Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, the Senators from Alabama and Oklahoma have offered that amendment to the debt limit resolution. As these amendments address matters primarily for the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee, I will defer to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to address those amendments momentarily.

Nomination of Ben Bernanke

Madam President, in the meantime, on another matter, I wish to say I strongly support the nomination of Chairman Ben Bernanke to his second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Last August, President Obama announced his intention to renominate Chairman Bernanke for a second term. There is little debate that our financial system has been through one of the most tumultuous times since the Great Depression. I strongly support President Obama's decision to renominate Ben Bernanke and believe he has the expertise to continue to lead this country out of one of the worst economic downturns in history.

Chairman Bernanke graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University, earning a bachelor's degree in economics. He continued his studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received a Ph.D. in economics. He then had the good sense to head to Stanford, my alma mater, where he taught economics for several years at the Graduate School of Business. After heading back to Princeton University, he quickly rose through the academic ranks to become chairman of the Princeton Economics Department. His groundbreaking economic work on the Great Depression helped increase our understanding of that calamity and prepared him well to tackle our recent disaster. He has a strong record of public service, including work as a visiting scholar at several Federal Reserve banks.

In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed him to serve on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In 2005, President Bush appointed him Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. In 2006, President Bush appointed him Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Senate confirmed his nomination by voice vote. After his appointment to three posts by President Bush, Ben Bernanke was renominated as Federal Reserve Chairman in 2009 by President Obama.

At this point, I might point out that if any Senator had any problems with the reappointment of Chairman Bernanke, they certainly knew when his term expired and they should have conveyed those views to President Obama, and conveyed them strongly if that was their view, so that President Obama would have had an opportunity to appoint somebody else if that was his choice. It is my understanding that virtually no Senator complained to President Obama about the renomination of Chairman Bernanke before the nomination was sent to the Senate.

In his nearly 4 years as Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke has demonstrated he is worthy of another term. Facing the worst financial calamity in nearly 70 years and relying on his keen insight into the origins of financial panics, he successfully worked with the previous and current administrations to ensure that the economy of the United States and the world survived the crisis of 2008.

Again, his dissertation was on the Great Depression. This is a man who understands the Great Depression and probably had some pretty good ideas of how to prevent that from occurring. Averting disaster is not something that usually earns you accolades or parades. ``It could have been worse'' is not your typical commendation. But there is no doubt that without Chairman Bernanke's leadership, our economy would have been much worse off.

Time will tell how the history of this crisis is written, but economists and experts believed then and still today that the Federal Government could not stand by and let the financial system collapse. Liquidity in the markets evaporated. Small businesses could not obtain the day-to-day cash to buy inventory or make payroll. Foreclosures increased from hundreds to hundreds of thousands. Americans across the country witnessed their retirement savings dwindling before their eyes. Confidence in the system as a whole vanished.

Beginning in 2008, Chairman Bernanke began to take a series of steps to walk us back from the brink of disaster. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates early and aggressively in an attempt to inject liquidity into the markets. I might point out that there were some who counseled the opposite action; that is, those most concerned about inflation. Perhaps Bernanke went too far in trying to inject liquidity back into the markets, but that is what he believed was necessary in order to get the economy back on track. The Fed established lending facilities to provide much needed funding. Last year, the Fed, in conjunction with the Department of Treasury, established the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, TALF, to finance more than 4 million consumer and small business loans. That is sometimes forgotten, but that is something he did. At a time when conditions were changing daily and sometimes hourly, Chairman Bernanke did not hesitate to take bold and necessary steps to avoid total collapse of our economy.

Madam President, 20/20 hindsight will always reveal things we would have done differently. With such aggressive and unprecedented action comes criticism and judgment.

Without a doubt, the Federal Reserve System deserves a share of the blame for fostering the conditions that led us to the precipice, but as this crisis was systemic, so, too, were its flaws.

On that point, I might say there are a lot of agencies that probably should be blamed or held accountable for some of the missteps or failure to foresee the crisis occurring. One that comes to my mind is the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities and Exchange Commission either did not have jurisdiction or didn't ask for jurisdiction or did not exercise jurisdiction over a lot of the nonbanks that were creating a lot of these fancy derivatives and other instruments. I can name many of them. I think we all know who they are. It was a lack of effort by the SEC. I think the SEC was derelict in not being much more aggressive at that time.

There are a lot of areas where fingers can be pointed. One can be the Congress. Where were the oversight committees at that time? What were the questions they were asking? What were they doing?

I think, frankly, that mistakes were made, many of them, beginning with the subprime mortgage crisis and working all the way up to mortgage

brokers packaging and reselling loans and securitizing those loans and then all the other instruments that were developed at the time, and very high leverage. That was a big mistake made before Ben Bernanke was head of the Fed.

It is more apparent than ever that we must pass strong and comprehensive regulatory reform, to crack down on risky financial derivatives, properly regulate the shadow banking system, and ensure consumers are adequately protected. In his confirmation hearing, Chairman Bernanke stated that such a crisis ``must prompt financial institutions and regulators alike to undertake unsparing self- assessments of their past performance.''

Chairman Bernanke is doing just that. The Federal Reserve has already undergone significant regulatory changes, and he is committed to working with me and my colleagues in Congress to put in place proper oversight and transparency to see that we are never again faced with the peril we have witnessed over the past 2 years.

