[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12427-12432]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DEBT CEILING

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise once again to urge my colleagues to 
come together and address this debt ceiling to reduce our deficit and 
debt. We are at the 12th hour, and it is vitally important to the 
American people we move forward. I believe there is opportunity to do 
that. I think it is important we move forward in a way that makes sure 
we address the root of the problem. The problem is, we have a deficit 
and a debt that is out of control. As we work together to reach 
agreement on this very important debt ceiling issue, we need to be 
mindful that we have taken a big step forward in reducing the deficit 
and debt that our country faces.
  Let's start by taking just a minute to look at the numbers. Today 
this country has total revenues coming into the Federal Government at 
about $2.2 trillion. At the same time, we have expenses of $3.7 
trillion, leaving an annual deficit of more than $1.5 trillion. Our 
debt is now in the range of $14.5 trillion. It is hard to even imagine 
what $1 trillion is, let alone $14.5 trillion. We are borrowing 40 
cents of every dollar we spend, and our debt is growing $4 billion a 
day--$4 billion a day. The unemployment is 9.2 percent, and the latest 
GDP growth came out for the second quarter for this year. It was an 
anemic 1.3 percent.
  We need to get our economy growing. We need to get people back to 
work. We need to get people working, and at the same time we have to 
control our spending. It is time to act.
  We are faced with two different pieces of legislation at this point. 
One is the Boehner plan, or the Budget Control Act of 2011, that the 
House will be voting on very soon, I believe. Also, there is another 
plan, the Reid plan, in the Senate. Although they have some 
similarities, as configured now they are different plans and different 
approaches.
  One, very importantly, gets us on the road to recovery. The other one 
doesn't. Let's take just a minute to talk about each of those 
respective plans to make sure we understand them. As they vote on them 
in the House, and as we face those important votes this evening or 
tomorrow or, hopefully, very soon, we can understand the differences 
between these approaches so we can find a way to come together on an 
approach that we can pass in this Chamber and also in the House, and, 
of course, that truly moves our country forward.
  Under the Boehner proposal there is $917 billion in savings that must 
be provided in order to raise the debt ceiling, and that allows the 
first tranche of increase in the debt ceiling in the amount of $900 
billion. Those savings have to be identified first--in fact, more than 
the amount of the debt ceiling increase.
  Then the second tranche to increase the debt ceiling beyond that $900 
billion, an additional $1.8 trillion in savings, has to be identified 
and provided--$1.8 trillion in savings. That is $2.7 trillion in 
savings to get this country back on the road to financial health in 
order to raise the debt ceiling. That is fundamentally important 
because that is the fundamental issue. It doesn't fully solve the 
problem, but it gets us on the right path, and we have to get going on 
the right path.
  The second tranche of savings is done by a committee of six Members 
of the Senate--three Democrat, three Republican--and six Members of the 
House--three Republican, three Democrat--in a bipartisan committee. I 
think that committee offers us real opportunity. Here is why: The 
committee has to come up with recommendations for real savings by 
November. It is bipartisan, and it is a straight up-or-down vote in the 
House or the Senate to put those savings in place, and those savings 
must be identified before we raise the debt ceiling further. So it is 
something we have to do.
  Let's think about that committee for a minute. That is a committee 
that can bring in the ideas of the Gang of 6. That is the committee 
that can bring in the Simpson-Bowles concept. That is a committee that 
can bring in tax reform. That is a committee that can bring in 
entitlement reform. These are the things we are going to need to 
address to get this economy going and get control of our spending. I 
know we have put together many pieces of legislation that have been 
bipartisan and have been very important for this country, and I think 
this committee truly offers us that opportunity. I hope it is something 
we in the Senate can find a way to come together on and that we can get 
our colleagues in the House to join us.
  In my view, I do think we need to engage in tax reform. I think the 
right kind of progrowth tax reform--some of the concepts brought forth 
by the Gang of 6--can truly help us to stimulate economic activity. I 
think the real way to get revenue for this country is through economic 
growth--not higher taxes, through economic growth. Expand the pie, the 
rising tide that lifts all boats.
