Floor Statements

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Madam President, following any leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for up to 2 hours, with the two sides alternating 30-minute blocks, with the Republicans controlling the first block. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2055, the military construction bill. The Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. today for our caucus luncheons. We continue to work on amendments to the military construction appropriations bill. We hope to complete that bill within the next day.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, today the House will consider legislation that would force the Nation to default on our financial obligations for the first time in history, unless Congress adopts a new--well, let's put it this way: What the House is working on today would force the Nation to default on our financial obligations for the first time in history. They are going to do it with a radical--radical--new constitutional amendment.

That amendment would impose arbitrary, reckless budget caps. It would, without a doubt, force massive cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and other crucial benefits. At the same time, it would constitutionally protect wasteful loopholes and tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

To meet an arbitrary spending cap frozen at 18 percent of gross domestic product, it would shrink benefits and services back to the levels not seen since 1966. In 1966, Medicare was 1 year old, and there were 100 million fewer people in this country. In 1966, the country had 200 million people. We now have 300 million people, and they would take us back to the levels then. It is obvious it simply would not work.

For those who think rewinding 45 years is a good thing, consider how much America has changed since 1966. For example, life expectancy is 9 years longer today than it was 45 years ago. One reason it is longer is because of Medicare. Medicare has made people healthier to live longer and lead more productive lives.

This legislation would roll back the progress that has been brought about by these programs but especially Medicare. It would enshrine in this thing they are trying to do in the House today a set of priorities so backward even advisers to President Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have called it unwise.

In the first decade alone, it would mean more than $3,000 a year in cuts to each senior's Social Security check. It would slash our social safety net, decimating Medicaid and cutting Medicare benefits by $2,500 for every senior. This is per year, every year.

In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that within 25 years, it will slash government benefits and services in half. Everyone within the sound of my voice hear what I am saying: slash benefits in half--veterans, Medicare, Medicaid. Seventy percent of the people on Medicaid are in convalescent centers. It is obvious there would not be people in convalescent centers. They would be at home having their sons, daughters, wives, and others trying to take care of them in their so-called golden years, which would come to a screeching halt.

When I talk about slashing benefits in half, I am talking about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, and every other government service, no matter how essential. Yet it would make it almost impossible to end even the most wasteful tax breaks and loopholes already in place, such as the subsidies to oil companies, which are making market profits with subsidies from American taxpayers. It would allow benefits to go to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas and to rich people who buy yachts and private jets. If I were rich, I wouldn't buy a yacht. It would be nice to have an airplane though. But this will not stop people from buying airplanes. It will allow the tax program to treat the rich people similar to everybody else. It would require a two-thirds majority in the House--if the House issue prevails, it would require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress to raise even a penny of new revenue.

Meanwhile, the so-called cut, cap, and balance does absolutely nothing to protect our economy from the kind of recession from which we are beginning to recover. In fact, if the economy wasn't already in a recession, this legislation would quickly produce one.

Bruce Bartlett, an economic adviser to President Reagan, a fine man, and a Treasury official under President Bush, said the kind of rapid spending cuts called for in this House legislation would ``unquestionably throw the economy into a recession.''

This legislation goes beyond the Draconian budget Republicans passed earlier this year. That budget would have ended Medicare as we know it, and it would have cut clean energy by 70 percent, axed education funding, and cost hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs. It passed the House, but it didn't pass here.

What they are trying to do is even more Draconian than the so-called Ryan budget, the House-passed budget. They are trying to do something worse. It would attack all the same programs, but its cuts would be deeper and deeper. It would slash Social Security as well, which the House budget didn't have in it.

This legislation they are debating in the House is so restrictive, the Republicans' own budget--the budget they passed earlier this year-- would not meet the standards they are now asking to be passed. It is so restrictive, not 1 year of either the George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan administrations would meet its standards.