But as Emerson once said, ``[b]lame is safer than praise.'' I commend Chairman Bernanke and his team at the Federal Reserve for acting in a time of such uncertainty. There is still much that must be done to get our economy back on track and Americans back to work. I believe that Chairman Bernanke and the Federal Reserve will continue efforts to create jobs and help middle class families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Chairman Bernanke's nomination for his second term, as he works to restore confidence and prosperity in our economy.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 26, 2010 at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 26, 2010 at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Intelligence Reform: The Lessons and Implications of the Christmas Day Attack, Part II.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 26, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of mine be granted the privileges of the floor during consideration of the debt limit legislation: Christopher Goble, Dustin Stevens, Lucas Hamilton, Tsveta Polhemus.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paula Haurilesko, a detailee to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the week.

Mr. President, Dr. Laurence Peter, the educator who came up with the Peter Principle, once said:

Democracy is a process by which the people are free to

choose the [person] who will get the blame.

In a democracy, that is the people's right. In a democracy, the people elect us to represent them. And in a democracy, the people elect us to be accountable.

But the chairman and ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee have come up with a process to shift the blame. They have come up with a process for Congress to punt our accountability away. They have come up with a process to outsource Congress's central fiscal responsibilities to a new budget commission.

I can see that a commission may be attractive to some. It is the easy way out. Senators can blame everything on the commission. Senators can say: The commission made me do it.

But we should not shirk our responsibility. Rather, we should do the job our constituents sent us here to do. We already have a process for doing so. It is called the budget process.

The chairman and ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee have proposed a new budget process. No one has shown greater zeal in taking on the budget deficit than the chairman and ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee. I commend them for their good intentions. But we should reject their new process--not their intentions but their new process.

Senators Conrad and Gregg have said: Everything needs to be on the table, including spending and revenues. But why stop there? If Congress is going to outsource its central fiscal responsibilities, why stop there? Why not cede to this commission all of our responsibilities? Why don't we outsource all of this year's work and then adjourn for the year?

Come to think of it, if we do cede all of our powers to this commission, what is to stop them from inserting anything and everything they choose into the commission's one, nonamendable, omnibus vehicle? They can insert anything they want--anything.

That is the catch with this commission. If we were to cede all of our responsibilities to this commission, and we were to tie our hands so we could not amend its recommendations, then we would risk setting in motion some truly terrible policy.

Under the proposed fast-track procedures, we would not be able to amend the proposal. But what if we did not like the committee's recommendations? We would not be able to replace the commission's recommendations with our own.

It is clear from the statements of Senators Conrad and Gregg that they have painted a big red target on Social Security and Medicare. That is what this commission is all about. It is a threat to Social Security and Medicare.

That is why the first amendment this Senator offered is to protect Social Security. Senators Conrad and Gregg have proposed a system that will not allow Senators to offer amendments to protect Social Security later, after the commission has come up with its recommendations. That is why we have to vote to protect Social Security now, while we still can offer amendments.

We already have a process to address the budget. It is called the congressional budget process. Anytime we wanted to, we could use the budget process to address the budget deficit. Since the creation of the budget process, it has been the process that Congress has usually used to address fiscal challenges.

The chairman and ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee should skip the commission. They should go straight to their recommendation. They should bring it up in their committee. That is exactly why Congress created the Budget Committee, the budget resolution, and the reconciliation bill in the first place. That was the purpose.

We do not need a commission to do our work. We do not need a new process to shift the blame. Rather, to address our fiscal challenges, let us get to work on it now. Let us do the job the people sent us here to do. Let us reject this commission.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today is the Senate's fourth day of consideration of the joint resolution to increase the debt limit. I remind my colleagues this is the legislation that allows the government to honor its commitments to pay its bills.

Four amendments remain pending: The substitute amendment raising the amount of the debt limit; this Senator's amendment to protect Social Security; the Conrad-Gregg amendment to create a fast-track process to consider the budget commission's recommendations; and the majority leader's amendment reinstituting the statutory pay-as-you-go budget law. Up to seven other amendments remain in order to the joint resolution.

The Senator from Alaska has the right to offer an amendment on the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding. We expect she will seek to address this matter through a freestanding resolution of disapproval rather than an amendment.

The remaining six amendments in order are a Coburn amendment proposing a package of rescissions; a Sessions amendment creating caps on appropriated spending; an amendment by the Republican leader's designee relevant to any on the list; an amendment by the majority leader relevant to any on the list; and two amendments by this Senator regarding the budget commission.

Under the previous order, every amendment to this joint resolution will be subject to a 60-vote threshold. The Senate will not, however, conduct any rollcall votes on the debt limit today. We are hopeful Senators with amendments on the list will offer some of those amendments today.

Under the previous order, at 5:30 this afternoon, the Senate will return to the nomination of Rosanna Peterson to be district judge for the Eastern District of Washington. At 6 o'clock this evening the Senate will conduct a rollcall vote on the confirmation of the Peterson nomination.

Under the previous order, at 11:30 tomorrow morning, the Senate will proceed to a vote in relation to the following two amendments to the debt limit: First, this Senator's amendment to protect Social Security; and second, the Conrad-Gregg amendment to create a fast-track process to consider a budget commission's recommendations.

