Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine. I disagree with the fundamental premise of this amendment. I do not think we should all be forced to divest ourselves of all of our holdings. But I think it is worse than it was characterized by my friend from Ohio--worse in the sense that, as I read the definition of the securities that would be covered and as the securities attorneys have advised us on this--we would be required to divest ourselves even of our investment in a small family-owned business, a business that, perhaps, has absolutely no market whatsoever for the equity, and we would, nevertheless, be forced to sell that where there is no buyer. I think that is a very unreasonable standard, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. This is a very important point. It is a common refrain from those who would like to go back to earmarking: We can't turn this over to the bureaucrats. Who controls the bureaucrats? It is Congress. If we think the bureaucrats are allocating resources in a way that we don't approve of, we can change the rules. We write the law that determines the criteria, the metrics, the methodology, the process by which they compete and evaluate competing projects. That is entirely up to us. So it is not fair for us to suggest that while the bureaucrats will not spend it wisely, then we should set the rules so they must. Frankly, they don't have the kind of incentives that some people who are holding elected office think they have to try to show up back home with a big oversized check. The bureaucrat doesn't have that incentive. I would argue I can't imagine any bureaucrat who would award several hundred million dollars to build a bridge to nowhere or to build a cowgirl hall of fame or an indoor tropical rain forest. These are things that if a bureaucrat did make those decisions, it would be because they were following ridiculously flawed guidelines given to them by Congress. So this in no way diminishes Congress's control of the purse strings; it insists on a more accountable process by which we allocate the resources from the purse.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss an amendment that I think is relevant to this discussion. I thank my colleague, Senator McCaskill, for her work on this topic. It goes to the issue of the integrity by which this body and Congresses in general operates, which certainly is a central issue regarding this particular bill. Our amendment goes to a particular aspect of the integrity of this body. My concern is that in the absence of our amendment, many of our colleagues will likely resume a very wasteful, nontransparent process which is prone to corruption and abuse, and that is the process of earmarking. I wish to speak a little bit about earmarks and what they are and why I think we ought to have a permanent legislative ban on the process. Let me be clear about the process. Earmarks exist precisely in order to circumvent any real scrutiny, transparency, or any process by which this body, the other body, or the American people can evaluate the merits of a given project. There is no authorization to earmarks. There is no proper scrutiny. There is no competitive bidding among competing demands for resources. I think the process itself is indefensible. In part because the process is so badly flawed, we should not be surprised that it leads to extraordinary waste. We have seen it. Some of the earmarks have become famous because they are so wasteful and inappropriate. We all heard about the ``bridge to nowhere.'' Recent earmarks include, above and beyond that, a $1 million alternative salmon products earmark. There was a $1.9 million earmark for the Charles Rangel Center for Public Service requested by none other than Congressman Charles Rangel. There was $550,000 for a glass museum, $2.5 million for Arctic winter games. The list goes on and on. I could go on all day with indefensible projects that got into law, taxpayer dollars that were spent precisely because these earmarks were permitted. I would argue that it has gotten to the point where it really adds up to real dollars and cents. Those who would like to resume earmarking would like to suggest that it is not a real number, doesn't add up to a whole lot of money. Over the course of the last 15 years, the total value of taxpayer dollars spent this way has tripled. In the last Congress, it reached $36 billion. One other thing that is particularly pernicious about earmarks is that over time they became a currency used to buy votes. There was this unwritten law that if you ask for an earmark in a spending bill and you get it, you are obligated to vote for that bill regardless of how bloated, inappropriate, wasteful, or otherwise nonsensical that bill might be. That is a really terrible process. Finally, the fact is, it is an opportunity for corruption. I am not suggesting there is corruption involved in most earmarks. I am sure there is not. But we do know of some examples of some of our colleagues who did in fact use earmarks quite inappropriately to enrich themselves. I know of one in jail right now because of that. While that is certainly the very unusual exception, the fact is a process such as that is badly flawed and should be remedied. As we all know, there is a current temporary moratorium in place on earmarks that has been adopted by both bodies and both parties. But that temporary moratorium expires this year. What our amendment does is create a permanent legislative ban on earmarks. It does that by creating a point of order. Any Senator can come down to the Senate floor and strike an earmark if one is inserted in a spending bill, and it would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to override the effort to strike the earmark. It is important to know that this amendment does not strike the entire bill. It would not invalidate the bill or otherwise disrupt the bill. It would surgically remove the earmark that would be offending this point of order. As I say, I thank Senator McCaskill for her support. I thank Senator Coburn for the many years in which he has battled, as have others, especially Senator McCain and others. But Senator Coburn once described earmarks as the gateway drug to spending addiction, and I think he is really onto something with that characterization. I think it is time we change the culture in Washington, that we change the culture of Congress, get away from a culture that says, how can we maximize spending, which really has been the culture of Congress for way too long, and move to a culture that says, how do we maximize savings, because when we are running trillion-dollar annual deficits, we have to find savings anywhere we can. I can't think of a better place to start. If we really want to change Washington, if we really want to reduce wasteful spending, if we really want to eliminate opportunities for corruption, if we really want to change the culture of spending and begin the process of doing these things to hopefully restore some of the confidence of the American people in their government, one of the ways we can do this very constructively is to pass this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TOOMEY. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. TOOMEY. I wished to touch on a point the Senator just made that I think is important to underscore. I would agree without hesitation that there are any number of earmarked projects that probably have very good merit. This is not at all to suggest that every earmark that has ever occurred had no merit. That is not what this is about. What we are criticizing and what we are trying to change is a very badly flawed process that permits a great deal of projects that have no merit to get funded that otherwise would not be funded. Those that have merit--and goodness knows all kinds of projects, especially transportation projects--ought to be funded, but they ought to be funded in a transparent and honest way, subject to evaluation by an authorizing committee and subject to competition, so those projects that have the greatest merit and the greatest need would be funded first. That is what I think we are trying to get at and get away from this process where an individual Member of either this body or the other body, in the dark of night, can drop in some specific provision because he or she wanted it without it being subject to the proper scrutiny and evaluation and competition that the taxpayer deserves. I just wished to underscore that point. I appreciate the Senator's work and the message she brought.

Mr. TOOMEY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TOOMEY. I appreciate the Senator's kind indulgences. I am newer to this body, and maybe that explains my relative optimism. I am hopeful that we do get a vote, and I am hopeful, if we do get a vote, it will succeed. I point to the voluntary moratorium both Chambers instituted 1 year ago as a sign that this is increasingly becoming the consensus view among Members of both bodies. I don't know if I am right. I am hopeful. If we don't succeed today, that means we need to come back on another day when we can succeed because there is no doubt in my mind that the people of Pennsylvania--and I suspect across America--want us to win this battle and begin to rein in wasteful spending. There is no better place to start than to ban these earmarks. I thank the Senator from Missouri for her leadership and her work. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY. If the Senator would yield one final time.

Mr. TOOMEY. I can tell the Senator how I think a big majority of Pennsylvanians feel about this because I hear from them every day. Sure, there are some folks who would love to resume earmarks because they benefited from them in the past. I think the vast majority of Pennsylvanians--and I would guess Americans--generally understand that, especially at a time when we have reached $15 trillion in debt, when our debt now exceeds the entire size of our economy, when we are running annual deficits of over $1 trillion for the last several consecutive years and, frankly, probably in the years to come. We are in an unsustainable mode right now. What my constituents want is for us to put ourselves on a viable, sustainable fiscal path. That means getting spending under control. So I don't think our constituents want us to see how much money we can spend, as the Senator pointed out. They want to see how much we can save, and I think they would overwhelmingly welcome ending a process that clearly leads to wasteful spending.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would like to make some comments about this amendment, but I will do that at a later time when time is more available. I thank my colleague from Maine and my colleague from Ohio for their helpful cooperation in this process.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1472, my amendment with Senator McCaskill.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the resolution of disapproval offered by the Senator from Texas. I commend her for leading this effort, and I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of the resolution. Like many of my colleagues, I was dismayed last December when the Federal Communications Commission chose to impose heavyhanded and burdensome new regulations on the Internet. There was no market failure or consumer harm requiring FCC action, and the FCC Chairman's determination to deliver on a misguided Presidential campaign promise is very disappointing. It is especially troubling in light of the unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Comcast v. FCC, authored by a Clinton appointee and former Carter administration aide, stating that the Commission lacked the statutory authority under the Communications Act to regulate the Internet in this manner. Unfortunately, this decision, coupled with concerns expressed by Members of Congress, was completely ignored by an outcome-driven majority at the FCC. I doubt the Commission's lawyers will receive a warm welcome from the DC Circuit when they return to defend a policy the court struck down just last year. Shortly after the Federal appellate court ruled in the Comcast case, recognizing that net neutrality rules adopted under the Commission's title I authority would have difficulty surviving a court challenge, Chairman Genachowski shockingly announced that he would reclassify broadband as a title II telecommunications service and apply a 19th- century regulatory framework to an innovative 21st-century technology. This decision ignored the successful history of treating broadband as a lightly regulated title I information service, which has been the policy of the FCC and Congress