To terminate authority under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and for other purposes.

INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

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

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.

Amendment No. 3299

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

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

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

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

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

Amendment No. 3300 to Amendment No. 3299

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

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

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

(Purpose: To protect Social Security)

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

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Ralph Waldo Emerson enjoined:
Pay every debt as if God wrote the bill.
Today, we will debate whether the United States continues to pay its
bills. We will debate whether the United States will continue to pay
the interest it owes on the money it has borrowed.
The spending laws that created the current national debt are behind
us. The only question that remains is whether the government will honor
its obligation to pay the bill. We have gone to the restaurant, we have
eaten the meal, the waiter has delivered the check, and now the only
question is whether we will pay the check. To state the question is to
answer it: We simply must do so. We must pay the check for the bill,
for the restaurant, for the meal we have eaten.
The legislation before us would increase the limit on the amount of
money the U.S. Treasury can borrow. If Congress does not enact this
legislation, and soon, then the Treasury would default on its debt for
the first time in history. If Congress does not enact this legislation,
then the government would fail to pay the benefits to a portion of
Social Security recipients, the Government would fail to pay benefits
to a portion of the beneficiaries of all other Federal programs. That
plainly would be unacceptable, and plainly we must enact this
legislation.
When the Federal budget runs a deficit, the U.S. Treasury must borrow
money to make up the difference. In language around here, we call it
the shortfall. That shortfall results from laws enacted in the past
that spent money and cut taxes. If we want to avoid the need to borrow,
then Congress and the President must enact laws that will cause the
Federal Government to spend less money or raise more revenue in the
future. Simply preventing the Treasury from borrowing more money is not
the solution.
If Congress does not allow the Treasury to borrow more money, then
the Treasury will not have the money to pay its bills. The Treasury has
no legal authority to prioritize spending and pay only the most
important bills. They do not have that authority. If the bills are due,
they are due. The Treasury does not even have a way to determine which
are the most important bills. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the
Treasury would have to pay bills on a first-come, first-served basis.
Some of these bills would be interest

[[Page S24]]

payments on previously borrowed money. If the Treasury does not pay
these interest payments, then the Federal Government would default on
its financial obligations. That would be the first time in the history
of the country. If that were to happen, financial entities would be
afraid to loan the Treasury money. They would charge astronomically
higher interest rates. This would only worsen already high budget
deficits.
In some situations, the financial entities would not loan us money at
all. This could prevent the Federal Government from meeting all of its
programmatic commitments, but the disastrous economic effects would go
well beyond that. The price of Treasury securities in the secondary
markets would drop. This would cause an immense wealth loss for owners
of assets in many other financial markets. This, in turn, would cause
untold damage in those markets and further worsen the recession.
What is more, the value of the dollar could drop even further. This
would increase inflation in the United States. It could well end the
dollar's role as the reserve currency of the world, further exposing
the American economy to global economic forces beyond our control.
In addition to paying interest costs, the Treasury pays many other
important bills. Among those bills are Social Security benefits. If
Congress does not raise the debt limit, then Social Security benefits
would have to compete for funding on a first-come, first-served basis
with all other Federal payments. If Social Security payments did not
come up for funding first, then they would not be paid.
Clearly, we should not let this happen either. The conclusion is
simple. We must raise the debt ceiling. Federal budget deficits are at
record highs. Why is that? The reasons are simple. We have been and
still are in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. We have
been in an unprecedented financial crisis. The current administration
inherited those problems.
How have these problems contributed to record deficits, we might ask?
Well, first, the recession directly affects the Federal budget. The
recession has caused revenues to fall to record lows. Since 1970, the
Federal Government has collected an average 18 percent of the gross
domestic product in tax revenues. That is since 1970. In 2009, however,
revenues accounted for only 14.9 percent of GDP, a drop of more than 3
percent.
Meanwhile, the recession has required much greater sums to be spent
on unemployment benefits and on Medicaid payments. Second, Congress has
had to pass legislation to fight the recession. We needed to enact a
large stimulus package to foster economic growth. The package Congress
enacted provided stimulus of about $185 billion in fiscal year 2009,
and it is estimated to provide stimulus of about $400 billion in fiscal
year 2010. This package has done some good--not perfect, but it has
done some good. It helped prevent a deeper recession. It has
significantly increased economic growth.
Regrettably, the package has not produced enough jobs yet. The
Finance Committee and other committees will be looking at additional
options to increase job growth as soon as we can turn to them. But
let's be clear. If Congress had not enacted the stimulus package, then
the country would be in a depression instead of a recession. The
stimulus package was the right thing to do.
Third, as a result of the financial crisis, the Bush administration
asked for and Congress gave legal authority under the Troubled Asset
Relief Program, known as TARP. TARP gave the President authority to
help financial institutions, as well as the struggling automotive
industry, to weather the financial storm.
The Bush administration was using these authorities before the Obama
administration took office. So the recession and financial crisis
created needs that, in turn, led to high deficits and record borrowing.
How do we reduce such commitments for the future? They are too high. We
have to stop. We have to do something about all this. How do we avoid
having to borrow such huge sums of money in the future? First, we have
to fix our health care system. The current health care system has led
to skyrocketing costs in Medicare and Medicaid.
To reduce those costs for the long run, we need to pass comprehensive
health care reform. That is a good first step to get that deficit under
control. That is exactly what we are doing. In late December, the
Senate passed health care reform. According to the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, our health care reform bill reduced the
Federal deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years. Let me say that
again.
According to the CBO, this health care regulation will reduce the
Federal deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years--not increase but
reduce. That helps. The bill would reduce Federal deficits by $650
billion to $1.3 trillion in the second 10 years; that is, in the second
10 years, there is a much greater reduction in deficit spending,
according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, a reduction
of between $650 billion to $1.3 trillion, a reduction in the Federal
deficit in the second 10 years. This deficit reduction is likely to
continue in subsequent decades.
Second, after we do all that, after we do all we can do to increase
job growth, we need to start working on deficit reduction for the
coming decade and also subsequent decades. Because the economy was in a
deep recession and the financial markets were frozen, the government
borrowed a lot of money. Once the recession is over, we have to reduce
borrowing to a fiscally responsible level, and we should begin doing
that as soon as we can.
But in the meantime, we cannot allow the Nation to default on its
debt. We cannot allow benefits from programs such as Social Security to
be paid on a first-come, first-served basis. No one enjoys raising the
debt limit. Nobody. It is not something that is a lot of fun to do. No
one enjoys paying debts either, but it is simply what we must do to
honor our commitments.
There were times when the Senate joined together in recognition that
we have this obligation as a joint obligation. Four times in the last
26 years, the Senate has raised the debt limit by unanimous consent.
Let me repeat that. Four times in the last 26 years, the Senate has
raised the debt limit by unanimous consent. The Senate did so as
recently as 1996, under a Republican Senate and a Democratic President.
The Senate did so by unanimous consent three times in the 1980s,
twice under a Democratic Senate and Republican President. It has been
more than 17 years since the Senate last divided strictly along party
lines on a debt-limit vote. We have raised the debt limit a dozen times
since then. Honoring the Nation's obligations should not be a partisan
matter, and usually it is not. It has until recently not been a
practice of the minority in the Senate to filibuster debt limit
increases. Under President George W. Bush, the Senate raised the debt
limit four times, with simple majorities, with fewer than 60 votes. The
Senate did so twice under President Reagan as well.
All but four sitting Senators have voted for a debt limit increase at
one time or another in their careers. Among sitting Senators who have
served in more than one Congress, only one Senator has never voted for
a debt limit increase.
So I call upon my colleagues to rise to the occasion. Let us pay our
debts. Let us honor our obligations. Let us allow the debt limit to be
raised.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think most of the people watching this
debate, studying how Congress works and how the Federal Government
works, know there is a statutory limit on the amount of debt that can
be issued by the Federal Government. If the public does not know this,
they are constantly reminded of it because, from time to time, we pass
legislation that does what this legislation does, increase the
borrowing capacity of the Federal Government.
Right now this legal limit stands at $12.394 trillion, and it applies
to money borrowed from Federal investors such as banks and pension
funds, as well as money borrowed from government programs such as
Social Security and Medicare. Yes, we ought to admit that a lot of the
Federal debt is owned by various foreign governments as well. I think
the latest I saw, in the case of China maybe investing and holding
about 8 percent of all the Federal debt