So the Senate is open for business this afternoon for Senators to offer their amendments. We will work toward developing an agreement for the offering of all amendments by a time certain, perhaps as soon as tomorrow, and we hope to conclude action on this measure as soon as possible thereafter.

I thank all Senators.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I notice other speakers who wish to speak are on the floor now. I will make a very short statement here and defer to those Senators.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be temporarily set aside so I can call up one of my amendments under the previous order.

Pursuant to the previous order, I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I will briefly explain my amendment. This amendment would achieve all of the same objectives of the Conrad-Gregg amendment but with one exception, and this is an important exception. In the amendment I just offered, there are no fast-track procedures for consideration of the commission's recommendation. Thus, for Senators who want to have a commission consider our fiscal situation and report back to us, this is your alternative. But this alternative would protect the rules of the Senate and the prerogatives of the Senators. I urge my colleagues to support this alternative.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I join in today with my colleagues Senators Bill Nelson, Bob Menendez, George LeMieux, and Chuck Grassley in support of the Emergency Aid to American Survivors of the Haiti Earthquake Act. This bill will provide much-needed resources to the United States Repatriation Program, which is currently assisting U.S. citizens who are returning home from Haiti.

The United States Repatriation Program was established by title XI, section 1113 of the Social Security Act to provide temporary assistance to U.S. citizens and their dependents who have been identified by the Department of State as having returned, or been brought from a foreign country to the U.S. because of destitution, illness, war, threat of war, or a similar crisis.

The Department of Health and Human Services works with State and local governments to administer the Repatriation Program and provide vital services such as immediate medical care, temporary lodging and travel, and food assistance to returning Americans in need. The Federal Government reimburses States for the full cost of providing these services and individuals who receive aid are expected to repay it except in the case of extreme hardship.

The Repatriation Program is currently being used by the Department of Health and Human Services to provide assistance to citizens returning from Haiti as a result of last week's devastating earthquake.

But, funding for this important program is capped at $1 million per year, which will not cover the cost states have already incurred to provide support for the more than 14,000 Americans who have already returned from Haiti. And the State Department expects between 600 and 2,000 more Americans will continue to return from Haiti each day in the coming months. They too will need the vital services this program provides.

As a result, we have been asked by the Department of Health and Human Services to increase the cap for this fiscal year so that the program can continue to provide these vital services to Americans returning home from Haiti.

This bill will answer the Department's call for help by raising the cap for fiscal year 2010 to $25 million.

In the past Congress has passed similar measures to aid Americans returning home from abroad during times of crisis. In 2006, for example, Congress raised the $1 million annual limit to accommodate Americans returning home from the devastation in Lebanon. During the gulf war, the annual limit was waived entirely. These measures proved to be simple and successful solutions to help bring Americans home safely and give them the support they need to get back on their feet.

This bill is modeled closely off those measures and we have worked with the Department of Health and Human Services and other government agencies in creating this bill.

Additionally, this legislation will provide additional funding for the Qualified Individual Program, which pays the Medicare Part B premium costs for low-income seniors here at home.

Like the Repatriation Program, the Qualified Individual Program is also subject to annual spending caps. Without additional funding for 2010, this program will see shortfalls in approximately two dozen States.

This legislation will provide $65 million in additional funding for the Qualified Individual Program to ensure all States are able to provide this critical assistance to seniors this year.

The entire cost of this legislation, $60 million, is fully paid for through the Medicaid improvement fund.

This legislation is a reasonable and fiscally responsible solution that will allow these programs to meet their obligations to Americans in need. We urge the Senate to pass this bill and send it to the House for immediate consideration.

We should not allow these important resources to be denied or needlessly delayed.

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

Mr. President, today the Senate resumes its third day of consideration of the joint resolution to increase the debt limit. We continue our discussion of whether Congress will allow the government to honor its commitments to pay its bills.

Yesterday, the Senate disposed of the Thune amendment to terminate the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program. Today, three amendments remain pending: the substitute amendment raising the amount of the debt limit, this Senator's amendment to protect Social Security, and the Conrad-Gregg amendment to create a fast-track process to consider a budget commission's recommendations. Up to eight other amendments remain in order to the joint resolution. The Senator from Alaska has the right to offer an amendment on the Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding. The Senator from Alaska spoke on this subject yesterday, and although I do not by any means wish to speak for the Senator from Alaska, it appears from a statement yesterday that she seeks to address the subject matter as a freestanding resolution of disapproval rather than an amendment. The majority leader also has the right to offer an amendment reinstituting the statutory pay-as-you-go budget law. We hope we might see that amendment today. The six remaining amendments in order are a Coburn

amendment proposing a package of rescissions; a Sessions amendment creating caps on appropriated spending; an amendment by the Republican leader's designee relevant to any on the list; an amendment by the majority leader relevant to any on the list; and two amendments by this Senator regarding the budget commission.

Under the previous order, every amendment to this joint resolution will be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold. The Senate will not, however, conduct any rollcall votes today. We expect the next rollcall vote will occur no earlier than Monday afternoon. The Senate is open for business this morning for any of these Senators to offer their amendments, and the Senate is available for the statements, obviously, of all Senators. We will work toward developing an agreement for the offering of all amendments by sometime early next week. We hope to conclude action on this measure shortly thereafter.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4462, an act to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Haiti, received from the House and at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am glad we passed the bill here now-- it already passed the House--to help all of those Americans who find the tragedy in Haiti so wrenching and want to help.

