure what will
happen. Bad things could happen, so they have made a tremendous
compromise in what they proposed and sent it over here. It seems the
only thing the President cares about is not having to talk about this
again until after he gets reelected.
I think we need to understand something. This is not enough reduction
in spending. It will not change the debt trajectory we are on now,
which is on a path to do $9 trillion to $13 trillion more in debt added
to our Nation's books in 10 years. It is just not enough.
We raise the debt ceiling, and we get out of this immediate crisis,
and in doing so we send a message to the world, the American people and
the financial markets that we are still working on it. We are still
going to bring down the numbers. We know we cannot continue on this
rate of spending. We know that so we are going to work to get the
numbers down, and we are not going to wait 2 years after some
convenient or inconvenient election. We are going to start early next
year or late this year, and we will stay on it until we make the kind
of changes that put us on a path to growth and prosperity. I feel
strongly about that.
I know people don't want to hear us talking about this bill or that
bill or who is for this and how many votes it has. They are tired of
hearing that. They want us to make changes. I do not think the American
people just want a deal. That is how the media spins it and politicians
spin it: Is there a deal? Is there not a deal? The American people want
us to change our debt course. They want us to get off the path that is
taking us to financial destruction. It really is. I don't know when it
will happen, but everybody says we cannot continue, and in a period of
years we will be in a situation like Greece, and the numbers are pretty
clear in that regard. There is no doubt about it. It doesn't have to
happen, so we can do something about it.
Republicans have passed a good budget that would reduce the debt and
put us on a path to prosperity. That was rejected by our Democratic
leaders. Indeed, they brought it up and mocked it. President Obama
called for a conference at the White House. He put Congressman Ryan,
the brilliant young budget chairman in the House right in front of him,
and then he mocked and attacked the budget that the House did that
would actually do something for America and make us better. I don't
appreciate that. We have to do something. I am prepared to compromise.
I feel deeply that we need to cut more spending than this, but we are
at a point in history where we need to pass a debt ceiling increase. We
just have to. We don't need to quit talking about the problem. We need
to continue the dialogue, continue the debate, and continue to look for
and find ways to reduce spending.
The House passed a cap-and-balance bill that would have capped
spending and created a permanent constitutional amendment to balance
the budget, and then they passed the Boehner legislation that was voted
down last night. That legislation would have cut all spending at just
about the amount that Senator Reid wants, the $900-or-so billion.
Speaker Boehner didn't exaggerate how much it was. He agreed to that
amount and agreed to raise the debt ceiling immediately by an amount
equal to the amount of spending we reduced over 10 years. It was a very
generous, significant compromise from the position they believed was
correct and that they took openly and publicly through the normal
legislative process when they passed their budget.
Now our Democrats in the Senate have not passed anything. They didn't
even bring up a budget. Now it has been 822 days since Congress has
passed a budget. A budget was not passed here when my Democratic
colleagues had 60 Democratic Senators.
Senator Reid said it would be foolish to pass a budget. Why is that?
Well, he meant it would be foolish to have his Members actually have to
vote.
When you move a budget, it has priority. It cannot be filibustered.
It can be passed with a 50-vote margin, but people get to offer
amendments and people would have to vote on amendments. The people who
produced the budget would have to say how much taxes they were
increasing, how much spending they were cutting, and how much debt was
still going to be out there, and they did not want to expose
themselves. They did not want to come before the American people and
show where they stood. They preferred to bring up the House budget and
vote it down and mock it while the leadership didn't have the courage
or the responsibility to pass a budget themselves. They would show
where they wanted to go with the future of America. It is just that
simple.
We need to go back to the regular order in the Senate, and that means
presenting a budget, bringing up bills, having votes, having
amendments, having people be accountable to their constituents. If you
were sitting back home, you would want to see government reduce some of
this reckless spending. Wouldn't you want to know how your elected
officials, the people representing you, voted? Well, we have had no
votes, and that has been the plan--to shield the Members from votes so
their constituents could not hold them accountable.
For heaven's sake, we don't want to have a vote in January or
February when we have an election in November. Why, that is too close.
People would see what we did. They might remember it when election day
came up. They might not like it that they don't have a plan to do a
better job of changing the unconscionable debt course this country is
on.
That is the way they think in Washington, and it is not acceptable.
We are borrowing 40 cents of everything we spend.
Mr. President, do we have a time agreement at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 20 seconds
remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
Well, it is a big deal, and we need to get this done. There are just
not enough votes to pass the Reid bill, and there are not enough votes
to pass the Boehner bill. That is just obvious, even though Speaker
Boehner drew down dramatically the amount of spending cuts the House
believes should be achieved.
We have to get our folks busy while we are continuing to debate into
the night instead of actually recognizing that the Reid bill doesn't
have the votes to pass the Senate, and it absolutely doesn't have the
votes to pass the House. It just doesn't. At this last desperate
moment, hopefully, our leaders will get busy, quit worrying about those
things, and actually begin to suggest something we can work on. We
really should not be in this position.
As I have explained at some length--and I will not repeat it--but I
don't like it. I do not like it. I don't think it is right that we have
a couple of Senators and a couple of House Members, our leaders, go off
and somehow plop down on the Senate their solution to our problem, and
if we don't pass it, the government is damaged and the economy is
damaged because they have waited until the absolute eleventh hour-plus
to produce it.
[[Page S5098]]
It should have never happened that way. It is irresponsible, and it
undermines the integrity of the entire congressional process. We have
seen this coming all year long. We should not have allowed it to happen
in this way.
Well, let me talk a bit more technically about the Reid bill. It
purports to reduce spending and savings by $2.4 trillion. That is not
correct. Actually, it reduces the debt that would be increasing by only
$927 billion, and we have done our best with the Budget Committee staff
to be honest and fair about it.
That is about the same number Speaker Boehner has in his, but
Majority Leader Reid insists his saves $2.4 trillion. Why? Because if
it is $2.4 trillion, he can justify that the next time we address this,
which will be after the next election, will be 2 years away.
He doesn't cut that much. What he claims is not accurate. Why? Well,
they are working into the night to see how they can make the accounting
look better. They didn't like the 927 figure, so what do they do? They
look at the budget projections where it was projected war costs would
be coming down. Actually, we will have a $40 billion reduction this
year in the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those costs are coming down.
The President had projected they would come down to $50 billion soon
and would stay at that for the rest of the year, which would mean $1
trillion less spending. Remember, we are going to increase the debt by
$9 to $13 trillion, but $1 trillion would have been--by reducing the
war cost, we save $1 trillion. But that was already in the books. That
is already accounted for.
So how did they do it? Well, they came in and they put in a bill that
mandated the come-down because, oddly enough, the Congressional Budget
Office doesn't assume war costs will come down. The Congressional
Budget Office assumes that it will stay up and we will spend this $1
trillion more on the war when there is no intent to do that. Therefore,
they put it in the legislation and require it to come down, these
numbers, and all of a sudden CBO scores $1 trillion in extra savings
without any change in spending projections or reality at all.
Speaker Boehner didn't count his bill as reducing spending by that $1
trillion when he took the same numbers, same assumptions that spending
on the war would come down. But they did that to try to make it look as
though they were reducing spending more; therefore, they could extend
the debt limit more, they would make it past the election, and they
could get the political result they want. That is really what it is.
Another way they get another $300 billion gimmick is that if we
assume a $1 trillion reduction in the war, then we are not paying
interest on that money because we would have to borrow it because we
are already in debt, and every amount we can reduce means we borrow
less money. Every less-spending provision saves money, and it also
saves interest on that money. Well, it would be $300 billion in
interest saved under the theory--the gimmick--that is being used here.
So that really amounts to $1.3 trillion in overestimating right there
on the amount of savings in the Reid plan.
I thank the Chair. I hope we will reject the Reid proposal, and I
hope our leaders can achieve in short order a change in our plans for
managing our money, raise the debt ceiling, and begin to put this
country on a sound path.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I am happy to come to the
floor with two of my colleagues--my colleague from Minnesota and my
colleague from Alaska--to speak about the damage created by the
Republicans' insistence on looking at just one side of the equation and
failing to understand what businesses need to move forward during the
next 28 minutes or so.
As my good friend from Alabama leaves the floor, I wish to say that I
have enjoyed working with him on many issues. We have been shoulder to
shoulder advocating for gulf coast restoration and many other issues.
However, I have to strongly disagree with some of the points he has
just made, and I will go into those in just a moment.
Part of the problem with the Senator from Alabama and other Senators
on that side is that when they speak to the American people on this
issue, they only talk about one side of the equation; that is,
spending. They never, ever talk about revenues. Anybody--any family,
any individual, any business, any high school student, any college
student--understands--like the commercial running on television now
that talks about equations--equations have two sides, not one. There is
a spending side and there is a revenue side.
If a family's budget is out of whack--they are spending too much, and
they are not taking in enough money--they could get a third job and fix
that problem by bringing in more money to the budget or a second job or
a part-time job and bring in more revenue, and that problem is solved
or they could choose to not get another job and cut back spending all
the way down to their income and solve the problem.
The problem with the other side is they are disingenuous. They do not
want to be truthful with the American people and say that not only do
we have a spending problem, which all Democrats agree with, but we also
have a revenue problem, and that is why we are on this floor fighting
today.
I wish to show beyond a shadow of a doubt the truth about what I am
speaking. This is data from the Senate Appropriations Committee. This
shows discretionary defense spending, all other spending, and mandatory
programs for 10 years.
In 10 years, from 2001 until today, 10 years later, defense spending
has increased $364 billion--73 percent--and that is because we have had
two wars and any number of defense and security issues. We can debate
whether that is right, but we have spent 73 percent more money,
adjusted for inflation.
For mandatory programs, the increase has gone up 310 percent in 10
years. That is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is the
driver. This is the budget-buster. There are all sorts of solutions to
that problem. Unfortunately, we are not talking about any of them
today. But the push on the spending is coming from mandatory programs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the charts I have been referring to.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TABLE 1.2--SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS ( ) AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP: 1930-2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total On-Budget Off-Budget
GDP (in --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year billions of Surplus or Surplus or Surplus or
dollars) Receipts Outlays Deficit ( Receipts Outlays Deficit ( Receipts Outlays Deficit (
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)--------------------------------------)--------------------------------------)-----
1930.......................................................... 97.4 4.2 3.4 0.8 4.2 3.4 0.8 ........... ........... ...........
1931.......................................................... 83.9 3.7 4.3 -0.6 3.7 4.3 -0.6 ........... ........... ...........
1932.......................................................... 67.6 2.8 6.9 -4.0 2.8 6.9 -4.0 ........... ........... ...........
1933.......................................................... 57.6 3.5 8.0 -4.5 3.5 8.0 -4.5 ........... ........... ...........
1934.......................................................... 61.2 4.8 10.7 -5.9 4.8 10.7 -5.9 ........... ........... ...........
1935.......................................................... 69.6 5.2 9.2 -4.0 5.2 9.2 -4.0 ........... ........... ...........
1936.......................................................... 78.5 5.0 10.5 -5.5 5.0 10.5 -5.5 ........... ........... ...........
1937.......................................................... 87.8 6.1 8.6 -2.5 5.8 8.6 -2.8 0.3 -* 0.3
1938.......................................................... 89.0 7.6 7.7 -0.1 7.2 7.7 -0.5 0.4 -* 0.4
1939.......................................................... 89.1 7.1 10.3 -3.2 6.5 10.3 -3.8 0.6 -* 0.6
1940.......................................................... 96.8 6.8 9.8 -3.0 6.2 9.8 -3.6 0.6 -* 0.6
1941.......................................................... 114.1 7.6 12.0 -4.3 7.0 11.9 -4.9 0.6 * 0.6
1942.......................................................... 144.3 10.1 24.3 -14.2 9.5 24.3 -14.8 0.6 * 0.6
[[Page S5099]]
1943.......................................................... 180.3 13.3 43.6 -30.3 12.7 43.5 -30.8 0.6 * 0.6
1944.......................................................... 209.2 20.9 43.6 -22.7 20.3 43.6 -23.3 0.6 0.1 0.6
1945.......................................................... 221.4 20.4 41.9 -21.5 19.8 41.8 -22.0 0.6 0.1 0.5
1946.......................................................... 222.6 17.7 24.8 -7.2 17.1 24.7 -7.6 0.6 0.1 0.5
1947.......................................................... 233.2 16.5 14.8 1.7 15.9 14.7 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.5
1948.......................................................... 256.6 16.2 11.6 4.6 15.6 11.5 4.1 0.6 0.1 0.5
1949.......................................................... 271.3 14.5 14.3 0.2 13.9 14.2 -0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5
1950.......................................................... 273.1 14.4 15.6 -1.1 13.7 15.4 -1.7 0.8 0.2 0.6
1951.......................................................... 320.2 16.1 14.2 1.9 15.1 13.8 1.3 1.0 0.4 0.6
1952.......................................................... 348.7 19.0 19.4 -0.4 17.9 18.9 -1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5
1953.......................................................... 372.5 18.7 20.4 -1.7 17.6 19.8 -2.2 1.1 0.6 0.5
1954.......................................................... 377.0 18.5 18.8 -0.3 17.3 18.0 -0.8 1.2 0.8 0.4
1955.......................................................... 395.9 16.5 17.3 -0.8 15.2 16.3 -1.0 1.3 1.0 0.3
1956.......................................................... 427.0 17.5 16.5 0.9 16.0 15.4 0.6 1.5 1.2 0.3
1957.......................................................... 450.9 17.7 17.0 0.8 16.2 15.6 0.6 1.5 1.3 0.2
1958.......................................................... 460.0 17.3 17.9 -0.6 15.6 16.3 -0.7 1.7 1.6 0.1
1959.......................................................... 490.2 16.2 18.8 -2.6 14.5 17.0 -2.5 1.7 1.8 -0.1
1960.......................................................... 518.9 17.8 17.8 0.1 15.8 15.7 0.1 2.1 2.1 -*
1961.......................................................... 529.9 17.8 18.4 -0.6 15.5 16.2 -0.7 2.3 2.2 0.1
1962.......................................................... 567.8 17.6 18.8 -1.3 15.4 16.4 -1.0 2.2 2.4 -0.2
1963.......................................................... 599.2 17.8 18.6 -0.8 15.4 16.1 -0.7 2.4 2.5 -0.1
1964.......................................................... 641.5 17.6 18.5 -0.9 15.0 16.0 -1.0 2.6 2.5 0.1
1965.......................................................... 687.5 17.0 17.2 -0.2 14.6 14.8 -0.2 2.4 2.4 *
1966.......................................................... 755.8 17.3 17.8 -0.5 14.8 15.2 -0.4 2.5 2.6 -0.1
1967.......................................................... 810.0 18.4 19.4 -1.1 15.4 16.9 -1.6 3.0 2.5 0.5
1968.......................................................... 868.4 17.6 20.5 -2.9 14.7 17.9 -3.2 2.9 2.6 0.3
1969.......................................................... 948.1 19.7 19.4 0.3 16.7 16.7 -0.1 3.1 2.7 0.4
1970.......................................................... 1,012.7 19.0 19.3 -0.3 15.7 16.6 -0.9 3.3 2.7 0.6
1971.......................................................... 1,080.0 17.3 19.5 -2.1 14.0 16.4 -2.4 3.3 3.0 0.3
1972.......................................................... 1,176.5 17.6 19.6 -2.0 14.2 16.4 -2.2 3.4 3.2 0.2
1973.......................................................... 1,310.6 17.6 18.7 -1.1 14.1 15.3 -1.2 3.5 3.5 *
1974.......................................................... 1,438.5 18.3 18.7 -0.4 14.5 15.1 -0.5 3.7 3.7 0.1
1975.......................................................... 1,560.2 17.9 21.3 -3.4 13.9 17.4 -3.5 4.0 3.9 0.1
1976.......................................................... 1,738.1 17.1 21.4 -4.2 13.3 17.3 -4.0 3.8 4.1 -0.2
TQ............................................................ 459.4 17.7 20.9 -3.2 13.8 16.8 -3.1 3.9 4.1 -0.1
1977.......................................................... 1,973.5 18.0 20.7 -2.7 14.1 16.7 -2.5 3.9 4.1 -0.2
1978.......................................................... 2,217.5 18.0 20.7 -2.7 14.2 16.7 -2.5 3.9 4.0 -0.2
1979.......................................................... 2,501.4 18.5 20.1 -1.6 14.6 16.2 -1.6 3.9 4.0 -*
1980.......................................................... 2,724.2 19.0 21.7 -2.7 14.8 17.5 -2.7 4.2 4.2 -*
1981.......................................................... 3,057.0 19.6 22.2 -2.6 15.3 17.8 -2.4 4.3 4.4 -0.2
1982.......................................................... 3,223.7 19.2 23.1 -4.0 14.7 18.5 -3.7 4.5 4.7 -0.2
1983.......................................................... 3,440.7 17.5 23.5 -6.0 13.2 19.2 -6.0 4.3 4.3 -*
1984.......................................................... 3,844.4 17.3 22.2 -4.8 13.0 17.8 -4.8 4.3 4.3 -*
1985.......................................................... 4,146.3 17.7 22.8 -5.1 13.2 18.6 -5.3 4.5 4.3 0.2
1986.......................................................... 4,403.9 17.5 22.5 -5.0 12.9 18.3 -5.4 4.5 4.2 0.4
1987.......................................................... 4,651.4 18.4 21.6 -3.2 13.8 17.4 -3.6 4.6 4.2 0.4
1988.......................................................... 5,008.5 18.2 21.3 -3.1 13.3 17.2 -3.8 4.8 4.1 0.7
1989.......................................................... 5,399.5 18.4 21.2 -2.8 13.5 17.3 -3.8 4.9 3.9 1.0
1990.......................................................... 5,734.5 18.0 21.9 -3.9 13.1 17.9 -4.8 4.9 3.9 1.0
1991.......................................................... 5,930.5 17.8 22.3 -4.5 12.8 18.3 -5.4 5.0 4.1 0.9
1992.......................................................... 6,242.0 17.5 22.1 -4.7 12.6 18.1 -5.5 4.8 4.0 0.8
1993.......................................................... 6,587.3 17.5 21.4 -3.9 12.8 17.3 -4.6 4.7 4.0 0.7
1994.......................................................... 6,976.6 18.0 21.0 -2.9 13.2 16.9 -3.7 4.8 4.0 0.8
1995.......................................................... 7,341.1 18.4 20.6 -2.2 13.6 16.7 -3.1 4.8 3.9 0.9
1996.......................................................... 7,718.3 18.8 20.2 -1.4 14.1 16.3 -2.3 4.8 3.9 0.9
1997.......................................................... 8,211.7 19.2 19.5 -0.3 14.5 15.7 -1.3 4.8 3.8 1.0
1998.......................................................... 8,663.0 19.9 19.1 0.8 15.1 15.4 -0.3 4.8 3.7 1.1
1999.......................................................... 9,208.4 19.8 18.5 1.4 15.0 15.0 * 4.8 3.5 1.3
2000.......................................................... 9,821.0 20.6 18.2 2.4 15.7 14.8 0.9 4.9 3.4 1.5
2001.......................................................... 10,225.3 19.5 18.2 1.3 14.5 14.8 -0.3 5.0 3.4 1.6
2002.......................................................... 10,543.9 17.6 19.1 -1.5 12.7 15.7 -3.0 4.9 3.4 1.5
2003.......................................................... 10,979.8 16.2 19.7 -3.4 11.5 16.4 -4.9 4.8 3.3 1.5
2004.......................................................... 11,685.6 16.1 19.6 -3.5 11.5 16.4 -4.9 4.6 3.2 1.3
2005.......................................................... 12,445.7 17.3 19.9 -2.6 12.7 16.6 -4.0 4.6 3.2 1.4
2006.......................................................... 13,224.9 18.2 20.1 -1.9 13.6 16.9 -3.3 4.6 3.2 1.4
2007.......................................................... 13,891.8 18.5 19.6 -1.2 13.9 16.4 -2.5 4.6 3.3 1.3
2008.......................................................... 14,394.1 17.5 20.7 -3.2 13.0 17.4 -4.5 4.6 3.3 1.3
2009.......................................................... 14,097.5 14.9 25.0 -10.0 10.3 21.3 -11.0 4.6 3.7 1.0
2010.......................................................... 14,508.2 14.9 23.8 -8.9 10.6 20.0 -9.4 4.4 3.8 0.5
2011 estimate................................................. 15,079.6 14.4 25.3 -10.9 10.7 22.0 -11.3 3.7 3.3 0.4
2012 estimate................................................. 15,812.5 16.6 23.6 -7.0 12.5 19.9 -7.4 4.2 3.7 0.5
2013 estimate................................................. 16,752.4 17.9 22.5 -4.6 13.6 18.6 -5.1 4.4 3.9 0.5
2014 estimate................................................. 17,782.2 18.7 22.4 -3.6 14.4 18.5 -4.1 4.3 3.9 0.5
2015 estimate................................................. 18,804.1 19.1 22.3 -3.2 14.7 18.4 -3.7 4.3 3.9 0.5
2016 estimate................................................. 19,790.5 19.3 22.6 -3.3 14.9 18.7 -3.8 4.4 3.9 0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 0.05 percent or less.
Note: Budget figures prior to 1933 are based on the ``Administrative Budget'' concepts rather than the ``Unified Budget'' concepts.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, what the Republicans fail to tell
people, which makes me so angry and should make everyone angry, is that
all other spending in the Federal Government has remained flat. There
has been a zero-percent increase in 10 years, if we adjust for
inflation--zero, not a 2-percent increase, not a 3-percent increase.
These are the facts.
It is also true that we are spending more money--25 percent of GDP--
than at any time since World War II, but that spending is being driven
by defense and mandatory. But what do they want to cut? What are they
demanding to be cut today? They are demanding cuts from this line item,
including agriculture, health, education, and respite care for the
elderly. This is what they want to cut. This is why Democrats are
saying: Wait a minute, take a couple of steps back. That is what this
fight is really about.
In addition to waging this fight--and one would think this is a big
fight to have--we would have it in the safest place possible. Some
would think we would be having it in the safest place possible. My
colleagues know that in the old western movies, when two guys
[[Page S5100]]
want to shoot it out, they say: Meet me on the edge of town. Do these
guys meet you on the edge of town? No. Do you know where they meet us?
Right on Main Street, where small business and big business and self-
employed have been struggling for years, coming out of the greatest
recession that in large measure they helped to create. Where do they
want to stage this fight? On Main Street. That is what this fight is
about. They could have chosen anyplace for this battle, but where do
they choose it? They choose it over raising the debt ceiling, which, if
we don't fix it in the next 72 hours, it is going to raise interest on
every business.
I am already getting piles of letters from Louisiana that I will
include in the Record from small business owners pleading with us to
come to a deal because they are holding the economy hostage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters I just
referred to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
July 27, 2011.
Mrs. Monique Jones,
Raceland, LA.
Senator Landrieu, I am writing with my concern regarding
the debt ceiling issue. I am appalled at the current GOP
tactics, their inability to compromise and their absolute
refusal to put the good of the nation, the economy and the
average middle class American before some rigid political
ideology. Louisiana may be a red state, but the Tea party
does not speak for all of us! Increasingly, I am frustrated
and dismayed that there is no ability to grasp even common
sense ideas--debt reduction works by increasing revenue and
cutting spending, for example--or their apparent amnesia and
the fact that it was previous administrations that put wars
on the credit card! Why weren't they shouting over fiscal
responsibility back then?
I have contacted my Congressman expressing my lack of
support for Cap, Cut and Balance. I am equally not impressed
with the Reid plan. I SUPPORT tax increases, closing
corporate tax loopholes and . . . please . . . please . . .
can Hedge Fund Managers pay their fair share? I'll be frank,
my husband and I are small business owners, registered
Independents and completely middle class. Our income was
decimated by the oil spill, and last year we paid a lot more
taxes than GE did. Not fair!
Please Senator, do what is right for the middle class. Get
some revenues. Protect Medicare. I understand that we need to
cut spending, but not on the backs of the middle class. How
about letting the Bush tax cuts expire for starters? The
President and the democrats have compromised, but the GOP
reminds me of playground bully. Shaking down the other kids
for their lunch money. I am appalled that they would rather
run the country into the ground than compromise! This
moderate Independent is angry.
The President asked that we give you guys a shout out to
let you know what we think. I support the Democrats. I will
do so in upcoming elections as well. The GOP has proved
themselves incapable of actual governance.
Sincerely,
Monique M. Jones.
____
July 27, 2011.
Mr. Matthew Cope,
Baton Rouge, LA.
Dear Senator Landrieu, What is wrong with revenues?? Or why
not close a few tax loopholes (or does that constitute tax
increases--bilge water!!).
Look at what people were paying in taxes under Eisenhower--
we are supremely under-taxed. Why do people think we can fund
multiple wars with tax cuts and no revenues??? No one has an
inkling of what sacrifice is. Go see Captain America: it's
all about the war effort and doing your part. No one does
that (or even thinks about it) anymore. Stop enriching those
who need it the least. I am a 40-year-old small business
owner--all this default talk is doing nothing but making it
harder for me to grow my business. And I vote!!!
Sincerely,
Matthew Cope.
____
July 27, 2011.
David Beriss,
New Orleans, LA.
Dear Senator Landrieu, please stop the idiotic debt ceiling
debate. It is time to raise the debt ceiling and move on to
legislation that creates jobs.
Cutting government spending and reducing government jobs is
a ridiculous and irresponsible policy when we are trying to
recover from a recession. Please stop letting the Republican
ideologues drive the political debate in Washington. There is
only one issue that matters: jobs. The debt ceiling debate is
an artificial crisis and a distraction from what matters.
Get this done and move on!
It is all about jobs, not about stupid ideological
smokescreens like ``big government,'' or a ``balanced budget
amendment'' (which is a truly stupid idea, by the way).
Can we count on you to work forcefully to get the Senate
(and all of Congress) to focus on issues that really matter,
like creating jobs?
Sincerely,
David Beriss.
____
July 27, 2011.
Mr. Daniel Threlkeld,
Fort Polk, LA.
Senator Landrieu, first of all, I want to thank you for
your support of our military. I am a Captain in the Army and
have humbly served our great country for nearly 13 years. I
am writing to you today to let you know how disheartened and
down-right disgusted I am with how our government is dealing
with today's economic problems--in particular the debt
ceiling issue. I have dealt firsthand with the enormous
emotional trauma caused by the last budget problem which
almost caused our young fighting men and women to temporarily
stop getting paid. At the time, I was a Battery Commander
stationed at Fort Lewis. I had combat veterans who served
multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan wearing the weight of
this country on their shoulders only to have that same
country almost turn its back on their pay and benefits. I had
numerous Soldiers who lived paycheck to paycheck, and even a
temporary stop in pay would have been devastating to that
Soldier and his family. Fortunately, you all reached an
agreement several months ago at the last minute in which you
passed the 2011 Budget so we could get paid.
Now we are at another impasse, and now the military once
again faces the possibility of not getting paid. Not only
that, but all of the arguing and bickering amongst our
Congressmen & Women are bringing our entire economy down.
Bottom line: You (all of Congress and the President) need to
reach a deal. Throw out all of the politics, Democrat versus
Republican tricks, and unite as Americans and make a deal
that will bring our country out of this mess. Don't turn your
backs on the very people who elected you. Please, from one
humble American to another, make a deal and secure our
future. I have faith that you will help make this happen.
Respectfully,
CPT(P) Daniel S. Threlkeld.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Has anybody read the newspapers this morning? It is
full of cartoons: Republicans holding the economy hostage. They are not
holding Barack Obama hostage. They are not holding Democrats hostage.
They are not holding the Federal Government hostage. They have decided
to fight the battle on Main Street, holding economic growth hostage,
and they think that is a compromise or a fair fight. This hostage isn't
strong enough to survive this siege.
Do we ever hear any one of them say that perhaps we need to raise a
penny or two or three? Absolutely not. Now, there are Senators who have
agreed to do so, but they haven't been as vocal as they possibly could
be. I am honored to serve with many good Republicans who understand
this equation has two sides: both taking spending down in the right
ways and raising revenue.
Let me get one more fact out there, and I will turn it over to my
colleague.