[[Page S25]]

and then you have other countries as well.
This determination is made when the Secretary of Treasury goes to the
market and says: We want to borrow X number of dollars, and people bid
on it. Obviously, we take it for the lowest interest rate we can get,
whatever individuals or pension fund or foreign entity might want to
take our debt for that interest. That happens throughout the year.
The decision to increase the debt limit is never an easy one. In
recent years, I have reluctantly supported increases in the debt limit
on the grounds that Congress must pay its bills. That is quite obvious.
Some countries--such as Argentina--decided, from time to time, they did
not want to pay their debt, and they are paying the piper for making
those unwarranted public decisions in those countries. We do not want
to be in that shape.
But Congress sometimes, and too often, has been very irresponsible. I
am going to get into some of this current irresponsibility but, at the
same time, I do not wish to say some other political party is entirely
responsible, over a period of decades, for irresponsible spending. But
I think it has reached a new height recently. Because of that, I will
be voting no.
Sometimes deficits are unavoidable. People know about wars. The No. 1
responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide for the national
defense, the protection of Americans or a threat to our security. We
meet that threat. If that requires borrowing to do it, to protect the
United States, we consider that justified.
But you cannot plan for wars. You can plan for peace by having a
strong national defense. So war is one reason, recession is another.
Natural disasters are another example. All of these can result in lower
taxes and higher spending, which produces bigger deficits that add to
our Federal debt.
But sometimes deficits can be avoided. Since the beginning of 2009,
the majority in Congress has approved a $787 billion stimulus bill, a
$408 billion supplemental appropriations bill, an additional $350
billion for the financial bailout, and, most recently, an Omnibus
appropriations bill that increased Federal spending by 12 percent over
the previous year's levels.
In my recent 21-county tour of southeast Iowa, I discussed the most
recent example as an example of how spending recently has gotten
entirely beyond the commonsense view that Midwesterners look at
spending by government. I pointed out how 1 year ago today, the new
President was sworn in. The previous President was under a budget that
was established for a 5-month period of time. That last budget under
Bush had spending at a 3-percent increase. But just as soon as the new
majority came into power with a new President, that 3-percent increase
was not enough for the remaining 7 months, it was jacked up to 9
percent and then, for the year we are in, the 12 percent I just spoke
about.
I think you have to adopt a principle of spending that has increases
in expenditures related to the economic growth of the tax policies that
provide revenue to the Federal Government. That doesn't have to be on a
year-to-year basis, but over a long period we ought to have that
balance. In other words, without increasing tax rates, with economic
growth of the tax base, more money will come in to the Federal Treasury
under the same tax rates.
Well, that growth in Federal income coming in makes it possible to
appropriate more money, but there ought to be some relationship between
the amount of money coming in and the expenditures made by the
Congress.
The bills I just referred to--the stimulus bill, the Omnibus
appropriations bill, and others--I voted against every one of those on
the grounds that we could not afford them. The fact that we are here
this week facing yet another vote to increase the debt limit proves
that is true. Many of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of
the aisle, insist that it is not their fault. They continue to blame
previous administrations for all fiscal problems.
I want to make it clear that we in the Republican Party got kicked
out of the majority in 2006 because we lost fiscal integrity. I hope we
are reestablishing that, and I hope that in the process of
reestablishing that we can convince the people who had doubts about
Republicans that we can regain their trust.
More recently, as I indicated, it seems a great deal of the current
debt problem is related to irresponsible spending that has taken place
near term.
What do they target us with when they want to blame us for the
deficit? They criticize the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts which they insist
were excessive and unfair. Such criticism overlooks several facts.
First, these were not Republican tax cuts. They passed both the House
and Senate with bipartisan support. Second, Federal revenue quickly
returned to the historical average following these tax cuts, so they
were not excessive relative to the government's historic claim on
revenue.
I suppose you can take any period of time you want, but in the post-
President Kennedy period of time, it seems to me the average take of
the economy that has come through the Federal Government in the way of
taxes has been about 18 to 19 percent. Even including the tax cuts of
2001 and 2003, those cannot be considered excessive relative to the
government's historic claim on revenue; in other words, what the
government takes as opposed to what they leave in the pockets of
taxpayers in the United States.
It is very important to remember that our Tax Code is not fully
indexed to inflation and economic growth. Thus, every year without a
tax cut results in a small but not insignificant tax increase or more
revenue coming into the Federal Treasury without our actually changing
rates. Indeed, without the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, Federal revenue
would have risen well above that historic average of 18 to 19 percent.
In fact, when we passed those tax cuts, it was very near 21 percent.
Third, critics insist that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts unfairly
benefitted the wealthy. Again, critics are wrong. I quote the
Congressional Budget Office. Around here, we don't question the
Congressional Budget Office. Maybe you want to. But if you want to
question them, it takes 60 votes to override their determination of
something, if there is a budget point of order.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bottom 90 percent
of households pays the smallest share of Federal taxes in nearly 30
years while the top 10 percent pays the largest share. When taxes are
measured as a share of income, the bottom 90 percent of households pays
the lowest effective rates in nearly 30 years while the top 10 percent
pays their historic average.
You can say it many times, but it never sinks in because people have
their own ideas of how to show populism, and it is to always hit the
wealthy of America. From that standpoint, you have to understand that
percentage of top income earners, if you compare what they are paying
into the Federal Treasury now with what they were paying in even during
the Reagan years, you will find it is a much higher percentage right at
this point.
In regard to what I just said about historical averages, President
Obama's budget and the budget resolution adopted by the Democratic
majority in Congress last year both called for the continuation of 70
to 80 percent of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So you can bad-mouth those
tax bills all you want, but the new President, the new majority wants
to maintain about 70 to 80 percent of them. So some of it isn't so bad,
but you never hear that. It is all about the 2001 tax cuts being
everything for the wealthy.
If these tax cuts were so excessive and so unfair then, why does the
majority party support so many of those tax cuts right this very day?
The desire to blame our current predicament on the previous
administration also overlooks two other facts. First, the Democrats
controlled the majority of the Senate during half of the previous
administration, including its final 2 years. I think it is disingenuous
for them to deny any responsibility for where we are today.
Second, when the new administration took office in 2009, it sent up a
budget that proposed to increase the debt three times faster than the
previous administration. You know where that takes us to from the 40-
year average? I talked about the 40-year average of the proportion of
the GNP that is coming into the Federal Treasury as far as