Americans are trying to help in lots of ways. Some are taking orphans into their homes.

I have worked, as an example, in the last several days with many churches and organizations, including especially the Catholic Relief Society, to just help in any way we possibly can. But there are other Americans who just want to help with financial contributions. So this bill enables many people--in my home State of Montana, many people have contacted me to say: Max, what can we do to help? And this is essentially an effort to help people who want to help, so they can get a deduction on their 2009 tax returns if that deduction is made between basically the date of the earthquake, January 11, and March 1. So any contributions made during this period will be tax-deductible on 2009 income tax returns.

I am happy to work on a bipartisan basis with Senator Grassley, my counterpart on the Finance Committee, and he and I worked to get this put together, as well as the two Senators from Florida--both political parties. They very much care about this, and I know all Senators do. But I give particular thanks to those Senators who have been very helpful to get this put together and get it passed without any rancor.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2010, at 3 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Civilian Strategy for Afghanistan: A Status Report in Advance of the London Conference.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2010, at 10 a.m. in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2010, at 10 a.m., to hold an East Asia subcommittee hearing entitled ``Principles of U.S. Engagement in Asia.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 21, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. Dodd, I ask unanimous consent that Deborah Katz, a member of his staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of H.J. Res. 45.

We are now on the debt limit legislation. In a second I will cease speaking so the Senator from Utah can address the Senate.

I think we are making progress. Three amendments are now pending. The first is the substitute amendment raising the debt limit amount; second, an amendment by the Senator from South Dakota on TARP; and third, an amendment by this Senator to protect Social Security. We anticipate the Senators from North Dakota and New Hampshire will be offering their amendment to create a budget commission sometime midday today. I am hopeful the Senate can schedule votes on my Social Security amendment, the Conrad-Gregg commission amendment, and, perhaps, the pending Thune amendment as well early this afternoon. We are hopeful we can continue to process amendments, with the goal of wrapping up this legislation early next week.

Before I take a few moments to describe the amendment I offered yesterday to protect Social Security, I yield the floor so the Senator from Utah may address the Senate.

Madam President, I thank my colleague, Senator Bennett from Utah, for his statement. He makes some very good points. Although I will not be able to support the amendment, I wish to say his presentation and the points he is making are quite good.

Amendment No. 3300

Madam President, I have an amendment which I would like to explain. It is very simple. It will protect Social Security from cuts in the fast-track process proposed to be created in the Conrad-Gregg amendment.

It is clear from the public statements of Senators Conrad and Gregg, they have painted a big red target on Social Security and Medicare. That is what this commission is all about. It is a big roll of the dice for Social Security and Medicare.

Millions of American seniors rely on Social Security. Social Security is a commitment to America's seniors. I might say, if we did not have Social Security, as to estimates I have seen, about half of American seniors today would be living in poverty. Social Security basically has kept a lot of senior Americans from living in poverty. We should, therefore, prevent a fast-track process from reneging on Social Security's commitment to those people and putting a lot of people back in poor economic straits.

Numerous groups representing seniors have called for excluding Social Security from this fast-track process.

AARP, for one, recommends that Social Security be excluded from the commission's deliberations. This is what AARP says:

[W]e 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.

The National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare also focused on Social Security, arguing that it is inappropriate for such a commission. Here is what 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.

A consortium of groups from the AFL-CIO to Common Cause, to NOW, once again, focused on the problems with allowing the budget commission to change Social Security. Here is what they wrote:

[A]n 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.

The idea of excluding Social Security from fast-track processes is not new. Congress already excludes Social Security from the fast-track reconciliation process.

The text of my amendment is very similar to a provision that appears right now in section 310(g) of the Congressional Budget Act. That Budget Act section prohibits using reconciliation to make cuts to Social Security. That is in the law today. My amendment would do the same for the fast-track procedures in the Conrad-Gregg amendment.

The Senate added the Budget Act section on which my amendment is patterned to the law in 1985. Senator Hawkins of Florida offered the amendment, and the Senate adopted it by voice vote on October 8, 1985. It has been the law for nearly 25 years.

Let me read from some of the debate that occurred that day in 1985. Much of that debate is directly relevant to the amendment I propose today.

Senator Hawkins explained the purpose of her amendment. She said:

This amendment states that changes in Social Security

cannot be made in reconciliation.

Senator Hawkins continued:

The whole idea behind removing Social Security from the

unified budget is to make

changes in the program based on the needs and constraints of

the program itself and not for short-term budgetary reasons.

Social Security is self-financed and has long-term goals. It

should not be subject to the same constraints of programs

competing for scarce general revenue funds. If my amendment

is . . . adopted, it does not mean that changes in Social

Security could never be made. It merely means that if and

when changes are made to Social Security, it would not be in

the context of the budget.

Senator Heinz of Pennsylvania supported the Hawkins amendment. Here is what Senator Heinz said. This is 1985:

I think we first do agree that the legislation needs

language that does what the Senator from Florida suggests

this does; namely, to put an extra lock on the door so no one

can say that Social Security is going to end up in

reconciliation. That is the intent.

Senator Heinz continued:

This language . . . does a very important job by making a

point of order in order against any reconciliation bill that

comes to the floor with Social Security cuts in it.