Of the last 30 years, the only 2 years that would make the cut were during the Clinton administration. As the Washington Post said:

Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a

constitutional amendment that would've made Ronald Reagan's

fiscal policy unconstitutional. That's how far to the right

the modern GOP has swung.

Bruce Bartlett--we talked about him before--said this about the legislation:

This is quite possibly the stupidest constitutional

amendment I think I have ever seen.

I repeat the direct quote:

This is quite possibly the stupidest constitutional

amendment I think I have ever seen. It looks as if it was

drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.

That, in my opinion, is being awfully hard on interns.

Bill Hoagland was on this floor working with us, and he is a fine man, a close adviser to Senator Domenici and other Republican Senators. I worked with him on the floor trying to get bills passed. He is a fine man--a Republican first, wanting to get things done for our country second. Bill Hoagland was a Republican budget adviser for a quarter century. He described it best when he labeled this legislation a ``misleading political cheap shot.''

A balanced budget is something we can all get behind. But this legislation isn't about balancing the budget; it is about scoring political points. Based on 30 years of evidence and the Republicans' own measuring stick, the stunt falls flat.

After all, who do you think helped President Clinton balance the budget during the only 2 years of the last 30 that actually lived up to the restrictive rules outlined in this legislation? It was Democrats in Congress.

Today, Democrats are trying to rein in spending again and are trying to avert a catastrophic default on our Nation's financial obligations. Republicans are the ones standing in the way of a deal to avert default, refusing to move an inch, despite our offers to cut trillions from the deficit.

It is not just me. Read today's Washington Post and see again what David Brooks says. David Brooks is a card-carrying Republican conservative. Read what he says. As the conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote in the New York Times yesterday, we can already be on the way to a deal if ``more Republicans had only recognized that sometimes a well-chosen concession can be the better part of valor.''

We are arriving at a point, 2 weeks from today, when we will default on the debt. I have not heard a Republican leader--and I have my friend on the floor today from our sister State of Arizona. He always has said there will not be a default on the debt. Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and Majority Leader Cantor have all said that.

The proof is in the pudding. We have 2 weeks to prove they are right.

Would the Chair announce morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at noon tomorrow, July 20, Senator Johnson of South Dakota be recognized to move to table Vitter amendment No. 568; that there be no amendments or points of order in order to the Vitter amendment prior to the vote on the motion to table; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, following any leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 3:30 this afternoon. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies appropriations bill. At 5 p.m. the Senate will go into executive session to consider the nomination of J. Paul Oetken. At 5:30 p.m. there will be a rollcall vote on confirmation of that nomination.

Mr. President, H.R. 2018 is at the desk and due for a second reading, I am told.

Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. President, Senate Democrats sat down with Secretary Tim Geithner, and he painted a picture of what our world would look like if Republicans in Congress force this Nation, for the first time in its history, to default on its financial obligations.

The picture was grim. This is how he described the state of our government if Congress allows this unprecedented default: ``Lights out.''

He said default would result in a complete ``loss of capacity to function as a government.''

Even those who believe government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub have to admit that a total shutdown of even the most basic and essential functions of government is very, very scary. It would not be good for the American people, and it certainly would not be good for our economy.

The Senate has no more important task than making sure the United States continues to pay its bills for preexisting obligations such as Social Security.

I have spoken to the President's office today. Actually, I had a phone call scheduled with him, and he rescheduled it for later. But I have talked to his people, and he understands the importance of our meeting our responsibilities. Because of that, we are going to stay in session every day, including Saturdays and Sundays, until Congress passes legislation that prevents the United States from defaulting on our obligations.

I have spoken to the Republican leader. He understands the necessity of our being in session. We have a lot to do, not as many things as normal but extremely important things that are going to take time. So I know it is maybe inconvenient to have people rearrange their schedules, but this means

Saturdays and Sundays and Mondays we have to be in session continuously.