[[Page S26]]

taxes are concerned at 18 to 19 percent. Take a 40-year average on what
the percentage of the national debt is to gross national product. It is
about 40 percent. This is going to be reaching 80 to 90 percent under
this budget that was sent here in the previous year.
The majority party essentially approved most of that very same
budget. So they have now signaled the intention to continue to increase
the national debt at a record pace.
Finally, let me say a word about the health care bill adopted by the
Senate. Rather than taking an incremental approach and waiting for the
results to see what works and what doesn't work, the majority wants to
raise taxes and cut Medicare to pay for a brand new health care
entitlement program. If they use all of the tax hikes, and all of the
Medicare cuts they can support to pay for more spending, how will they
ever reduce the deficit? At what point will those who want to blame our
current predicament on previous administrations take responsibility for
actions that are taking place now?
This week we have an opportunity to do that. I am glad we have a long
period of time to discuss the debt limit but connect it with a lot of
policies that seem to be out of proportion to problems that we
previously had. If they want to continue to vote for more deficit
spending, it seems to me they should vote to raise the debt limit or
take actions that would reduce the need for such a dramatic increase in
the debt limit.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on another matter which is topical and
tragic and which is on the minds of Americans and people all over the
world today, I rise to share a few remarks involving the overwhelming
disaster that has hit Haiti.
Words do not begin to describe the extent of the disaster--thousands
dead, more than 1 million homeless. Just imagine how bad it is. It is
almost impossible to imagine. Families continue to search and mourn for
lost mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and sons and daughters.
The earthquake may be the most lethal disaster to ever occur in the
Western Hemisphere. This is not a disaster on some distant shore. Haiti
is closer to Florida, for example, than the distance from one end to
the other of my State of Montana.
I am encouraged by the outpouring of help from around the world. Many
have flown to volunteer. Others have helped through in-kind
contributions, cash. In fact, I recently heard that a vast number of
people responded on the Internet through Blackberry and Twitter to give
contributions. It is a huge number--not individually large, but the
total is a massive outpouring of support.
Americans have shown remarkable generosity. These are tough economic
times, but millions still want to give. This is the American spirit. It
is who we are as Americans.
Amidst this destruction and great sorrow, there are stories that
offer incredible hope. Maxine Fallon, a 23-year-old student, was buried
for 6 days without food or water. She was buried deep in the rubble
which was once her university. She sent text messages pleading for
help. A search-and-rescue team rescued her from the ruins of her
cratered school. Since arriving, rescue teams from the United States
and other countries have saved more than 75 victims from the rubble.
As Americans, we rise to aid our friends and neighbors who are in
need. There is no people in greater need right now than the people of
Haiti. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Fifty-
four percent of the population lives on less than a dollar a day. With
so many struggling to survive, the earthquake's swift destruction must
be met with a response equally forceful and rapid.
I propose we pass legislation as soon as possible called the Haiti
Assistance Income Tax Incentive Act or simply the HAITI Act. The HAITI
Act will allow U.S. taxpayers to make charitable contributions to Haiti
relief programs until March 1, 2010, and claim those contributions on
their 2009 income tax returns. The proposal is similar to legislation
that passed unanimously in 2005, following the tsunami disaster along
the Indian Ocean.
The HAITI Act is a bipartisan bill I am introducing with Senator
Grassley and several other Senators. The same language passed the House
of Representatives earlier today.
This is simple legislation that would make a big impact. It will make
it a little easier for Americans to contribute to the victims of the
Haiti disaster. Frankly, most Americans want to contribute anyway. The
American Red Cross and UNICEF's United States Fund raised about $7.3
million in donations over a 4-hour period while a Larry King Live
special on Haiti aired. But the relief and rebuilding effort in Haiti
will require billions and will take a long time. This legislation is an
additional incentive for Americans to contribute to that effort. As
search and rescue efforts give way to building, these donations will
ensure that our efforts have a lasting impact.

