[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 117 (Saturday, July 30, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5133-S5144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PROCESSING
DELAYS--Continued
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to say that I listened very
carefully to the remarks of the senior Senator from Maryland about
where we find ourselves. I want to associate myself with her remarks on
what a dire situation we are in at this moment. We really stand tonight
on the edge of an economic calamity. Why is that? America is at the
brink of being unable to pay our bills, bills we already voted to pay
way in the past. When you raise the debt ceiling, it is not about
future spending, it is about meeting your obligations.
How did we get to this debt? How did we get to this debt? For many
years, we ran deficits, and they added up.
But I remember that when Bill Clinton was President--Madam President,
I know you remember this--we balanced the budget. We didn't have a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution; we balanced the budget
by sitting down and figuring out what was wasteful spending, what were
important investments. We had economic growth, 23 million new jobs, and
all the revenues that came with them. We had surpluses.
When George W. Bush became President, he said about this surplus: I
have to give this back to the people. And he gave it back to the
millionaires and the billionaires. He put two wars on the credit card.
Poof--there went the surplus. Then he had a prescription drug benefit,
but he didn't pay for it, and there went the surplus. Two wars on the
credit card, prescription drug benefit on the credit card, and tax
breaks for millionaires and billionaires on the credit card, and all of
a sudden, we started to see the debt rise.
My Republican friends who have suddenly discovered this debt never
said a word when George Bush was President and we raised the debt
ceiling nine times. Did you see the Democrats out here on the floor
threatening to hold up the whole country? Did you see the Democrats
saying: We won't give George Bush an increase in the debt ceiling
unless he does whatever we want. We didn't do that. We should not ever
do that. That is what is going on here. Republicans, led by the far
extreme of their party, are holding this country hostage, and they are
saying that unless they get their way, they will not relent.
I pray and I hope--and I am talking to my Republican friends in these
hours--we will be able to come to some agreement. But I will say this:
We are now facing a filibuster by my Republican friends. They will not
allow us to vote on the Reid amendment with just a majority vote. They
are demanding a supermajority. What I find interesting is they did not
demand a supermajority vote over in the House on the Boehner proposal.
That was done by a simple majority. Now they say we need a
supermajority to vote on the Reid proposal.
Harry Reid has his door wide open; you know that as well as I. He has
invited Mitch McConnell--all the Republicans: Come on in. I am here. I
am ready to negotiate. What is it that you need?
So far, we know there are conversations going on among Members. We do
not see that leadership coming from Leader McConnell. I hope he is
rethinking this because the whole world is watching. They see a
filibuster tonight. They understand which side is trying to resolve it.
How did we really get here? I explained how we got to the debt. How
did we get to this moment? The debt ceiling needed to be raised, and
our Republican friends said to our President: We are not going to give
you a clean debt ceiling increase. We want to sit down and work on some
cuts to the budget.
Guess what. The President said: I don't know, but we will do it. Come
on in, we will do it.
Then the President said: You know what. Let's get a really big deal.
Let's get a $4 trillion deal. Let's get out of this budgetary crisis.
The President gave and gave, and what was the reward? First Eric
Cantor stalked out of the talks. He stalked out. ``I don't want to be
part of this.'' He took his little blanky and went home.
Then John Boehner--he is in the talks, and he walks out of the talks
not once but twice. He said: Well, I am done with this. I am going to
work with the people on Capitol Hill. I am going to go talk to the
bipartisan leadership here.
We said: Fine. We will try to work with you.
But they want everything their way: My way or the highway. If you
ever looked up what ``compromise'' means, it means everybody gives a
little.
We didn't want to attach this to the debt ceiling increase, but we
said: OK, we will do it. You feel strongly about it. We will do it.
They said: OK. We don't want any new revenues.
They don't want to touch millionaires and billionaires. God forbid
they should pay $5 more a year to help us.
We said: You know what, we think it is wrong, but if that is what you
are saying, we will just do cuts.
That was not happy. Harry Reid did more cuts than the Republicans--
twice as many. That still was not good enough for them. It is always
more of what they want.
I raised a family, and I know sometimes it is tough. This is the
American family. If you have an argument between two kids in your
family--I had two children. Now I have four grandchildren. They argue,
and you have to say: Let's listen to each other first. I will give up
something, and you give up something. Let's meet in the middle.
Oh, no. Then you think: Wait a minute, why do they think they deserve
every single thing they want?
[[Page S5134]]
What are they thinking? Do they run the Senate? No. The Democrats do.
Madam President, you and I just won reelection. You are the longest
serving woman ever in this Senate. I am so proud to know you. You have
had some hard races in your life. I had the toughest race in my life
coming back here, but I came back here. Leader Reid came back here.
Patty Murray came back here. Michael Bennet came back here. And we run
the Senate. President Obama is the President. He happens to be a
Democrat. And in the House, the Republicans won a huge victory--a huge
victory. The Republicans run the House, the Democrats run the Senate,
and the President is a Democrat. Let's see, that is three branches,
two-thirds run by the Democrats. The Republicans want it all. If one of
my kids did that, if they were arguing with the other one, I would say
that is not right. I am not even asking for two-thirds. As Senator
Mikulski said, we have come a long way from where we want to come.
Where have they come? They have not come toward us. Now the plan the
Republicans want is to revisit this debt crisis in 3 months, 4 months,
5 months from now. Imagine roiling the markets.
I used to be a stockbroker a very long time ago. In those years when
the President got a cold, the market went down, everyone was worried.
We never had a crisis like this. Do you know we have raised the debt
limit 89 times in our history? No political party--no Republican Party,
no Democratic Party--has ever held the debt ceiling increase hostage to
their desires, hopes, and dreams.
What does the other side want? They will be honest--not all of them.
They want cuts in Social Security, Medicare. They even had a proposal
over in the House to end Medicare as we know it. We are not going
there. We will not go there. We will not be revisiting this every 3 or
4 months. It is a recipe for a downgrade in our bonds. It is a recipe
for turmoil in the marketplace. It is a recipe for higher mortgage
rates. It is a recipe for more unemployment. It is a recipe for chaos.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I was on the phone today listening to people call
in from Ohio, taking calls. I heard so many people very afraid of the
Boehner legislation and what might come out of a further compromise.
Senator Reid, as the Senator said, has offered a good many cuts and
doing this in a way that is bipartisan.
Is the Senator hearing that in her State there is a real fear that
the Republicans in the House are insisting on Social Security and
Medicare cuts and what that would mean to people in her State?
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. We are the largest State in the Union with 38
million people. We have more people on Social Security and Medicare
than any other State. They know what the stakes are. They are smart. If
we look at the polls, 70 percent of the people say: Tax millionaires
and billionaires; they should pay their fair share. Spare Social
Security, Medicare, education and the things that we need.
We are here in a manmade crisis. This is unnecessary. This has never
been done before, and I think the people have to understand that. Never
ever has this been done before. We raised the debt ceiling 18 times
when Ronald Reagan was President. I happened to be in the House of
Representatives. Yes, a few people here and there voted no once in a
while, but no one ever thought of bringing down that vote. We cannot
have the greatest country in the world defaulting on our bonds. We
cannot have us defaulting on our contracts.
Small businesses are calling me--I say to my friend from Ohio and my
friend from Maryland and my friend from Alaska--and they are saying
they cannot get credit now. The banks are fearful. They are only
getting overnight credit. What are we doing in this manmade crisis? We
have a long history of working together at times such as this.
Leader Reid's office is open. The door is open. This is the time to
work together. We have until 1 in the morning when we hope we can get
an up-or-down vote on Leader Reid's proposal. I know there are talks
going on. I have been talking to my Republican friends. They want to
find a way out of this. But you know what. We have to pledge allegiance
to the flag, not to Grover Norquist. We have to do what is right for
the country. I pray and I hope that we do.
I will say this: If we fail, I hope the President will invoke the
14th amendment. Everyone should read it. It says the debt of the United
States shall not be questioned. If we cannot get together, the
President will have to take responsibility. I hope we can and show the
world that we can still work together.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gentlelady from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I follow my friend from California,
and I agree wholeheartedly with her that the United States of America
cannot default on its debts and obligations. I would like to think that
all 100 of us in this body would concur and agree that we must, using
every tool that we have at our disposal, using all of our relationships
and what we have built as Members in this body and in the House of
Representatives, that we use our best efforts to ensure we do not
default as a nation but that we go further, that we go further and we
offer the people of this country a solution to the problems that have
led us to the point that we are today.
We have heard a great deal over the course of these past few days
about the Boehner plan and whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, and
now the Reid plan and whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. We
assumably know what the Republicans want and what the Democrats want.
What about what the people of this country want right now? I don't
know what all of the people of America want, but I can give you some
ideas about what I am hearing from the people of Alaska and what they
are concerned about and what they want from the Senate, from the U.S.
