[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12303-12308]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          FAA REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before turning to the issue of the moment, 
I want to thank my dear friend for his good remarks here on the floor 
of the Senate. He is a great leader, a great human being, and he 
certainly outlined, I think in a fair way, some of the problems and 
some of the solutions we might have here on the floor.
  But before turning to the issue of the moment, the need to restore 
the Nation's fiscal stability by reducing our deficits and debt, I want 
to return to a matter I discussed on the floor yesterday, and that is 
the FAA reauthorization bill.
  I must respond to some of the comments made by two of my colleagues 
earlier today regarding one of the major sticking points in our efforts 
to pass the FAA reauthorization bill. Their arguments are, to put it 
quite simply, fallacious and cannot go unanswered.
  As you might expect, these comments were regarding the provision in 
the House bill affecting the way votes are counted in union elections 
in the airline industry. My colleagues, the senior Senator from West 
Virginia and the junior Senator from Iowa, characterize the House's 
actions as some sort of radical endeavor, a change that lacks 
justification and common sense.
  In fact, the Senator from West Virginia even argued that the House's 
provisions would ``undo 75 years of labor law.''
  These were his exact words. Well, nothing could be further from the 
truth. In fact, the claim is so far from being accurate I simply have 
to assume that my good friend, Senator Rockefeller, simply misspoke. I 
know this is the line the labor unions and the administration are 
peddling, but here is the truth: The House of Representatives or Senate 
Republicans are not trying to undo 75 years of labor law, it is the 
National Mediation Board--or NMB, I will call it--that has already done 
so in a highly partisan fashion.
  It is the NMB, controlled by pro-union appointees of President Obama 
that in a partisan way unilaterally undid 75 years of labor law, and 
put their finger on the scale for the unions that bankroll Democratic 
political campaigns.
  I know what I am talking about. I won the American Jurisprudence 
prize for labor law. I have led labor fights on the floor for our side 
for the last 35 years. House and Senate Republicans are only trying to 
restore long-lasting labor law following its highly partisan corruption 
by the National Mediation Board. This is not an opinion. This is fact.
  Put the talking points and revisionist history aside, this is what 
you have: a highly partisan NMB changing 75 years of settled law, 
settled labor law, to benefit the Democrats' political allies. For 75 
years, NMB-supervised elections required that a union receive the votes 
of a majority of the entire workforce before it can be certified. That 
has been the law. There is good reason for it. This was not just a 
mathematical trick to disadvantage unions, as my colleagues have 
argued. It is plain common sense.
  Let's suppose, for example, that only 50 percent of a proposed 
bargaining unit votes in a union election, and the union wins by a very 
slim majority of the votes cast. In that case, a union representative 
would be certified with only the demonstrated support of one-fourth of 
the bargaining unit. That is what would happen if we follow the 
language the NMB fallaciously put into their ruling. One-quarter of a 
workforce could vote to certify a union and bind every other coworker 
to have to live with that decision. Apparently a commitment to 
Democratic and true majority rule only matters to the left when it 
suits them. What is going on in this country is outrageous, not just at 
the National Mediation Board but the NLRB as well. Democratic radicals, 
very brilliant labor lawyers, who do not give a darn about what the law 
is, are now starting to change the laws by regulatory fiat.
  Apparently a commitment to democratic and true majority rule only 
matters when it suits certain people's politics.
  The Senator from Iowa compared these votes to Senate and schoolboard 
elections, suggesting that only a majority of those voting is necessary 
to prevail. This is a misguided comparison. First, union elections are 
not a choice among competing representatives. They are, instead, held 
to determine whether the workers want to be represented at all. Even 
setting that aside, how many schoolboards are going to be empowered to 
make decisions that affect every hour of every day an employee goes to 
work? How

[[Page 12304]]

many Senators are elected to serve a small, narrowly defined group of 
constituents? And, in the end, if your vote is not counted in a Senate 
or schoolboard election, you will get another chance to vote a few 
years down the line.