  If we can engage in tax reform to stimulate economic growth, we 
reduce that unemployment rate by more than 9 percent. That is good for 
every American, but it is also the way we create revenue to get us out 
of this deficit and debt at the same time that we control spending.
  I absolutely believe it can work, and I think that we need to 
convince our Members we need to come together and make it happen.
  The Boehner proposal also includes a balanced budget amendment, and I 
know that has been an issue of great debate in this Senate. I believe 
we need a balanced budget amendment. I have said it many times before. 
I come from a background in my State, as a Governor, where we balanced 
our budget every year. There are 49 States that either have a 
constitutional or statutory priority to balance their budget. We need 
that fiscal discipline in Washington, DC. I think we need it to make 
sure we don't get ourselves into this situation in the future years for 
ourselves or for these young people we see here today with us.
  When we compare the approach of the Boehner plan, it is different 
from the Reid plan. It is important that we understand that. The Reid 
plan does provide that we identify $900 billion in savings, but that 
provides that once we have identified that $900 billion in savings, we 
raise the debt ceiling by $2.7 trillion, unlike the Boehner proposal 
where we are finding significantly more savings than we are increasing 
the debt ceiling. This is just the opposite. We are increasing the debt 
ceiling $2.7 trillion but only requiring $900 billion in savings. That 
doesn't get at the root of the problem. That continues the underlying 
problem of too much spending and too much debt. Like the Boehner 
proposal, the Reid proposal does provide for a committee. That is 
important. That is good. Unlike the Boehner proposal, it doesn't 
require that committee bring back the savings and that we put those 
savings in place before the debt ceiling is increased. It doesn't have 
the teeth we need to make sure we get this job done for the American 
people, and that is a problem. They are different approaches, and it 
doesn't include a balanced budget amendment.

[[Page 12428]]

  There has been talk that we must work together to find a way to 
bridge the gap and the differences, and I think that is true. We have 
to find ways to come together. Time is growing short. We need to get it 
done now. I think it is the approach identified in the Boehner plan 
that we need to take. We need to get our colleagues in this Chamber to 
join with us to do it. It is the only piece of legislation that can 
pass the House, but, more importantly, it is a big step forward. It is 
a big step in the right direction for our country.
  I thank the Chair.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would ask to speak for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, while we are waiting for people to 
decide what the rest of us can vote on in regard to cutting down on the 
national debt and what we can do about being able to continue our 
government to function tomorrow, all of this is about uncertainty, and 
we read about the uncertainty every day in the newspaper because people 
don't know what we are going to do. That then causes businesses, small 
and large, not to hire, and it seems as though they have a lot of cash 
they would like to spend and invest wisely. Some of that would surely 
create a lot of jobs and get our economy moving. Of course, the 
situation today where the revision of the quarterly economic growth has 
come out even less for the second quarter than we anticipated, it 
brings a lot of things to mind as to what we can do to create jobs. 
With 9.2 percent unemployment, that has to be our concentration.
  I would like to advise my colleagues that a lot can be learned from 
history. We must change course if we want to change jobs. The 2007 to 
2009 recession was officially over during the year 2009, and here we 
are still with 9.2 percent unemployment.
  So this month happens to be the second-year anniversary of the 
official start of the recovery. But what kind of a recovery, with 9.2 
percent unemployment? It seems to be an unofficial recovery; in other 
words, a recovery in name only. We have had about 2.8 percent annual 
growth average per year of that 2 years; and, of course, I just said 
the growth of the last quarter was revised downward. When we compare 
what we have during this recovery from what was a very bad recession 
with the recovery of the last deep recession, which was in 1981 and 
1982, we compare this 2.8-percent growth now with a 7.1-percent growth 
for the recovery after the 1981 to 1982 deep recession--of course, we 
can go even further because, as I said, compare 7.1-percent growth 
after the deep recession of 1981 and 1982 with the 2.8-percent average 
growth so far during this 2 years of recovery, which has now slowed 
down to probably 1.5-percent growth. So statistically and actually, and 
for the people who are unemployed, recovery has, in fact, been very 
stalled since its very beginning 2 years ago, as we celebrate the 2-
year anniversary of a so-called recovery, and still with 9.2-percent 
unemployment.