While we must do what we can to provide relief now, the people of
Haiti will need our help for many years to come. This is not just a 1-
week, 1-month, several-month effort. Trade programs such as the HOPE
and HOPE II Acts provide an opportunity to create new jobs in Haiti's
export sector. As the people of Haiti work to rebuild what was
destroyed, I will continue to work to provide generous access to the
U.S. market for products produced in Haiti.
The suffering in Haiti is heartbreaking and the generosity in
response to the Haiti earthquake is a reflection of the American
spirit. Today I stand with the people of Haiti and I ask my colleagues
in the Senate to stand with me. Let's pass the HAITI Act and let's do
everything we can to help those who have lost so much in this terrible
disaster.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
10 minutes, and that after my speech Senator Thune be recognized,
unless the Senator from Montana has somebody in between he wishes to be
recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to have somebody else
speak following the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the next Member to be
recognized on our side be Senator Thune.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I wish to thank Senator Thune for his courtesy.
Mr. President, I wish to speak a little bit here on this debt ceiling
issue because it is critical. It is critical because of the size of it.
We as a nation are running up debt at a rate we have never seen in
history. The budget which we are presently functioning under will add
approximately $1.4 trillion of debt from last year and potentially
another $1.2 trillion next year. Under the budgets that were brought
forward by the President, it looks as though we are going to have $1
trillion in deficits every year for the next 10 years. That is an
expansion of our debt at a rate we have never seen before, except in a
time of war.
What is the implication of that? Nobody understands what $1 trillion
is. I don't understand what $1 trillion is. It is very hard to
conceptualize $1 trillion. So I wish to try to put it in context.
We know for a fact that certain nations get into trouble when they
allow their debt to get so large that their economy doesn't have the
capacity to pay it down in an orderly way. We are regrettably seeing
that today in Greece. There are other nations in Europe that appear to
have the same types of problems, including Ireland, where their
national debt, their sovereign debt, has gotten so large they are
basically in a position where their capacity to pay it off is at risk.
So the value of that debt gets adjusted by the marketplace and it
becomes much more expensive for those nations to borrow, and at some
point, even, potentially they can't borrow and they end up in what
amounts to a national bankruptcy.

[[Page S27]]

That has never been a threat to us as a nation because we have always
had a vibrant economy, and because the dollar, ironically, is the
currency of world reserve, we have been able to basically what is known
as monetarize our own debt. There have always been people out there
willing to lend to us as a nation because they have always presumed
that the United States, because of our resilience, because of our
economic strength, will always pay our debt, and that is why Treasurys
are considered to be one of the safest investments in the world, or
traditionally have been. That has been a great strength of our Nation,
of course, to have this sort of integrity to our currency and to our
ability to repay our debt. However, on the course we are presently
pursuing, all of that is going to be called into question and called
into question much sooner than we had expected, I suspect, or anybody
had anticipated who had looked at this objectively 2 or 3 years ago.
We know there are certain thresholds that generate huge warning signs
where red flags go up and say, your Nation is in trouble. A couple of
those thresholds have actually been adopted by the European Union as
they have looked at their membership and said, What is the proper
deficit of an industrialized nation? What is the proper public debt
ratio to GDP of an industrialized Nation? In Europe what they say is,
You can't be a member of the European Union if your deficits exceed 3
percent of GDP and your debt exceeds 60 percent of GDP, your public
debt. Well, our deficits are around 12 percent of GDP right now. They
will ultimately go down, but there is no time in the next 10 years
where they are projected to fall below 5 percent of GDP under President
Obama's budgets. Our public debt is going to cross that 60 percent of
GDP threshold probably within the next year. So arguably, as I said
before on this floor, we would not be able to get into the European
Union if we wanted to, because we would not meet their standards for
fiscal responsibility as a nation. That is pretty serious.
What is even more serious is there is no end in sight to this. We are
looking at a deficit and debt situation which will continue to expand
and become even more and more problematic for us as a nation for as far
as the eye can reasonably see which, for the purposes of discussion
around here, is about 10 years.
We know that the public debt-to-GDP ratio, under the President's
budget as proposed last year before this health care bill was taken
up--and I would argue that this health care bill is going to radically
aggravate the public debt issue in the outyears, and there will be
debate about that because CBO will debate that point, but I don't think
all the pay-fors will ever occur--independent of that, we know that
under the budget as it is presently presented, the public debt is going
to exceed 80 percent of GDP--80 percent of GDP--by the year 2019. In
fact, there are some estimates that say it will exceed 100 percent of
GDP before we hit 2020. Those are intolerable situations.
What is the practical implication of our adding that much debt
through deficit spending over the next few years to our economy? A few
things occur, and they are undeniable. They will occur on the path we
are presently on. The first thing that will occur is it will be much
harder for us to sell our debt because nations will start to say--
people around the world, including our own public, I suspect, will
start to say, Can they really pay that back. When they cross that 60-
percent threshold, which is basically a key tipping point on the
ability of a nation to manage itself, and they start heading up towards
80, 90, 100 percent of GDP as the public debt ratio, can they really
pay back their debt? People are going to say, Well, I am not so sure. I
am going to charge them a fairly significant premium before I am going
to lend them any money. So the cost of our interest will go up
dramatically. In fact, it is projected that in the year 2019, interest
on the public debt alone will exceed $800 billion a year. That is more
being paid out in interest which goes to people all over the world--
people in China, people in Saudi Arabia, all over the world--that
interest will be higher than any other item of Federal spending. What a
waste of money that is. What a waste of money that is. What a misuse of
money. All of that money could be used for something constructive in
the United States--building infrastructure, building schools, assisting
education, whatever. If you are going to spend it, why would you spend
it on interest?
So we will be in a position where it will be harder for us to sell
our debt. Actually, we will probably get to a position fairly soon--and
I am willing to bet on this; I won't be in this Congress at the time,
but before we hit the year 2020--where we will actually have to take
some radical step as a nation in order to deal with our debt. Because
if we allow it to go up under its present scenario, it becomes totally
unsustainable. It is like a dog chasing its tail; it can't get there.
We can't pay down the debt.
The practical implications of that are twofold: Either, No. 1, you
inflate the economy and devalue the currency, and that is a very harsh
thing to do to the American public because it devalues their savings
and it makes it harder for the economy to be productive or, No. 2, you
radically raise taxes to try to reach the obligations of the debt, and
that also dramatically impacts the economy. It makes us less
productive. It means less jobs will be created. Either one of those
scenarios, or only one of those two scenarios, or maybe a combination
will occur if we continue on our present course, which means that the
next generation will actually have a lower standard of living than our
generation. It means it will be much more difficult for the next
generation of Americans to buy a house, send their kids to school, buy
a car, to live the quality lifestyle we have had as a nation. In fact,
it will be the first time in history, if we stay on our present course,
that one generation has handed to another generation a lower standard
of prosperity and quality of life. It is inexcusable to do that. It is
unacceptable. Nobody in this body who has a public responsibility to
the next generation--and we all have that responsibility--should do
that to our children.
So what are we going to do to address it? Well, put very simply, we
need to stop spending so much money. That is the bottom line. We need
to stop spending so much money. Under the projections in this budget as
it presently exists and was passed in this Congress, over my objection
and over the objections of everybody on this side of the aisle, it is
projected that we are going to be in a situation where, as I said,
there will be $1 trillion deficits for as far as the eye can see and
the size of government spending will go from 20 percent of GDP up to
about 24, 25 percent of GDP if the health care bill is also passed.
That will be the highest level of Federal spending that has occurred in
this government since World War II. We have never had those types of
levels of spending. So it is not a revenue issue--although right now it
is a revenue issue because, obviously, right now the economy is in a
recession--but over the long run it is not a revenue issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. It is a spending issue. It is not a revenue issue. It is
primarily a spending issue. The fact is that we are spending a great
deal more than we can afford as a nation, and this government has
committed to a great deal more than we can afford. So we need to do
something on the spending side of the ledger.
There is going to be a series of proposals brought forward by our
side, and Senator Thune is going to offer one in a minute, to try to
get to the issue. They won't solve the whole problem, but they will at
least make significant steps down the road of restraint and show that
we are starting to get serious about it, and they are reasonable ones.
Senator Thune: End TARP. End TARP. We don't need it anymore. We should
take those dollars and put them toward debt reduction. Freeze
discretionary spending. That will be Senator Sessions' amendment, or
something like that. Rescind some of the stimulus spending that is
going to occur after 2011; that may be one of our amendments. I know
Senator Coburn is going to suggest a series of other issues. All of
these are steps in the right direction.
So I think on our side of the aisle the basic philosophy is this: It
is irresponsible to increase the debt ceiling if you