going back to the Clinton administration. Keeping regulators' hands off of the Internet has historically been supported by FCC Commissioners and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. For example, on March 20, 1998, a bipartisan group of Senators sent a letter to the FCC stating: [[W]e wish to make it clear that nothing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional telephone regulation to new and advanced services.] They continued: [[W]ere the FCC to reverse its prior conclusions and suddenly subject some or all information service providers to telephone regulation, it seriously would chill the growth and development of advanced services to detriment of our economic and educational well-being.] I couldn't agree more. Then Democratic FCC Chairman William Kennard shared their view, stating: [Classifying Internet access as telecommunication services could have significant consequences for the global development of the Internet. We recognized the unique qualities of the Internet, and do not presume that legacy regulatory frameworks are appropriately applied to it.] Had traditional telephone common carrier regulations been applied to the Internet more than a decade ago, it is unlikely we would have the broadband services and speeds of today. The appropriate market incentives led to billions of dollars of private sector investment in broadband, created millions of jobs, and now high-speed Internet access is available to 95 percent of the population, and that number continues to grow. It is amazing what can happen when the Federal Government's regulatory policy for a particular industry is hands off. Fortunately, after a bipartisan majority of Congress wrote to the Commission objecting to the FCC Chairman's proposed radical shift in policy, the FCC did not officially reclassify broadband as a title II telecommunications service. However, as we saw last December, the Democratic majority at the Commission did not abandon their results- oriented effort to regulate the Internet. Instead, in defiance of the Federal court decision in Comcast, the Commission chose to effectively place title II common carrier obligations on broadband service providers using their title I ancillary authority. The policy embraced by past Republican and Democratic FCC Chairman and Senators on both sides of the aisle has been relegated to the waste bin under the current regime at the FCC. In order to justify placing these new regulations on the Internet, the FCC for the first time found that broadband was not being deployed to all Americans in a ``reasonable and timely'' manner. This is an absurd claim that quickly falls apart when you look at the facts. According to the FCC's own broadband plan, 95 percent of Americans have access to broadband. In the early 2000s, that number was less than 20 percent. In addition, terrestrial wireless and satellite broadband services continue to improve in terms of speed and availability. We are rapidly approaching the point where wireless Internet service becomes a true substitute for wireline service. This rapid rate of deployment and technological advances occurred absent the heavyhanded regulation we will be voting to repeal today. For my colleagues who may be unaware, I would like to point out that the FCC determined that the broadband marketplace was competitive and should remain unregulated in 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Proponents of regulating broadband services have failed to demonstrate what has changed to warrant Federal intervention. Most consumers have a choice of multiple broadband providers, and the suite of services and applications available on home computers, mobile smartphones and tablets, and Internet-connected televisions continues to grow. Even through tough economic times, broadband providers continues to invest and create jobs. I also find it perplexing that despite the FCC acknowledging that it may require $350 billion in new investment to achieve the goals of the National Broadband Plan, the agency nevertheless willfully adopts rules that will have a chilling effect on future investment. The Commission also makes the novel argument that section 706 of the 1996 Communications Act, which directs the FCC to ``remove barriers to infrastructure investment,'' authorizes the adoption of new Internet regulations. The open Internet order flies directly in the face of the plain language of section 706. When the Commission imposed new rules on broadband service providers, they built new barriers to infrastructure investment. Support for Internet regulation seems to rely on baseless theoretical claims that consumers may be harmed by ``Internet gatekeepers'' at some point in the future. Despite the fact that the FCC Chairman has said he will use fact-based analysis when reviewing proposed rules, the facts indicate that consumers are not being harmed and broadband service providers are not blocking access to content. A fact-based analysis leads one to conclude that the market is healthy and competitive. I have significantly more faith in a competitive market rather than Federal bureaucrats shielding consumers from harmful business practices. In addition, current consumer protection laws, such as section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, will effectively address real consumer harms were they to actually ever occur in the broadband space. Lastly, it should be noted that while there have been attempts by some in Congress to impose similar regulations on the Internet, these attempts have all been unsuccessful. Unelected bureaucrats have now usurped Congress's authority and have taken it upon themselves to change the law. Opponents and supporters of net neutrality in the Senate should take offense to that, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize the growth of Northampton Community College as they break ground on a new 200,000-square-foot campus in Monroe County. In the past 40 years, Northampton Community College has grown into a public, comprehensive community college, matriculating 36,000 students through their credit programs, workforce training, adult literacy, and youth classes. The new campus will nearly double the capacity of its current Monroe County campus and enable Northampton to continue offering degree programs specifically targeted to meet the needs of the local community. For example, the new campus will house the Workforce Development and Training Center, which is projected to train more than 1,000 new, incumbent and displaced workers within five years of completion. Additionally, the expanded campus will serve the needs of the community by providing greater public meeting spaces and athletic fields for youth sports. Furthermore, this project will assist in helping the community weather tough economic times by spurring economic growth, creating hundreds of new jobs for Pennsylvanians and generating millions in economic revenue activity. I would like to congratulate Northampton Community College on reaching a great milestone and look forward to hearing of future achievements.