[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 8, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7293-S7307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to follow up on the remarks of my
colleagues and the Senators who have spoken before me.
It seems as though we have accepted this new normal, that shutting
down the operations of the largest enterprise in America is acceptable.
I concur with my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, about the real
stories and real pain that is taking place because of this government
shutdown. I commend some of my colleagues for their comments. When we
read these tragic stories, whether it concerns NIH or it concerns our
veterans or concerns our National Park Service, they say: Oh, but that
part of the government we want to reopen. Does that mean that every
other aspect of government remains closed until we can find that story?
I point out stories to my colleagues that were in both The Washington
Post and The New York Times today--stories we should be celebrating
about--three American Nobel Prize winners. Does that mean we should now
reopen the NSF, because if the National Science Foundation isn't
funded, there may not be a next generation of American Nobel Prize
winners? Do we have to bring in a story about some child being hurt
because their food or their meat or their fish wasn't inspected
correctly?
I have to tell my colleagues, I spent a lot longer in business than I
have in politics, and I have been involved in a lot of business
negotiations. But I have never been involved in a negotiation that says
during the negotiation we have to shut down the operations of our
business and inflict pain not only upon our employees but upon the
general economy across the board.
That is not the way to govern.
We have talked about stories about Federal workers. But I agree with
the Senator from Alaska. It also hurts the hotel owners along the
Skyline Drive in our State of Virginia and the government contractors
who start and stop because they don't understand how government is
going to operate. I heard a story this morning about a small business
outside a government facility in St. Louis that is hurting as well.
This piecemeal approach to reopening government makes no sense. What
might be better--as we hear from some folks who want to have this
piecemeal effect--is to ask: What parts of the government should stay
closed. This is not the way to operate. We ought to reopen this
government, put our people back to work, get this economy going again,
and continue the very real conversations we have to have about getting
our fiscal house in order.
What makes this different to me, in the 4\1/2\ years I have been in
the Senate, than previous discussions and debates is that we have
this--the first in my tenure in the Senate--government shutdown which
disproportionately is hurting Virginia and Maryland. But it is
literally hurting every community across America. But we have this
tragedy, this catastrophe merging now into a deadline that is going to
hit us next week where there are certain Members of Congress who say:
It is OK if America defaults.
I find that stunning.
When we look back, we find there has never been a major industrial
country in modern history that has defaulted. As a matter of fact, the
last major country to default was Argentina, back in December of 2001.
In the aftermath of that default, they had over 100 percent per annum
inflation. Every family in Argentina saw literally 60 percent of their
net worth disappear within a few weeks. America is not Argentina, but
why would we even get close to that kind of potential economic
catastrophe?
It has been mentioned already that America holds a record as the
reserve currency for the world. When crises happen, as have happened
around the world recently in many countries, people and capital flow
into the dollar. That is because the dollar and the full faith and
credit of the United States has never been suspect. There has never
been a question of whether we are going to honor our commitments. Next
week, or very shortly after, that history is going to be put
potentially in jeopardy.
I have heard those who say we can prioritize payments. There is no
business group in America or no economist that I know of, from left to
right, who believes that somehow America can partially default and
prioritize payments. Are we going to pay interest? Are we going to pay
our troops?
Those of us who served at State levels realize that sometimes our
budgets are close to 50 percent passthroughs from the Federal
Government.
The Presiding Officer was the governor of the great State of West
Virginia. How long before West Virginia defaults if America starts
prioritizing its payments? How many other Detroits will there be all
across America if we were to take this type of irresponsible action?
Even if there were some possibility that there might be some chance of
some logic behind this partial payment scheme, it has never been tried
before. No industrial country has ever gotten this close to a default.
Why would we take the chance? Why would we play Russian roulette with
only one bullet in two chambers? It is something that at this moment,
for our national economy and the world economy, can be devastating.
I know we seem to all be repeating ourselves on both sides, but to me
it seems very easy in a negotiation; we have differences. I would say
to my colleagues I probably make folks on my side more angry than
almost anyone else on these issues around getting our country's balance
sheet in order. I am anxious to continue those discussions about tax
reform, about entitlement reform, about bringing our debt-to-GDP ratio
down. But that kind of negotiation hasn't happened while we have this
government shutdown and the full faith and credit of the United States
potentially in jeopardy.
So let's open the government, not just because we hear some tragic
story about one component of the government, not just because we need
to make the case about food inspectors, about the National Science
Foundation, about NASA Langley where we do aeronautics research--3,500
people and 7 people were at work last week. China, India, other nations
around the world are not stopping their research, not stopping their
investments because we can't get our act together. Open this
government. Take off the table the idea that America will default. Then
I am anxious to join with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get
our country's balance sheet in order. But to continue to hold this
economy and these stories of these Americans lives in this limbo is
irresponsible beyond words.
So I hope we will go ahead and--agreeing with my colleagues who have
spoken already, let's get this government open. Let's take and make
sure we are going to honor and pay our debts, and let's get to the very
real, important questions of how we get our Nation's balance sheet
right.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.J. Res. 72
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I want to again thank the majority leader
for bringing the attention of this body to the tragedy of those
servicemen who lost their lives and the fact that, unfortunately, their
families had been notified improperly, I believe, that they will not be
paid the tax-free death gratuity they are entitled to under law. This
is wrong. Every Member of this body agrees this is wrong. Every
Republican agrees this is wrong, and I am confident every Democrat
agrees it is wrong as well.
Indeed, the way this announcement that was made was highly troubling.
[[Page S7294]]
The Department of Defense notified our military families via Twitter
that those servicemembers who die in battle will not be paid their tax-
free death gratuities due to the partial Federal Government shutdown.
I think this is yet another pattern that we have seen distressingly
from the Obama administration of politicizing this shutdown and playing
partisan games to maximize the pain that is inflicted on Americans. It
is part and parcel of the pattern we have seen, barricading the World
War II memorial, barricading the parking lot at Mount Vernon, George
Washington's home, even though Mount Vernon is privately operated,
barricading the roads leaving Mount Rushmore, even though they are
State roads and not Federal roads.
The actions by the Department of Defense are also contrary to the
statute that this body just passed. The military death gratuity is by
statute a pay and personnel benefit. Accordingly, it is clearly funded
by Public Law 113-39, the Pay Our Military Act that was passed in a
bipartisan manner this week. We already acted to prevent this and,
unfortunately, the Defense Department is declining to follow that law
that we passed.
The legislation this body already passed would immediately act to
take the families of those soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines
whose lives are tragically taken--to take them off the table and say:
Regardless of what happens in a government shutdown, we are going to
stand by the men and women fighting for America.
Indeed, the House of Representatives has introduced a bipartisan bill
to immediately fund death gratuity payments. When that bill is passed,
the Senate should pass that bill immediately. Indeed, the Pentagon
should abandon this policy to begin with and simply follow the law that
was already passed. But if they do not, I call upon all 100 Senators to
come together, to listen to the majority leader, who spoke powerfully
about the need to stand by our service men and women whose lives are
tragically taken. When the House passes that bill, which I am confident
it will do so with considerable speed, I would call upon every Senator
to listen to the majority leader's call and to stand with our service
men and women.
But there is something else we can do right here today to demonstrate
that this body does not have to be locked in partisan gridlock, to
demonstrate that bipartisan cooperation is possible, and to demonstrate
that our veterans are truly not the subject of partisan dispute but are
separate and deserve to be treated fairly, deserve to have the
commitments, the promises we made to our veterans honored; that is,
this body can stop blocking the legislation that the House of
Representatives has already passed--bipartisan legislation to fund the
VA, to fund disability payments--so we do not hold them hostage to what
is happening in Washington.
Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of H.J. Res. 72, making continuing appropriations for
veterans benefits for fiscal year 2014; that the measure be read three
times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas has
stated again what has already been talked about here a lot, and that is
a piecemeal approach to funding our government.
As do most Americans, we Democrats support the purpose of this bill
to fund the Veterans' Administration. But there is no reason for us to
have to choose between this important government function and disease
control, NIH, highway safety, FBI, poor children, workplace safety, or
protecting the environment.
We could do all these things if the House Republican leadership would
just allow the House to vote on the Senate-passed measure to end the
shutdown. Everyone knows the votes are there.
Our position is simple: Open the government, pay our bills, and then
we will be happy to negotiate about anything.
We need to end this government shutdown.
First of all, my friend talks about these five families who are in
bereavement, and that is an understatement. Five sons, husbands,
friends were killed over the weekend.
Providing the funding that my friend requests would not enable DOD to
pay a death gratuity to the families of 17 servicemembers--five over
the weekend. We have had others die who have given their lives to
protect the Nation since the shutdown began on October 1. Seventeen.
This is but one example of how the efforts of the Senator from Texas
to fund the government on a piecemeal basis does not work.
If the Speaker would allow the House to pass the Senate continuing
resolution, the Department of Defense would have the authority it needs
to bring families to Dover, DE, to receive the remains of their family
members and to pay the death gratuity benefits.
The junior Senator from Texas expresses concern for America's
veterans. But his consent request addresses only some of the ways in
which the American people, through their government, have committed to
help our veterans.
Let me quote from the remarks of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr.
Murphy. He gave these remarks on October 3. Here is exactly what he
said:
I would note also that I believe the resolution the Senator
is offering and suggested be passed provides only partial
funding for the VA. There is no funding here to operate the
national cemeteries. There is no funding for the Board of
Veterans' Appeals. There is no funding for constructing VA
hospitals and their clinics. There is no funding, actually,
to operate the IT system that the entire VA needs in order to
continue going forward.
So there could not be a better example of: Why we are involved in
this? Why could not we just open the government? Let our former
colleague, the former Senator from Georgia, Max Cleland, a decorated,
disabled American veteran who runs the cemeteries, do his job. He
cannot do that. Let's get it all over with. Let's have the NIH go
forward, the Centers for Disease Control, the Park Service. We cannot
have this piecemeal approach, because you wind up with the same
situation in which we now find ourselves. We want to do something for
the veterans, but it does not take care of much of what the veterans
need.
So I ask unanimous consent that my friend's request be modified as
follows: That an amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that
the joint resolution, as amended, then be read a third time and passed;
and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate. This amendment is the text
that passed the Senate and is a clean continuing resolution for the
entire government--everything; veterans, there are cemeteries, there
are benefits, everything--and it is something that is already over in
the House and reportedly has the support of a majority of the Members
of the House of Representatives.
So I would ask my friend to really surprise the world, surprise the
country, and say: I agree. Modify it. Let's fund the government.
And then, as we have said, as I have said--and everyone listen: We
are happy, when the government is open, when we can pay our bills, to
sit down and talk about anything they want to talk about. It does not
matter. No restrictions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Does the Senator so modify his
request?
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask
unanimous consent that the majority leader and I be able to engage in a
colloquy so that we may perhaps be able to, as the majority leader
said, surprise the world by finding some avenues of bipartisan
cooperation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to sit down and talk to the
Senator--his office or my office. The point we have right here today is
that we need the government open. With all due respect to my friend,
the junior Senator from Texas--I want to say this in a most respectful
way--he and I, with the dialog here on the Senate floor, we are not
going to work this out. I have asked that the government be open so
[[Page S7295]]
that everyone can have benefits. The veterans measure he proposes
leaves many veterans out in the cold--out in the cold--including the
families of 17 of our servicemen who were killed since this came into
effect, this shutdown.