House of Representatives, and from the President of this country. They
want us to fix it. Odd that it should be so easy. Just fix it. They
expect us to do just that. They expect us to fix this problem. That is
why they have entrusted us with their confidence by allowing us the
privilege to come and represent them in this body to help resolve these
issues.
They don't expect that I, as a Republican, am going to resolve it
with just the Republicans. They expect that we, as Members of the
Senate, will resolve this--Republicans and Democrats alike. They
believe we will achieve a compromise built on the good ideas that come
from the Republicans and the good ideas that come from the Democrats;
that we will come together to solve the problems that affect the people
in the great State of Maryland and the people in the great State of
Alaska, and all the places in between.
In our effort to fix this, they expect us to compromise. Compromise
should not be a negative or a nasty term. It should be what we all work
to achieve jointly.
I would suggest that the other thing the people are looking for is
honesty. They are listening to this debate. We have received phone
calls in my office all day. We have been receiving them all week. I
think so many of us have picked up the phones ourselves to hear what
people are saying when they are calling. They are saying: Wait a
minute. You guys are throwing numbers around. First of all, Speaker
Boehner puts out a plan, and, well, it doesn't achieve the 1-to-1 ratio
that he thought, so he pulls it back and so we have another set. Now
Senator Reid has his proposal on the floor, but people are talking
about this $1 trillion that is going for the war effort in Afghanistan
and Iraq that we know is not really real and these are phantom numbers.
They are saying: Who are we to believe? Why are you not honest with
us about the proposals that are out there? Does it cut? Would you
expect that it will cut if, in fact, we are going to be focused on
entitlements, Social Security? If we are going to be talking about tax
revenues and how we might deal with tax reform? Can you not be honest
with us, the American people, your constituents, the people you
represent? They want a level of honesty in this discourse. We owe that
to them.
People are also looking for certainty. There were some of my
colleagues who spoke earlier in the day, and they were speaking from
the perspective of small
[[Page S5135]]
businesses and how--as a small businessman or large businessperson for
that matter--it is imperative that in order for a person to make those
business judgment decisions in terms of whether they are going to
expand, whether they are going to bring on additional employees, they
need to have a level of certainty in terms of what is going to go on.
What is going to happen with tax policy? What is the future of the
economy going to be? What is the jobs picture like? It is not like we
all have a crystal shiny ball out there that we can predict with great
precision. We don't. What we ought not be doing is injecting greater
uncertainty, and that is what is happening right now.
All throughout this summer we have kind of strung people along. We
all knew that August 2 was coming. We all knew the revenue was coming
in and the outlays going out were not going to be measuring up, and we
were going to be dealing with the potential for a default; we were
going to be dealing with the potential for a downgrade in our credit
rating. This is no surprise to anybody. That is where our crystal ball
actually was pretty transparent. Yet we are not able to pull it
together.
We managed to take a recess last week even though we were all
promised we were going to be here working around the clock because we
had important business to do. I was here with a colleague on Friday
morning after the vote, looked around and realized I was perhaps the
last Senator left here in Washington, DC. I got on a plane at 2:30 that
afternoon to go to Alaska for crying out loud. We should have been here
last weekend doing this instead of mere hours before we are up against
our default deadline.
What does this do to the certainty or uncertainty in the economic
climate, to the investment climate? I hesitate to be one that would
suggest that we need to be making market decisions because we can't
figure out what is going on here. I can tell you because I am hearing
it in the halls. People are saying: I don't know about you, but I am
looking at my investment fund or my retirement fund, and I am moving
things. That is the kind of confidence they have in our ability to
figure it out.
We are seeing it translate in the numbers. We saw that at the end of
the week with the markets. We know tomorrow evening when the Asian
markets open, everybody in the world from the financial community--this
is not just the people in Washington, DC--will be looking to see
whether we, as a Congress, have figured it out and if we have fixed it.
If we don't, that continued uncertainty just continues this spiral.
We can do a lot in the Senate. We can do a lot in the Congress. We
can pass bills and the President can sign them into law. One of the
things we cannot legislate is we cannot tell the markets to shape up.
We cannot tell the markets to pull it back in, everything is going to
be OK. They are picking up on signals, and the signals right now are a
level of uncertainty that is rattling.
The other thing that I think the people of this country are hoping
for, are asking for, is a level of civility and respect within this
body to our President, to those in the other body. We all come from
different persuasions. Alaska is different from Maryland. My politics
are different from your politics, Madam President, but I have great
respect for you. We can argue and we can disagree, but we don't need to
poke fingers in one another's eyes to get our point across.
I think what the people have seen, as we have engaged in this debate,
is something that does not do justice to the integrity of this
institution. We need to get back to that point where we can engage in
good debate and disagree heartily and make our arguments without being
disrespectful of one another and the perspectives we, as individuals
representing our constituencies and our States, bring to the table.
The hour is late. We will have a vote at 1 o'clock in the morning.
How dignified. What body comes together at the darkest hour to cast a
vote?
Last evening, my brother and sister-in-law were in town. They were
passing through very quickly. They were actually able to be here and
watch for about an hour and a half while we were engaged in the vote on
the floor. My brother and sister-in-law are pretty educated people.
They follow the news. They follow the politicians. They were fascinated
by what was going on in this body and trying to understand what it was
that was going on. I was trying to convey it to them, and I realized,
if it is this difficult for me as a Member of this body to explain to
somebody who is pretty plugged into what is going on, what is happening
here, imagine the confusion of the person who just occasionally tunes
in to C-SPAN, who reads the news or watches the evening news but isn't
following the day-to-day. What we have managed to do is, on a
bipartisan basis, confuse the American public, anger them, frustrate
them, and cause them to be fearful about the future of our country.
That is not leadership.
We have an opportunity in these next very short days ahead to regain
some of this. We have some ideas that are out there. As the Senator
from California has mentioned, and many others have mentioned, there
are a great number of talks that are going on. There are talks at the
leadership level. There are talks going on with those of us who are not
part of leadership. That is important. But we need to recognize it is
absolutely critical for the future of our country--not the future of
our political well-being but the future of our country--that we be
coming together to resolve the issues, not necessarily just to broker a
deal but to find a solution that puts the interests of our country
above our own political interests. That is where we need to be.
I am an optimist. I am a person who has the glass always half full. I
remain committed to working with all Members of good will who will
stand together to work through these difficult details. It is not easy,
but they never promised us it was going to be.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas. Before she begins, I
would advise her, her side has 16 minutes 50 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President.
I rise to speak about the August 2 debt ceiling deadline and the
proposal that will be before us very soon, developed by Majority Leader
Reid.
Here we are again debating legislation that demonstrates our
fundamental differences in how we should run our government. I wish to
quote from a recent article by Charles Krauthammer that appeared in the
National Review. I think it says something I have been saying several
times in the last week, which is that this is more than a debt ceiling
debate; it is a debate about our views of government that are so
different between the parties in our country. Here is what Charles
Krauthammer said:
We're in the midst of a great four-year national debate on
the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare
state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between
citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two
parties--social-Democratic versus limited-government--have
underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama's
inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care
reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything.
The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental
divide.
The sausage-making may be unsightly--
No argument there--
but the problem is not that Washington is broken--
As he describes it--
that ridiculous, ubiquitous cliche. The problem is that these
two visions are in competition, and the definitive popular
verdict has not yet been rendered.
He goes on to say:
We're only at the midpoint. Obama won a great victory in
2008 that he took as a mandate to transform America toward
European-style social democracy. The subsequent
counterrevolution delivered to that project a staggering
rebuke in November of 2010.
I think that puts a perspective on the debates we have been having
during the last 2 years and the debate we are seeing now in the last
few weeks.
I do know that none of us wants our country to go into default. Both
sides can agree on that. All of us are troubled with the delay in
resolving this issue. Uncertainty is not good for our economy, but a
bad agreement is worse because it will have lasting impacts. It is my
opinion it will also affect our debtors with a message that we are not
serious about a $14 trillion debt and we are not going to do anything
that would try to bring it down or bring
[[Page S5136]]
down the deficits or change the entitlement programs that are a major
part--more than half--of our budget.
I support Speaker Boehner's bill, and I support the Cut, Cap, and
Balance Act. Both of these plans, in my opinion, contain the right
approach to our budget challenges. I believe the Reid plan is the wrong
approach. The Reid plan contains what they say is a $2.4 trillion debt
limit increase which, if enacted, would result in the single largest
increase in the debt ceiling in the history of America.
In addition to this unprecedented increase, the Reid plan fails to
address our current fiscal imbalance. It doesn't do anything to address
the fundamental problems. It lacks any adequate enforcement, and it
doesn't ensure that long-term spending cuts are carried out. There is
no guarantee at all. So we raise the debt limit and we don't have
anything but a promise, and that is not good enough. It is not good
enough for the elected leaders of our country, and it is certainly not
good enough for the American public.