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. I thank the chairman. It is my understanding we are going to vote this evening on Judge Bissoon, and I would certainly enjoy the opportunity to work closely with the chairman to ensure that we could have votes as soon as possible on the other nominees. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to offer my full support for the nomination of Judge Cathy Bissoon to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. But before I begin, I would like to quickly express my appreciation to my colleague, Senator Casey, whom I see across the Chamber at this moment, to thank him for his collaboration in our joint efforts to fill the vacancies on the Federal bench from Pennsylvania. As I think many of our colleagues would agree, the confirmation of Federal judges is one of the most important constitutional functions of any Member of the Senate. Since I was sworn in, Senator Casey and I have worked together on a bipartisan basis to identify and advance qualified candidates for the Federal bench. As part of this effort, I have supported President Obama's three district court nominees for Pennsylvania, even though they were first appointed before I was sworn in to the Senate. I am pleased this spirit of cooperation has led to today's confirmation vote for Judge Bissoon. I remain hopeful we will have a number of confirmation votes in the very near future as Senator Casey and I continue to work together to recommend qualified individuals to serve on the Federal bench. A quick couple words about Judge Bissoon. She was nominated last year following the recommendations of Senators Casey and Specter and was renominated by the administration in January. Judge Cathy Bissoon has had a distinguished career in the law. She was born and raised in New York City, where she attended Alfred University and graduated summa cum laude with a degree in political science. She earned her law degree from Harvard University before moving to Pittsburgh to join Reed Smith, an international law firm, where she has practiced labor and employment law in particular. She went on to clerk for Chief U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster and later returned to Reed Smith to be a partner in 2001. Judge Bissoon left private practice in 2008 to assume her current position as magistrate judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Her strong work ethic, discipline and, in particular, her experience in labor and employment law make her well qualified to preside over cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania, a district with a heavy employment caseload. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to sit down with Judge Bissoon and learn more about her legal philosophy. She stressed to me in that conversation that she understands very well a judge's role is to enforce the law as written, regardless of the judge's personal beliefs about that law. Chief Justice Roberts came up with a metaphor for this which has become rather famous, in which he described the role of a judge as an official on the playing field but not one of the players. Judge Bissoon confirmed that is exactly her view of the role of a judge, that it is the role of a legislator, branched together with the executive, to pass the law and the role of the judge to enforce the law impartially. I am confident she understands that role, has internalized that and would bring that, as well as a great degree of experience and judicial acumen, to this very important role. That is why I am supporting her nomination. Following a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Bissoon was unanimously approved by the committee back in July. I have strong confidence in Judge Bissoon's ability, and I encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in confirming her as a Federal district judge for the Western District in a vote that will be occurring later this evening. In addition to Judge Bissoon's nomination, I would like to briefly express my support for two other Pennsylvania nominees who were also unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee back in July. I hope they will each receive floor consideration very soon. Mark Hornak, a nominee for the Western District of Pennsylvania, graduated from the University of Pittsburgh, where he was recognized as a National Merit Scholar. He went on to graduate summa cum laude from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, where he served as editor- in-chief of the Law Review and was awarded the Order of the Coif. Following graduation, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable James Sprouse, U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit. Since 1982, he has practiced labor and employment law at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. Throughout Mr. Hornak's career, he has been a careful student of the law and has demonstrated an intellectual curiosity and commitment to integrity, which I know will serve him well if he is confirmed to the bench. Finally, Robert Mariani is a nominee for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He graduated cum laude from Villanova University, received his J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law. Following graduation, he established the law firm of Mariani & Greco, where he began a career as a civil litigator in the Scranton area and has done that for about three decades. He is a respected member of the Scranton community. He was nominated for a State superior court seat in 1993 by then-Gov. Robert Casey, Sr. He served as a mediator or arbitrator for a variety of legal matters and currently is sole shareholder of Robert D. Mariani, P.C., with a focus on employment and labor law. Mr. Mariani's diligence, professionalism, and knowledge of the law would be an asset to the bench. