[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 258-270]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask consent to execute the order of 
December 22, 2009, with respect to H.J. Res. 45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Committee on Finance is discharged of 
H.J. Res. 45 and the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the 
joint resolution, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory 
     limit on the public debt.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3299

  Mr. BAUCUS. Pursuant to the previous order, on behalf of the majority 
leader, I have a substitute amendment at the desk which I now call up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment, numbered 3299.

  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 259]]

  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following: ``That subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar 
     limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu 
     thereof $14,294,000,000,000.''.


                Amendment No. 3300 to Amendment No. 3299

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3300 to amendment No. 3299.

  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                 (Purpose: To protect Social Security)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ( )(a) Limitation on Changes to the Social Security Act.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall not be 
     in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to 
     consider any bill or resolution pursuant to any expedited 
     procedure to consider the recommendations of a Task Force for 
     Responsible Fiscal Action or other commission that contains 
     recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and 
     disability insurance program established under title II of 
     the Social Security Act.
       (b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of 
     the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Ralph Waldo Emerson enjoined:
  Pay every debt as if God wrote the bill.
  Today, we will debate whether the United States continues to pay its 
bills. We will debate whether the United States will continue to pay 
the interest it owes on the money it has borrowed.
  The spending laws that created the current national debt are behind 
us. The only question that remains is whether the government will honor 
its obligation to pay the bill. We have gone to the restaurant, we have 
eaten the meal, the waiter has delivered the check, and now the only 
question is whether we will pay the check. To state the question is to 
answer it: We simply must do so. We must pay the check for the bill, 
for the restaurant, for the meal we have eaten.
  The legislation before us would increase the limit on the amount of 
money the U.S. Treasury can borrow. If Congress does not enact this 
legislation, and soon, then the Treasury would default on its debt for 
the first time in history. If Congress does not enact this legislation, 
then the government would fail to pay the benefits to a portion of 
Social Security recipients, the Government would fail to pay benefits 
to a portion of the beneficiaries of all other Federal programs. That 
plainly would be unacceptable, and plainly we must enact this 
legislation.
  When the Federal budget runs a deficit, the U.S. Treasury must borrow 
money to make up the difference. In language around here, we call it 
the shortfall. That shortfall results from laws enacted in the past 
that spent money and cut taxes. If we want to avoid the need to borrow, 
then Congress and the President must enact laws that will cause the 
Federal Government to spend less money or raise more revenue in the 
future. Simply preventing the Treasury from borrowing more money is not 
the solution.
  If Congress does not allow the Treasury to borrow more money, then 
the Treasury will not have the money to pay its bills. The Treasury has 
no legal authority to prioritize spending and pay only the most 
important bills. They do not have that authority. If the bills are due, 
they are due. The Treasury does not even have a way to determine which 
are the most important bills. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the 
Treasury would have to pay bills on a first-come, first-served basis. 
Some of these bills would be interest payments on previously borrowed 
money. If the Treasury does not pay these interest payments, then the 
Federal Government would default on its financial obligations. That 
would be the first time in the history of the country. If that were to 
happen, financial entities would be afraid to loan the Treasury money. 
They would charge astronomically higher interest rates. This would only 
worsen already high budget deficits.
  In some situations, the financial entities would not loan us money at 
all. This could prevent the Federal Government from meeting all of its 
programmatic commitments, but the disastrous economic effects would go 
well beyond that. The price of Treasury securities in the secondary 
markets would drop. This would cause an immense wealth loss for owners 
of assets in many other financial markets. This, in turn, would cause 
untold damage in those markets and further worsen the recession.
  What is more, the value of the dollar could drop even further. This 
would increase inflation in the United States. It could well end the 
dollar's role as the reserve currency of the world, further exposing 
the American economy to global economic forces beyond our control.
  In addition to paying interest costs, the Treasury pays many other 
important bills. Among those bills are Social Security benefits. If 
Congress does not raise the debt limit, then Social Security benefits 
would have to compete for funding on a first-come, first-served basis 
with all other Federal payments. If Social Security payments did not 
come up for funding first, then they would not be paid.
  Clearly, we should not let this happen either. The conclusion is 
simple. We must raise the debt ceiling. Federal budget deficits are at 
record highs. Why is that? The reasons are simple. We have been and 
still are in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. We have 
been in an unprecedented financial crisis. The current administration 
inherited those problems.
  How have these problems contributed to record deficits, we might ask? 
Well, first, the recession directly affects the Federal budget. The 
recession has caused revenues to fall to record lows. Since 1970, the 
Federal Government has collected an average 18 percent of the gross 
domestic product in tax revenues. That is since 1970. In 2009, however, 
revenues accounted for only 14.9 percent of GDP, a drop of more than 3 
percent.
  Meanwhile, the recession has required much greater sums to be spent 
on unemployment benefits and on Medicaid payments. Second, Congress has 
had to pass legislation to fight the recession. We needed to enact a 
large stimulus package to foster economic growth. The package Congress 
enacted provided stimulus of about $185 billion in fiscal year 2009, 
and it is estimated to provide stimulus of about $400 billion in fiscal 
year 2010. This package has done some good--not perfect, but it has 
done some good. It helped prevent a deeper recession. It has 
significantly increased economic growth.
  Regrettably, the package has not produced enough jobs yet. The 
Finance Committee and other committees will be looking at additional 
options to increase job growth as soon as we can turn to them. But 
let's be clear. If Congress had not enacted the stimulus package, then 
the country would be in a depression instead of a recession. The 
stimulus package was the right thing to do.
  Third, as a result of the financial crisis, the Bush administration 
asked for and Congress gave legal authority under the Troubled Asset 
Relief Program, known as TARP. TARP gave the President authority to 
help financial institutions, as well as the struggling automotive 
industry, to weather the financial storm.
  The Bush administration was using these authorities before the Obama 
administration took office. So the recession and financial crisis 
created needs that, in turn, led to high deficits and record borrowing. 
How do we reduce such commitments for the future? They are too high. We 
have to stop. We have to do something about all this. How do we avoid 
having to borrow such

[[Page 260]]

huge sums of money in the future? First, we have to fix our health care 
system. The current health care system has led to skyrocketing costs in 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  To reduce those costs for the long run, we need to pass comprehensive 
health care reform. That is a good first step to get that deficit under 
control. That is exactly what we are doing. In late December, the 
Senate passed health care reform. According to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, our health care reform bill reduced the 
Federal deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years. Let me say that 
again.
  According to the CBO, this health care regulation will reduce the 
Federal deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years--not increase but 
reduce. That helps. The bill would reduce Federal deficits by $650 
billion to $1.3 trillion in the second 10 years; that is, in the second 
10 years, there is a much greater reduction in deficit spending, 
according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, a reduction 
of between $650 billion to $1.3 trillion, a reduction in the Federal 
deficit in the second 10 years. This deficit reduction is likely to 
continue in subsequent decades.
  Second, after we do all that, after we do all we can do to increase 
job growth, we need to start working on deficit reduction for the 
coming decade and also subsequent decades. Because the economy was in a 
deep recession and the financial markets were frozen, the government 
borrowed a lot of money. Once the recession is over, we have to reduce 
borrowing to a fiscally responsible level, and we should begin doing 
that as soon as we can.
  But in the meantime, we cannot allow the Nation to default on its 
debt. We cannot allow benefits from programs such as Social Security to 
be paid on a first-come, first-served basis. No one enjoys raising the 
debt limit. Nobody. It is not something that is a lot of fun to do. No 
one enjoys paying debts either, but it is simply what we must do to 
honor our commitments.
  There were times when the Senate joined together in recognition that 
we have this obligation as a joint obligation. Four times in the last 
26 years, the Senate has raised the debt limit by unanimous consent. 
Let me repeat that. Four times in the last 26 years, the Senate has 
raised the debt limit by unanimous consent. The Senate did so as 
recently as 1996, under a Republican Senate and a Democratic President.
  The Senate did so by unanimous consent three times in the 1980s, 
twice under a Democratic Senate and Republican President. It has been 
more than 17 years since the Senate last divided strictly along party 
lines on a debt-limit vote. We have raised the debt limit a dozen times 
since then. Honoring the Nation's obligations should not be a partisan 
matter, and usually it is not. It has until recently not been a 
practice of the minority in the Senate to filibuster debt limit 
increases. Under President George W. Bush, the Senate raised the debt 
limit four times, with simple majorities, with fewer than 60 votes. The 
Senate did so twice under President Reagan as well.
  All but four sitting Senators have voted for a debt limit increase at 
one time or another in their careers. Among sitting Senators who have 
served in more than one Congress, only one Senator has never voted for 
a debt limit increase.
  So I call upon my colleagues to rise to the occasion. Let us pay our 
debts. Let us honor our obligations. Let us allow the debt limit to be 
raised.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think most of the people watching this 
debate, studying how Congress works and how the Federal Government 
works, know there is a statutory limit on the amount of debt that can 
be issued by the Federal Government. If the public does not know this, 
they are constantly reminded of it because, from time to time, we pass 
legislation that does what this legislation does, increase the 
borrowing capacity of the Federal Government.
  Right now this legal limit stands at $12.394 trillion, and it applies 
to money borrowed from Federal investors such as banks and pension 
funds, as well as money borrowed from government programs such as 
Social Security and Medicare. Yes, we ought to admit that a lot of the 
Federal debt is owned by various foreign governments as well. I think 
the latest I saw, in the case of China maybe investing and holding 
about 8 percent of all the Federal debt and then you have other 
countries as well.
  This determination is made when the Secretary of the Treasury goes to 
the market and says: We want to borrow X number of dollars, and people 
bid on it. Obviously, we take it for the lowest interest rate we can 
get, whatever individuals or pension fund or foreign entity might want 
to take our debt for that interest. That happens throughout the year.
  The decision to increase the debt limit is never an easy one. In 
recent years, I have reluctantly supported increases in the debt limit 
on the grounds that Congress must pay its bills. That is quite obvious. 
Some countries--such as Argentina--decided, from time to time, they did 
not want to pay their debt, and they are paying the piper for making 
those unwarranted public decisions in those countries. We do not want 
to be in that shape.
  But Congress sometimes, and too often, has been very irresponsible. I 
am going to get into some of this current irresponsibility but, at the 
same time, I do not wish to say some other political party is entirely 
responsible, over a period of decades, for irresponsible spending. But 
I think it has reached a new height recently. Because of that, I will 
be voting no.
  Sometimes deficits are unavoidable. People know about wars. The No. 1 
responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide for the national 
defense, the protection of Americans or a threat to our security. We 
meet that threat. If that requires borrowing to do it, to protect the 
United States, we consider that justified.
  But you cannot plan for wars. You can plan for peace by having a 
strong national defense. So war is one reason, recession is another. 
Natural disasters are another example. All of these can result in lower 
taxes and higher spending, which produces bigger deficits that add to 
our Federal debt.
  But sometimes deficits can be avoided. Since the beginning of 2009, 
the majority in Congress has approved a $787 billion stimulus bill, a 
$408 billion supplemental appropriations bill, an additional $350 
billion for the financial bailout, and, most recently, an Omnibus 
appropriations bill that increased Federal spending by 12 percent over 
the previous year's levels.
  In my recent 21-county tour of southeast Iowa, I discussed the most 
recent example as an example of how spending recently has gotten 
entirely beyond the commonsense view that Midwesterners look at 
spending by government. I pointed out how 1 year ago today, the new 
President was sworn in. The previous President was under a budget that 
was established for a 5-month period of time. That last budget under 
Bush had spending at a 3-percent increase. But just as soon as the new 
majority came into power with a new President, that 3-percent increase 
was not enough for the remaining 7 months, it was jacked up to 9 
percent and then, for the year we are in, the 12 percent I just spoke 
about.
  I think you have to adopt a principle of spending that has increases 
in expenditures related to the economic growth of the tax policies that 
provide revenue to the Federal Government. That doesn't have to be on a 
year-to-year basis, but over a long period we ought to have that 
balance. In other words, without increasing tax rates, with economic 
growth of the tax base, more money will come in to the Federal Treasury 
under the same tax rates.
  Well, that growth in Federal income coming in makes it possible to 
appropriate more money, but there ought to be some relationship between 
the amount of money coming in and the expenditures made by the 
Congress.
  The bills I just referred to--the stimulus bill, the Omnibus 
appropriations bill, and others--I voted against every