The debt ceiling increase in the Reid plan is not paid for. Many of
the cuts outlined in his plan are illusory or hopeful. Hope is not a
strategy. We can hope to do away with waste, fraud, and abuse, but we
can't promise right now because we don't have it before us. If we had a
bill that cuts certain amounts from certain agencies because of waste,
fraud, and abuse, that would be a commitment we could uphold. But what
we have is a promise that we will look at it. How many times have we
looked at waste, fraud, and abuse in our government programs? Yes, we
ought to do it, but we should not make it the basis of lifting a debt
ceiling that is crushing the economy in our country.
To label $1 trillion of cuts as savings from leaving Afghanistan and
Iraq, which Senator Reid's proposal does, is not credible. For one
thing, we don't know what the future obstacles in Afghanistan and Iraq
are. We have to retain a certain level of stability on the ground in
Afghanistan. I have met with Afghan leaders and women just in the last
couple weeks, and they also agree that if America leaves precipitously
without knowing what the stability on the ground is--and we certainly
haven't seen stability lately with the assassinations of mayors and
leaders, including the half brother of the leader of Afghanistan--that
is not stability. It doesn't say they are ready yet. So having $1
trillion of cuts could undermine our national security. I hope we can
leave with the right circumstances on the ground, but that is the only
criteria we should use and not cutting a budget that we know is a
promise and not a commitment we are assured we can keep.
Most disturbing of all in the Reid plan: The only possible
justification for a $2.4 trillion increase in borrowing authority is to
avoid doing this again before the 2012 election. That is not a reason
to make public policy. Yes, none of us would want to go through this
again in the next year. It has been painful--painful for all sides--but
just saying: We are going to do it with promises and hope for the
future is certainly not a way to address a major policy issue, and it
is not going to have the credibility with the American people.
I believe it would be irresponsible to give the President this
unprecedented additional borrowing authority without requiring the
enactment of significant spending reductions and reforms. To do so
would send a worse signal to the markets across the world that are
shaky right now, looking at this debate. But they are also looking at
what the result is going to be and who is going to win the battle about
how we run our government. Can we imagine a $16 trillion debt ceiling
with no commitment to actually make the cuts that would start getting
us on the right path? That is not enough. That is why we are here at a
quarter of 9 on Saturday night debating this issue, because we are not
going to give up on our principles of making sure the fiscal
responsibility of our country will be worthy of a AAA rating, will be
worthy of the assuredness that if you buy a bond or a Treasury note or
invest in the United States of America, that it is a golden commitment,
that you can count on it, that you can take it to the bank. That is
what we are fighting for right now.
I hope so much we can come to an agreement because we all agree that
defaulting on our debt would not be a good signal to the markets, but
raising the debt ceiling without the assured cuts, without caps on
future years' spending is unconscionable.
I hope going forward we would have a balanced budget amendment that
would go to the States because most States have a balanced budget
amendment in their constitutions and they have mostly sound fiscal
policies. If we had to live with those same constraints, I believe we
would not get into this kind of a situation again. Eventually, I hope
we will have a balanced budget amendment that we could get a two-thirds
vote for and send to the States and see if that isn't a worthy
amendment to our great Constitution. But in the meantime, cut and cap
is what we can do, and I hope we will.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I feel compelled to come to the floor this
evening to refute some of the arguments that have been made by some of
my colleagues, points that are important for the American people to
understand, points that, if not clarified, could lead to a
misunderstanding, lead to resentment which is misplaced.
One of the points I have heard made this evening by one of my
colleagues is that the debt limit issue has never been held hostage
quite like it has now. I am not quite sure what was meant by this, but
I do want to clarify this point.
If someone had held this hostage before on any of the dozens and
dozens of times the debt limit has been raised over the course of many
years, maybe it would have been a good thing. Maybe it would be a good
thing for us not to be dealing with right now a national debt that has
almost reached $15 trillion.
Maybe we should consider the fact that those who are being held
hostage are those who will one day have to repay this debt, considering
that some of those people are not yet here because they have yet to be
born, and in some instances, their parents have yet to meet. We have to
ask the question whether they are being held hostage themselves--held
hostage to a government that always demands more money so it can
exercise more power over us. And as it acquires more power, exercises
more of that over us--thus restricting our liberty--it demands more
money. As it acquires more money, it exercises more power, and the
process perpetuates itself. This is how we get to the point where we
are almost $15 trillion in debt. This is how we get to the point where
the American people are being held hostage. So if this process has not
been held up in the past, then shame on those who could have held it up
but did not.
It is incumbent upon us who serve here and now to represent those who
are sometimes underrepresented to represent those most vulnerable
members of society who are not yet old enough to vote or not yet born.
This is a multigenerational problem. It is a multigenerational
obligation we are taking upon our entire country in connection with
this debate.
So if my colleague who made this point just about half an hour ago
meant that we should never have vigorous, aggressive debate and
discussion over whether it is a good idea to take on $2.5 trillion in
new debt in one fell swoop, perhaps we should revisit that assumption;
perhaps we ought to second-guess ourselves just a little bit more than
we have in recent decades lest we hold hostage an entire generation.
Another point that was made by that same colleague is that
Republicans have put forward plans to challenge, to undermine, to bring
about immediate cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This simply is
not true. Quite to the contrary. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act--of
which I was the lead sponsor in the Senate before it was introduced in
the House by my friend Jason Chaffetz, where it was later passed--Cut,
Cap, and Balance Act actually protected Social Security and Medicare.
It bolstered, it strengthened those programs. So it is utterly false
and, I believe, disingenuous for anyone to argue that proposal--or any
other that I am aware of, for that matter--would bring about cuts to
Social Security and Medicare. This is not the point of this
legislation. Quite to the contrary. The point of this legislation is to
[[Page S5137]]
protect what we need to do through the U.S. Government.
Whether you are someone who would describe himself as a conservative
and perhaps most concerned about national defense or whether you are
perhaps more liberal and you are most concerned about protecting our
entitlement programs, you ought to agree with the principles underlying
the cut, cap, and balance approach, with the fact that we need a
balanced budget amendment, because if we do not put these measures in
place now, if we do not agree now that we need to restrict our
borrowing authority, every one of those programs will be jeopardized as
we reach the mathematical, the economic borrowing capacity of the U.S.
Government.
The more we borrow, the more we run into the risk that those who lend
us money, those who buy our U.S. Treasurys, will one day be unwilling
to lend us more money, at least not without additional interest
payments. We could very quickly go from spending about $250 billion a
year in interest, as we now are, to spending something much closer to
$1 trillion a year in interest based on just a few interest rate
points. As that goes up, our ability to fund everything goes down.
In closing, it is important to point out that what is being requested
here is the largest debt limit increase in American history--about $2.5
trillion. Unprecedented. The idea here is to give the U.S. Congress
enough borrowing power to take us almost 2 years down the road. Two
years, by the way, is roughly the amount of time that has elapsed since
the Democrats in the Senate even introduced a budget.
One has to ask, why extend the debt limit for such a long period of
time? The President gave us the answer the other day. He wants to
insulate himself from the political process. He wants to make it not a
political issue. Political issues are themselves things the voters are
concerned about--as well they should be--because voters pay taxes,
voters are affected by decisions we make. We need to have voters
connected, not disconnected from this process.
We need to act now, but we need to act responsibly. The only way to
do that is to raise the debt limit only after we pass the balanced
budget amendment.
Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that
the alternating blocks of time continue until 9:50 p.m., with the
majority controlling the time until 9:20 p.m., the Republican side
controlling the time until 9:50 p.m., and then the majority leader or
designee be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise tonight, as I have for
many weeks now, to call for a bipartisan solution to our deficits and
debt, for us to bridge--to use a term we utilize in Colorado--the
mountainous divide in order to avoid defaulting on our obligations.
Bipartisanship is a familiar theme in my home State of Colorado, and
I know Coloradans agree with me that is the only way forward. My
constituents have been flooding my office with calls of frustration
urging me to keep fighting for a solution to this impending debt limit
crisis we face. They know the stakes are high, and they know we have to
compromise to get something done.
As I have traveled my State over these summer months, I have not
found one single person in Colorado who has demanded more partisanship
and more dysfunction. But here we are, seemingly, on a Saturday night
with just that. My constituents--Coloradans--are searching for answers
and solutions. Yet all we seem to have here are more questions.
For the life of me, I just do not understand why, when our economy is
still fragile, we are so close, it seems, to sentencing it to
additional turmoil.
Those who know me know I am not quick to anger or to express
frustration, but I just cannot help but join Coloradans in looking at
the situation we are in with disbelief. We have hard-working and well-
intentioned Members from both parties who are willing to do the right
thing for our country, but partisan bickering is seemingly continuing
to artificially push our economy closer and closer, literally, to the
brink.