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet separately with both Mr. Hornak and Mr. Mariani and I am very confident of their intellect, their experience, their integrity, temperament, commitment to public service, and to their understanding of the proper role of the judge. I believe these character traits and this range of experience will enable them to serve the people of Pennsylvania. I am, therefore, pleased to rise to speak on their behalf and to urge all my colleagues to support their confirmation.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate regarding judicial nominees from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Air Force Major Thomas E. Clark, from Emporium, PA, whose aircraft was shot down during a combat mission over Laos in 1969. Thomas graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1963. He served with the 416th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 37th Tactical Flight Wing. He was the beloved son of Otto and Josephine Schager Clark. He was married to his high school sweetheart, Kathleen Mottern of Emporium. On February, 8, 1969, Major Clark was flying an F-100D aircraft from Phu Cat Air Base, Republic of Vietnam, in a flight of four on a combat mission over Laos. The flight engaged a 23mm anti-aircraft artillery battery and his aircraft was hit, burst into flames and crashed. No parachute was observed. Visual and electronic searches detected no sign of life. Subsequent to the incident the U.S. Air Force determined Major Clark to be Killed in Action, Body Not Recovered. In his career, Major Clark was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Air Medal with Two Oakleaf Clusters, National Defense Service Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal with One Bronze Service Star. On October 14-20, 2009, a joint U.S/Laotian team investigated the crash site for the fourth time and recovered a human tooth which was later identified as the remains of Major Clark. During a ceremony at Emporium, PA, on October 22, 2011, his remains will be interred in a plot beside his parents. My thoughts and prayers are with Major Clark's family and friends as we honor the life and service of this Pennsylvanian hero. All Americans are deeply indebted to Major Clark for his service and sacrifice.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, last January--probably late in the month I think it was--it occurred to me that as we proceeded in the direction of approaching the statutory limit of our borrowing as a government, the discussion was becoming a little bit counterproductive in some respects. One, in particular, was this constant threat we would default on the loans we had taken out as a government, the bonds that were held by millions of Americans, and that a default would have cataclysmic repercussions. It occurred to me that this is an unproductive discussion, in part, because no such default was ever going to happen. Certainly, it didn't need to happen. In the event we didn't raise the debt limit upon reaching it or prior to that, we would have enough ongoing tax revenue to cover the debt service by many multiples. So I introduced legislation that would clarify this. It would take this risk off the table and try to provide some clarity to markets and to senior citizens who are savers and who have invested their savings in Treasurys and to have a constructive and honest debate about what the implications are of reaching the debt limit without raising it. So I introduced a bill that would instruct the Treasury Secretary to prioritize debt service in the event we didn't raise the debt limit upon reaching it. Unfortunately, the idea was dismissed by the administration. It was derided. It was castigated. It was described as reckless and irresponsible and unworkable. This idea of prioritizing the payments we would make if we didn't raise the debt ceiling was dismissed out of hand. Now we have two reports that have come out this week. One cites the fact that senior Treasury officials have been calling around to big banks assuring them that in the event we don't raise the debt ceiling, which we will hit within just a few days, Treasury is assuring the banks there will be no default; they have this covered, and they have taken care of this. The scheduled interest and principal payments on our bonds will occur on schedule. It is nice that the administration is informing the banks of this. I think it would be nicer still if they would inform the American public and everybody who has such an important stake in ensuring that the U.S. Government not default on its debt. So that was the first report. The second report came out just late last night--and it has been confirmed today--which is that the Treasury has, in fact, been working on a plan of the very nature they have been deriding and denying for many months now; that they, in fact, have been developing and are continuing to refine a plan to prioritize the payments that will be made in the event the debt limit is not raised by August 2. I am glad they have finally come to this conclusion. I wish they had approached Congress and worked with us constructively many months ago when I first suggested we ought to have a plan B, but I would say it is better late than never. But now I think we ought to get this plan, such as it is, exposed to the sunshine of public discourse. We ought to understand what this process will be and Congress ought to have a role in it. That is why I introduced an updated version of this bill last week. I have 33 Senate cosponsors on the bill. The purpose of the bill is not to be a substitute for raising the debt limit. I understand if we don't raise the debt limit close to August 2, the results will be very disruptive. We can minimize that disruption if we have a game plan, and we ought to work this out. The bill I introduced with a number of colleagues is a bill that identifies three very high priorities, that we ought to make sure we make these payments, whether or not we raise the debt ceiling. We know we will have enough money to do so, and I think we have an obligation to do that. The three categories embodied