  Employees voting in these union elections have no such options. That 
is why the law has been completely different from what my two friends 
and colleagues have said on the floor. Requiring the support of the 
majority of the whole unit before certifying a union representative 
only makes common sense. This is why the procedure at NMB used for 
these elections went unchanged for 75 years. Boards appointed by 
Democratic Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton 
all agreed with that process that the House bill is only attempting to 
restore.
  In fact, the NMB appointed by President Carter unanimously ruled it 
did not have authority to administratively change the form of the NMB's 
ballot used in representation elections, and that such a change, if 
appropriate, can only be made by Congress. That makes sense.
  Yet today we have an administration bent on greasing the rails in 
favor of the unions, and a Democratic Senate all too willing to go 
along with it. They are so willing that they have opted to stall 
passage of the FAA reauthorization to prevent Congress from restoring a 
system that served the Nation and airline industry well for decades. 
This is another example of the administration showing its true colors. 
Rather than provide certainty to travelers, the transportation 
industry, and airports, they are holding up a long-term FAA 
reauthorization in order to benefit their union allies. It is wrong. 
This type of thing should not go on. Nor should the National Mediation 
Board be issuing what ought to be congressional decisions.
  I wish we were not having this debate. I wish we could get this FAA 
reauthorization done. I want to get it done. I don't want anybody 
furloughed, but these are important issues. This isn't some itty-bitty 
nonessential issue. I am not going to yield on this issue. I will not 
let an out-of-control National Mediation Board and their patrons in 
Congress and the White House rig the rules so a small minority can jam 
unionization on unwilling employees.
  I expect we will be debating this issue for some time. I am willing 
to have the debate in full view of the public. But, at the very least, 
I expect my colleagues to acknowledge the truth as to what has 
transpired at the National Mediation Board. It is not the House of 
Representatives that has taken a radical position; it is the Obama 
administration, and some of my colleagues on the other side should know 
better.
  Let me add a couple of other things. I don't enjoy the fact that 
people are being furloughed. But it is not Republicans who are holding 
this bill up. It is those people demanding outrageous changes in the 
law by individuals who were never elected to make those changes. We 
ought to fire that whole doggone National Mediation Board--or at least 
the Democrats on the board, who don't seem to care about what the law 
is.
  And it is the same with the NLRB. At least one of them, and maybe 
more, could not make it through this process and had to be recess 
appointed. They could care less about what the laws are, and they want 
to change them without proper congressional approval. It is outrageous. 
It is not something my friends on the other side should encourage. It 
just makes sense.
  All those Democratic Presidents, until now, have honored that 75-year 
history of how votes should be taken in union elections. Unions win 
over 60 percent of their union elections. The system is not unfair. 
They lose some, sure. But to stack the rules so they can win every time 
is not right either. It certainly isn't democratic. It is wrong for 
those employees who didn't have the opportunity, or didn't vote. It is 
wrong. You can have 10 people vote in a 100-person union, and if 6 vote 
for it, under their rule, that would change the rule for all 94 of the 
others. That is what we are ignoring. So much for that. All I can say 
is I don't want to have anyone whining from the other side, because 
they are the ones who are holding up the FAA reauthorization. And they 
are doing it for the most crass of reasons.


                            The Debt Ceiling

  Turning to the matter that is consuming the Nation, I want to address 
the so-called August 2 deadline we hit next week.
  In early April of this year, Treasury Secretary Geithner informed 
Congress that Treasury might run out of ways to stay at the debt limit 
and have enough cash to pay its bills around July 8. About a month and 
a half later, on May 16, the Treasury Secretary updated his guess to 
August 2.
  This August 2 deadline, which the administration has insisted is when 
Treasury runs out of sufficient cash to pay bills, was estimated back 
in the middle of May. It is only reasonable to expect that Congress 
would be kept apprised of Treasury's cashflow status and estimates. If 
we indeed face an economic catastrophe on August 2, it is only 
reasonable to expect warnings from those in government responsible for 
issuing such updates and monitoring threats to our financial stability.
  We have a group in government that is charged with that 
responsibility. It is called the Financial Stability Oversight Council, 
or FSOC, set up in the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. The FSOC is 
chaired by the Treasury Secretary and composed of members such as the 
Federal Reserve Chairman and banking regulations czars. Indeed, the 
FSOC was sold by Democrats as a body that would be able to spot threats 
to our financial system and then warn and protect us all.