[[Page 261]]

one of those on the grounds that we could not afford them. The fact 
that we are here this week facing yet another vote to increase the debt 
limit proves that is true. Many of my colleagues, particularly on the 
other side of the aisle, insist that it is not their fault. They 
continue to blame previous administrations for all fiscal problems.
  I want to make it clear that we in the Republican Party got kicked 
out of the majority in 2006 because we lost fiscal integrity. I hope we 
are reestablishing that, and I hope that in the process of 
reestablishing that we can convince the people who had doubts about 
Republicans that we can regain their trust.
  More recently, as I indicated, it seems a great deal of the current 
debt problem is related to irresponsible spending that has taken place 
near term.
  What do they target us with when they want to blame us for the 
deficit? They criticize the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts which they insist 
were excessive and unfair. Such criticism overlooks several facts. 
First, these were not Republican tax cuts. They passed both the House 
and Senate with bipartisan support. Second, Federal revenue quickly 
returned to the historical average following these tax cuts, so they 
were not excessive relative to the government's historic claim on 
revenue.
  I suppose you can take any period of time you want, but in the post-
President Kennedy period of time, it seems to me the average take of 
the economy that has come through the Federal Government in the way of 
taxes has been about 18 to 19 percent. Even including the tax cuts of 
2001 and 2003, those cannot be considered excessive relative to the 
government's historic claim on revenue; in other words, what the 
government takes as opposed to what they leave in the pockets of 
taxpayers in the United States.
  It is very important to remember that our Tax Code is not fully 
indexed to inflation and economic growth. Thus, every year without a 
tax cut results in a small but not insignificant tax increase or more 
revenue coming into the Federal Treasury without our actually changing 
rates. Indeed, without the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, Federal revenue 
would have risen well above that historic average of 18 to 19 percent. 
In fact, when we passed those tax cuts, it was very near 21 percent.
  Third, critics insist that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts unfairly 
benefitted the wealthy. Again, critics are wrong. I quote the 
Congressional Budget Office. Around here, we don't question the 
Congressional Budget Office. Maybe you want to. But if you want to 
question them, it takes 60 votes to override their determination of 
something, if there is a budget point of order.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bottom 90 percent 
of households pays the smallest share of Federal taxes in nearly 30 
years while the top 10 percent pays the largest share. When taxes are 
measured as a share of income, the bottom 90 percent of households pays 
the lowest effective rates in nearly 30 years while the top 10 percent 
pays their historic average.
  You can say it many times, but it never sinks in because people have 
their own ideas of how to show populism, and it is to always hit the 
wealthy of America. From that standpoint, you have to understand that 
percentage of top income earners, if you compare what they are paying 
into the Federal Treasury now with what they were paying in even during 
the Reagan years, you will find it is a much higher percentage right at 
this point.
  In regard to what I just said about historical averages, President 
Obama's budget and the budget resolution adopted by the Democratic 
majority in Congress last year both called for the continuation of 70 
to 80 percent of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So you can bad-mouth those 
tax bills all you want, but the new President, the new majority wants 
to maintain about 70 to 80 percent of them. So some of it isn't so bad, 
but you never hear that. It is all about the 2001 tax cuts being 
everything for the wealthy.
  If these tax cuts were so excessive and so unfair then, why does the 
majority party support so many of those tax cuts right this very day?
  The desire to blame our current predicament on the previous 
administration also overlooks two other facts. First, the Democrats 
controlled the majority of the Senate during half of the previous 
administration, including its final 2 years. I think it is disingenuous 
for them to deny any responsibility for where we are today.
  Second, when the new administration took office in 2009, it sent up a 
budget that proposed to increase the debt three times faster than the 
previous administration. You know where that takes us to from the 40-
year average? I talked about the 40-year average of the proportion of 
the GNP that is coming into the Federal Treasury as far as taxes are 
concerned at 18 to 19 percent. Take a 40-year average on what the 
percentage of the national debt is to gross national product. It is 
about 40 percent. This is going to be reaching 80 to 90 percent under 
this budget that was sent here in the previous year.
  The majority party essentially approved most of that very same 
budget. So they have now signaled the intention to continue to increase 
the national debt at a record pace.
  Finally, let me say a word about the health care bill adopted by the 
Senate. Rather than taking an incremental approach and waiting for the 
results to see what works and what doesn't work, the majority wants to 
raise taxes and cut Medicare to pay for a brand new health care 
entitlement program. If they use all of the tax hikes, and all of the 
Medicare cuts they can support to pay for more spending, how will they 
ever reduce the deficit? At what point will those who want to blame our 
current predicament on previous administrations take responsibility for 
actions that are taking place now?
  This week we have an opportunity to do that. I am glad we have a long 
period of time to discuss the debt limit but connect it with a lot of 
policies that seem to be out of proportion to problems that we 
previously had. If they want to continue to vote for more deficit 
spending, it seems to me they should vote to raise the debt limit or 
take actions that would reduce the need for such a dramatic increase in 
the debt limit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on another matter which is topical and 
tragic and which is on the minds of Americans and people all over the 
world today, I rise to share a few remarks involving the overwhelming 
disaster that has hit Haiti.
  Words do not begin to describe the extent of the disaster--thousands 
dead, more than 1 million homeless. Just imagine how bad it is. It is 
almost impossible to imagine. Families continue to search and mourn for 
lost mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters. 
The earthquake may be the most lethal disaster to ever occur in the 
Western Hemisphere. This is not a disaster on some distant shore. Haiti 
is closer to Florida, for example, than the distance from one end to 
the other of my State of Montana.
  I am encouraged by the outpouring of help from around the world. Many 
have flown to volunteer. Others have helped through in-kind 
contributions, cash. In fact, I recently heard that a vast number of 
people responded on the Internet through Blackberry and Twitter to give 
contributions. It is a huge number--not individually large, but the 
total is a massive outpouring of support.
  Americans have shown remarkable generosity. These are tough economic 
times, but millions still want to give. This is the American spirit. It 
is who we are as Americans.
  Amidst this destruction and great sorrow, there are stories that 
offer incredible hope. Maxine Fallon, a 23-year-old student, was buried 
for 6 days without food or water. She was buried deep in the rubble 
which was once her university. She sent text messages pleading for 
help. A search-and-rescue team rescued her from the ruins of her 
cratered school. Since arriving, rescue teams from the United States 
and other countries have saved more than 75 victims from the rubble.
  As Americans, we rise to aid our friends and neighbors who are in 
need.