in our bill are, first, interest on our debt. By making sure we make those payments we avoid a catastrophic default and we avoid the financial consequences which could be very dire. So that ought to be one of the top priorities. The second, equally important, is making sure we send out all the Social Security checks in full and on time to everybody who has one coming. Senior citizens all across America, including my parents, depend on Social Security checks, and they have earned those benefits by virtue of the contributions they made into that system, in many cases, for many decades. The third and final item I think ought to be prioritized in the event we don't raise the debt ceiling by August 2 is salaries paid to Active- Duty military. I think the men and women who are risking their lives for all of us deserve to have the peace of mind of knowing that their families back home will not have to wait until Congress gets its act together for them to get their paycheck in arrears. It ought to be done on time. So these three items, if we add them all and look at the amount they would cost during the month of August and we compare that to the tax revenue that is going to come in the door in August, these three expenses are less than half the amount of tax revenue that is going to come in. Clearly, and obviously, this is easily manageable--or easily affordable, I should say. Technically, the Treasury and the Fed have some work to do, no doubt, to make sure this is all done smoothly. That is precisely why they should have engaged with us a long time ago, so we could have had a constructive period of time to work out whatever details are necessary so we could have as smooth a functioning process as possible--one that would have the benefit of a transparent debate. I acknowledge there might be other items that ought to be added to the list, and we ought to have a debate on the floor to consider those items. What we would end up with is a process that the American people would understand, they would know, they could anticipate, and it would be far more constructive. It is getting late in the day, but maybe it is not too late. I hope this body will take up my bill and it will have that debate, we will have some kind of resolution, and we will provide some guidance. I think it is part of our constitutional obligation to have control over spending that occurs in our government, and this should be no exception. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. If my colleagues have constructive suggestions of how we can make it better, I welcome them, as I welcome working with the Treasury and the administration, to make sure that we, in the unfortunate event--if it should occur--that we don't raise the debt ceiling by August 2, do everything we can to minimize the disruption that will follow. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I will address the issue of the pending debt limit. Although the President's most recent speech on this did not give me great cause for confidence, I still hope he will drop his insistence on the huge tax increase in return for making the meaningful spending cuts and reforms that we need. I hope, most of all, he will drop his opposition to putting our budget on a path to balance. That is the big item I think we need in this debate. I think we ought to be willing to raise the debt limit, as I am, if in return for that we would have a commitment of the President to put us on a path to a balanced budget, as President Clinton committed to and he achieved with a Republican Congress back in 1995. I hope we will reach an agreement that solves the underlying problem prior to August 2. I am here this afternoon because I think we all have to acknowledge that we are late in the process, and I think it is indisputable that there is at least a possibility that August 2 will arrive without having raised the debt ceiling, whatever our personal preferences might be about that. In my view, since that is a possibility, it is essential that the Federal Government have a plan for what we will do if those circumstances arise. Specifically, what is going to have to happen is the government will have to spend some period of time--probably a very brief time, but a period of time nevertheless--operating exclusively on the ongoing tax revenues that will be coming in without the ability to go out and borrow additional money. That means necessarily that somebody is going to make decisions about prioritizing payments, by some criteria that somebody will come up with. Rather than simply wait and stumble into this period and discover what somebody has come up with, I think we ought to lay out a plan. So that is what my recently introduced legislation is meant to do. Some of us have made this argument for a long time. We saw this day coming, and we have known that we would face a difficult time raising this debt ceiling. It has always been possible that we would not do it by August 2. I have been arguing that we ought to have this plan. Unfortunately, the administration has persisted in denying that it is even possible to prioritize. It is ridiculous. It is going to happen. They are predicting that we are going to default on our bonds if we go past August 2 without having raised the debt ceiling. In a letter to Congress, Treasury Secretary Geithner said: This would be an unprecedented event in American history. A default would inflict catastrophic, far-reaching damage on our Nation's economy. President Obama said this in May of this year: If investors around the world thought that the full faith and credit of the United States was not being backed up, if they thought that we might renege on our IOUs, it could unravel the entire financial system. These are scare tactics. These things need not happen. I am afraid they are meant to intimidate Members of Congress into voting for a debt limit increase without the underlying reforms and spending cuts that the President resists. I think its irresponsible to make these suggestions because it is entirely within the power of the administration to avoid a catastrophic default even if the debt limit is not raised. Now we have published reports that Treasury officials are making private phone calls to senior executives at big banks informing them that the Treasury will not allow a default--will choose not to default on our bonds. I