Senator Heinz made clear that under the provision the Senate was adding to the Budget Act, Congress could still make changes to Social Security, just not in a fast-track vehicle. Senator Heinz went on to say:

[T]he Finance Committee retains jurisdiction over the

programs involving the Social Security Act. And were it

required, for reasons having to do with solvency of Social

Security, reasons of equity, having to do with either the

taxes or the benefits involving Social Security, or any other

reason having to do with it that we might see fit, but not

having to do with reconciliation and the budget process, we

could work our will, as we have in the past, on the Social

Security Program. But not as part of the reconciliation.

Senator Rudman of New Hampshire, a cosponsor of the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings budget process, spoke in favor of the amendment. Here is what he said:

[T]he language offered by the Senator from Florida has one

single effect. That effect is that any reconciliation taken

by the Senate Finance Committee would have to survive a point

of order if it dealt with anything that had to do with old

age assistance.

Senator Domenici of New Mexico, then the chairman of the Budget Committee, also explained the Hawkins amendment in the same way. This is what Senator Domenici said:

This amendment would with specificity say that any

reconciliation bill containing provisions with respect to

Social Security would be subject to a point of order. That is

what this amendment does.

That is what Senators said when they adopted a prohibition on using the fast-track reconciliation process to make changes in Social Security. That is why all those Senators supported excluding Social Security from the fast-track reconciliation process, and I argue that all the same arguments apply today as well.

Let us prevent Social Security from being cut in a fast-track commission process. Let us keep America's commitment to our seniors. I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment to protect Social Security.

I might also say, Social Security is not the cause of our deficit problem. Social Security is running surpluses. For years into the future, Social Security is going to run surpluses. Social Security, thus, reduces the current unified budget deficit. Social Security is not the reason for our fiscal problem.

Furthermore, over the longer term, Social Security is growing with the rate of growth in the economy. Social Security is growing more slowly than health care expenditures. Social Security is not the primary source of long-term fiscal imbalance--all the more reason, I submit, why my amendment should be adopted.

Madam President, I have further correspondence which I wish to read into the Record with respect to my amendment which is pending, as well as with respect to statements by organizations that essentially oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment. The first is from the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations. It is entitled, ``Proposed Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.''

It says:

Dear Representative: The Leadership Council of Aging

Organizations (LCAO) is a coalition of national not-for-

profit organizations focused on the well-being of America's

87 million older adults. Today, we write to you and your

colleagues regarding recent efforts to create a commission

that would force changes to entitlement programs, among other

things, through the use of a Congressional fast-track

procedure. We firmly believe that Congress, through its

regular legislative process, is best suited to consider and

address any changes to these programs. While we have

additional concerns regarding the use of such a commission on

Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security income, community

service and Federal civilian military retirement programs,

this letter is directly focused on Social Security. The LCAO

will be sending, under separate cover, a letter devoted to

expressing its concerns with the impact a fast-tracked

commission would have on Medicare and Medicaid.

Last month's Budget Committee hearing on Bipartisan Process

Proposals for Long-Term Fiscal Stability considered the

creation of a commission that would be tasked with addressing

rising Federal debt by ``closing the gap between tax revenue

coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security,

Medicare and Medicaid benefits.'' This is a weighty

responsibility, requiring careful review of these critical

social programs on which so many depend. But there is no

guarantee that the members of this commission would have the

necessary expertise to conduct such an intensive review.

That is very valid. How would this commission know how to make those cuts? They don't have expertise on the programs. This would be an outfit that just cuts without having any sense as to how these programs operate and what changes might be made.

Continuing to quote from the letter:

Our concern is that their recommendations, nevertheless,

would be forced through Congress, without amendment(s), under

extremely short timelines and with no opportunity to debate

individual issues or consult with constituents.

In addition to our objections about the proposed commission

process, we are concerned that its mission would imply that

Social Security has somehow contributed to the Nation's

economic woes. Social Security is not a part of the deficit

problem nor is it part of an ``entitlement crisis.'' Its cost

is projected to consume only 6.2% of GDP by 2030 and to

remain slightly below that level for 50 more years. In fact,

the 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees pointed out

that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion last year

and had accumulated a reserve of $2.4 trillion.

That is a reserve, a surplus, of $2.4 trillion.

The most recent projections of the Congressional Budget

Office forecast that Social Security will continue to pay

full benefits until 2043.

That is a surplus at least until the year 2043.

Moreover, Social Security, with its dependable, guaranteed

benefits, is the very program that helped us most recently

avoid a 1930s-style depression.

Again, I am reading from the letter from the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations. Continuing:

Even as the banking and financial systems threatened to

collapse, Social Security continued to provide a reliable

economic lifeline to millions of children, disabled workers,

retired workers, and spouses (including widowed and divorced

spouses) dependent on those benefits. These benefits helped

to offset lost earnings and stimulated the economy by

maintaining purchasing power. According to a recent study

by the National Academy of Social Insurance and Benenson

Strategy Group, nearly nine in ten (88%) Americans say

that Social Security is more important than ever as a

result of today's economic crisis.

Social Security remains the bedrock of retirement security

for over 33 million older Americans: On average, households

with Social Security beneficiaries aged 65 and older received

about 64 percent of their income from the program in 2006.

It then gives a reference in parenthesis. The reference is in the letter.