I understand corporate tax rates are higher than some other countries
in the world, and our corporations are having some tough times, as well
as some businesses. But I am going to submit data for the Record which
shows that the top 400 companies in this country are not paying a 35-
percent rate, they are not paying a 34-percent rate, their practical
rate is 17 percent. Why would that be the case? Because this Tax Code
is full of loopholes for special interests that many of them on the
other side think are justified.
So we are not going to be able to solve all of these problems today,
but I wanted to come to the floor on behalf of businesses--small
businesses and large--and say that when the Republicans start talking
about both sides of the equation, these Democrats, including myself,
will walk up and negotiate. In the meantime, we are going to work hard
to find a deal that works for the American people, and one solution
that will work for the American people is not to have to repeat this 4
months from now.
I am going to conclude with this. Just a few months ago, we were
getting letters from the other side saying business needs certainty,
business needs to know what taxes they are going to pay. They need to
have certainty. And then, all of a sudden, today this side is arguing
that we have to go through this debate 4 months from now.
I am telling my colleagues that this hostage will not survive their
siege. We have to fix this for the long term now.
I am going to turn it over to my colleague from Minnesota, who is
going to talk about the businesses in her State and what she is hearing
from businesses in her State and why this is so
[[Page S5101]]
grossly unfair from Republicans who want to bring this economy to its
knees, and they are doing a really good job of it.
I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank very much the Senator from
Louisiana for her passionate remarks. There is a reason she has that
passion, and it is because we are in the ninth inning. This is it. The
time for political posturing is over. There is no more time to say we
are not going to talk to each other. There is no more time to pretend
we can have one plan and then another plan. It is time to get an
agreement.
Look at what has happened in just the past week. The markets have
gone down more than they have in over a year. We have seen realtors--
and this is a study that just came out a few days ago--people backed
away from one out of six deals this past month. If you look at the
month before, it was only 1 out of 25. People are feeling the
uncertainty in this economy, and it is time to come to a bipartisan
agreement.
Last week, I held a call with business leaders from across my State
to update them on the status of negotiations, to hear their thoughts
and their concerns, and to answer their questions. Their message back
to me was clear and unified: If we fail to act, the consequences for
our economy are real and serious. I will be honest. They don't care
what combination of votes--Democratic, Republican--it takes to get us
across the finish line. Many of them may prefer Republican plans, and
some would prefer a Democratic plan. What they want is consistency.
They want us to get this done. They want us to not default on our debt.
They want a deal to be passed by August 2 that prevents the United
States from defaulting on its financial obligations and provides some
long-term certainty.
Now, make no mistake, they see our debt crisis as real and serious
and something that must be addressed. But while failure to bring the
national debt under control is threatening America's future, the danger
of default is already harming our economy. We must address both. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called the possibility of default
unthinkable and unacceptable, arguing it will have real, immediate, and
potentially catastrophic consequences.
As economists and experts from across the ideological spectrum have
said, if this continues, interest rates will rise for everyone. That is
what they say. This will mean higher rates for American consumers and
the small businesses that drive our economies. Car loans, mortgages,
businesses, and student loans will all be more expensive. Higher
borrowing costs and a falling dollar means slower economic growth and
slower job creation. That is the last thing we need right now.
Just an hour ago I received in my office an e-mail from a major
employer in my State saying the commercial paper market nearly seized
up yesterday, and by the afternoon only overnight rollovers were
possible. That is what they were seeing, and that is identical to what
happened to capital markets in September of 2008, according to this
major company. They said this in the e-mail:
The sooner the debt limit issue can be resolved, the sooner
this market can begin functioning as it should and the sooner
lenders will begin lending for longer than overnight.
Here are some things I heard from business leaders in my State. This
is from Hubert Joly, the president and CEO of Carlson Companies,
headquartered in Minneapolis. It owns and manages over 2,000 hotels and
restaurants across this country and across the globe. He writes this:
As one of the largest private family owned companies in the
United States, Carlson would like to highlight how critical
it is for Congress to reach a constructive compromise before
August 2 to ensure that the U.S. does not default on its debt
obligations. The ongoing uncertainty--
Note that word--
and lack of resolution of the debt ceiling debate is not
healthy for the global financial markets or for consumer
confidence. It is highly detrimental to the overall economy
and to the travel and hospitality industry which millions of
families in the U.S. depend upon for their livelihood. We
therefore urge congressional leadership to act in the best
interests of the nation and deliver a compromise agreement
that avoids default and demonstrates the nation has a
credible plan to reduce the federal deficit. A short-term fix
is not sufficient, as we must not allow or accept prolonged
uncertainty, which will only create volatility and
instability for the globe and the U.S. economy.
I have multiple other letters--from snow mobile manufacturers, etc.,
which I will later put in the Record. Since we are having dozens come
in every hour, I want to get them all gathered for tomorrow. But one
gentleman said this:
In regard to the current debt ceiling situation, default is
not an option and reasonable compromise is what we need to
add certainty that will lead to growth for American
manufacturers.
Certainty and growth. Another one:
The current debate over the debt ceiling has serious
implications for American business. For example, the impact
to my company will be felt not only by 3,300 U.S. employees,
but by suppliers, customers, and, consequently, shareholders.
Just in case you do not draw the connection, these are major
businesses that are in small towns throughout my State--sometimes the
only major employer in those towns. That is what they are saying. Let
me tell you, these are not Democrats who are writing those letters.
They are not siding on one particular plan or the other. They are just
saying: We need a compromise, and we need it by August 2.
Ken Powell, chairman and CEO of General Mills, a major Fortune 500
company, writes:
We think it is critically important for the entire
country--both at the business and individual level--that
Congress come to an agreement on this issue and move forward.
An individual from a major financial institution that manages the
savings and retirements of over 2 million individual business and
institutional clients writes this:
I urge the U.S. Congress to reach a bipartisan agreement to
raise the debt ceiling and return the country's focus to
economic growth and job creation.
None of us in this Chamber wants to see our economy damaged.
Democrats do not want it. Republicans do not want it. As these letters
show, the business community in this country knows we cannot have this
happen. What they want is for us to work together to show the American
people and the world that Washington is not broken; that instead we are
willing to put aside our politics to do what we have been elected to do
and get this done. That is what is right for America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska is here to
finish out this segment, which is focusing on the difficulties that
businesses are going to have. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for
joining us for this segment.
I just want to get something in the Record before yielding to the
Senator from Alaska.
I said the spending is high, 25 percent of GDP. Everyone acknowledges
that. We are working hard to get it down. But I want to put in the
Record that revenues coming into the Treasury are the lowest since
World War II, at 14 percent. We do not have revenues in this solution
because Democrats have compromised and conceded on this point, which is
a very difficult compromise for us to make when faced with the truth of
the situation. But in trying to compromise, we have done that. We have
not been met halfway. I hope the minority leader will reengage with the
majority leader--having said last night he did not believe he wanted to
engage with the majority leader to try to come to a compromise--because
businesses are depending on it.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an
excellent column in the Washington Post today to capstone my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post]
(By Colbert I. King)
Limbaugh's Singular Focus
Rush Limbaugh was responding to my observation during
Gordon Peterson's ``Inside Washington'' show on ABC-7 last
weekend that an anti-Obama mood was fueling some of the
opposition to getting anything done in Washington. Referring
to Limbaugh's commentary earlier in the week, I said that he
made ``no reference to saving the country, no such reference
to averting disaster with the debt ceiling. It was a question
of helping or hurting Obama.''
[[Page S5102]]
I wasn't wrong. Limbaugh continued his anti-Obama rant
during last Monday's show: ``Mr. King is, in a way, exactly
right. . . . The point is you can't save the country if you
don't defeat Obama.''
Which helps explain the virtual knee-jerk opposition of
right-wing Republicans to anything that comes out of the
Obama administration. It also explains their willingness to
put the country on the path to economic suicide if the
downgrading of U.S. debt will help bring down President
Obama. For wingers, there is no price too high to pay to
break Obama. Sabotaging the president of the United States
is, in their view, good for the country.
It seems to have been ever thus. Limbaugh was pulling for
the Obama administration's downfall even before the president
took the oath of office. Four days prior to Obama's
inauguration as the nation's 44th chief executive, Limbaugh
famously declared, ``I hope he fails.''
Barack Obama, contends Limbaugh, is the danger from which
America must be saved.
As the Limbaugh camp sees it, Obama is a threat to the
American way of life. They hold that he is the cause of 9
percent unemployment and the reason homeowners are
underwater. Three years of Barack Obama--not eight years of
George W. Bush--are why prosperity is beyond the reach of
many Americans. And it is the prospect of, in Limbaugh's
words, ``Obama having control over all the money and choosing
to whom to send it, to distribute it, or redistribute it,''
that threatens America.
That Obama hasn't collapsed keeps conservatives like
Limbaugh up nights. They won't acknowledge it, but under
Obama's leadership--and within three years after inheriting
one of America's worst enemies--a bleeding al-Qaeda is on the
run, and Osama bin Laden is swimming with the fishes.
Troops are finally coming home from a costly, Bush-inspired
Iraq war that is leaving our arch regional foe, Iran,
strategically better off than it was before the U.S.
invasion.
The automobile and financial services industries--on the
ropes when Bush left office--are back on their feet. For the
first time, 30 million uninsured Americans will face the
future with health insurance.
Not to mention the mess Bush left behind: a projected $1.2
trillion deficit, two wars and huge tax cuts for the
wealthy--all financed by borrowing.
Obama, to be sure, has spent trillions, in part because he
was trying to extend health-care coverage and stave off
another depression. But prior presidents incurred most of the
nation's $14.3 trillion debt.
The country is going downhill, Limbaugh asserts, ``because
of policies implemented by [Obama] who, I don't care, is
either clueless or is himself a saboteur.'' Note the
allusions to stupidity and subversion--staple slurs in the
conservative book of slime.
Make no mistake that is the mindset that stands in the way
of saving the country.
Produce a package that staves off default, lifts the debt
ceiling high enough to cover federal obligations into 2013,
reins in the budget by cutting $4.5 trillion over the next
decade through spending reductions and the elimination of tax
loopholes and tax breaks benefiting the rich, and guess what?
A solid phalanx of congressional right-wingers, egged on by
Limbaugh, says no. And, hell no, if it means Barack Obama
might share the credit.
Getting Obama isn't just an important conservative
Republican goal; it seems to be their only goal.
And Limbaugh has the unmitigated gall to go on and on about
how much he cares about saving the country, telling his
listeners: ``Every waking moment . . . even when I am on the
golf course, I care.''
Now that's what you call sacrifice.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Alaska, who has been an
absolutely outstanding champion for small business not only in Alaska
but around the Nation, who will talk with us about this short-term,
repeat, 6-month uncertainty and how damaging that would be to
businesses in Alaska. I thank the Senator for joining us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana very
much. I am happy to join my friend from Louisiana and my friend from
Minnesota. I am a small business owner. I have been from my teenage
years. My wife is a small business owner. I understand the plight they
go through--how to raise capital, how to start a small business, how to
take a dream to reality. Sometimes those dreams do not work out so
well, and what happens next?
As we sit here and talk about the short term versus the long term, in
business you lay out a business plan. It is a long-term plan.
Businesses that set a short-term plan are the ones that have those big
banners that say: ``Going out of business.'' Those are the short-term
planners in the business world.
We debate today--and I think we are a lot closer than maybe the media
likes to portray--but it is a difference between in the next 6 months
do we deal with this issue and have another debt limit vote in 6 months
from now, and another 6 months later, and 6 months, or do we plan for
the long term, get our economy more stable, more certain, so businesses
can invest and do the right thing?
As I said at the beginning, any business that you see that has a
short-term plan usually has a sign that says: ``Going out of business''
or ``Quitting.''
We are not going to quit. We are going to have a long-term plan.
I heard earlier today my colleague and friend from Georgia, from the
other side, who practiced in real estate, Senator Isakson. Both of us
have been in the real estate business for many years. As he said, also,
we are closer than people think we are. But we have some slight
differences, ones we need to make sure we resolve and move to a long-
term plan.
Earlier this week, I challenged businesses that want to have a short-
term plan to call my office; I would be happy to mention them on the
floor of the Senate. I waited and I waited and I waited. No one--not
one business--called my office and said: Give me a short-term plan. But
I will tell you, several Alaskan businesses did call my office and say:
Compromise. Get a long-term plan.
Let me read to you from just a couple.
JoeMarie Thomson from Anchorage owns Crucible Designs, a Web site
design firm. She writes:
I'm very concerned about the posturing surrounding the debt
ceiling negotiations. As a small business owner I'm already
seeing the effects of this uncertainty. My clients are also
small business owners and so I am right in the line of fire
on this one.
I've heard from more than a few clients that if the U.S.
defaults on the debt that the resulting interest rates will
put them out of business. With this fear increasing the
closer we get to August 2, it's really hurting my bottom
line.
Another one, Rita Fleckenstein from Anchorage, owns Rita's Family
Daycare, a small daycare center for children. Her husband is retired
Air Force.
It is my sincere hope that you will try to influence your
other Alaskan partners to take a balanced approach to solve
the current budget crisis. I am a small business owner and
loyal Alaskan voter and I am tired of all this posturing
among the House members.
She is referring to the debate that occurred last night.
A man from Anchorage:
I am a long time Alaskan, father of two, Iraq war veteran,
small business owner, and my small business provides
engineers and managers to the oil and gas industry in Alaska.
I am a registered independent but am conservative in regards
to budgetary issues.
. . . As a small business owner, I would never jeopardize
the well being of my family, my employees, or my clients in
regards to a business agreement or transaction. There is
always room to compromise and allow all parties engaged in
the deal to walk away with the feeling they got a fair deal.
. . . I fully expect increases in my taxes and am ok with
that in order to continue to support our country.
Another one, actually from someone I know well, who owns Arctic Wire
and Rope, Eric McCallum. He won Alaskan manufacturer of the year in
1986 and employs 14 people. He is important to our oil and gas
industry. Fortunately, Eric has no debt, but he is terribly concerned
about the debt crisis. He says small businesses like his are the
``canary in the mineshaft'' and will be negatively impacted more than
big businesses. Eric states:
There will be far more impact on Main Street than Wall
Street from this debt crisis.
Eric adds that he is more than willing to pay his fair share to help
balance the Federal budget.
These have come in and in and in, and it is amazing to see what
people are talking about in my State. There are 68,000 small businesses
in Alaska. My wife is one of those. Almost 16,000 employ many
employees. The fastest growing segment of our business community in
Alaska is small business, growing by almost 31 percent over the last 6
years.
Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, to the Senator from Louisiana,
as a small businessperson, all they want to see is certainty. They want
the bickering, the partisan bickering to end. They want certainty so
they can continue to invest and see their future.
There are just some simple differences that I think the folks from
both sides can sit down and work through. One is, clearly, how long
[[Page S5103]]
should this debt limit increase go for? As I said earlier, if you do a
short term, that is the business that is saying: I quit. I am out of
business. If you do a long term, it gives certainty and opportunity to
plan and build for the future.
Should we have a vote up or down separate from the debt limit issue
on a balanced budget amendment? It is a great debate. More than likely,
we will probably have that debate. I have supported a balanced budget
amendment before. But it is time we raise the debt limit to create the
long-term certainty we need for our small business community not only
in Alaska but throughout this country, where they are the backbone that
will drive this economy in the right direction.
It is an honor, again, to be down here with the chairwoman of the
Small Business Committee. She has worked tirelessly on bill after bill.
We were unsuccessful this year on a couple that were critical to small
businesses because we could not get past the logjam. Maybe this will
break the pathway, if we can get past this debt limit in a bipartisan
way, where we can then bring many more other small business bills back
to the floor because what I hear most often from Alaskans, beside the
frustration of what is going on here, is they want us to focus on
building this economy, to get regulation out of the way, to help invest
in the needed things to ensure that businesses can create the jobs we
desperately need not only for the people who are unemployed today, but
for future generations. That is what we need.
So, again, Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Again, I thank my friend from Louisiana for the opportunity to say a
few words but also for her leadership and her continued tenacity to
fight for the small businessperson every single day.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. President, how much time do we have in this segment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senators, again, from
Minnesota and Alaska for coming and making the point and underlying and
scoring the point that this filibuster the Republican caucus is holding
today--not allowing us to have a simple majority vote on the Reid
plan--is hurting business.
As the Senator said, this is a pattern, unfortunately, it seems like
coming from the other side. We had to overcome their filibuster just
last year to pass the small business bill that is now having a terrific
effect throughout the country in some pockets. We still are not where
we would like to be, of course, in job creation, and the recovery is
slow. I am starting to think that maybe that is what they want--for the
recovery to be slow.
Then they filibustered the SBIR bill, which is the largest single
research investment program for small businesses in America. We still
cannot get that passed. They are filibustered.
Then they filibustered the EDA bill, which is one of the most
important programs to Chambers of Commerce, which is not a liberal
stronghold in America. Now they are filibustering this bill and
demanding a two-step solution, and no businessperson has written to
Congress saying they think that is a good way to go.
The opposite. They are saying: Get this over with now. The
uncertainty is killing us.
I will yield to the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. Just for a question. The way I understand this is, for
people who may be watching or listening, a filibuster requires 60
votes. All we are asking for is the same thing the House of
Representatives did last night on their bill.
Ms. LANDRIEU. A simple majority.
Mr. BEGICH. A simple majority, allow an up-or-down vote so we can
determine what plan or what action we take. That is all we are asking
for.
Ms. LANDRIEU. It would be clear if we could get 51 votes that the
Reid plan would pass, just like the Boehner plan passed. Neither one
can get the other side to agree. But at least then we would have the
basis for a compromise.
But, no, the Republicans have decided we cannot have that vote. So
this is getting strung out, and with every hour, with every day,
businesses are hurting. Maybe that is what they want because, then, the
President can be blamed for businesses not doing well, when they are
the ones who are stepping in the way.
The details from the budget summary that I stated: 14 percent of the
revenues coming in--this is on the Web site for anybody who wants to
know. I have letters from Louisiana that I printed in the Record from
businesses that have written to me saying: Not a two-step process, a
one-step process. Get a good solution and move on.
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. KYL. 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. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to begin by speaking for just a
moment about some comments the distinguished majority leader gave this
afternoon in his opening comments and then talk a little bit about the
general issue we are faced with--frankly, in an effort to see if we can
come to common ground.
Let me start with a couple comments the majority leader made this
afternoon. He has talked more than once about the fact that in his
view, the Republican leaders have wasted time by pursuing a proposal
they knew the Senate would not pass. I think there are two things to
say about that.
One could say the same about the majority leader's proposal. He hopes
the Senate will not pass that either. So we have two proposals, one by
Speaker Boehner that passed the House of Representatives but Senator
Reid declared dead on arrival, and indeed it was tabled last night; the
other, the Reid proposal, which is also dead on arrival in the Senate.
As Leader McConnell noted this morning, there is a letter that has
sufficient signatures on it to defeat it, and, in addition to that, I
can tell you I have talked to my colleagues--all my Republican
colleagues--and it will be defeated. I think the majority leader knows
that.
So the only question with regard to the Senate majority leader's
proposal is, Why would we waste additional time debating a proposal we
know is going to fail? Why have that vote at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning?
Let's get it done, get it over with, and move forward. I think that is
the best way to try to reach a conclusion.
I would also note the reason the majority leader declared the Boehner
proposal dead was for two reasons; one, because it had a balanced
budgeted amendment attached to it. I just wish to make the point that I
know most of my Democratic colleagues do not support a balanced budget
amendment. But I do think it is worth noting that depending upon which
poll, 70, 80, more than 80 percent of the American people support a
balanced budget amendment.
I do not think we can blame Speaker Boehner for including a balanced
budget amendment in the Boehner legislation that was sent over here. It
is pretty logical that if the American people say they support
something with that degree of support, that we would include it in
legislation to try to balance the budget.
But the majority leader here said no. That means it is dead on
arrival in the Senate. That should tell us something about the Senate
Democrats. President Obama talks about the need for a balanced
approach. Speaker Boehner says: How about a balanced budget? Leader
Reid says no. That is the first point.
It seems to me the second point is there is a difference of opinion
about how long this debt ceiling extension should last. Speaker Boehner
has always said there should be at least a dollar-for-dollar reduction
in spending for every $1 the debt ceiling is increased. I think that
makes sense. If we are going to increase the debt ceiling $2.4
trillion, then we ought to have $2.4 trillion in savings; otherwise, we
are going to have to keep on raising the debt ceiling over and over. I
would note the savings are savings that occur over a 10-year period of
time. So it is not as though we are cutting that immediately, although
the debt ceiling
[[Page S5104]]
extension would be $2.4 trillion for just the next 16 months. That is
how much debt we are going to accumulate, just to the end of President
Obama's term in office.
There is not enough savings to do that, that has been agreed to.
Republicans have all kinds of ideas about savings that could get to
$2.5 trillion. Democrats have said no. The only thing we can agree on
is about $1.2 trillion. So the Republican leader said: Fine, let's do a
debt extension equal to $1.2 trillion. That takes us at least through
the end of the year, and then we will have a committee--both sides
agree we need to have a select committee that will make recommendations
for how to get the remainder of the savings and potentially more. That
is a good idea.
But the President has said he does not want to rely on that process
because maybe it will not result in actual savings he can count on. He
might have to veto it. For whatever reason, he is not confident it
would occur, and he does not want to have to face this issue again at
the time he is campaigning for election. I do not blame him for that.
He might well view it as a distraction. It certainly is unsettling to
the markets.
But I would argue that as much it is a result that we would like to
avoid, by the same token, it does focus the public's attention on what
we need to do around here, which is reduce spending. We did not get
into this mess for any other reason other than the fact that we have
spent too much money.
We have had annual spending of about $1.2 trillion since President
Obama became President. We have had annual deficits of about $1.4
trillion. Do we see any connection there? Obviously, our problem is
spending. So we need to get a handle on that. That is why I think the
Boehner proposal made sense, but the leader says it was dead on
arrival. He was right. The Reid proposal is also dead on arrival. Let's
get it over with and move on to a solution we can agree with.
The second thing I wanted to mention, the majority leader has been
very critical of what he calls tea party extremists, people who do not
want to vote to increase the debt ceiling under any circumstances. It
kind of reminds me of Senator Barack Obama, who voted against extending
the debt ceiling, and the language is eerily similar. It is ``failed
leadership'' he pronounced. Tea party folks say this represents failed
leadership, so we are not going to vote for a debt extension.
The President did not vote for the debt ceiling extension when he was
a Member of this body. I do not say that to criticize the President but
rather just to suggest to my colleagues that we ought to have the same
standard applied to all. If they think it is wrong for the tea party
people to stand on principle and say we are not going to raise the debt
ceiling, then they can say the same about President Obama when he was a
Senator. But if they are going to criticize the tea party folks for
standing on principle, criticizing leadership, saying they do not want
to raise the debt ceiling, they might want to think about what their
colleague, then-Senator Obama, did.
The fact is, name calling does not help. Let's stop talking about
extremist tea party folks. I would not call the President an extremist
when he voted against the debt ceiling extension. He has already
admitted he made a mistake. Republicans in the leadership in both the
House and Senate have made it clear we believe the debt ceiling should
be extended. We want to be able to do that, for a variety of reasons we
have discussed.
We do not want to put the American economy in jeopardy. We do not
want to jeopardize the savings of people who could see those savings
dissipate if the stock market continues to go down, and so we do need
to get this issue behind us.
The majority leader complained this morning that Republicans need to
come talk to him. The minority leader needs to come and talk to him. He
said I would have hoped someone would come to us, come to the table,
and he specifically referred to Senator McConnell.
My response is, Why do the Republicans always have to come up with
the ideas? Three times the House of Representatives has passed a
proposal only to be criticized each time by the Democrats who invite
them to come up with proposals. Remember, the first was the Ryan
budget--savaged by my Democratic colleagues and by the President.
House Republicans said yes; Senate Democrats said no. Then, they came
up with cut, cap, and balance, something that is pretty popular around
the country. It would cut spending, would cap it, and would ultimately
have a balanced budget amendment that would keep it capped. Democrats
roundly criticized that. In the Senate, they voted it down.
Finally, John Boehner came up with his last proposal, and it also
included a balanced budget amendment--declared dead on arrival. The
third time Democrats said no. I think Republican leaders are getting a
little tired of being invited by our Democratic friends to come up with
ideas, only to have them voted down and criticized. Where is the
Democratic proposal? Where is the proposal by the President? I think it
is time for Democrats to come up with an idea and maybe Republicans can
take a look at it to see whether we like it.
Finally, the majority leader said we have another filibuster in our
path. ``They,'' meaning Republicans stall and delay. Last night, Leader
McConnell said: Let's have the vote tonight, right now. We do not need
to stall or delay another minute.
The majority leader said: No, I do not want to vote on my proposal
yet. I want to vote on it at 1 a.m. on Sunday morning. Leader McConnell
said today: We are ready to vote on it today without delay--now, at 3
o'clock, at 6 o'clock, whatever. Let's vote on it. We do not need to
continue to waste time. The majority leader said: No, we will vote on
it at 1 a.m, Sunday morning. OK. I will be here. But I wonder what the
American people think of such a dysfunctional body that we cannot even,
by unanimous consent, bring a matter to the Senate floor, vote on this
motion to invoke cloture to proceed to the leader's bill.
Those are some things I just wanted to comment on that the leader had
to say. Finally, what I would like to do is ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record, at the close of my remarks, a Wall Street
Journal editorial entitled ``The Road to a Downgrade,'' dated July 28.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me quote from a piece of this. The
editorial starts by noting that the President:
. . . inherited a recession and responded by blowing up the
U.S. balance sheet. Spending as a share of GDP in the last
three years is higher than at any time since 1946. In three
years the debt has increased by more than $4 trillion thanks
to stimulus, cash for clunkers, mortgage modification
programs, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, record expansions in
Medicaid, and more.
The forecast is for $8 trillion to $10 trillion more in red
ink through 2021. Mr. Obama hinted in the press conference
earlier this month that if it weren't for Republicans, he'd
want another stimulus.
Wall Street Journal says:
Scary thought: None of this includes the ObamaCare
entitlement that will place 30 million more Americans on
government health rolls.
Then they conclude:
This is the road to fiscal perdition. The looming debt
downgrade only confirms what everyone knows: Congress has
made so many promises to so many Americans that there is no
conceivable way those promises can be kept. Tax rates might
have to rise to 60 percent, 70 percent, even 80 percent to
raise the revenues to finance these promises, but that would
be economically ruinous.
It concludes:
This insistence on no reform reinforces the notion that our
entitlement state is too big to afford but also too big to
change politically. This is how a AAA country becomes AA, the
first step on the march to Greece.
Charles Krauthammer, a terrific observer of the political scene, in
his column Friday in the Washington Post, concluded with the following
words:
Obama faces two massive problems--jobs and debt. They're
both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble:
massive spending that left us a stagnant economy with high
and chronic unemployment--and a staggering debt burden.
That is the problem, a staggering debt burden that requires us to
increase our debt ceiling, and Republicans are saying: In order to stop
this cycle of more promises and more spending, we have to apply some
accountability, some common sense, some good judgment. And that means,
[[Page S5105]]
first and foremost, stop the spending. I note, as I said before, that
under President Obama annual spending has gone up $1.2 trillion in each
of the years and the deficit by $1.4 trillion. I ask again, do you
notice any correlation there? That is the problem.
I know my Democratic colleagues love to complain about President
Bush. I note that in the year 2007--a year before the recession--the
deficit under President Bush was just $161 billion--a 10th of what the
deficit is today.
Mr. President, my colleagues and I all need to focus on the issue
before us, which is to begin to reduce spending, to insert some
accountability into the process, and to include some system changes so
that we can't continue this unwieldy government spending we never seem
to be able to stop. The evidence of how difficult it is is the fact
that for the last 4 weeks now we have been arguing with each other
about how we are going to effect $2.4 trillion in savings in order to
extend the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion. We can't figure out a way to
do it. That should show you what is wrong with our system and why we
need to put in some accountability.