think they should not default on our bonds, but it is all well and good to tell the big banks this. How about ordinary Americans who wonder: What about our savings, and what about Social Security payments? This is unacceptable. That is why we introduced a bill called Ensuring the Full Faith and Credit of the United States and Protecting America's Soldiers and Seniors Act. We have over 35 cosponsors. Our bill would instruct the Treasury Secretary that in the event, however unlikely, that the debt ceiling is not raised prior to August 2, they make certain obligations and priorities so they will be paid in full, on time, and without delay. Those three priorities are: interest on our debt, so we will not default and plunge our country into economic chaos; No. 2, Social Security payments because millions of senior citizens, including my parents, depend on Social Security payments. They have earned that benefit by virtue of the payments they have made. We can and must honor that obligation. Next is payroll for Active-Duty military personnel because those risking their lives for us deserve this certainty. The fact is, there are far more than enough resources for the administration to make these payments. As this chart illustrates, the green bar reflects total minimum revenue expected to come in in August. The combination of interest on our debt, Active-Duty military pay, and Social Security benefits would add up to less than half of the revenue that we are going to take in in August alone. These are not my numbers. They come from the Bipartisan Policy Center. They illustrate clearly that we have the ability to pay these items and many others. Let me be very clear. I am not suggesting this is a desirable outcome. I am not suggesting this bill is the substitute for raising the debt ceiling. Mr. President, this chart illustrates that there clearly are more than enough financial resources that will be coming into the Treasury day in and day out in the form of ongoing tax revenue to easily be able to afford interest on our debt to avoid a default, Social Security payments to seniors so that they can be assured of the income they deserve, and Active-Duty military pay, with a great deal left over. These are not my numbers. They come independently verified by many organizations, including the Bipartisan Policy Center. This bill is not meant as a substitute for raising the debt limit. It is a mechanism for minimizing the disruption that might otherwise occur if the debt limit is not raised prior to August 2. It is my hope that this legislation never needs to be implemented. But I believe it would be irresponsible for us to go into this period without having planned for how we will handle it in the event this happens. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

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

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wanted to take this occasion to acknowledge a very important event that occurred last night. It occurred in the other body, where we had a vote for the first time since we have been deliberating and debating and wrestling with this challenge of what to do with our debt limit and the fact we have reached that debt limit. We have had a vote by one of the two bodies that have a say in this matter on this very issue, and the House voted yesterday by a significant margin, with a bipartisan vote--although it was mostly one-sided, there were Members of both parties--in favor of raising the debt limit. The House voted to raise the debt limit, in fact, by the full amount the President requested. The House voted to raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion, which would completely eliminate this problem, this struggle we have had over this looming deadline we have been given. However, the vote came with one condition. It came with the condition that the President join Congress in putting our Federal Government on a path to a balanced budget. That is the requirement. That is the contingency. The way the House bill achieves that is by establishing three parts: The first is cuts in spending, the second part is caps on spending, and the third is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The colloquial name this approach has been given is the ``cut, cap, and balance'' approach. This is a big deal because until last night, among the three parties to this debate--the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President--nobody had previously laid out a case that said: Here is how we will raise this debt limit and deal with this problem. The House has now done so. They have passed this measure by a significant margin. I would like to quickly walk through the three elements of it--the cuts, the caps, and the balance. They are really all different pieces designed to achieve one goal, which is to put our Federal budget on a path to balance. The cut refers to cuts in spending in this next fiscal year, which begins soon. It begins on October 1. The cut is 3 percent from this year's spending level--3 percent. So under the House-passed plan, next year we would spend 97 percent of everything we are spending this year, but we would cut 3 percent. Now, anybody who has run a business, anybody who has run a household knows that if you have to, you can cut 3 percent from any big budget. I guarantee you, from the enormously bloated and oversized $3.7 trillion U.S. Government budget, 3 percent is not much, but that is the cut. That is the first part. That is the level of spending for next year--about 3 percent or $111 billion. The next part is the caps. These are the statutory limits as to how much the Federal Government would be permitted to spend in each of the subsequent years for the next 10 years. These levels have spending growth every year. Some suggest these are Draconian, savage cuts in spending. Actually, it is increases, but it is increases in spending at a slower rate than we have had in the past and certainly slower than what others have proposed--what the President's budget proposed and what the Congressional Budget Office is expecting. Therein lies savings. Therein lies the opportunity to put us on a path to a balanced budget because I think we all acknowledge that, unfortunately, we are not going to be able to achieve a balanced budget overnight. Can't do it. We have dug too deep a hole. So we