Additionally, Social Security provides a lifeline to 4.1

million children, 7.7 million disabled workers, 2.4 million

spouses or divorced spouses of retired workers and 4.4

million surviving spouses.

The importance and value of Social Security to so many

Americans demands that proposals to change the program be

given the due weight, consideration and debate in Congress

that they deserve. With this in mind, the undersigned members

of the LCAO oppose the creation of a fast-track entitlements

commission.

I am going to read some of the signatories to this letter:

AFL-CIO, AFSCME Retirees, Alliance for Retired Americans,

the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging,

American Society on Aging, Association of Jewish Aging

Services of North America, B'Nai B'Rrith International,

Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., Gray Panthers,

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &

Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; Military

Officers Association of America, National Academy of Elder

Law Attorneys, National Active and Retired Federal Employees

Association, National Alliance for Caregiving, National Asian

Pacific Center on Aging, National Association of Area

Agencies on Aging, National Association of Professional

Geriatric Care Managers, National Caucus and Center on Black

Aged, Inc., National Committee to Preserve Social Security

and Medicare, National Council on Aging, National Senior

Citizens Law Center, National Consumer Voice for Quality

Long-Term Care, OWL,

The Voice of Midlife and Older Women, Service Employees

International Union, the Jewish Federations of North America,

Volunteers of America, Wider Opportunities For Women.

I think that letter speaks for itself, but I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I might also add that there is another letter I have. I have referred to this organization already, but I will read their letter. This is from OWL, the Voice of Midlife and Older Women:

Dear President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate Majority

Leader Reid:

We, the undersigned, urge you to preserve and protect two

of the most important and successful government programs in

the history of the United States--Social Security and

Medicare. We ask that you resist the pressure by Wall Street

and conservative members of Congress to form an undemocratic

and unaccountable fast-track ``deficit commission'' that

would cut these programs that are so crucial to the well-

being of the people of our country.

Social Security is not responsible for any part of the

deficit. The 2009 Annual Report from the Board of Trustees

stated that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion

last year with a reserve of $2.4 trillion.

That is a reserve of $2.4 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office, in its August 2009

forecast, said that full benefits can continue to be paid

until 2043. There is ample time to make the necessary

adjustments through the usual legislative process.

The best way to get the cost of Medicare under control is

by reforming the health care system as you are currently

trying to do, not by cutting benefits to the millions of

people whose health is at stake.

That is a very important point. Let me just read it again because it is so true:

The best way to get the cost of Medicare under control is

by reforming the health care system . . . rather than by

cutting benefits to millions of people whose health is at

stake.

Continuing in the letter:

There are many ways to cut the deficit--once our economy

has recovered. In the meantime, Social Security and Medicare

provide a measure of economic stability during a time of

financial crisis in our communities. As Frances Perkins said

on the 25th anniversary of Social Security, ``We will go

forward into the future, a stronger nation because of the

fact that we have this basic rock of security under all our

people.''

In 2010, we'll celebrate the 75th anniversary of Social

Security.

We urge you to stand firm against the proposal for a fast-

track commission that would diminish these programs that

speak so deeply of America's values.

Respectfully yours.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, we anticipate the Senator from North Dakota will join us momentarily. Pending his arrival, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota makes a very compelling case for fiscal discipline. He has been making this case for a good number of years. He has been on the forefront in urging us in the Congress and the country to be more disciplined, to get better control of these deficits, and I appreciate the work of the Senator from North Dakota.

I might say we have no disagreement whatsoever that we need to address our fiscal challenge. We totally agree. I think most Members of the body would agree that is not the issue. Whether we must address the fiscal challenge or not is not the issue. So I wish to get that off the table. We all know we have a huge problem facing us, and it must be dealt with. What we do disagree about, though, is the process; that is, how we address it.

I will have a lot more to say about that later today, but I see the Senator from Arizona on the floor, and he has been waiting patiently.

Certainly.

Amendment No. 3302 to Amendment No. 3299

(Purpose: To establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of the Federal Government of the United States, and to expand future

prosperity and growth for all Americans)

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

Mr. President, I oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment. This amendment would set up a new deficit reduction commission and have its recommendations considered and sent to the House under expedited parliamentary procedures. This amendment invites Congress to abdicate its responsibility. This amendment is fundamentally unfair to many of our constituents across the country. This amendment should be defeated.

Under the Conrad-Gregg proposal, 18 people would make recommendations on how to reduce projected midterm and long-term Federal budget deficits. Of the 18 members, 16 would be Members of Congress, and two would be officials in the administration. I might add, if some think the Congress cannot do this, why is this composed almost entirely of Members of Congress? Recommendations of this 18-member commission would be made the subject of votes in both Chambers with no amendments allowed. Thus, the entire package of recommendations would be given to Congress on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

If the Conrad-Gregg amendment were enacted, Members of Congress who were not on the commission would have no say in the development of the commission's recommendations. Members of Congress who were not on the commission would have no ability to change the recommendations. We would have to vote on the entire package on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

If Members of Congress not on the commission found that they favored most of the recommendations but positively abhorred a few of them, they would be given no opportunity to try to change the ones to which they objected. Their choice would be either to vote for no deficit reduction at all or vote for recommendations that they abhor with no way to change them.

