[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12333-12334]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1140
                          DEBT CEILING HOSTAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the elaborate Kabuki dance continues 
here on Capitol Hill surrounding the angst about increasing the debt 
ceiling. I think what we are seeing can be summarized in three words: 
``recklessness,'' ``abuse,'' and ``hypocrisy.''
  First of all, it is reckless for my Republican friends to hold the 
debt ceiling discussions hostage in an attempt to achieve other 
political goals. There have already been significant costs. American 
currency has weakened. We've watched a slide of the stock market since 
last Friday when the agreement blew up as Speaker Boehner walked away 
from his work with President Obama. We've watched premiums being paid 
now to ensure United States debt. People are making adjustments that 
are having consequences right now and eroding the confidence that we 
have had globally in the strength of American commitments to pay its 
debt--a confidence that has resulted in record low-interest rates that 
have

[[Page 12334]]

benefited everybody in the United States, and that is at risk.
  The irony is that there is no reason for this to occur. We have 
increased the debt ceiling 102 times since this unusual little law was 
enacted in 1917. The United States, you recall, is one of only two 
countries in the entire world that goes through this charade of having 
to vote to finance spending that we've already done.
  It has always been routine. We did this routinely for President Bush. 
The irony is now when we are facing another adjustment in the debt 
ceiling, ironically most of the debt, $9.5 billion, was incurred as a 
direct result of the policies of the two Presidents Bush and Ronald 
Reagan. There is a great little chart on page A-14 in today's New York 
Times that outlines this.
  Instead of making it routine and making whatever pontification people 
will do on the floor of the House, which they have done since 1917, now 
all of a sudden we have thrown a monkey wrench into the process. We've 
raised the specter of default. We're having people speculate whether 
there's enough money to go to August 2 or August 5. We're speculating 
about what debts, what bills the President will pay.
  The irony is that this Republican recklessness is actually empowering 
the President of the United States to make decisions about whether to 
pay Chinese creditors or honor our obligations to senior citizens or 
people who do business with the United States.
  Absolutely outrageous.
  Wouldn't you think Congress would like to make these decisions rather 
than punting to the President? Well, no. In fact, the Republicans are 
more than willing to punt to the President the decision about lifting 
the debt ceiling, even though the law that we have puts that 
responsibility on Congress. It's reckless and it's unnecessary.
  Second, there is an abuse of power. You know, the American public 
overwhelmingly wants a balanced solution with a little bit of revenue 
increase, maybe taking some unjustified tax loopholes, not slashing 
budgets unilaterally. They want a balanced approach. But my Republican 
friends, having taken control of one Chamber, now think that they ought 
to be able to dictate to the other body, dictate to the President of 
the United States, have it their way or the highway. It's not what the 
American public wants. It's not what should happen in our system of 
democracy, where there should be some give-and-take and some 
compromise.
  But no, what we're seeing is an unfortunate abuse of power on the 
part of some people who are willing to take hostage the debt ceiling 
negotiation and risk economic damage to the United States, to our 
families, and businesses.
  And third, it is a case of hypocrisy. You know, the Republican plan, 
the so-called Cut, Cap, and Balance--and they passed it last week on 
the floor of the House--would require cutting spending for the 
government to 18 percent of the overall economy. Interesting number. 
Ronald Reagan never even proposed a budget that was less than 21 
percent.
  They're talking about draconian cuts to things that the American 
public relies upon--everything from food safety to infrastructure to 
education. But when the time came to vote for it, this week, they voted 
``no'' on an amendment that would have implemented that type of cut.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has 
expired.

                          ____________________