[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10112-10113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DEBT CEILING

  Mr. REID. Madam President, yesterday I sat down with the President to 
talk about how to avoid a default crisis that would be a black mark on 
this country's reputation for generations to come. If we fail to avert 
this crisis, it would be the first time in our great Nation's history 
that we have defaulted on our financial obligations and would send 
shock waves through the global economy. But I am not the only one 
saying that. The most respected voices in the business and financial 
community are saying the same thing: Default would be awful. Business 
leaders, economists, bank executives, credit rating agencies, and even 
a Republican adviser to Presidents Reagan and George Bush--the same 
adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush--have used 
some very serious words to describe the kind of crisis defaulting on 
our debt would cause. The word many have used is it would be a 
``catastrophe.'' The legendary Warren Buffett said a few days ago that 
allowing the United States to default on its debt would be Congress's 
``most asinine act'' ever. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said a 
failure to avert default would have ``catastrophic economic 
consequences that would last for decades.''
  Failure to avert this crisis would have dire consequences and would 
result in the most serious financial crisis this country has ever 
faced. Millions of Americans could lose their jobs, Federal prisons 
would have to be changed dramatically with their personnel, border 
security would have to change, and our court systems would likely no 
longer be able to have trials. Security checks could stop, and so could 
paychecks to our troops. That is how desperate it would be.
  What could be so important that my Republican colleagues are willing 
to put our economy at such dire risk? What could be worth walking away 
from the negotiating table, as they have done? Tax breaks for wealthy 
oil companies and corporate jets? Republicans have gone to the mat for 
Big Oil, fighting again and again to preserve wasteful, taxpayer-funded 
giveaways to companies that made tens of billions of dollars in profits 
in the first quarter of this year alone. Republicans walked away from 
the negotiating table to save tax breaks for corporate jets. So which 
big industries and special interests will they fight for next? Oil 
companies? To ship jobs overseas? Companies that ship jobs overseas? 
Corporate jets?
  If they were truly serious about reducing the deficit, they would 
admit this kind of waste must end. Yet some top Republicans say 
eliminating these subsidies shouldn't even be part of the discussion as 
we find a way to reduce the deficit and avoid a catastrophic default. 
Several rank-and-file Republicans have said handouts to oil and gas 
companies and other wasteful tax breaks should be on the table as we 
negotiate. These are Republicans. And 34 Republicans endorsed the view 
that any taxpayer giveaways should be part of the solution when they 
voted to eliminate subsidies for ethanol. It seems Republicans can't 
even agree among themselves whether subsidies and giveaways are 
sacrosanct.
  One thing they can agree on, it seems: They are willing to balance 
the budget on the backs of seniors instead. They are willing to end 
Medicare as we know it. They are willing to slash Medicaid, 
jeopardizing coverage for 80 percent of American seniors in nursing 
homes. Medicaid is for the poorest of the poor, but about 70 percent of 
Medicaid money goes to people who are in

[[Page 10113]]

rest homes, nursing homes. Republican priorities, then, are very clear. 
They are dead wrong, though.
  Democrats know we need to make difficult spending cuts to reduce our 
deficit, but to dig ourselves out of this financial hole, we must also 
create jobs to spur our economy, and we must break the cycle of 
wasteful giveaways, not break our promise to seniors.
  The junior Senator from South Carolina, a Republican, threatened that 
any Republican who votes to avert a default crisis will be ``gone''--
those are his words--voted out in a wave of tea party anger. This kind 
of inflammatory language is irresponsible. There is simply too much at 
stake.
  Also, this same Senator did not mention that 235 Republicans in the 
House and 40 in the Senate, including my friend from South Carolina 
whom I have just talked about, have already voted to increase our debt 
this year. Their ideological budget--it came from the House--that they 
wanted to support here and did vote for it, would have increased the 
debt by more than 60 percent over the next 10 years. The so-called Ryan 
budget would increase the debt by more than 60 percent over the next 10 
years. That is about $9 trillion in a decade.
  What did Republicans get for their so-called $9 trillion? What would 
we get? A plan that ends Medicare; a plan that would slash Medicaid, 
jeopardizing coverage, as I indicated, for 80 percent of American 
seniors in nursing homes; a plan that protects tax breaks for 
billionaires and oil companies while putting millions of seniors at 
risk. That is the choice. The psychologist Alfred Adler once said, ``It 
is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.'' 
Republicans shouted loudly and repeatedly about reducing debt. Then 
they gave us 9 trillion reasons not to trust this rhetoric.
  The time for empty rhetoric is over. Now it is time for my Republican 
colleagues to put the good of our economy ahead of their own politics.

                          ____________________