So we will go as we have. I object to his proposal. I assume he will
object to mine. And then we will go through the 10 minutes per person
and see what happens later today. But I do--I am happy to sit down and
talk to the Senator in my office, his office, any place he suggests,
privately or publicly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, was there----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, just a clarification: Was there objection to
the request that we be able to engage in a colloquy? I was not clear as
to what the majority leader was objecting to.
Mr. REID. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Is there objection to the modified request?
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will note
with regret that the majority leader objected to engaging in a
discussion, to engaging in negotiations here on the Senate floor. I
think that is unfortunate.
So I will promulgate the questions I would have asked him directly,
and he may choose whether he may wish to answer.
The majority leader read from comments that Senator Murphy made on
the Senate floor, suggesting that the House bill funding the VA was not
broad enough. I would note, in my office we have drafted legislation
that would fund the VA in its entirety. And if his objection is that it
is not broad enough, I will readily offer that I would happily work
with the majority leader to fund every bit of the VA as it is right now
today, and we could introduce that bill. Indeed, I would be happy to
have it labeled the Reid-Cruz bill and to give lead authorship to the
majority leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CRUZ. I would be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator be willing to take care of the 560,000
veterans who are Federal employees, many of whom have now been
furloughed?
Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Illinois for that question. Indeed,
I enthusiastically support the proposal that the House unanimously
passed to give backpay to Federal workers. Indeed, I would ask a
question of the assistant majority leader: whether the Senate will even
vote on that proposal because there are eight bills funding the Federal
Government that are sitting on the majority leader's desk. We have not
been allowed to vote on any of them.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Texas is asking me a question, I
would respond through the Chair that we have given the Senator from
Texas ample opportunity to completely fund the government, including
all of the veterans who work for the Federal Government, and all of the
functions of the Federal Government so we do not run into the
embarrassment of these poor families in their bereavement being denied
the most basic benefits that our government gives.
He has had a chance to do that over and over. I believe he has
declined that opportunity. So he bears some responsibility for the
unfortunate circumstances we face.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I would note the fact that there are some
issues on which we have partisan disagreements does not mean there are
not other issues on which we can come together.
Ms. STABENOW. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to my friend for a question.
Ms. STABENOW. Through the Chair to the Senator from Texas, I am
wondering if his motion includes the full funding of the VA medical
system, which is a completely government-run, government-controlled
health care system?
Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend for that question. As I said, I would
readily support legislation fully funding the VA, because the VA is a
vital government system. It is a promise we have made. It is unrelated
to ObamaCare. My principal complaint this past week has been that the
Democratic majority in this body is holding programs unrelated to
ObamaCare hostage in order to force ObamaCare on everyone. We agreed
for active-duty military.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might, just to clarify so that I
understand, because the Senator from Texas has, in fact, made the
ending of a private sector competitive health care system for up to 30
million Americans part of what he wants to stop, I wanted to be clear
that the fully government-funded, government-run, with government
doctors system through the Veterans' Administration is something the
Senator is advocating that we continue to fund through the Federal
Government?
Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Michigan for that question. Yet
again, the answer is yes. I believe we should fully fund the VA. The
two questions I would promulgate----
Mr. REID. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request?
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object----
Mr. REID. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request?
Mr. CRUZ. I would note the majority leader seems not to want to
engage in debate. So I object. I hope the majority leader will start
negotiating.
Mr. REID. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modified request.
Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. REID. Yes, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, using leader time, we have a number of
people who are wishing to speak. They should be able to do that. But I
say as nicely as I can, the problem we have here is what people are
saying, like my friend from Texas, little bits and pieces of
government. It will not work. We have to open the government. So until
that happens--we have to open the government. We have to make sure we
can pay our debts. Then we will negotiate.
I know he is fixed on ObamaCare. We know that. But the problem is
that is not going to change. So I would hope we can do what needs to be
done, open the government, make sure we pay our bills, and then we
negotiate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. I want to join with most of my colleagues who have talked
about the urgency of us getting the government open. It is causing
great harm to our country. Make no mistake about it, it is hurting our
economy. I could talk about my own State of Maryland. Our Governor has
estimated that we are losing $15 million every day. So every day is
precious.
I could talk about over 100,000 Federal workers in Maryland who are
furloughed out of the 800,000 nationally, having a huge impact on our
economy.
This morning Senator Boxer held a news briefing where we talked about
the impact on the Environmental Protection Agency where 93 percent of
its employees have been furloughed. We can talk about the direct impact
of those employees not being there.
There was a representative from the Ding Darling Refuge in Florida
saying not only did it hurt the local economy directly, but she talked
about one of the contract services that provided the touring service to
the refuge had to lay off 20-some employees.
There are private sector jobs that are directly being lost as a
result of this furlough. It is going to be very difficult to get back
that loss in our economy the longer the government shutdown lasts. It
is wasteful to the taxpayer. The last shutdown cost the taxpayers $2
billion. Here we talk about conservatives who want to do something
about the national debt and they are wasting taxpayer dollars by
keeping government closed.
Yes, it is hurting our Federal workforce. I joined with Senator
Mikulski in the comments she made a little bit earlier. Our Federal
workforce has had to endure freezes in salaries, furloughs as a result
of sequestration, freezes in the number of employees who can be hired,
doing more work with less, and now furloughs again under a government
shutdown. Those who are working do not know when they are going to get
paid. It is not what we should be
[[Page S7296]]
doing to our Federal workforce. They have suffered. This is wrong. It
is totally avoidable.
The furloughs at the Environmental Protection Agency are jeopardizing
our public health. We had experts come in today and talk about the fact
that we do not have the people on guard to protect our waters, to
protect our air, to protect our environment. It is jeopardizing public
health. It is jeopardizing our environment.
I mentioned this morning, and let me mention again, the Blackwater
National Wildlife Refuge located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, in
Cambridge. This is a community in which that refuge is a huge part of
their economy. This is a popular month for visitors to visit
Blackwater. Well, the local businesses are hurting. The restaurants
have less customers; the hotels, less rooms are being rented. It goes
on and on and on, the damage to our economy.
Harbor Point is one of the most important economic developments in
downtown Baltimore. It is an RCRA site, which means it is under court
order requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to sign off on the
development plan. Well, we have a development plan. The city council is
acting. We are ready to move forward. But guess what. We cannot get EPA
to sign off on it because the people responsible are now on furlough.
That is holding up economic growth and economic development in
Baltimore. That is what this is doing. It is harming us.
Maryland farmers on the Chesapeake Bay are doing what is right to try
to help our bay. They depend upon the protections of the programs that
are out there on soil conservation. The Senator from Michigan knows
through how hard she has been working on the agriculture bill to
provide the tools that are necessary to help our farmers be responsible
farmers on land conservation.
I received a call from a farmer near Centerville, MD, on Monday that
sums up pretty well how important the Natural Resources Conservation
Service is to their work. This person is enrolled in the Conservation
Stewardship Program, the CSP. That means he is planting bumper crops in
an effort to help us deal with the runoff issues of pesticides and
insecticides into the bay, helping us in helping the bay.
He receives certain payments as a result of participation in the
program. He is no longer getting those payments. We are asking him to
make sacrifices, but we are not giving him the Federal partnership.
That is not right. He is hurt. He said: What am I supposed to do? Am I
supposed to continue to do this? He told me he has a son with a medical
condition that requires regular clinical eye treatment. He does not
know whether he can afford that this month. He was helping us with the
environment. Now what do we do? We back off of what is necessary.
I could give you many more examples. There is no piecemeal way you
can correct each one of those.
On our foreign policy issues, I have the honor of chairing the East
Asia and Pacific Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee.
President Obama was supposed to be the headliner at the East Asia
Economic Summit this past week. Guess who stole the headline. President
Xi of China rather than our President. Asia is wondering whether
America is open for business. We were missing at the table. That is no
way for America to be conducting its business. We need to be open. We
need to get government open.
I hear my colleagues who want to negotiate budget deals. I am all for
that. I think I have a reputation around here and people know I am
interested in getting Democrats and Republicans together and getting a
budget that makes sense for our country. But let me quote from the
Baltimore Sun from this morning, because I think they say it better
than I could say it. This is an exact quote from the Baltimore Sun
about negotiations and how we have to go through negotiations.
Passing a ``clean'' continuing resolution keeping
government fully operating at funding levels that GOP has
already endorsed is no compromise. It's status quo. Raising
the debt ceiling isn't a concession either--it allows the
nation to pay the bills Congress has already incurred and
prevents the possibility of a government default, which would
hurt the economy, raise borrowing costs and increase the
Federal deficit.
So when Speaker Boehner lashes out at President Obama for
failing to negotiate, one has to ask, what is this thing he
describes as negotiation? House Republicans are not merely
leveraging their political position--as some dryly claim--
they are threatening to do grievous harm to the global
economy and the American public.
The gun isn't raised to Mr. Obama's head or to the
Senate's. The Democrats have no particular stake in passing a
continuing resolution or in raising the debt ceiling other
than keeping public order and doing what any reasonable
person expects Congress to do. No, the gun is raised at the
nation as a whole. That's why descriptions like ``ransom''
and ``hostage'' are not mere hyperbole, they are as close as
the English language gets to accurately describing the GOP
strategy.
The editorial ends by saying:
It's time for Mr. Boehner to put down the gun and put more
faith in the democratic process.
We need to negotiate a budget for next year. We absolutely need to do
it. We tried to go to budget conference many times. The majority leader
has repeated that request today. The formula of what is right for this
country to do--and it is not one side getting advantage over another--
the right thing to do is open government, pay our bills, and, yes,
let's negotiate a budget that will not be what the Democrats want, will
not be what the Republicans want. We are going to have to compromise as
the Framers of our Constitution envisioned that we would do. That is
what we should have done months ago. We passed our budget in March. We
should have been negotiating months ago.
But what we need to do right now is open government, pay our bills,
and, yes, then it is ripe for us to sit down and negotiate. I can tell
you, we are ready to do that. But it is up to Speaker Boehner now to
vote, to vote on the resolution that will keep government open, to vote
on a way we can make sure that we will continue to pay our bills, and
then accept our offer to sit down and negotiate a budget for the coming
year. That would be the best thing we can do for the American people.
I urge my colleagues with a sense of urgency that we move this
immediately because of the damage we are causing to our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, there can be no doubt that no one wants to be
here. Not one Member of this body wants to be in shutdown. We all may
have different reasons, different explanations as to why we are here.
We might differ with regard to our own beliefs as to how best we should
get out of this. But not one of us wants to be here. Every one of us
recognizes how awful it is to be in a shutdown posture.
I would like to take a few moments and explain my thoughts on both of
those two points. I believe perhaps the single most important reason,
single most undisputable reason why we are in a shutdown posture has to
do with the fact that for a variety of reasons we have been operating
on the basis of continuing resolutions for several years in a row. A
continuing resolution, of course, is a bill, a legislative vehicle
through which Congress may choose to keep government programs funded at
current levels. It is kind of a reset button. It propels us forward on
the basis of our current spending pattern, rather than on the basis of
an independently, freshly negotiated set of priorities.
