Establishing the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to remind the American people why we are in the midst of the present crisis, days away from when the United States of America, the wealthiest Nation in the world, will not be able to pay its bills. Let me be clear. The Senator from Oklahoma earlier had a chart up saying we are broke, broke, broke. We are the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world. We have the highest per capita income of any major nation in the world. If we are so rich, why are we so broke?

The issue here, despite what some may suggest, is not about new borrowing or new spending; it is about paying the bills for what we have already incurred. Yet the Republicans, after running up a huge credit card bill under George Bush, do not want to pay the bills. As every American knows, if you use your credit card, you run up debt, and you have to pay the bills. And throughout American history, whether a Democratic or Republican Congress or a Democratic or Republican President, that is what we as a nation have done.

On this point, it could not be more clear than this letter to Senator Howard Baker from President Ronald Reagan:

The full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of default by the United States are impossible and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result.

President Ronald Reagan, 1983. It can't get much clearer than that. However, today Ronald Reagan would find himself losing in a Republican Party primary because he would not be pure enough for the tea party.

Because Republicans in the House are unwilling to do what even Ronald Reagan said needs to be done, we find ourselves in the midst of a manufactured crisis--a manufactured crisis--one without precedent: one House of Congress willing to jeopardize the economy of the United States unless the country capitulates and accepts policies that otherwise do not enjoy majority support, policies that could not pass the Congress, policies that would be vetoed by the President. This is simply unprecedented.

I believe this unprecedented action requires an unprecedented response. As at other critical junctures in our history, the President must act boldly to protect our Constitution and, more important, our country. The Constitution never envisioned that one House of Congress would willingly destroy the economy of the United States in order to obtain policy objectives it could not achieve through the normal legislative process. Yet that is the situation in which our Nation finds itself.

The legislative process is hard. It is frustrating. Trust me, there are many ideas and proposals I have fought my entire career on to become law, and they are never the way I envisioned starting out because you make compromises along the way. Yet rather than engaging in the hard work of persuading the American people, persuading a majority of the House, persuading a majority of the Senate, persuading the President--a task which often takes years and multiple elections--the House Republicans want to short-circuit the legislative process by holding the economy hostage.

For example, if the Republicans in the House put forward a bill to eliminate Medicare, it would not get anywhere. Yet, with their cut, cap, and balance budget amendment, it would shrink the government to the size it was prior to Medicare even taking hold, and that would mean we would have to do away with Medicare. However, that could never pass here on its own.

Likewise, I read that Speaker Boehner recently suggested to the President that the House would vote to allow the United States to pay its bills if the President would agree to repeal health care reform--in other words, take health insurance away from 30 million Americans and allow health insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions.

The House could never achieve these policy objectives through the normal process, so they hold the economy hostage. Think about that. This is not just the attitude of the Republican Party with respect to the debt limit. The Republican Party has adopted an entirely new approach to democracy that is wholly undemocratic. If they cannot win elections or win the court of public opinion, they insist on holding the country hostage.

The minority leader has been frank about this approach to governing. In a recent speech about a balanced budget amendment, the minority leader of the Senate, the Republican leader, said the following:

The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that forces Washington to balance its books. ..... The Constitution must be amended to keep the government in check. We've tried persuasion. We've tried negotiations. We've tried elections. Nothing has worked.

Say again? Say again? We have tried elections, and nothing has worked? What is he implying?

Furthermore, I would say to the Republican leader, we had surpluses in 1998 and 1999 and 2000 and 2001. We had 4 years of surpluses. Yet, somehow, ``We've tried elections. Nothing has worked.'' Is he implying that somehow we need to have another course of action outside of elections, outside of persuasion, outside of negotiation?

President Bush's former speech writer, David Frum, recently commented on increasingly absurd and unrealistic demands put forth by House Republicans before they will agree not to destroy the American economy. He noted:

Why doesn't the new Boehner bill just require Obama to resign in favor of a Republican before the second debt ceiling increase? Tidier.

Sadly, that is not too far from the truth. In the face of this radical--radical and cynical--approach to governing, we are faced with a manufactured crisis. Indeed, the ramifications for our economy, for our middle class, indeed for America's ability to trust and believe in their government--the stakes could not be higher.