[[Page 262]]

There is no people in greater need right now than the people of Haiti. 
Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Fifty-four 
percent of the population lives on less than a dollar a day. With so 
many struggling to survive, the earthquake's swift destruction must be 
met with a response equally forceful and rapid.
  I propose we pass legislation as soon as possible called the Haiti 
Assistance Income Tax Incentive Act or simply the HAITI Act. The HAITI 
Act will allow U.S. taxpayers to make charitable contributions to Haiti 
relief programs until March 1, 2010, and claim those contributions on 
their 2009 income tax returns. The proposal is similar to legislation 
that passed unanimously in 2005, following the tsunami disaster along 
the Indian Ocean.
  The HAITI Act is a bipartisan bill I am introducing with Senator 
Grassley and several other Senators. The same language passed the House 
of Representatives earlier today.
  This is simple legislation that would make a big impact. It will make 
it a little easier for Americans to contribute to the victims of the 
Haiti disaster. Frankly, most Americans want to contribute anyway. The 
American Red Cross and UNICEF's United States Fund raised about $7.3 
million in donations over a 4-hour period while a Larry King Live 
special on Haiti aired. But the relief and rebuilding effort in Haiti 
will require billions and will take a long time. This legislation is an 
additional incentive for Americans to contribute to that effort. As 
search and rescue efforts give way to building, these donations will 
ensure that our efforts have a lasting impact.
  While we must do what we can to provide relief now, the people of 
Haiti will need our help for many years to come. This is not just a 1-
week, 1-month, several-month effort. Trade programs such as the HOPE 
and HOPE II Acts provide an opportunity to create new jobs in Haiti's 
export sector. As the people of Haiti work to rebuild what was 
destroyed, I will continue to work to provide generous access to the 
U.S. market for products produced in Haiti.
  The suffering in Haiti is heartbreaking and the generosity in 
response to the Haiti earthquake is a reflection of the American 
spirit. Today I stand with the people of Haiti and I ask my colleagues 
in the Senate to stand with me. Let's pass the HAITI Act and let's do 
everything we can to help those who have lost so much in this terrible 
disaster.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes, and that after my speech Senator Thune be recognized, 
unless the Senator from Montana has somebody in between he wishes to be 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to have somebody else 
speak following the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the next Member to be 
recognized on our side be Senator Thune.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I wish to thank Senator Thune for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, I wish to speak a little bit here on this debt ceiling 
issue because it is critical. It is critical because of the size of it. 
We as a nation are running up debt at a rate we have never seen in 
history. The budget which we are presently functioning under will add 
approximately $1.4 trillion of debt from last year and potentially 
another $1.2 trillion next year. Under the budgets that were brought 
forward by the President, it looks as though we are going to have $1 
trillion in deficits every year for the next 10 years. That is an 
expansion of our debt at a rate we have never seen before, except in a 
time of war.
  What is the implication of that? Nobody understands what $1 trillion 
is. I don't understand what $1 trillion is. It is very hard to 
conceptualize $1 trillion. So I wish to try to put it in context.
  We know for a fact that certain nations get into trouble when they 
allow their debt to get so large that their economy doesn't have the 
capacity to pay it down in an orderly way. We are regrettably seeing 
that today in Greece. There are other nations in Europe that appear to 
have the same types of problems, including Ireland, where their 
national debt, their sovereign debt, has gotten so large they are 
basically in a position where their capacity to pay it off is at risk. 
So the value of that debt gets adjusted by the marketplace and it 
becomes much more expensive for those nations to borrow, and at some 
point, even, potentially they can't borrow and they end up in what 
amounts to a national bankruptcy.
  That has never been a threat to us as a nation because we have always 
had a vibrant economy, and because the dollar, ironically, is the 
currency of world reserve, we have been able to basically what is known 
as monetarize our own debt. There have always been people out there 
willing to lend to us as a nation because they have always presumed 
that the United States, because of our resilience, because of our 
economic strength, will always pay our debt, and that is why Treasurys 
are considered to be one of the safest investments in the world, or 
traditionally have been. That has been a great strength of our Nation, 
of course, to have this sort of integrity to our currency and to our 
ability to repay our debt. However, on the course we are presently 
pursuing, all of that is going to be called into question and called 
into question much sooner than we had expected, I suspect, or anybody 
had anticipated who had looked at this objectively 2 or 3 years ago.
  We know there are certain thresholds that generate huge warning signs 
where red flags go up and say, your Nation is in trouble. A couple of 
those thresholds have actually been adopted by the European Union as 
they have looked at their membership and said, What is the proper 
deficit of an industrialized nation? What is the proper public debt 
ratio to GDP of an industrialized Nation? In Europe what they say is, 
You can't be a member of the European Union if your deficits exceed 3 
percent of GDP and your debt exceeds 60 percent of GDP, your public 
debt. Well, our deficits are around 12 percent of GDP right now. They 
will ultimately go down, but there is no time in the next 10 years 
where they are projected to fall below 5 percent of GDP under President 
Obama's budgets. Our public debt is going to cross that 60 percent of 
GDP threshold probably within the next year. So arguably, as I said 
before on this floor, we would not be able to get into the European 
Union if we wanted to, because we would not meet their standards for 
fiscal responsibility as a nation. That is pretty serious.
  What is even more serious is there is no end in sight to this. We are 
looking at a deficit and debt situation which will continue to expand 
and become even more and more problematic for us as a nation for as far 
as the eye can reasonably see which, for the purposes of discussion 
around here, is about 10 years.
  We know that the public debt-to-GDP ratio, under the President's 
budget as proposed last year before this health care bill was taken 
up--and I would argue that this health care bill is going to radically 
aggravate the public debt issue in the outyears, and there will be 
debate about that because CBO will debate that point, but I don't think 
all the pay-fors will ever occur--independent of that, we know that 
under the budget as it is presently presented, the public debt is going 
to exceed 80 percent of GDP--80 percent of GDP--by the year 2019. In 
fact, there are some estimates that say it will exceed 100 percent of 
GDP before we hit 2020. Those are intolerable situations.
  What is the practical implication of our adding that much debt 
through deficit spending over the next few years to our economy? A few 
things occur, and they are undeniable. They will occur

[[Page 263]]

on the path we are presently on. The first thing that will occur is it 
will be much harder for us to sell our debt because nations will start 
to say--people around the world, including our own public, I suspect, 
will start to say, Can they really pay that back. When they cross that 
60-percent threshold, which is basically a key tipping point on the 
ability of a nation to manage itself, and they start heading up towards 
80, 90, 100 percent of GDP as the public debt ratio, can they really 
pay back their debt? People are going to say, Well, I am not so sure. I 
am going to charge them a fairly significant premium before I am going 
to lend them any money. So the cost of our interest will go up 
dramatically. In fact, it is projected that in the year 2019, interest 
on the public debt alone will exceed $800 billion a year. That is more 
being paid out in interest which goes to people all over the world--
people in China, people in Saudi Arabia, all over the world--that 
interest will be higher than any other item of Federal spending. What a 
waste of money that is. What a waste of money that is. What a misuse of 
money. All of that money could be used for something constructive in 
the United States--building infrastructure, building schools, assisting 
education, whatever. If you are going to spend it, why would you spend 
it on interest?
  So we will be in a position where it will be harder for us to sell 
our debt. Actually, we will probably get to a position fairly soon--and 
I am willing to bet on this; I won't be in this Congress at the time, 
but before we hit the year 2020--where we will actually have to take 
some radical step as a nation in order to deal with our debt. Because 
if we allow it to go up under its present scenario, it becomes totally 
unsustainable. It is like a dog chasing its tail; it can't get there. 
We can't pay down the debt.
  The practical implications of that are twofold: Either, No. 1, you 
inflate the economy and devalue the currency, and that is a very harsh 
thing to do to the American public because it devalues their savings 
and it makes it harder for the economy to be productive or, No. 2, you 
radically raise taxes to try to reach the obligations of the debt, and 
that also dramatically impacts the economy. It makes us less 
productive. It means less jobs will be created. Either one of those 
scenarios, or only one of those two scenarios, or maybe a combination 
will occur if we continue on our present course, which means that the 
next generation will actually have a lower standard of living than our 
generation. It means it will be much more difficult for the next 
generation of Americans to buy a house, send their kids to school, buy 
a car, to live the quality lifestyle we have had as a nation. In fact, 
it will be the first time in history, if we stay on our present course, 
that one generation has handed to another generation a lower standard 
of prosperity and quality of life. It is inexcusable to do that. It is 
unacceptable. Nobody in this body who has a public responsibility to 
the next generation--and we all have that responsibility--should do 
that to our children.
  So what are we going to do to address it? Well, put very simply, we 
need to stop spending so much money. That is the bottom line. We need 
to stop spending so much money. Under the projections in this budget as 
it presently exists and was passed in this Congress, over my objection 
and over the objections of everybody on this side of the aisle, it is 
projected that we are going to be in a situation where, as I said, 
there will be $1 trillion deficits for as far as the eye can see and 
the size of government spending will go from 20 percent of GDP up to 
about 24, 25 percent of GDP if the health care bill is also passed. 
That will be the highest level of Federal spending that has occurred in 
this government since World War II. We have never had those types of 
levels of spending. So it is not a revenue issue--although right now it 
is a revenue issue because, obviously, right now the economy is in a 
recession--but over the long run it is not a revenue issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. It is a spending issue. It is not a revenue issue. It is 
primarily a spending issue. The fact is that we are spending a great 
deal more than we can afford as a nation, and this government has 
committed to a great deal more than we can afford. So we need to do 
something on the spending side of the ledger.
  There is going to be a series of proposals brought forward by our 
side, and Senator Thune is going to offer one in a minute, to try to 
get to the issue. They won't solve the whole problem, but they will at 
least make significant steps down the road of restraint and show that 
we are starting to get serious about it, and they are reasonable ones. 
Senator Thune: End TARP. End TARP. We don't need it anymore. We should 
take those dollars and put them toward debt reduction. Freeze 
discretionary spending. That will be Senator Sessions' amendment, or 
something like that. Rescind some of the stimulus spending that is 
going to occur after 2011; that may be one of our amendments. I know 
Senator Coburn is going to suggest a series of other issues. All of 
these are steps in the right direction.
  So I think on our side of the aisle the basic philosophy is this: It 
is irresponsible to increase the debt ceiling if you don't do something 
responsible about addressing what is driving the debt ceiling, which is 
spending. So we are going to suggest a series of initiatives around 
here that we believe are responsible on the issue of controlling 
spending, and I hope those initiatives will be passed so we can begin 
to put this country back on the road toward fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. Again, I wish to thank the Senator 
from South Dakota for his courtesy and the Senator from Montana as 
well.
  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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3301 to Amendment No. 3299

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask 
unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for himself, Mr. 
     Vitter, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johanns, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. LeMieux, Mr. Burr, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Coburn, Mr. 
     Barrasso, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Ensign, 
     Mr. Crapo, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Graham, and Mr. 
     Cornyn, proposes an amendment numbered 3301.

  Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To terminate authority under the Troubled Asset Relief 
                    Program, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REPEAL OF THE TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the authorities provided under section 101(a) of the 
     Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (excluding 
     section 101(a)(3)) and under section 102 of such Act shall 
     terminate on the date of enactment of this resolution.
       (b) Lowering of National Debt Limit To Correspond to TARP 
     Repayments.--Section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by inserting after the dollar 
     limitation contained in such subsection the following: ``, as 
     such amount is reduced by the amount described under 
     subsection (d)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) The amount described under this subsection is the 
     amount that equals the amount of all assistance received 
     under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
     2008 that is repaid on or after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, along with any dividends, profits, or other funds 
     paid to the Government based on such assistance on or after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection.''.