This is a different way of running government. Normally this is
reserved for unusual circumstances. It usually does not last as long as
we have been going this time around, for about 4\1/2\ years this way.
But this causes us to do things in a way that is different than one
would otherwise choose to do them. It is certainly very different than
the manner in which we would operate in any other aspect of our lives.
To use one familiar example, let's analogize Congress's spending
pattern, its spending decisions, to a consumer going to the grocery
store. Suppose you went to the grocery store having been informed by
your spouse that you need to bring home bread, milk, and eggs. So you
went to that grocery store, you put bread and milk and eggs in your
basket. You go to the checkout counter. You place the bread, the milk,
and the eggs on the counter. The cashier rings you up. The cashier at
that point says: Okay, here is what you will owe us for these items,
but we will not allow you to buy just bread, milk, and
[[Page S7297]]
eggs. In order to buy these items at this store, we will also require
you to purchase a half ton of iron ore, a bucket of nails, a book about
cowboy poetry, and a Barry Manilow album.
Of course, anyone being told that would be a little surprised. Anyone
being told that would be reluctant to shop at that same store in the
future. And if another store existed, another alternative, very few, if
any, consumers would continue shopping at that institution.
Yet that in some ways is the way we are asked to spend money here in
Congress when we are operating on the basis of back-to-back continuing
resolutions, just pushing reset on our spending button, keeping a
Federal Government that spends about $3.7 trillion a year operating
sort of on economic autopilot.
It would actually be a little bit closer analogy if we changed the
hypothetical to a circumstance in which the cashier said not just that
you have to buy half a ton of iron ore, a bucket of nails, a book about
cowboy poetry, and a Barry Manilow album, but you also have to buy one
of every single item in the entire grocery store in order to buy
anything--no bread, no milk, no eggs, nothing unless you buy one of
everything in the entire store. That would bring us a little closer to
the analogy we are dealing with here where we have to choose to fund
everything or alternatively to fund nothing. Neither one of those, it
seems to me, is a terribly good solution. Neither one of those fairly
represents good decisionmaking practices.
We ought to be able to proceed, as past Congresses have historically,
passing a dozen or so--sometimes more--appropriations bills and going
through our Federal Government category by category debating and
discussing each appropriations measure, discussing the contents of that
measure to make sure there is sufficient agreement within this body and
within the House of Representatives to continue funding the government
function in question.
We have a new item in the store, so to speak, as we are shopping this
year. This new item in the store is called ObamaCare, one that is about
to take full effect on January 1, 2014. Yes, it is the law of the land,
but we do have the final choice, the final option, the final authority
to choose whether to fund that moving forward or, alternatively, to
defund it. We can take that out of the grocery cart.
It is a new item that has caused a lot of people a lot of concern. A
lot of people are fearing and experiencing job losses, cuts to their
wages, having their hours slashed and losing their health care benefits
as a result of this law, and they see more of these disturbing trends
coming in the near future. So they are asking for Congress to help.
They are asking for Congress to defund the implementation of this law.
A lot of people and many of my colleagues in this body have responded
by saying: Yes, but it is the law. That is true. It was passed by
Congress 3\1/2\ years ago and signed into law by President Obama. It is
important to remember two facts about this, however.
First of all, the President himself has announced that he is not
following the law. He himself says the law is not ready to implement as
it is written. He himself has refused to follow it as it is written.
Secondly, it is not unusual, it is not unheard of by any means to
have a law that puts in place one standard, one program, and then have
a subsequent appropriations decision made by Congress that results in
the defunding of that very program. Let me cite one of many examples I
could point to. Under Federal law, currently there is designated
something known as the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. That is
our official nuclear waste repository. Yet for many years it has been
defunded by the Congress. That is Congress's prerogative. Congress
holds the power of the purse. Congress may decide to do that.
It is also important to remember that this was by design that it
would work this way. Our Founding Fathers understood and set up the
system so that it would work this way, and they put the power of the
purse in the hands of the House of Representatives, understanding the
House of Representatives would act first when exercising the power of
the purse.
James Madison acknowledged this fact in Federalist No. 58, and if I
can quote from that in pertinent part, James Madison wrote:
The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they
alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of
Government. They, in a word, hold the purse; that powerful
instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British
Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the
People gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and
importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have
wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches
of the Government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be
regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which
any Constitution can arm the immediate Representatives of the
People, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for
carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.
So we find ourselves now in a position in which the House of
Representatives is wanting to get the government funded again and is
acting to keep the government funded on a step-by-step basis, starting
with those areas as to which there is the most broad-based bipartisan
support, those areas of government that have nothing to do with the
implementation and enforcement of ObamaCare. Moving step by step in
this fashion, we can get the government funded again. We should be
getting the government funded again.
In many respects, what we have seen over the last week--the conduct
of the Obama administration during the first week of this shutdown--may
well serve as the single best argument against ObamaCare. What we have
seen is a willingness of this President and his administration to
utilize the already vast resources of the Federal Government to make it
hurt--to hurt families, to hurt businesses, to hurt those who depend on
their access to Federal lands, to national monuments, national parks,
and other Federal installations. This itself is evidence of the fact
that when we give government too much power, that power may, and
ultimately will, be abused.
I want to be clear that this is not a problem that is distinctively
Democratic. It is not something that belongs uniquely to liberals. This
is equally a Republican problem. Republican and Democratic
administrations in the past and in the future will have chosen at times
to abuse power when it suits their interests in order to get their way
politically. We need to not give yet another source of power to the
Federal Government--a source of power that intrudes into one of the
most personal aspects of human existence.
When we give the Federal Government control of our health care
system, we give them control of aspects of our lives that are intensely
personal, very intimate, and, frankly, not the business of the Federal
Government. We don't want to give that power to a government that may
one day be used against us for someone's partisan political gain. It is
for that reason we are having this discussion. It is for that reason we
need to keep the government funded.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, we are now in day 8 of the government
shutdown, and the pain has been felt by all across the country--by the
cancer patients being denied access to new clinical trials at NIH, by
the mom whose son has muscular dystrophy. His name is Jackson. She told
me that every day those researchers aren't working on a cure for her
son's disease is a day lost. She said every day counts. Small
businesses can't get affordable loans through the SBA. Farmers write me
about not being able to get their conservation loans.
I have here a letter I read on the floor on Saturday:
Please do whatever you can to stop the government shutdown.
We have 14 acres of land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve
Program. Our rental payment is made to us this first week of
October. We depend on this money. It is not a small amount
for our family.
Kathy, from Minnesota:
I am an employee of the Social Security Administration,
Office of Disability . . . I have seen you intervene on
matters for claimants who have disability hearings pending. I
am furloughed as part of the government shutdown. If you want
your constituents' hearings addressed, I need to be at work
in my office.
Alicia, from Hastings, MN:
I am writing to express my extreme concern over the federal
government shutdown.
[[Page S7298]]
I am a teacher, a mother of three boys, and the wife of a
furloughed veteran who works for the Minnesota Air National
Guard. I have never before written a letter to my
representatives, but feel so utterly helpless and frustrated
at this time; I needed to voice my concern. . . . At this
point in time, my husband, who is a veteran . . . is out of
work because he is a federal employee not deemed essential. I
am afraid that not only are the other 800,000 laid-off
federal employees deemed non-essential, but the rest of the
American citizens are non-essential as well.
She goes on to say:
Our struggles are real-life struggles; not a game, not
philosophical, not in theory, not distant, and not imaginary.
My hope is that these struggles and hardships matter to you .
. . That is your duty. That is your charge. That is your
enormous task. Shutting down the government is not one of
those responsible actions.
That is what we are hearing from the people in my State, the people
all over the country.
It is time to end the shutdown, and I will continue to urge my
colleagues in the House to do the right thing and pass the
straightforward bill the Senate passed on September 27 that would get
the government back to work and get those employees back to their jobs.
It is great that the House passed a bill to pay them. That is a good
thing. But now they are paying them to stay home. They are paying them
to not do their job. They want to come back to work.
As you know, Madam President, we are now facing another critical
deadline--the deadline for paying our bills or facing default. Next
Thursday, on October 17, our country will hit its legal borrowing
limit, and when that happens we will be asked to do what Congress has
routinely done 70 times over the past 50 years; that is, pay our
country's bills.
Let me be clear. This is about making good on commitments we have
already made. This is about doing what regular Americans do every month
when they pay their credit card bills. Yet lately we have heard voices
from the other side from a number of people who seem to think this is
just no big deal.
Just the other day Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas said:
Some bills have to be paid and some bills we can defer and
only pay partially, but that doesn't mean that we have to pay
every bill the day it comes in.
Then there was Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the conservative Cato
Institute, who said:
There's no need to fret.
No need to fret? That is not what history teaches us.
As chair on the Senate side of the Joint Economic Committee, I had a
hearing a few weeks ago about the cost of this brinkmanship, about what
happens if we go over that cliff, if we let our bills go, if we don't
pay them.
Let's turn back to 2011. We have a very clear lesson of what happens
when the mere prospect of a default sent shock waves through our
economy. I recently released a report examining the fallout of that
brinkmanship. The results were ugly. The Dow Jones plummeted more than
2,000 points, our credit rating was downgraded, and $2.4 trillion in
American household wealth was wiped away.
I think it is important for everyone to remember that in 2011 all of
this happened before we averted default. The Treasury Secretary sent a
letter to Congress about the looming debt ceiling starting on January
6, 2011. On May 2 he announced that the debt limit would be reached on
August 2. That was the magic day. We now have people saying maybe it is
not October 17. They were saying that back then. But do you know what
happened in the lead-up to August 2? On July 14 Standard & Poor's
warned that it may downgrade the U.S. credit rating. They followed
through on that. They downgraded it after the magic day of August 2,
but it was 2 weeks before that they warned they might do it. What
happened then? Well, over late July and early August, leading up to the
date, the Dow Jones dropped more than 2,000 points.
So the next time someone says there is no need to fret over playing
games with the debt ceiling, tell them to talk to the families whose
retirement plans took a hit.
Make no mistake. This brinkmanship has very real consequences for our
economy. We can't afford to go down this path again because this time
around the fall could be so much harder. Our Joint Economic Committee
analysis indicates that rates could rise on everything from credit
cards and home mortgages to borrowing costs for businesses. At a time
when our economy is finally turning a corner, this would put a real
strain on families and small business owners.
But don't take my word for it. Secretary Lew has said extraordinary
measures will be exhausted by mid-October. Already our government is
not matching the retirement fund that Federal workers put in. Already
they are not issuing some of the municipal bonds. Already they are not
making some of the typical investments they would normally make. The
business community and my friends on the other side of the aisle know
businesses are overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of America not paying
its bills, including key leaders such as Randall Stephenson, CEO of
AT&T, who said:
It is unthinkable that the US could default, and it would
be the height of irresponsibility for a public official to
consider such a course.