In response, in the absence of a balanced approach that could be agreed upon broadly in the Senate and the House, I

believe the President must act boldly. He must carry out his constitutional duty to honor the commitments the U.S. Government has made. I believe the President, under the 14th amendment of the Constitution, must honor the obligations of the U.S. Government.

As the Supreme Court noted in Perry v. United States, Chief Justice Hughes' opinion:

The fourteenth amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, ..... shall not be questioned. While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, this language indicates a broader connotation.

Chief Justice Hughes goes on to say:

The Constitution gives to the Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, an unqualified power, a power vital to the government, upon which in an extremity its very life may depend. The binding quality of the promise of the United States is of the essence of the credit which is so pledged. Having this power to authorize the issue of definite obligations for the payment of money borrowed--

Listen to this--

the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations.

One more time. Congress has unlimited power to borrow, but ``the Congress has not been vested with authority to alter or destroy those obligations.'' I do not think it could be more clear. It could not be more clear. Congress has not been vested with the authority to alter or destroy the Nation's credit obligations. Of course, that means the Congress cannot through its actions repudiate the Nation's debt, but it also means, through its inaction--failing to raise the debt ceiling--it cannot repudiate our country's obligations. Thus, rather than somehow prohibiting the President from taking action to protect the full faith and credit of the United States, as some have suggested, I believe the clear reading of the 14th amendment, as supported by Perry v. United States, I believe the President is obligated--obligated--to ensure that, in the words of the 14th amendment, the public debt not be questioned.

I know legal scholars have spent some time in recent weeks debating the meaning of the 14th amendment with respect to the debt ceiling. But where there is debate on the meaning of the Constitution, where there is no precedent, where the courts have not weighed in, where under our system of government we cannot just walk across the street to the Supreme Court and ask them for an advisory opinion, I want to remind the President that the Constitution does not belong to law professors, it does not belong to political pundits, it does not belong to columnists; rather, it belongs to the American people. And you, Mr. President--you, Mr. President--have been entrusted by the American people, in a very clear election, as it says right here in the Constitution, ``to faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States and to the best of your ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

So the 14th amendment makes clear the full faith and credit of the United States cannot be destroyed. The only case on point ever decided by the Supreme Court said the Congress cannot alter or destroy those obligations--cannot. So if the Congress, through inaction--through inaction or action tries to destroy or alter those obligations, I believe it is incumbent upon the Chief Executive to exercise his authority--to exercise his authority--to make sure the full faith and credit of the United States is not jeopardized--is not jeopardized.

The President should use his authority to do so.

I will give you three examples where there is no precedent, where there is no clear authority in the Constitution, but where the President exercised that kind of authority.

Thomas Jefferson purchasing the Louisiana Purchase.

In Thomas Jefferson's letter to Senator Breckenridge, he agonized over whether he, as President, had the authority under the Constitution to consummate the treaty for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. But in the end--he even said in his letter that perhaps we need a constitutional amendment to go to the Congress and the States and be ratified before I can do this. But in the end, he realized that would take a long time, it might fall through, and all kinds of bad things would happen. So even one of the Framers of our Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, took action even though there was no clear authority in the Constitution for him to do so. In fact, Members of the House went after him for it. But he decided it was better, as he said, to ensure the future benefits of the United States rather than some minor violation of the Constitution.

A second example: President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. There was no authority whatsoever for him to do that, but he did it, even though some people, at that time, went after him because he didn't have the clear authority in the Constitution to do so.

A third example: Franklin Roosevelt and the lend-lease program in Great Britain to make sure they could fight off the Nazi invasion of Great Britain, a clear success. Franklin Roosevelt wrote that he didn't think that was probably constitutional, but he instructed his Attorney General--he gave his own Attorney General a legal opinion, from the President, saying that the country needed to have this done. He went ahead and did it. Again, some people took after him on it, but we all realized it was the right thing to do for the survival of our own country.

Those were just three instances--three big ones--where, again, there was no clear authority by the Constitution but no prohibition in the Constitution for the President to do so, and where the vital security of the United States was at stake.

I will close on this: I believe this is just like those times. The security and the future improvement of the United States and future generations depends upon the President taking this action boldly and forthrightly to preserve the integrity and to make sure the obligations and the full faith and credit of the United States is not questioned.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source