  I say we must change course. If we want to go back to comparing now 
with the 1983 and 1984 period of time when we had a much more vibrant 
recovery, people tend to blame the weak economy today, during this 
recovery, on high personal savings rates. But, in fact, people are 
spending more now than they did in the 1983 to 1984 recovery because, 
today, the savings rate is about 5.6 percent, and in 1983 to 1984, the 
other recovery, it was 9.4 percent. So we can't say people aren't 
spending enough is why we don't have a recovery.
  Then they tend to blame it on weak housing, but if we look at the 
difference between now and 1983 and 1984, that doesn't seem to be a 
very good reason.
  Net exports are less now than they were in the 1983 and 1984 
recovery. The growth of consumption and the growth of investment is 60 
to 70 percent less now than it was in the 1983 and 1984 recovery.
  So what can we learn from this history that made the recovery of 1983 
and 1984, the last great recession we had compared to this recession, 
better than the recovery now? Why have we stalled today when we didn't 
stall in a comparable period of recovery after the last great 
recession? If the above doesn't explain it, then what does explain it? 
Why, then, was the recovery of the 1980s so much more vigorous than the 
recovery now if we are, in fact, in a recovery--and people would doubt 
that.
  That is the question where I think we can learn from history. 
Political leaders ought to learn from the lessons of the past. There 
are a lot of lessons that can be learned going back over a long period 
of time: mistakes made in the Great Depression of the 1930s, or let's 
say the gigantic inflation of the 1970s. The 1930s and the 1970s were 
tough decades, but during those tough times and remembering them--and 
maybe other tough times as well; I am just picking out the Great 
Depression of the 1930s and the gigantic inflation of the 1970s--but 
these lessons learned by political leaders in the 1980s and 1990s led 
us to very unprecedented growth during those two decades when 44 
million jobs were created. If 44 million jobs were created during those 
decades, why do we have such small job growth now? I think the answer 
is that we went back to basic principles that this country was founded 
upon: political and economic freedom. The principles that dominated the 
decades of the 1980s and 1990s when 44 million new jobs were created 
aligned with the principles that are the foundation of our country: 
political and economic freedoms. Those were limited government, 
incentives to produce, incentives for entrepreneurship, emphasis upon 
private markets, and rule of law. These tended to be in ascendancy 
during the decades of the 1980s and 1990s and it led to monetary policy 
that brought about price stability. It brought about lower marginal tax 
rates. Regulations encouraged competition and innovation. We had 
welfare decisions that were devolved down to the States where they 
could be handled more efficiently, and we had spending restraints that 
led to balanced budgets during the late 1990s, paying down $568 billion 
on the national debt.
  So there was great hope that what was done during the 1980s and 1990s 
that brought about 44 million new jobs would extend into the 21st 
century and that we would continue to bring market-based principles 
into Social Security and other entitlement programs, bring market-based 
principles into education, bring market-based principles into health 
care. Because if these market-based principles worked during the 1980s 
and 1990s of the last century and created 44 million jobs, the success 
of that ought to carry over into other government policies so we could 
continue down the road of creating jobs instead of stagnating as we 
have now.
  But sometime after 2000--and that doesn't mean just after President 
Obama was elected, because there was a Republican President before 
that--but sometime after 2000 both political parties compromised--and I 
want to emphasize both political parties--on the principles of limited 
government. They did it for a multitude of reasons. Some of these 
reasons were that they thought government ought to control business 
cycles to a greater extent, that we ought to increase home ownership, 
and we know how that worked out: We ought to have a policy that people 
ought to be able to buy a house they can't afford. Now we know that is 
a stupid policy, but at the time we didn't know it; also the 
prescription drug issue, as an example, although there were some 
market-based principles put into that.