It is easy to chalk this up to a broken Washington, to say Congress
simply is unable to agree, but that ignores the truth. That truth is
that a small minority of folks is bent on throwing sand in the gears of
our legislative machinery. We extend a hand in the hopes of reaching an
agreement, and then over and over this group rejects the idea of
governing together and instead reaches for another handful of sand. The
majority of us here do not agree with that. The majority of us in both
parties do not want to default on our debt obligations.
It seems to me our country's economic situation is like a patient who
is just literally coming off life support: We are nursing our economy
back to health, and the last thing we need is a self-induced heart
attack. But that will happen in 3 days. In 3 days, our Nation is set to
default on its debt. That is like an American family who would decide
not to pay their bills or to quit making mortgage payments. I know it
is a natural inclination, perhaps, to not want to pay those bills, but
Americans know there are consequences to default and that it is
irresponsible to turn a blind eye on bills that come due.
It is important to note that these are bills we already have
incurred, that previous Congresses--in fact, this Congress, you could
argue, has already voted for and therefore has incurred.
We have been here before. President Reagan raised the debt limit 18
times in order to enable the Treasury to pay our debts as they came
due. They were routine. They were often voice votes, and when they were
recorded votes, they were overwhelmingly in support of raising the debt
limit so we could meet previous obligations. President George W. Bush
raised it seven times. There were no conditions put on the raising of
our debt ceiling.
Let me take a second and be clear. Raising the debt ceiling is not
something I want to do and I am sure anybody in the Senate is not all
that keen to do it, but we do have those obligations.
A year ago--a year and a half ago, I should say, more accurately--I
agreed with Republicans and fellow Democrats that we should take
advantage of a discussion we had at the end of 2009 about raising the
debt ceiling, and we should take advantage of that by putting in place
real measures to reduce our debt. I held out my vote at that time to
raise the debt limit as a way to compel the White House to create a
fiscal commission to address our long-term deficits and debt.
I was really pleased when President Obama created such a commission.
He nominated two great Americans--Al Simpson, who was a Senator in this
very body, and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles--to
head up the effort. I think, as we knew at the time--and we know even
more now--these two men are patriots. They brought people together from
both parties, and they came up with a $4 trillion plan--it was
commonsensical--to bring in and rein in our debt problems. We applauded
their efforts. Coloradans did; Americans all over the country did. They
brought a commonsense approach, just as we would in our own personal
finances.
So when we approached our current debt limit this year and faced the
possibility of defaulting on our debt, I joined Members of both parties
in urging us here in the Congress to do two things: first, to address
our debt limit problem to prevent a first-ever and completely avoidable
default so America could and would pay its bills and secondly, enact a
comprehensive and bipartisan $4 trillion plan based on the Simpson-
Bowles deficit reduction recommendations so we would get our fiscal
house in order, I should say for generations of Americans to come but
for those of us here today as well.
Now, if you look back on this, this in some ways was unpopular. Folks
on the far right and the far left began to sow seeds of division in
order to prevent compromise. People in our party objected to spending
cuts and entitlement reforms, while Republican purists, such as Grover
Norquist, complained about increased revenues.
That brings us to the events of the last several weeks. Those of us
who support a commonsense middle ground and who believe our country's
biggest
[[Page S5138]]
national security threat is our growing national debt know that both
sides need to compromise and that we need a long-term, comprehensive
bipartisan--bipartisan--plan to truly heal the fiscal illnesses that
have beset us.
This is obvious just looking at the numbers, but it became even
clearer when our creditors and U.S. rating agencies began to question
whether America was a creditworthy nation. Can you imagine that? They
began to ask: Will America pay its bills? Will we be able to pay our
bills or will we go the way of an Ireland or a Greece and other
financially destabilized nations?
To me, the answer is clear: A broke nation is a weak nation. If
America is not only going to lead the global economic race but win that
race, as we know we can, as we have done throughout history, we need to
implement the Bowles-Simpson recommendations.
With that knowledge, a smart group of people from both parties began
working out a way to do so. But there was one huge impediment:
Hundreds, literally hundreds of Members of Congress signed a pledge
promising not to touch the Tax Code, putting tax purity ahead of fiscal
responsibility and deficit reduction. Even though the United States
brought in a record-low amount of revenue last year, what they insist
we do would--whether intentionally or unintentionally--balance the
budget on the backs of the middle class, the elderly, and the
disenfranchised alone.
Even though the Bowles-Simpson commission recommended a blending of
75-percent spending cuts and 25-percent revenue increases, they
seemingly, this small minority here in the Capitol, cannot embrace any
plan that includes additional revenue. Even though our Tax Code is
littered with literally thousands of special interest tax breaks and
corporate giveaways that do nothing to create jobs, they cannot
embrace, it seems, tax reform. Even though a bipartisan plan would send
a message to the markets that America is ready to lead, and that
Congress is capable of independent thinking and problem solving, they
have rejected a bipartisan way forward, a way in which we govern
together. So that plan sits idly. It sits to the side. All sides have
tried other efforts, but they faced the same problems. Speaker Boehner
and President Obama sought to strike an alternative grand bargain as a
way to address our structural deficits and debt to avoid default. That
looked pretty promising. But it appears to me that when the going got
tough, the Speaker did not stay at the table. And when it became
apparent that the corporations and the wealthy would have to bear the
responsibility for balancing the books, the House Speaker walked away.
Another chapter unfolded.
Things looked promising when the Vice President and the House
majority leader tried to reach an agreement on a deficit reduction
plan. But then, when it became clear again that revenues had to be a
part of the picture if we truly wanted to do something big and good for
our country, they walked away from the table. Tax purity was more
important than deficit reduction. Knowing that economists, market
analysts, business leaders, credit rating agencies, world leaders, and
the American people were imploring us, imploring us, to find an
agreement to avoid default on our debt obligations, Democrats relented.
We are now debating what the Republicans said they wanted, a
spending-cut-only plan. I cannot tell you the depth of my
disappointment that we could not pursue a truly comprehensive approach
to reducing our deficits and debt, one that would set the stage to
continue growing our economy and creating jobs. But in the name of
compromise, I agreed that something versus nothing is better than
default and further economic turmoil. But now it appears, on a Saturday
night, a few hours from midnight, that even that is not enough. After
putting together a plan that includes 100 percent of the Republican-
endorsed spending cuts to avoid default, we are at an impasse again. We
have got a plan here on the floor of the Senate that cuts $2.47
trillion from the Federal budget, without any revenue, not a single tax
loophole is closed, and yet we still cannot get our House colleagues to
help us prevent a first-ever default of the Federal Government.
I have learned to not question the motivations of my colleagues. But
I have to ask myself what is it they want now in the House of
Representatives? And they want exactly, it seems to me, what the Bank
of America, Standard & Poors, JPMorgan Chase, Moody's, and other
economic experts have warned us we can least afford: that is, constant
turmoil and dysfunction. They literally--whether they understand this
or not--want us to walk our economy, America's economy, the biggest
economy in the world, right up to the cliff edge of default over and
over again. The markets and business leaders have told us they want to
increase investment, they want to create more jobs, they want to get
our economy back on track, but what they need is certainty. But it
seems as though there are those in the Capitol, in our Congress, who
have decided it is in their interest--political interest--to create
uncertainty, exactly the opposite of what our markets and our business
communities are telling us--the same Members of Congress, the same
individuals who ironically complained that our President has not done
enough to create jobs or spur economic growth. Yet we are perilously
close, and they are perilously close, to cutting off the economic
growth we need to create jobs. In the interests of being direct, if we
default, this would be an economic catastrophe of our own making. It is
not something beyond our control such as a hurricane, an earthquake, a
tornado, a drought. We can avoid the impending chaos and the job loss
and the downgrading of our retirement savings that is coming our way.
If we do not, it will be because some Members of Congress were
unwilling to take yes for an answer. Some Members of Congress right now
are unwilling to take yes for an answer.
But let me begin to close my remarks on a little more optimistic
note. I want to be very clear. There are Members in both parties who
are willing to be responsible. I was pleased to hear that Senator
Alexander, the third ranking Republican in the Senate, say what would
be best, instead of having a Republican plan competing with a
Democratic plan, would be to have Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid, and
Senator McConnell recommend to us a single plan.
Senator Thune said yesterday: I think if you look at the basic
framework, it wouldn't be that hard to figure out something we could
perhaps agree upon.
I listened to Senator Isakson and Senator Murkowski express similar
thoughts earlier today. So I think there is a real kernel here of
optimism and a way forward. But for the life of me, I cannot understand
why we cannot keep our focus on job creation and the global economic
race. The rest of the world is not waiting for us. They are on the
march.