need a little time to get there. The spending caps provide that discipline as we move in that direction. The final piece is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which is something most Americans have strongly supported for a long time. If we achieve that, frankly, we would never have to worry about raising the debt limit anymore because we wouldn't run a deficit. We would be forbidden. Without a deficit, you don't need to issue a new debt, so the debt would never rise, and this problem would be permanently resolved, but much more important, we would have our Federal Government on a sustainable, strong, viable fiscal path, and that would create the opportunity for strong economic growth. I am convinced that part of the reason we are having such a weak economy and such poor job growth is because of the uncertainty we have created not so much over whether we are going to raise the debt limit on August 1 or 2 or 3 or whenever it is but whether we are going to solve the big fiscal challenge we face, the problems dragging down Europe now, and the problems that loom for us. The President and the Treasury Secretary have been extremely alarmed about the prospect that we might not raise the debt limit on August 2. To that very point, the Treasury Secretary said--and I quote from a May 13 letter he sent to Members of Congress: This would be an unprecedented event in American history. He is referring to a failure to raise the debt limit. A default would inflict catastrophic, far-reaching damage on our Nation's economy, significantly reducing growth, and increasing unemployment. President Obama had a similar message of great alarm, again referring to a scenario in which we did not raise the debt limit by August 2. He said: If investors around the world thought that the full faith and credit of the United States were not being backed up, if they thought that we might renege on our IOUs, it could unravel the entire financial system . . . We could have a worse recession than we already had, a worse financial crisis than we already had. So this is how serious the President and the Treasury Secretary say their concern is that we raise the debt limit. Well, the House just did it. The House said: Mr. President, we hereby vote--and they did vote-- to raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion, the full amount the President asked for. They have said this is the only condition: You, Mr. President, need to join us in putting our budget on a path to balance, taking care of this fiscal crisis, and giving us a sustainable fiscal footing so we can have strong economic growth. So the question today before us is, Will the President join us? Will the President embrace this? The President, as I have just quoted, has indicated great alarm at the prospect of not getting the debt limit increase he has asked for. The House has just said: Here it is. Actually, I think, if not every Republican Senator, a big majority of Republican Senators will support what the House has done. I hope there will be many Democrats who will support this as well because none of us wants to test the proposition of what happens if we don't raise the debt limit. So the opportunity is here now. For the first time, we have a bill that has been passed in one of these two bodies that would do exactly what the President has asked for, with just this one condition. Let me comment for a moment on one of the reasons I think it is so important that the President join us in putting our budget on a path to balance. We have heard from various rating agencies that several of them are considering downgrading the credit standing of the United States. This is an appalling thought. I was involved in the bond market in my first career when I got out of college, and the United States stood above ratings. We didn't talk about having a AAA rating because we were above even that. Our rating was so superior to anyone else's, the rating system didn't even really apply to the United States. Well, now, not only does it apply, but the danger is that we won't even qualify for the top rating. Do you know what it is that would cause them to downgrade the debt of the United States? It is not a failure to raise the debt limit by August 2; it is the failure to address this fiscal imbalance, these massive, unsustainable deficits. That is what they have told us has to be corrected or else the downgrade follows, and a downgrade will be enormously problematic because it has all kinds of knock-on effects. So we have heard about a lot of different ideas that have been floated, and I congratulate and commend everybody who has been involved in putting in a lot of effort. I don't agree with everything that everybody has talked about doing, but I think we have seen people from both parties make a good-faith effort to try to solve this problem one way or another. But the fact is there is only one proposal on the table that has passed either body, and there is only one proposal that actually solves our long-term fiscal challenge in the law that has already passed--the bill that has already been passed. So my question now is, Will the President join us and put our government on a path to a balanced budget? We don't expect to get there overnight. By the way, the various levels of cuts and spending and the exact terms of the balanced budget amendment naturally would be subject to discussion. But will the President join us in this effort to restore fiscal sanity and give us the basis for strong economic growth? That is the question, and that is the opportunity for the President. Now, I know the President has been dismissive of the idea of balancing our budget, but I certainly hope he is not so opposed to balancing our budget that he would reject the debt limit increase that he has said we desperately need. There is an opportunity here to solve two problems at once--to solve this problem over the looming date of August 2 by which he has said we absolutely must raise the debt limit, but the more important opportunity is to put our house in fiscal order. The House took a very important step in that direction. The Senate will have a vote later this week. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will embrace this opportunity and the President will join us and will put our Federal Government on a path to balance. With that, I yield the floor.