Members of Congress should not be put in that position. This amendment would disenfranchise the overwhelming majority of Members of Congress. It would disenfranchise their constituents. This would be fundamentally unfair to their constituents and to them. We should not allow it to happen.

Let me say a few words about the effects of this commission on Social Security and Medicare. If we create this commission, what is to stop it from making further reductions in Medicare spending beyond the changes in the health care reform bill? Although the health care reform bill would reduce some reimbursements to providers, it would not cut Medicare benefits or eligibility one bit, but the commission could recommend cuts in Medicare benefits and eligibility.

I might say, too, the Congressional Budget Office, I remind my colleagues, estimated that the health care reform bill that passed this body would reduce the budget deficit by $132 billion over 10 years and further reduce the budget deficit by between $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years.

What about Social Security? Some people talk as if Social Security is a major factor in the long-run budget deficits, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's projections of the 75-year growth of spending on Medicare-Medicaid and Social Security tells a different story.

As a share of the economy, the growth of Medicare and Medicaid spending before enactment of health care reform is more than seven times the growth of Social Security spending. If we are to reduce the projections of interim and long-term projections of deficit, we should use the regular order of Congress to do so, and for a good reason; that is, because the system is already working. The comprehensive health reform bill awaiting final approval by the House and Senate is solid evidence the system is working.

Once again, the Congressional Budget Office projected--I made the point just a few moments ago--the Federal deficits would be reduced by $132 billion in the first 10 years and by $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the second 10 years. That is a significant reduction.

The deficit reduction will make a substantial dent in the deficits-- and it has been accomplished entirely through the regular order. We were able to cut deficits through the regular order. It would thus be ironic to give up on the regular order just when it has such a promising result.

There is more work to be done to reduce deficits in the midterm and long term, but the regular order is up to the job of performing these tasks. We should not give up on it prematurely. We should vote against creating a commission that can take away many of the responsibilities the Constitution gave the Congress.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

It has also been said on the Senate floor that one way to get revenue is to go after the so-called gap that exists between revenue that is owed the American taxpayers but not collected--the tax gap, it is sometimes called. I might say why not create a tax gap commission? It does not make sense for this outfit, if it does exist--I don't think it will because I think most Members of Congress will not want to do that--to cut Social Security, which is not the problem--Social Security is projected to be in surplus at least to the year 2043--or to make further cuts in Medicare beyond which we have already done in regular order. What is left? Discretionary spending.

If the real effort is a tax gap, let's have a tax gap commission, not one that is going to cut Medicare and Medicaid. I might add, these people, if there were such a commission, are not qualified. They do not understand the health care system. They don't understand where to make cuts and not to make cuts. They don't understand Social Security that much. The committees of jurisdiction do. They don't understand some of the other programs where they might recommend cuts. They can just whack, whack, whack, or raise revenue. They don't understand the Tax Code. That is not their expertise. They are just going to try to find ways to raise, raise, raise taxes.

It is something on the surface that might sort of sound good--let somebody else do it. I cannot do it, so we will let somebody else do it. I think that is an abdication of responsibility. I think it is like it sounds--too good to be true--that somebody else is going to do it. It is like the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

Why do we run for these jobs? Each of us ought to be a U.S. Senator because we wanted to take the responsibility to do what we thought was right for our people and our States. It is sometimes not very easy. It is sometimes quite difficult. That is why we ran. That is what goes with the territory: step up and make the right decisions and do what needs to be done in conjunction with the President.

The President of the United States is going to make a budget recommendation to the Congress in just a matter of a few days, almost a week or so away. That is the job of the President, to make a recommendation to the Congress of what he thinks our budget should be, and it is up to the Congress to decide how to deal with that.

We have used the regular order on health care to cut budget deficits by a large amount. As I indicated, it worked. I think we should just be courageous enough as Members of Congress to do what is right, step up and do what we have to do. If we do not do the job properly, our voters will get somebody else to do the job. That is their right, that is their privilege, and that is one of the strengths of the process: that they have an opportunity to get somebody else if we are not doing a good job.

I strongly urge the defeat of the Conrad-Gregg amendment. It is just not a good thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Under the previous order, I believe the Senator from New Hampshire is to have the floor.

Mr. President, I would say we are expecting the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to arrive shortly, and when he does, I will yield to him.

I wish to also respond, briefly, to the Senator from New Hampshire and start by talking about where we agree. I think it is almost always good, when discussing something, for people to look at where there is agreement. Where there is agreement, it builds trust and understanding and, therefore, when possible, there can be even greater agreement. We, clearly, agree it is unhealthy for the government to be running these huge deficits. I think everyone in this body agrees on that point. It is unsustainable, as many have said. But why are we running these big deficits? We are doing so, frankly, because of mistakes made during the financial crisis prompted by the subprime mortgage crisis and also because we have been in a fairly deep recession. That is why these deficits are so large. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. It was something, unfortunately, that had to be done.

We had to come up with some money to help provide some economic stability for this country. After that, as we know, when we are in a recession, unemployment payments are higher and Medicaid payments are higher and a lot of other programs are automatically higher because we enact programs on top of that to help the economy. That is why we are facing these huge deficits. They have grown very significantly in the last several years for those reasons.

So there is no disagreement that, A, we have large deficits, and, B, we have to begin to reduce those deficits. I think there is agreement as to why we came to this place and have these deficits, which are for the reasons I suggested. We also very much agree that we have to reduce these deficits in future years. There is tremendous agreement on that point. We also agree it would be better for the government to reduce our annual deficits to below 3 percent of gross domestic product. There is agreement on that.