I am confident that over the next 48 hours or so, the White House and
legislative leaders are going to find a way to both extend the debt
ceiling and come up with savings that begin to create a downpayment on
this incredible debt as well as system reforms that will give not just
the markets but American businesses and families some sense of
assurance that we will be able, in the future, to avoid the problem
some European countries are going through right now. But that will mean
we have to forget about this business of tax increases--which is the
worst medicine possible in a time of recession, as the President
himself noted--find ways to reduce spending we can agree upon, provide
accountability in our government in the future, and in that way assure
everyone that we can continue to grow, that growth will produce
prosperity and, ironically, more revenues to the Federal Treasury but,
more importantly, the standard of living Americans have become
accustomed to and have every right to expect.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2011]
The Road to a Downgrade
Even without a debt default, it looks increasingly possible
that the world's credit rating agencies will soon downgrade
U.S. debt from the AAA standing it has enjoyed for decades.
A downgrade isn't catastrophic because global financial
markets decide the creditworthiness of U.S. securities, not
Moody's and Standard & Poor's. The good news is that
investors still regard Treasury bonds, which carry the full
faith and credit of the U.S. government, as a near zero-risk
investment. But a downgrade will raise the cost of credit,
especially for states and institutions whose debt is pegged
to Treasurys. Above all a downgrade is a symbol of fiscal
mismanagement and an omen of worse to come if we continue the
same habits.
President Obama will deserve much of the blame for the
spending blowout of his first two years (see the nearby
chart). But the origins of this downgrade go back decades,
and so this is a good time to review the policies that
brought us to this sad chapter and $14.3 trillion of debt.
FDR began the entitlement era with the New Deal and Social
Security, but for decades it remained relatively limited.
Spending fell dramatically after the end of World War II and
the U.S. debt burden fell rapidly from 100% of GDP. That
changed in the mid-1960s with LBJ's Great Society and the
dawn of the health-care state. Medicare and Medicaid were
launched in 1965 with fairy tale estimates of future costs.
Medicare, the program for the elderly, was supposed to cost
$12 billion by 1990 but instead spent $110 billion. The costs
of Medicaid, the program for the poor, have exploded as
politicians like California Democrat Henry Waxman expanded
eligibility and coverage. In inflation-adjusted dollars,
Medicaid cost $4 billion in 1966, $41 billion in 1986 and
$243 billion last year.
Rather than bending the cost curve down, the government as
third-party payer led to a medical price spiral.
LBJ launched other welfare programs--public housing, food
stamps and many more--that have also grown over time. Last
year, the panoply of welfare programs spent about $20,000 for
every man, woman and child in poverty, according to Robert
Rector of the Heritage Foundation.
Social Security's fiscal trouble began in earnest in 1972
with bills that increased benefits immediately by 20%, added
an annual cost of living adjustment, and created a benefit
escalator requiring payments to rise with wages, not
inflation. This and other tweaks by Democrat Wilbur Mills
added trillions of dollars to the program's unfunded
liabilities. Believe it or not, these 1972 amendments were
added to a debt-ceiling bill.
None of these benefit expansions were subject to annual
budget review and thus they grew by automatic pilot. They are
sometimes called ``mandatory spending'' because Congress is
required by law to make payments to those who meet
eligibility standards, regardless of other spending needs or
tax revenues.
According to the most recent government data, today some
50.5 million Americans are on Medicaid, 46.5 million are on
Medicare, 52 million on Social Security, five million on SSI,
7.5 million on unemployment insurance, and 44.6 million on
food stamps and other nutrition programs. Some 24 million get
the earned-income tax credit, a cash income supplement.
By 2010 such payments to individuals were 66% of the
federal budget, up from 28% in 1965. (See the second chart.)
We now spend $2.1 trillion a year on these redistribution
programs, and the 75 million baby boomers are only starting
to retire.
We suspect that in the 1960s as now--with ObamaCare--
liberals knew they had created fiscal time-bombs. They simply
assumed that taxes would keep rising to pay for it all, as
they have in Europe.
On Monday night Mr. Obama blamed President George W. Bush's
``two wars'' for the debt buildup. But national defense
spending was 7.4% of GDP and 42.8% of outlays in 1965, and
only 4.8% of GDP and 20.1% of federal outlays in 2010.
Defense has not caused the debt crisis.
Many on the left still blame Ronald Reagan, but the debt
increase in the 1980s financed a robust economic expansion
and victory in the Cold War. Debt held by the public at the
end of the Reagan years was much lower as a share of GDP (41%
in 1988 and still only 40.3% in 2008) compared to the
estimated 72% in fiscal 2011. That Cold War victory made
possible the peace dividend that allowed Bill Clinton to
balance the budget in the 1990s by cutting defense spending
to 3% of GDP from nearly 6% in 1988.
Mr. Bush and Republicans did prove after 9/11 that the
Washington urge to spend and borrow is bipartisan.
Republicans launched a Medicare drug benefit, record outlays
on education, the most expensive transportation bill in
history, and home ownership aid that contributed to the
housing bubble. The GOP's blunder was refusing to cut
domestic spending to finance the war on terrorism. Guns and
butter blowouts never last.
Then came Mr. Obama, arguably the most spendthrift
president in history. He inherited a recession and responded
by blowing up the U.S. balance sheet. Spending as a share of
GDP in the last three years is higher than at any time since
1946. In three years the debt has increased by more than $4
trillion thanks to stimulus, cash for clunkers, mortgage
modification programs, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, record
expansions in Medicaid, and more.
The forecast is for $8 trillion to $10 trillion more in red
ink through 2021. Mr. Obama hinted in a press conference
earlier this month that if it weren't for Republicans, he'd
want another stimulus. Scary thought: None of this includes
the ObamaCare entitlement that will place 30 million more
Americans on government health rolls.
This is the road to fiscal perdition. The looming debt
downgrade only confirms what everyone knows: Congress has
made so many promises to so many Americans that there is no
conceivable way those promises can be kept. Tax rates might
have to rise to 60%, 70%, even 80% to raise the revenues to
finance these promises, but that would be economically
ruinous.
Yet Mr. Obama and most Democrats still oppose any serious
reform of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This
insistence on no reform reinforces the notion that our
entitlement state is too big to afford but also too big to
change politically. This is how a AAA country becomes AA, the
first step on the march to Greece.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. RUBIO. Then 12\1/2\ minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I rise on the floor today to speak on the
tremendous issue that has captivated the attention of our country.
I do not enjoy or relish the partisan role of attack dog. I never
found any fun in that. I don't think it is constructive, and I don't
intend to become that in the Senate.
I have only been here for 7 months, which means I haven't been here
long enough to think any of the stuff that is going on is normal. I
certainly don't think anything that goes on around here too often is
normal. So I think the fact that I have only been here for 7 months has
served me well in that regard.
One of the things I have noticed this week is that Washington is full
of--and rightfully so--people from all over the world and our country
who have traveled here this week to come and watch
[[Page S5106]]
their government at work and to see the monuments of the city, and they
have found themselves in the middle of this debate.
I think it is important to remind people about what we are debating.
It is not a complicated issue. It is straightforward, and here is the
way I describe it. The United States--and these are rough numbers but
accurate--spends about $300 billion a month. It has $180 billion a
month that comes to the Federal Government through taxes and other
sources of revenue. That means that in order to meet its bills at the
end of every month, it needs to borrow $120 billion.
For much of the history of this country, there have been increases in
the debt limit and the ability to borrow money. But what has happened
over the last few years is that it is no longer a routine vote because
the people who give us our credit rating are saying: Too much of the
money you spend every month is borrowed, and we want you to show us how
over the next 10 years you are going to borrow less as a percentage of
what you spend. So that is why, for years, where the debt limit was
routine, it can no longer be routine.
This wasn't just made up in a conservative think tank. The reality is
that we cannot continue to borrow 40 to 41 percent of every dollar the
government spends, which is what brought us to this point. You would
think that, seeing that, our government and leaders in both parties
would react to that immediately and work on it.
I have heard a lot of talk today about delaying tactics and delaying
votes. I argue to you that this issue has been delayed at least for the
last 2\1/2\ years. In the 2 years before I even came here, neither this
Chamber nor the other proposed or passed a budget. It is a startling
figure that for the last 2 years this government has operated without a
budget. Think about that. Two years have gone by without a budget.
The first 2 years President Obama was in office, no budget. Some
people would stay: Well, that is because of the partisanship in
Washington. That is not true. In the 2 years before I got here, the
House and Senate were controlled by members of the Democratic Party,
the President's party. In this Chamber, in at least 1 of those 2 years,
they had 60 votes; 60 out of the 100 Members here caucused with the
Democrats. On Christmas Eve of 2009, they were able to pass a health
care bill that was very controversial because they had the 60 votes in
the President's party.
Do you know how long it has been since this Chamber proposed a
budget? It has been 822 days. That is a long time. A lot of things have
happened in the last 822 days, but proposing a budget is not one of
them. We got here in January. Seven months have passed, and there is
still no budget. Again, there has not been a budget passed, proposed,
or offered, and there is still no budget--822 days and every single day
I have been here.
In the last 7 days on this debt debate, we have finally seen a
proposal from the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader. You would
think he would have brought it to the floor. Not until last night.
Again, he offered a proposal over the weekend, and still for 6 days we
sat around and we did nothing around here. It was never brought to a
vote.
You would think these issues would have been worked on in January,
February, and March--nothing. This Chamber has done nothing. Talk about
delay tactics--they have been delaying for 2\1/2\ years.
The President doesn't have the luxury of some of these things. By
law, he has to propose a budget. And he did. I will tell you how
ridiculous that budget was. Not a single Member of the Senate voted for
it, including Democrats. It increased the debt. That is how absurd the
budget was.
Where is the President's plan? We have not seen it. Here is the
President's plan: a blank sheet of paper. He hasn't offered a plan.
Again, if this were a Republican President, I would say the same thing.
I do not understand how, on an issue of this magnitude, of this
generational importance, the President of the United States has not
offered a plan. If somebody has seen the President's plan, please send
it to me because nobody else has seen it. It doesn't exist.
This has been their plan all along, by the way. The plan all along
was not to take a position, let the days count down until we got to
this point, with 72 hours to go, and force a vote on something they
wanted. I believe that has been the plan the entire time. You can see
it carrying itself out.
Do you want to know why people across America get grossed out by
politics? It is by watching this kind of stuff happening. First of all,
today and for much of this time, I have heard attacks and name-calling.
If we had $1 billion for every time I hear the words ``tea party
extremists,'' we could solve the debt problem.
Let me read some quotes about the debt limit. I found some pretty
extreme quotes, and here is one:
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's
debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a
debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve
better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase
America's debt limit.
That is from a tea party extremist, right? No. This is a quote from
March 16, 2006, from then-Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
I found another extremist quote:
Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted,
because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary,
because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard
for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of
economic management, I am voting against the debt limit
increase.
That must be a tea party extremist Member of the House, right? No.
This is from March 16, 2006, from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.
Last but not least is a quote from September 27, 2007:
I find it distasteful and disturbing to increase the debt
limit yet again. Clearly, we need to change course. And this
debt limit bill is just another reminder of that.
That is Majority Leader Reid from Nevada on that date in 2007.
Yet now these same quotes in this context, where we are talking about
raising the debt limit more than it has ever been raised in one vote,
is extremism? This name-calling is absurd, and it sets this process
back.
The other thing I hear: Oh, it is not reasonable. It is a waste of
time. This bill cannot pass the Senate--talking about the House bill.
Does that disqualify a bill? Well, the Senate bill cannot even pass in
the Senate.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. RUBIO. Yes.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator, and I appreciate it.
I ask the Senator this: As ironic as it may be that on occasion
people in the past have indeed voted against the debt limit--both
Republicans and Democrats alike--is it not true that in those
situations, those votes did not hold the Nation hostage, did not come
at a moment of enormous economic fragility, as we are in today, and did
not run the risk of default because it was going to pass overwhelmingly
every time? Is that not true?
Mr. RUBIO. I will say two things. First, if the Senator from
Illinois, Barack Obama, had gotten his way, we would have been in the
same position we are in right now. He voted against it. The President
has now said he made a mistake and would not have said that were he
here today. My point is that the rhetoric 2 years ago was not
considered extremist language.
Now, I think it is a myth. There may be a handful of people in the
House and Senate, perhaps, who believe the Nation doesn't have to raise
the debt limit, but by and large everybody recognizes that something
must be done about it. I speak for myself, not for any other Member of
the Chamber.
What I have also said is that it would be a terrible mistake to lose
this opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt and that the
debt limit gives us an opportunity to do something meaningful about the
debt because the crisis America faces is not one I have defined but one
defined by the ratings houses and agencies that have said: If you do
not get spending in order, we don't care whether you raise the debt
limit or not, we will downgrade you. What that means is an increase in
interest payments for every American.
Mr. KERRY. If the Senator will yield, I appreciate what the Senator
is saying. First of all, everybody understands the danger of the rating
agencies right now. The problem is, we have to reach across the aisle
and negotiate.
[[Page S5107]]
We have to come to an agreement. Right now, there is not a lot of
negotiating going on.
I ask the Senator if he doesn't agree that there is an enormous
difference between the--a moment ago, the Senator said ``if he had
gotten his way.'' The whole point is that everybody knew he wasn't
about to get his way. That was a truly symbolic vote. Today, however,
is it not true that we are on the brink of a default, and the absence
of negotiation or of a settlement presents us with a far more serious
consequence to the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling today?
Mr. RUBIO. I just ask, is it possible to negotiate with someone who
does not have a plan or will not offer a plan or put a plan on the
table? The finger-pointing is relevant, but it is not an essential
issue here.
Also, in March of this year--March 30, to be exact--I wrote an op-ed
piece that ran in the Wall Street Journal which outlined the things I
was looking for to be a part of this debate. I was told in March of
this year that we didn't have enough time to do all those things,
although later we found that perhaps we did--this grand bargain.
I am prepared, as I stand here today, if there is a meeting going on
after this, I am prepared to discuss the things I believe we need to
do, not just to raise the debt limit--raising the debt limit is the
easiest thing this country has to do right now. That is one vote away.
It is hard to show the world we are serious about putting our spending
in order so that we can pay our bills down the road.
That is a combination of things I have outlined very clearly not just
in March of this year in the Wall Street Journal but in repeated
speeches on this floor.
We need to do two things. We need to grow our economy. While the debt
is the biggest issue in Washington, jobs are the biggest issue facing
America. If we can get more people back to work, we will have more
people paying taxes. If we had more people paying taxes, we would have
more revenue for our government. So that is the first thing we need to
do, figure out how we can create jobs in America, and I think there is
bipartisan agreement on what we can do to do that.
The President himself mentioned regulatory reform as a necessity in
his State of the Union. Let's do it. We have all talked about tax
reform--flattening and simplifying our Tax Code. If there are things in
that Tax Code that do not belong there because they are the process of
good lobbying instead of good policy, then let's go after those things.
Let's talk about that.
I think we all agree there have to be some changes in discretionary
spending. But we also agree that doesn't solve the problem. That is a
small piece of our overall budget. We have to save Medicare, because it
goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. We have to save Medicaid,
because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is.
I can tell that you history will back me up on what I am about to
say. There is no government--run by conservatives, Republicans,
Democrats, put whoever you want there--if given the opportunity, that
will not spend more money than it has. It will do it. It will do it
every time. That is why I believe there are at least 20 Members of the
Senate in the other party who have voted for some version of the
balanced budget amendment. Yet it is something we cannot get a vote on,
much less discuss here in the Senate.
I believe there can be compromise on those outlines. But since I
believe my time is about to expire, let me close with this. Compromise
is fantastic. I would love nothing more than to leave this building
tomorrow night having said the Republic still works; I was able to
stand shoulder to shoulder with people from States far from mine, with
views different from mine, but who love their country so much we were
able to come together and save it when it faced this catastrophe. I
would love nothing more than compromise. But I would say to you that
compromise that is not a solution is a waste of time. If my house is on
fire, I can't compromise about which part of the house I am going to
save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down. We either save
this country or we do not. To save it, we must seek solutions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
up to 15 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have arrived at a moment of truth:
The American economy and our standing in the world hang in the balance
as a result of the Republican plan to derail the functioning of our
country and bring about the precarious prospect of a major default in
our financial condition.
Democrats have bent over backward to compromise. Yet the Republicans
continue to put our country in jeopardy. The American people and the
American economy are determined for a reprieve from this disaster. We
just heard comments by our colleague from across the aisle about
getting our tax structure in order. It reminds me of a condition where
there is a fire in a house and people start arguing about the color of
the fire engine.
What we have in front of us is an imminent disaster that could upset
the balance of our functioning as a society and put America, for the
first time, in a position of having less support from around the world;
preventing people who are hard at work from being able to make ends
meet. So we ask: Isn't this a time for our Republican friends to stop
playing ``gotcha,'' stop putting politics ahead of the needs of our
middle-class families and, instead, start putting the people before
politics?
Make no mistake, the people we serve are nervous and concerned.
Purchasing power has declined while wage increases have been
insufficient for family needs. Many in America are working their
fingers to the bone to get out of this economic squeeze and keep their
families intact, while all this time the richest among us see
monumental gains in their incomes and their wealth.
The people who have the burdens of maintaining our infrastructure,
running our military, and defending the very foundation of our
democratic country are struggling daily to stay in their homes, hold on
to their health care, and get their kids to college. The American
people are the ones--the ordinary people, the middle-income people--who
will suffer the most if the Republicans force the U.S. Government to
default next week. Fourteen million Americans are already out of work,
but more than half a million may join the unemployment line if we don't
raise the debt limit.
That is only the beginning. The default crisis will send interest
rates skyrocketing, which will be adding even more expense on the
American middle class, making it harder for them to meet basic family
needs. They will be forced to pay higher interest rates for mortgages,
student loans, car loans, and credit cards. That money won't help
create jobs or rebuild our economy. It will be going to the banks and
to China and to investors who are going to demand higher yields for
U.S. bond purchases because they will be seen as less reliable in their
likelihood of being paid back.
We are also likely to see another calamity on Wall Street if the
United States doesn't pay its bills. The stock markets have already
been seeing daily declines in anticipation of a reckless attempt to put
politics in the middle of a financial Armageddon. One analysis found
that shareholders in U.S. stocks lost more than $400 billion during the
past week, while House Republicans were fiddling with a scheme they
knew would never become law. But they do not want to write law, they
want to destroy the Obama Presidency. That is what the mission is.
The Dow has just had its worst week in a year, and consumers do not
have spare dollars for investments because their incomes are consumed
by spending money on basic necessities, and because they are aware of
losses that will occur from the prospect of default.
Imagine what it will mean to the 401(k) savings of middle-class
Americans--much of it accumulated over years--if faith in our country
and its value decline sharply as default looms ahead. Their values can
go down precipitously.
Other retirement savings can also be wiped out--all because of these
punitive actions by Republican representatives. The pain will be
excruciating for the neediest Americans. Seniors living on a fixed
income can be forced to go
[[Page S5108]]
without their Social Security checks and the critical health care they
receive through Medicare. We might not be able to deliver promised
benefits to veterans or paychecks for the men and women wearing our
country's uniform in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I want to be clear: A default will injure America's reputation
throughout the world. It will weaken faith in the world's most
respected financial power, leaving our country's credibility,
stability, and financial leadership in doubt. Simply put, defaulting on
the debt could trigger an economic collapse of historic proportion.
That is why I plead with our Republican colleagues to join us without
delay in adopting Majority Leader Reid's plan. Senator Reid's plan will
provide certainty for middle-class Americans and to the markets because
it will provide stability through 2013, and stability is what we need
right now.
This plan isn't perfect. Many of us, including me, believe it should
include revenues. It doesn't. But that is why it is called a
compromise. After we adopt this plan and step back from the brink, we
need to work on a balanced approach to get our country back on sound
economic footing. That means asking the wealthiest among us to pay
their fair share.
I am one of those who was very fortunate in my business experience. I
started a company with two other fellows and we have 45,000 employees
today. Why? Because our country was there for me after I served in
uniform in World War II. I was able to get an education at Columbia
University, and we started a company called ADP. Now 45,000 people have
their jobs because of ADP.
Our Republican colleagues have to abandon their obsession to protect
the wealthiest among us at an unaffordable cost to the poor and the
middle class, and recognize the value of our country's human
infrastructure. No economy can grow if it doesn't invest in physical
infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, railways, and no society can
prosper if it doesn't invest in education. We need to prop up our human
infrastructure to fill the future jobs in technology and science and
research.
Let's face it, building houses and other physical facilities are
never built from the top down. The work requires a strong foundation to
guarantee reliability, endurance, and safety, now and for the future.
Middle-class families form America's foundation--the pillars of
strength, faith in the future, a belief that Americans can survive
challenges and catastrophes, and the further belief that no place on
Earth exists with more freedom and liberty than our blessed country.
But all that could evaporate if default is permitted to occur.
Over the past half century, the debt ceiling has been raised 75
times--almost two-thirds of them under Republican Presidents. In fact,
the debt ceiling was increased 18 times under President Reagan and 7
times under President George W. Bush. Our country has never defaulted
on its obligations, and default must be prevented if we love our
country.
It is time for the Republicans to abandon their ``my way or the
highway'' approach. It is time for the Republicans to stop playing
politics with our country's economy. The time for politics is election
day 2012--not now.
Let's do our work, keep our precious ship steady and afloat. Majority
Leader Reid's plan is our last best hope to avoid a disaster, and we
need to act on it without further delay.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and the remainder of any
time I may have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is one thing in this long,
difficult debate there is no question about, one thing all of us have
long known, one simple truth we must get past if we are going to avoid
default, it is that any bill to get us out of this crisis will need
Democratic and Republican votes. There is no partisan solution--no
other path, no magic trick at the eleventh hour. There is just
compromise. After all the bluster, all the back and forth, and all the
posturing, there is just the bill we have before us today. It is a bill
that doesn't have everything that all of us want. It is not the bill
that any one of us would have crafted, if we had our way. But it is a
bill that can and should be passed to avoid an economic catastrophe
that would leave families in every single one of our States reeling.
I understand that compromise has been hard to come by in these
negotiations, no matter how hard we try. But with Senator Reid's bill,
we have taken the Republicans at their word. We have come to the
negotiating table and have put forward a plan that goes to great pains
to meet every one of the criteria they have called for.
They said they wanted cuts that exceed the debt limit raise. This
bill delivers that. They said they wanted no new tax revenues. This
bill delivers that. They said they wanted to put in place a process to
make even more cuts later. This bill delivers that. They have said they
too want to avoid default. This bill is our way out.
I know my Republican colleagues don't want to see us default. I know
while we don't see eye to eye on all issues, we all fight for the
people of our States. So I know my Republican friends are hearing the
same things from families in their home States that I am hearing from
mine. I know their offices have been flooded with calls and e-mails
from families trying to figure out what they would do if the support
they depend on to stay in their homes or put food on their table is
suddenly cut off. I know they are hearing from the same seniors and
veterans and college students with the same message: Put America first.
Get it done. Compromise.
I got a letter just like that from Anne Phillips, from Tacoma, WA,
who, after 18 years working, was laid off during the recession. Anne
told me about how she felt she was doing the responsible thing by
getting up and dusting herself off and going back to college. But now,
she said, she is worried sick because of the fact that the interest
rates on her student loans, which she relies on to pay for her school,
would shoot up if we defaulted. In her letter, Anne made clear who the
real victims of this default would be. She said:
Ultimately people like me, my husband, my family, and all
the people I know, who are doing their best every day to make
a contribution to society will pay the expense.
I also heard from a woman named Brenda Starkey and her husband,
retired Navy veterans from Republic, WA. They told me if we don't meet
this challenge, they may not be able to afford Medicare payments or VA
medical copayments, not to mention basic necessities such as food or
electricity or water. Brenda wrote:
I was taught in school about Henry Clay and his great
compromise. I still believe this is the way our government is
supposed to work, with both sides giving some ground until a
common position is met. We deserve more from our government.
I also heard from Social Security recipients such as Alisa Terry from
Bellingham, WA, who told me how important that monthly check is to her
and just what it would mean if it didn't go out next month. She said,
simply:
Social Security is my lifeline. It stands between me and
homelessness.
This isn't just about politics; it is about these people and millions
more who may not even realize their well-being is on the line today. It
is about average American families whose credit card interest rates
would skyrocket. It is about homeowners whose mortgage payments will
increase by over $1,000 a year. It is about rising food and utility and
gas prices and what that would mean for our already cash-strapped
families, and it is about retirement plans that would plummet.
These Americans are looking for real leadership and a real solution
to this problem. They don't want more games or gimmicks or short-term
patches. For anyone who believes a short-term extension is a good idea,
I want everyone to envision what that would mean.
Imagine we are right back here on the brink doing the same thing in 5
short months, only now we are 5 or 6 months closer to an election and
the battle lines are drawn deeper than they are today, and we are also
smack in the middle of one of the most important economic times of the
whole year for retailers and consumers, the holiday season. Imagine
what the effect of this crisis and this standstill would feel like
then. Imagine holiday shoppers worried that their credit card interest
rates are going to shoot up or that next month's mortgage payment is
going to
[[Page S5109]]
break the bank or retailers reluctant to stock their shelves or hire
because they are worried about a major disruption in the economy or
seniors on Social Security worried their check will not be mailed and
their heating bill will go up, not to mention veterans or college
students or our troops who would, once again, be put in the spiral of
anxiety and insecurity at the holiday times.
They don't want to relive this. America doesn't want to go through
this again, and they shouldn't have to--nobody should. That is exactly
why we need to come together now.
As I said before, the bill in front of us this evening is not ideal.
But it gets us to where we need to get to today to protect our families
and small businesses across America from market uncertainty and the
threat of default. This legislation does make deep and serious cuts to
government spending. It does protect Medicare and Social Security
benefits that we promised to our seniors and it puts the country on a
more sustainable fiscal track and allows us to continue working to
reduce the debt and deficit without the threat of economic calamity
hanging over our heads again.
Democrats have compromised and compromised again and again, and this
bill that is before us now is the fruit of those compromises. It is
also the last and best hope of preventing us from defaulting in a few
short days on the full faith and credit of our Nation for the first
time in our history. There is no other choice. The markets are waiting
and watching. Credit rating agencies are waiting and watching.
Countries around the world are waiting and watching. But, most
important, the American people are waiting and watching. I hope we pass
this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address this issue of the debt
limit and how we are going to go forward. I think it is important,
given the conversation I have been hearing this morning, to understand
some of the key features that are under discussion.
The first is that the plan that came from the House last night, the
Boehner plan, requires the second half of the debt ceiling to be lifted
only if a balanced budget amendment is passed and sent out to the
States. In other words, it puts a two-thirds vote of each Chamber
basically on the process 6 months from now.
What that does is it says to our Nation that we are going to be in
continuous debate over this issue the next 6 months, facing a two-
thirds vote that is very unlikely to happen. So this crisis is not
going to end, not on August 2, not on August 3, not on August 4 but not
for 6 months into the future. Then it is not going to end because we
are not going to have a two-thirds vote.
It sends exactly the wrong message to our business community which is
waiting for a sense of stability that we are through this moment. It
sends the wrong message to the international world that is looking at
the question of whether they are going to buy Treasury bills. It sends
the wrong message in regard to our reputation in the world.
This plan of continuing the crisis for 6 months in order to bring
this Nation to its knees just so folks campaign on the fact that they
will do better, if you will, does not represent the best of the
American spirit. We should be coming together to solve problems, not to
extend problems, not to amplify problems, not to hurt families across
the United States of America and hurt small businesses across this
land.
The second thing the proposal did that we faced last night is it took
defense spending off the table for 2 years. Why is this important? It
is important because defense spending has grown by over 300 percent in
the last decade. It is important because the recent Secretary of
Defense, Robert Gates, said there are over $100 billion of defense
programs that do not contribute to our national security. We must be
looking at programs that do not contribute for their intended purpose
if we are going to take and address our fiscal situation with the best
possible path for America.
Then the Speaker said: Do you know what. There is going to be a
supercommittee, but I, the Speaker, am only going to allow it to
consider cuts to direct spending, and I will not appoint anyone who
would look at the full range of options that is to include programs
tucked into the Tax Code.
Just a few minutes ago, my colleague from Florida said if there are
tax programs which are there not because of good policy but because of
good lobbying, those need to be on the table. He is absolutely right.