I am an old mountain climber, in more ways than one, and I can tell
you, I have learned that there are some similarities between attempting
some of the world's highest peaks and working here in Washington, DC.
But the difference, I found, is that when the going gets tough here on
Capitol Hill, it always seems as though not only do we face the
challenges the mountain presents, but there is a team of saboteurs who
are trying to push and pull you off the mountain.
I have to say that I believe if all of us would turn away and frankly
ignore the partisan campaign machines that are out there always
churning, we could get something meaningful done here. The people of
Colorado, from whom I take my instructions, and to whom I listen, have
let it be known to me these last few days--and I think the rest of the
Nation--they do not care who wins politically. Frankly, I do not care
who wins politically either. What I care about is passing legislation--
meaningful legislation, long-term legislation--that will stave off a
government default and a downgrade in our Nation's credit rating.
Neither of those outcomes is not acceptable. At this point, the only
plan, the only comprehensive plan, the only long-term plan that gets
that done is the Reid plan. So let's focus on the Reid plan. I urge my
colleagues to support the vote we are going to have--the historic vote
we will have later this evening. Let's get it done. Let's get our
country back on track. Let's win the global economic race.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I would first like to commend and
[[Page S5139]]
thank Senator Reid for his tireless and relentless hard work, and my
Democratic colleagues, but also some of my Republican colleagues--
Senator Johnny Isakson, for example--who have demonstrated their
determination to work together to reach an agreement.
You know I am new to Washington. I haven't been here for long, but I
understand more than ever why Americans are so frustrated and often
appalled about what goes on here.
This situation is outrageous. We have an impending crisis--self-
created--and devastating possible wounds--self-inflicted--and
Washington is deadlocked. Washington is gridlocked and straightjacketed
by self-imposed dysfunction, unable to take action to protect its
citizens from a financial catastrophe.
Our Nation is at a crossroads, and we need to rein in spending, cut
the debt and the deficit, and make the tough choices necessary to get
our fiscal house in order. And we need to do it now.
The latest economic news provides all the more reason for the tough
choices and solutions we need now. It shows our economic recovery is
anemic and fragile.
Uncertainty is the enemy. It is the enemy for businesses that are
deciding whether to hire; for banks wanting to loan money to those
businesses; for larger corporations sitting on mountains of cash
waiting to invest and create jobs.
Jobs and our economy are the main reasons to make tough choices now.
We cannot keep kicking cans down the road: the time has come to act.
Families in Connecticut and across the country make tough choices
every day--and they rightfully expect nothing less from us. Tough
choices are necessary to help us get our debt and deficit under
control.
I have heard from hundreds of Connecticut residents in the last few
days who are frustrated--appalled--at what is going on in Washington,
DC.
Like Bernice from Tolland, CT. She can't believe that we don't have
an agreement yet because she is worried that she won't receive her
Social Security check next month.
And Jane from West Hartford. She is wondering why we are protecting
sweetheart deals instead of ensuring Social Security is protected and
strengthened.
And Rod from New Milford. He just wants us to compromise and to get
something done and end this nightmare.
I agree with them--and hundreds more--and I thank them for calling or
writing.
I agree that the immediate solution is not only to raise the debt
ceiling but also to cut spending dollar for dollar to match that
increase, without tax increases, and without any cuts--none--to Social
Security and Medicare.
The markets need a real solution--not a short-term fix--to
demonstrate that we are committed to achieving real results in cutting
spending.
Anne from Hamden, CT makes this point powerfully. She just called
today to say a short-term plan would not provide the certainty the
markets are desperately seeking. I agree. It risks a credit-rating
downgrade and ensures that we would be right back here in another 6
months.
Credit ratings and downgrades seem abstract, intangible, but they are
hugely consequential.
A downgrade in our credit rating would likely cause an automatic tax
increase in the form of higher interests for every American with a
mortgage, car loan, student loan or credit card. The American people
deserve better.
Coming together to compromise is essential now. Majority Leader Reid
has proposed a solution that meets all of the criteria that House
Republicans have demanded for weeks: It does not raise taxes or other
revenues. It includes enough spending cuts to meet the amount of debt-
ceiling increase, dollar for dollar.
These spending cuts are the same as our Republican colleagues have
previously voted for and supported.
Most importantly, Senator Reid's plan makes tough spending cuts, but
doesn't balance our budget on the backs of seniors--it protects vital
programs and does not make cuts in benefits to Medicare or Social
Security.
Time and time again, Democrats have shown that we are willing to
compromise to avert a catastrophic default. Unfortunately, at every
turn, Republicans in the House--and now in the Senate--have blocked any
chance for progress, and continue to put us on an increasingly
dangerous path as the deadline for raising the debt limit approaches.
And now, Senate Republicans are willing to filibuster our Nation into
default.
Today's filibuster of our efforts to prevent a default is
unprecedented.
Since March 1962, Congress has raised the debt limit 74 times--18
times under President Reagan alone.
During George W. Bush's administration, Congress passed five stand-
alone debt limit increases, without filibuster or delay.
Until today, debt limit increases were routine, usually passed by a
simple 51-vote majority, without the procedural hurdles my Republican
colleagues are using today.
They need to come to the table and work with us to find a compromise
that works--for the good of the country and for the good of our
economic recovery.
So I hope that my Republican colleagues will join us in ensuring
stability for our markets and for our fragile economic recovery in
order to avoid harm for millions of Connecticut families--and keep our
economy moving in the right direction.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed.) The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, there are no easy answers to our current
dilemma. The majority leader's proposal is the best option we have to
overcome the bipartisan impasse. Failure to increase the debt limit is
not an option. Working families cannot afford the increased costs
associated with default, and seniors cannot afford not to have their
Social Security payments.
In my time as a mayor, as a State legislator, as a Member of the
House of Representatives, and now as a Senator, I have learned there
are times when one needs to stand and fight, and there are other times
when one needs to reach a compromise. I am not excited about the
decisions we are being forced to make, but I think the majority leader
has crafted a proposal that can bring the two parties together and
avoid economic disaster without destroying Medicare, Social Security,
and other priorities of working families.
If you compare that to Speaker Boehner's proposal, that is just more
of the partisan gamesmanship, and the path we have to take becomes
clear. So I rise today in favor of the majority leader's plan in the
hope that reason will prevail on the other side, and that our
Republican colleagues will finally agree to help govern and not make
irrational demands that drive us down the road to default.
Having said that, these debt negotiations have left America longing
for a better time and a better government, a time when public service
was, as Robert Kennedy said, a noble profession, when public servants
served the public's interests, when they came together and found common
ground and respected the opinions of those on the other side.
My generation has always viewed public service as a noble profession
and the fight for what we believe is right as a noble cause. But none
of us should expect to win every battle. None of us should dismiss the
valid beliefs of those whose politics we oppose but who have been duly
elected and sworn in to represent their State or their district.
The tea party Republicans in the House seem to have forgotten that we
live in a democracy, and in a democracy people hold different views,
contrary but equally valid opinions. They approach problems
differently, from a different perspective, a different background, a
different political view, and have differing views on the best
solution.
The art of governing is bridging those differences. Governing is
finding common ground. Governing is what Ronald Reagan talked about in
his autobiography, ``An American Life,''
[[Page S5140]]
when he spoke about the importance of political compromise. He
understood that in a representative democracy each of us has a right to
our opinion but not a right to our own way.
President Reagan said:
When I began entering into the give and take of the
legislative bargaining--
This is in Sacramento. This is when he was Governor--
a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me
during the election did not like it.
Compromise was a dirty word to them, and they wouldn't face
the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today.
They wanted all or nothing, and they wanted it all at once.
If you don't get it all, some said don't take anything.
Sound familiar? It should. It is the view of today's radical tea
party--the same view Ronald Reagan confronted.
Reagan went on to say:
I learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom
get everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who
said, in 1933, ``I have no expectations of making a hit every
time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible
batting average.''
If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were
asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later,
and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never
got used to it.
Ronald Reagan in his own words--a lesson from a conservative hero for
those modern-day radical conservatives who have watched us walk 90
yards down the field, but would rather move the goal posts than meet us
at the 10-yard line. Ronald Reagan would tell them to grow up, step up
and govern. But they have reiterated the mantra of the radical
conservatives Reagan faced: ``If you don't get it all, don't take
anything.''
Edmund Burke, another conservative icon, once said something today's
House Republicans today would label as ``weakness'' or ``too liberal.''
He said:
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing
because he could only do a little.
House Republicans have chosen to do nothing. Edmund Burke understood
the art of governing and the art of compromise. Ronald Reagan knew how
radical conservatives think, how they negotiate, and now we are seeing
how they stand in the way of governance and governing to maintain the
purity of their ideology.