[[Page 264]]

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we entered into this debate about the debt 
limit today. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from New 
Hampshire with respect to the overall picture of our financial and 
fiscal condition in the country right now. I think it is important to 
put that context out there because we are debating now a substitute 
amendment that the Senator from Montana is offering on the debt limit 
increase. I think that was originally proposed in the $650 billion 
range. We are now talking about tripling that--a $1.9 trillion increase 
in the debt limit--after having just voted on raising the debt limit 
before we went out for the Christmas holiday by about $290 billion.
  So we have this proposal on the Senate floor that would increase the 
total amount of indebtedness of the U.S. Government by $1.9 trillion. 
As the Senator from New Hampshire very well pointed out, we are looking 
at deficits now into the foreseeable future that exceed $1 trillion. It 
doesn't look like in the 10-year window in which we do budgeting in the 
Senate that we are ever going to have a year where we don't have a 
deficit that isn't in the $1 trillion range. We had a $1.4 trillion 
deficit last year and will have another $1.2 trillion deficit this 
year. We keep racking up more and more debt that gets passed on to 
future generations and taxpayers.
  As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, for admission into the 
European Union there are a couple of key thresholds. One is debt as a 
percentage of GDP, which is 60 percent, which is the threshold for 
admission into the European Union, and deficits, which is about 3 
percent. He pointed out very effectively that we are at a threshold in 
this country that exceeds dramatically the deficit, the GDP threshold 
that wouldn't even allow us to get into the European Union, and we are 
going to blow by the debt to GDP threshold in the next year, which is 
60 percent to GDP.
  My point is, we are getting in perilous territory when it comes to 
the confidence and trust the American people have in the Federal 
Government's ability to manage responsibly and exercise fiscal 
discipline with their tax dollars. We are also getting to a point where 
I think those who are acquiring U.S. debt--and by that I mean the 
Chinese who, of course, are a big holder of U.S. debt--get to start 
saying: If we are going to continue to buy this debt, we are going to 
get a higher return. The higher our debt goes, the more risk they take 
on.
  It is a fundamental rule of economics that we all learned that there 
is a corresponding relationship between risk and return. If an investor 
is going to assume more risk, they are going to demand a higher return. 
What we are doing now by piling up more debt is saying to the people 
who would buy that debt, the investors out in the world or in this 
country is, this is becoming a more risky proposition for you. As we 
pile up more debt, they are going to start saying: OK, if we are going 
to buy that debt and finance your spending into the future, we are 
going to need a higher return. That means higher interest rates.
  Of course, when you start seeing Federal Government debt go up in 
terms of interest rates, generally what happens is other interest rates 
in our economy will go up as well. So you will start seeing student 
loans, for example, and homeowners and small businesses all being 
impacted by higher interest rates as a result of what inevitably 
happens when you run these kinds of deficits year after year and add as 
much as we are to the Federal debt.
  We are not showing any evidence that there is a willingness to 
restrain that. In fact, if we look at just the last year--of course, 
the $1 trillion stimulus bill sort of started off the spending. Then 
since then we have had an omnibus, or minibus, spending bill, both of 
which increased spending year over year by about twice the rate of 
inflation, and sometimes in excess of that.
  But what we have seen now between fiscal years 2008 and 2010 are 
astronomical increases in the size of the Federal Government. If we 
start with the legislative branch appropriations bills between 2008 and 
2010--that covers a couple of appropriations years--we are looking at a 
17.3-percent increase. If we look at appropriations for the Interior 
and the Environment, it is an increase of 21.4 percent over that time 
period; appropriations for Commerce, Science, and Justice, an increase 
of 24.2 percent. Appropriations for Transportation and HUD increased a 
whopping 39.1 percent. The State and Foreign Operations appropriations 
bill beat even that and was increased by 48.7 percent.
  Taken as a whole, the entire government grew by 16.8 percent during 
that time period. When I say that, I am talking between 2008 and 2010. 
We saw a 16.8-percent increase in the size of the Federal Government. 
That is just speaking to the appropriations bills over those 2 years. 
Of course, we all know that dramatically outpaces and dwarfs the rate 
of inflation and the growth we have seen in our economy over that time 
period.
  What is even more notable is that none of those increases included 
the increased funding through the stimulus bill, which I mentioned was 
an additional $1 trillion. Of course, I am concerned that will be built 
into the budget baseline into the future, and we will see our 
appropriators assume that stimulus money is part of the baseline in 
spending.
  Of course, those appropriations bills don't include this proposed 
stimulus 2 that we are hearing about: the bailouts of the banks, the 
insurance companies, and the car companies, or the $2.5 trillion 
expansion that would occur with a new health care proposal, or 
entitlement, in this country. So we have seen this dramatic increase in 
the growth of government and in spending in Washington, most of which 
is financed with borrowing.
  Last year, in fact, 43 cents out of every dollar we spent in the 
Federal Government was borrowed. We cannot continue to sustain a 
pattern of borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar we spend. In fact, as 
American families and households and small businesses are having to 
tighten their belts, in Washington, DC, the spending continues 
unabated.
  What I am hoping to do with this amendment is to at least demonstrate 
that, as an institution, the Senate is willing to say we are going to 
take some steps, no matter how modest they are--and I would say my 
amendment isn't going to go a long way toward eliminating this Federal 
debt, but certainly I think it demonstrates to the American people that 
we get it; we are hearing that they are uncomfortable with the massive 
amount of borrowing and spending and taxes going on here. Americans are 
going to pay for this in the form of higher taxes and in the form of 
higher inflation. As I said, it will be also in the form of higher 
interest rates on mortgages and small business loans and student loans 
and those sorts of things. So we have a responsibility to demonstrate 
to the American people that we are serious about getting our fiscal 
house in order.
  The most recent example, of course, as I mentioned earlier, in this 
pattern of expansion of the Federal Government is the health care bill, 
which is in the process right now of discussions, evidently, between 
the House and Senate and the negotiations that are ongoing. It passed 
the House and the Senate before the Christmas holiday. I happen to hope 
that people will come to their senses and defeat this bill and that it 
would not emerge in the conference committee, and we can start over and 
do it the right way--in a step-by-step way, not in a way that expands 
the size of government by $2.5 trillion.
  That being said, the $2.5 trillion expansion of the Federal 
Government includes higher taxes, Medicare cuts, and also at the end of 
the day, according to the CBO, does very little for most people in this 
country to actually reduce the cost of their health care insurance.
  In fact, what we have seen through studies done by CBO and by the CMS 
Actuary is that for most Americans, they are going to see, at best, 
their health insurance premiums stay the same. If they are in the 
individual market, they will see them go up. So the health care bill is 
an example of this runaway Federal spending. In fact, in the latter 
part of that debate, we got a

[[Page 265]]

response from the CBO to a question posed by the Senator from Alabama, 
Mr. Sessions, with regard to how the accounting is done in Medicare. 
One of the arguments we heard throughout the course of the debate was 
that it would extend the lifespan of Medicare. The question was posed 
to CBO: What happens with this additional Medicare tax and these 
Medicare cuts that would be imposed upon providers and senior citizens 
in this country?
  The argument was always made that this will extend the lifespan of 
Medicare. Our question was, how do you spend money to create this 
entitlement program and pay for the health care expansion and say you 
are expanding Medicare? The answer that came back was that under the 
accounting convention regarding trust funds in a unified budget, in 
fact, there would be notes put into these trust funds that technically, 
legally speaking, would extend the lifespan of Medicare. But those 
dollars are also being spent on the new health care expansion.
  From an economic standpoint, the conclusion you draw is that you 
cannot spend the same money twice. What they said is that you are 
spending the same money twice. You are double counting this money.
  My view is that we have complicated this situation dramatically by 
this new health care entitlement program. That is why I think it is so 
important that we reverse course and start over and do this right, in a 
way that is step by step and gets at the fundamental issue most 
Americans are concerned about, which is the high cost of health care 
and providing access to more Americans and a higher quality of care.
  I say all that as a background to get into this debate about the debt 
limit and to say I am very concerned. I also think most Americans are 
concerned about the amount of spending and borrowing and taxing that is 
occurring in Washington, DC. My amendment, very simply, says the 
Troubled Asset Relief Program that was enacted in late 2008--a $700 
billion authority for the Treasury to use to help bring stability to 
the financial services industry in this country--would end. We would 
basically say that job, that mission, and that purpose has been served, 
completed. In fact, any unobligated funds should not be spent, and we 
should not allow TARP to become a sort of revolving loan fund, a 
political slush fund, to be used for all kinds of purposes. Most of the 
people who voted for it believed it would be used to bring stability to 
our financial services industry. We were told at the time that if we 
didn't do something, we were on the verge of imminent financial 
collapse, a financial meltdown. So many of us supported that at the 
time, with the belief that it would in fact be used to acquire the 
troubled assets that were on the balance sheets of a lot of financial 
institutions.
  What happened is it evolved and morphed into something entirely 
different. It has been used to take equity positions not only in 
insurance companies but in auto manufacturers. It was suggested by the 
Treasury Department, whose interpretation is that they could use this 
for other purposes. We think the statute is plain about how these funds 
ought to be used. The Treasury has taken a different interpretation. 
When they chose to extend this program, it was set to expire at the end 
of December of last year. The Treasury Department chose to extend it. 
The assumption most of us made was that they have designs on how to use 
the funds. If they don't, certainly Members of Congress do.
  I don't say that as a partisan statement. I think there are probably 
people on both sides who would love to know there is a few hundred 
billion dollars available to go toward some program they think is 
important. I am not saying anybody's ideas about government programs 
that might serve a particular constituency's needs are not important. 
They are important in the minds of individual Senators. But if we are 
thinking about the overall good of the country, we have to begin 
thinking about what we are doing.
  This authority that was created under TARP--the $700 billion--is, if 
we don't shut it down, going to be used for all kinds of other ideas 
and purposes. We saw that most recently with the stimulus 2 bill that 
is proposed in the House of Representatives. They wanted to use TARP 
funding as an offset to pay for the new stimulus bill. We have seen 
proposals to use it for small businesses.
  Frankly, I think we need to focus any efforts we make to create jobs 
in this country on small businesses because, after all, they create 
two-thirds or three-quarters of the jobs in our economy. Frankly, the 
TARP program wasn't designed to do that. It had a specific statutory 
purpose. That purpose is now being adulterated. It is used in all these 
different ways.
  I happen to believe--and I hope a majority of my colleagues will as 
well--we should vote to end this program and not allow it to be used 
and misused and abused in a way that creates greater liabilities for 
the American taxpayers, creates more debt and borrowing because, after 
all, that is what it is.
  The TARP authority is debt. When we talk about spending TARP money, 
it is not as if there is a big bank of money out there. What it means 
is that when TARP authority is used, we go out and borrow the money. 
Basically, we add to the Federal debt that we continue to pile up.
  So the ENDTARP program--there is an acronym for everything around 
here--the ENDTARP program, Erasing Our National Debt Through 
Accountability and Responsibility Plan, or ENDTARP, is what my 
amendment embodies. Basically, we believe we ought to, as a body, as an 
expression of our willingness to, again, demonstrate to the American 
people we can get our fiscal house in order, vote to end this program.
  I would like to illustrate, if I may, what I am talking about in 
graphic terms. This is a pie chart that shows the whole $700 billion 
that was authorized under TARP. The blue represents that the $545 
billion--the latest information we have--has been spent or at least 
committed. That was as of January 6, 2010. What this side, the red, 
represents is the unobligated funds. The unobligated funds is a 
combination of both the authority that was not used, and that was about 
$155 billion, and payments that have been made back into the fund. That 
is about $165 billion. So we have about $319 billion--$320 billion in 
round numbers--of unobligated authority in TARP. What my amendment 
simply would say is, this amount of money cannot be spent. We would end 
TARP, and instead of allowing the program to continue through October 
of this year, at which point, incidentally, they don't have to shut 
down the spending--the spending can continue to go on. The program, in 
effect, would shut down in October of this year. But we believe that 
this unobligated money in here, that we ought to not spend it. When we 
do not spend it, it is money we do not have to borrow, and that reduces 
the overall amount of the Federal debt and the amount of debt we are 
passing on to future generations.
  Again, this is a way of illustrating what we are talking about, what 
the amendment would do. The blue represents the amount that has been 
committed or spent as of January 6. The other side, the red, represents 
the amount that has not been used, authorized but not spent, and has 
been paid back--in other words, unobligated balances in the TARP fund 
of about $320 billion.
  It is a fairly straightforward amendment. I hope a majority of my 
colleagues in the Senate will vote with me to say to the American 
people that we hear you; we do not believe using this program in a way 
that was not intended, that further aggravates a very serious fiscal 
situation for this country, ought to be allowed to continue.
  I think the American people have made it clear that they are tired of 
the bailouts. There was a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll indicating that 
53 percent of Americans are unhappy with the government's current role 
in the private sector. In fact, 65 percent of Americans are opposed to 
government intervention by taking a majority stake in General Motors.
  Again, despite the original projections when TARP was signed into law 
that we were going to be made whole