[[Page S28]]

don't do something responsible about addressing what is driving the
debt ceiling, which is spending. So we are going to suggest a series of
initiatives around here that we believe are responsible on the issue of
controlling spending, and I hope those initiatives will be passed so we
can begin to put this country back on the road toward fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. Again, I wish to thank the Senator
from South Dakota for his courtesy and the Senator from Montana as
well.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3301 to Amendment No. 3299

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

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

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

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we entered into this debate about the debt
limit today. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from New
Hampshire with respect to the overall picture of our financial and
fiscal condition in the country right now. I think it is important to
put that context out there because we are debating now a substitute
amendment that the Senator from Montana is offering on the debt limit
increase. I think that was originally proposed in the $650 billion
range. We are now talking about tripling that--a $1.9 trillion increase
in the debt limit--after having just voted on raising the debt limit
before we went out for the Christmas holiday by about $290 billion.
So we have this proposal on the Senate floor that would increase the
total amount of indebtedness of the U.S. Government by $1.9 trillion.
As the Senator from New Hampshire very well pointed out, we are looking
at deficits now into the foreseeable future that exceed $1 trillion. It
doesn't look like in the 10-year window in which we do budgeting in the
Senate that we are ever going to have a year where we don't have a
deficit that isn't in the $1 trillion range. We had a $1.4 trillion
deficit last year and will have another $1.2 trillion deficit this
year. We keep racking up more and more debt that gets passed on to
future generations and taxpayers.
As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, for admission into the
European Union there are a couple of key thresholds. One is debt as a
percentage of GDP, which is 60 percent, which is the threshold for
admission into the European Union, and deficits, which is about 3
percent. He pointed out very effectively that we are at a threshold in
this country that exceeds dramatically the deficit, the GDP threshold
that wouldn't even allow us to get into the European Union, and we are
going to blow by the debt to GDP threshold in the next year, which is
60 percent to GDP.
My point is, we are getting in perilous territory when it comes to
the confidence and trust the American people have in the Federal
Government's ability to manage responsibly and exercise fiscal
discipline with their tax dollars. We are also getting to a point where
I think those who are acquiring U.S. debt--and by that I mean the
Chinese who, of course, are a big holder of U.S. debt--get to start
saying: If we are going to continue to buy this debt, we are going to
get a higher return. The higher our debt goes, the more risk they take
on.
It is a fundamental rule of economics that we all learned that there
is a corresponding relationship between risk and return. If an investor
is going to assume more risk, they are going to demand a higher return.
What we are doing now by piling up more debt is saying to the people
who would buy that debt, the investors out in the world or in this
country is, this is becoming a more risky proposition for you. As we
pile up more debt, they are going to start saying: OK, if we are going
to buy that debt and finance your spending into the future, we are
going to need a higher return. That means higher interest rates.
Of course, when you start seeing Federal Government debt go up in
terms of interest rates, generally what happens is other interest rates
in our economy will go up as well. So you will start seeing student
loans, for example, and homeowners and small businesses all being
impacted by higher interest rates as a result of what inevitably
happens when you run these kinds of deficits year after year and add as
much as we are to the Federal debt.
We are not showing any evidence that there is a willingness to
restrain that. In fact, if we look at just the last year--of course,
the $1 trillion stimulus bill sort of started off the spending. Then
since then we have had an omnibus, or minibus, spending bill, both of
which increased spending year over year by about twice the rate of
inflation, and sometimes in excess of that.
But what we have seen now between fiscal years 2008 and 2010 are
astronomical increases in the size of the Federal Government. If we
start with the legislative branch appropriations bills between 2008 and
2010--that covers a couple of appropriations years--we are looking at a
17.3-percent increase. If we look at appropriations for the Interior
and the Environment, it is an increase of 21.4 percent over that time
period; appropriations for Commerce, Science, and Justice, an increase
of 24.2 percent. Appropriations for Transportation and HUD increased a
whopping 39.1 percent. The State and Foreign Operations appropriations
bill beat even that and was increased by 48.7 percent.
Taken as a whole, the entire government grew by 16.8 percent during
that time period. When I say that, I am talking between 2008 and 2010.
We saw a 16.8-percent increase in the size of the Federal Government.
That is just speaking to the appropriations bills over those 2 years.
Of course, we all know that dramatically outpaces and dwarfs the rate
of inflation and the growth we have seen in our economy over that time
period.
What is even more notable is that none of those increases included
the increased funding through the stimulus bill, which I mentioned was
an additional $1 trillion. Of course, I am concerned that will be built
into the budget baseline into the future, and we will see our
appropriators assume that stimulus money is part of the baseline in
spending.
Of course, those appropriations bills don't include this proposed
stimulus 2 that we are hearing about: the bailouts of the banks, the
insurance companies, and the car companies, or the $2.5 trillion
expansion that would occur with a new health care proposal, or
entitlement, in this country. So we have seen this dramatic increase in
the growth of