  The President, Treasury officials, the President's Press Secretary, 
and others in the administration daily warn of catastrophe, crisis, and 
the potential for conditions even worse than we saw during the 
financial crisis. They seem to be channeling Dr. Peter Venkman, who, 
faced with another catastrophe, once predicted a disaster of biblical 
proportions--human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass 
hysteria.
  Yet through all these predictions, the FSOC has essentially remained 
silent. That body of unelected bureaucrats either doesn't see an 
impending threat to stability from the debt limit impasse, or from a 
ratings downgrade for the United States, or it is too busy writing a 
mountain of new regulations to make a warning.
  I sent a letter, which I wish to have printed in the Record, to eight 
voting members of the FSOC yesterday, asking two basic sets of 
questions. I ask unanimous consent that that be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                         Committee on Finance,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2011.
     Hon. Timothy Geithner,
     Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ben Bernanke,
     Chairman, Board of Governors, The Federal Reserve System, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Gary Gensler,
     Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Mary Schapiro,
     Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 
         Washington, DC.
     Martin J. Gruenberg,
     Acting Chairperson, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 
         Washington, DC.
     Edward DeMarco,
     Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Debbie Matz,
     Chairman, National Credit Union Administration, Alexandria, 
         VA.
     John Walsh,
     Acting Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the 
         Currency, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Geithner, Chairmen Bernanke, Gensler, Matz, 
     Shapiro, Acting Chairperson Gruenberg, Acting Director 
     DeMarco, and Acting Comptroller Walsh: The President, on July 
     25, spoke to the American public about risks associated with 
     failure to raise the statutory debt limit, saying that: ``We 
     would risk sparking a deep economic crisis. . .'' The 
     President warns of a deep crisis and risks to financial 
     stability.
       You, the voting members of the Financial Stability 
     Oversight Council (FSOC), are charged by the Dodd-Frank Wall 
     Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act with the

[[Page 12305]]

     responsibility to identify risks and potential emerging 
     threats to the financial stability of the United States.
       Does the Council agree with the President's assessment that 
     possible failure to raise the statutory debt limit by 
     sometime in early August represents an emerging threat to the 
     financial stability of the United States?
       Does any voting Council member dissent from whatever is the 
     majority view of the Council? If so, please explain precisely 
     why.
       Neither the Minutes of the FSOC July 13, 2011 meeting nor 
     the Annual Report of the FSOC, which was approved on July 22, 
     2011, identify possible failure to raise the statutory debt 
     limit by August 2 as an imminent risk to the financial 
     stability of the United States worthy of a warning to the 
     American people, and do not come close to recent statements 
     by Treasury officials warning of ``catastrophe.''
       In addition to inquiring about the Council's views on 
     possible risks to financial stability, I write to ask the 
     Council and its voting members about their current knowledge 
     of recent Treasury cash inflows and outflows and projections 
     of those cash flows, daily, through the month of August.
       Treasury officials have warned that based on actual and 
     projected revenues and expenditures, along with potential 
     exhaustion of available ``extraordinary measures'' to avoid 
     breach of the statutory debt limit, the United States will 
     exhaust its borrowing authority under the limit and possibly 
     run out of available cash to pay obligations of the federal 
     government that are due.
       Unfortunately, Congress and the American people do not have 
     sufficient information about Treasury's actual and projected 
     revenues, expenditures, and cash flows to make informed 
     judgments. Many Americans and members of Congress are, 
     unfortunately, relying on estimates and projections from 
     either large Wall Street financial institutions or non-
     governmental organizations often labeled ``think tanks.'' The 
     lack of information is unsatisfactory.
       In a May 2, 2011 letter to Congress, Treasury Secretary 
     Geithner stated that as a result of stronger than anticipated 
     tax receipts, Treasury then estimated that extraordinary 
     measures to provide headroom under the statutory debt limit 
     would be exhausted on August 2, 2011. Since that time, more 
     data have become available. Some reports since that time have 
     indicated that receipts may have been turning out higher than 
     previously expected. Further, the Federal Reserve's July 2011 
     Monetary Policy Report to the Congress identifies that 
     ``Federal receipts have risen rapidly lately--they are up 
     about 10 percent in the first eight months of fiscal 2011 
     compared with the same period in fiscal 2010.''