[[Page 266]]

and this was actually going to generate additional revenue for the 
American taxpayers, I think we now know the estimates that are coming 
forward suggest we are going to lose money. The amount of money that 
was authorized for this program, we are not going to get it all back, 
but the one thing we can do right now is to cut our losses by making 
sure that these unobligated funds do not get spent, that they do not go 
onto the Federal debt, and that they do not go onto additional 
borrowing. When we are borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar spent in 
Washington, DC, we need to exercise some fiscal discipline.
  I hope my colleagues will vote to support this amendment. My 
understanding is there will be a vote sometime tomorrow on this 
amendment. I hope to have another opportunity to speak to it tomorrow 
morning. I wanted to lay the amendment down, make my colleagues aware 
of it, and encourage them to support it.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, frankly, I think the fundamental question 
facing us is, Are we going to pay our bills? That is the question 
before us today.
  On the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota, I suspect 
the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, will have 
something to say about that when we come back into session tomorrow. 
But the fundamental question we are facing with the debt limit 
extension resolution is, Are we going to pay our bills? We have 
incurred obligations. We have, as a country. Are we going to pay them? 
Are we going to pay our bills? That is the basic question. Are we going 
to live up to our commitment to pay our bills?
  The discussion here quite correctly is somewhat--not correctly. The 
subject has moved over to, well, gee, aren't our deficits too high? 
Haven't we been spending too much compared with the revenue we are 
taking in? Yes. There is no one here who would argue the point that our 
deficits are too high. That is right. They are what they are partly 
because of the recession we are in, the subprime mortgage crisis that 
somewhat prompted all the problems we face as a country, a lot of loose 
lending by lots of institutions, packaging of obligations, of loans, 
and securitizing those loans, all the fees earned by banks and so 
forth. Pretty soon, all the mortgages became if not worthless, at least 
not worth very much at all. Our country consequently faced a recession 
by and large because of a lot of loose financial thinking in the last 
couple of years, beginning with the subprime mortgage crisis. We are 
where we are. We are trying to work ourselves out of the recession. But 
the basic question is, Are we going to pay the debts we obligated? Are 
we going to live up to our commitments?
  The Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, quite correctly talked about our deficits being too high. He 
raised the prospect of, gee, maybe fairly soon various countries are 
going to charge us more on the debt we are borrowing, may want to 
charge a premium because they wonder if they can trust the obligation 
of the United States to pay its debts. I don't know whether that is 
true. I don't know when that may or may not be true. That is a very 
speculative question. We just do not know. A lot of people have very 
formed opinions on that point. But I do know something that is 
absolutely true, over which there is no debate; that is, if we default 
on our debts, then we are going to find the economy is going to 
collapse. I do know that as a fact. Every Member of this body knows 
that to be a fact. We must extend the debt limit so we can pay our 
debts. That is pretty simple. In the meantime, as a Congress, clearly 
we have to work to get these deficits under control. We have to do 
both, frankly. We have to extend the debt limit so we can pay our 
debts. If we do not raise it, we cannot pay our debts. So we have to 
raise it. In addition, we have to work at getting these deficits under 
control. There is no doubt about that.
  Frankly, one good way to get deficits under control is to pass health 
care reform. The Congressional Budget Office, which we all think is 
doing a pretty good job even though they frustrate us a lot--by and 
large we agree with their conclusions--the Congressional Budget Office 
has said the health care bill that passed the Senate would reduce the 
deficits by $132 billion over the first 10 years. That is a reduction 
in deficits. That is going to help reduce the deficits. So all this 
talk--it is very proper talk--about the size of our deficits will be 
slightly less urgent once we start reducing the budget deficit. I am 
not one to stand up here and say health care reform is the total 
solution. I am only saying it reduces the budget deficit, according to 
the Congressional Budget Office, by $132 billion over the first 10 
years. They go even further and say that the next 10 years the health 
care reform bill that passed the Senate will reduce the Federal deficit 
by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion--reduce the Federal deficit 
by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion. Now we are talking real 
money. Now we are talking about a more-than-significant reduction in 
the deficit.
  I heard some numbers flying around here several minutes ago about it 
costs $2 trillion and this and that. That is not true. That is not what 
the Congressional Budget Office says. The Congressional Budget Office 
says, as I mentioned, a $132 billion reduction in the deficits in the 
first 10 years and between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion in deficit 
reduction in the second 10 years. That is what CBO says. I don't know 
where the Senator gets his numbers, but he did not get them from CBO. 
CBO's conclusions are as I have stated.
  I urge us, frankly, to keep our heads screwed on straight and our 
feet on the ground. Let's decide what we have to do, and that is we 
have to pay our national debt and then go on and find ways to reduce 
the budget deficits. I think all of us can agree that is something we 
have to do.
  To default on our national debt is certainly no way to run a 
government. We are supposed to be responsible people around here. 
Clearly, it would be irresponsible for us to not act in a way that 
prevents a default on our obligations.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am going to speak a little bit about the 
amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, 
cosponsored by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. It has not 
been offered yet. I am not totally certain it will be offered. I think 
it will be offered. I am going to speak on the amendment now, but if we 
are ready to enter a unanimous consent agreement as to the proceedings 
of the Senate tonight and tomorrow, I will stop my presentation so we 
can enter that order.
  As I said, under the previous order, the amendment by the Senator 
from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. 
Gregg, proposing a fiscal task force is in order to the pending 
measure.
  Yesterday evening, the Vice President met with a number of interested 
parties, including our colleague, the Senate majority leader, the 
Speaker, the Senator from North Dakota, and others. I was at that 
meeting. Yesterday evening, that group discussed a fiscal commission to 
be created by an Executive order. I want to distinguish that effort, 
that is, that effort for the President to create a commission by an 
Executive order, from the amendment the Senators from North Dakota and 
New Hampshire propose on the bill.
  I support the President's efforts to create a commission by Executive 
order, and I oppose the amendment to be proposed by the Senators from 
North Dakota and New Hampshire. The difference is that the Executive 
order would preserve the Senate's regular

[[Page 267]]

order. The amendment, on the other hand, would create a fast-track 
procedure to short-circuit the Senate's regular order.
  Let me take this opportunity to share with my colleagues what a 
number of respected groups have been saying about the Conrad-Gregg 
amendment.
  On January 14, the chief executive officer of AARP wrote to Senators 
about the Conrad-Gregg commission. As my colleagues know, AARP is the 
nonpartisan membership organization that represents 40 million people 
age 50 and older. AARP is the Nation's largest membership organization 
for people 50 and over and has offices in all 50 States. Listen to what 
AARP says:

       We urge you to vote against an amendment to be offered by 
     Senators Conrad and Gregg to establish a fiscal task force 
     and to instead focus on addressing the challenges of the
     nation's long-term debt through regular
     order . . .

  AARP goes on:

       We oppose providing fast-track authority to a task force 
     that will function with limited accountability outside the 
     regular order of Congress, and with an exclusive focus on 
     debt reduction. . . .