[[Page S29]]

government and in spending in Washington, most of which is financed
with borrowing.
Last year, in fact, 43 cents out of every dollar we spent in the
Federal Government was borrowed. We cannot continue to sustain a
pattern of borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar we spend. In fact, as
American families and households and small businesses are having to
tighten their belts, in Washington, DC, the spending continues
unabated.
What I am hoping to do with this amendment is to at least demonstrate
that, as an institution, the Senate is willing to say we are going to
take some steps, no matter how modest they are--and I would say my
amendment isn't going to go a long way toward eliminating this Federal
debt, but certainly I think it demonstrates to the American people that
we get it; we are hearing that they are uncomfortable with the massive
amount of borrowing and spending and taxes going on here. Americans are
going to pay for this in the form of higher taxes and in the form of
higher inflation. As I said, it will be also in the form of higher
interest rates on mortgages and small business loans and student loans
and those sorts of things. So we have a responsibility to demonstrate
to the American people that we are serious about getting our fiscal
house in order.
The most recent example, of course, as I mentioned earlier, in this
pattern of expansion of the Federal Government is the health care bill,
which is in the process right now of discussions, evidently, between
the House and Senate and the negotiations that are ongoing. It passed
the House and the Senate before the Christmas holiday. I happen to hope
that people will come to their senses and defeat this bill and that it
would not emerge in the conference committee, and we can start over and
do it the right way--in a step-by-step way, not in a way that expands
the size of government by $2.5 trillion.
That being said, the $2.5 trillion expansion of the Federal
Government includes higher taxes, Medicare cuts, and also at the end of
the day, according to the CBO, does very little for most people in this
country to actually reduce the cost of their health care insurance.
In fact, what we have seen through studies done by CBO and by the CMS
Actuary is that for most Americans, they are going to see, at best,
their health insurance premiums stay the same. If they are in the
individual market, they will see them go up. So the health care bill is
an example of this runaway Federal spending. In fact, in the latter
part of that debate, we got a response from the CBO to a question posed
by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, with regard to how the
accounting is done in Medicare. One of the arguments we heard
throughout the course of the debate was that it would extend the
lifespan of Medicare. The question was posed to CBO: What happens with
this additional Medicare tax and these Medicare cuts that would be
imposed upon providers and senior citizens in this country?

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

[[Page S30]]