Clearly, Democrats have offered much. We have offered the other side
an opportunity to govern, and they have rejected it on ideological
grounds. We have lived up to our duty to govern. They have lived up to
Ronald Reagan's own view of radical conservative tactics and
philosophy.
I say to my friends, it is time to compromise and time to govern.
I was shocked to witness the audacity of the House Republicans who
stepped to the microphone this week, one by one, each claiming that, if
this Nation defaults on its obligations, it will be the President's
fault. It will be the Democrats who caused us to default.
Democrats have come a long way and the Republicans know it--they just
won't accept it, and they can't sell it to the American people because
the American people know the truth.
Everyone knows the House tea party Republicans have rejected every
proposal. They have even rejected the Republican Speaker's original
proposal. They claim to love democracy and freedom of speech only when
it is their speech, only when it expresses their ideas and their
beliefs.
They claim to love our system of government, but clearly are at war
with the idea of governing, and with all those on this side who--I
would respectfully remind them--have also been elected to serve, just
as they have.
They claim to embrace constitutional notions of tolerance and
majority rule, but clearly see such notions as an inconvenient obstacle
to getting their own way. They have the audacity to blame us for
offering them what they want, and then to claim we haven't offered
enough--that we are the problem.
The fact is, with the plan the majority leader has put forth,
Democrats are now offering exactly what the Republicans have asked for,
and yet they still will not take yes for an answer.
They even claim that they are willing to compromise as long as it is
within their framework--the framework of their original demands--that
they will compromise on the kind of a balanced budget amendment we
pass. They will only compromise on how deep the cuts to entitlements
are, but they will not compromise on subsidies to big oil companies or
billionaire tax cuts that wealthy Americans have, themselves, told us
they don't need.
In effect their only compromise is getting their own way and calling
it compromise. Well there is a difference between compromise and total
capitulation. There must be a common ground that simply doesn't call
for surrender. There's an Old Scottish proverb that says: ``Better bend
than break.''
I say to my colleagues: We have done all the bending. Now it is time
to govern.
I say to my colleagues: ``Better bend than break,'' because in this
case it is our economic integrity that stands to break.
It is time for the truth.
It is time we look at the real impact on real people's lives if
Republicans continue to stand firm--unwilling to bend, unwilling to
compromise, unwilling to govern--but clearly willing to take America
down the road to default.
According to Secretary Geithner, the consequences for the Nation--and
for millions in my State of New Jersey--would be deep and far-reaching.
Failure to raise the debt limit--failure to allow Treasury to meet
the obligations of the United States that we have already incurred--
would be the ultimate tax increase on every American.
As such, surely it would violate the radical right's pledge to Grover
Norquist. And, make no mistake, it would be a tax increase.
The no-compromise-Republican tax-increase would come in the form of
increased interest rates--driving up the costs for every American
family: the cost of mortgage payments would increase over $1,000
annually; equity prices and home values would decline which, in turn,
would reduce retirement savings and affect the long-term and short-term
economic security of every American.
There would be reductions in spending and investments, jobs would be
lost, businesses would fail, credit card interest would increase by
about $250 annually, families would be paying $100 more for gas, $182
for utilities, and $318 more for groceries.
Based on J.P. Morgan's financial analysis during the debt ceiling and
government shutdown debate in 1995 and the crisis in 2008, interest
rates on Treasury bonds could conceivably rise 75 or even 100 basis
points.
Between mortgages and credit cards alone, an increase of 75 basis
points would translate into an additional $10 billion in consumer
borrowing costs every year at a time when middle class families can ill
afford any increase at all in expenditures.
From an international perspective, default would have prolonged and
disastrous negative consequences on the safe-haven status of Treasuries
and the dollar's dominant role in the international financial system.
It would reduce the willingness of investors here and abroad to
invest in the United States.
In my State of New Jersey, the impact of default would be immediate
and all too real. Payments on a broad range of benefits--on other
obligations--would be either postponed, limited, or discontinued.
That includes military salaries and retirement benefits for 1,219
troops currently deployed from New Jersey, both active and reservists
and almost 500,000 veterans; benefits for almost 1.5 million Social
Security beneficiaries and 1.3 million Medicare enrollees would be
interrupted; student loan payments; Medicaid payments to States for
seniors and the disabled in nursing homes, and payments needed to keep
government facilities operating and providing the services people need.
The total for all these expenditures for New Jersey alone is $80
billion.
That averages out to be about $26,000 per household in my State,
putting a significant portion of the Federal Government's investment in
New Jersey and its people at risk.
And yet the Republicans in the House and many in this Chamber will
not bend, will not compromise, refuse to step up and govern. Their
ideology demands that they protect entitlements for the most entitled
Americans--big
[[Page S5141]]
oil, corporate jet owners, and those who hold a majority of the wealth
in this Nation.
In my view, in my life, in my work, I have come to understand how
wrong they are.
When the 400 richest Americans at the top hold more wealth than the
150 million Americans at the bottom, we cannot simply put the burden on
those who can afford it the least and need our help the most.
Let's be clear. The Republican protection of the entitled class has
nothing to do with balancing the budget or reducing the deficit,
nothing to do with values, nothing to do with faith or cultural
conservatism, nothing to do with community responsibility, and
everything to do with an extreme antigovernment political agenda that
is, in fact, anticommunity.
I believe we can do better for families, better for every American if
we live and govern by the values we preach.
During this process, those of us on this side of the aisle have held
to what the sociologist Max Weber once called the ``ethic of
responsibility.''
House Republicans are pursuing what he called the ``ethic of ultimate
ends.''
George Packer in a recent New Yorker article said:
These ethics are tragically opposed, but the true calling
of politics requires a union of the two.
We, on this side, believe in ethical responsibility, in doing what is
right for the Nation.
Republicans have shown that they believe in one thing and one thing
only--achieving their ultimate political end and, in this case,
achieving that end means standing in the way of any compromise--even if
it threatens to paralyze this Nation's economy, even if it means
rejecting the wisdom of their own hero who understood the importance of
compromise in the art of governance.
I repeat what Reagan said:
Compromise was a dirty word to them, and they wouldn't face
the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today.
They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If
you don't get it all, some said don't take anything.
Well, it is time to realize that governing is not about getting it
all, it's about getting it right for the American people.
Let America understand that Reagan himself stood against those
radical conservatives whose rigid adherence to ideology at the expense
of reason is now taking us down the road to default.
It is on them, and it is up to them to grow up, step up, and
compromise.
As the American people have said in every poll, they want a balanced
approach. That means a combination of significant spending cuts but
also revenues. If they accepted that, we could govern.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask to be yielded 10 minutes. I
understand there is no objection on the Republican side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, whatever one's position is on the best way
to cut the deficit, we all should be able to agree on this: We must
raise the debt ceiling. We must pay our bills. Failing to do so is to
invite economic catastrophe. The American people have had their fill of
catastrophe and near-catastrophe.
Recently in Afghanistan, Admiral Mullen, Chairman of our Joint
Chiefs, was asked by troops if they will be paid next month. His answer
was:
I honestly can't answer that question.
He added:
I'd like to give you a better answer than that right now; I
just honestly don't know.
It is inconceivable to me that we will leave our troops in limbo by
driving our country over the cliff of default. Our Nation's economic
life is in peril. I don't remember ever in the 32 years I have been
here when the Nation has been more in need of deliberation,
statesmanship, and compromise.
New York Times columnist David Brooks, who is a conservative
columnist, recently wrote that too many Republicans seem to have joined
a ``movement''--his word--in which ``the members do not accept the
logic of compromise, no matter what the terms.'' I hope that some of
our Republican colleagues will prove Mr. Brooks wrong on this matter
because of its huge significance.
The time for ignoring hard truths is over. Blind resistance to
compromise may play well with some, but it is no way to solve hard
problems or to govern. Drawing lines in the sand and issuing ultimatums
may make for ringing sound bites, but no press release ever sent a
child to college or gave a working family hope for a good job.
If our Republican colleagues cannot bring themselves to support the
majority leader's proposal or at least to propose modifications to it,
they can vote ``no.'' But it is unthinkable to filibuster against
allowing the Senate an opportunity to vote on the Reid measure itself,
as this clock approaches midnight. It is one thing to vote against the
Reid measure, it is quite another to deny the Senate by filibustering
the opportunity to vote on the Reid measure when the issue is of such
enormous importance.
Last evening, and again today, the Republican leader said they would
insist on 60 votes to pass the Reid amendment. That is the definition
of a filibuster threat. It is the very definition. You must have 60
votes. That is based on a threat to filibuster. Hopefully, some of our
Republican colleagues will support Senator Reid's proposal. It has no
new revenue. Its spending cuts match the size of the debt limit
increase. Its cuts have been approved by leaders of both parties. But
if our Republican colleagues don't seek to modify the Reid plan and
won't vote for the plan, they at least should allow the Senate to vote
on it and not filibuster. Whether Senators vote for or against the Reid
legislation, the American people will not forgive a filibuster that
prevents us from even voting on vital legislation as we rapidly
approach a cliff. In the critically important matter now before us,
there is going to be a very strong public reaction against those who,
with economic calamity looming before us, deny the Senate, through a
threat of a filibuster and the filibuster itself, an opportunity to
vote on the Reid motion to concur.