       I recognize that receipts and Treasury's cash inflows and 
     outflows can be lumpy and are stochastic. However, the date 
     at which extraordinary measures available to Treasury become 
     exhausted, and cash inflows may prove insufficient to meet 
     incoming obligations that are due, has almost surely changed 
     from the August 2 date estimated by Treasury on May 2. Given 
     incoming data since May 2, does August 2 remain the date with 
     the highest statistical likelihood of being the point in time 
     at which Treasury will run out of extraordinary measures to 
     provide additional headroom under the debt limit and will 
     face insufficient cash inflows relative to obligations that 
     are coming due?
       Please provide, by 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time on 
     Thursday, July 28, detailed information known by the Council 
     and by any voting member on:
       Actual revenues and expenditures through July 27;
       Projected or actual daily Treasury cash inflows and 
     outflows for each day between July 28 and August 31, along 
     with methods used to make projections;
       Whether, given current projections of cash inflows and 
     obligations coming due, Treasury would run out of cash and 
     not have sufficient cash available to meet all obligations 
     that become due on any date between August 2 and August 31 
     (projections here mean point estimates, with the 
     acknowledgement that projections are inherently uncertain);
       Any cash or liquid accounts available (presently or any 
     time during August) to Treasury, such as Treasury's $5 
     billion liquid balance sitting idle in its Supplementary 
     Financing Program Account at the Federal Reserve, established 
     to allegedly assist the Federal Reserve with management of 
     its balance sheet during the financial crisis (the Daily 
     Statement of cash and debt operations of the United States 
     Treasury for Monday, July 25, 2011 indicates that the $5 
     billion was available to Treasury on that date);
       Current values of securities and other marketable assets 
     available (presently or any time during August) to Treasury, 
     including mortgage-backed-securities and other financial 
     claims amassed by Treasury during the recent financial 
     crisis, which could be liquidated and converted to cash (my 
     request is for total values, not an assessment of the 
     advisability of asset sales);
       Contingency plans for generation of cash within Treasury in 
     the event that the statutory debt limit is not raised by 
     August 2, 2011;
       Contingency plans of regulators of financial institutions, 
     including any plans for regulatory forebearance, in the event 
     of a ratings downgrade of United States Treasury debt 
     securities;
       Contingency plans of the Federal Reserve System and the 
     Federal Reserve Bank of New York in the event of a ratings 
     downgrade of United States Treasury debt securities, 
     including plans related to ``breaking of the buck'' by a 
     money market mutual fund, disruptions in the tri-party repo 
     market, disruptions in payment systems or systemically 
     important financial utilities, or creation of programs or 
     facilities with broad-based eligibility under authorities 
     provided by Section 1101 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
     and Consumer Protection Act;
       Any private assurances by any government officials to any 
     financial institution or significant financial market 
     participant that the United States Treasury will not fail to 
     pay principal and interest on Treasury securities even if the 
     statutory debt limit is not raised.
       As Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, with a 
     responsibility for oversight of our sovereign debt and 
     Treasury's cash management practices, I am deeply concerned 
     about the lack of information about upcoming cash flows and 
     reliance of Congress and the American people on 
     nongovernmental projections of those flows in decisionmaking. 
     Time is of the essence, and I require, as I stated, the 
     information that I have requested by 5:00 p.m. Eastern 
     Standard Time on Thursday, July 28. Please contact Jeff Wrase 
     at 202-224-4515.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one is whether they see any imminent threat 
to financial stability from the debt limit impasse, or from an 
impending downgrade to our Nation's credit rating. Of course, we face 
warnings of downgrades of our credit rating not merely because of the 
debt limit impasse; we have had dozens of such impasses in recent 
decades, with no effect on our credit rating. Yet we do face warnings 
of a ratings downgrade because of President Obama's acceleration of 
deficits and debt along our unsustainable fiscal path and unsustainable 
entitlement promises.