  But, anyway, there were a multitude of reasons why we ought to 
compromise the principle of limited government, but it ended up more 
interventionist and it made the Federal Government more powerful, and 
we ended up with unintended consequences: the financial crisis we still

[[Page 12429]]

remember and we are still trying to get out of; the recession, which I 
have already talked about, of 2007 and 2009, of which we are 
celebrating 2 years of supposed recovery that isn't real recovery; we 
have had a great amount of expanded government debt; and now we have 
this nonexistent recovery with 9.2-percent unemployment.
  I think, looking back, how did this happen? I was here when it 
happened. It reminds me of the story about--well, I guess I ought to 
say it and then give the story. It happened so slowly, and all of these 
things added up to be bad to bring about the great recession, and now 
not a very good recovery, because each one of them happened independent 
of the other and without one relating to the other. So it reminds me of 
the story of the frog and the water. If you throw a frog in boiling 
water, he will jump out and live. If you put a frog in cold water and 
gradually heat it up to a boil, it is going to accommodate the changes 
and die. So these policies slowly developed and we got into the 
situation we are in right now. I will say it again: Change came so 
slowly, it crept up on us.
  Then, of course, what happened? The crash came. We had this Federal 
intervention in housing. I stated it before: Buy a house even if you 
can't afford it. We eliminated a lot of Federal Reserve accountability, 
particularly when they didn't have to report on monetary growth on a 
regular basis as they did before. Then we had these countercyclical 
fiscal policies that failed. We had, during periods of growth in our 
economy, unrealistically low interest rates by the Federal Reserve 
action. Then, of course, we had government bailouts. This has led to 
things all getting worse since 2009. We had more intervention. We had 
loose monetary policies, QE1 and QE2, of the Federal Reserve. We had a 
stimulus plan that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent, 
and since it was passed in February of 2009, unemployment has never 
been below that. It has always been above 8 percent. It is 9.2 percent 
now, but it was even over 10 percent. We had the Cash For Clunkers 
Program. We had the first-time homeowners tax credit. All of these 
together have not brought recovery, even though the economists tell us 
we are in the second-year anniversary of a recovery.
  What did they bring that has stalled the recovery? What they have 
brought is more uncertainty, and more uncertainty is bad for the 
economy because, as I said when I started out, there is plenty of money 
out there in corporations. There are plenty of small businesses that 
want to hire, but they do not know what we in this Congress are going 
to do to them so they are not moving forward. Consequently, the 
unemployment rate is not going down. And right this very hour, as 
people are trying to find something that can pass this body and the 
other body so we do not have default, it even brings more uncertainty, 
and you read it in the morning paper, this morning's paper. So you have 
to come to the conclusion, with all of this intervention bringing about 
all this uncertainty, that big government is not a very good manager.
  Then, as I said, this did not happen just since President Obama 
became President. This happened over the period of time of this decade 
and maybe even going back a little bit into the other decade. But just 
since President Obama was elected, we have added yet more complex 
intervention: the health care reform bill, Dodd-Frank, the Consumer 
Protection Bureau.
  The President this very week has been talking about increasing taxes, 
only he does not use the word ``taxes.'' We have to have more 
``revenue'' or we have to have ``balance.'' But it still adds up, all 
of these things out there, that government does not know what all these 
rules and regulations--do you realize that in health care reform, there 
are 1,690 delegations of authority to the Secretaries to write 
regulations? And they are not going to be written for years. But that 
brings so much uncertainty.
  So we have more uncertainty, plus unintended consequences that come 
out of these, like right now, rising health care costs because of the 
bill, deterring new investments because of Dodd-Frank and deterring 
risk-taking. Risk-taking is what entrepreneurship is all about, and 
entrepreneurship is mostly related to small businesses, where 70 
percent of the new jobs are created.
  Government intervention is the problem because government 
intervention or government not making decisions all adds up to more 
uncertainty. So I think the solution is to unwind government 
intervention in all these regulations of EPA and all the other 
government agencies. Every day in the newspaper, you see some new 
regulation coming out. If you want to get people to hire, you ought to 
just shut down the printing presses for a while.