Our country cannot afford to keep lurching from crisis to crisis. It
is time for both parties to focus on real solutions and get the
government back to work in the short term so we can focus on
responsibly reducing our deficit in the long term. I supported the work
of the Gang of 6, the work of the Gang of 8, the work that was being
done by the Domenici-Rivlin Commission, the work that was being done by
the debt commission. I was one of 14 Senators who pushed for that work
to be done, and I think it is a great basis. I don't agree with
everything in it, but it is a good start for how we can negotiate a
major deal. We cannot do that in the next few days. We need time to do
it, and that is why the Senate proposal is 6 weeks--6 weeks to allow
the government to open again so we can truly negotiate the kind of
long-term debt reduction deal that we should.
We need to be forward-looking. We need to be forward-looking enough
to recognize the decisions we make today go far beyond the next
election cycle; they will be felt by generations to come. We have a
responsibility to get things right. We can't allow our country to go
over the brink. It is not the American way.
In a 1987 address to the American people when he was talking about
the debt ceiling and the need to pay our country's bills, President
Ronald Reagan said:
The United States has a special responsibility to itself
and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a
well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility--two
things that set us apart from much of the world.
I urge my colleagues to take these words seriously and to join me in
ensuring that Congress acts responsibly and in the best interest of
this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes
be divided between myself and the senior Senator from Texas, Mr.
Cornyn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, not to object, I wish to clarify and
ask if we might expand that to indicate the order which I believe we
agreed to on the floor; that I be allowed to speak after my two
distinguished colleagues, then Senator Whitehouse, and then Senator
Coburn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator modify her request?
Ms. AYOTTE. Absolutely, I modify the request to reflect what the
senior the Senator from Michigan said.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I think it is time for us to end this
government shutdown. I said on the floor twice last week, and prior to
that, that I didn't think the strategy of defunding ObamaCare was a
strategy which would be successful. While I support repealing and
replacing ObamaCare, because I have seen the negative impact in my own
State of New Hampshire, we have already seen the government is shut
down and yet the ObamaCare exchanges have opened--showing already many
of the problems with those exchanges, with the computer system, what
are called glitches but are major flaws at this point. So it is time
for
[[Page S7299]]
both sides to come together and resolve this on behalf of the American
people.
Let me say it is appalling that we have soldiers who have been killed
in the line of duty and their families aren't receiving death benefits.
It is wrong. It is outrageous. We need to solve this right away and we
need to solve this overall government shutdown.
In New Hampshire, we have private campgrounds which contract with the
White Mountain National Forest which are closed, despite the fact that
they actually bring revenue into the Treasury. They are run privately
and actually make money for the Federal Government. I think the
administration is playing games with things like that, and they should
open those campgrounds. But ultimately we have to get this government
open.
I wish to praise my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine Senator
Collins, who came to the floor earlier today with an idea she has drawn
not only from Members in this Chamber but in the House of
Representatives of a way we could resolve this impasse, and that is
taking something we have already voted on in this Chamber on the budget
resolution. There was a vote in this Chamber on the medical device tax
repeal, and that vote got on the budget resolution 79 to 20. We voted
on a bipartisan basis to repeal this tax. I have been against this tax
since I campaigned, because in New Hampshire we see the impact on our
companies. It is going to increase health care costs. Many companies in
New Hampshire, such as Smiths Medical and Corflex, are negatively
impacted by this tax. Their workers are put in a difficult place when
these companies can't expand or they have to reduce their workforce
because of this onerous tax--which, by the way, is a 2.3-percent tax on
revenue, a tax on innovation and new ideas in health care, rather than
a tax on profit. But ultimately we should repeal this tax. It is wrong.
I wish to support what my colleague from Maine came to the floor on
today as something we should take up and discuss in this Chamber; that
is, a repeal of the medical device tax with a pay-for, a CR proposed
for a longer period of time within the Budget Control Act numbers. She
has proposed 6 months, and flexibility for the agencies to address the
sequester in a way that is best and most sensible for the American
people.
I thank my colleague from Maine. We can come together and resolve
this. I hope that along with Members on the other side of the aisle who
voted for the repeal, we can work together with Members of the House of
Representatives, we can work this out, get the government open, and
also address concerns that we have with ObamaCare which is impacting an
important industry, the medical device industry that provides
innovation and important lifesaving devices for people in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, four times the House of Representatives
has sent over continuing resolutions with various additions for
consideration by the Senate. Each time Senator Reid and the majority
party have tabled those provisions, essentially shutting them down
without giving them an opportunity for a vote on the merits.
The last time, though, I believe Senator Reid led his colleagues down
a very treacherous path, because the provisions of this otherwise clean
CR would have repealed the provision that carves out Congress and
members of our staff and gives us preferential treatment under
ObamaCare. The second part of it has to do with delaying penalties on
individuals, just as the President has unilaterally done in delaying
penalties on employers.
There is no good reason for us not to pass both of those provisions.
But instead of trying to deal constructively with the House of
Representatives--which has sent four separate bills over here on the
continuing resolution--the majority leader has chosen to stiff-arm each
of those efforts.
So when the majority leader comes to the floor and bemoans the
government shutdown--something we all agree we should try our best to
avoid--he claims they are willing to negotiate and the President is
willing to negotiate a change in the outcome. But we know that is not
true. We know each time they have shut out Republican proposals from
the House of Representatives which would open the Federal Government
with reasonable bipartisan agreements.
But what really is beyond belief is when I hear our colleagues come
to the floor and they say, Why can't we have cancer research for
children at NIH continue? Yet we come to the floor and offer bills
which would open funding at the National Institutes of Health, that
very same cancer research, and they are objected to by the Democratic
side of the aisle. I don't know any other word to describe it than
hypocrisy.
This morning, the Washington Post talks about the case of Michelle
Langbehn from California, who was diagnosed with sarcoma and is unable
to have an opportunity to participate in a clinical trial at NIH. This
is the very same sort of program which would have been funded by the
bill we offered on this side of the aisle and was objected to by the
majority leader and the Democratic side.
There is one bright spot of agreement, and that is we were able to
agree unanimously to pass the House bill that funded our troops which
passed the House 423 to 0. That is the good news. But the bad news is
this has now all morphed into a debate not only on the continuing
resolution but on the debt ceiling. What the majority leader and his
side of the aisle are apparently proposing is that without making any
arrangements whatsoever to pay for the $17 trillion in debt that has
already been accumulated, they want another clean debt ceiling
increase, and the President says he won't negotiate, but in all
likelihood we will be voting later this week on another $1 trillion
added to our maxed-out credit card without doing anything whatsoever to
take care of the debt which has already been incurred.
That is fundamentally irresponsible. That is not me saying it. The
American people have said this. The Congressional Budget Office has
said this. The President's own bipartisan fiscal commission has said
that.
In a recent poll from NBC-Wall Street Journal, when people were given
the choice between raising the debt ceiling or not raising the debt
ceiling, 44 percent said don't raise the debt ceiling, 22 percent said
raise the debt ceiling. I realize we have more choices than that. There
could be, coupled together with the raising of the debt ceiling, some
real reforms of our broken entitlement programs to shore up Social
Security and Medicare. But our colleagues and the President himself
have said, No, I am not going to negotiate. No, I want a clean debt
ceiling. No, I want the freedom to max out the credit card another $1
trillion, without doing anything to pay off the debt that threatens not
only our future prosperity, but our national security.
I remember very clearly when ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, was asked what the greatest national security threat
to the United States was, and he said the national debt.
Why would our colleagues and the President of the United States
ignore what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called the most
significant national security threat to our country by saying, We are
not interested in any reforms, we are not interested in anything that
would actually pay down the debt and remove that threat to our national
security and our future prosperity? Why would they say, No, we want to
keep on spending money--money we don't actually have--and continue to
borrow from our creditors like China and other foreign countries that
hold a majority of our national debt? And when interest rates start to
tick back up again as the Federal Reserve begins to taper its purchase
of our own debt, we are going to see more and more of our national
expenditures go to pay interest on that debt, crowding out not only
national security but the safety net programs for the most vulnerable
people in our country.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first I apologize for the hoarse
voice. I have been recovering from a cold. But it is important for me
to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people from Michigan
about what is happening, as everyone at home is scratching their head
trying to figure
[[Page S7300]]
out why, in the greatest country in the world, we have seen government
services now shut down and why there are those who think it is all
right for us not to pay our bills and default on the full faith and
credit of the United States of America, and why folks aren't willing to
just open the government, pay our bills, and then negotiate.
In fact, we have been negotiating. We have negotiated on a lot. I am
proud to say we negotiated a successful bipartisan farm bill not that
long ago, a real deficit reduction proposal which actually passed the
Senate with over a two-thirds vote. So we certainly are willing to
negotiate.
Our leader Senator Reid was willing to negotiate and in fact did
negotiate with the Speaker of the House. As we all know, the Speaker
called him in September and indicated he would like to see a 6-week
extension of the current funding levels for the government while we
were negotiating something more broadly on a budget. It was at a
funding level which we don't believe is the right one in terms of
investing in education, innovation, and creating jobs, but it was 6
weeks. After talking with us, our leader said that in the interest of
negotiating and compromising, we would be willing to do that.
As we know now from Republican colleagues in the House who said that
was the intent, unfortunately the Speaker could not follow through on
the agreement he had negotiated.
That is because a minority of the minority in the House that is
extremely intent on--and in fact has successfully achieved one of the
goals they ran on--shutting down the government. But we have
negotiated.
We also have negotiated on the big picture. We know that a few years
ago with the Bowles-Simpson Commission, with others, that $4 trillion
in deficit reduction over 10 years was picked as an important goal to
be able to rightsize and bring down our long-term debt. The good news
is that not only have we cut the annual deficit in half, but of that $4
trillion we have already agreed to $2.5 trillion of that in deficit
reduction over the next 10 years. So over half of that has already been
achieved.
When my friends on the other side of the aisle act as if nothing is
happening, I have to say the deficit has been cut in half and, second,
over half of a long-term goal on the debt has been achieved. We need to
keep going. We don't need to shut down the government to do that. We do
not need to default on our debts as the greatest country in the world
to do that. We just need to work together to do that. That is why we
would say we need to open the government, pay our bills, and continue
to negotiate. Let's negotiate, but it is a continuation of negotiating.
In fact, weakening the full faith and credit of the United States of
America--think of that, the greatest country in the world, the full
faith and credit of the United States of America, that has been the
highest standard in the world, when you say the full faith and credit
of the United States of America--right now there are folks playing
Russian roulette with that who are willing to weaken that and undermine
our recovery, if not take us over another horrible economic cliff and
cost billions of dollars for American consumers.
Given the seriousness of it and the fact that we are very close to
having that happen and the fact that we are the world's leader, 30
years ago President Ronald Reagan warned about the consequences of the
richest, most powerful nation in the world suddenly running out of
money to pay its bills. He said:
The full consequences of a default--or even the serious
prospect of a default--
As people are flippantly discussing these days--
by the United States of America are impossible to predict and
awesome to contemplate.
Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United
States of America [would cause] incalculable damage.
This is President Ronald Reagan.