  With spending as a share of the economy up to levels not seen since 
World War II, and a lack of willingness by the administration to break 
its deficit spending addiction, ratings agencies have been brought to 
the edge and warn of impending downgrades. Those downgrades would 
immediately harm job creation, the economy, the cost of credit for 
every American family and business, and, indeed, overall financial 
stability.
  However, instead of a forthright discussion of this threat, the FSOC 
chose to instead bury an academic discussion of it in their annual 
report. Let me remind everyone how important Democrats said the FSOC 
would be as an early warning system, protecting us from the imminent 
threats to stability. It was supposed to be a watchdog, a cop on the 
beat combing global financial markets for imbalances and stability 
threats, and then giving warning to everyone.
  The President, the Treasury Secretary, ratings agencies, Secretary of 
State, Fed Chairman Bernanke, admirals, investors, former 
administration officials across party lines--all have issued warnings 
of threats to financial stability from our fiscal crisis. Yet the FSOC 
buried whatever observation it has about our crisis in its annual 
report.
  Another set of questions I asked the FSOC involves Treasury's 
cashflows through August and the date at which Treasury now believes it 
is most likely to run short of cash. I asked about contingency plans 
that Treasury, the Fed, and bank regulators have if there is a ratings 
downgrade. Reports of meetings of Treasury Secretary Geithner, Fed 
Chairman Bernanke, and New York Fed President Dudley suggest that 
contingency plans certainly are in the works.
  Yet as the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the 
administration has provided me with no information on what those plans 
might be, in spite of my responsibility for oversight of debt and cash 
operations at Treasury. I wish I could say I was surprised, but the 
fact is, the promise of the most open, deliberative, and rational 
administration in history has given way to a highly secretive and 
partisan operation that denies the people of this country the 
leadership they are owed.

[[Page 12306]]

  Perhaps I am supposed to wait, as in the past, for news reports on 
Sunday afternoon before the opening of financial markets in Asia to 
find out what we would do if an economic catastrophe in fact unfolds.
  It is an unsatisfactory and unacceptable state of affairs that the 
American people and Members of Congress do not have updated and 
sufficient information about Treasury's cashflows and liquid assets, or 
the contingency plans of our financial regulators. It is disturbing to 
me that in recent days Members of Congress in both Chambers have gone 
to their respective floors to discuss Treasury's cash and liquidity 
position using information supplied either by large Wall Street 
financial institutions, or by nongovernmental think tanks.
  Press reports of the U.S. Treasury's financial condition have also 
been relying on these sources. Why? Why do Members of Congress not know 
details of Treasury's projected cashflows for August? Why are we 
relying on dated numbers Treasury gave us months ago? How can we decide 
whether August 2, a threshold date estimated by Treasury back in May, 
is even close to some sort of deadline date for dealing with the debt 
limit?
  Maybe the date is July 29. I don't know, and neither the 
administration nor the FSOC has told us. Maybe the date is August 15. I 
don't know, and neither the administration nor the FSOC has told us. I 
don't know. The American people don't know. This is unacceptable.
  Wall Street firms have recently put out their own projections and say 
that August 2 may not be relevant at all. Maybe it will be August 8 
when Treasury runs into a cashflow problem. Maybe it will be August 13. 
Does Treasury still believe August 2 is the date when cashflow problems 
are most likely to arrive, given new information on government receipts 
since early May? If not, we need to know, and we need to know how that 
assessment has been made. If so, then why is Treasury not telling us 
and showing us why?
  My letter to FSOC members, which includes the Treasury Secretary, 
includes a request for updated information about Treasury cashflows and 
liquid assets. Given warnings from the administration that there is 
special urgency to act by August 2, time is of the essence, so I asked 
to receive responses from the FSOC members by 5 o'clock today, which is 
now an hour and a half ago. I have received no reply about Treasury 
cashflows and liquid assets. Nothing. Radio silence.
  Television cameras can't be turned on in this town without capturing 
some administration official reminding Americans about the looming 
default, but they are unable to provide Congress with the numbers that 
would show when the default would happen, after all these months of 
recommending we should know, and after warnings months ago.
  Let me say this again. I asked for, and have not received, critical 
information about the state of our Nation's short-term finances that I 
specifically requested from eight voting members of the FSOC, including 
the Secretary of the Treasury.