  One sure thing though: We can thank God we have run out of monetary 
and fiscal ammunition because it has not worked anyway. We are going to 
probably have a great deal of inflation because of what the Fed did. We 
have no more spending we can do because all the spending we have done 
has not done the good it was supposed to do. We need no more greater 
debt, and we do not have any more zero interest rates to put out there 
because that is practically where it is right now.
  Instead, what we need is spending controls, and what we need is free 
market principles. Historical evidence shows what works and what does 
not. I said what works and what does not is shown from the lessons 
learned from the depression of the 1980s and the gigantic inflation 
decade of the 1970s. So people in the 1980s and 1990s changed to 
policies that were market-oriented, and we created 44 million new jobs. 
So we ought to be learning from history. Historical evidence shows what 
works and what does not. And right this day, in this town, 
interventionists in the market control today. We need to restore less 
intervention, the policies of the 1980s and the 1990s to restore jobs. 
Remember, it created 44 million new jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, are we under a time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, for several months now, I have been on the 
floor speaking, urging both Republicans and Democrats to listen to 
Americans and take this unique opportunity we have before us to do what 
is right for our country's future.
  Mr. President, 2010 sent an unmistakable message. Americans do not 
want us to spend beyond our means, more than we take in. They do not 
want higher taxes. They do not want budget gimmicks, and more smoke and 
mirrors. They want real, serious solutions to address our real, serious 
problem. We have worked several months to try to do that.
  As I talk to Hoosiers all across the State of Indiana--
businesspeople, retired workers, young people, and others--I sense the 
fear, frustration, disappointment and even anger in a growing number of 
people that started in 2010 and is accumulating as we continue to 
careen toward a potential budget default without a sensible or serious 
plan in place to get us back on the right track toward fiscal health.
  American families are scared. They are scared, and they are 
frustrated, and I think rightfully so. They are worried about paying 
next month's bills. They are worried about getting a loan to buy a 
house or credit to help support a business. They are worried about 
being able to pay for their kids to go to school in the fall, just a 
few weeks away.
  Our seniors are scared. Throughout this debate, they have been used 
over and over again as a political football for scare tactics. My 
phones are ringing off the hook with seniors basically saying: We have 
been told you are going to take away all of our benefits, but that is 
absolutely not true. We are trying to save those benefits. We are 
trying to take the reasonable measures necessary so those benefits for 
Social Security and Medicare are there for seniors in the future.
  American businesses are frustrated. They are sick and tired of 
Washington's inability to act. The Washington

[[Page 12430]]

Post reported this week that ``business leaders are growing exasperated 
with Washington. And they say dysfunction in the political system is 
holding them back from hiring and investing.'' The markets are jittery. 
We have seen a pretty good drop in the markets just this week. The 
dollar fell to a new low against the yen, and the yen is not doing that 
well. We continue to see stocks tumble.
  So many have asked: Why haven't we acted yet? What are we waiting 
for? Why haven't we passed a bill to avoid this default? Why are we in 
this period of uncertainty, taking it right up as the clock ticks 
toward August 2?
  While the President refused to even put forth a plan, House 
Republicans have been working to pass legislation. They passed the Cut, 
Cap, and Balance Act. They brought it here to the Senate floor. We were 
not even allowed to debate or vote on it or have amendments. For those 
who do not like it, there would have been an opportunity to improve it, 
there would have been an opportunity at least to have a ``yes'' or 
``no'' vote on whether this was the path to where we needed to go. But 
we did not have that opportunity.
  Now, even as I speak, we are moving toward another vote in the 
House--something similar coming forward tonight by Speaker Boehner and 
Republicans in the House. Unfortunately, it looks as if we are going to 
be blocked from debating that bill. There will be yet another motion to 
table, to deny the opportunity to move forward.
  We know there are things going on behind the scenes, but this does 
not provide any assurance to the American people that whatever is being 
debated and put together is going to solve the problem. We are days 
away from exhausting our financial options, and we do not even allow 
those bills that do come before us to be debated.
  Now, we have few options left in these few days remaining:
  We can, No. 1, default and watch our U.S. economy be downgraded, 
interest rates rise, and the confidence in the United States as a place 
to safely invest your money deteriorate all around the world. This 
would be the first default in American history, except for a technical 
glitch some many years back.