Secretary Geithner described how the 80 million checks cut by the Treasury every day--that is 80 million checks every day--would likely simply stop coming. The Federal Government would, in effect, go dark.

Paychecks for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and bases around the world could stop. FAA towers could shut down. So could the FBI and the CIA. Border crossings could close. Safety inspections of the food Americans eat and the cargo that enters our ports could halt. Literally every function of government could cease--Social Security checks, payments to our veterans. We have heard that before. There would be no discussion of which operations and personnel are essential. All the payments would very likely stop.

Some have said we could prioritize which bills to pay. Even if that would not irreparably damage the Nation's credit and our reputation in the global economy and the global community--which it would--it is also a complete fiction. Our government will not even be able to cover the bills due on August 3. It will simply run out of money. Because we will be in default and our credit rating trashed, we will be able to borrow the money not again to keep running even if we wanted to.

That is the picture Secretary Geithner painted. Like I said, it is grim.

Many of my Republican colleagues understand this fact. They know what is at stake. It is not blanket for sure, but the irresponsible Republicans who say default would not be an unmitigated disaster for this country either do not know what they are talking about or are twisting the truth for political gain.

Americans have gotten the message. Seventy-one percent of the American people disapprove of the way Republicans have used this crisis to force an ideological agenda. That is in the press today. Even a majority of Republicans disapprove of their unreasonable refusal to compromise, which puts our entire Nation at risk.

Those who say this crisis would be a blip on the radar are wrong. Default would be a plague that could haunt and would haunt our Nation for years to come. Our credit rating would take years to rebuild. The country would never, ever be the same.

Some will say this is an exaggeration, but it is not. This is what Treasury Secretary Geithner told us. That is what business leaders, economists, rating agencies, and bankers have all told us. If this country defaults on its obligations, they say--Secretary Geithner for certain says--it will be ``much worse than the Great Depression.'' It would make the massive financial crisis of 2008 look mild. ``It will make what we just went through look like a quaint little crisis,'' Secretary Geithner said. I repeat: ``It will make what we just went through look like a quaint little crisis.''

That ``quaint little crisis'' led to the loss of almost 5 million American jobs. It caused our banking system to nearly collapse. More than $34 trillion--Mr. President, that is not million, it is not billion, it is trillion--more than $34 trillion in wealth was destroyed in less than 2 years. The ripples were felt throughout this Nation and around the world.

The average American family lost $100,000 on its home and stock portfolio alone, and 400,000 families were plunged into poverty.

That crisis was minor, again, Geithner said, compared to the potential fallout from a U.S. default. No one should guess from what I have said that Secretary Geithner thinks what has taken place because of the Wall Street collapse is minor. But it is minor compared to what he believes would happen if we defaulted on our debt.

The leading business and economic voices of our time have said it again and again: The risks of default are unthinkable. It would be a catastrophe.

Secretary Geithner also said we are running out of time to avoid this iceberg. This huge iceberg is in the ocean, and our ship of state is headed toward it. The rating agencies have already placed our AAA credit rating under review and could downgrade us at any time.

This is what Secretary Geithner said. Again, I quote:

The eyes of the country are on us. The eyes of the world

are on us, and we need to make sure we stand together and

send a definitive signal that we're going to take the steps

necessary to avoid default.

So, Mr. President, I ask what it will take to get my Republican colleagues to wake up to the fact that they are playing a game of political chicken with the entire global economy. They must wake up soon.

Mr. President, if I could interrupt my friend and through the Chair say this: I would hope the Republican leader noted the tone and content of my statement where I did not lump all Republicans in one big bundle.

Pardon the interruption.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Durbin be recognized to give a brief presentation and, following that, Senator Grassley will have one-half hour.

Mr. President, I did not know it was John Glenn's birthday. I am so happy I was on the floor when my dear friend from Ohio talked about John Glenn. John Glenn--when I came to the Senate, one of the first Tuesday caucuses we had I watched John Glenn stand and say: I am going to go out on the aircraft career USS Kennedy on Saturday. Would anyone like to go?