  I have received no response at all regarding the cash and liquid 
assets Treasury has and expects to have available. But worse than the 
refusal by the Treasury Secretary and the FSOC members to inform us 
about the Nation's cash position is their refusal to keep the American 
people duly informed about the state of our finances. It is, quite 
simply, a shirking of their responsibility to the citizens of this 
country. Rather than providing transparency--which we were promised--
the administration has chosen to scare Social Security recipients about 
their benefits in politicized debt-limit negotiations.
  We are debating debt and deficit plans that involve trillions of 
dollars. Yet we only have guesses about how much cash the Federal 
Government expects to have in August from a nongovernment think tank 
and from Wall Street firms. This is unacceptable.
  Mr. President, one of the most troubling aspects of this lack of 
disclosure is the way it is affecting our Nation's seniors. I listened 
to my constituents in Utah, and many of them who rely on Social 
Security are very worried, and they are, frankly, scared. The Obama 
administration has been hard at work frightening them about the 
prospects of default. More concerned about his election prospects than 
resolving this crisis, President Obama commented recently that he could 
not guarantee Treasury would be able to make Social Security payments 
in early August.
  Really? This fearmongering is shameful--absolutely shameful. For the 
President to threaten not to send out Social Security checks is a stain 
on his Presidency. Those relying on Social Security benefits rightfully 
count on timely payments. They worked hard and paid taxes, and timely 
benefit payments are due to them. These payments can and should be 
assured, no question.
  Why is the President using the politics of fear on our seniors? I 
think we all know the reason. Given the information that is available, 
it appears that roughly $50 billion of Social Security payments are due 
during August. Recent estimates from outside sources put flows in the 
Treasury of between $170 billion and over $200 billion in August from 
various tax receipts and other sources. That alone is more than enough 
to pay $50 billion in Social Security payments, with cash left over for 
the $30 billion due on our debt in August and more.
  Perhaps the President is worried about the timing of cashflows in 
August. Yet even if all $50 billion of Social Security payments come 
due on August 3--and they won't--Treasury can easily get its hands on 
cash to pay those bills. According to the Daily Treasury Statement for 
July 26, Treasury has $5 billion sitting idle at the Federal Reserve. 
Treasury can call that up. They can call up the Fed right now and get 
that $5 billion in cash.
  Treasury has roughly $90 billion in mortgage-backed securities that 
it bought in the financial crisis to bail out the housing markets. It 
sold $10.6 billion of those just last month. Treasury can go out and 
sell more next week if it is worried about not having cash to pay 
seniors. It could raise almost $80 billion.
  There are many more options for Treasury to get cash, and if the 
administration had any concern for seniors it would have had its 
officials working hard since at least May to ensure enough cash is 
available in August. Treasury could easily have $50 billion of cash on 
August 3 to pay our seniors if it wants to do that.
  Why, then, did the President choose to strike fear into all of our 
Nation's seniors? Why would the President say to our seniors that he 
could not guarantee there would be cash available to pay benefits in 
August when he can absolutely guarantee there would be cash available?
  It seems clear the President has chosen to use fear and to scare 
seniors in order to boost his chances at reelection and to strengthen 
the hand of our friends on the other side who are insistent on raising 
taxes as a means of deficit reduction. If we raise taxes, I guarantee 
you the other side will spend every dime of it. It will not be used to 
pay down the deficit, and especially with a Presidential election in a 
couple of years.
  Using Social Security and the financial security of our seniors as 
bargaining chips in a political poker game over the debt ceiling is, to 
put it bluntly, shameful. To do so to try to raise taxes at a time when 
unemployment is 9.2 percent and trending up--and that doesn't even 
include the underemployment rate, which is hovering around 17 percent 
when you count those who will not even look for jobs anymore, and 
others who will not work--well, it represents an odd way to express 
concern about jobs.
  The only reason Social Security payments would not be made in August 
by the administration would be a conscious choice by the administration 
to stiff seniors and to blame Republicans. It would be a conscious 
political choice, not a choice forced by the debt limit or lack of 
cash.