  The second option before us is we can pass legislation that is below 
where we need to be and where we ought to be, but we were not able to 
get there. Although it would avoid a default, it might not avoid a 
downgrade of our credit because it has not matched and met the minimal 
requirements of what most who have analyzed this situation have 
understood we need to undertake.
  The third option--which has not been talked about too much, but 
several of us have been discussing this possibility--is to pass a 
short-term extension that will avert a default and allow us to continue 
to work for a serious fix that gets to those minimal measures necessary 
to make progress toward fiscal health.
  That first option is not a viable option. Default has consequences we 
cannot begin to understand, and eventually those bills which the 
American people and their congressional representatives have put in 
place have to be paid because those promises were made.
  The second measure--it may be what we are faced with, perhaps the 
best of the worst; is passing subpar legislation that begins the 
process of addressing it but is woefully short of really what needs to 
be done.
  The third option, the short-term extension, is a way we can avoid the 
default and we can achieve cuts for the amount of necessary borrowing 
authority to get us through this period of time, whether it is 2 weeks 
or 4 weeks or 8 weeks. This short-term period of time would allow us to 
make yet one last-ditch chance to try to bring forward something that 
will avoid default but also put us on the road to fiscal health.
  So I am urging my colleagues, if we cannot come up with something 
better than what we have, to give that serious consideration. What are 
those minimum levels? A $4 trillion cut over 10 years has been told to 
us over and over and over by anyone who has analyzed this situation as 
the minimal amount necessary to go forward. Others suggest quite a bit 
more. The Gang of 6 was working on, I believe, at least $4 trillion cut 
over that period of time. Simpson-Bowles provided for $4 trillion or 
more. Senator Coburn has brought out a plan, and others have suggested 
we need to be in the $9 trillion to $10 trillion range. But everyone 
has said you need to at least be at $4 trillion, and we are short of 
that, considerably.
  We are also short of having serious commitment, plan and timetable to 
address the structural unraveling of our mandatory entitlement 
systems--Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. This has been the 
political football kicked around, scaring seniors and others by saying 
Congress is here to try to take away their benefits, when actually we 
are here trying to save those benefits. But without structural changes 
in those programs, it is driving this deficit to a point which will be 
unsustainable in terms of providing benefits for those who need them.
  We are going forward without a commitment to balance our budget, 
which I think is absolutely, ultimately the only thing that will keep 
us from doing binge spending here. The tendency is to want to say yes 
to everybody and no to nobody. We need something that will force us to 
be faithful to the Constitution of the United States, to have a 
balanced budget and not spend more than we take in.
  Also, we all know we need an overhaul of our complicated Tax Code to 
make American businesses more competitive and to spur economic growth. 
After all is said and done, what this is really about is getting our 
fiscal house in order, getting our economy moving again--there was a 
terrible number this morning about the virtually small, almost nothing, 
lack of growth in the first and second quarters of this year--but 
getting the economy growing again so we can get people back to work.
  That is what it is all about. We are not here to have Draconian cuts 
just for the fun of it. We are here to get our budget in balance so we 
can get our economy moving so people can have viable jobs for the 
future, so those kids coming out of college have a place to go, so the 
55-year-old worker who is laid off and may never get back to work can 
get back to work, and so those who are seeking meaningful employment to 
pay their mortgage and raise a family and buy a home and send their 
kids to school will have the ability to do that. That is what it is all 
about. We are not doing this just for the fun of it. It is no fun to 
tell people we have to cut this and cut that and sacrifice here and 
sacrifice there. But we have put ourselves in the position where we 
have no other choice. To spend all of this time here, 7 months of 
diligent work by a lot of people----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes is up.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank my colleague, also, 
for her patience.
  To send us here, after 7 months, and come up with something that is 
short of the minimum, that continues the uncertainty--are they going to 
be able to pull it together with this two-stage process and gathering 
Senators and Congressman together to put a plan together that we have 
not been able to do in the first 7 months but we will do it in the next 
5 months? A lot of people have some real problems with that.