least committed. That was as of January 6, 2010. What this side, the
red, represents is the unobligated funds. The unobligated funds is a
combination of both the authority that was not used, and that was about
$155 billion, and payments that have been made back into the fund. That
is about $165 billion. So we have about $319 billion--$320 billion in
round numbers--of unobligated authority in TARP. What my amendment
simply would say is, this amount of money cannot be spent. We would end
TARP, and instead of allowing the program to continue through October
of this year, at which point, incidentally, they don't have to shut
down the spending--the spending can continue to go on. The program, in
effect, would shut down in October of this year. But we believe that
this unobligated money in here, that we ought to not spend it. When we
do not spend it, it is money we do not have to borrow, and that reduces
the overall amount of the Federal debt and the amount of debt we are
passing on to future generations.
Again, this is a way of illustrating what we are talking about, what
the amendment would do. The blue represents the amount that has been
committed or spent as of January 6. The other side, the red, represents
the amount that has not been used, authorized but not spent, and has
been paid back--in other words, unobligated balances in the TARP fund
of about $320 billion.
It is a fairly straightforward amendment. I hope a majority of my
colleagues in the Senate will vote with me to say to the American
people that we hear you; we do not believe using this program in a way
that was not intended, that further aggravates a very serious fiscal
situation for this country, ought to be allowed to continue.
I think the American people have made it clear that they are tired of
the bailouts. There was a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll indicating that
53 percent of Americans are unhappy with the government's current role
in the private sector. In fact, 65 percent of Americans are opposed to
government intervention by taking a majority stake in General Motors.
Again, despite the original projections when TARP was signed into law
that we were going to be made whole and this was actually going to
generate additional revenue for the American taxpayers, I think we now
know the estimates that are coming forward suggest we are going to lose
money. The amount of money that was authorized for this program, we are
not going to get it all back, but the one thing we can do right now is
to cut our losses by making sure that these unobligated funds do not
get spent, that they do not go onto the Federal debt, and that they do
not go onto additional borrowing. When we are borrowing 43 cents out of
every dollar spent in Washington, DC, we need to exercise some fiscal
discipline.
I hope my colleagues will vote to support this amendment. My
understanding is there will be a vote sometime tomorrow on this
amendment. I hope to have another opportunity to speak to it tomorrow
morning. I wanted to lay the amendment down, make my colleagues aware
of it, and encourage them to support it.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, frankly, I think the fundamental question
facing us is, Are we going to pay our bills? That is the question
before us today.
On the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota, I suspect
the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Dodd, will have
something to say about that when we come back into session tomorrow.
But the fundamental question we are facing with the debt limit
extension resolution is, Are we going to pay our bills? We have
incurred obligations. We have, as a country. Are we going to pay them?
Are we going to pay our bills? That is the basic question. Are we going
to live up to our commitment to pay our bills?
The discussion here quite correctly is somewhat--not correctly. The
subject has moved over to, well, gee, aren't our deficits too high?
Haven't we been spending too much compared with the revenue we are
taking in? Yes. There is no one here who would argue the point that our
deficits are too high. That is right. They are what they are partly
because of the recession we are in, the subprime mortgage crisis that
somewhat prompted all the problems we face as a country, a lot of loose
lending by lots of institutions, packaging of obligations, of loans,
and securitizing those loans, all the fees earned by banks and so
forth. Pretty soon, all the mortgages became if not worthless, at least
not worth very much at all. Our country consequently faced a recession
by and large because of a lot of loose financial thinking in the last
couple of years, beginning with the subprime mortgage crisis. We are
where we are. We are trying to work ourselves out of the recession. But
the basic question is, Are we going to pay the debts we obligated? Are
we going to live up to our commitments?
The Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the Budget
Committee, quite correctly talked about our deficits being too high. He
raised the prospect of, gee, maybe fairly soon various countries are
going to charge us more on the debt we are borrowing, may want to
charge a premium because they wonder if they can trust the obligation
of the United States to pay its debts. I don't know whether that is
true. I don't know when that may or may not be true. That is a very
speculative question. We just do not know. A lot of people have very
formed opinions on that point. But I do know something that is
absolutely true, over which there is no debate; that is, if we default
on our debts, then we are going to find the economy is going to
collapse. I do know that as a fact. Every Member of this body knows
that to be a fact. We must extend the debt limit so we can pay our
debts. That is pretty simple. In the meantime, as a Congress, clearly
we have to work to get these deficits under control. We have to do
both, frankly. We have to extend the debt limit so we can pay our
debts. If we do not raise it, we cannot pay our debts. So we have to
raise it. In addition, we have to work at getting these deficits under
control. There is no doubt about that.
Frankly, one good way to get deficits under control is to pass health
care reform. The Congressional Budget Office, which we all think is
doing a pretty good job even though they frustrate us a lot--by and
large we agree with their conclusions--the Congressional Budget Office
has said the health care bill that passed the Senate would reduce the
deficits by $132 billion over the first 10 years. That is a reduction
in deficits. That is going to help reduce the deficits. So all this
talk--it is very proper talk--about the size of our deficits will be
slightly less urgent once we start reducing the budget deficit. I am
not one to stand up here and say health care reform is the total
solution. I am only saying it reduces the budget deficit, according to
the Congressional Budget Office, by $132 billion over the first 10
years. They go even further and say that the next 10 years the health
care reform bill that passed the Senate will reduce the Federal deficit
by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion--reduce the Federal deficit
by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion. Now we are talking real
money. Now we are talking about a more-than-significant reduction in
the deficit.

I heard some numbers flying around here several minutes ago about it
costs $2 trillion and this and that. That is not true. That is not what
the Congressional Budget Office says. The Congressional Budget Office
says, as I mentioned, a $132 billion reduction in the deficits in the
first 10 years and between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion in deficit
reduction in the second 10 years. That is what CBO says. I don't know
where the Senator gets his numbers, but he did not get them from CBO.
CBO's conclusions are as I have stated.
I urge us, frankly, to keep our heads screwed on straight and our
feet on the ground. Let's decide what we have to do, and that is we
have to pay our national debt and then go on and find ways to reduce
the budget deficits. I think all of us can agree that is something we
have to do.
To default on our national debt is certainly no way to run a
government. We are supposed to be responsible people around here.
Clearly, it would be irresponsible for us to not act in a way that
prevents a default on our obligations.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S31]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am going to speak a little bit about the
amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad,
cosponsored by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. It has not
been offered yet. I am not totally certain it will be offered. I think
it will be offered. I am going to speak on the amendment now, but if we
are ready to enter a unanimous consent agreement as to the proceedings
of the Senate tonight and tomorrow, I will stop my presentation so we
can enter that order.
As I said, under the previous order, the amendment by the Senator
from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr.
Gregg, proposing a fiscal task force is in order to the pending
measure.
Yesterday evening, the Vice President met with a number of interested
parties, including our colleague, the Senate majority leader, the
Speaker, the Senator from North Dakota, and others. I was at that
meeting. Yesterday evening, that group discussed a fiscal commission to
be created by an Executive order. I want to distinguish that effort,
that is, that effort for the President to create a commission by an
Executive order, from the amendment the Senators from North Dakota and
New Hampshire propose on the bill.
I support the President's efforts to create a commission by Executive
order, and I oppose the amendment to be proposed by the Senators from
North Dakota and New Hampshire. The difference is that the Executive
order would preserve the Senate's regular order. The amendment, on the
other hand, would create a fast-track procedure to short-circuit the
Senate's regular order.
Let me take this opportunity to share with my colleagues what a
number of respected groups have been saying about the Conrad-Gregg
amendment.
On January 14, the chief executive officer of AARP wrote to Senators
about the Conrad-Gregg commission. As my colleagues know, AARP is the
nonpartisan membership organization that represents 40 million people
age 50 and older. AARP is the Nation's largest membership organization
for people 50 and over and has offices in all 50 States. Listen to what
AARP says:

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

AARP goes on:

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

Quoting further, AARP says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AARP,

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

Fiscal Taskforce

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

[[Page S32]]

force prioritize an examination of revenue policies, and
develop recommendations regarding revenues as a key premise
of an overall strategy to address long-term deficits.