  Quoting further, AARP says:

       AARP believes the issues that the fiscal task force is 
     meant to address--including the revenue gap, health care 
     costs and the long-term solvency of Social Security--are 
     among the most fundamental challenges we face as a nation. As 
     such, they are issues Congress itself, through its regular 
     order, should tackle.

  AARP recognizes that doing things the normal way is not always easy. 
Quoting again, AARP says:

       We recognize that these issues test regular order, as has 
     been demonstrated by the long and difficult debate 
     surrounding health care reform. Simply because these issues 
     are difficult to address is not reason enough to abdicate the 
     responsibility Congress has to act. However, an open debate 
     is essential in a representative democracy to resolve issues 
     that have as broad and deep an impact on its citizenry as 
     changes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the tax 
     system.

  AARP focuses on the human costs. Quoting further, AARP says:

     . . . a task force that is directed to identify proposals to 
     restore the nation's long-term balance sheet cannot do so 
     without regard to the impact its recommendations would have 
     on individuals. Broad, deep cuts to the nation's health and 
     economic security pillars--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
     Security--could reduce long-term debt, but would do so by 
     shifting significant burdens and risks to older Americans and 
     millions of others who rely on these benefits.

  AARP recommends in particular that Social Security be excluded from 
the commission's deliberations. AARP says:

       We urge that Social Security not be considered in the 
     context of debt reduction; this program does not contribute 
     to the annual deficit, and its long-term solvency can be 
     resolved by relatively modest adjustments if they are made 
     sooner rather than later.

  That is true. It is very true. Social Security does not contribute to 
the annual deficit. It does not. And if one looks at the long-term 
prospect of Social Security, it is in healthy shape for 25, 50 years. 
It does not add in any way significantly to the national debt.
  Here is how AARP concludes its letter. AARP says:

       Given the significance of Social Security and Medicare to 
     the well-being of nearly all Americans, AARP believes a full 
     and open debate is essential to ensuring the development of 
     balanced solutions. As such, we oppose any legislative 
     proposals that bypass or short circuit the protections 
     afforded by regular order . . . to reach debt reduction 
     goals.

  That is what AARP writes, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the full text of AARP's letter to Senators.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                         AARP,

                                 Washington, DC, January 13, 2010.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of our nearly 40 million members, 
     AARP writes to express opposition to three budget amendments 
     you will be considering on January 20, 2010. We urge you to 
     vote against an amendment to be offered by Senators Conrad 
     and Gregg to establish a fiscal taskforce, and to instead 
     focus on addressing the challenges of the nation's long-term 
     debt through regular order. We also urge you to vote against 
     an amendment to be offered by Senator Reid to establish 
     statutory paygo, and by Senator Sessions to establish multi-
     year caps on discretionary spending.


                            Fiscal Taskforce

       AARP agrees that the nation's long-term debt requires 
     urgent action. We are committed to supporting balanced 
     policies that address the nation's long term fiscal 
     challenges while also honoring the contributions of our 
     members and the needs of millions of other Americans who rely 
     on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. However the 
     current fiscal crisis is far broader than these lifeline 
     programs. We oppose providing fast-track authority to a task 
     force that will function with limited accountability outside 
     of the regular order of Congress, and with an exclusive focus 
     on debt reduction. We further oppose the establishment of 
     such a task force in light of the targeted Medicare savings 
     and proposed Medicare Payment Board (that would have further 
     authority to reduce Medicare spending) in the pending Senate 
     health care reform legislation.
       AARP believes the issues that the fiscal task force is 
     meant to address--including the revenue gap, health care 
     costs and the long-term solvency of Social Security--are 
     among the most fundamental challenges we face as a nation. As 
     such, they are issues that Congress itself, through its 
     regular order, should tackle. We recognize that these issues 
     test regular order, as has been demonstrated by the long and 
     difficult debate surrounding health care reform. Simply 
     because these issues are difficult to address is not reason 
     enough to abdicate the responsibility Congress has to act. 
     However, an open debate is essential in a representative 
     democracy to resolve issues that have as broad and deep an 
     impact on its citizenry as changes to Medicare, Medicaid, 
     Social Security and the tax system.
       Moreover, a task force that is directed to identify 
     proposals to restore the nation's long-term balance sheet 
     cannot do so without regard to the impact its recommendations 
     would have on individuals. Broad, deep cuts to the nation's 
     health and economic security pillars--Medicare, Medicaid and 
     Social Security--could reduce long-term debt, but would do so 
     by shifting significant burdens and risks to older Americans 
     and millions of others who rely on these benefits. If a task 
     force is formed to address long-term deficits, it should 
     focus on systemic solutions that balance the twin goals of 
     managing our national debt and ensuring the long-term health 
     and economic security of Americans--not simply on authorizing 
     budget cuts to eliminate the fiscal gap. Furthermore, we urge 
     that Social Security not be considered in the context of debt 
     reduction; this program does not contribute to the annual 
     deficit, and its long-term solvency can be resolved by 
     relatively modest adjustments if they are made sooner rather 
     than later.
       In addition, any meaningful examination of the nation's 
     long-term fiscal challenges should include a serious 
     assessment of both traditional revenue sources and tax 
     entitlements. The tax code contains a multitude of tax 
     preferences that automatically convey benefits, similar to 
     spending entitlements, and entail significant amounts of 
     foregone revenue. However, unlike Social Security and 
     Medicare, which distribute their earned benefits broadly, tax 
     entitlements are highly skewed to the most affluent. 
     Moreover, the federal tax base has eroded over the past 
     several years. For these reasons, it is both reasonable and 
     fair to expect that a fiscal task force prioritize an 
     examination of revenue policies, and develop recommendations 
     regarding revenues as a key premise of an overall strategy to 
     address long-term deficits.


           Statutory Paygo and Multi-Year Discretionary Caps

       AARP is very troubled that Medicare is virtually singled 
     out for arbitrary and automatic cuts should sequestration 
     result from the establishment of statutory paygo. While we 
     agree that some spending should be protected from 
     sequestration, such as Social Security, very few mandatory 
     programs are subject to automatic cuts under statutory paygo. 
     Further, no automatic increase in revenues is required by 
     sequestration, even though the possibility of such a result 
     would undoubtedly prompt even stricter adherence to paygo. 
     These limitations on sequestration leave Medicare especially 
     vulnerable to arbitrary and automatic cuts that are unrelated 
     to making the program more efficient or effective. This 
     approach is especially unacceptable in light of the 
     significant Medicare savings contained in the House and 
     Senate health reform bills, and the proposed Medicare Payment 
     Board in the Senate bill. Consequently, we oppose statutory 
     paygo as a process that threatens to arbitrarily cut Medicare 
     and the health security it promises for older Americans.
       Finally, AARP is opposed to a multi-year cap on 
     discretionary spending. Capping spending on less than a third 
     of the federal budget will not result in any significant 
     deficit reduction and would have a substantial negative 
     impact on the federal governments ability to deliver the 
     services our members expect. Congress routinely evaded the 
     1990 Budget Enforcement Act spending caps by ignoring them in 
     session-ending budget deals, and averted cuts by simply 
     adopting language each year wiping the paygo scorecard clean. 
     Discretionary caps would pit programs that serve the elderly, 
     the disabled and children against defense and homeland

[[Page 268]]

     security programs. Moreover, given the ongoing military 
     actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, discretionary spending 
     limits would ultimately require steep cuts to non-defense 
     discretionary programs--the vast majority of which have been 
     funded well below current services levels for the past eight 
     years.
       AARP is committed to working on a bipartisan basis with 
     Congress to develop and advance responsible policies to 
     address the nation's long term fiscal challenges. However, 
     given the significance of Social Security and Medicare to the 
     well-being of nearly all Americans, AARP believes a full and 
     open debate is essential to ensuring the development of 
     balanced solutions. As such, we oppose any legislative 
     proposals that bypass or short circuit the protections 
     afforded by regular order, or that rely on imbalanced, 
     automatic, and arbitrary spending cuts to reach debt 
     reduction goals.
       If you have any further questions, feel free to call me, or 
     please have your staff contact David Sloane, Senior Vice 
     President of Government Relations and Advocacy, 202-434-3754.
           Sincerely,
                                               Addison Barry Rand,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, AARP is by no means alone in taking these 
positions. On January 7, Barbara Kennelly, our former congressional 
colleague and now president and CEO of the National Committee to 
Preserve Social Security and Medicare, wrote to White House Chief of 
Staff Rahm Emanuel. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security 
and Medicare is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing 
millions of members and supporters nationwide. For more than 26 years, 
the organization has fought for the interests of older Americans.
  Here is what the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare says:

       The National Committee strongly opposes the fiscal 
     commission legislation authored by Senators Conrad and Gregg.

  The national committee also focused on Social Security, arguing that 
it is inappropriate for such a commission, and they wrote:

       Incorporating Social Security into such a commission would 
     signal to America's seniors that the President is willing, 
     and even eager, to cut Social Security benefits. Ultimately, 
     older Americans will accept changes in Social Security only 
     if they have a voice in the decision and feel confident that 
     changes are solely for the purpose of improving and 
     strengthening the program. For this reason, Social Security 
     solvency should not be taken up in the context of a fiscal 
     commission.

  Turning to the specifics of the Conrad-Gregg commission, the national 
committee wrote:

       The legislation would effectively remove nearly every 
     government program, including the Federal tax system, from 
     the legislative jurisdiction of Congress. By fast-tracking 
     the commission's recommendations through Congress with no 
     allowance for amendments, the Conrad-Gregg measure would 
     prevent Congress from exercising its legislative 
     responsibilities with respect to Social Security. Enacting 
     legislation that would push through changes of this 
     importance to millions of Americans, especially seniors, 
     without the opportunity for members of an elected Congress to 
     amend them, ultimately disenfranchises the public and 
     undermines the legitimacy of the political process.

  Later in the letter, the national committee wrote:

       The National Committee strongly believes that decisions 
     relating to complex or essential programs such as Social 
     Security, Medicare, Medicaid and taxes should be made through 
     the regular legislative committee process. Such a process 
     allows each program to be considered separately by 
     substantive experts based on program solvency and policy 
     goals.