  I want to close by saying we cannot give up on the process of getting 
America back to fiscal health. We have to keep working. I have proposed 
a way here to try to do something better than what we are going to be 
faced with in doing in order to avoid this default.
  I am hoping we have the opportunity to do that. If not, I am hoping 
we have the commitment to go forward and do what we all know we need to 
do for the sake of the future of this country--the country we love and 
want to be prosperous for the sake of the future of American families 
and their children.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise during this very critical debate

[[Page 12431]]

about the deficit crisis to talk for a few minutes about what this 
means for Michigan and for the families and the businesses I represent. 
I grew up in a small northern town of Clare, MI, where my family ran 
the automobile dealership, the Oldsmobile dealership, and my mom was a 
nurse at the local hospital.
  My first job was washing the cars on the car lot. It was a time when 
people believed in America and the full faith and credit of America. I 
cannot imagine--I cannot imagine--my parents and my grandparents ever 
believing it would be possible for America to default on its 
obligations.
  But here we are today, and that is a very real possibility. It is 
outrageous because it does not have to be this way. We have been 
through a lot in Michigan. I know you know that, Mr. President. We have 
had more people out of work than any other State in this recession. In 
fact, we have been hit harder, longer, deeper than any other State. We 
took the brunt of the recession, and people are now just starting to 
get back on their feet. They are the lucky ones.
  When people in Washington talk about this deficit crisis as though it 
is just another political game, it is not a game. It is not a game to 
the families I represent. It is not a game to seniors I represent. It 
is not a game to the small businesses or to the manufacturers that have 
worked very hard to turn things around and move forward in our State. 
It is not a game to the people who are worried about what is going to 
happen on Tuesday if we cannot come together and create a solution, 
which we absolutely have to do.
  There are nearly 2 million people in Michigan, senior citizens and 
people with disabilities, who have earned their Social Security 
benefits and might not receive them next week. We have 1.6 million 
seniors, people such as my mom, who may not be able to see their doctor 
and use their Medicare next week.
  Michigan has 700,000 veterans, men and women who have bravely served 
our country, and they expect us to keep our promise to them as a 
country. Those are the people I am thinking about today as we are 
trying to find a bipartisan compromise.
  We have to solve this problem and we need to get it done now and 
there is no reason that cannot happen. I am hearing from small business 
owners. I have been on the phone today talking to small business 
owners, the people whom we need in Michigan to turn the economy around. 
They are doing everything they can to grow their companies and to 
create jobs. But now they need customers, and they have customers who 
are saying they are afraid to make a purchase, they are holding onto 
their dollars, they are afraid to buy a house or furniture.
  Today, I talked to friend of mine in northern Michigan, a prominent 
auto dealer, who indicated he has people who normally come in every 3 
years and buy a new car, and they are just sitting because they do not 
know what is going to happen. They do not know what is going to happen 
in the economy. They do not know what is going to happen to them and 
their families and they are waiting. They are waiting for us. They are 
waiting for Washington to get its act together and to solve this 
problem and to move on to the other challenges in front of us, 
particularly to focus on jobs.
  Our recovery has already taken hits. We saw that in the economic 
numbers that came out this morning. Families from Michigan have already 
taken the one-two punch of higher food prices, higher gas prices, and 
now we have people talking seriously about letting the country default 
which will lead to higher interest rates for people trying to raise 
their families, for small businesses trying to hire new employees.
  The last thing they need--that anybody needs--is higher interest 
rates. A default would cripple the ability of our companies to create 
jobs, and it is the people who are already hurting the most, the 
middle-class working families, who will pay the biggest price, once 
again. That is wrong.
  Worst of all, that scenario would be entirely self-inflicted by 
people on both ends of this building who are not willing to come 
together and work together on a bipartisan basis to resolve this. There 
is absolutely no reason why this country needs to default on its 
obligations. There is no reason.
  I am hearing from seniors in Michigan who are scared that they might 
not get their Social Security checks next week. They are living check 
to check--benefits they have worked their whole lives to earn, and it 
is absolutely ridiculous they would have to worry about that in the 
greatest country in the world and all because people in Washington 
cannot seem to sit down and work this out.