It is a situation where every citizen understands that whether we spend
$10,000 on a grant or spend $10,000 on a tax credit, it is the same
$10,000.
There is a reason the Boehner plan has put tax loopholes and tax
earmarks and tax programs off the table; that is because inserted into
the Tax Code are programs for the wealthy and the well-connected. Why
do they want their programs in the Tax Code? Very simply, they avoid
the annual authorization process. They avoid the annual appropriations
process. In a way, we can think of them as superprograms because they
don't get reviewed regularly. That is where the well-connected and the
wealthy want to have their programs placed, and they have been very
successful. It has been over a quarter century since we have had a
systematic review of these programs. But here we are in a fiscal
crisis. It makes sense to examine the tax loopholes, many of which have
outlived their use, and many others which may still be very valid--and
those are the ones we should keep--but we need to examine all of them.
I had a colleague come to the floor the other day, a colleague across
the aisle, and he made this argument. He said: There are some tax
programs that benefit the middle class, and he proceeded to put up all
these charts and all these numbers about programs that benefit the
middle class. He concluded that because some of the tax programs
benefit the middle class, no tax programs should be discussed as part
of this issue.
Well, let's apply the same logic to our appropriations programs.
Can't anyone say there are some direct spending programs that benefit
the middle class? But then do we turn around and say all these programs
should be left unexamined as a result? Of course not. Nor was my
colleague across the aisle willing to make that argument. But why did
he make such an absurd argument that because some programs are useful,
we shouldn't look at any of the programs in the Tax Code? Because he
wanted to protect the programs for the wealthy and well-connected. I
will tell you, today, there is something terribly wrong with coming to
this floor to protect the programs for the best off in our society and
doing so under the false claim that they are here to fight for working
families. That is wrong, and that is why we must look at every single
program.
There is another problem in the bill that we have; that is, if you
take Boehner at his word and he is going to take the $1.5 trillion in
the Tax Code under tax expenditures and not allow them to be examined,
then the only place we end up going to reach the numbers involved is
Medicaid and Medicare: Medicaid, health care for the poor; Medicare,
health care for our seniors.
It seems there are Members of this Chamber who want to think of
health care as a special privilege for only those who are wealthy in
our society. Maybe they should come and live in my community, where we
understand that the quality of life is deeply dependent upon one's
health.
There was indeed a very interesting experiment in Oregon over the
last few years. We did not have enough funds for everyone to
participate in Medicaid, called the Oregon Health Plan, and so there
was a lottery. So for the first time anywhere in the Nation, there was
the ability to study those who got to sign up against a control group
of those who didn't. We found out Medicaid made a profound difference
in people's lives. It shouldn't come as any surprise that health care
makes a profound difference, but many people on this floor have
questioned whether health care matters. It is always interesting to
hear people who have access to health care, who have it because they
are wealthy, who have it because they have a job right here that gives
them health care, wondering why we should bother to care about health
care for others. These issues are issues we must address as we go
forward.
Let me note then that if we proceed with a plan that is guaranteed to
paralyze this Chamber over the next 6
[[Page S5110]]
months, with an impossible hurdle at the end of that period, we will
destroy this economy. We are flat right now. We are not gaining ground.
We had a bill, small business innovation bill, research bill on the
floor, debated it for 6 weeks, a routine bill. My colleagues across the
aisle voted not to end debate so there couldn't be a vote on taking
this bill forward.
They were deeply determined to prevent bills creating jobs from
getting to the President's desk. Indeed, because we have not been able
to take those key pieces of legislation and go forward, here we are
with a flat economy.
Now they want to take it to its knees. If we create this uncertainty
over the next 6 months, the interest rate goes up on the Treasury
bills, the interest rate goes up on home mortgages, the interest rate
goes up on car loans, the interest rate goes up on small businesses,
and we get greater unemployment. Is that the outcome we want? Interest
is an empty tax, a tax on every family. The estimate is it would be
about $2,000 a year and it buys us nothing, nothing but destruction of
the economy. That must not happen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator who
preceded me. We are heading into a territory where we have never been
before.
In Washington you get to get your Sunday funnies on Saturday, so I
took a little peek at ``Dilbert'' today. I hope everybody will look at
that because it emphasizes the problem.
``Dilbert'' says:
I am preparing for the complete meltdown of our financial
system. I've got six months of food and water. I have
batteries and flashlights and gold coins.
The lady with the triangular hair says:
I'm prepared too. I have your home address and I noticed
that your preparations are light on defensive weaponry.
And she says:
Could you add some protein bars to the shopping list?
I want to share with you a letter from a 10-year-old in Wyoming that
made our statewide newspaper. He wrote:
What does the Government think of me?
. . . They think I'm not so smart because I'm too young to
know what they're doing, like raising the national debt.
Don't they know that I owe the country about $45,000. I'm
only 10 years old. I could buy a lot with $45,000.
. . . That's more than my dad earns. But it wouldn't buy
everything.
Government shouldn't try to buy everything.
It is my job, and the people's job to buy things we need. I
don't want the Government to think for me. They don't know
I'm a little brother who doesn't like it when my big brothers
tell me what to do, because they aren't always responsible
for their own things. I don't tell my brothers what to do
with their money.
I'm smarter than they think I am. They should follow the
rules.
I thank Eric Mitchell, Crowheart, WY, for his sage advice.
Mr. President, it is disappointing to be here today addressing the
U.S. Senate on a topic that we should have dealt with months ago. Our
country is in a financial crisis. Erskine Bowles, the cochairman of the
Deficit Commission, coined the situation we face as, ``the most
predictable economic crisis in history,'' and yet there is no clear
path forward to deal with both the short-term need to raise the debt
limit and the long-term need to get spending under control. I am
disappointed we have made this discussion about the debt ceiling
instead of our ever increasing spending. When you spend beyond your
means, you have to cut back.
The plans we are considering at this stage in the debate are plans
for the next year to 2 years. While there is merit in making the
spending cuts these bills make, they are not the ultimate solution.
We need more significant action. We need to move forward with
something bold. My Republican colleagues and I have proposed such
plans. I have proposed a solution that would cut just 1 penny from
every dollar we spend for 6 years and then cap spending at the
historical amount of revenue we take in during the 7th year. In the 8th
year, we would have a balanced budget.
Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to
even debate measures like my penny plan or the Cut, Cap, and Balance
Act or even the plan put forward by Speaker Boehner. At the same time
they refuse to debate these measures, they refuse to put forward their
own plan for long-term structural changes. They are only willing to
debate plans that make changes in the short term, and so we are stuck
here debating a plan that is deeply flawed.
I think it is important to look at where the debate is today versus
where it was when President Obama was sworn in. It is clear that we
have come a long way from where we were when President Obama took
office.
In 2009, Democrats in Congress passed a so-called economic stimulus
bill that cost $1 trillion. To pay for it, we borrowed that money, and
as the unemployment numbers prove, all that borrowing didn't solve our
economic problems. Apparently, we spend over $275,000 per job--and none
of those employees got paid that well. In 2010, President Obama's
second year in office, Democrats in Congress forced through an
unpopular health care bill which was wrought with budget gimmicks and
will ultimately cost our country trillions of dollars. The President's
attempt at health care reform was so unsuccessful that the largest
problem facing our debt and deficit situation is what we will do to
contain health care costs. Another trillion dollars borrowed. Another
trillion dollars wasted.
The American people were fed up with congressional Democrats'
reckless spending spree and, in November 2010, they voted for real
change. Those votes ushered in a new attitude, and 7 months into a
Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the debate is entirely
different. Instead of looking at where we can spend more money, we are
looking at what we can cut. Instead of looking at how to borrow more
money, we are looking at how we can change our spending habits so that
we have a spending plan that will work in the future. Republicans have
heard the people's call for smaller government and less spending, and
are committed to taking action.
Earlier this year, Republicans led efforts to cut spending in
appropriations bills for the first time in years. Now, we need to find
a solution to cut trillions of dollars of spending at the same time we
allow the President to have some additional borrowing authority to pay
for the purchases we have already made. The cuts Republicans have
proposed are the largest cuts ever seen, but it still isn't enough to
fix the problem long term.
Why aren't we looking at a long-term solution to this problem? Why
are we forced to look at short-term, piddly spending cuts at the same
time we give the President the ability to borrow lots more money? This
isn't one person or one party's fault.
The President does have us in a box. During his State of the Union
Message, the President could have explained to the American people the
dire situation we are facing. The Deficit Commission had already
painted the picture. The President needed to premiere that picture. He
could have explained that we are borrowing more than 40 cents of every
dollar we spend--much of it from China. He could have explained that we
are on a spending spree that must be stopped. That was and is the true
state of the Union.
After the State of the Union, he could have sent us a serious budget
proposal modeled after his own Deficit Commission. Instead, he used the
State of the Union to talk about more spending and his budget was such
a ridiculous proposal it didn't receive a single vote--Republican or
Democratic--when it was put before the Senate.
While the President has failed to lead and deserves a substantial
portion of the blame, we in Congress have also put ourselves in this
box. During the last administration, we should have worked to contain
spending. While we missed that opportunity, when it was clear that we
needed to make a major change this year, Democrats in the Senate should
have ignored the President's lack of leadership and put forward a
budget proposal in the Senate. The House passed a budget, but rather
than taking their proposal seriously, my Democratic colleagues
demonized the plan as the end of Medicare. They preferred finding a
campaign issue as opposed to actually solving the financial problems we
face.
Unfortunately, we are quickly running out of options. We are at a
catch 22. The country can't afford more debt,
[[Page S5111]]
but has to have it. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we won't be
able to pay all of our bills and interest rates will go up. On the
other hand, if we pass a plan that doesn't fundamentally change the way
we do business in Washington, we increase the debt limit with no end in
sight and interest rates go up.
The majority in the Senate that brought you banking reform has run up
a huge debt and we have all maxed out the Nation's credit cards. Now
they want to increase the amount of the mortgage. Imagine trying to get
a loan when nothing has been paid on the principle of the previous
loan. Now imagine the lender's reaction when he is told that the
mortgagee will be back shortly for another loan.
Let me put this in concrete terms because it might be easier to
understand. I am trying to keep these numbers proportional to the $14
trillion debt. Imagine that you have a loan on a very large house with
a mortgage of $1.4 million. Since buying the house, you have made
interest payments, but not a single payment on the principal. You
determine you need more money to spend, so you go to the lender and
request an additional loan of $230,000. At the same time you do that,
you are honest and you warn the lender that you will be back each year
for the next 9 years asking for $100,000 more each year. You also let
the lender know that you don't want to have to pay off any of the
principal on the loan, just make interest payments each year.
I don't think any lender would take you seriously, but if he or she
did, they would explain that you would have to obtain a variable rate
loan. A variable rate loan means that changes in the risk or the
economy could drive interest rates much higher and there would be no
protection from those higher interest rates. In other words, your loan
with an excellent interest rate of 2.5 percent could go to an interest
rate of 5 percent or 10 percent, or like under President Carter, over
18 percent a year. A 1 percent increase in interest rates for the U.S.
debt would cost another $1.3 trillion over 10 years. That is just a 1
percent raise.
The lender would point out that the raise in debt plus the rise in
interest rates could result in your entire paycheck going to interest--
and the interest payments would have to come ahead of food, clothing,
and any social needs--for you, or for your children or your parents or
your grandparents. That is what we are talking about here as the future
for the United States--interest payments on the debt being the only
thing we could pay for.
If the banker were foolish enough to consider such a loan, he would
want to know what spending changes you were going to make. He would
expect changes immediately, not piddly changes this year for a promise
of a big change in the 9th year. He would want some proof that you are
serious.
If we act now and agree to cut 1 percent--the 1 percent solution,
just 1 penny of each dollar--from all our spending and reduce the cap
to the new spending by that level for each of the next 7 years, the
lender ``might'' consider your loan. There is a good chance he would
expect 2 percent or 3 percent in cuts for the first year to demonstrate
that you are serious about kicking your spending habit.
We are in that situation today in Congress. The President is asking
for a $2.4 trillion loan increase--the largest loan increase in our
Nation's history. Our lenders will explain to us, if we are worried
about the low income, the downtrodden, and the less fortunate today, we
should see what will happen to those individuals if we don't cut
spending. If we reach a situation where all of our revenues are going
to interest payments on the debt, the future prioritization to pay for
our debt will be unbearable. We can't go out 18 months. The American
people don't trust us. We need to be accountable to the people. We need
an enforceable, accountable plan with quicker results.
Some might argue that the lender would just expect you to bring in
more money. My Democratic colleagues suggest just that when they say we
must raise taxes. But everyone knows that if you ask your boss for a
raise because you can't control your spending, you could be fired or
demoted and, as a result, you would be bringing in less revenue. I
don't need to tell you that our bosses--the American people--don't
think much of how we have been working for them, and they don't expect
a tax increase each time Washington gets addicted to giving away money.
The plan the majority leader has offered uses budget gimmicks to
avoid real spending cuts and gives the President a debt limit increase
that, while politically expedient, fails to put our country on a
workable path. It doesn't provide a way to assure any substantial cuts
will be made. While it maybe makes some necessary spending cuts today,
it does not provide us with relief from our long term challenges and
does not put us in a situation where we would be forced to make the
tough choices.
We know that the majority leader's proposal won't pass. Every
Republican has made clear that they will oppose the proposal and so it
doesn't have the chance to move forward. We have made clear that we
will not give the President the single largest debt ceiling increase in
history for double the average time generally allowed since 1940
through the proposal the majority leader has offered. We have offered
to vote on his proposal time and time again, and for reasons beyond
comprehension, he refuses to allow a vote. He did a vote within 30
minutes of the time that the House bill came over here, but he wants to
drag out the vote on his bill. I know delay will bring the pressure
until the last minute, but that is not how a reasonable government
works. I wish we had taken action earlier to avoid the situation we
find ourselves in today. I wish the proposal before us was a serious
effort to make structural change to how we spend money.
Instead we all know the plan put forward by the majority leader will
be voted down later tonight or tomorrow, and we will be in the same
place we are right now--in the box where we need to raise the debt
limit, but we also need to make structural changes to get our fiscal
house in order to keep the markets from melting down.
We do recognize that we are about to enter territory where our
country has never been. The stock markets are already reacting. Because
we are debating short-term solutions, this debate will continue on even
after we act on the debt ceiling.
I hope we can come together on a debt ceiling increase and a plan for
real spending cuts. That is where the emphasis needs to be, and it has
to have enforcement. I hope the debt ceiling is limited to the amount
of guaranteed cuts. I hope we can put our country on a sustainable,
fiscal path.
I yield the floor.
Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my
Republican colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we are in the midst of a debt crisis, I
think some of it created by the President because he has refused to
take off the table the fact we would default on our debt. I think that
is irresponsible, and without a doubt the President should come forward
and say he will pay the interest on the debt.
On our side we have been willing to compromise all along. We have
been offering plans. We passed two plans in the House. Now we have a
plan before us, a Democratic plan, to raise the debt ceiling, and there
are some of us who would vote for this Democratic plan who might
require some amendments or some compromise. There would have to be some
input from our side. Yet even though this bill was introduced yesterday
and Republicans said they would vote for it, the Democrats are now
filibustering their own bill. What is funny is, they filibuster their
own bill and then point fingers and say we are trying to stop things.
We are here today to try to move things forward.
In the spirit of trying to reach a compromise before the deadline
comes, I would ask unanimous consent that the vote on the pending
cloture motion occur immediately or as soon as possible, 5 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, under the
filibuster rules of the Senate, there is a requirement of 60 votes for
cloture. We have said we are prepared to move to a timely vote on this
pending amendment, a majority vote, the same as Speaker Boehner had in
the House. I would object unless the Senator from
[[Page S5112]]
Kentucky wants to amend his unanimous consent request to make it clear
that this will be a unanimous consent which I have spelled out in
detail, if he would like me to present it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would
remind the Senator that there is a difference between the Senate and
the House. Our Founding Fathers gave great power and leeway to the
Senate. We were meant to be a check and a balance against unbridled
enthusiasm sometimes from one party or another. So I would object to
that motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. DURBIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to present an amendment. This amendment would be an amendment
to the Reid bill. Under this amendment what would happen is, I have at
least 10 Republicans who will vote for the Harry Reid bill which would
allow a compromise, which allows the debt ceiling to rise.
I know the President is worried about having campaign time. He is
worried about getting back out and doing some fundraisers. He does not
want to consider the debt ceiling again before his reelection campaign.
So this amendment I would offer would allow us to move forward in a
bipartisan way.
All Republicans are asking for is that we balance our budget
gradually over a 7- to 8-year period. What this amendment would do that
I am asking unanimous consent to present is an amendment that says we
will raise the debt ceiling contingent upon passing a balanced budget
amendment.
I would ask unanimous consent I be allowed to present this amendment
to the Reid bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. PAUL. What I think this illustrates is compromise--the pundits
say compromise is the mark of an enlightened person. We are trying to
compromise. I just offered to pass the leader's bill. I have offered to
work with them. I am from the tea party. They say we will not
compromise. I am willing to raise the debt ceiling. In fact, we worked
on a motion that has gotten more votes than any other motion that has
been set forward, and that was cut, cap, and balance that would have
required a balanced budget amendment to be passed but would have raised
the debt ceiling.
What do we hear from the other side? Intransigence. Who is refusing
compromise? It sounds to me like the other side is refusing compromise.
I have with me my distinguished colleague from Utah and would like to
hear his thoughts on where the fault lies and where we could come to if
we were to compromise to try to find an agreement.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, a number of us, myself included, have been
arguing since January--ever since we arrived here and were sworn in
this very room--that the national debt is a permanent problem. The
almost $15 trillion that we now owe as a nation is permanent. It is
going to take a long time to pay off. There are people who are not yet
old enough to vote. There are people who will be born in a few years
who are not even here who will one day have to assist in paying off
that debt.
The fact that this is a long-term problem means it requires a long-
term solution. That is why we have been saying all along that we ought
not raise the debt limit yet again--extending our national debt by
another $2.5 trillion, more or less, without a permanent solution in
place.
Herein lies the problem. It is difficult or impossible for one
Congress to come up with a set of budget numbers that would necessarily
bind future Congresses. We can come up with a plan to cut $2 trillion
or $3 trillion over a 10-year or 15-year period, but if future
Congresses don't want to go along with that, they can find their way
out of it. This has happened again and again as we have seen with
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, as we have seen with the pay-go rules. Congress
becomes a walking, breathing waiver unto itself. We need a permanent
solution. This is why we have settled on the need for a balanced budget
amendment.
As my distinguished colleague--the junior Senator from Kentucky--has
just pointed out, there is no intransigence in our position. Those of
us who identify with the Republican Party, those of us who identify
with the tea party are people who want a solution. We were sent here
with a mandate by voters, a mandate that says the Federal Government is
too big and too expensive.
Now, resistance to this message from the other side of the aisle, as
vehement as that resistance may be, is not genuine if what it says is,
in this instance the insistence for a balanced budget amendment is
itself reflective of an unwillingness to compromise. There are myriad
opportunities to compromise within that general framework. We have
offered that. We have extended that.
Republicans have now submitted no fewer than two bills that have
passed the House of Representatives to address the debt limit issue,
both of which have been stopped dead in their tracks over here without
further opportunity, most importantly, without a response by the
Democratic Party in the Senate or otherwise.
If there is either party in this discussion that is refusing to
compromise, it is not ours. If there is any group that has failed to
offer solutions, it cannot be described as the tea party movement.
I ask my colleague--the junior Senator from Kentucky--do you see any
element within the tea party movement, any element within the
Republican Party that is unwilling to compromise or that is wanting to
block just for the sake of blocking?
Mr. PAUL. No. From going to hundreds of tea party rallies and
grassroots rallies with voters across America, what I see is they want
what is best for America. I don't think they particularly care whether
it is a Republican plan or Democratic plan. They want what is best for
America. They want a solution.
The problem with the debate in Washington is all of the proposals
seem to want to add more debt. We have $14 trillion worth of debt, and
both the Republican and the Democratic proposal will add $7 trillion to
$8 trillion more in debt.
What I think the folks in the tea party want--and those who are
concerned about passing on the debt to their kids and grandkids want--
is to spend less. I think a great contrast and what illustrates the
problem is spending is going up 7 percent a year. Nobody is talking
about cutting that spending. They are talking about cutting the rate of
growth of that spending.
There is a new plan out called the one penny plan. It would have real
cuts of one penny on every dollar spent. The other side pulls their
hair and says: Oh, you are so radical.
We say: We want to cut one penny out of every dollar of government
spending. Is that radical?
The President has said it is a dysfunctional place. He is right in
that sense. I think some of the dysfunction comes from the hypocrisy or
from the other side not really listening.
For example, the balanced budget amendment. They say polls show
routinely 75 percent of Americans are for it. Routinely, about 14
percent of Americans seem to be approving of this body. The question I
would have is--maybe it is we are not listening well enough. Maybe we
are not doing what the people want.
Mr. LEE. That certainly appears to be the case. It is a reminder to
us of the fact that no matter how much we might be tempted at times to
demagogue this issue, no matter how tempting it might be for certain
Members of this body to cast blame elsewhere, they cannot escape one
simple fact, which is the American people are demanding more. They are
demanding that we spend less. They are demanding that we stop this
barbaric practice of perpetual massive-scale deficit spending. Why?
Because it erodes individual liberty. It takes money people have not
yet made and spends it and obligates them to repay it--in some cases
before they are old enough to vote, in other cases before they are even
born. We need a permanent solution.
When we put something in the Constitution, it serves as a permanent
reminder of the fact that we, as a people,
[[Page S5113]]
have made a decision, and we are going to move forward. Not everybody
will necessarily agree as to how best we should move forward having
made that decision. The American people overwhelmingly, to the tune of
75 percent, support the idea that we should amend the Constitution to
restrict Congress's deficit spending power.
Mr. PAUL. When people talk about Washington being dysfunctional, and
they are upset with what is going on in Washington, I think one of the
things that upsets people is hypocrisy--people who say one thing and do
another. That is a sad state of affairs. People run on one idea and
then they completely change their ideas.
The President was a Senator, and he spoke on the Senate floor. Here
are his words in 2006.
The fact that we are here today debating raising America's
debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.
He was sort of pointing fingers. Everybody's pointing fingers. It is
someone else's fault. I call that sort of the empty partisanship. His
conclusion, then, is voting to raise the debt limit would send a bad
signal. It would send a signal to our leaders that they are doing the
right thing.
I have often said there is no objective evidence that Washington or
Congress is spending our money wisely.
The Pentagon says they are too big to be audited. They cannot balance
their books. There was $100 billion unaccounted for in the budget last
year. There are $5 billion worth of duplicate programs the GAO found.
There are, I believe, 82 different programs to train workers. Could we
not deal with one Federal program training workers instead of 82
different ones doing the same thing? But this is it. The President said
raising the debt ceiling would be a mistake. Now that he is President,
he has changed his mind. I think the hypocrisy of that is what makes
Americans unhappy.
The President said the same thing on war. He said no President should
unilaterally go to war without congressional authority, and here we are
at war in Libya with no vote in Congress. He said he has a piece of
paper from the United Nations. We didn't elect the United Nations. We
have a Constitution, and it requires those issues be debated in
Congress.
People are unhappy because we are not doing the people's business. We
haven't had a budget in 800 days. Do you know what. It is against the
law. It is against the law not to have a budget. We haven't had a
budget in 800 days, but the budget law says we should have a budget
every year. We are supposed to match our appropriations bills with the
budget. We are not doing it.
The American people are unhappy we are dysfunctional and that we are
not doing the people's business. We have also become profligate
spenders--spending money we don't have. I think we risk great dangers.
I ask the question to this Senator from Utah: What is the answer? How
do we get out of this when we seem to be so far apart, and even on both
sides we don't seem to be tackling the issues in a way that would allow
for significant cuts in spending?
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have a friend by the name of Ron McMillan,
who lives in my hometown of Alpine, UT. He is the author of a number of
books dealing with business negotiations, dealing with trying to figure
out how compromise can be reached.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senators has expired.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an extension of
2 minutes to finish our thoughts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. I don't object, as long as this side is given an
additional 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEE. In that series of books, the crucial conversation line of
the books, one of the things he encourages people to do is to find
whatever common ground they can reach.
I think there is common ground among the American people generally
that we should balance our budget. Not everyone agrees about how we
balance the budget, what should be cut, but they do agree we should
balance it. That being the case, that is where we ought to focus our
efforts. We should focus our efforts on amending that law of laws, that
224-year-old document that fostered the development of the greatest
civilization the world has ever known. We should change it, again, to
improve it, to restrict Congress's borrowing power.
The plan proposed by the Democrats that is now about to come before
us puts our budgeting process on autopilot. It doesn't require another
budget for 2 years, preserving the ability of ObamaCare to fund itself
without a single additional debate in Congress. This is wrong. This is
not the right approach. I object to it. For that reason, I, along with
some of my other Republican colleagues, am prepared to vote on this and
vote no on it right now. We are not the ones delaying this vote.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I would say that what Americans don't like
is empty partisanship. That is what is going on today. Democrats are
standing and beating their chests saying: Republicans will not let us
have a vote. It is untrue. I have offered to have the vote. We have
seen the objection before our own eyes. They would not vote on this.
Let's dispense with the empty partisanship. Let's move forward and
have a vote. If they would let us have one amendment--an amendment that
would gradually balance the budget over 7 to 8 years--I will vote for
their proposal and I will ensure enough votes that it will pass.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from North
Carolina, I wish to note that last night, the two Senators who just
finished their colloquy had an opportunity to vote for the Boehner plan
which required a constitutional balanced budget amendment. Both
Senators Lee and Paul are registered as having voted to table the
Boehner approach, which includes that requirement for a balanced budget
amendment.
I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, we are here debating the government's
fiscal deficit. It is an important topic, one worthy of serious debate.
Of course, I wish I could characterize the mindless partisanship of the
last several months as serious debate, but I fear this do-nothing
debate is distracting us from another deficit that is front and center
in the hearts and minds of the American people; that is, the jobs
deficit.
Just yesterday, the Department of Commerce reported that the economic
recovery has been far slower than previously thought. Our economy grew
at a rate of less than 1 percent in the first half of 2011. That is not
news to the hard-working families of North Carolina where unemployment
statewide is almost 10 percent and nearly one-half million people are
looking for work. They have been struggling since the housing boom went
bust 4 years ago. Those people with jobs haven't seen the size of their
paycheck increase, but their monthly bills have certainly been
increased, along with the cost of gasoline. Just getting to your job in
the morning, if you are fortunate to still have one, is more expensive.
Yet we spend all our time in Washington bickering, posturing, and name-
calling. Our constituents must be watching from home scratching their
heads and wondering why Washington is debating whether we should avoid
a default that would make this economy even worse.
Let me tell my colleagues what is happening in North Carolina. Since
the start of the recession in 2007, we have lost over 300,000 jobs in
my State. More than two-thirds of the counties--68 out of 100--have
unemployment rates above 10 percent. In my hometown of Greensboro, the
unemployment rate is stuck at 10.8 percent--the same level as last
year. That is right, no change in 12 months. People are working harder
without getting ahead or looking for work longer without being able to
find a job. Yet we continue to spend all our time in Washington
bickering and posturing and name-calling.
The people of North Carolina and the people of this great country are
fed up with political games. They are telling me enough is enough. What
they want is for Members of Congress to come to the table--Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents--and find bipartisan solutions that can
get our economy growing and put people back to work;
[[Page S5114]]
for example, commonsense legislation such as the America Works Act that
I introduced to create a nationwide and industry-recognized portable
credential system so employers with job openings can find those workers
with the right skills, and workers with the right skills can find the
jobs they are qualified for.
There is also the bipartisan Hire a Hero Act that my colleague from
Massachusetts and I introduced to combat the unacceptable trend of
higher unemployment among our veterans.
Let us not forget we have a program that has been expired since
February that helps workers who have had their jobs shipped overseas
find new work. There is action we could take, but these commonsense
ideas aren't getting their due time because of the partisan shenanigans
going on now.
This past month, I went on a budget-listening tour across North
Carolina, and the messages I kept hearing were that we need to address
our mounting debt and get our long-term fiscal house in order. We
borrow 40 cents of every $1 we spend, and it is hurting our ability to
invest wisely in the things we need to, such as education,
infrastructure and research and development that will ensure a
prosperous American future.