President Reagan reminded Congress:
Never before in our history has the Federal Government
failed to honor its financial obligations. To fail to do so
now would be an outrage.
His words.
The Congress must understand this and bear full
responsibility.
We know if the United States defaults on its obligations, if we don't
pay our bills, the result will be a financial crisis worse than what we
went through in 2008. Frankly, I don't want any part of that. I know
what happened in Michigan in 2008, 2009. I know our Presiding Officer,
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, understands that as well,
what happened to families and businesses all across America. To even
come close to that is irresponsible.
If that were to happen, 57.5 million Americans could very well not
get their Social Security checks on time.
My mom called me the other night. She is 87 years old, doing great.
She said I was at church on Sunday and my friends were asking: That
couldn't really happen, could it?
I didn't know what to tell her. No, Mom, it should not happen. It has
not happened before. But I can't promise, given the words of people on
the other side of the aisle who believe it is no big deal or of what is
being said by the Speaker and by the tea party Republicans in the
House--I couldn't absolutely say to her don't worry about that.
Madam President, 3.4 million veterans might not get their disability
benefits on time. We have just been debating whether we should make
sure, as we must, that the VA is fully funded. Yet next week if we do
not back up the full faith and credit of the United States of America,
veterans could very easily be in a situation of not getting disability
checks or seniors' Social Security, Medicare. Children, families,
communities, businesses, farmers, that is who will pay the cost of this
default. Middle-class families will pay the cost of this.
It will be catastrophic in terms of interest rate increases and loss
of jobs if we do not stand together as Republicans and Democrats in the
Congress of the United States and back up the full faith and credit of
the United States of America.
According to Goldman Sachs, if we adopt the ``China first'' model of
only paying the interest on our debt, which has been proposed by the
House, where we pay some of our debts but not others, the drag on our
economy would be massive. They estimate we would lose 4.2 percent of
our gross domestic product. To put that in perspective, when the
recession hit bottom in 2009 we lost 4.1 percent of GDP, from the peak
in 2007. That was the worst recession in our lifetime.
This is not a game. This is serious.
Even more concerning to me is that this would drive up borrowing
costs for families, for small businesses, for our manufacturers who are
back on their feet now and roaring and bringing back our economy. For
every 1-percent increase in interest rates, we are told Americans will
pay $75 billion--$75 billion lost to the economy. When Republicans in
the House took us to the brink of default 2 years ago, which resulted
in the lowering of America's credit rating for the first time in
history--even though we didn't default, just talk of default ended up
lowering our credit rating for the first time in America's history--it
cost the average family buying a home at the time about $100 every
month for the life of their mortgage in higher interest rates; $100 a
month for the life of the mortgage. That is outrageous and
irresponsible.
That same default crisis in 2011 cost taxpayers $19 billion in
additional interest when our credit rating fell and interest rates went
up. Where did that $19 billion go? Right back on top of the national
debt, not only adding to the national debt, it threatens to erase
America's retirement savings. In 2011, over $800 billion was lost in
retirement accounts after the House Republicans played politics with
the full faith and credit of the United States of America.
If I might just take 1 more minute, I ask unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. This time, if we actually default, the fall could be
even worse and the damage could be permanent. This is the greatest,
wealthiest, most powerful country in the world and it is outrageous
that this would even be considered.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the National Association of Manufacturers, expressing their deep
concern about the possibility of default.
[[Page S7301]]
I will share, finally, remarks of the chairman of AT&T.
It is unthinkable that the United States could default on
its financial commitments and it would be the height of
irresponsibility for any public official to consider such a
course.
Our country deserves better. The people of this country deserve
better. We have to do better for them.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Association of
Manufacturers,
October 8, 2013.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President, Speaker Boehner and Leaders Pelosi,
Reid and McConnell: On behalf of the National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM)--the largest manufacturing association in
the United States, representing small and large manufacturers
in every industrial sector and in all 50 states--I write to
strongly urge you to act as soon as possible to raise the
statutory debt limit.
The failure of policymakers to address this critical issue
is injecting uncertainty in the U.S. economy, hampering the
ability of manufacturers and the broader business community
to compete, invest and create new jobs. In a recent survey of
NAM members, almost two-thirds of respondents said it is
extremely important for the President and Congress to make
progress on funding the government for fiscal year 2014 and
extending the nation's debt ceiling. More than 90 percent
said that addressing the nation's fiscal challenges was
important for their company.
Manufacturers believe the United States must meet our
financial obligations to ensure global investors' continuing
confidence in the nation's creditworthiness. Our nation has
never defaulted in the past, and failing to raise the debt
limit in a timely fashion will seriously disrupt our fragile
economy and have a ripple effect throughout the world. In
particular, a default would put upward pressure on interest
rates, raising both the short- and long-term cost of capital
and discouraging business investment and job creation. In
addition, a default would create an uncertain fiscal
environment that will discourage foreign direct investment in
the United States that could harm our economy for years to
come.
Our nation's economic future depends on your actions. Now
is the time to rise above partisan differences and put the
nation's best interests first by addressing the debt limit.
Thank you in advance for the leadership that will be
necessary to appropriately resolve this critical issue.
Sincerely,
Jay Timmons.
Ms. STABENOW. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am glad to join this debate, which
throughout the afternoon has been peppered with the assertion that
either Majority Leader Reid or the President or Democrats in general
will not negotiate--that we will not negotiate. I remember when I was
younger there was a radio commentator, a man named Paul Harvey, and his
little motto in his radio bits was to surprise you with ``the rest of
the story.''
On ``will not negotiate,'' we don't even have to go to the rest of
the story. Go to the rest of the sentence. The rest of the sentence is
that the President and the majority leader will not negotiate--while
the other side is holding hostages, while the tea party is holding
hostages.
Here is what our former colleague, my former ranking member on the
Budget Committee, Senator Judd Gregg, has said about this:
A small group of Republican legislators led by the junior
Senator from Texas, decided to take as hostages government
operations and the raising of the debt ceiling.
Those are exactly the hostages, Federal employees who cannot work,
people and businesses that want or need Federal services, those
families we have heard so much about today who lost loved ones on the
field of battle and cannot get their death benefits.
There is an even bigger hostage out there, which is the threat of a
catastrophic default which would be the result of a failure to lift the
debt limit. Our country has been through a lot, through Civil Wars and
world wars, through depressions and calamities of various kinds.
Through all of that we have never defaulted on our debt. But there is a
group in Congress so desperate that they are willing to use that, that
threat as a hostage for leverage in negotiations.
When colleagues on the other side invite us in the old phrase,
``Come, let us reason together,'' let us negotiate, they do not mean
come let us reason together, let us negotiate; they mean let us
negotiate, but we want a blackjack in our pocket. If the negotiations
don't go just the way we want, we want to keep hundreds of thousands of
Americans out of their jobs and we want to threaten the economic
security of this country.
There is a difference that every American understands between
negotiating and negotiating while threatening the hostages. I will say
that sanctimoniously offering to release a hostage here or a hostage
there when a program becomes too popular or there is too much scrutiny
on the damage that one thing is doing, to say, oh, we will give up that
hostage, we will let us vote on that hostage, doesn't change the
principle. There is a difference between negotiating in good faith,
negotiating on the merits, and negotiating with threats to hostages.
That is no road to go down. That is a very dangerous threat.
As President Reagan warned us:
Congress must realize that by failing to act they are
entering very dangerous territory if we don't raise the debt
limit. Never before in our history has the Federal Government
failed to honor its financial obligations. Too fail to do so
now would be an outrage.
Ronald Reagan:
The Congress must understand this and bear full
responsibility.
We have to address these problems in the traditional order of
government with real negotiations because if we don't, if we yield to
hostage-taking as the new way of governance in this country, where does
it end? The continuing resolution that we proposed that the Speaker has
refused to have a vote on--in all this time he has never had a vote on
the continuing resolution that we passed that would open the
government--it would only extend the operations of government for 6
weeks. We would be back at it again. What would the price be next time?
After we defunded ObamaCare, would they want to privatize Social
Security? They tried that before. Over and over, the popular will has
to rule. That we do through our American procedures. The vaunted
procedures of our American system of government would be lost in a
devil's game of threats and hostage-taking on both sides because two
can play at this game if those are the new rules. We don't want to go
there.
America is a great country and in part we are a great country because
our democracy is an example to the world. We are no example to anyone
when we legislate by threats of default, disaster, and confusion, to
use the felicitous phrase of our colleague from Alabama.
There is a condition that sometimes befalls pilots called target
fixation. It happens when a pilot diving on a target becomes so fixated
on hitting that target that they become disoriented with their
surroundings. The worst thing that befalls somebody who has target
fixation is that they crash the plane.
Right now we have Republican target fixation on repeal ObamaCare.
Imagine passing it 40-some times in the House, which they have done. If
that is not a sign of target fixation, I don't know what is. Not seeing
the damage that is being done by closing down the government, not
seeing the damage to families, not seeing the damage to employees, not
seeing the damage to people who depend on government services and
licenses and safety checks seems to me to be a sign of target fixation.
If they have target fixation this badly, they may not even see
President Ronald Reagan's warnings of how dire and dangerous it is to
play around with our debt limit. On the House side, they are already
talking about playing around with our debt limit. They want to go into
the danger zone, and who knows how close to the flame they are willing
to fly. When they have target fixation, their judgment is not very
good.
They are certainly not seeing the damage to American values and
American procedure that an insistence on
[[Page S7302]]
legislating by holding hostages and threatening them does. It does
damage to our values, and it does damage to our procedures.
A great observer of the American system of government once described
procedure as its bone structure. We can throw it all out, the
Constitution, the bicameralism, and we can go back to the basic animal
state that whoever can make the worst threat wins the argument. That is
not the American way. The American way isn't to win the argument by
seeing how many people you can put at risk and how badly you can
threaten them, but that is the stage we are in right now.
Let's negotiate, indeed, but let's negotiate as Americans. Let's
negotiate under our proper procedures. Let's open the government. There
is no reason for it to be closed other than bargaining leverage and
hostage-taking. There is no other reason. That is exactly why the tea
party has shut down the government, just for that purpose. They say it.
They use nicer words. I think the word that was used earlier in debate
today was to create adequate incentive. When somebody else is holding
hostages, we have incentive, but it is not an appropriate incentive.
So open the government and stop threatening the debt limit. That is
wildly irresponsible. If they don't believe us, believe Ronald Reagan,
believe the Secretary of the Treasury, believe the National Association
of Manufacturers, believe the CEO of AT&T, believe virtually every
responsible, knowledgeable adult who has observed what the dangers are
of blowing the debt limit and default.
Open the government, stop threatening the debt limit and, by all
means, let's negotiate. We could set a date tomorrow. I am sure the
President would have a meeting at the White House the next day.
Anything people wanted could be on the table, but they would have to
come in and negotiate like Americans. They would have to negotiate on
the merits fairly and not with a blackjack in their back pocket, with
threats that if they don't get what they want, they are going to start
wrecking things such as our economy and our government. That is not the
right way to proceed. If we go down that road, who knows what evil
lurks at the end.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I have listened very carefully to the
two previous speakers on the floor, and I understand a lot of their
frustration. We are where we are.