I was a new Senator. I thought everyone would raise their hand and march off with him. I was the only one who raised my hand. So I did. I went out with him. It was a wonderful experience. The seas were a little bit rough and we landed and that cable snagged that airplane going in. We were there for many hours and the seas got rougher and rougher.

The pilots coming in, this was the first time they had landed on an aircraft carrier. We went out on the deck of the ship, and the planes would come in. Oh, man. The crews there, if they did not think the plane could land--it was going too far off the end: ``Dirty. Dirty.''

That meant get the plane up off the carrier, go up and come back and try it again. They did that for quite some time. Then, John Glenn said: I think I should go up in one of those airplanes. So John Glenn went up and flew an airplane. I do not know how old John Glenn was. It was 25 years ago, so he was a young man--he was 65--and here he comes in, landing on the aircraft carrier, John Glenn.

Totally changing the subject. A group from Nevada won the Double Dutch skip-roping championship. They came to my office over in the Hart Building to show me how good they were. Of course, it takes a little space to do it. So in one of the outside hallways there in the Hart Building they do this Double Dutch jumping.

They asked me to try it. I was so embarrassed. I could not get one step. I did not realize, but from his office, John Glenn had been watching these kids jumping rope. He comes out, the famous John Glenn, and says: Would you mind if I tried?

I do not know. I assume he was 70 years old at the time. He was perfect, did not miss a step. I mean, that is hard to do. Jumping rope is hard, but when you have two people flipping two different ropes, it is hard. He did that. What a physical specimen he was at 70 years old. Think what he must have been when he was 20 years old, a man who in World War II was an ace, meaning he shot down so many airplanes. He did the same thing in Korea. Here is a man who was the first to orbit in space. You can go see his spacecraft down in the Air and Space Museum. He says: Go look at it. He said: What they said about that is I wore it. It was so small, but he went up there.

The stories he told, I just so loved John Glenn. He said: They did not know what it would be like to go up in space. No one had ever done this. He told me about all the precautions they did the first time he went up in space. They did not know if the air sickness would come and they could not handle the flight. He was trained. He had a big hypodermic syringe that would go through his space clothes, shoot him in the thigh so he would not get too sick up there.

He learned--I do not know how many--``I come in friendship''--in many different languages because they did not know for sure, if the spacecraft would go down, who would be there. But they had a general idea where it would go. So he learned to say: ``I come in friendship'' in many different languages. Then, of course, he went up in space once again.

He was such a wonderful human being. I had such admiration for him. To think I was able to serve in the Senate with John Glenn says it all, and Sherrod Brown, Senator Brown, was absolutely right. This relationship, this love affair, that John Glenn and Annie had and have, their 68 years of marriage is remarkable.

As the books have shown and the movies show, Annie had a very bad speech impediment. She stammered. She stuttered. She stuttered until she was, I do not know how old, but in her fifties, and she stammered very much. John Glenn, when they were courting

each other, would have to do her phone calls for her because she could not talk on the phone very well.

What a wonderful human being, John Glenn. I know there are other people wanting to speak. But I have to say a couple of things. He led a congressional delegation when I was a relatively new Senator. We went behind the Iron Curtain. I can remember going from Austria into Czechoslovakia, and the Communists had stopped the train we were on. They had dogs and they had these soldiers looking under the train and they went and looked at who we were.

But when things calmed down, one of the soldiers asked John Glenn for his autograph. He is a world-famous man and is a man of such humility. I want him to know, and everyone within the sound of my voice, he is one of the finest human beings I have ever met. He is a historical figure now and for all time in the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 25.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning, Tuesday, July 19, at 10 a.m.; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for up to 2 hours, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority and the Republicans controlling alternating 30-minute blocks, with the Republicans controlling the first block; that following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2055, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and related agencies appropriations bill; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.