Yesterday, with my office receiving a barrage of calls from concerned
constituents, I answered the phones all afternoon. The message I heard
was loud and clear: Please stop the partisan posturing and get
something done.
Unfortunately, the plan from the House falls far short of those goals
of bipartisanship and consensus. Instead of aiming for compromise and
certainty, it represents just another partisan, short-term patch that
ensures the debate will drag on for another 6 months. After what
Washington has put our country and the market through, I don't know
anybody who thinks it is a good idea to do this for the next 6 months.
We all need to remember what we were put in office to do. We were not
sent to fight for the sake of fighting. We were not sent to see who
could win the most political points, and we certainly were not sent to
throw this country into a default crisis because of our own inability
to compromise.
But we were sent to get the work done. We were sent to work together
on solutions to the most pressing challenges of our time. Most
important, we were sent to rev up the great American economic engine to
allow businesses to hire and to get the American people back to work.
The clock is ticking. The challenges of reducing our debt and our
deficit are undoubtedly difficult, but they are not impossible--not if
Washington takes to heart the message of principled compromise and
leadership I receive every day from North Carolinians. We must commit
to a balanced, bipartisan plan that reduces our debt while protecting
our seniors, students and veterans and makes the critical investments
in education, infrastructure, and research and development we need for
a prosperous American future. We need to focus on the most important
goal of all; that is, jobs, jobs, jobs.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Reid amendment and to put
this crisis behind us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, we are faced with a difficult challenge,
and we know the American people watching us over so many days now
understand the basic challenge we face. It is a challenge of reducing
deficit and debt and cutting spending but also making sure we have a
bipartisan agreement to pay our bills and to meet our obligations.
I think if I had to boil it down to four words, it is these, in terms
of what people in Pennsylvania have told me we must do. It is very
simple, but I think it encapsulates everything we have to do in the
next couple hours--the next couple days--and that is compromise for our
country. That is what people are looking for, people all across the
country.
I hear from families in Pennsylvania all the time. These are families
who have led lives of struggle and sacrifice, families who have lived
through so much already. Many remember and have lived through the Great
Depression and World War II and wars after that, economic downturns,
personal tragedies, job loss--all kinds of misery and all kinds of
difficulty. But throughout our State, and I think throughout the
country, people have figured out a way to work together, to compromise
in their own lives, even when they don't want to make a compromise, and
they have figured out a way to work together, whether it is at a work
site or at home.
I hear these same messages from people all the time. Let me give a
sample of some of the feedback I have gotten from Pennsylvanians just
in the last couple days. We purposefully chose three excerpts from
three letters from three parts of our State: southwestern Pennsylvania,
the middle of the State, and the eastern side of our State.
From Fayette County, way out in western Pennsylvania, here is an
excerpt from a letter I just received:
In order that we do not dip back into recession, it is
imperative that responsible people start acting in a
responsible manner. Get this issue resolved in a manner that
is best for the American people and not what is best for
``political parties.''
That is part of one letter from southwestern Pennsylvania.
Then, I move to the middle of our State, literally called Centre
County:
Please stop the bickering and work together to get the job
done. . . . Do your jobs. Come to a compromise.
That is what people in the middle of Pennsylvania wrote to me just
recently.
Then, thirdly, an excerpt from a letter in the eastern part of our
State, Bucks County, a suburban Philadelphia community. I will read two
sentences from this letter:
We must immediately raise the debt ceiling so that we do
not default on our debt payments that would negatively impact
our Nation. Next we must tighten our belts and develop plans
to reduce expenditures and raise revenue which would pay off
all debt just like my family's household did.
There we have it, three parts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
three different letters from three different constituents, all
expressing some fundamental, basic sentiments they have and I think
some very fundamental messages.
What are they? I think I can boil them down to four. The first is
work together and compromise. That is in almost every letter we see:
work together and compromise.
The second is they want us to cut spending. They know that in their
own lives they have had to cut spending. They have had to change their
spending habits to deal with this economic trauma they have been living
through. Even if they haven't lost a job, even if they haven't lost
their house or their hopes or their dreams, they have had to cut
spending.
The third is to focus on jobs. One of the casualties of week after
week of focusing on this question of raising the debt ceiling meant we
weren't taking action to incentivize the creation of jobs by use of the
Tax Code or other strategies.
Fourthly, I think the message they are telling us, obviously, is to
reduce deficit and debt. They know we may not be able to put in place a
plan right now to be able to do that, but they expect us to put in
place the foundation for that or strategy or a pathway to get to
substantial deficit and debt reduction. So whether it is cutting
spending or reducing deficit and debt or whether it is telling us to
compromise and work together or focus on jobs, I think the message the
people of Pennsylvania are giving me--and by extension all of us--is
very clear.
That is why, when I look at what is in front of us tonight when we
are debating--we are going to be debating the proposal set forth by the
majority leader--some basic elements in here that aren't just sound
policy, but they are, in fact, incorporating compromise, already
significant compromise; for example, making sure that if one side said
we have to have a dollar-for-dollar reduction in spending to meet the
challenge of raising the debt ceiling, the majority leader's plan does
that.
One side says we should not have any revenue, we should not have any
additional revenue as part of this agreement. The majority leader said:
OK. I will accept that. I will compromise. So there are two significant
and substantial compromises he has already made in this proposal, and
he is open to more, as he has said all day long, and for many days now,
he has been open to more compromise.
[[Page S5115]]
The legislation cuts spending significantly. There is almost $2
trillion alone in spending reductions for so-called discretionary
spending. There are lots of savings in other ways throughout the
legislation. It creates a bipartisan committee that will recommend
additional deficit reduction to be voted on by the end of this year.
Then, an important part of what the majority leader has put forward
today--or yesterday, I guess--in his proposal was part of what Senator
McConnell put forth, the Republican leader.
So by my count, there are three or four major compromises already in
what the majority leader put forth. And he is open to more compromise.
I think that is what the people of Pennsylvania expect me to do, and I
think that is what the people of the United States expect all of us to
do.
Finally, one of the best parts of this proposal is that it gives us
certainty. I hear from businesspeople all the time--big firms, medium-
sized firms, and small businesses. They tell us over and over that in
addition to the pressure they feel--the difficulty they have in keeping
their employment levels up, the difficulty they have in making ends
meet in the aftermath of a recession--they tell us over and over: We
are business leaders, and we need certainty or I am running a small
business in Pennsylvania, and I need certainty. I need to know what my
tax rates will be. I need to know what the business climate will be
like. Please give me certainty.
One of the best features of what the majority leader put forth is
there is certainty. We are not going to have to debate this and fight
about it every 6 months. It provides some certainty into calendar year
2013. That is why I think a 6-month extension makes no sense at all.
But you do not have to take our word for it. The rating agencies have
made it very clear--if you do a 6-month extension, you are taking a
very dangerous step that could lead to a downgrade in our credit
rating.
So I think the Reid plan already has substantial compromise, and, of
course, we can compromise more. So I think it is very clear what the
people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are telling me. In the midst
of all the suffering--in our case, 479,000 people still out of work. We
have an unemployment rate of 7.6, which some States wish they had. But
it does not really matter what a percentage is; when you have 479,000
people out of work, even though the number has been going down for the
last year, people are hurting. They are still struggling. They are
still worried. They are anxious. They are worried about their
children's future. The least they ask of us in this debate, the least
we must do for them, is to come together, work together, surrender some
political points of view, surrender some personal disagreements we
have, come together, and reach a compromise. I believe what they are
telling us over and over is that we need a compromise for our country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to give a voice to
Minnesotans to relay their thoughts on how Congress should resolve this
impasse and raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default.
On Wednesday, I received an e-mail from a constituent in St. Louis
Park, my hometown. His e-mail reads:
Dear Senator. I am a Republican. I am a Minnesotan. I am a
small business owner. I am considered to have a high income
relative to the average American. . . . Here's my request:
Please work together to get this debt limit impasse settled.
On Thursday, I received this e-mail from a man in Bloomington. He
writes:
I'm a small businessman in the middle of a fund raising
effort. The concern over the debt ceiling has caused all the
angel investors to put off any discussion of investment until
they know what is going to happen. This has stopped my
ability to raise funds which will lead to new high quality
jobs in Minnesota. I support a simple bill that increases the
debt limit to get us through the 2012 elections as has been
done hundreds of times before.
Yesterday, I received an e-mail from a couple in Bemidji:
We are retired small business owners who are watching our
very very conservative retirement account drop and plunge due
to the inability of Congress to come up with a plan for the
debt ceiling. We trust your judgment as a Senator, but plead
with the Congress and the Senate to come up with a solution.
We absolutely cannot afford to see our retirement savings
sink again like it did in 2008. . . .
And it is not just individual citizens. I received a letter from
Dakota County's administrator. The letter reads, in part:
If the federal government does not resolve its fiscal
issues in a timely and responsible manner, it will drive up
costs to taxpayers here in Dakota County. . . . Being able to
borrow at the lowest possible rates has meant that our
County's taxpayers have gotten more and better public
facilities--from libraries to senior housing to highway
interchanges--and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars for
both property taxpayers and senior housing residents in the
past several years alone.
The city of Chaska reached out to my office, explaining that they are
planning to sell debt in August to fund a street reconstruction program
and refund their water treatment plant. If Congress fails to act, these
projects will come at a much higher cost to residents of Chaska.
I received a particularly compelling e-mail yesterday from a woman
from Falcon Heights. She wrote:
I am writing again to say I support the President and
realize a need to compromise. It is scary for a 66 year [old]
retired schoolteacher who has Medicare and social security.
Scarier is a default and what it would do to the economy.
That is advice from Sue. Sue gets it. She gets that Congress's
failure to act may have a direct impact on her but the impact is really
for the whole economy. And Sue is asking for us to compromise.
And compromise we have. Let me make one thing clear: Leader Reid's
plan is a compromise. Let me make another thing clear: House Speaker
Boehner's plan is a tea party plan.
Harry Reid's plan is a true compromise. It contains all spending cuts
and zero revenues. During these debates, there have been lots of ratios
floating around. Senator Conrad, the budget chairman, proposed a
balanced and sensible plan that had a 1-to-1 spending cut to revenue
ratio. Personally, I liked that approach. President Obama was
negotiating a 4-to-1 or even 5-to-1 spending cut to revenue ratio. In
the Reid plan, there is no ratio. It is 100 percent cuts and zero
revenue.
Secondly, it contains dollar-for-dollar spending cuts to match the
debt ceiling increase. This is exactly what the Republicans had been
asking for. Yet, this morning, I learned that 43 of my Republican
colleagues have signed a letter to Leader Reid signaling their
opposition to his proposal. Why? Well, they say the savings from
winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do not count.
Specifically, they say these savings are ``a widely ridiculed
accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism.'' Yet all but 3 of the 43
Senators who signed this letter voted for the Ryan budget on May 25 of
this year. That budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical
in savings. So those savings were legitimate enough to secure their
support for the Ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their
support for Leader Reid's debt ceiling compromise. Here we are on the
precipice, and suddenly they have done a 180-degree turn. Either these
savings count or they do not. You cannot have it both ways.
So we are proposing exactly what Republicans have been saying they
want. Yet, instead of accepting this deal, they are using what precious
time we have to push forward with their agenda. And it is not even
their agenda, it is the tea party agenda. Their radical agenda is a
wolf in sheep's clothing.
Last night, we voted down Speaker Boehner's plan, which requires the
passage of a balanced budget constitutional amendment. A balanced
budget amendment sounds, on its face, sensible, but in reality, all of
the current House proposals for a balanced budget amendment would have
disastrous consequences for our Nation.
A balanced budget constitutional amendment would do permanent damage
to our social safety net by slashing spending to 18 percent of GDP.
That is what they all propose. We have not had a spending ratio that
low since 1966, and today's America is very different than in 1966. We
have a much older population. Today, we have a higher percentage of
people drawing on Social Security and Medicare benefits--more than ever
before. Health care costs are 50 percent higher. Even during President
Reagan's tenure, spending averaged 21 percent of GDP.
[[Page S5116]]
What would an 18-percent cap really mean? Well, let's use the
Republican Study Committee's budget, proposed in April, as an example.
A budget such as theirs is roughly what we would expect if we capped
spending at 18 percent of GDP. Their budget cut nondefense
discretionary funding by 70 percent by 2021. Like the Ryan plan, the
Republican Study Committee's budget ended Medicare as we know it,
changed it into a voucher program, and raised eligibility to 67, but it
did it more quickly. Their budget raised the Social Security retirement
age to 70. It resulted in important programs such as food stamps and
Medicaid getting cut by 50 percent.
The Republican Study Committee's budget was the Ryan budget on
steroids. I would like to remind you of what happened to it on the
House floor--this is an interesting story--because this story shows you
just how extreme this budget was.
Most House Republicans did not actually want such a harmful,
Draconian budget to be the official House budget, but many of them
wanted to go on record to brag to their tea party supporters that they
voted to slash $9 trillion in Federal spending. So they scheduled a
vote and just assumed Democrats would vote it down for them. Then they
could just blame the Democrats.
Well, the minority whip, Steny Hoyer, caught wind of their plan and
had an idea. Moments before the vote, he asked Democrats to vote
``present.'' This would leave the onus squarely on the Republicans to
vote it up or down. Chaos erupted in the House, as Republican
leadership realized what was happening. Too many votes had been cast in
favor of the radical budget, and it was on the verge of actually
passing. Frantically, Republican leadership got a number of their
Members to switch from ``yes'' to ``no.'' In the end, 119 Republicans
voted in favor and 120 against. Crisis averted. That is how bad this
plan was. And a balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18
percent would essentially do exactly the same thing. This is a perfect
example of political posturing.
We voted down Speaker Boehner's plan last night for that very reason.
His plan was not about finding a real solution; it was all about
political posturing. If it became law, it would subject Americans to a
very scary Republican Study Committee reality. House Republicans have
shown they do not really want that. The American people definitely do
not want that. The American people have clearly said they want
compromise, they want an honest effort to meet in the middle. Sue from
Falcon Heights is one of them.
Leader Reid has responded to the pleas of the American people by
offering us a sensible compromise. I urge my colleagues to be statesmen
for the sake of the country. Please come to the table. We are trying to
work with you for the sake of the country. The clock is ticking.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining in the period
allotted to Democrats?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes 20 seconds remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. I see Senator Coburn is on the floor. I assume
he is the first speaker on the Republican side.
I wish to thank the Senator from Minnesota for his comments on our
budget situation. For the many who have gathered here and are watching
this at home and listening to this debate, this is a historic weekend
where we have an opportunity--in fact, a challenge--to come forward and
craft a bipartisan solution which is good for this country and avoids--
avoids--the disaster that would happen Tuesday night if we fail to
extend our debt ceiling.
The United States of America has never failed to extend its debt, not
once. In the last 72 years, since we enacted this law, we have had
requests from Presidents on both sides of the aisle to extend the debt
ceiling 89 times--55 times by Republicans, 34 times by Democrats. The
President who holds the record for extending a debt ceiling--is
President Ronald Reagan, 18 times in 8 years, tripling the national
debt.
Not once, not one time, did he face what we are facing here, a threat
from the other side of the aisle that if we do not give in to their
requests, we will default on our national debt. That would be a
catastrophe. It is one thing to call a bluff. It is another to call a
bluff with someone else's chips, because the victims--if we default on
this debt--will not be Members of Congress. The victims will be
families and businesses all across the United States.
If we watch interest rates go up as we are in the midst of an
economic recovery, people will be laid off. More people will be
unemployed. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. We need to come to
an agreement. We need to come to our senses. What the American people
have told us across the board is we need to reduce spending, we need to
reduce our deficit, we need to do it in a sensible way, as the Senator
from Minnesota said, to carefully choose these areas of waste and
inefficiency and unnecessary spending but not to cut the essential
benefits that people need.
You will hear those come to the floor and say, oh, we are just
spending more money. Well, the obvious answer is, in some respects we
are. But keep in mind this one statistic. On January 1 of this year,
10,000 Americans reached the age of 65. On January 2, another 10,000.
On January 3, again. Every day since January 1 and every day for the
next 19\1/2\ years, the baby boomers are now reaching retirement age.
Having paid into Social Security and Medicare for a lifetime, they
fully expect and deserve the legal benefits they have been promised.
That is a new obligation of government, but one that we accepted when
we enrolled them in the system. Now we can find ways to make sure those
benefits are going to be guaranteed into the future with sensible
changes in entitlement programs and with sensible changes in our
spending.
I find it hard to believe that many on the other side are arguing
they cannot find 1 penny--1 penny--that can be saved in the Pentagon. I
think we can save money there without endangering our security.
I find it also difficult to understand the argument that we cannot
raise 1 penny in taxes on the wealthiest people in America if we are
asking everyone else across the board to sacrifice. We have got to have
a balanced approach. The Presiding Officer from Virginia was part of a
group of six Senators, three Democrats and three Republicans--we have
been joined in our effort by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet--
trying to find a bipartisan way to deal with this deficit situation.
I am heartened to say that some 36 Senators have come forward, on
both sides of the aisle, saying we can deal with this as adults. We can
deal with it in a comprehensive and balanced way. We can keep our
promise to people when it comes to the basic programs such as Social
Security and Medicare, and we can do it in a fashion that reduces our
deficit and avoids the crisis which we are facing.
So I hope that--I see the Senator from Oklahoma here. He was part of
that gang. It seems as though we have all gathered here on the floor at
this moment--many of us have. I would hope in that spirit we can come
to a bipartisan agreement to resolve the current crisis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have been listening in my office for the
last several hours to the debate. I think there is one thing that has
not been brought out in the debate. When Washington says it is going to
cut spending, it is untruthful with the American public, because both
the Boehner bill and the Reid bill increase discretionary spending over
the next 10 years by--one of them $830 billion, and the other $832
billion.
How is it that we can, with a straight face in this body, talk about
a cut when, in fact, CBO says we are going to actually increase the
spending in the discretionary accounts over the next 10 years nearly $1
trillion.
You have heard the debate in the House, in the Senate, of a spending
cut. And, of course, that goes to what the heart of the problem is in
our country; words get twisted around to the advantage of the
politicians but to the disadvantage of the American citizens. We are in
trouble financially. Most people will agree with that. We have programs
that are in difficult straits.
As a matter of fact, they are broke, they are not just in difficult
straits.
[[Page S5117]]
Here are the ones that are broke. Medicare Part A trust fund. Worst-
case scenario this year to 2016. That is the fund that solves and pays
for hospitalizations for our seniors.
We have heard a lot of statements said about Medicare. The average
Medicare recipient paid $130,000 into Medicare. The average Medicare
recipient takes $350,000 out. How long do we think that can continue?
How long can we continue to tell seniors that we can continue a program
based on its utilization rates, based on its reimbursement rates, based
on the tax rates, that has a $220,000 difference between what goes out
in benefits versus what comes in? It is broke.
Medicaid is broke. The reason it is broke is because the States are
broke trying to take care of it. We mandate what they must do, and yet
the States are choking on Medicaid, and we are choking on matching the
amount of dollars. Under the Affordable Care Act, it is now estimated
25 million more people will go into Medicaid. So it is broke.
The Census. It was broke before it started. It cost twice what it did
10 years ago, $8 billion more than what was estimated.
Fannie and Freddie. We know they are broke. They are $190 billion--
that you have now committed for, to pay to get them out of hock--
Congress created that $190 billion. That is where we are today. It is
going to be $300 or $400 billion that we have to pay--we will be
required to pay, citizens of this country.
Social Security. People say it is not broke. We have $2.5 trillion
worth of IOUs. Well, the fact is, that money is gone. Congress stole
it, spent it on other things. Now we lack the ability to go into
international financial markets to borrow that money to put that trust
fund whole.
So why do we need to reform Social Security? So we can make sure it
is there in the future. What we do know is in 2032 now, according to
the trustees, everybody on Social Security will only get 77 percent of
what they are promised, and every year after that it will decline, so
that when my kids are on Social Security, they will get about 40
percent of what the average Social Security recipient gets now. We know
we can fix it. We know we can fix it and make it sustainable forever.
But we will not do that because that is politically difficult.
The U.S. Post Office is bleeding every day. Yet we have not fixed it.
We are going to do a gimmick to buy some time. But the fact is, we have
set it up under a system when they negotiate labor contracts under the
arbitration system. They cannot consider the financial health of the
Post Office. That would be like paying somebody to mow your grass and
saying, they will set the price on it and you cannot negotiate what the
price is. Yet they are going to lose $8 to $10 billion this year and
more every year going forward, and we have not fixed it, not done
anything.
Cash for Clunkers. Absolute--when you look at the dollars--and the
home buyer program, the new home buyer program--they actually had a
negative effect on the economy. That is what the studies show now. So
we blew through all of that money.
The highway trust fund--what is used to build highways and roads and
bridges in our country--is broke. We are looking for $13 billion to try
to make it whole, and all we did was transfer the last 3 years to that.
Rather than reform it, we did not do anything about it.
The new government-run health care program. Here is what we know. The
new studies show that over half of the employers in this country will
drop their insurance for the people who presently have insurance at
work. Hundreds of billions of dollars of additional taxpayer money is
going to be required to subsidize the exchanges those people are going
to go into, because the penalty for dropping somebody's insurance is
economically too low to keep employers from doing that.
We have all of these programs that are broke, and we have a
discussion about the debt ceiling, but we are not talking about what is
the real problem. This government is twice the size it was 10 years
ago. Twice as big. It would be great if all of it were constitutional,
it would be great if it were all effective, it would be great if it
were all efficient, and it would be great if we could afford it. But
the fact is, we are where we are today, with a $1.6 trillion deficit,
because we cannot afford the government we have.
So we have not concentrated on the very areas where we can find
mutual agreement. We have had three bipartisan bills in here where we
have cut money, significant money, billion here, $5 billion here, $7
billion here, $3 billion here, go through the Senate with vast majority
votes, only to go nowhere, because the allowance for the debate on the
underlying bills was stopped. The bills were pulled.
So what do we do? Well, the first thing we do is we look at what the
problems are. What are the problems? We have 100 different programs
with 100 sets of bureaucracies for surface transportation alone. Why do
we do that? Why have we not fixed it? That is a question the American
people ought to be asking.
We have 82 programs to improve the quality of our teachers, run by
the Federal Government across 7 different agencies. Only one of them is
at the Department of Education. Why are we doing that? Where is the
assessment of how well they work? Where are the metrics to say we
should be spending this money in this way because we are getting a
return? Not one of them has a metric on it. Not one of them has ever
been measured on whether it is effective.
We have 88 economic development programs in 4 agencies, for which we
spend $6.8 billion, and we have another 100 economic development
programs in 6 other agencies, for which we spend another $4 billion,
and not one of them has ever been measured to see if it improves
economic activity. And if, in fact, it does, why do we have 188
separate agencies to stimulate economic development? I mean, this is
not complicated stuff. It is common sense. Every American, other than
the Congress, would fix that.
We have 56 programs to teach financial literacy to the American
people. First of all, I question whether we ought to be teaching
anybody financial literacy as a government when we run it so poorly.
But if, in fact, we do, why do we have 56? And, oh, by the way, not one
of them has ever been measured to see if it effectively teaches
somebody financial literacy.
We have 47 job training programs which cost $18 billion a year, 9
different agencies, 9 different sets of bureaucracies, and all of them
but three overlap with the other. That is according to the Government
Accountability Office. Why? Why would we do that?
We have 18 programs for food for the hungry. That is something we all
want to be involved in. Eighteen? Why 18 sets of bureaucracies? How
well are they working? Are they effective? Could we do them better? The
question has not even been asked by Congress.
We have homeless programs for both prevention and assistance--20, 6
different agencies. So you have 20 different sets of bureaucracies that
are designed to do the same thing.
Disaster response and preparedness, inside FEMA alone. Inside FEMA
alone, we have 17 different programs, inside that one agency, which is
part of the Department of Homeland Security.
I ask the question: Why? Why hasn't it been a priority for us to work
on this?
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. Yes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it may surprise the Senator--I hope not,
and I don't think so--but it might surprise people listening to us to
hear from this side of the aisle that a lot of us have enormous respect
for what the Senator has been talking about and fighting for and what
he has achieved. I might add he is one of those courageous Senators who
has come together in the last months working as part of the so-called
Gang of 6 to try to bridge the gap and see if we cannot find a way
forward.
As I listen to him, there is an enormous amount of common sense in
the questions he is asking. These are questions all of us need to join
in. We need to join into them in a process that allows us to be able to
work in a balanced way on the grand bargain, as you call it, the big
fix. I ask the Senator, because I think a lot of Americans listening to
the debate--and I have been listening on the floor and listening some
back in the office--people have to be saying these guys have been
talking
[[Page S5118]]
past each other because we hear things over there that sound reasonable
and we hear things on this side that sound reasonable. But people are
asking: What is hanging up this process? Why is the entire country
being held hostage?
I ask my colleague if he would help us kind of bear down on what we
need to do. I ask him if it is not fair and accurate to say that the
so-called Gang of 6--a terrible name--maybe we can call them G6 or
something--but they came together with an understanding that we needed
balance in the approach to satisfy both sides and build a critical
mass. That balance requires cuts. We have to put the big items--big
ticket items on the table, and that means fixing Social Security,
reforming it for the long-term; Medicare and Medicaid, which are
unsustainable on their current paths; defense, where we have to find a
handle on some of the procurement and expenditures. The Senator has
joined in this. We have to close some tax loopholes and have tax reform
and find some level of revenue at an appropriate ratio that allows us
to fix this. That is where the problem has been. There is a group of
folks in the House who have insisted no revenue at all.
I ask the Senator, isn't it fair to say the Gang of 6 came up with a
more balanced approach in which, I believe, the Senate could find a
ground of compromise--what Senator Reid has proposed, I believe, has
cuts that the Republicans have supported--maybe not quite enough yet
and maybe we can negotiate that.
(Mr. DURBIN assumed the Chair.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, Let me reclaim my time. There are
absolutely no cuts in what either Senator Reid or Speaker Boehner
proposed in discretionary spending. The spending will rise $832 billion
over the next 10 years in the discretionary accounts.
Only in Washington is that a cut. Quite frankly, I am willing to work
with my colleagues. I have been out there. I said we have to move and
eliminate some of these loopholes; we have to reform the Tax Code. I am
willing to take heat from my side on that.
What I am not willing to take anymore is a Senate that will not work
on the details of the specific problems. What I am trying to do is
outline where the problems are. Where is the leadership? We didn't do
it when we were in charge either, I say to Senator Kerry. There has
been a failure of leadership in this country, in this body, to attack
these very problems. When we have 47 job training programs and none of
them are working well--because that is what we do know, because the
very few times they have been looked at, they don't work--and we are
spending $18 billion a year and we are not fixing them, the American
people have to say: What is wrong with you all?
What we have to do is evaluate the effectiveness of every program in
the Federal Government. We have to limit the overhead cost to Federal
programs. We have put ideas out there--and this is $9 trillion worth of
cuts--not Washington cuts but American cuts--money we are not going to
spend that is less than what we are spending today, not money we are
not going to spend that we would have spent more the next year. These
are real cuts. Each one of these is in here, backed by the facts, not
biased. We could disagree with where we make cuts but not with the
facts in here.
All the facts come from the Congressional Research Service, the
General Accounting Office, the OMB, the President's budget, in terms of
his recommendations and why, and the CBO. We will not go there.
My problem with the Senate is that we will not do our work. We are as
guilty--and this is not partisan to me. Our country's future is at
stake. When we have two bills--one last night and one today--that are
literally lying to the American people when they say cuts, I think it
is unconscionable.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator further yield?
Mr. COBURN. Let me finish, if I may. I will yield to the Senator in a
moment. The fact is, we will not tell the truth to the American people.
The first truth is, if we will be honest with them, they will
understand the necessities that will have to be brought forward to be
able to solve the problem. But denying what the problem is, we will
never get consensus in this country and the embrace of the American
people to do what everybody in this body knows is eventually going to
have to be done.