I think we have two big problems. Actually, we have two major
problems. One is our country is bankrupt. People don't like to hear
that, but let me give the facts. The total unfunded liability of the
United States of America is $126 trillion. If we add all the net worth
of everybody in the country and all the assets of the Federal
Government and all the assets of the States and combine them, we have
$94 trillion worth of assets. We are already in the hole $30 trillion.
That doesn't include the $17 trillion in debt we have.
So I would like to correct a couple of things. One, the Senator from
Michigan mentioned that we were downgraded because of the impasse in
Congress. No, we were downgraded because Congress has failed to address
the real problems of our debt and deficits. Go read their statements.
It had nothing to do with action here. It had to do with the fact that
we will not address the biggest problems in front of us.
I ask unanimous consent to have some scissors on the floor because I
wish to make a point in a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. We have a credit card. I want you to think about your own
personal life that if, in fact, you have a limit on your credit card
and your financial situation worsens, you are still paying the
payments, but you are not bringing down the principal on your credit
cards and you are not earning significantly more money and you go to
Citibank or American Express or Chase and say: I want you to raise my
limit. The first thing they are going to ask you is: What have you done
to improve your financial situation so we might consider raising your
credit limit? That is what happens to every other American.
We have this big talk about a debt limit. There is no debt limit in
this country. We have increased it every time it has come up. There is
no limit right now in this country on the debt we have.
We hear all of these speeches about the risk. You know what the real
risk is? The risk is continuing to do nothing to address the underlying
problems of our country. The risk is continuing to add entitlement
programs that have no way to pay for themselves and no reform of the
entitlements we have today. That is the risk.
How does that play out? We have heard all of these dire warnings of
what will happen. What is going to happen to your children and
grandchildren is what has happened over the last 15 years in this
country. Do you realize that the average median income in real dollars
now is at the same level it was in 1989? We are going backward right
now. We are not addressing the real problems.
Since I am a doctor, I will put it in medical terms. If, in fact, you
treat symptoms of disease by raising the debt limit rather than
treating the real disease, which is reforming the problems, reforming
our spending, quit having 100 percent involvement by the Federal
Government in everything Americans do, if you continue to borrow the
money and treat that as the symptom, when there is a lack of oversight
by Congress and lack of real work by the Members of this body to
actually eliminate waste, which is over $250 billion a year as outlined
by the Government Accountability Office, we ignore that for the
political arena we have seen over the last couple of weeks in
Washington.
The real disease is not fixing the real problem. All of the
politicians--Republicans and Democrats alike--want to give you a soft
answer. Here is the answer: If you are $30 trillion in debt that you
cannot pay for, what you have to do is have everybody have some pain,
but we refuse to do that. There is no leadership in Congress to address
the real disease we are facing. This is a government that has totally
ignored the enumerated powers, totally ignored the 10th Amendment. We
have a Justice Department that ignores the rule of law in terms of how
they decide what they will enforce and what they will not enforce on a
political basis rather than on what the law says. Those are the real
problems in front of us.
We have heard all the dire warnings about how we cannot raise the
debt limit. What does default mean? They always say we can't raise the
debt limit, but they will not talk about what default means. Default in
the international financial community means you will not pay the
interest and you will not pay back the principal on your bonds. That
will never happen to us. It would require less than 6 percent of the
cash we are taking in now to manage the debt we have right now--less
than 6 percent.
So only somebody who wants to hurt us further would play the
political game if we ever got there. I am not saying we should get
there, but if we got there, it would only be to play the political game
to not pay Social Security or not to pay Medicare. We have more than
enough money to do that. But what we have is a bloated, oversized,
inefficient, ineffective Federal Government that nobody wants to hold
accountable except the American people.
So the question is, Who gets to decide? Congress obviously is not
deciding very well. The President has not shown any leadership. Maybe
it is time for the American people to decide. Maybe it is time to take
some of the power away from Washington and restore it to where our
Founders thought it should reside: by respecting the enumerated powers
very specifically listed by our Founders with great commentary so it
would not be distorted, but we have distorted it anyway. We need to
reembrace the 10th Amendment which says: Everything that is not
specifically enumerated in these powers is left to the power of the
people and the States.
We find ourselves with a credit card. This happens to be our debt.
The number I chose to put on here was our debt this morning:
$16,747,458,528.90. We need to cut this up just like we would do for an
adolescent or young adult kid when you are responsible for their credit
[[Page S7303]]
card. If they are not responsible, you cut up the credit card. You fix
the real problem. You don't continue to ask for an increase in their
propagate spending.
Members of Congress who will not do oversight and get rid of $250
trillion of fraud, waste, and abuse every year should not be rewarded,
but that is what we will end up doing because we don't have the
courage, nor the leadership, to address the real problem in front of
our country. The real problem is cowardice. The real problem is to not
recognize where we are and not act on making decisive decisions.
We heard how bad it will be if we don't raise the debt limit. I
agree, it will be tough. There will be ramifications. How bad will it
be if we do? What happens to your children? What happens to the
declining family income in this country if we continue to let the
Federal Government run uncontrolled and out of control? What happens if
we continue to not hold Congress accountable for forcing efficiencies
on the Federal Government.
I know what could be done. There was an agreement called the Budget
Control Act, and what it did is it forced sequester. Sequester is a
stupid way to cut funding in the Federal Government, but it is far
better than not cutting it at all.
What has the sequester done? The sequester has forced agencies--
because Congress will not force them because we are afraid we might
offend somebody--to start making choices. They are still making tons of
bad choices. For instance, on the last day of the State Department's
budget, they spent all the remaining money. They just spent $5 million
for new crystalware for all of our embassies. Do we have $5 million?
What is wrong with the crystalware we have now? They had to spend the
money because they couldn't come back to Congress and say we saved $5
million.
We are addressing the wrong problems. We are not holding people
accountable. Consequently, maybe it is time for the States and the
people to exert some common sense on us. I dare say there is not one
Member of this body who would let their adolescent child run up a bill
and then not eventually try to intercede on a credit card but just let
them continue to run it up.
Congress and the U.S. Government is that adolescent child. We are the
adolescents and the people and the States are the grownups. We are at
an impasse, and it does kind of sound like a kid. I am not going to
talk to you. I don't like the way you did that.
We had the majority leader the other day claim that the House was out
of bounds because they got to pick and choose what we pay for. It just
so happens that in the Constitution, that is what it says. The House of
Representatives gets to pick and choose. All spending bills start in
the House. They have to start in the House. They get to pick and
choose. We don't have to accept it, but they get to pick and choose. So
there is a lack of understanding on the basic concepts our Founders set
up.
We know the history and they know the history of republics. Republics
always die. There isn't one that has survived as long as we have. They
decline and die over the same thing: They get in trouble financially.
We are in trouble financially. We are $30 trillion in the hole, plus
another $17 trillion in debt. Wouldn't it be smart if we started
addressing that problem before we blankly allow an increase in the
level of the credit card? Actually, what we should do is cut this
credit card up, which is what I am going to do because that is the way
I vote. I think it is time we quit borrowing money--actually, I think I
better tear it up--it is time we quit borrowing money for the future of
our kids. It is time we quit mortgaging their future. It is time we
start taking responsibility for the actions of the Federal Government
rather than giving excuses on why we can't get together and address the
real problems of this country. Congress fails to do the oversight.
We just had a hearing yesterday where we showed one of the problems
inside the Social Security and disability system. It was a bipartisan
hearing, with lots of work done. There are real problems. The trust
fund for those people who are truly disabled in this country will run
out of money within 18 to 24 months. The Finance Committee hasn't
offered any bill to fix it. The House Committee on Ways and Means
hasn't offered any programs to fix it. Yet it is going to be bankrupt.
What does that mean for somebody who is truly disabled? It means their
check is going to get cut. Now tell me whether we would rather spend $5
million on new glassware for our embassies--crystal--or $5 million for
someone who is truly disabled. That is where the real decisions need to
be made, but we won't make them.
If we talk about our national debt--when I came to the Senate in 2005
every American owed $24,000 on the national debt. It is now almost
$53,000--in a little over 8\1/2\ years. So we now owe 2\1/2\ times what
we used to owe. How did we get there? Why did we let that happen? Why
don't we learn to live within our means? Is there always a political
reason? Is there always a reason where we can game somebody and say
they don't care if they don't want to do this? They certainly couldn't
care about Americans if they want to spend money we don't have on
things we don't need.
If we look at the $125.8 trillion, that works out to $1.1 million per
family. Think about that. That is our unfunded liabilities, and that is
going to come due over the next 50 years. If a person has children or
grandchildren, as I do, I really don't want their opportunities to be
totally limited by this debt load we have.
So we have all of this politicking and posturing and political
expediency going on in both bodies, and nobody is talking about what
the real problem is. The real problem is we are spending a lot of money
we don't have, and we are borrowing from other countries for things we
don't absolutely need.
The second part of the problem is we have programs that are designed
to benefit people which are riddled with waste and fraud--$100 million
in Medicaid and Medicare. Nobody really questions that number. It has
been authenticated by four separate studies outside of the government,
and inside the government we say it is $80 million. Why would we
continue to let a system run that has that kind of fraud in it?
We are getting ready to crank up the Affordable Care Act--we are
cranking it up--and we have now said we are not going to authenticate
somebody's reliability as to their income? What do we think the fraud
rate on that is going to be? We know what the fraud rate is with the
child tax credit. It is well over 20 percent. In the earned-income tax
credit, we know it is well over 20 percent. So $1 out of every $5 we
pay out is to people who don't deserve it. We are going to see the same
thing with this. Why would we do that when we have this kind of problem
in front of us?
In the last 2 years our debt limit has increased twice what our
economy has grown. For every dollar of new debt we take in, we are
getting about 2 or 3 cents of economic growth out of that new debt. It
used to be that when America borrowed a dollar, it would get 35 or 40
cents of growth out of that debt. So in the last 2 years we have
increased the debt limit $2.405 trillion and the economy has grown less
than $1.2 trillion over the last 2 years.
We are adding $26,000 to our national debt every second--every
second. There is no question that our economy is growing some--some--
far less than marginal. Why isn't it growing? It isn't growing because
the American people don't have confidence in the future. How do we
restore confidence in the future? We restore confidence by modeling a
behavior that says we are going to act responsibly with our future,
which means we are going to make the hard choices, even if it costs us
our political career, to solve the problems in Washington so the
generations that follow us will not suffer a lower standard of living
but also so we can instill confidence in the American economy.
There is $3 trillion in cash sitting in this country right now--not
Federal Government money, private money--$3 trillion. Why is it sitting
there and why is it not being invested? That $3 trillion would create
700,000 or 800,000 new jobs a year--that $3 trillion. Why is it not
being used? Because people don't have confidence in the future.
I want to tell a story about Virgil Jurgensmeyer. Virgil grows
mushrooms and other vegetables in a business. This past August he told
me he was thinking about expanding his business, a $5 million
expansion, adding a
[[Page S7304]]
couple hundred jobs in a very small town in northeastern Oklahoma. He
was afraid to do that. He has plenty of business. He is buying $50,000
to $100,000 of product from his competitor every month because he can't
produce it. He says: I don't think it is worth the risk right now given
where our country is. That is happening all across this country. There
is no confidence.