Statutory Paygo and Multi-Year Discretionary Caps

AARP is very troubled that Medicare is virtually singled
out for arbitrary and automatic cuts should sequestration
result from the establishment of statutory paygo. While we
agree that some spending should be protected from
sequestration, such as Social Security, very few mandatory
programs are subject to automatic cuts under statutory paygo.
Further, no automatic increase in revenues is required by
sequestration, even though the possibility of such a result
would undoubtedly prompt even stricter adherence to paygo.
These limitations on sequestration leave Medicare especially
vulnerable to arbitrary and automatic cuts that are unrelated
to making the program more efficient or effective. This
approach is especially unacceptable in light of the
significant Medicare savings contained in the House and
Senate health reform bills, and the proposed Medicare Payment
Board in the Senate bill. Consequently, we oppose statutory
paygo as a process that threatens to arbitrarily cut Medicare
and the health security it promises for older Americans.
Finally, AARP is opposed to a multi-year cap on
discretionary spending. Capping spending on less than a third
of the federal budget will not result in any significant
deficit reduction and would have a substantial negative
impact on the federal governments ability to deliver the
services our members expect. Congress routinely evaded the
1990 Budget Enforcement Act spending caps by ignoring them in
session-ending budget deals, and averted cuts by simply
adopting language each year wiping the paygo scorecard clean.
Discretionary caps would pit programs that serve the elderly,
the disabled and children against defense and homeland
security programs. Moreover, given the ongoing military
actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, discretionary spending
limits would ultimately require steep cuts to non-defense
discretionary programs--the vast majority of which have been
funded well below current services levels for the past eight
years.
AARP is committed to working on a bipartisan basis with
Congress to develop and advance responsible policies to
address the nation's long term fiscal challenges. However,
given the significance of Social Security and Medicare to the
well-being of nearly all Americans, AARP believes a full and
open debate is essential to ensuring the development of
balanced solutions. As such, we oppose any legislative
proposals that bypass or short circuit the protections
afforded by regular order, or that rely on imbalanced,
automatic, and arbitrary spending cuts to reach debt
reduction goals.
If you have any further questions, feel free to call me, or
please have your staff contact David Sloane, Senior Vice
President of Government Relations and Advocacy, 202-434-3754.
Sincerely,
Addison Barry Rand,
Chief Executive Officer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later in the letter, the national committee wrote:

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

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

National Committee to Preserve

Social Security and Medicare,

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

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

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

[[Page S33]]

changes to programs such as Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid outside the regular legislative process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The alliance concluded:

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

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

Alliance for

Retired Americans,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The consortium of groups concluded:

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

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

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

The following statement, signed by more than 40 national
organizations (see below) was written and distributed by
Roger Hickey (202 955-5665), co-director, Campaign for
America's Future, and Nancy Altman (301 229-2651) and Eric
Kingson, (315 374-8338), co-directors, Project to Defend and
Improve Social Security.
This statement has been sent to Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, all members of the
Senate and House, and President Barack Obama (and key
administration officials).
We write with strong opposition to the proposal of Senators
Kent Conrad, Judd Gregg and others to create a deficit-
reduction commission that would override the normal
legislative process and replace it with expedited procedures
prohibiting amendments and limiting debate. We write with an
increasing sense of urgency, because plans to vote on the
Conrad-Gregg proposal on January 20th or soon thereafter, as
part of the debt ceiling bill. If the Conrad-Gregg proposal
were to become law, it could dramatically change by stealth
critical benefits and services so vital to America's
families.
Those supporting this circumvention of the normal process
have stated openly the desire to avoid political
accountability. Americans--seniors, women, working families,
people with disabilities, youth, young adults, children,
people of color, veterans, communities of faith and others--
expect their elected representatives to be responsible and
accountable for shaping such significant, far-reaching
legislation.
Any deficit reduction measures should be carried out in a
responsible manner, providing a fairer tax system and
strengthening--rather than slashing--Social Security and
Medicare. We should be strengthening, not slashing, vital
programs like Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps),
EITC, Supplemental Security Income, school meals, Early Head
Start, Head Start, Child Care Development Fund, Chafee Foster
Care Independence Program, National Family Caregivers Support
Program, Individual Disability Education Act, vocational
rehabilitation and other programs and services crucial to
struggling lower income and middle-income people in every
corner of our country.
And as unemployment continues to grow, we need a real
debate about how to balance the need for economic recovery
and productive public investment with the goal of long-term
budget responsibility. The American people are likely to view
any kind of expedited procedure, where most members are
sidelined to a single take-it-or-leave-it vote, as a hidden
process aimed at eviscerating vital programs and productive
investment.

[[Page S34]]

As you know, the current effort to reform the health-care
sector seeks to achieve reductions in Medicare spending,
without cutting benefits. But the proposed budget commission
which will be viewed as a way to actually cut Medicare
benefits, while insulating lawmakers from political
fallout could confuse people and undermine the reform
effort. And an American public that only recently rejected
privatization of Social Security will undoubtedly be
suspicious of a process that shuts them out of all
decisions regarding the future of a retirement system
that's served them well in the current financial crisis.
We urge you to act decisively to prevent the creation of
such an extraordinary and undemocratic budget commission.

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

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

State and Local Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

These conservative groups concluded as follows:

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

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

January 15, 2010.

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

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

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

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

I conclude by saying that people on both sides of the political
spectrum have very grave reservations and urge opposition to the
amendment to be offered by our good friends and colleagues, Senators
Conrad and Gregg, and I hope we do not adopt that amendment.

[[Page S35]]

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________