In 5 years, we will not have a Medicare system that is similar to the
Medicare system we have today. It is absolutely unsustainable. We will
never be able to borrow the money to do it. We are going to get a debt
downgrade no matter what we do. So rather than continue to be dishonest
with the American people about the status of where we are, we ought to
embrace them and call for the very things that made this country
great--the sacrifice of the citizens to rebuild the potential for our
future, recreate a renewal in our country that embraces the things that
made us great--a true free enterprise system, with a limited government
that will actually allow people to be rewarded for their hard work and
their blood, sweat, and toil--get that back and have the government
take a fair share of that. On the upside, it should be more; on the
downside, it should be less. I agree.
The question is, Will we do it or will we continue a charade to the
American people, continuing to tell them we are going to cut $900
billion out of the discretionary budget when, in fact, we are going to
increase it 832?
There is only a $2 billion difference between Senator Reid's plan and
Speaker Boehner's plan on discretionary spending. Both are untruthful
to the American people. Both of them take the American people as a lap
and say we can wink and nod at them and tell them something that is not
true and walk out of here saying we spent less money. We are only going
to spend less than we planned to spend, which was too much in the first
place, which was unsustainable.
Our deal is that we don't have the courage to actually make the cuts
listed in here. We don't have the courage to eliminate the waste, and
we don't have the courage to eliminate the duplication. Why? Because
every one of these programs has a political backing. We are
politicians. Unfortunately, too often, we are that instead of
statesmen. It is time for us--both sides--to lead this country, to lead
the country in a vision of here is the real truth of our problem.
Now let's have a debate about what should be the No. 1 priority. How
much should we spend on defense? Should we continue to allow contracts
to go way overrun? Should we continue to allow requirement creep in
contracts--not just in defense but in homeland security, HHS. The same
problems we have in defense we have in all the other big agencies. We
buy $64 billion worth of IT every year in this country, and $37 billion
of it is wasted, totally blown. Why? What have we done about it? Not
one thing. We don't look at the high risk for the GAO on IT. Every year
that happens. The Census Bureau spent $600 million on a device that
never worked. There was no penalty for the company that did it. We paid
it anyway. It was a cost-plus contract, and the reason it never worked
is because we had requirement creep all the way through.
We don't have any grownups making the purchases for this country--
nobody with experience. So we are doing the wrong thing at the wrong
time. We need to be doing the right things at the right time for the
right reasons, considering that we make sure we take care of those who
need it and demand participation from everybody else.
We need to cap the total number of Federal employees--not because we
want to but because we don't have any other choice. We don't have to
let anybody go; just through attrition we can downsize the Federal
Government.
We waste $15 billion every 5 years on managing properties in this
country that we own that are vacant. Yet we are spending that money on
them. We cannot get a real property bill through. How valuable to us is
$15 billion? We have to start paying attention to the pennies, nickels,
and dimes. We will not do it.
Unnecessary government printing--including us. I have been trying to
get the elimination of this for 3 years. There are millions of dollars
we can save by not printing the copies of this every day, which nobody
looks at--except I did see my good friend from Illinois looking at a
vote last night. But he could have gotten it online out of
[[Page S5119]]
his BlackBerry. We are tearing down trees to print paper we don't need.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining on
the Republican side.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. COBURN. Yes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, again--I am trying to
help us get out of this predicament where we have a couple days before
the United States defaults. Everything the Senator has said is worthy
of inquiry. Isn't it true that if we could get--part of the Reid
proposal and the Boehner proposal proposes a joint committee that will
be structured somewhat like a Base Closing Commission, which will
require the Senate and the House to vote in an expeditious fashion on
these kinds of proposals, whatever the joint committee proposes, and if
the joint committee doesn't succeed in proposing something, hopefully,
either the Gang of 6 or the Simpson-Bowles commission will.
Isn't the key to resolving this crisis and not defaulting our ability
to be able to come together on a sufficient trigger or some sufficient
mechanism that guarantees we are actually going to deal with this in a
similar fashion to what the Senator is raising?
Mr. COBURN. I don't disagree that those negotiations are going on as
we speak. I am not a party to them. I don't know if the Senator from
Massachusetts is. I suspect the Presiding Officer is. We are not going
to decide that. That will come to us for a decision. Look, I worked for
a long number of months with my colleagues from the other side of the
aisle. I put my name on a bill that doesn't fix it, but it was
something to get us moving. It is better than where we are today. I
agree with the Senator. But that is not good enough. We are not good
enough yet to be where we need to be if we are actually going to solve
the problem.
Let me finish going through this. We need to end no-bid contracts in
this country. To give a specific example, before he left, Senator
LeMieux got through on the business bill prescreening of payments on
Medicare payments, so we don't just pay them and then go chase the
fraud. We got through a bill that required the Centers for Medicaid
Services to put in a program to look to see if they ought to pay the
bill.
What they did is signed a cost-plus contract for $77 million with a
firm that has never done that before and didn't take a fixed-price
contract from firms that have already done it before. Tell me how we
let that happen. Yet it happened. When we had testimony in the
committee, they said it was a fixed-price contract, only to write back
and say it was not a fixed-price contract. We need some common sense in
our government.
We need to disclose the text and cost of legislation prior to
passage. We need to identify duplicative government programs. We have
done that in here. There are hundreds of thousands of them throughout
the Federal Government. We need to eliminate them. We need to mandate
congressional oversight. That is where our leaders have failed on both
sides. They have not mandated the committee chairmen to do the
oversight required to solve this problem. We need to freeze the size of
this government. We cannot afford the government we have. The debate is
about what will happen in the future. What will be the revenue
increases and the spending increases?
Nobody is talking about decreasing the size of the Federal
Government. We can't afford this government. We can't afford to
continue to spend the money we are spending.
I will close with this. If we continue to be less than
straightforward with the American people about what we are doing, about
the Reid bill--and the reason I wanted to debate the Boehner bill is I
wanted to make this point on the Boehner bill--when we call something a
cut of $900 billion, just because the CBO says we are going to spend
$900 billion less than what we were planning to spend, but it's still
$832 billion more than what we are spending now, that is not a cut
anywhere except in Washington. We ought to admit it. If that is the
best we can do, the American people need to know that is the best we
can do. But we can't play the games anymore.
I have another colleague, I think, who would like to speak, and with
the remaining time, I would yield to her.
Is the Senator from Alaska interested in speaking?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. It is my
understanding we were bumping up against the vote at 5:30. Is that
correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans have 3 minutes 15 seconds
remaining.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I had hoped to be able to speak at
greater length than 3 minutes this afternoon, but the message that
Senator Coburn has been delivering is so incredibly important. I want
to join Senator Kerry's remarks in thanking him for being one who has
been working to find not a deal but to find a solution to the issues we
face today.
As we have deliberated all day long, there has been a lot of finger-
pointing, a lot of blame. As the Senator from Massachusetts has noted,
a lot of times it seems as if the comments are just going past one
another rather than directed in a purposeful way that would actually
make a difference to this debate.
We started out this morning with messages from the leader arguing
over who was filibustering. We have all talked about the need to see
compromise, and then we go on to say why we can't compromise. What we
need to be working toward is a solution to the problem as opposed to
attempting to cobble together a deal at the last moment that will gain
those necessary votes.
The one thing I would hope we are all working toward is to avoid the
default we all fear. We have all been listening to our constituents
calling us this weekend. As we read our e-mails, as we talk to friends
and neighbors, the concern is very real. One thing we have managed to
do on a bipartisan basis in this Congress over the past few days is to
incite fear in the American public, to make our constituents angry,
frustrated, and mad. Well, misery loves company. We are angry,
frustrated, and mad here. But I would like to suggest, as the hours
wind down, we come together as a body in the Senate and the House to
find that compromise.
Senator Isakson stood on the floor earlier this afternoon and spoke
of the contours of a proposal that worked to integrate the good ideas
of several different Members--of Senator Reid, of Speaker Boehner, and
of the minority leader, Senator McConnell. We should be working to find
those areas where we agree because those areas are, in fact, in place.
I am hopeful, Mr. President, as the majority leader comes back in
from his meetings he will have some encouraging news for us as we work
through these last hours.
I would like to gain some additional time later on this evening to
speak more in detail, but I see the majority leader before us waiting
to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the
following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names.
[Quorum No. 5]
Brown (MA)
Cantwell
Carper
Coburn
Durbin
Feinstein
Johanns
Kerry
Landrieu
McCain
Merkley
Murkowski
Murray
Pryor
Reid (NV)
Schumer
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to
request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from
[[Page S5120]]
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison),
and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 20, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]
YEAS--75
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heller
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--20
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Grassley
Hoeven
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Vitter
NOT VOTING--5
DeMint
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Lieberman
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, today the Speaker and Republican leader held
a press conference to announce they are in talks with the President and
that a bargain to raise the debt ceiling is in the works and is close.
Mr. President, Members of the Senate, that is not true. I just spent
2 hours with the President and Vice President and Leader Pelosi. It is
fair for me to say that the engagement there is not in any meaningful
way. The Republican leader still refused to negotiate in good faith.
Revenue is off the calendar--no way we can talk about revenues.
Entitlements--oh, they are after entitlements: Medicare, Social
Security.
The Speaker and Republican leader should know that merely saying we
have an agreement in front of television cameras doesn't make it so.
The Republican leader at the press event says he is engaged.
Fortunately, Members of his caucus, at least as far as I am concerned,
and my Members, are more engaged than he is. There are meaningful talks
going on with some of his Members with some of my Senators. While the
Republican leader is holding meaningless press conferences, his Members
are reaching out to me, and other Members, as I have just indicated.
They are coming forward with thoughtful ideas to try to move the
process forward. I welcome their ideas and ask all Members to continue
these discussions. America is watching us, and they are demanding a
result that is balanced.
I say to my friend--and he is my friend--the Republican leader, I
will come to his office, I will go to the White House with him, I will
do anything I can do to try to move this process forward, but I say as
respectfully as I can to my friend the senior Senator from Kentucky
that the process has not been moved forward during this day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader--the Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the fact is that the only way we are
going to get an agreement before Tuesday is to have an agreement with
the President of the United States--the only person in America of the
307 million of us who can sign something into law. I am more optimistic
than my friend the majority leader. We have both talked to the
President today, talked to the Vice President several times. I think we
have a chance of getting there.
What I think is not helpful is the process we are going through here
on the Senate floor: having show votes over live quorums, having
reluctance on the part of the majority to have a vote on a measure they
favor, which we have been prepared to vote on since last night.
Look, we need to be in a position where all of us in the leadership
can come back here and say that we think we have reached a framework of
an agreement we can recommend to our Members and be briefing our
Members. The sooner we can do that, the sooner we can reassure the
American people we are going to get a result on a bipartisan basis. So
that is what I am working on, and I am not interested in scoring any
political points. I am interested in getting an outcome for the
American people, and the only way that can be done is with the
President of the United States, and we are going to continue to work on
that, get this problem solved, and let everybody in the country know we
are not going to default for the first time in our history. That is how
I am going to spend my time until we get that outcome and I can come up
here and recommend it to my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are here today right now for this reason.
It is spelled f-i-l-i-b-u-s-t-e-r--filibuster. There are delaying
tactics proceeding right now. They will not allow us to have a vote, an
up-or-down vote on our amendment, and this is a filibuster. By any
other term, it is a filibuster. That is why we are here. I hope the
negotiations go on. We are willing to be as fair as we can, but there
has to be something that the President and Vice President Biden and the
rest of us think is a step in the right direction. I guess talking is a
step in the right direction, but that is about it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the matter we have before
us, which is amendment No. 589--that we have an up-or-down vote on
that, as we have all the time, of course. There would be no points of
order, as we do it here all the time. Have a vote on it right now.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, these
are direct quotes from my friend the majority leader. He says: ``In the
Senate it has always been the case you need 60 votes.'' ``Always been
the case you need 60 votes.'' This is the majority leader of the
Senate. For him to suggest that a matter of this magnitude, in a body
that requires 60 votes for almost everything, is going to be done with
51 votes makes no sense at all. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, it is unconscionable that the
Republicans would filibuster legislation to prevent a default on
national obligations. Frankly, it is unprecedented. Since 1962,
Congress has raised the debt limit 74 times, including 18 times under
President Reagan, and there was never a threat of a filibuster, and it
was always by majority vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I might say I actually cut short a
conversation with the Vice President to come out here for this
important vote on a live quorum. I would like to get back to work so we
can hopefully solve this problem.
It seems to me it would be a good idea for the majority to decide to
allow the vote on the proposal they say they are in favor of;
therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the pending cloture
motion occur at 6:30.
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. A filibuster in any other words----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, you can put lipstick on it, a nice suit,
even a skirt sometimes, it is still a filibuster.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for order in the Chamber.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold for a moment?
[[Page S5121]]
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to complete my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, later tonight we will vote on the majority
leader's bill to reduce the deficit and increase the Nation's statutory
debt limit. Earlier today the House of Representatives decisively
rejected the majority leader's proposal. If I got it right, the vote
was 246 to 173. Thirteen did not vote, but there were 11 Democrats who
voted against the proposal as well. It will be defeated here in the
Senate later this evening or whenever the majority leader allows it to
be voted on. It is fine with me, whatever he decides to do.
As a substantive matter, I deeply oppose the efforts of the majority
leader. His plan does not tackle the task at hand. The President would
get a $2.7 trillion debt limit increase but less than $1 trillion in
cuts, and most of those cuts are gimmicks, budgetary gimmicks. They
assume savings from more spending that the President has not requested
and that will be unlikely to materialize. It does not include a
balanced budget amendment. Most important from my perspective, it
assumes a massive tax increase in 2013 by allowing the 2001 and 2003
tax relief to expire, allowing the AMT to hit the middle-class
taxpayers, and allowing for increases in estate taxes.
Most important, from my perspective, the majority leader's approach
assumes a massive tax increase in 2013 by allowing the 2001 and 2003
tax relief to expire, allowing the alternative minimum tax to hit
middle-class taxpayers, something we have not allowed, and allowing for
increases in estate taxes that are a business and job killer.
We are scheduled to vote on this bill late this evening, actually
early on Sunday morning. Americans might ask why in the world are we
doing this? Republicans were ready to take this vote yesterday evening.
This delay in voting does not match with the asserted urgency of
raising the debt ceiling. Yesterday, the Senate majority leader stated
on the floor that the country defaults on its debt at 12 midnight on
Tuesday.
Tuesday is August 2; is this true? What are these claims based on
that the majority leader is making? Amazingly, we do not know for a
fact whether the United States does run short of cash to pay all its
obligations on August 2. We were told by the Treasury Secretary way
back in May that August 2 might be a date when Treasury runs out of
money to pay our bills. We have seen estimates of the Treasury's cash
position on the floor that came either from a local think tank or from
Wall Street financial firms.
The Treasury will not give us updated information. It is outrageous.
The last time Treasury informed Congress of its estimates of its cash
position was in May when it backed off of a prior guess and extended
their estimate of running dry of cash by 3 weeks. Since that last
update, I made a simple request of members of the Financial Stability
Oversight Council, commonly called FSOC, which is chaired by the
Treasury Secretary. I asked for an update on Treasury's cash and liquid
assets to be delivered by close of business on Thursday, and I asked
for that as ranking on the Senate Finance Committee.
I also asked for contingency plans of Treasury and our financial
regulators outlining what they will do if the debt limit is not raised
or if we face a ratings downgrade on our U.S. debt. Treasury has not
responded to this request. It is outrageous. They know what they are
going to do.
We were told the Nation will fall off a financial cliff on August 2
at midnight. That is a lot of precision, down to the hour. Is it true?
I don't know. The American people don't know. Social Security
recipients in Utah don't know and Treasury won't tell us. I might add
the rating agencies don't know either. We are being asked to give the
President the largest increase in debt limit in our Nation's history.
Get that. We are being asked to give the President the largest increase
in our debt limit in our Nation's history. His last one was the largest
at that time. We were asked to consider policies that involved
trillions of dollars, with no effects that will occur over decades,
with no current information about how much money the government has and
expects to have over the next few days and weeks.
Treasury told me yesterday that they are working on getting me some
information. Yet I still don't know how much money Treasury now has to
pay its bills and neither does anybody else on the floor. We don't know
how much it expects to have over the next few days and weeks or whether
Treasury still believes that midnight August 2 has any particular
significance. The politicians all insist August 2 is the date. I am
beginning to have my doubts. If that was the case, wouldn't it make
sense for the majority leader to schedule votes commensurate with this
urgency? Why waste more than 24 hours, which is what the majority
leader did by refusing our offer to vote last night on his bill. It is
not going to change the vote.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that maybe that August 2 date is
not all it is cracked up to be. We can't say for sure because the
administration, despite my request more than 48 hours ago, has refused
to provide Congress with information regarding its cash position. But
others seem to think so.
Yesterday, Moody's Investors Service stated, clearly:
It remains our expectation that the government will
continue with timely debt service. . . . If the debt limit is
not raised before August 2, we believe that the Treasury
would give priority to debt service payments and could thus
postpone a potential debt default for a number of days.
Does Moody's know more than our Treasury Secretary and FSOC that has
been set up to help us to understand these things? They have been
working on it for months. Why can't they give us the information?
This analysis is consistent with everything my colleague and friend
from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, has been saying for months.
He understood early on that regardless of the rhetoric there would be
no default on August 2. The administration is fully capable of
prioritizing payments. There is a much more pressing issue than
imminent default--a credit downgrade due to the failure of Congress to
use this opportunity to take significant deficit reduction measures.
That is the real takeaway from Moody's report:
Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted,
would likely lead Moody's to adopt a negative outlook on the
AAA rating. . . . The chances of a significant improvement in
the long-term credit profile of the government coming from
deficit reductions of the magnitude proposed in either plan
are not high.
That is Moody's. Our debt has become so unmanageable that we face a
credit downgrade with consequent higher interest rates if we do not
enact a big-time deficit reduction package.
This year is our third straight trillion-dollar deficit. Our national
debt is $14.5 trillion. The President's budget would add $13 trillion
in additional debt if he gets his way. I don't know about you, but I
cannot tolerate that. That is added to already almost a $15 trillion
debt today.
I have spoken previously about the debt bubble the Nation finds
itself in, but I wish to reemphasize that point in light of the
warnings from ratings agencies that our credit faces a downgrade absent
real deficit reduction. Currently, Federal debt held by the public
equals a modern record of about 69 percent of GDP and it is headed to
100 percent and we all know it.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that current tax and spending
law takes that figure to 76 percent of GDP over the next 10 years, and
we all know it is going to hit 100 percent if we keep going with what
the President is doing and, unfortunately, with what my friends on the
other side are doing.
To put that number in perspective, at the end of fiscal year 2008,
the debt held by the public reached about 41 percent. That is less than
2\1/2\ years ago. That was under the Bush administration. That is 41
percent compared to 70 percent today. As bad as the 76-percent figure
is that we will reach--according to the Budget Office--President
Obama's budget would raise debt held by the public to 87 percent of GDP
by his own actuaries. I have to tell you they very seldom have been
accurate or right. They are always low.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, if we continue current
tax
[[Page S5122]]
policy and don't raise rates, fix the alternative minimum tax, provide
estate tax relief, provide for a fix to the physician payment system--
that is the SGR--policies supported by clear majorities of Americans by
2021, debt held by the public will reach no less than 97 percent, which
is precisely what I have been talking about.
Here is the sticky wicket. CBO projects the cost of simply paying the
interest on all this debt will rise to $792 billion--that is if CBO is
right and generally they are on the low side--in other words, 3.3
percent of GDP in 2021. What happens if interest rates go up? They are
likely to up. Currently, interest rates are very low. The 10-year
Treasury rates are currently around 3.5 percent.
During the past 2 years, this administration has spent recklessly,
raising the total debt from $10.6 trillion to almost $14.5 trillion
today. Because debt was cheap, the President was able to take on a lot
of it. The true cost of this debt was hidden by low interest rates.
What will happen when interest rates rise? What happens if interest
rates rise to levels seen during the 1980s or 1990s? Think of my
suggestion that these rating agencies of government are always low.
Interest rates are going to rise and the costs are going to rise too.
During the 1980s, rates on 3-month Treasury bills and 10-year notes
rose to over 8 percent and 10 percent, respectively. During the 1990s,
rates on 3-month and 10-year notes rose to 5 percent and 6.6 percent,
respectively. That cost as laid out by CBO could be astronomical. Under
President Obama's 2012 current budget, the CBO projects deficit rates
over the next 10 years resulting in an estimated $10 trillion being
added to this $14.5 trillion public debt--a 100-percent increase.
Under the scenario where interest rates rise to the historical
average of the 1990s, the public debt is projected to grow an
additional $8 trillion or a 77-percent increase. Under the scenario
where interest rates rise to the historical average of the 1980s, the
public debt would grow $14.5 trillion, doubling in size. This is the
real impact of Moody's warning.
It is bad enough that President Obama has taken on so much debt that
it may result in a downgrade of our credit, but it is even worse that
faced with that downgrade he and his Democratic allies refused to
deleverage. Should we get downgraded for failure to enact a serious
deficit reduction package, our debt will only grow larger because
increased interest rates will increase the cost of borrowing. We all
know about budgetary gimmickry around here, and this place is filled
with it. This economic debt is filled with it. The arguments about the
future are filled with it.
Americans should be less concerned about the August 2 deadline than
the fact that over the long term our debt bubble runs the risk of
becoming a debt spiral that turns into a death spiral for our economy.
Let me close by making two points. First, given the treacherous
fiscal waters we are in, Congress and the American people need to know
where the U.S. Treasury stands. It is unacceptable that they are being
asked to make decisions based on a proclaimed August 2 deadline with no
facts to back it up.
I urge all Americans, all Utahans, and all Social Security recipients
to get in touch with the Treasury right now and ask them to show us the
money. Call Treasury, send them an e-mail, send out a tweet. Show us
the money. We have a right to know cash in the Treasury comes from the
taxes that hard-working Americans pay. Government is charged with
stewardship over use of that cash. Withholding information is a
shirking of that responsibility, and I do not think anybody on this
floor believes that Treasury does not know what they are going to do. I
don't believe any Senator believes they should be stopping the
information from coming to us, especially at this time.
We should not run Treasury and manage taxpayer resources the way
Bernie Madoff ran his hedge funds, by taking cash and when asked for
information refusing to give it and just saying: Trust me.
I have a simple question: Does Treasury expect to run out of cash on
Tuesday, August 2? The President and his Treasury Department must
answer this question--which brings me to my second point. It is much
more critical that we get a deficit reduction package right than that
we adhere to this arbitrary August 2 deadline. There is one bill that
gets that right from my perspective, and that, of course, is cut, cap,
and balance. So far, the only bipartisan votes taken by the Congress in
this debt ceiling debate are the vote for cut, cap, and balance in the
House and the House vote to defeat the majority leader's bill. Those
are the only two that are bipartisan.
This debate is not over yet. I expect Senator Reid's bill to fail
tonight, but then it is back to the drawing board. My hope is that the
President will then do what he has so far refused to do; that is, to
take a leadership role in this debate, to stand up to his base and
encourage his party to take real steps to reduce the deficit. I am not
going to hold my breath.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time is left on
the Republican side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President.
Following my colleague from Utah who talked about getting the
President engaged in these discussions, I noticed a large story in
Thursday's New York Times: ``President on Sidelines in Critical Battle
over Debt Ceiling.'' President on the sidelines.
We are at a time where we are facing the largest threat to our
national security, and we cannot have the President on the sidelines.
When I talk about the single largest threat to our national security,
I am not talking about a terrorist organization. I am not talking about
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not talking about natural disasters,
disease, epidemics, and not famine. I am talking about our national
debt. Our national debt is the threat. It is the greatest threat to our
national security.
I will tell my colleagues this isn't a problem for one party, the
other party; it is a problem for all of us as Americans. I am not the
only one who is saying that. Actually, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, has said the most significant threat to our
Nation's security is our debt. Let me repeat: The most significant
threat to our national security is our debt. My colleagues may notice
that Admiral Mullen makes no mention at all of the debt ceiling. He is
speaking specifically about the debt. He is doing that because the debt
ceiling isn't the problem; our national debt is the threat.
We have $14 trillion of debt, and it continues to grow. We are
borrowing every day over $4 billion. That is over $2 million every
minute.
We say: Where does the money come from? Well, of the money we spent
last year in this country, over 41 cents of every dollar we spent--over
41 cents of every dollar--is borrowed money, a lot of it from foreign
countries, and specifically from China. How do we stay a strong and
independent leader of the world if we owe that kind of debt to anyone,
especially to another country who may not have our best interests at
heart?
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff clearly understands this.
But it is not just our military leaders who understand this, families
and business owners all across Wyoming understand it, and the American
people understand it. We all know what the American people want. They
want cuts to spending now, they want to control spending in the future,
and they want accountability. They sure don't believe they are getting
it out of Washington.
I received an e-mail this week from a gentleman from my hometown of
Casper. He looked at this whole thing and he said:
[[Page S5123]]
The fact that the debt ceiling needs to be raised is where
the problem lies. This is a systemic problem that will either
be fixed or it will eventually destroy this Nation. I urge
you to stand strong and oppose any spending that exceeds
revenue. Using the debt ceiling, we understand, this could be
a painful path. It could lead to economic problems. My
forefathers put their lives at risk to prevent this kind of
idiocy that the Federal Government has become.
He is talking about a debt of $14 trillion.
He said:
Every one of my family members and neighbors is prepared to
weather the storm now to prevent future catastrophe.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are focused on the debt
ceiling. It seems to me they have lost sight of the real problem, and
that problem is the debt. Instead of working toward a higher debt
ceiling, we need to be discussing ways to get our fiscal feet back on
the floor, to get our fiscal house in order, and to provide the
accountability the American people want.
I listened to the President's address to the Nation last Monday
night. It seemed to be more of a campaign speech than an address about
the issues facing this country. There was blaming going on, it seemed
to me. Scare tactics, class warfare. He used the word ``balanced''
about seven times. He kept talking about a balanced approach.
Americans don't want a balanced approach; they want a balanced
budget. They want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That
is the way we do it in Wyoming. That is the way many States do it. They
want us to live within our means and balance the budget year after year
after year.
There is a lesson we could learn from so many States around the
country: Live within your means every year.
The American people want us to seek a real solution. They want a real
solution that provides them with the peace of mind to know they will
not be subjected to this sort of activity on a repeated basis. They
want the peace of mind as well as the economic security that they
believe as Americans--they believe as Americans--is a basis for this
great country. They are looking for a solution that recognizes the
current system in Washington is broken, and they are looking for a
solution that says we realize we need to take immediate action to fix
it.
Why is it broken? Why do we need immediate action? It is broken
because we have failed to live within our means for so very long. It is
also broken because this body, the Senate, has not had a budget for
over 800 days. For over 800 days there has not been a budget in the
Senate. One brought forth by the President failed; it got no votes.
Ninety-seven people voted against it. Not one Democrat voted for the
President's budget--not one.
It seems to be broken because Washington is more focused on short-
term political gain instead of the long-term consequences of our
actions. We saw that a little earlier with the discussions on the
Senate floor. I am ready to vote on the proposal on the Senate floor.
The minority leader recommended a vote immediately. Yet it was objected
to by the majority leader.
Since the beginning of this entire debate, I have had a very clear
bottom line. We need to avoid defaulting and implement the spending
controls to get our finances back in order. What is the President's
bottom line? The President said it:
The only bottom line I have is that we have to extend this
debt ceiling through the next election into 2013.
The President's only bottom line: Ignore and avoid the biggest threat
to our national security until after the next election.
Contrary to what the President wants, we cannot ignore, we cannot
avoid this issue until after the next election. People all across the
country are worried about their jobs. They are worried about the
economy. They are worried about the debt, and they are worried about
the spending. The American people want us to take action. They want us
to cut costs. They want us to control spending. They want us to enforce
accountability across every branch of the Federal Government. They
would like us to put progress ahead of partisanship. They want us to
put people before politics. The decisions that must be made aren't easy
for either party. This isn't about Democrats, Republicans,
Independents; it is about America. It is about this country.
People all across the country--and I have been in my office since
early this morning, and we have been answering the phones. What I am
hearing is what all of my colleagues should be hearing if they are
answering their phones: Enough is enough. That is what the American
people are saying.
We are now at the eleventh hour, and we must not lose sight of our
goal. It is more important to find a real solution than it is to settle
for a quick compromise.