It brings me to another point I wish to speak about. We are not just
bankrupt as a nation. Our leadership is bankrupt. Leadership is about
creating a vision and bringing people together, not creating
controversy and dividing people. It is not about pointing out the worst
flaws of somebody. It is about reinforcing the best flaws. It is about
selling the confidence that we can do this together.
Do my colleagues realize we can do this together as a nation? There
isn't a problem in front of us that we can't solve if we choose to
solve it. Do my colleagues remember the debt commission? I was a member
of that committee. We voted on some big plans that would have solved a
lot of the problems we are facing this very week in this body. I didn't
like every bit of it, but it was a chance to try to solve--bring
together both sides and solve it. Not once was it taken up on the floor
by the majority leader. The President never embraced it--his own
commission, his own fiscal commission--never embraced it. It was the
greatest failure of leadership I have ever seen. We had conservatives
and liberals agreeing that here is a plan we can work out. Yet it was
thrown away.
With the politics we see in Washington today, the only time we are
going to solve these big problems is when both political parties take
the pain evenly. Nobody wants to do that. Everybody wants to win. It is
all short-term political expediency.
In the words of my friend Erskine Bowles, where we are today is the
most easily predictable problem we ever would have seen. All we have to
do is look at the path of the numbers. It is true that our deficits are
down a little bit, that we raised $70 billion in taxes last year, and
the economy is growing. It just shows what potential there is if we
would put the economy on steam, where we had confidence. We could have
had $500 billion, $600 billion a year in revenues to the Federal
Government. But we won't do that.
Today we find ourselves in worse condition than we were in 2011, and
in 2011 we were told we can't do big things. We have to wait.
So we had a debt limit increase. So tell me how we have gotten better
since then. We have unfunded liabilities that are growing faster every
year. Our true debt-to-GDP ratio is now over 100 percent, counting all
debt, internal and external. We have not done it.
Hundreds of thousands of Federal workers right now are furloughed
because Congress--not Republicans, Congress--has failed to do its job,
has failed to compromise, has failed to reach a meaningful agreement
that gives both groups something they can claim they actually worked on
the real disease.
Madam President, how much time have I consumed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 23 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. I will finish. Would the Chair let me know in about 28
minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Let me describe also what is going to happen in about 20
years, maybe 10. If we don't address these problems, it won't matter
what the debt rating agencies say; we will have developed a pattern
that says we think we can continue to borrow and continue to raise the
debt limit and not make the structural changes that put us on a path to
solvency. So what does that look like? What that looks like is
borrowing costs going up.
My friends all say--and the President said today--maybe our borrowing
costs will go up if we don't, in fact, raise the debt limit. Guess
what. Our borrowing costs are going up every day we don't address these
problems whether we address the debt limit or not because eventually
the rest of the world is going to say: We don't think they are willing
to cut up the credit card. They are not willing to make the sacrifices
necessary to put their country on a path of prosperity.
We have all the capabilities in the world to address our problems. We
do not have the leadership that will get us there. I am not just
directing that at the President; I am directing that at my own party.
So what is the solution?
I am going to spend the next couple days outlining waste in the
Federal Government, fraud in the Federal Government, duplication in the
Federal Government. But the solution is called sacrificial leadership.
It means modeling the behavior that says you are willing to give up
something--maybe the prestige of being in office--to actually fix the
long-term problems of our country. It is leadership that calls out the
best in us instead of pointing out the worst in us. You do not see that
very often here. You did when I first came. You certainly do not now,
and that is a function of leadership in the Senate.
Majority Leader Reid and I do not agree on much. That is obvious. But
in a previous discussion on the Senate floor, Leader Reid said:
``Meaningful deficit reduction requires shared sacrifice.'' We are
never going to get there unless everybody shares in it.
The other point I would make is that we are living off the next
generation right now. We are going to borrow $2,000 against the future
of every man, woman, and child in this country this year alone. They
are going to have to pay it back. Another way of putting it is that 1
out of every 4 hours you work, the Federal Government right now is
confiscating--of everybody in our economy. It is soon going to be 2 out
of every 4 hours you work.
Our country was founded on the idea of liberty and freedom. When the
confiscatory rates that will have to be there to pay back our debt or
to at least borrow more money come, half of your work is going to be
for the Federal Government--not your State or local governments; it is
going to be to pay the bills of the Federal Government. So money that
is going to go for interest is money that is not going to be invested.
It is money that is not going to improve education. It is not going to
invent the new technology.
So I believe we can solve our problems, but I think it requires an
informed public. Do you realize the Federal Government is twice the
size it was in 1999? It is twice that size. It is two times as big as
it was in 1999. Think about that for a minute. If you extrapolate that,
that means in another 12, 13 years, it is going to be four times as big
as it was in 1999. The question comes: Are you getting value? Is it
efficient? It is productive? Is it what we want to do?
I think we can cheat history as a republic. As a constitutional
republic, I think we can cheat history. I do not think we have to go
down the path every other republic has gone down, but it is going to
require real leadership and shared sacrifice on the part of everybody
in this country. It is going to require that we take the spending out
of the Tax Code for the well-heeled who have placed special benefits in
the Tax Code for themselves. It is going to require that we reform
Medicare.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 28 minutes.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
It is going to require that we reform Medicare, that we fix Medicaid,
that we control how the Federal Government buys and uses things. It is
going to require us to eliminate multitudes of duplicative programs
that have no real benefit other than to benefit the politicians. It is
going to require shared sacrifice.
So we can go down that path, unite our country, bring us together
with a vision that through this, together we can all accomplish what is
needed for our children and grandchildren or we can continue this petty
little kindergarten game that is going on in Washington right now where
everybody's nose gets bent out of shape, saying they are right or they
are right, and playing off the American people.
None of us in Washington are right. The Founders were right. The
enumerated powers were right. The 10th Amendment was right. We are dead
wrong. It is time we grow up and start understanding the vision of our
Founders that secures our liberty and preserves our future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
[[Page S7305]]
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I want to
thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his commitment to this issue, for
his candor. We do not necessarily agree on every single thing, but I do
know he is a man of great conviction and we are lucky to have him in
the Senate. It is my hope we can get to a place where we actually are
together addressing these budget issues in a way that is not management
by crisis or one across-the-board cut after another but actually is a
thoughtful plan to relieve our children and our grandchildren of this
burden we are threatening them with.
So, through the Chair, I thank my colleague.
Madam President, I come to the floor today, after the Senator from
Oklahoma described today as a day of petty kindergarten political
games, to talk about a place where they are not playing any of those
right now, and that is a town in Colorado that I represent called Estes
Park, which has been a beacon of resilience. It is in the mountains
just northwest of Boulder. It is the gateway to Rocky Mountain National
Park.
I can see from the Presiding Officer's reaction that she may have
been there.
The town has several thousand residents and hosts close to 3 million
visitors a year, including an average of over half a million visitors
in the month of September.
This time of year is peak tourist season. The weather is beautiful.
The aspens' leaves are even more beautiful than the weather, and the
elk famously wander through the park and through the town. Whether you
are coming to rest or recreate, Estes Park welcomes you, and it always
has.
In 2011 visitors generated $196 million in tourism spending and
supported more than 2,700 jobs. By some estimates tourism accounts for
43 percent of local employment. But when the floods hit in Colorado,
Estes Park was almost entirely cut off from the outside world.
As shown in this picture, here is Route 34 going to Estes Park.
Two of the major roads into town were wiped out for miles at a
stretch, leaving only one road into town. Many homes and businesses
were destroyed. But the residents of Estes Park picked themselves up
and began the recovery process. Limited access to the town has been
restored. Folks had just started opening their businesses again.
Visitors had just started to return to Rocky Mountain National Park.
And then Congress stepped in and dealt an unbelievably cruel blow by
shutting down this government.
Let me quote what Estes Park resident Tom Johnson said on the Tuesday
of the shutdown:
I think politicians are playing around, like they do, and
it's the people who wind up--
``And it's the people who wind up''--
with all the problems for it. Man, they did it to Estes Park,
when they shut down that park.
Rocky Mountain National Park closed with the shutdown. Hundreds of
campers have had to cancel their reservations, and likely thousands
more canceled their plans to visit.
The Denver Post reported that if visitors to Estes Park decline by 70
percent, it could mean the loss of 1,100 jobs, $90 million in spending,
$5.8 million in State sales tax revenue, and $4.4 million in local
taxes. This is one community in Colorado, one community in the United
States of America tonight, as we horse around here in the Congress.
The shutdown is a kick in the teeth to our local governments and
small businesses in their efforts to recover from these floods.
One of the area's more famous businesses is the Stanley Hotel. John
Cullen, the hotel's owner, told us that while it is booking visitors
for long weekend trips, it has been slow to bring in the usual number
of guests during the week. He says it is because locals cannot come to
Rocky Mountain National Park for the fall foliage. He tells us they
have done everything they can to keep the hotel open because it is a
major employer in Estes Park, but he is losing money on a daily basis.
Diane Muno is a local business owner in Estes Park, with four retail
shops. The Spruce House and the Christmas Shop are two local Christmas
and holiday stores; the White Orchid and the White Orchid Bridal Shop
sell clothing and other apparel.
Some of these businesses have been serving customers in Estes Park
since 1969. They are institutions in this Colorado community.
The flooding damaged three of four of her businesses. One was
seriously damaged and has not yet reopened. The other two rushed to
reopen to recover, and they would have been fine except we closed Rocky
Mountain National Park, and that has slowed foot traffic in a
significant way. Diane's October revenue for these four stores is down
67 percent--two-thirds down--from this point in October last year. She
typically has 12 to 15 employees, but she is working a skeleton crew of
6.
Another business damaged by the floods was Kind Coffee. Its owner,
Amy Hamrick, has been relying on Internet sales while she is working to
reopen the store. The community has rallied around the store, as our
communities that have been struck by the floods have done. It bought
coffee beans and mugs and T-shirts online and helped clean up
floodwaters. But the same story holds: She took a huge hit when the
government shut down. Making horrible things worse, Amy's husband David
Hamrick, a firefighter with the U.S. Forest Service, has been
furloughed.
This is what this inability of Washington's politicians to get done
the most basic function we have--to keep the government running--has
wrought in this one Colorado community.
Amy told National Public Radio:
We carry on through the middle of October with tourism
dollars and locals coming to see the elk rut and to go into
the park and see the color. . . . And the national park is
also our largest employer in town. So our community now has
lost a lot of jobs in the interim.
This is exactly why it is the wrong moment for Colorado, for Estes
Park, to have Washington's dysfunction come crashing down. They do not
deserve it. They do not deserve it. But, as they are now saying in
Estes Park, they are mountain strong and they will get through it. And
I know they will.
Amy Hamrick took the time to remind us that 90 percent of the town is
open, dry, and ready for customers. She said:
The town . . . is beautiful and the golf courses have elk
on them 24 hours a day.