Most economic observers and experts think that once our deficits reach 3 percent of gross domestic product, that is not so bad. It is going to take a little effort to get there. But, again, we are where we are because of the recession and because of the financial crisis that occurred in the last several years.

Where we disagree, though, is over the way we respond. We disagree over the powers the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to turn over to somebody else--over to a commission. We disagree on that point. I don't think we should turn the power that Senators and House Members have over to some other body to do something called an entitlements commission.

The Senator from New Hampshire proposes to create such a procedure to protect Senators, frankly, from being attacked for the decisions they make. That is what this is all about, in some respects, to turn this decisionmaking over to somebody else so Senators can say: They did it. They made me do it. He and the Senator from North Dakota proposed a commission, for example, with a fast-track process that would absolve Senators from responsibility for any amendments. Senators could then throw up their hands and say: The commission made me do it.

It sounds as if all of us parents heard something similar from our kids: Daddy, Mommy, something made me do it. I will never forget that many years ago, my son said: Daddy, it just seemed so good. Somebody else suggested the idea, and that made me do it. I couldn't say no.

But on matters as important as Social Security for seniors, on matters as important as Medicare and Medicaid for Americans that have health concerns, on matters as important as the tax rates the government will impose on American families--on those important matters, I think we need an open process where Senators and House Members participate and offer suggestions and offer amendments. On things that important, I do not think we need a procedural shortcut.

Sometimes the most important things are difficult to do. I think most Members of Congress and the Senate who ran for these jobs expected there would be some tough choices, there would be some tough times. I don't think they want procedural shortcuts because with procedural shortcuts, often there are unintended consequences. With procedural shortcuts, often bad things happen, when it is not thought through in advance. Rather, we should have full and open debate. There are fewer surprises with full and open debate when Senators can amend and improve the product, and that is why I believe the Conrad-Gregg commission is a bad idea.

There are alternatives to that proposal. One is that we do it ourselves, we do what we should do, and we do it the right way. But there is also another alternative, an alternative which the President and Vice President--especially the Vice President is working on that sets up an executive commission, not a statutory commission as outlined by the Senators from New Hampshire and North Dakota but, rather, one on which the Vice President has convened a series of discussions, and in that proposal the Vice President has proposed an Executive order where the President would create a commission to consider our fiscal situation. It would also have similar composition, similar powers. It is similar to the statutory commission offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg, but there is only one difference, and that difference is in the process. The Vice President's proposal, which I think the President will announce fairly shortly, would preserve the rules of the Senate. The Gregg-Conrad amendment would not. And it is preserving the rules of the Senate that I think makes all the difference.

Under the proposal that I think will be offered by the President, that is, the executive commission, again, I think it is 18 members, all subjects are considered, and they will report back to the Congress, I think after the election. So everything is very similar, if not exactly the same. The only difference is, under the executive commission, if it is proposed--I think it will be--there is no requirement of a fast- track process as required by the statutory commission.

I tell my colleagues there are other alternatives, there are other ways to address our huge budget deficits. I urge my colleagues to join in support for the Vice President's efforts and oppose the Conrad-Gregg amendment.

I understand the Senator from Connecticut is not here. Maybe the Senator wants to proceed? Oh, he is here. Does the Senator from South Dakota wish to proceed?

Will the Senator yield for a question at that point?

Would the Senator yield on that point since he is raising the subject?

Didn't that same CBO letter also say the health care bill that passed the Senate would reduce the budget deficit? The Senator is throwing out these huge figures--it is going to cost $2 trillion and so on and so forth. I don't know where the Senator got that figure because the Congressional Budget Office, in that same letter or a similar letter--either that letter, in an earlier letter, or in a subsequent letter--reaffirmed that the bill passed in the Senate cuts the budget deficit by $132 billion the first 10 years and cuts the budget deficit by between

$650 billion and $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years. That is what the letter says. The Actuary said the bill extends the life of the Medicare trust fund I think 5 or 6 more years--maybe more than that.

Isn't it true that CBO letter said that the Senate bill reduces the budget deficit by $132 billion in the first 10 years and reduces it in the second 10 years by between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion? Isn't that true?

Will the Senator yield? This double-counting, frankly, is a bogus issue. It kind of sounds good on its face, but it is meant to confuse people.

But even subsequent to that statement about the double-counting, even subsequent to that, is it not true that CBO came out with a subsequent letter that said still the budget deficit is reduced by $132 billion in the first 10 years and $650 billion to $1.3 trillion in the next 10 years?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a vote in relation to the Thune amendment No. 3301 and that the provisions of the order of December 22 regarding the vote threshold remain in effect and no intervening amendment be in order.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask consent to execute the order of December 22, 2009, with respect to H.J. Res. 45.

Pursuant to the previous order, on behalf of the majority leader, I have a substitute amendment at the desk which I now call up.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. President, pursuant to the previous order, I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

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.

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. President, I reserve the right to have somebody else speak following the Senator from New Hampshire.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of mine be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the debt limit legislation: Aislinn Baker, Ian Clements, Brittany Durell, Ivie English, Zach Person, Greg Sullivan, and Ashley Zuelke.