  For many seniors in Michigan, that is all they have to live on. That 
is all they have to pay their rent, to buy groceries, to pay for their 
medicine. They are worried about how they are going to live if this 
country goes into default.
  I am hearing from veterans in Michigan, many of whom were left 
disabled after their service, who are angry, and rightly so, that the 
country they fought for might default on their payments for the first 
time.
  I am hearing from young people who are worried about their future and 
the future of their generation if Congress allows the full faith and 
credit of the United States to come into question.
  We all know it is critical to be able to cut the deficit. We also 
need to grow the economy. We need a full, balanced package. But we 
understand the critical nature and the importance of cutting this 
deficit that has been allowed to accumulate over the last decade. We 
have already cut spending. We will cut more.
  The bipartisan plan that will soon come before us, and I wish to 
thank Senator Reid for his leadership in bringing this forward and 
working so diligently and our colleagues across the aisle who have been 
working in the Senate to create a bipartisan plan. But the plan that 
will be before us cuts spending by nearly $2.5 trillion, and it does 
even more. It creates a second step that is absolutely critical if we 
are going to tackle the rest of the story, the rest of the country's 
challenges so we can create a truly balanced approach to eliminating 
the deficit.
  People in Michigan understand that to do that, that includes cutting 
the special subsidies and other special interest spending through the 
Tax Code and creating a fairer Tax Code, so that reducing our deficit 
is not, once again, put on the backs of middle-class families and 
senior citizens who have already paid a heavy price.
  This has to be balanced, long term, fair, to solve the problem and 
allow us to grow the economy and create jobs. I so appreciate and have 
worked very hard to make sure the plan in front of us protects and 
maintains Medicare and Social Security. This has been a top priority 
for our majority.
  The plan Senator Reid will be offering does that. Most important, the 
Senate plan creates certainty for the economy and the markets until 
2012. People in Michigan do not want us having this debate every month. 
They certainly do not want us having this over and over and over again 
and we know because we have heard that the plan which will come to a 
vote in the House, unfortunately, will not have bipartisan support, 
does not solve the problem, does not stop us from being downgraded in 
our credit rating, does not put us in a situation for long-term problem 
solving.
  It keeps us stuck in the mud for months over and over again by only 
addressing the debt ceiling for 4 months or 6 months. We will be right 
back here again stuck when we need to be able to solve this and move on 
and focus on growing our economy so businesses can create jobs. People 
in Michigan have had enough. I have had enough. They have had enough.
  One man called my office earlier today. He said: I do not want to 
relive this nightmare in a few months. I could not agree with him more. 
We cannot be in a situation where we are not creating economic 
certainty, solving this problem, and then moving forward as a country 
in a global economy. We have a lot of work to do to be able to compete 
around the world and make sure our businesses are creating jobs here at 
home.

[[Page 12432]]

  Families and small businesses in Michigan have been through enough. 
It is time to get this done. We have to do it together. It is about 
working together. It is about creating a bipartisan plan, and it is 
time to get that done. I know my colleagues in the Senate on both sides 
of the aisle know the seriousness of this situation. I certainly know 
our leader does, and I am grateful for his persistence and focus in 
bringing people together to solve this.
  We have a serious debt crisis that we can and must solve, and the 
House must join us in a bipartisan solution. We also have a jobs crisis 
in our country. We need to resolve the current impasse and then focus 
like a laser on growing our economy so companies can create jobs, so we 
can get out of debt, and we can stay out of debt.
  I would strongly urge my colleagues, my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle in this Chamber, to continue to work together to find a 
solution, to come together, to get this done in the Senate. I would 
urge my colleagues, on behalf of the hard-working men and women of the 
State of Michigan, it is time to come together to get this done. We 
know what needs to be done. We know it has to be bipartisan, and we 
know we have to work together. People in Michigan are saying enough is 
enough. It is time to get this done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning 
business be extended until 6:45 p.m. today, with Senators permitted to 
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that at 6:45 I be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to give my full speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________