So I look at some of these letters and calls and e-mails that have
been coming in, and one is from Pinedale, WY. It says:
It is better to bite a small bullet now than a cannon shell
later on.
That is a Wyoming way of talking. That was from Pinedale, WY.
A couple from Casper, a different e-mail:
This country is in dire financial straits. Since I work for
the Federal Government, I have more to lose than most
Americans, but I don't want to give this administration a
blank check.
This is someone who works for the Federal Government: I don't want to
give the administration a blank check.
We have to get this country back on track to fiscal
responsibility and this is the open debate. I realize my job
could be cut just to get there, but the national debt is too
large to ignore.
This is a Wyoming person talking, putting the country in front of
politics and putting the country in front of himself.
He goes on to say:
We must get it under control or there is more to lose than
just our jobs. The economic consequences of not getting this
under control will devastate this country years down the
road. We have to start now before it is too late.
Then another from a woman in Casper who said:
It is time to cut up the Federal Government's credit card.
The current debt situation is an insult to all of us who live
within our means. People in the country live within their
means; States that balance their budget every year live
within their means. It is time for Washington to live within
its means.
People are tired of the budget tricks. They are tired of the
accounting gimmicks. They are tired of the empty promises. That is what
is affecting the people of this country. They want accountability, and
it is our responsibility to provide it to them.
People are looking for peace of mind, for good judgment, and they
want people to listen to them. Yet what I see are people focused on
politics on the other side of the aisle at a time when the greatest
threat to our Nation--to this great country, to America--is a national
debt that is out of control and that is increasing at the rate of over
$4 billion every year.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to
complete my comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Is there a time limit?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes. The Democrats have the next 30
minutes.
Mr. KERRY. I ask to be informed when I have 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. President, when Harry Truman served in the seat Senator McCaskill
of Missouri holds today, he used to sit back over there, in back of the
row where a lot of the newer Senators sit. He, from that vantage point,
would often watch the great debates on the New Deal. He listened long
into the night. He used to frequently write home to his wife Bess.
One late night after a long debate, he wrote about his experience of
sitting in the Senate--this was early on--and of the awe he felt
sitting in this institution and looking across at his colleagues, I
assume imagining the ghosts of Calhoun and Clay and other great
Senators.
He wrote to his wife, and he said: I sit here in the Senate looking
at this institution and at my colleagues and I pinch myself and I say,
``How the hell did I get here?''
A number of months later, it was very late at night, and he was again
sitting there, and he wrote to his wife, again watching the debate and
looking across at his colleagues, and he wrote to her and said, ``I ask
myself, how the hell did they get here?''
[[Page S5124]]
Anyway, I suspect at this moment in America a lot of Americans are
looking at the Senate, at the Congress, and they are asking a similar
question, wondering whether we get it.
I have enormous respect for this institution. I still believe in the
phrase ``the world's greatest deliberative body,'' which has,
unfortunately, become a punch line in these days, but when we are
bipartisan and serious is still a true description, still possible when
we rise to the moment. I have seen the Senate over the course of 26
years in those moments, as have other colleagues here. I have seen it
with Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole and so many others. I have seen what can
be accomplished here.
Regrettably, today, our allies and our enemies abroad and our friends
here at home--the American citizen--are watching with either alarm or,
in the case of our enemies, delight as they question America's
leadership. Some abroad have even suggested this is a sign, a moment of
American decline. So even without default, believe me, just the absence
of decision and the presence of partisan chaos--they are running up a
huge cost for this country.
The other day, I received a letter from 20 mayors from Massachusetts.
The letter states:
The time to compromise and resolve this issue is now.
They complained that their communities were under the microscope from
Moody's because we had not gotten our acts together here in Washington.
Their letter was honest and eloquent. And, frankly, it should not be so
difficult for their warnings and their example to be heeded in the
Congress.
The mayors' call for compromise, frankly, should not be so difficult.
The call for compromise by the American people ought to be listened to
and acted on and in very short order.
I have served in the majority and I have served in the minority since
I have been here. I have served with Republican Presidents, Democratic
Presidents, in both situations, when we are in the minority and in the
majority. I have cast tough votes in times of divided government, under
Republican and Democratic Presidents, from Reagan to Obama, and I have
never seen the governing process so broken because one faction of one
side has made compromise--the essence of democracy and the bedrock of
our governing system--not just a dirty word but, in their view, a form
of treason.
The warnings of mayors were echoed yesterday by the leaders of our
financial industry. Yesterday, CEOs of major financial institutions
wrote:
Our economic recovery remains very fragile. A default on
our Nation's obligations, or a downgrade--
Just a downgrade--
of America's credit rating, would have an enormous impact on
Americans and on investor confidence--raising interest rates
for everyone who borrows, undermining the value of the
Dollar, and affecting stock and bond markets--and, therefore,
dramatically worsening our Nation's already difficult
economic circumstances.
Those are their words. Notwithstanding that, we continue to see our
own well-being at risk.
This is one of those times where it is not cliche and it is not
hyperbole to say that the whole world is watching, because the whole
world has something at stake in what we do or do not do. For the world,
there are serious consequences in that. As chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, I have heard from officials all over the
world and global business leaders, and the message is always the same.
They are watching in amazement, in puzzlement, and horror at what is
going on in Washington. Our friends and allies, whose economic fortunes
and economies are linked to our own, doubt us, and they are worrying
about the impact of our dysfunction on their economies. Our economic
rivals--believe me, our economic rivals--are laughing all the way to
the bank. At a time of global economic uncertainty, we should
absolutely not be adding to that uncertainty by failing to resolve our
debt crisis. The International Monetary Fund is warning that actions
still need to be taken to stave off contagion from Europe's sovereign
debt crisis.
It is not insignificant that while Harry Reid has been busy trying to
find Republicans to join Democrats in a bipartisan solution, Speaker
Boehner was exclusively negotiating to end the civil war between the
responsible and the unreasonable within the Republican Party. The
Speaker negotiated with Republicans to make a bad bill worse.
I think the distinction between what has happened in the House and
the Senate is a very important one in terms of where Americans are
going to find a resolution to this challenge. Here in the Senate, we
have been working day and night, talking with Democratic and Republican
colleagues across the aisle in order to find a way forward. And for
most of us--or at least many of us; certainly, a sufficient number to
be able to pass a solution--for them, there are not any preconditions.
Everything is on the table. But we are still facing the obstinate,
ideological rigidity from House Republicans--House Republicans--who
have threatened to take our Nation into default and downgrade the
Nation's credit rating and do even more harm to a fragile economy
simply to get their way.
So what is it that divides us right now? I think a lot of Americans
listening to the debate probably have a serious question about: What is
the difference between these folks? What is it that divides them?
Well, the Boehner plan, which was sent over here, had three
fundamental problems in it that Democrats were unwilling to support.
First, it would force huge cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid because of the structure and manner of the cuts they were
demanding.
Second, it included a constitutional amendment provision which
required that the constitutional amendment actually be passed within 6
months before the next debt limit could be raised. Because there is no
certainty that would happen or could happen, it set up an automatic
default. So the Boehner plan was setting up the U.S. Government to go
right through this exercise again and have an automatic default.
Third, there was a timeframe in the Boehner amendment that required
us to go back and visit this in February of next year, which would have
meant the minute we come back in September, the entire Congress would
have been consumed with the very same thing we have been doing now,
which would not give certainty to the marketplace.
So it was not politics that prevented us from proceeding forward on
the Boehner plan. It was the substance of that plan.
The Reid plan, which we are debating right now, which is on the
floor, is a plan that because of the Republican insistence on no
revenues has no revenues. Many people on our side of the aisle object
to that. But we have accepted that is the price we need to pay as a
matter of our compromise in order to get out of this crisis. So we have
compromised on revenues.
It has cuts. All the cuts are cuts the Republicans have already voted
for that, again, many of our folks do not like. But they have
compromised, our folks, and they have provided the cuts that the
Republicans asked for. Because it has a timeframe that goes until after
next year, that means we will provide certainty to the marketplace and
avoid a downgrade of our credit. The Boehner plan would guarantee a
downgrade of our credit. So these are enormous differences.
Finally, the Reid plan provides a tight process, a plan that we know
is familiar around here. Like the way we deal with military bases, we
require votes. The votes have to take place, and we would be required
within a very short number of months to deal with America's long-term
debt and budget crisis, and people would have an ability to put their
cuts on the table.
But we would also, we hope, have an opportunity to have revenues.
That is the big sticking point here in the Senate. We need to know that
if there is a trigger that is used in an automatic way in which money
is going to be held back, that money has to be held back in a fair and
balanced way. You do not just cut, you also have to have the
possibility of revenue. Because if you do not have the possibility of
revenue, then the side that only wants to cut can wait for nothing to
happen and the cuts take place automatically. There is no threat to
them. There is no leverage for them to come to agreement on the other
things.
That is reasonableness, I believe. I think what we are looking for
here is
[[Page S5125]]
reasonable. It is fair, and it is balanced. The House strategy has been
essentially not to negotiate, not to negotiate.
We also know there are a lot of misstatements out here. Senator Reid
corrected one a moment ago about a deal. In addition to that, we keep
hearing people say that there is no plan, that the President does not
have a plan, that nothing has been reduced to writing.
Well, as Senator Moynihan used to say here: Anybody is entitled to
their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. The
fact is, the President put a detailed plan for $4.7 trillion of cuts
over 10 years with reductions in defense, and Medicare, Medicaid,
Social Security, all on the table to find savings in those programs.
It is incredible to me to keep hearing people say there is no plan
when there has been plan after plan. Chairman of the Budget Committee
Conrad has been warning us for years about this. He sought to get a
bipartisan deficit commission created by the Senate. It could not
happen because the Republicans blocked it. So what happened? President
Obama appointed one of his own. It reported back. We still have not
dealt with that.
Because the votes aren't there to support a simple increase in the
debt limit, we've bent over backwards to find a compromise that links
the debt limit to commitments on significant deficit reductions.
Back in February, the President offered a budget that included more
than $1 trillion in deficit reduction. When Republicans said his budget
didn't contain enough cuts, he came out with a new proposal two months
later which provided a comprehensive, balanced deficit reduction
framework to cut spending, bring down our debt and increase confidence
in our nation's fiscal strength. This framework would have reduced the
deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years or less and reductions would have
been phased in over time to protect and strengthen our economic
recovery and the recovering labor market. It contained a balanced
approach to bringing down our deficit, with three dollars of spending
cuts and interest savings for every one dollar from tax reform that
contributes to deficit reduction. It called for $770 billion in non-
security discretionary spending cuts, $400 billion security spending
cuts, $489 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings, $360 billion in
other mandatory savings, and $1 trillion from tax reform. How could I
repeat this proposal if it hadn't been written down?
After that was rejected, in his negotiations with the Speaker, the
President put an unprecedented $ 4.7 trillion dollars of deficit
reduction on the table, including painful cuts to programs millions of
working Americans depend on, even cuts we Democrats hate as a matter of
principle--and the President offered them along with closing wasteful
corporate tax loopholes in order to achieve ``shared sacrifice.'' I
believe it would have had significant support in the Senate--instead,
House Republicans rejected it and walked away from the process.
The so-called ``Gang of Six'' in the Senate worked for months to
strike a compromise that was balanced as well--it too could have won
significant backing here in the Senate and was applauded by Senators as
ideologically and philosophically different as me and the conservative
senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn. For House Republicans, this too was
unacceptable, because they believe there is not a single new revenue or
tax savings that can be supported in the entire 72,000 page U.S. Tax
Code.
Recognizing both the stakes for our country, the danger to the
economy, and House Republican intransigence, Majority Leader Harry Reid
has now offered approximately $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction
without additional revenue, composed of cuts Republicans had previously
supported. That too was rejected. The leader's proposal would give our
economy the certainty it needs to create jobs today, not 6 months from
now and it provides a certain process for Congress to do its work for
the next 4 months.
Time and time again, I hear those absolutists criticizing the
President and majority leader's handling of the situation. They ask
what our plan is? Well, take your pick--we have offered compromise
after compromise and every time they have said no.
No, the House Republicans would rather spend their time negotiating
with themselves and criticizing other proposals than negotiating with
Democrats or trying to show that they are willing to compromise.
Here in the Senate, Senator McConnell offered a reasonable compromise
that would get us past this hurdle. He proposed a path forward in good
faith as way to provide stability for our economy and not have this
saga continue. What did House Republicans do? They walked away from
even a Republican proposal to ensure our nation didn't default and our
economy wasn't hurt.
So what do House Republicans want? They want legislation called the
Cut, Cap and Balance Act. It is so extreme that even Paul Ryan's
draconian budget wouldn't fit into its limits.
A week ago today, the Senate defeated the bad version--cut, cap and
balance. This vote made it extremely clear that cut, cap and balance
did not have a path forward, but repeatedly House Republicans push for
it even though it has already failed in the Senate and the President
threatened to veto it.
So when the talk of the ``grand bargain'' failed, what did the House
Republicans do? They further entrench themselves in an extremist
position and turn to a new way of passing cut, cap and balance. Have
they tried to find a way forward to reaching a real compromise? No,
they continue to negotiate among themselves.
And their current refusal to negotiate across party lines flies in
the face of the very Republican principles they have espoused.
Why do we oppose the Boehner plan? Because the experts have said that
Boehner's plan could trigger many of the consequences as default
itself--including a surge in interest rates that will hurt every
American with a mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, or a credit
card--because it would make passage of a balanced budget amendment a
condition for increasing the debt ceiling in 6 months. In other words--
automatic default if they don't get their way. Since there is not two-
thirds support in the House and Senate for this amendment, it
guarantees default.
Bruce Bartlett, a former economic adviser to President Reagan said:
This is quite possibly the stupidest Constitutional
amendment that I think I have ever seen. It looks like it was
drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.
Mr. President, that is President Reagan's adviser.
Just the other day, my friend and colleague Senator McCain stated
that thinking a balanced budget amendment can pass--``is worse than
foolish.'' He went to say:
That is not fair to the American people to hold out and say
we will not agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is unfair.
It is bizarrro.
We can't do this. We can't keep going down this road. This stalemate
cannot stand. It is time to for us reach across the aisle. Senator
Reid's plan tries to do that. It doesn't touch the Republican holy
grail of revenues. Not a dime. And 100 percent of the spending cuts in
Senator Reid's deficit reduction plan were supported by Republicans.
They were included in proposals from Speaker Boehner's plan, House
Majority Leader Cantor, and House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan. Just
last night, Senator Reid amended his plan to include Senator
McConnell's provision to give the President the authority to increase
the debt limit in steps. This gives Members of Congress the chance to
register disapproval for increases in the debt limit. This is yet
another compromise by the Democrats.
So I think there has been a great effort by Democrats to make changes
to deal with the Republican objections. I would ask, what is the single
Republican concession? What is it they have given as a matter of
compromise? Nobody can tell you that because there has not been one. In
fairness, in the Gang of 6, a great group of Republicans joined with
Democrats, and they did make a concession, and they took political
risks. They went out and said: Yes, there have to be cuts, but there
also have to be revenues. I applaud those Republicans who joined in
that effort. That is what we need to find here now. That is the way we
are going to make the difference here.
[[Page S5126]]
It is the place to start a compromise but it takes two sides to
compromise. And it takes both Houses of Congress to pass a bill. It
shouldn't be this difficult for Congress to do its most fundamental job
under the Constitution and preserve the credit rating and reputation of
the most powerful nation on Earth.
And it doesn't take an amendment to the Constitution for us to
balance the budget either. It takes the courage of our convictions. We
have been here before. In the 1990s, our economy was faltering because
deficits and debt were freezing capital. We had to send a signal to the
market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. We did just
that and as result we saw the longest economic expansion in history,
created over 22 million jobs, and generated unprecedented wealth in
America, with every income bracket rising. But we did it by making
tough choices. We cast tough votes and some Senators even lost their
seats but they committed the country to a path of discipline that
helped unleash the productive potential of the American people. Working
with Republicans, we came up with a budget framework that put our
Nation on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since Andrew
Jackson's administration. It didn't take a constitutional amendment--it
took courage.
Mr. President, we can do that again--if we get real. If we get
serious. There is a bipartisan consensus just waiting to lift our
country and our future if Senators are willing to sit down and forge it
and make it real. If we are willing to stop talking past each other, to
stop substituting sound bites for substance. If we are willing finally
to pull ourselves out of ideological cement that has been mixed over in
the House.
I believe we can compromise. I think the only place to resolve this
crisis is in compromise.
I believe I have additional time, but I wanted to know where I am
with time. I will wrap up very shortly.
As we know, it takes both Houses to pass a bill. It should not be
this difficult for Congress to do its most fundamental job under the
Constitution. It does not take an amendment to the Constitution to
balance the budget. How could I say that? Because in the 1990s, we
balanced the budget. We created 23 million new jobs. We raised the
income of everybody in America. And the fact is we did what was
necessary to put us on a track to pay down the debt of our country by
2012. We sent a signal to the marketplace.
We can do this again if we get real, if we get serious. I believe
there is a bipartisan consensus here in the Senate waiting to lift our
country and our future, if Senators are willing to sit down and forge
it and make it real, if we stop talking past each other. The world's
most deliberative body could become that again. But the reason it is
not viewed as that today is not that the institution itself has failed;
it is not that it cannot be deliberative. It is because the people in
it have not yet decided to live in the tradition of those predecessors
who earned the reputation for this institution. It is because, unlike
the years when I first came here in the 1980s, some have decided to use
this institution for a 24/7 365-days-a-year campaign, to make
everything that happens here the prisoner of ideology and politics
rather than the instrument of debate and decision.
I think it would do us good to remember that until recent history,
this institution has been the birthplace of compromise and delivered
some of the great legislative achievements that have reshaped our
Nation out of compromise, bipartisan compromises here in the Senate--
the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935, the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1969, the creation of Medicare in 1965,
Social Security reforms of 1983.
We all know that during the Constitutional Convention, Roger Sherman
and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut developed a bicameral legislative
structure that broke a deadlock, and it created--it is in the
Constitution. It is why we have a Senate and a House today: compromise.
Everyone who remembers the history books remembers the Compromise of
1850 drafted by Henry Clay that diffused a 4-year confrontation between
the slave States of the South and the free States of the North. Even in
our most difficult moments, we have been able to find a way to
compromise.
In the end, it is people who define this place. It is we Senators.
And in my conversations with colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
I am convinced there are plenty of people here who are prepared to
reach across the aisle and prove that the United States and the U.S.
Senate can live up to this moment. I believe that in the next 48 hours
the Senate will prove our ability to live up to our constitutional and
our personal responsibility.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I will take 11 minutes. I ask unanimous
consent that when the time comes back on the Democratic side, I be
granted an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to remind the American
people why we are in the midst of the present crisis, days away from
when the United States of America, the wealthiest Nation in the world,
will not be able to pay its bills. Let me be clear. The Senator from
Oklahoma earlier had a chart up saying we are broke, broke, broke. We
are the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world. We have the
highest per capita income of any major nation in the world. If we are
so rich, why are we so broke?
The issue here, despite what some may suggest, is not about new
borrowing or new spending; it is about paying the bills for what we
have already incurred. Yet the Republicans, after running up a huge
credit card bill under George Bush, do not want to pay the bills. As
every American knows, if you use your credit card, you run up debt, and
you have to pay the bills. And throughout American history, whether a
Democratic or Republican Congress or a Democratic or Republican
President, that is what we as a nation have done.
On this point, it could not be more clear than this letter to Senator
Howard Baker from President Ronald Reagan:
The full consequences of a default or even the serious
prospect of default by the United States are impossible and
awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and
credit of the United States would have substantial effects on
the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar
in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such
a result.
President Ronald Reagan, 1983. It can't get much clearer than that.
However, today Ronald Reagan would find himself losing in a Republican
Party primary because he would not be pure enough for the tea party.
Because Republicans in the House are unwilling to do what even Ronald
Reagan said needs to be done, we find ourselves in the midst of a
manufactured crisis--a manufactured crisis--one without precedent: one
House of Congress willing to jeopardize the economy of the United
States unless the country capitulates and accepts policies that
otherwise do not enjoy majority support, policies that could not pass
the Congress, policies that would be vetoed by the President. This is
simply unprecedented.
I believe this unprecedented action requires an unprecedented
response. As at other critical junctures in our history, the President
must act boldly to protect our Constitution and, more important, our
country. The Constitution never envisioned that one House of Congress
would willingly destroy the economy of the United States in order to
obtain policy objectives it could not achieve through the normal
legislative process. Yet that is the situation in which our Nation
finds itself.
The legislative process is hard. It is frustrating. Trust me, there
are many ideas and proposals I have fought my entire career on to
become law, and they are never the way I envisioned starting out
because you make compromises along the way. Yet rather than engaging in
the hard work of persuading the American people, persuading a majority
of the House, persuading a majority of the Senate, persuading the
President--a task which often takes years and multiple elections--the
House Republicans want to short-circuit the legislative process by
holding the economy hostage.
[[Page S5127]]
For example, if the Republicans in the House put forward a bill to
eliminate Medicare, it would not get anywhere. Yet, with their cut,
cap, and balance budget amendment, it would shrink the government to
the size it was prior to Medicare even taking hold, and that would mean
we would have to do away with Medicare. However, that could never pass
here on its own.
Likewise, I read that Speaker Boehner recently suggested to the
President that the House would vote to allow the United States to pay
its bills if the President would agree to repeal health care reform--in
other words, take health insurance away from 30 million Americans and
allow health insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting
conditions.
The House could never achieve these policy objectives through the
normal process, so they hold the economy hostage. Think about that.
This is not just the attitude of the Republican Party with respect to
the debt limit. The Republican Party has adopted an entirely new
approach to democracy that is wholly undemocratic. If they cannot win
elections or win the court of public opinion, they insist on holding
the country hostage.
The minority leader has been frank about this approach to governing.
In a recent speech about a balanced budget amendment, the minority
leader of the Senate, the Republican leader, said the following:
The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that
forces Washington to balance its books. . . . The
Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check.
We've tried persuasion. We've tried negotiations. We've tried
elections. Nothing has worked.
Say again? Say again? We have tried elections, and nothing has
worked? What is he implying?
Furthermore, I would say to the Republican leader, we had surpluses
in 1998 and 1999 and 2000 and 2001. We had 4 years of surpluses. Yet,
somehow, ``We've tried elections. Nothing has worked.'' Is he implying
that somehow we need to have another course of action outside of
elections, outside of persuasion, outside of negotiation?
President Bush's former speech writer, David Frum, recently commented
on increasingly absurd and unrealistic demands put forth by House
Republicans before they will agree not to destroy the American economy.
He noted:
Why doesn't the new Boehner bill just require Obama to
resign in favor of a Republican before the second debt
ceiling increase? Tidier.
Sadly, that is not too far from the truth. In the face of this
radical--radical and cynical--approach to governing, we are faced with
a manufactured crisis. Indeed, the ramifications for our economy, for
our middle class, indeed for America's ability to trust and believe in
their government--the stakes could not be higher.
In response, in the absence of a balanced approach that could be
agreed upon broadly in the Senate and the House, I believe the
President must act boldly. He must carry out his constitutional duty to
honor the commitments the U.S. Government has made. I believe the
President, under the 14th amendment of the Constitution, must honor the
obligations of the U.S. Government.
As the Supreme Court noted in Perry v. United States, Chief Justice
Hughes' opinion:
The fourteenth amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly
declares: The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned.
While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire
to put beyond question the obligations of the government
issued during the Civil War, this language indicates a
broader connotation.
Chief Justice Hughes goes on to say:
The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow
money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified
power, a power vital to the government, upon which in an
extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of
the promise of the United States is of the essence of the
credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize
the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money
borrowed--
Listen to this--
the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or
destroy those obligations.
One more time. Congress has unlimited power to borrow, but ``the
Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those
obligations.'' I do not think it could be more clear. It could not be
more clear. Congress has not been vested with the authority to alter or
destroy the Nation's credit obligations. Of course, that means the
Congress cannot through its actions repudiate the Nation's debt, but it
also means, through its inaction--failing to raise the debt ceiling--it
cannot repudiate our country's obligations. Thus, rather than somehow
prohibiting the President from taking action to protect the full faith
and credit of the United States, as some have suggested, I believe the
clear reading of the 14th amendment, as supported by Perry v. United
States, I believe the President is obligated--obligated--to ensure
that, in the words of the 14th amendment, the public debt not be
questioned.
I know legal scholars have spent some time in recent weeks debating
the meaning of the 14th amendment with respect to the debt ceiling. But
where there is debate on the meaning of the Constitution, where there
is no precedent, where the courts have not weighed in, where under our
system of government we cannot just walk across the street to the
Supreme Court and ask them for an advisory opinion, I want to remind
the President that the Constitution does not belong to law professors,
it does not belong to political pundits, it does not belong to
columnists; rather, it belongs to the American people. And you, Mr.
President--you, Mr. President--have been entrusted by the American
people, in a very clear election, as it says right here in the
Constitution, ``to faithfully execute the office of the President of
the United States and to the best of your ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States.''
So the 14th amendment makes clear the full faith and credit of the
United States cannot be destroyed. The only case on point ever decided
by the Supreme Court said the Congress cannot alter or destroy those
obligations--cannot. So if the Congress, through inaction--through
inaction or action tries to destroy or alter those obligations, I
believe it is incumbent upon the Chief Executive to exercise his
authority--to exercise his authority--to make sure the full faith and
credit of the United States is not jeopardized--is not jeopardized.
The President should use his authority to do so.
I will give you three examples where there is no precedent, where
there is no clear authority in the Constitution, but where the
President exercised that kind of authority.
Thomas Jefferson purchasing the Louisiana Purchase.
In Thomas Jefferson's letter to Senator Breckenridge, he agonized
over whether he, as President, had the authority under the Constitution
to consummate the treaty for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory.
But in the end--he even said in his letter that perhaps we need a
constitutional amendment to go to the Congress and the States and be
ratified before I can do this. But in the end, he realized that would
take a long time, it might fall through, and all kinds of bad things
would happen. So even one of the Framers of our Constitution, Thomas
Jefferson, took action even though there was no clear authority in the
Constitution for him to do so. In fact, Members of the House went after
him for it. But he decided it was better, as he said, to ensure the
future benefits of the United States rather than some minor violation
of the Constitution.
A second example: President Lincoln signed the Emancipation
Proclamation. There was no authority whatsoever for him to do that, but
he did it, even though some people, at that time, went after him
because he didn't have the clear authority in the Constitution to do
so.
A third example: Franklin Roosevelt and the lend-lease program in
Great Britain to make sure they could fight off the Nazi invasion of
Great Britain, a clear success. Franklin Roosevelt wrote that he didn't
think that was probably constitutional, but he instructed his Attorney
General--he gave his own Attorney General a legal opinion, from the
President, saying that the country needed to have this done. He went
ahead and did it. Again, some people took after him on it, but we all
realized it was the right thing to do for the survival of our own
country.
[[Page S5128]]
Those were just three instances--three big ones--where, again, there
was no clear authority by the Constitution but no prohibition in the
Constitution for the President to do so, and where the vital security
of the United States was at stake.
I will close on this: I believe this is just like those times. The
security and the future improvement of the United States and future
generations depends upon the President taking this action boldly and
forthrightly to preserve the integrity and to make sure the obligations
and the full faith and credit of the United States is not questioned.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, I wonder if I may ask how much time is
allocated. We are a little out of kilter with the allocation of time.
How much time do I have to speak? I want to make sure my colleagues
have sufficient time to speak also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Republicans
control the next 24 minutes.
Mr. COATS. I will not begin to use that amount of time. I think I can
use 10 minutes or less, and I will leave some time for my colleagues.
I can't count how many times I have been here speaking about the same
subject, but this subject occupies all of us and it has done so for
this entire session of the Congress.
Three days are left until we reach that date on which the White House
and the Treasury has said we will default. Right now, we are debating
on a Saturday night over a bill that has already been defeated in the
House of Representatives by a substantial vote, including with
Democratic support. We are debating a bill tonight that we know will
not pass here. The irony of being charged with filibustering the
majority leader's bill, the Reid bill, is somewhat bizarre given the
fact that Republicans are willing to give Senator Reid and the
Democrats a vote on this bill as soon as they want it. It has been
going on now for many hours. I think everything that can be said for or
against this bill has probably been said. Nevertheless, the majority
leader himself objected to our offer to stop talking on both sides and
get to the vote. That is where we are.