  Well, Mr. President, it is time for me to conclude, but I want to be 
clear. The American public has been shortchanged

[[Page 12307]]

by the new Financial Stability Oversight Council that was created by 
the job-killing Dodd-Frank financial regulation act. That is one of the 
worst bills I have seen in all of my 35 years.
  The FSOC, chaired by Treasury Secretary Geithner, has refused and 
ignored my request for basic information about government finances and 
government contingency plans in the face of dire warnings of threats to 
our Nation's financial stability.
  I don't enjoy coming on the Senate floor and excoriating this 
administration and the President and FSOC. But this is shameful. The 
American people deserve transparency, and they deserve accountability. 
Yet the administration and its regulators chose instead to withhold 
information from the people and their elected representatives in 
Congress. The refusal by members of FSOC, including the Treasury 
Secretary, to provide simple basic information about government 
finances is unacceptable and requires investigation and action.
  Mr. President, we have to get to where this government starts to work 
again. We shouldn't have to rely on Wall Street for these figures or 
rely on Wall Street to know what the administration's plan is. We 
shouldn't have to rely on anybody except those who are designated to 
provide this information. Unfortunately, they haven't done that.
  I admit, I only gave them a few days, but they have been working on 
this for months. I don't know about their office, but I tell you one 
thing. We get things done on time. We are at rug-cutting time on the 
floor of the Senate and in the House of Representatives. We know August 
2 is the heralded date by this administration. Since they chose the 
date, I think they should justify what they are going to do and how 
they are going to do it; to make sure if we don't somehow increase the 
debt ceiling, which I am not going to do, we at least know what their 
plan is.
  I hope the administration will get a little more active on some of 
these things that are so important on Capitol Hill--important to 
Democrats as well as Republicans. We need to have the facts. We need 
accountability, we need transparency, and I am calling on the 
administration to get on the ball.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the urgent 
need to act on the debt ceiling before the August 2 deadline. While I 
believe we have reached a defining moment as a country, which has not 
been wasted--we need to reduce our debt--we also can't afford to play 
Russian roulette with our economy by toying with the debt limit.
  We have had months to work this out. Yet less than 6 days from a 
possible default that would plunge this country into a serious crisis, 
here we stand in opposite corners of the boxing ring. The markets are 
jittery, investors and businesses are deeply concerned, but, most 
importantly, the people of this country are fed up with this political 
stalemate. They do not want their interest rates to rise, the value of 
the dollar to fall, and they do not want to see their retirement 
savings decimated again because some in Washington believe if they 
refuse to compromise, the resulting crisis will score them political 
points.
  Ever since the economic downturn, families across the country have 
sat down at their kitchen tables to make the tough choices about what 
they hold most dear and what they can learn to live without. We all 
know those conversations. They have to end with compromise.
  A poll released Monday by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 68 
percent of Americans say lawmakers who share their views on this issue, 
on either side, say those lawmakers should compromise. So people who 
actually share a view with a particular lawmaker, 68 percent of them 
say lawmakers should compromise, even if it means striking a deal they 
disagree with.
  Just 23 percent say lawmakers who share their views should stand by 
their principles even if it leads to default.
  My colleagues and I don't need polls to tell us that. We have all had 
our offices flooding with calls and e-mails in the last few days from 
well-meaning constituents with advice and from those who are mad and 
asking us to work it out. Just this morning I received this e-mail from 
Dave and Cheryl of Northfield, MN. This is what it says:

       Dear Amy,
       The political positioning and wrangling over the Federal 
     Budget and debt ceiling limit has gone on long enough! It's 
     time for our elected leaders to step up and resolve the debt 
     ceiling and budget crisis in a mature, adult fashion. We 
     realize that this is easier said than done, but after 
     experiencing the shutdown of the State of Minnesota, it is 
     unconscionable to even have the possibility of the crisis 
     that we will face as a nation if we don't raise our debt 
     ceiling and begin reducing the deficit. We urge you and your 
     colleagues to do all it takes to resolve this issue prior to 
     the deadline. There has to be some compromise that can be 
     identified. Each side will need to give to make this happen--
     let's focus on the art of compromise and get this wrapped up. 