Compromise does not come easy with an issue such as this, but the
people of this country did not elect us to do easy things. They elected
us to seek practical solutions. They elected us to lead. The test of
leadership in the Senate on the matter before us is allowing us to vote
not just on cloture, which is what the Republican leader suggests is a
vote on the Reid motion--it is not--but on the Reid motion itself. The
test of leadership in this Senate is not to filibuster the Senate so we
can't vote on the important Reid motion but to allow us to proceed when
that cloture motion is voted on.
So I call on Senate Republicans to offer changes to the Reid proposal
or vote against it, if they will, but not thwart the Senate majority
from voting to adopt it, should they choose. When the cloture motion is
voted on, if cloture is not invoked, and the Senate is prevented from
voting up or down on the Reid proposal, under our rules, debate on the
Reid proposal will continue.
I want to read from the petition we are going to vote on so everybody
understands what we are voting on. We are not voting on the Reid motion
to concur. We are voting on whether--and these are the words of the
motion--we will bring to a close the debate on that motion; will we
bring to a close the debate so we can vote on the Reid motion to concur
in the House amendment.
So voting against bringing debate to a close, thereby denying the
majority the opportunity to act, does not defeat the majority leader's
motion. It stalls it. It stymies the Senate from acting. If an end is
not brought to debate when this cloture motion is voted on, the Reid
motion is still the pending matter.
If the Republicans, then, are determined to filibuster against it and
not allow us to vote on it, they, I believe, will see the wrath of this
country brought down upon them.
Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to.
Mrs. BOXER. I want to make sure the people listening to the Senator--
because he is such an expert on what goes on around here--understand
this and make sure I understand it too.
The Senator is saying that when 1 a.m. this morning comes, we will
have
[[Page S5142]]
a vote to determine whether we can stop debating the Reid amendment and
actually vote on it. But if we don't get the 60 votes to do that, what
will have happened is they will have stalled us, but the Reid amendment
is still pending. We can't get a vote on that if the Republicans
filibuster it and keep talking and talking and don't let us get to a
vote; is that correct?
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from California is exactly correct.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague because I think it is important for
the people to understand. I would hope Senator Reid will keep his
amendment on the floor. It is the last vehicle standing to avert a
default, and I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from California for reinforcing that
point.
I heard one of our colleagues tonight say the Republicans are willing
to give us a vote on this bill. No, they are not. The Republicans are
willing to have a cloture vote brought up earlier. They then will vote
against cloture. But that will do nothing in terms of bringing us
closer to a vote on the Reid amendment because if they will not end
debate by voting yes for cloture, if they are going to filibuster--
which, apparently, they are going to do because they are determined to
filibuster this bill--all that happens, if we don't get the 60 votes
the first time that cloture is voted on, is it will be voted on again
and again because they are filibustering. The Republicans would then be
filibustering against our being able to vote on this bill.
Everyone should be very clear. I hope the public will understand what
is happening. The Republicans are not willing to give us a vote on the
Reid motion. They are not willing to do that. We would be happy to have
a vote on the Reid motion immediately, but they insist that we get a
supermajority to vote. They want to succeed in a filibuster without
even filibustering. That is something which is not only not in the
Senate rules, it is also inconsistent with making progress on resolving
this problem.
The American people want us to compromise, and the refusal to
compromise by a few Members of this body and by a number of Members of
the other body is what is stymying this resolution. We cannot tolerate
that. I think what we must do is continue to offer to compromise.
The majority leader is in his office, as he has been all day, waiting
to hear from the Republican leader with any suggestions he wishes to
make and amendments to the majority leader's motion. It has been a long
wait. It has been a fruitless wait--waiting for the Republican leader
to suggest modifications.
It is not enough that the Reid motion already accepts the Republican
arguments of no revenue and that cuts have to equal the amount of the
increase in the debt limit. Those are key demands of the Republicans.
I have a great deal of trouble not including revenues. I think it is
an outrage there is not shared sacrifice in this bill; that the
wealthiest among us are still paying the reduced tax rate, for
instance, that President Bush proposed; that we have loopholes in the
law which give incentives to businesses to move jobs overseas; that we
have hedge fund managers actually paying a lower tax rate on their very
large incomes than their own employees pay on lesser incomes because of
a loophole in the law.
The American people want us to close these loopholes. So I have great
trouble there is no shared sacrifice in the proposal before us, but
that is the way it is. It only has spending cuts. So the Republicans
have gotten that--only spending cuts. They have gotten their argument
also that the amount of any increase in the debt limit be matched by
spending cuts. It is now time to say yes or to propose an alternative.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think it has become very clear that
our Democratic colleagues want to raise taxes. They use the phrase
revenues--revenues--and we need a shared sacrifice. That means people
need to pay more taxes, as if that doesn't have an impact on the
economy.
We have had a recent study by one of the international groups which
found the United States has the most progressive tax system in the
world--among the developed nations. This is all the European nations.
The wealthy pay more in the United States than in those countries,
according to an independent, international study. We have heard the
numbers. A substantial percentage of the income taxes are paid by the
top 10 percent in America. How much more do you do this?
I thought we had an agreement last December with the President in
which we agreed that raising taxes at a time of economic danger is not
the right thing to do. Not doing something to fix this debt limit now
is not a good thing. We need to raise the debt limit. I don't know what
would happen if we don't. I don't think it would be good. I think we
run a risk. But the real danger we have is not the debt limit; the real
danger we have is the extraordinary surging debt this Nation has, which
is unlike anything we have ever had before.
It is systemic. It is part of the structure of the American economy
right now that we are spending 42 percent more than we take in. We
cannot keep doing that. The projections for the future are not better.
So it is a very dangerous trend, and we have to get off of it.
We had a talk about that in the last election. The American people
were engaged in that. They weren't happy with their Congress. They
didn't think Congress was managing their affairs very well. They
believed they weren't listening to them when they were asking questions
such as: How can you keep doing this? You are putting our grandchildren
in the poorhouse. You are risking the economy of the United States. All
you want to do is spend money, buy votes, and say you are spreading the
wealth around and that is going to make things better.
So we had an election, and it was a shellacking for the big spenders.
Wasn't that what it was all about? Was there a single candidate I know
of who won last time--at least a new candidate who was elected for the
first time--who didn't talk about the need to constrain spending in
Washington? That was the theme throughout the election. That was the
meaning of the election.
So now my colleagues are saying: Oh, we can't. Oh, you want to cut
spending? Oh, they say, they have these extremists in the House. Oh,
they do not want to play ball. They haven't served in the Congress long
enough. They do not know better. They think we can actually cut
spending. Of course, we can't cut spending. Oh, that is not the way you
do it. No, you just reduce growth a little bit and spending and say you
are cutting spending, even though it is still going up. That is what
has been going on here. That is why we are increasing the debt at the
most extraordinary rate and over a systemic period of time to the
degree that every economist who has appeared before the Budget
Committee--and I am the ranking Republican on that committee--has
testified that we have to stop; that this is unsustainable--
unsustainable. They have said: You cannot keep doing this.
Do you know, colleagues, that in the last 2 years, when the
Democratic majority in this Senate had 60 votes, that spending for
nondefense discretionary spending, not counting the stimulus, just the
basic budgetary spending on all our accounts--nonwar, nondefense,
nonSocial Security--went up 24 percent? This at a time when we are
running the biggest deficits in history; 24 percent increases? We can't
cut spending?
There was an article in the Washington Times yesterday or the day
before where my colleague, Senator Shelby from Alabama, asked the
Secretary of Education how he could explain that the Secretary of
Education and the President were proposing the Department of Education
get a 13\1/2\-percent increase for the next fiscal year, beginning
October 1--13\1/2\ percent. But he defended that. He said it was
justified; that it was an investment.
But when you don't have money, you have to change business. You can't
continue to be in denial and pretend this is normal; that we can just
continue to increase the Education Department by 13.5 percent.
By the way, the Department of Energy, the President, and their
Secretary of Defense proposes a 9.5-percent increase for the Department
of Energy,
[[Page S5143]]
which does more to restrict the production of energy than produce the
source of energy in America; the Department of State, 10.5 percent. I
am talking about their proposal for next year, beginning October 1 of
this year, the fiscal year. Sixty percent they propose for
transportation, and they propose a tax for that but will not say what
it is. When I asked, they will not say it is a gas tax because that is
not popular.