I have been talking for some time now about the fact that the current
fiscal crisis the United States faces demands Congress to recognize
seriously the enormity of the problem and come forward with a bold
plan. We need a bold plan to begin to address, over a period of time,
what is necessary to assure the financial markets and the American
people that we understand the plight we are in; that we have taken not
only rational steps but significant steps to address the problem we are
in; and that we are willing to put comprehensive plans in place to get
us on the path to fiscal health.
Yet here we are, and after months of debate, we are now debating over
just a small step forward, which, in my opinion, will not begin to
satisfy the serious problems we have. A small step will not begin to
satisfy all of those who are concerned about whether we truly grasp
what is necessary to be done; whether we truly understand that we need
to send a signal to the financial world, to the world itself, and to
the American people, that we have taken the necessary steps to put our
country on the right fiscal path.
Now, it is clear, and it has been said so many times, that our
spending addiction has become much worse in the last 2\1/2\ years. We
have seen a 24-percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending
under the Obama administration. We have seen a staggering increase in
the debt from $10.6 trillion on Inauguration Day to $14.3 trillion
today--a $3.7 trillion increase in just a 2\1/2\-year period of time.
Clearly, these attempts by the President to address our economy have
not succeeded. The President's stimulus plan cost an additional $862
billion, and we haven't seen an economic stimulus. The latest reports
are staggering to all of us as we find out that our growth in the first
quarter of this year was far under what had been projected and had been
calculated initially, and unemployment is not going down. People are
out of work.
Clearly, we need to make significant strides forward. I will not go
into all of the details of the flaws of the Reid plan. It has been
talked about, and it was soundly rejected by the House. We know it will
not achieve the necessary number of votes to go forward, but we are
debating it.
I want to talk about the larger question, which is, are we going to
take significant steps to put us on the right track, or are we going to
compromise to the point where the rating agencies, the financial world,
and even the American people look at it and say: Is that it? Is that
all you can do?
What is interesting is that my colleagues on the other side have
talked about a compromise. They say we should move to the middle. But
it is like taking a scale of 10 and reducing it down to 4, and instead
of a compromise being 5, they have lowered the top line to 4 and said
we need to get down to 2 or 1\1/2\. And if we are not willing to go
that far, then they say we are not willing to compromise. That is
distorted logic.
More important, it is logic, or illogic, that is driving us to an
incomplete solution to a very real problem. It doesn't take much to
understand how this is being viewed. Just in the last couple of days,
the New York Times ran a headline basically saying ``Recovery Still
Slow and New Data Show Little Growth Ahead.''
The Washington Post has a headline, ``A Stranglehold on our Domestic
Policy,'' by Michael Gerson, who used to be one of my staff members.
There is another one by Robert Samuelson, ``Why Are We in the Debt
Fix? We Have to Address Healthcare Spending.'' The Wall Street Journal
reports, ``U.S. GDP Grows just 1.3 percent.'' On and on it goes.
My own view of this--which is not because I am a brilliant economist,
I am not; and not because I am a financial analyst, I am not--but I
have talked to dozens of people who don't have political skin in the
game but simply have analyzed this in an objective way and indicated
that, unless we come forward with something close to--actually
something above a $4 trillion limit in spending reductions over a
decade, combined with a path to entitlement programs restructuring and
curbing excessive mandatory spending, combined with an overhaul of our
complicated Tax Code to make American businesses more competitive and
spur economic growth, we will not be addressing the problem.
So the problem is that too many people are thinking that if we just
end up with this compromise, if one side or the other will move just a
little, we will be able to increase or avoid default on the debt limit,
and we will have addressed the problem.
For those who say this is just step 1, and we can address it in step
2--the balance we weren't able to do here--I don't think the American
people have much confidence in that. I don't think the American people
have much confidence when we say we will have a group of Senators and
Congressmen, on a divided basis of Republicans and Democrats, sit down
and then report something to us and that will solve the problem.
The difficulty there is that those are the same people here who have
not been able to solve it in 7 months of debate--sometimes with
Democrats and Republicans engaging in those debates. I don't think it
is going to be solved because we may arrive very much at the same
stalemate that has arisen after these 7 months of debate, partly
because there are two visions in place here. I think what this debate
is all about is this: what is the proper role of the Federal
Government, and what can the Federal Government afford to do and not
afford to do?
On the one hand, we have people who say government has grown too big.
Republicans are saying we cannot afford big government anymore, and it
is hurting the economy. That is a vision for the future that is very
different from our colleagues across the aisle, who basically see
government as much more engaged in the process and don't want to cut
back on a number of programs and a number of initiatives and policies
that have been put into place over the years.
It is not quite that clearly divided by this aisle. There are people
on both sides who have shades of one way or shades of the other way.
But the reality is, if we look around the world and look at models as
to what makes economies flourish and what makes governments financially
stable, we see
[[Page S5129]]
that an overgrowth of promises--overpromising Parliaments and
Congresses--finally bridges us to the point where we no longer can
afford what we have promised people. That is where we are now.
Without putting those practices into place, I fear that whatever we
do will not be sufficient. We will get the downgrade anyway, and we may
get a precipitous action that puts us in a far more difficult situation
than it would have been had we come forward with something significant
now, at a level in which those who are analyzing this say we have it,
the U.S. government is serious about it, they have locked it in and
made sure it can't be overturned, and injected certainty into the
future. Even though some of that certainty is painful, it will be
rewarded, I believe, with support because it is sufficient to take the
necessary first steps.
Knowing we are 3 days away from default, I propose that if we can't
come to agreement on something sufficient, we should provide an
extension, short-term, whether it is 4 weeks, 6 weeks, or 8 weeks,
guarantee that we will not default with the amount of money on the
increase in the debt ceiling, in return for an equivalent amount of
spending cuts. This would give us some time to come together and do
what I have outlined--or something close to it--so that in the end we
do not have an immediate default, and we do have a commitment to go
forward and put something of substance in place and give it one last
shot.
Maybe I am a starry-eyed optimist. Maybe I am just hoping that
whatever we do can be built upon and brought to the point where it will
become effective, rather than fearing that what we do will be relegated
as a step far too short to address the problem of our time.
Madam President, I wish we had done more. I think we still can do
more. But decisions have to be made in a very quick matter of time,
whatever we do. Even if we end up passing something that is
insufficient, I hope we will start work the very next day on addressing
the real problems that we face and putting something into place that
will restore confidence and ensure that America is not going to become
a second-rate nation; that we are not going to see a devaluation of our
dollar and a loss of confidence in the American people, investors, and
the world. I hope we put something in place that ensures America will
still be the place to do business, to live, to prosper, and to have a
safe haven for funds.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my
colleague from Indiana whom I heard a moment ago. I think he is
absolutely right. We have deeper and more important problems we need to
address, along with the important decisions we make over the next 24
hours on the debt limit. It is necessary to extend the debt limit, but
it is not sufficient. We also have to deal with these underlying fiscal
problems, and I think my colleague from Indiana stated that well.
I rise to talk about the debt limit proposal and how we can provide a
pathway forward on a bipartisan basis--again, not just to solve this
immediate problem that confronts us but also to deal with these deeper
and very serious problems we have with our fiscal deficits and a weak
economy. It may be good to start by asking why we are here. We are here
because we have a law that says the U.S. Government can borrow only so
much. The law says the U.S. Government can borrow only up to $14.3
trillion.
That is a lot of money--$14.3 trillion. It is approximately 95
percent of our economy. This is unprecedented, of course. We have never
had debts at this level before. Many economists look at this and
believe it is already having a very negative impact on our economy to
have this huge debt out there because it affects the private sector.
But we have come to this $14.3 trillion limit, and now, in order for
government to continue to provide everyday government services,
benefits to our troops, veterans, Social Security, and so on, the limit
needs to be raised.
The Federal Government now borrows more than 40 cents of every $1
that is spent. It seems to me only common sense that when we have maxed
our credit card, which is what the Federal Government has done, and
when we have this deep underlying problem of these huge deficits--$1.4
trillion this year, a record level also--and mounting debt, we should
deal with the underlying problem before we extend the credit card
limit. So that is why we are here.
I think it is an appropriate debate. I wish it could have been
resolved sooner. I think it can be resolved over the next day or so,
but I think it is an important discussion we have to have. The
President has made it clear he would like the debt limit increased, and
he would like it increased high enough to last through the 2012
election. Interesting, because election day is not part of the economic
calendar. It is not the end of a fiscal year. It is not the end of a
calendar year. It is the political calendar. It is unfortunate during
this time of such budgetary uncertainty, we seem focused on political
deadlines.
Meeting this request the President has made--that it be extended
until beyond the election--would be the largest debt increase that has
ever been approved by the Congress. It would be over $2 trillion. So,
again, I think it is appropriate we have this discussion before we
agree to the largest debt limit increase in the history of our country.
We have never raised the debt limit that much at one time before.
The President also says we need to do this because the markets want
the certainty that a long-term debt limit increase will provide. I
think there is something to that, in the sense of market certainty. If
there could be a longer debt limit increase, I suppose it would add to
market certainty. But markets don't just want a solution to this debt
limit issue. In fact, I would argue what they want even more is a
solution to the soaring debt itself, and this is not based on
conjecture, it is based on looking at what those who are analyzing our
economy say.
We have all heard about Fitch, Moody's, and Standard & Poor's. These
are the credit agencies a lot of people have been talking about. They
are the ones threatening to downgrade our debt. They say we should
extend the debt limit, but they also say that is just the first step;
that we also have to deal with the underlying fiscal problems in our
country or the downgrade will occur. They want a serious commitment to
reining in the spending spree that has buried us in debt in the first
place. So this has to be dealt with.
A friend of mine, Keith Hennessey, sent me an e-mail tonight, and he
had an interesting way to put it, for people who follow the financial
markets. He said: We face both a liquidity crisis right now--which is
that the Federal Government can't borrow to meet its needs--but we also
face a solvency crisis--which is that the accumulation of the Federal
Government deficits into the debt are at historic levels, and already
harming the economy in very significant ways. So we need to deal with
both.
One way to show this commitment to the solvency problem--to the debt
problem--is to be sure we guarantee $1 in spending cuts for every $1 we
raise the debt limit. There is a formula that was laid out several
months ago by Speaker Boehner, and I think it has been widely agreed
to. We will see it in what Majority Leader Reid has proposed. As we
will talk about in a minute, unfortunately, some of the budget savings
he thought were there, based upon the Congressional Budget Office
analysis, are not real cuts, but that was the formula he used. The
President has also talked about this formula, and I think it is widely
agreed we need to be sure we are only extending the debt limit to the
extent that we are reducing spending. So if it is going to be over $2
trillion of debt limit extension, we need to find $2 trillion in
spending reductions over time.
It is interesting. As I have analyzed how this formula would work
over time, it actually makes sense for our economy. If we raise the
debt limit $1 but also cut $1 in spending, it not only helps us in the
short term but over a 10-year period, what the CBO tells us in terms of
what the debt is likely to be, just about at the 10th year we would
actually balance the Federal budget. We will not get rid of the debt--
the debt will continue to grow all during that time period,
unfortunately--but there would actually be, at the end of that process,
an annual balanced budget by repeatedly applying that formula
[[Page S5130]]
every time we need to raise the debt limit.
I don't think that necessarily was the intent when the formula was
derived, but it is interesting that it is a formula that makes sense to
get us to, at least over 10 years, the point where we are not spending
more than we are taking in. Given that the President and the majority
leader would like to see a debt increase of over $2 trillion, and
Republicans--and even many Democrats--want to be sure there is an equal
size spending cut, it seems to me there is an obvious way forward.
We can raise the debt limit for this extended period of time, but we
have to require equal spending cuts, and they have to be real. If they
are not meaningful and credible spending cuts, then we will have the
same negative economic consequences we have been talking about tonight:
The credit agencies will downgrade our debt and we will have higher
interest rates, which will affect every American family--student loans,
credit card loans, certainly our mortgages. It will affect small
businesses trying to get credit and that are trying to hire people. If
you have a car loan, it will affect you. It affects the entire economy.
So we have to deal with this issue in a real way, in a way that is
credible and meaningful.
Unfortunately, the proposal that Majority Leader Reid put forward,
which was intended to meet this formula we have talked about--$1
spending cuts for every $1 in increases--has some spending cuts that do
not meet that standard of being credible and meaningful. The biggest
one is about $1 trillion in what is called the global war on terrorism
spending reduction.
A little background on this. When we are writing the budget baseline,
the Congressional Budget Office says we have to assume all the
discretionary spending that is happening now will continue into the
future. So they assume, for the next 10 years, we will spend about $150
billion a year on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But nobody believes
or hopes that will happen. It has not been requested by the President.
No one intends to spend that money. In fact, the President's own budget
assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be spent over the
next decade, we will spend about $600 billion. That is what the
President's budget says. That is what people assume. This means Senator
Reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion
that is not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a
credible proposal. Why? Because it is money that is not planning to be
spent.
It is a little akin to a family saying: Let's assume we are going to
take a vacation we are never going to take, and it is going to cost us
$10,000 and then saying: We saved $10,000 on our budget.
I wish it weren't so. I wish the $1.1 trillion was a credible
spending reduction we could rely on. But the Washington Post, the Wall
Street Journal, and many other observers have looked at this and said:
Frankly, it is not a meaningful reduction in spending. So there are
some meaningful reductions in spending in the proposal of the majority
leader, but this particular one, unfortunately, is a big part of what
he has proposed. Out of his $2.7 trillion in cuts, about $1.1 trillion
is this proposal on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We might hear it
referred to on the floor as the OCO spending--overseas contingency
operations.
I think one thing we should do as a Congress is make sure these cuts
are meaningful and credible, and we can do that.
Second, let's expand this initial round of spending cuts. Right now,
if we take out the war spending we just talked about and then look at
the Congressional Budget Office's score of the majority leader's
proposal, the cuts are just under $1 trillion. It is still a
substantial, and I think a credible, proposal of just under $1
trillion, but that is all that is guaranteed. However, Washington is
scheduled to spend about $46 trillion over that same period--the next
decade. Think about that: $46 trillion and increase spending, by the
way, by about 57 percent during that time period.
I think we can do a lot better than just cutting $1 trillion over the
next 10 years, and I think we can do it in a bipartisan fashion. I say
that because I have identified $2.8 trillion in spending reductions
that have been agreed to by some bipartisan process.
The Biden talks, the Gang of 6, the President's fiscal commission,
and some of the President's own discussions specifically came up with
some spending reductions in addition to this $1 trillion. So my hope
is, we can take some of these spending cuts that have been agreed to
through some bipartisan process and apply them to this initial package.
Finally, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner's proposals both
have this deficit reduction committee. It is an approach which makes
sense, to be sure we get at the longer range problem, which is our
unsustainable--very important but unsustainable--entitlement programs;
tax reform, which will help stimulate more economic growth; and budget
reform, which is clearly needed.
I have been here 6 months. We have done nothing on a budget. In fact,
the Senate hasn't done a budget in 2 years. It sounds like we are in
need of some reforms to make this place work. So this committee makes
sense.
The majority leader calls for the committee to reduce the budget
deficit to 3 percent of GDP. I think that is an interesting proposal. I
think we need to be sure we know how long it would take to reach that
level and how long we should maintain it, because there is no timeframe
in his proposal.
So 3 percent of GDP, does that mean we would wait until a certain
time period and, say, if it is a 10-year proposal, the ninth year or
tenth year and suddenly make those reductions? If so, the reductions
would not be nearly as significant.
Instead, we should put a timeframe in place, 5 years or 10 years--I
would prefer 5--and say that there will be reductions starting in the
first fiscal year to meet the 3-percent target. If you don't do that,
then over that period of time, 5 years or 10 years, we will not see the
kinds of reductions in spending that I think Majority Leader Reid
wishes to see and I know that many of us here on this side of the aisle
believe are necessary.
Eventually, we have got to balance the budget, as we talked about
earlier, and it needs to be something within the 3-percent committee
that leads us to that.
Also, under the majority leader's bill, there is no requirement to
actually enact any of the deficit reduction committee's reforms. I
think he has a very interesting proposal in terms of having an
expedited process on the floor, an up-or-down vote, no amendments. I
think that is smart. But if the deficit reduction committee deadlocks
or if the deficit reduction committee fails to get the votes here on
the floor of the Senate, there needs to be some mechanism, a fail-safe
mechanism or so-called trigger for accomplishing dollar-for-dollar
cuts.
The House plan responsibly makes much of this debt limit increase
contingent on the cuts being actually approved and signed into law. If
the President and Majority Leader Reid want the entire debt limit
increase now, we would need some guarantee that this deficit reduction
would actually take place. A commonsense compromise would be to add
sequestration language, meaning you sequester across the board all
spending, if the deficit reduction doesn't work, deadlocks, or doesn't
pass on the floor even under these procedures. I would say you could
limit that sequestration to the size of the debt limit increase, not
even the size that Speaker Boehner has, which was $1.8 trillion, or
Leader Reid I think assumes, which is even higher than that for his
debt reduction committee, but just be sure it meets this formula of $1
spending cuts for every $1 of extension for the debt limit. That seems
to be the kind of proposal that, at this late hour, could be agreed to
and certainly should be.
Sequestration, by the way, is not a new concept. It has enforced
nearly every budget reform law of the past 20 years in the Congress. It
can guarantee that, one way or another, we will receive the deficit
reduction equal to the debt limit increase, which is, again, the intent
by Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, and others.
Finally, I think we need to allow the Senate to vote on a balanced
budget amendment. Let's have a vote. Leader Reid has talked about that,
Speaker Boehner has talked about that. I think it is important to
provide the representatives of the American people
[[Page S5131]]
the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on a balanced budget, or in
many forms of a balanced budget, because there are different iterations
of a balanced budget.
It seems this path forward should be able to satisfy both sides. The
President and the majority leader would get the larger debt increase
limit they want; there would be guaranteed deficit reduction necessary
to begin fixing the budget and assuring financial markets that we are
up to the task.
I think when you look at the various options we have before us, there
is a way forward here. There is a way forward that says, Let's ensure
that we have this upfront spending; let's remove the global war on
savings gimmick; let's strengthen the initial savings, provide
guarantees that this deficit reduction committee will actually work;
and then let's have a vote on the balanced budget amendment.
Finally, I have heard the President talk about the importance of
having a debt limit increase because of the market uncertainty in the
economy. I agree that we need to do everything we can to stimulate this
economy right now. We had bad news this week.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. However, again getting back to our earlier discussion,
if we simply extend the debt limit and don't deal with the underlying
issue of our fiscal problems, what we called earlier the solvency
crisis, we will have these same negative economic consequences.
With low growth in this quarter and, unfortunately, high unemployment
over 9 percent, we need to do everything we can to encourage pro-growth
economic policies, including tax reform, as we talked about, as well as
using the energy resources we have in this country, regulatory relief,
and, yes, dealing with our debt and deficit.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Reid amendment.
First of all, I am sorry we are engaged in a filibuster. We are using
parliamentary procedure in a way that only delays us taking votes. We
are days away from default. We are days away from our bond rating being
downgraded. If we fail to raise the debt limit, the United States of
America will be irrevocably fractured. We cannot fail and we cannot
falter. We must act, and we must act tonight.
Last night, the Senate rejected the Boehner plan because it wasn't a
solution. It would lead us over the cliff because it did not meet
certain tests. If the Republicans force us into default or downgrade,
it will be the biggest tax increase on Americans. When interest rates
go sky high, it will be a tax on Americans.
We know that we have to agree to additional spending cuts, but it has
got to be long term. We have to have a path forward for eliminating tax
earmarks and entitlement reform that does not lead to a stampede to
shrink Social Security benefits or to raise the Medicare age.
Mr. Boehner took it upon himself last week to come up with a
solution. He told the President he--Mr. Boehner--was the guy to do it.
Well, he didn't succeed. His proposal was failed leadership and failed
economics because it did not meet the threat to our economy from
default and downgrade. Mr. Boehner insisted that there be a vote in
December to raise the debt ceiling; that the House and Senate must pass
a balanced constitutional amendment. That is false. In America we can
guarantee a vote, but we can't guarantee an outcome.
Here are the facts: We will be downgraded if we don't take action or
if action is not taken seriously. So we must have serious policy, we
must have a pragmatic process to reform taxes, and also the way to deal
with entitlements. Those who rate our credit, such as Moody's, said a
short-term extension would lead to downgrade in credit. Under the
Boehner proposal we would be downgraded immediately because of his
criteria.
The Republicans' refusal to say yes to the $2 trillion spending cut
that is proposed in the Reid resolution is mind boggling. We are
agreeing to $2 trillion worth of cuts.
As a Democrat, as a New Deal Democrat, as a Fair Deal Democrat, I
have now agreed to more cuts than I would ever do under any other
circumstances. I have compromised. Other Democrats of my political
persuasion have compromised. Where is the compromise on the other side?
We need compromise, first of all, to get a vote, and then to get it
done. I am scared that if we go into a default, interest rates will
skyrocket. But the President is going to have to set priorities.
Benefits will be affected.
Today I have a Marine Corps pin on. Why did I wear a Marine Corps
pin? First of all, because of their words ``Semper Fi,'' always
faithful. How about us? Why can't we be as good as the military we send
into war? Those men and women are willing to put their lives on the
line to fight and defend for democracy. Why can't we be willing to put
our political careers on the line to fight and defend for democracy? I
am willing to make the tough choices. I have already made a tough
choice to support the significant and Draconian cuts in domestic
spending with very little coming out of defense, but more should come.
I wanted to get rid of sacred cows such as the ethanol subsidy, such as
the oil and gas subsidy, those sacred cows that slurp it up and milk
the public trough. But, oh, no. We couldn't go to revenues, we just had
to go to cuts.
So guess what. Democrats have compromised. We have gone 80 percent of
the way. Why can't they come the other 20 percent and say yes to Reid?
Reid gives us a deadline through 2013, which provides the certainty
that the credit ratings would like. We make a significant downpayment
on reducing the debt, and we have a political process--and I am willing
to put more teeth in it--a political process to get rid of tax
earmarks. And that is what they are; make no mistake, they are tax
earmarks for the pampered and the prosperous. I am ready to reform that
and then take a look at entitlement reform.
I think the Reid proposal is the path forward. But I say, as we wrap
up, could we put politics aside? Could we put partisan sniping aside?
Could we not come together? We on this side of the aisle have made 80
percent of a compromise. We look to the other side to give us the other
20 percent. It will not be giving the Democrats that; it will be
ensuring the solvency and security of the United States of America.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the alternating
blocks continue until 9 p.m. in the following manner: the majority
controlling the time until 8:20 p.m.; Republicans controlling the next
30 minutes; and the majority controlling the remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the tea party Members in the House have
achieved a remarkable feat. As the New York Times put today:
The scope of their victory in reshaping the debt ceiling
bill to reflect the fiscal hawkishness of the most
conservative House Members cannot be overstated.
In other words, despite Democratic control over the White House,
despite Democratic control over the Senate, despite overwhelming
opposition from the American people, a small minority of the Members of
the Republican-controlled House have successfully pushed an extreme
rightwing agenda onto the American political landscape. This rightwing
ideology is a set of beliefs which represents the interests of the
wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations. It is
an ideology which ultimately wants to destroy Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid, and make devastating cuts in education, Head
Start, environmental protection, nutrition, infrastructure, and every
other program which protects the interests of working families and the
middle class.
It is an ideology which believes that despite the fact that the rich
are getting richer, the middle class is shrinking, and poverty is
increasing, all of the burden for deficit reduction should rest on
working people, despite the fact that in the last 25 years the top 1
percent has achieved 80 percent of all new income. But this rightwing
ideology says we have got to cut back on education, we have got to cut
back on
[[Page S5132]]
health care, we have got to cut back on Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, and every other program a middle class and a working class,
hurting desperately in the midst of this recession, depend upon.
In my view, this is an ideology which is grotesquely immoral and it
is also bad economic policy. It has failed time after time, most
recently during the Bush administration when, during his 8 years in
office, we lost 500,000 private sector jobs, the worst job performance
record in modern American history. It is an ideology which, in poll
after poll, has been rejected by the American people.
For example, a few days ago a Washington Post poll came out, and 72
percent of the American people--and this is similar to every other poll
I have seen--said that if we are going to be effective in dealing with
deficit reduction, the most preferred way is to ask those people making
more than $250,000 a year to pay more in taxes--72 percent of the
American people.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have fought time and time again
to say that the wealthy and the largest corporations, some of which
make billions in profit, pay nothing in taxes. They are not to be asked
for 1 cent of sacrifice in deficit reduction; just working families,
just children, just the elderly, just the sick.
It seems to me in this very late date of this debate we face four
options, none of which is particularly good.
The first option is what some of the rightwing extremists have wanted
all along: Let us default. It is not a problem. So what if millions of
Social Security recipients don't get their check. So what if veterans
don't get the check they were promised. So what, if sick people who
were dependent upon Medicare and Medicaid cannot get the medical help
they need? No problem, let's default. Clearly, most of us understand
that scenario would be a disaster for this country, for our economy,
and, in fact, for the entire global economy.
The second option we are looking at is a bill that was passed Friday
in the Republican House, the so-called Boehner bill. This bill would
require massive cuts right now to a wide variety of programs and, most
importantly, it would bring this congressional circus back into action
immediately because within 6 months we would have to go over this
debate once again. That is an absurd proposal. And included in that
proposal, because they want huge amounts of cuts 6 months from now, no
question, massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--that is
what the Boehner proposal is about.
The third option is the Reid bill. This bill, while by no means as
destructive as the Boehner bill, is also bad news for working families.
Because of the Republican commitment to the wealthiest people in this
country and the largest corporations, it also would make heavy cuts on
working families and not one penny of revenue coming from the rich and
large corporations.
Let me discuss the one remaining option that seems to me to make at
least some sense. It is not a great option but the best available. That
has already been spoken about by my good friend Tom Harkin. It seems to
me that the least onerous option available to us today is for the
President of the United States to exercise his authority under the 14th
amendment to the Constitution to pay the debts incurred by the United
States. The Constitution is very clear in saying that the debts of the
United States ``shall not be questioned.''
The President swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution,
and many constitutional scholars believe the 14th amendment gives the
President the authority and responsibility to pay our debts regardless
of the dysfunctionality of the U.S. Congress. I think that is just what
he should do if he is left with no other way to protect the full faith
and credit of the United States.
I believe former President Bill Clinton is absolutely right in saying
that if he were still in the White House, that is what he would do.
Clinton said, and I agree with him:
I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea
that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for
expenditures it has appropriated is crazy.
Let me be clear about what exactly this means and why it is so
important that the President use this amendment now, at this particular
moment in history. Let's remember that the debt ceiling was raised 18
times under Ronald Reagan and 7 times under George W. Bush, when the
national debt increased by some $5 trillion. If we concede to the
rightwing Republicans and if we make all of these cuts right now
because they refuse to raise the debt ceiling, this sets a horrendous
precedent for the future of congressional action. What this would mean
is that no matter what legislation and appropriations were passed by
the future Congress, the new Congress could simply say: We refuse to
pay those bills. This would cause massive uncertainty in the financial
market, drive interest rates up, and cloud the entire legislative
process of the U.S. Congress. That is wrong and must not happen.
I understand there are those who disagree with this option, and I
respect that. But I think we have an obligation to our senior citizens
and our veterans to say: Yes, you are going to get the Social Security
checks and the other benefits you have been promised. We have an
obligation to our children and to the sick that, yes, you are going to
get the Medicare and Medicaid benefits you have been promised.
Incredibly, we have an obligation to the men and women in our Armed
Forces who are putting their lives on the line. We have an obligation
to them to make sure they get paid.
If Republican recalcitrance prevents us from reaching an agreement,
then the President of the United States must do what is best for our
people and for the future of this country. He must use his
constitutional authority under the 14th amendment to pay our debts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Mikulski). The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time do I have under the order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 13\1/2\ minutes remaining on the
Democratic side.
____________________