     It's time to show the world that we are still a truly great 
     nation and can step up to resolve the challenges placed 
     before us. The greater good of the nation has to be placed as 
     a top priority. Hoping and praying for successful resolution 
     to the outstanding issues.

  That is Dave and Cheryl of Northfield, MN--just citizens who sent an 
e-mail today. I wish everyone in this Chamber and everyone over in the 
House would listen to this today. I think it sums it up very well.
  Outside the Halls of Congress there isn't much disagreement over the 
urgency to act or the consequences of failing to do so. There also 
isn't a lot of disagreement over the importance to our economy of a 
long-term extension. Who seriously believes dragging this country 
through this again in 5 or 6 months will help our economy get back on 
track?
  Economists and experts from across the political spectrum have warned 
that a short-term approach would likely lead to a downgrade of our 
credit rating, which would cost us billions of dollars more in interest 
payments on our existing debt and drive up our deficit. For families 
and businesses, it would mean a spike in interest rates, making 
everything from mortgages, car loans, and credit cards more expensive.
  I think the most common refrain I hear from the business community in 
Minnesota when we talk about what it will take to spur investment and 
create jobs in this country is a need for certainty--certainty in the 
Tax Code, certainty in expenses, certainty in our government's budget. 
Let's provide some certainty.
  After months of debate, it is clear what sort of plan is needed to 
garner the support necessary to get us across the finish line. We will 
all ultimately have to accept things with which we don't necessarily 
agree. It is time to get serious about advancing a deal that is both 
fair and achievable.
  On August 2, the borrowing authority of the United States will be 
exhausted. No one benefits if we are unable to reach an agreement by 
this deadline. Every day that passes without a deal only increases 
uncertainty in the markets and puts the brakes on economic activity. 
Failure to bring the national debt under control also threatens 
America's future, but the danger of default threatens our economy 
today.
  We have two options: We can either set a precedent of holding our 
debt hostage to political maneuvering, raising the cost of borrowing 
and increasing our deficit at the same time or we can show the world we 
are serious about working together to address our fiscal challenges to 
reduce the debt, reduce the cost of borrowing, and strengthen our 
financial outlook. I believe the choice is clear, and I believe a lot 
of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that.
  The sooner we can agree on a long-term package, the better for our 
economy and the better for our country. It is time to put our political 
differences aside and work on an agenda that strengthens our economy, 
promotes fiscal responsibility, and increases global

[[Page 12308]]

competitiveness because if we refuse to have an honest conversation, if 
we insist on using the debate as a vehicle for rhetoric only, we will 
not just be doing ourselves a disservice, not just be doing this 
institution a disservice, we will be cheating our children and 
grandchildren out of knowing the America in which we grew up. If we are 
committed to our country and not to unmoving ideologies, we will get 
this done.
  Last month, I received a lesson in what commitment as a public 
servant means when I attended the funeral of Jack Murray, who was the 
former mayor of International Falls, MN, right on the Canadian border. 
It is a town where they often test cars to show that they can withstand 
the cold, but it is a hardscrabble, thriving town.
  Mayor Murray was a decorated marine who served for 14 years as a 
member of the city council and for 14 more years as mayor. He 
figuratively and literally wore ``I love International Falls'' on his 
sleeve with a button he was never without. At his funeral--and he was 
89 years when he died--we heard countless stories of his commitment to 
his city that didn't end when he retired. The priest at the funeral 
told this story. He said that every morning, including the morning 
Mayor Murray died, he would rise early and walk the streets of 
International Falls. He would wear his orange highway vest to keep him 
safe, at 89, and he would have a cup of coffee and a bag for trash, and 
he would walk the streets of his beloved town collecting trash up until 
the day he died. He was a public servant to the end. He believed in his 
town, in his State, and in his country. And that is an example for all 
of us now.
  We are all public servants. We must have a commitment to the larger 
good, to our country, and to the people we represent. None of us wants 
to see our economy crippled. Democrats don't want it. Republicans don't 
want it. So what are we waiting for? It is time for Congress to step 
forth and show some leadership. It is time for us to work together to 
show the American people that Washington isn't broken; that, instead, 
we are willing to put aside our politics to do what we were elected to 
do, to do what is right for America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________