  That is what the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare writes, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the full text of the letter from the National Committee to 
Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    National Committee to Preserve


                                 Social Security and Medicare,

                                  January 7, 2010, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Rahm Emanuel, 
     White House Chief of Staff,
     Washington, DC.
       The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
     Medicare is deeply concerned about the push to create a 
     fiscal commission designed to reduce the -federal debt. 
     Incorporating Social Security into such a commission would 
     signal to America's seniors that the President is willing, 
     and even eager, to cut Social Security benefits. Ultimately, 
     older Americans will accept changes in Social Security only 
     if they have a voice in the decision and feel confident that 
     changes are solely for the purpose of improving and 
     strengthening the program. For this reason, Social Security 
     solvency should not be taken up in the context of a fiscal 
     commission.
       The National Committee strongly opposes the fiscal 
     commission legislation authored by Senators Conrad and Gregg. 
     The legislation would effectively remove nearly every 
     government program, including the federal tax system, from 
     the legislative jurisdiction of the Congress. By fast-
     tracking the commission's recommendations through Congress 
     with no allowance for amendments, the Conrad-Gregg measure 
     would prevent Congress from exercising its legislative 
     responsibilities with respect to Social Security. Enacting 
     legislation that would push through changes of this 
     importance to millions of Americans, especially seniors, 
     without the opportunity for members of an elected Congress to 
     amend them, ultimately disenfranchises the public and 
     undermines the legitimacy of the political process.
       The President has made clear his strong interest in 
     pressing for fiscal responsibility measures. He has studied 
     the Conrad-Gregg proposal and listened to the views of 
     Senator Conrad and others on the subject. He has also 
     contemplated creating his own commission through executive 
     order. The National Committee believes that the advantage of 
     an executive process is that it does not allow for a fast-
     track mechanism. However, we are concerned about an executive 
     order for some of the same reasons we are concerned about the 
     fast-track process.
       The National Committee strongly believes that decisions 
     relating to complex or essential programs such as Social 
     Security, Medicare, Medicaid and taxes should be made through 
     the regular legislative committee process. Such a process 
     allows each program to be considered separately by 
     substantive experts based on program solvency and policy 
     goals. Moreover, we are concerned that an executive order 
     which permits Social Security to be taken up in the context 
     of fiscal or budgetary decisions will ignore the needs of 
     Social Security and the well-being of its beneficiaries.
       Seniors already believe that Social Security is being used 
     by the government as a piggy bank. Now they fear that the 
     President and the Congress are ready to use a fiscal 
     commission to cut Social Security benefits, making seniors 
     pay the price for the excesses of Wall Street. Those fears 
     will only be unfounded if Social Security is strengthened and 
     made solvent on its own merits and by people who recognize 
     the importance of Social Security and the many protections it 
     provides.
           Cordially,
                                              Barbara B. Kennelly,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as well, on January 13, the president, 
secretary-treasurer, and executive director of the Alliance for Retired 
Americans sent a letter to all Senators on the Conrad-Gregg commission. 
The Alliance for Retired Americans is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 
organization representing retired union members. They wrote:

       The Alliance for Retired Americans, on behalf of its nearly 
     four million members throughout the nation, writes in 
     opposition to the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible 
     Fiscal Action Act of 2009, S. 2853. We oppose attempts to 
     attach it to debt ceiling or any other legislation. We cannot 
     support the bill's fast-track means of implementing vast 
     changes to programs such as Social Security, Medicare and 
     Medicaid outside the regular legislative process.

  The alliance talked about how the process would work, and they wrote:

       Under the legislation, the jurisdiction for major long-term 
     changes to programs including Social Security, Medicare, and 
     Medicaid would be turned over to an 18-member task force, 
     made up of 16 members of Congress and 2 administration 
     officials.

  Then the alliance wrote about what is wrong with the process, and 
here is what they wrote:

       Regardless of the expertise of task force members, their 
     representations would be crafted behind closed doors and 
     subject to a fast-track up-or-down vote by Congress. Forcing 
     changes to these critical benefit programs by eliminating 
     open debate or amendments is an undemocratic way to address 
     the future of such programs.

  The alliance contrasted the new task force process with the existing 
committee process, and here is what they wrote:

       Currently, congressional committees of jurisdiction 
     consider changes and improvements to these vital programs 
     with the opportunity for due consideration and debate. These 
     committees, with their broad-based and detailed knowledge of 
     the programs under their jurisdiction, are the proper forums 
     for considering any changes to Social Security, Medicare and 
     Medicaid.


[[Page 269]]


  The alliance concluded:

       We strongly caution against a process that would bypass the 
     regular legislative process in favor of an expedited, fast-
     track process that leaves room for little accountability and 
     almost no room for input from the American people.

  That is what the Alliance for Retired Americans writes, and I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full text of the 
letter from the Alliance for Retired Americans.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      Alliance for


                                            Retired Americans,

                                 Washington, DC, January 13, 2010.
       Dear Senator: The Alliance for Retired Americans, on behalf 
     of its nearly four million members throughout the nation, 
     writes in opposition to the Bipartisan Task Force for 
     Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009, S. 2853. We oppose 
     attempts to attach it to debt ceiling or any other 
     legislation. We cannot support the bill's fast-track means of 
     implementing vast changes to programs such as Social 
     Security, Medicare and Medicaid outside the regular 
     legislative process.
       Under the legislation, jurisdiction for major and long-term 
     changes to programs including Social Security, Medicare, and 
     Medicaid would be turned over to a 18-member task force, made 
     up of 16 members of Congress and 2 administration officials. 
     Regardless of the expertise of task force members, their 
     recommendations would be crafted behind closed doors and 
     subject to a fast-track up or down vote by Congress. Forcing 
     changes to these critical benefit programs by eliminating 
     open debate or amendments is an undemocratic way to address 
     the future of such programs.
       Since their creation, Social Security, Medicare and 
     Medicaid have worked well to keep millions of America's 
     seniors healthy and out of poverty. Social Security has been 
     the bedrock of income security for nearly all Americans, 
     providing guaranteed benefits to retirees, those with 
     disabilities, and the survivors of retired and deceased 
     workers. Likewise, Medicare and Medicaid has helped our 
     nation deliver the promise of well-being and improved quality 
     of life for retirees.
       Currently, congressional committees of jurisdiction 
     consider changes and improvements to these vital programs 
     with the opportunity for due consideration and debate. These 
     committees, with their broad-based and detailed knowledge of 
     the programs under their jurisdiction, are the proper forums 
     for considering any changes to Social Security, Medicare and 
     Medicaid. We strongly caution against a process that would 
     bypass the regular legislative process in favor of an 
     expedited, fast-track process that leaves room for little 
     accountability and almost no room for input from the American 
     people.
       The Alliance for Retired Americans is committed to enacting 
     legislation that improves the quality of life for retirees 
     and all Americans. If we can be of assistance, please contact 
     Richard Fiesta or Sarah Byrne in the Department of Government 
     and Political Affairs at the Alliance.
           Sincerely yours,
     Barbara J. Easterling,
       President.
     Ruben Burks,
       Secretary-Treasurer.
     Edward F. Coyle,
       Exercutive Director.

  Mr. BAUCUS. What is more, on January 12, a broad consortium of 
organizations--56 in number--wrote to all Senators to express their 
concerns with the Conrad-Gregg commission. Among the organizations 
signing this letter were the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Change to Win, the 
Campaign for America's Future, Common Cause, moveon.org Political 
Action, NAACP, the National Organization for Women, People for the 
American Way, the SCIU, and many others. This broad consortium of 
organizations wrote:

       We write with strong opposition to the proposal of Senators 
     Kent Conrad, Judd Gregg and others to create a deficit-
     reduction commission to override the normal legislative 
     process and replace it with expedited procedures prohibiting 
     amendments and limiting debate. If the Conrad-Gregg proposal 
     were to become law, it could dramatically change by stealth 
     critical benefits and services so vital to America's 
     families.

  The consortium of groups continued about the need for responsibility 
by writing:

       Americans--seniors, women, working families, people with 
     disabilities, youth, young adults, children, people of color, 
     veterans, communities of faith and others--expect their 
     elected representatives to be responsible and accountable for 
     shaping such a significant, far-reaching legislation.

  The consortium of groups continued about the problems with the 
commission, and here is what they said:

       The American people are likely to view any kind of 
     expedited procedure, where most members are sidelined to a 
     single take-it-or-leave-it vote, as a hidden process aimed at 
     eviscerating vital programs and productive investment.

  The consortium of groups once again focused on problems with allowing 
the budget commission to change Social Security. They wrote:

       An American public that only recently rejected 
     privatization of Social Security would undoubtedly be 
     suspicious of a process that shuts them out of all decisions 
     regarding the future of a retirement system that's served 
     them well in the current financial crisis.

  The consortium of groups concluded:

       We urge you to act decisively to prevent the creation of 
     such an extraordinary and undemocratic budget commission.