So I asked Secretary LaHood. So it is a not-gas-tax tax. Is that
right, Mr. Secretary? Well, we will talk with Congress about what that
tax is. But I can just tell you, Mr. LaHood, Congress is not going to
pass a big fat tax so you can increase spending on your budget 60
percent because we don't have that kind of money. We don't need to be
hammering this fragile economy with another big tax increase. Besides,
what we need to do first and foremost is rein in this surging spending
spree we have been on. That is what we need to do. That is just a fact.
That is what the American people understand.
I am offended, frankly, by the suggestion that the people in the
House, who swept out a lot of the buddies of the big spenders in the
Senate--a lot of the big spenders in the House are back home
figuratively pushing up daisies because they were held to account,
finally, many of them, after many years in the Congress. They were
voted out of office. So the people who beat them are extremists, you
see. That is what they like to say: They will not negotiate. They will
not deal. They are irresponsible. They actually think they can come up
here and change the trajectory of debt in this country.
So they passed a budget in the House of Representatives. A brilliant,
fine, young Congressman, Paul Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee in
the House, the Republican majority in the House passed a budget that
cut spending $5 trillion, and it would change the debt trajectory of
America. It didn't quite pass, even at 10 years that I would like to
have seen, but we are in such a hole it is hard to get out, and it
would have made a big change in the way we are going and put us on the
right path.
Senator Reid called it up, mocked it, had his members all vote
against it.
So we said: What about your budget, Mr. Reid?
Well, we don't have one.
Well, what about your budget? You have the majority in the Senate.
You can pass a budget with just 50 votes. Why don't you pass a budget?
It is foolish to pass a budget, he said. Foolish to pass a budget.
At a time when this country has never, ever, ever been in a more
serious financial condition than we are today, we are borrowing 42
cents out of every dollar we spend. That is a deep hole, and it is not
the war. We spent $150 billion-plus on the war this year. Next year it
will be $118 billion. The deficit this year will be $1,500 billion. It
is about 10 percent.
If we put every bit of the war costs as part of our debt, it is only
10 percent. It is other spending that is putting us in this hole.
We do have long-term problems with our entitlement programs.
Shouldn't we talk about them or should we do as the President did:
bring Congressman Ryan over to the White House for a speech, sit him
right down there in front of him and then launch into an attack on what
he and his Members of the House have tried to do to make America a
better place.
So they say: Those new guys and women over there who were elected,
they are not reasonable enough. They will not work with us. Well, let
me tell you. They proposed a $6 trillion reduction. Even that didn't
balance it in 10 years, but it sure was a big step forward.
Do you know what they have done now. The House passed a bill at the
insistence of the Senate and the President to try to pass a bill--and
they passed it--that would raise the debt ceiling and cut spending only
$1 trillion. Is that an extremist thing to do? They sent it over here,
much of it very similar to what Senator Reid has proposed, and they
called it up within minutes and tabled it--without debate, without
discussion.
Then they continued to say, as if nothing happened: These are
extremists over there. They won't listen to reason. These tea party
people are not good for America.
Well, I am going to tell you one thing. The tea party people
understand an important fact. This Congress is spending too much money.
They are exactly correct in that regard.
No Member of the United States Congress can, with a clear conscience,
look their constituents in the eye and say we have managed their money
wisely. We are in such a shape we can't even see when we will balance
the budget because we have mismanaged their economy so badly. The only
idea that anybody seems to have around here is, spend more money and
stimulate the economy. If we spend more money, where does it come from?
It is borrowed. We are already in debt, and every new dime we spend is
borrowed.
There is only one way to move out of this; that is, to reduce
spending. It just is. The American people understand that.
I recently had the honor to be in Estonia near Russia, one of the
Baltic nations that is so proud to be free and independent. When the
recession hit, they suffered more than we. They had a 15-percent
reduction in their economy. Do you know what they did. The Cabinet
members took a 40-percent pay cut. Every employee in Estonia took a 10-
to 20-percent pay cut.
One of the members told me: I will tell you who is really mad is my
wife. She is a doctor, and the medical system got cut.
Do you know what. They had 5 percent growth the first quarter, and
their debt-to-GDP is 7 percent. Our debt-to-GDP is 95 percent. They are
going to come out of this, and they are not going to have a debt so
heavy that it pulls down the economy.
Mr. President, I don't know what the agreement timewise is at this
point. Can the Chair advise me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I see my colleague from California, and I will yield. I
would just note that the idea that the Republicans don't want to vote
is not correct. We are prepared to vote. We are prepared to vote on the
standard procedural manner in the Senate of 60 votes that is done on
every significant matter around here, and that is perfectly normal. I
am rather amazed, surprised, and almost amused that my colleagues would
feign such great pain and anguish that this would occur. They would do
exactly the same. That is the way the Senate operates. That is the way
they have operated when they were in the minority, and that is the way
we operate today. On matters of significance it takes 60 votes.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak and
raise some political points. We have been jousting politically, some of
which is good and some of which is not. I do say we need to reach an
agreement soon and pass legislation that will raise the debt limit and
will reduce our spending trajectory so we can get this country on a
sound path.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my friend, Senator Sessions, has said
Republicans are prepared to vote on the Reid proposal. Actually, they
are not. They want to vote on whether to allow a vote on the Reid
proposal. That is what a cloture vote is, and they don't want to vote
on the Reid proposal.
We have offered that and said that a majority should rule. Just as
the Boehner proposal passed in the House with a simple majority, we
want a chance to pass the Reid proposal with a simple majority.
My friend says that is laughable. Why is it laughable? We went back
and looked at the Record, and every vote we could find on increasing
the debt was always done by a simple majority--always.
So if we want to follow tradition, cut out the filibuster. Let's
vote, and we will pass the Reid proposal tonight and we can find a way
to resolve these problems.
My colleague also said Democrats want to raise taxes. Let me just say
something. Democrats want to reduce taxes on the middle class. But we
do believe multinational corporations, people who earn over $1 billion
a year and $1 million a year should pay their fair share. We do believe
that.
Senator Sanders researched and found out that the richest 400
families
[[Page S5144]]
in America make more than one-half of America. Can you imagine? The
richest 400 families make more than half of America. So those at the
top are doing just fine.
So let's be clear. We want an up-or-down vote on the Reid amendment.
We think it is fair. We think it is just. We march toward the
Republicans. We didn't want to give up on revenues, but we did. We
wanted a clean debt ceiling, not holding it hostage to any
machinations. We gave that up. We are willing to talk. We are willing
to work. Senator Reid's office--I was just in there. The door is wide
open waiting for Republicans to come in and work with us.
So we hoped at this point we would have an agreement and we could
climb down off this manmade crisis. There is no crisis. Eighty-nine
times we have raised the debt; no crisis whatsoever. I think it is
important that we recognize this is no crisis. We have a challenge to
reduce deficits and debt. We did it with Bill Clinton, we balanced the
budget, we created surpluses. We know how to do it. We will work with
you and do it. But we don't need a manmade crisis to pull this entire
economy down, to lower the full faith and credit of the United States.
Imagine holding the full faith and credit of the United States
hostage until you get every single thing you want. That is not
compromise. That is absolutely irresponsible.
Mr. President, I want to thank you for your leadership in pointing
out what is happening on the Senate floor; that there is a filibuster
to stop us from voting on the Reid amendment and that we are not going
to give up. If, in fact, they decide they want to continue to debate
the Reid amendment and they don't give us 60 votes to go to a vote on
the Reid amendment, we are going to keep going because the Reid
amendment is a fair amendment. It was pulled from both sides of the
aisle. It will get us out of this mess that we are in and get us
concentrating on the long-term challenges we face: job creation,
deficits, and debt reduction.
I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate everyone's
patience. It is one of the most difficult times we find in the history
of our country. There are negotiations going on at the White House now
on a solution that will avert the catastrophic default on the Nation's
debt. There are many elements to be finalized, and there is still a
distance to go before any arrangement can be completed, but I believe
we should give everyone as much room as possible to do their work. I
have spoken to the White House quite a few times this evening, and they
have asked me to give everyone as much time as possible to reach an
agreement if one can be reached. For that reason, we will hold over the
vote until tomorrow to give them more time to talk. In fact, we will
come in at noon and have the vote at 1 o'clock.
I am glad to see this move toward cooperation and compromise. I hope
it bears fruit. I am confident that a final agreement that will adopt
the Senate's long-term approach, rather than the short-term bandaid
proposed by the House of Representatives, will move forward. There can
be no short-term agreement, and I am optimistic there will be no short-
term arrangement whatsoever.
I am also confident that reasonable people from both parties should
be able to reach an agreement, and I believe we should give them time
to do so.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the
Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 627, with amendment
No. 589, occur tomorrow, Sunday, July 31, at 1 p.m.; further, that the
mandatory quorum call under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________