Estes Park, like much of Colorado, has taken a hit, but it will not
stay down. The community continues to pull together and recover. As
expected, its neighbors are going the extra mile to help everybody out.
This quote from Jeannie Bier captures the spirit of Colorado. She
said:
We live down in Loveland and it is difficult for the people
down there right now--
I know it is difficult down there because I was there last week with
the mayor and county commissioners and others looking at devastation in
Loveland--
but we also knew it is just as difficult up here in Estes and
they are our neighbors, so we took the roundabout way to get
up here to support Estes as well.
The floods will not deter them, and neither will the outrageous
stupidity of this shutdown.
Rocky Mountain National Park is closed, but there are still plenty of
other reasons to come and enjoy Estes Park.
Earlier today somebody who works with me named James Thompson spoke
with the town's mayor Bill Pinkham and asked him what is the one thing
he would want me to say on this floor. The message was plain and
simple. He said:
Michael, tell them it's spectacularly beautiful up here.
It's still a great experience. We're open for business!
This town has been through a lot and has risen to its challenges.
So I say to everybody, come to Estes Park. Enjoy the beauty. Shop at
our businesses. Dine at our restaurants. And meet the folks who would
not let a natural disaster or a manmade disaster stop them from
succeeding. You can learn more about a trip to Estes Park at
visitestespark.com.
To my colleagues, I urge you to come to Colorado for a different
reason. Maybe we could all learn something from these incredible people
about what it means to pull together in the face of a crisis.
For those of us playing politics with this shutdown and playing
politics with this fiscal cliff, I would really encourage you to spend
a single moment in one of our flood-ravaged towns. That
[[Page S7306]]
might bring some welcome clarity to the debate.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNET. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, most of us here in the Senate have read
at least something about our Nation's founding. Although it is
striking, what is almost always overlooked is the Founders' use of the
language of ``the republic.''
Asked by a citizen on the street which was being created behind
closed doors in Philadelphia, ``a Republic or a monarchy,'' Benjamin
Franklin famously said: ``A republic, if you can keep it.''
As with most foundational decisions, the Founders made this choice
deliberately. The idea of democracy frightened Hamilton, Adams, and
others, because they equated it with mobs in the street. They worried
that mob rule would overcome rights bestowed not by their government
but by their Creator. They studied the classics and their models were
the Greek and Roman republics.
They set out to do something never done before, to create a republic
of the scope and scale never before attempted, and one that could
expand as the country grew.
Today we are the world's oldest and greatest democracy. During the
last century, America has expanded the constitutional rights of women
and people of color well beyond landowning White men, originally
privileged. In our time, we have come to understand that democracies
are about the rights of citizens, but a republic, the Founders
understood, is about the duties of citizens, the obligations a citizen
has to a society whose constitution guarantees his or her rights.
Basic duties are to pay taxes levied by a representative government,
to defend our country when called upon, and to obey the law. Our
Founders had something even greater in mind, qualities that would make
a republic endure. Like republics from ancient Athens forward, they
believed in popular sovereignty, based on citizen participation in
government. They believed in the commonwealth, all those things we hold
and value in common, such as our defense and our shared infrastructure,
and the welfare of the next generation of Americans.
They believed in putting the common interest above personal or narrow
interests, a sense of the national interest. How else could committed
slaveowners and abolitionists form a country and a government?
They believed in resistance to corruption, those who would turn the
national interest to personal gain. We were founded as a republic and
we have become more democratic across time. We are democratic and
republican. Interestingly enough, what came to be the semblance of the
first political party in America called itself the Democratic
Republicans. It was founded in 1791. Sounds pretty weird today, I know,
but it simply meant those who believed in democratic equality and
freedom, working to uphold the ideals of the Republic. One of our
bedrock American principles is that we must protect our rights through
performance of our duties. That is not some abstract political theory.
This is a definition of who we are and how we must govern ourselves.
We have rights and responsibilities as citizens and as Senators. We
have the right to free speech but the responsibility not to shout
``fire'' in a crowded theater. We have the right to assemble but the
responsibility to do so peacefully. In this body we have the right to
filibuster but the responsibility to govern on behalf of the American
people.
But the fewer the Americans who exercise the most fundamental right,
I would say duty, of voting, the more political influence extreme
groups in our society have. This is where we find ourselves at the dawn
of the 21st century, with a Senate that at times is dominated by a
small faction that does not represent the mainstream of American
political thought, and a House that is gerrymandered into dysfunction.
This institutional paralysis has created a vacuum into which a million
special interests happily roam.
Actually, I should call them narrow, not special, interests. From
ancient Athens onward, narrow interests have been the enemy of every
republic. That has never been truer than it is today. Keeping the
Republic created by our Founders should concern every generation of
Americans, including our own. The sovereign power belongs to all the
people, not just a vocal few. It is our responsibility, it is our duty,
as elected officials when that ideal is tested, to work together to
restore a sense of the commonwealth and the common good that enabled us
to prevail in world wars and to overcome depressions.
This is our cause, but we are stuck. We are stuck because we are
fighting over yesterday's battles instead of seeking to anticipate, as
our Founders did, how we will manage change. To one degree or another,
all Senators and possibly all Americans are conservative. If
conservative means to protect our Nation's principles and ideals, I am
a conservative. If conservative means to preserve a culture of
tolerance, justice, and equality, I am a conservative. If conservative
means to respect the unique cultural heritage of America, I am a
conservative. If conservative means to protect our natural heritage, I
am very much a conservative.
But while we protect and preserve the best of what makes us who we
are, we must adapt to change. Scarcely one of us in the Senate has ever
sought office without advocating some kind of change: change of
officeholder, change of party, change of policy. That is good, because
the future is arriving faster and faster and we have gotten no better
at anticipating it.
Even with the seemingly endless crawls of the words ``breaking news''
at the bottom of our screens, no one predicted the Arab spring before
it sprung. That is the most closely watched region in the world.
There are great historic tides that demand that we change and adapt
to them in order to preserve and protect and conserve our central
values. We do not live in a stagnant world. Indeed, we are living in
the midst of great revolution that makes the 21st century as different
from the 20th as the 18th century was from the 17th. We are living
through what may be the peak years of change on the scale of the
Industrial Revolution. But even though we may come here oriented to
change, the institutions of government, Congress included, are oriented
to the past. Our committee structure and our regulatory agencies
imagine an economy that existed deep in the last century. We are
designed to support incumbent interests, not the innovators that will
drive job growth and wage growth in the 21st century. This is a fatal
flaw, if we are ever going to tackle the growing income inequality that
our Nation faces, an inequality that has been unmatched since 1928.
We are regulating the telegraph when the world is wireless. Just one
example: Almost a year ago I visited Apple out in Silicon Valley to
learn something about their work in education. A little over 4 years
ago, when I was superintendent of Denver Public Schools, I did not
spend one second thinking about how to apply a tablet to the education
of our kids, because there was no such thing as a tablet--a little over
4 years ago.
Today the tablet, combined with platforms such as the iTunes
platform, presents an unbelievable opportunity for our children and
children all over the world to learn and to teach each other. It was
amazing to see.
In any case, Apple presented a slide showing that 75 percent of their
last 12 months of revenue was derived from products they did not sell 5
years before--75 percent of their revenue came from things they did not
sell 5 years before.
We have not updated our Tax Code since 1986. I was in college in
1986. What are the chances that our Tax Code is helping drive job and
wage growth in 2013, 27 years later, more than a quarter of a century
later?
In this Congress and in this government, we are desperately out of
sync with the world as it is. It is, in fact, an irony that we must
change and adapt to preserve the principles that we treasure. But we
must.
Today, many flying the tea party banner resist all change. Indeed,
they
[[Page S7307]]
want to go back, often to a past that never existed, or to a time that
has no relation to our time. Too often, their politics embrace old
interests that will not drive us forward to an economy that is creating
jobs and raising wages.
Our founding principles should not change. I agree with that. But our
practices and methods must change to become relevant. These two
parties, or three with the tea party, have to escape their orthodoxies
for this to be possible. Efforts to maintain the status quo or to
return to some mythical past are doomed to fail. That is simply because
time and the tides of human affairs will not stand still. We do not
control history and cannot dictate to it. Change is the one constant.
How we attempt to shape it to our purposes, by creative, imaginative
public policies will determine whether we can preserve the best of our
past, our principles, our heritage, and our values.
Those who seek to protect our Nation against change by sitting on the
beach before a massive incoming tide with shovel in hand will be swept
away as surely as King Canute. As I mentioned earlier, anyone who
believes their orthodoxy or their ideological orientation prepared them
for the Arab spring or made us safer is deluded. Our job must be to
create a shared understanding of the facts when we work in a town that
is arranged to obscure them.
Despite the desires of nostalgia, we are not going back to the
laissez faire world of Herbert Hoover. Social safety nets are here to
stay to protect children, the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and to
protect our ability to call ourselves a civilized nation. But even they
will have to be changed if they are going to survive for the next
generation of Americans.
The revolution of globalization and information has transformed the
world's economy and cultures and societies all across the globe,
including here in the United States. These revolutions, like the
Industrial Revolution before them, cannot be stopped. It is up to us to
decide whether we can accept this new reality and position our country
to lead, as it has since our founding, or whether we shrink into an
imaginary conception of what the world once was and what the United
States once was.
With all of this change and pace of globalization comes fear of the
future and a sense of loss of what once was. That is human nature. I do
not exempt myself from that. At a time of uncertainty, it has become
fashionable in some political circles to capitalize on it politically.
This kind of demagoguery is not unknown in American history. Anytime
Americans become fearful or worried, there have always been those who
saw personal advantage in fanning those flames. But they do not join an
honor roll of history, an assembly of our greatest leaders. Media
attention, which is easy and cheap, is not a measure of leadership.
Division does not require moral authority.
If we are at another of history's turning points, as many believe, as
I believe, one road leads to the worst of our past. The other leads to
a new definition of our freedoms. We treasure the freedoms incorporated
in the First Amendment to our Constitution.
We remember at the height of the Great Depression that Franklin
Roosevelt declared four new freedoms: Freedom of speech and worship and
freedom from want and fear. Today, in the middle of what one might
characterize as a political depression, let's consider some new
freedoms for the 21st century: Freedom from foreign oil; freedom from
false patriotism; freedom from the politics of division; freedom to
create a constructive future; and, yes, freedom from unconstitutional
government surveillance.
We have duties to perform far greater than merely funding the
government. Just ask any poor child or her teacher in a typical
American school. The good news is that fear has never and will not now
dictate the fate of our Republic. History's dustbin is filled with
failed demagogues. And we are not going back. But we need to hurry. The
world is not waiting for us.
Americans want us to move forward into the 21st century with the
imagination, creativity, adaptability, and values that have made this
country so great from its founding. The stakes are simply too high in
our time to allow our institutions to be crippled by politicians who
color far outside the lines of conventional American political thought
and who react with angry and mock surprise when their policy objectives
are not achieved.
It is time to close this sorry chapter in the history of the
Congress, reopen our government, preserve the full faith and credit of
the United States, and work together as Senators from the various
States on the people's business. I suspect that is why most of us
wanted to serve to begin with.
Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________