  That is what this consortium of groups, from Common Cause, to NOW, to 
People for the American Way, writes, and I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record the full text of their letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      America Does Not Need An Undemocratic ``Deficit Commission''

       The following statement, signed by more than 40 national 
     organizations (see below) was written and distributed by 
     Roger Hickey (202 955-5665), co-director, Campaign for 
     America's Future, and Nancy Altman (301 229-2651) and Eric 
     Kingson, (315 374-8338), co-directors, Project to Defend and 
     Improve Social Security.
       This statement has been sent to Senate Majority Leader 
     Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, all members of the 
     Senate and House, and President Barack Obama (and key 
     administration officials).
       We write with strong opposition to the proposal of Senators 
     Kent Conrad, Judd Gregg and others to create a deficit-
     reduction commission that would override the normal 
     legislative process and replace it with expedited procedures 
     prohibiting amendments and limiting debate. We write with an 
     increasing sense of urgency, because plans to vote on the 
     Conrad-Gregg proposal on January 20th or soon thereafter, as 
     part of the debt ceiling bill. If the Conrad-Gregg proposal 
     were to become law, it could dramatically change by stealth 
     critical benefits and services so vital to America's 
     families.
       Those supporting this circumvention of the normal process 
     have stated openly the desire to avoid political 
     accountability. Americans--seniors, women, working families, 
     people with disabilities, youth, young adults, children, 
     people of color, veterans, communities of faith and others--
     expect their elected representatives to be responsible and 
     accountable for shaping such significant, far-reaching 
     legislation.
       Any deficit reduction measures should be carried out in a 
     responsible manner, providing a fairer tax system and 
     strengthening--rather than slashing--Social Security and 
     Medicare. We should be strengthening, not slashing, vital 
     programs like Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), 
     EITC, Supplemental Security Income, school meals, Early Head 
     Start, Head Start, Child Care Development Fund, Chafee Foster 
     Care Independence Program, National Family Caregivers Support 
     Program, Individual Disability Education Act, vocational 
     rehabilitation and other programs and services crucial to 
     struggling lower income and middle-income people in every 
     corner of our country.
       And as unemployment continues to grow, we need a real 
     debate about how to balance the need for economic recovery 
     and productive public investment with the goal of long-term 
     budget responsibility. The American people are likely to view 
     any kind of expedited procedure, where most members are 
     sidelined to a single take-it-or-leave-it vote, as a hidden 
     process aimed at eviscerating vital programs and productive 
     investment.
       As you know, the current effort to reform the health-care 
     sector seeks to achieve reductions in Medicare spending, 
     without cutting benefits. But the proposed budget commission 
     which will be viewed as a way to actually cut Medicare 
     benefits, while insulating lawmakers from political fallout 
     could confuse people and undermine the reform effort. And an 
     American public that only recently rejected privatization of 
     Social Security will undoubtedly be suspicious of a process 
     that shuts them out of all decisions regarding the future of 
     a retirement system that's served them well in the current 
     financial crisis.
       We urge you to act decisively to prevent the creation of 
     such an extraordinary and undemocratic budget commission.


    Groups that have already agreed to sign (as of January 12, 2010)

       AFL-CIO--American Federation of Labor-Congress of 
     Industrial Organizations; AFSCME--American Federation of 
     State, County and Municipal Employees; Alliance for Retired 
     Americans; American Society on Aging; American Association of 
     People with Disabilities; American Association of University 
     Women; Americans for Democratic Action; Change to Win; 
     Campaign for America's Future; and Center for Medicare 
     Advocacy.

[[Page 270]]

       Common Cause; Demos; Disability Rights Education and 
     Defense Fund; Food Research and Action Center; Frances 
     Perkins Center; Generations United; Global Policy Solutions; 
     Health & Medicine Policy Research Group; International Union, 
     United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural; and LGBT Caucus 
     of the American Academy of Physician Assistants, Inc.
       MoveOn.org Political Action; NAACP; National Asian Pacific 
     Center on Aging; National Association for Hispanic Elderly; 
     National Association of Area Agencies on Aging; National 
     Association of Mother Centers and Its MOTHERS Initiative; 
     National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc.; National 
     Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare; and 
     National Council of Women's Organizations.
       National Indian Council on Aging; National Organization for 
     Women; National Hispanic Council on Aging; National Senior 
     Citizens Law Center; National Women's Law Center; OWL--The 
     Voice of Midlife and Older Women; OpenLeft.com; and Pathways 
     PA.
       Pension Rights Center; People for the American Way; 
     Progressive Democrats of America; Project to Defend and 
     Improve Social Security; SEIU--Service Employees 
     International Union; United Methodist General Board of Church 
     & Society; USAction; Voices for America's Children; Wider 
     Opportunities for Women; Women's Institute for a Secure 
     Retirement; and the Women's Research and Education Institute.


                     State and Local Organizations

       AFGE Council 220; AFGE Local 3937, AFL-CIO; California 
     Alliance for Retired Americans; Coalition of Wisconsin Aging 
     Groups; DelcoAction Seniors; New York Statewide Senior Action 
     Council; Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans; and 
     Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans.

  Mr. BAUCUS. It is not just progressive groups that oppose the Conrad-
Gregg amendment. On January 15, a broad consortium of conservative 
groups sent what they called ``An Open Letter to U.S. Senators Urging 
Opposition to the Conrad-Gregg Bipartisan Tax/Spending 'Reform' 
Commission.'' This conservative consortium said:

       On behalf of the millions of taxpayers, small businesses, 
     families, senior citizens and shareholders represented by our 
     respective organizations, we urge you in the strongest terms 
     to oppose and vote against the ``Bipartisan Task Force for 
     Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009,'' sponsored by 
     Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, be it in stand-alone 
     form or as an amendment.

  These conservative groups explained their motivation. In their view, 
they said:

       As written, the Conrad-Gregg proposal would lead to a 
     guaranteed tax increase.

  These conservative groups concluded as follows:

       We urge you to oppose and vote against the misguided plan 
     when it comes before you.

  Among the signatories of this letter are the American Conservative 
Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the American Shareholders Association, 
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Council for Citizens Against 
Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the full text of the consortium letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 January 15, 2010.

 An Open Letter to U.S. Senators Urging Opposition to the Conrad-Gregg 
             Bipartisan Tax/Spending ``Reform'' Commission

       Dear U.S. Senator: On behalf of the millions of taxpayers, 
     small businesses, families, senior citizens and shareholders 
     represented by our respective organizations, we urge you in 
     the strongest terms to oppose and vote against the 
     ``Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 
     2009,'' sponsored by Sens. Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Judd Gregg 
     (R-NH), be it in stand-alone form or as an amendment.
       As written, the Conrad/Gregg proposal would lead to a 
     guaranteed tax increase.
       The plan put forth by Sens. Conrad and Gregg establishes an 
     eighteen-member task force comprised of ten Democrat and 
     eight Republican Congressmen, Senators, and Administration 
     officials. A report from the commission would need to gather 
     fourteen votes in order to make an expedited recommendation 
     to both bodies. The recommendation would only pass with a 
     supermajority vote in each chamber.
       Despite the appearance of protection for taxpayers, this 
     commission would guarantee a net tax increase be in its 
     proposal. Every Democrat on the commission would insist on 
     tax increases to ``balance'' spending cuts in the 
     recommendation.
       There is no conceivable scenario whereby the commission 
     would issue a report that does not contain tax hikes, and 
     history underscores the dangers of such a bipartisan deal 
     that puts everything on the table:
       In the 1990 Andrews Air Force Base debacle, Congressional 
     Democrats convinced a number of Republicans to join them in a 
     bipartisan deal promising $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in 
     tax increases. Every penny of the tax increases ($137 billion 
     from 1991-1995) went through. Not only did the Democrats 
     break their promise to cut spending below the CBO baseline--
     they actually spent $23 billion above CBO's pre-budget deal 
     spending baseline.
       In order to make such a commission acceptable from a 
     taxpayer perspective, language must be included that 
     explicitly removes tax increases and/or new taxes from 
     commission consideration.
       However, the proposal in its current form will likely come 
     before you later this month as am amendment to yet another 
     bill to increase the debt limit, as Democrats will be looking 
     to use this commission idea as a way to cover their big-
     spending tracks.
       This bipartisan commission is a veiled attempt to lure 
     Republicans into taking joint ownership of massive tax 
     increases to pay for their crisis and is arguably one of the 
     biggest threats to taxpayers. What's worse, it could become 
     the Trojan horse for a European-style Value-Added Tax (VAT).
       We urge you to oppose and vote against this misguided plan 
     when it comes before you.
           Sincerely,
       Jim Martin, chairman, 60 Plus Association; Stephen P. 
     Gordon, media director, Alabama Republican Liberty Caucus; 
     Brian Johnson, executive director, Alliance for Worker 
     Freedom; Susan A. Carleson,* chairman and CEO, American Civil 
     Rights Union; David A. Keene, chairman, American Conservative 
     Union; Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform; 
     Tim Phillips, president, Americans for Prosperity; Ryan 
     Ellis, executive director, American Shareholders Association; 
     John Tate, president, Campaign for Liberty; Sandra Fabry, 
     executive director, Center for Fiscal Accountability; Timothy 
     Lee, vice-president of legal and public affairs, Center for 
     Individual Freedom; Chuck Muth, president, Citizen Outreach; 
     Barbara Anderson, executive director, Citizens for Limited 
     Taxation (MA); Wayne Crews, vice president for policy, 
     Competitive Enterprise Institute; Tom Schatz, president, 
     Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Rick Watson, 
     chairman, Florida Center-Right Coalition; Jamie Story, 
     president, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii; Gregory 
     Blankenship, president, Illinois Alliance for Growth.
       Andrew Langer, president, Institute for Liberty; Robert 
     McClure, president and CEO, James Madison Institute; Rep. 
     James DeCesare, chairman, Kentucky Taxpayer Protection 
     Caucus, House of Representatives; Colin Hanna, president, Let 
     Freedom Ring; Del. Warren Miller, chairman, Maryland Taxpayer 
     Protection Caucus, House of Delegates; Shane Osborn, Nebraska 
     State Treasurer; Andrew Moylan, director of government 
     affairs, National Taxpayers Union; Jerry Cantrell, president, 
     New Jersey Taxpayers' Association; Deborah Owens, co-chair, 
     Ohio Center-Right Coalition; Brandon Dutcher, vice president 
     for policy, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc.; Kim 
     Thatcher, chairman, Oregon Taxpayer Protection Caucus, House 
     of Representatives; Todd Kruse, Property Rights Association 
     of Minnesota; Jason Williams, executive director, Taxpayer 
     Association of Oregon; William Greene, president, 
     RightMarch.com; Ben Cunningham, spokesman, Tennessee Tax 
     Revolt; Laura Lee Adams, chairman, Utah Center-Right 
     Coalition; Susan Gore, founder, Wyoming Liberty Group.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Also on the conservative side, on December 29, 2009, the 
Wall Street Journal editorial page--no friend of progressive causes--
published an editorial entitled ``The Deficit Commission Trap.'' The 
editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote:

       We only hope Republicans aren't foolish enough to fall down 
     this trap door.

  I conclude by saying that people on both sides of the political 
spectrum have very grave reservations and urge opposition to the 
amendment to be offered by our good friends and colleagues, Senators 
Conrad and Gregg, and I hope we do not adopt that amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________