The grave threat of default is far too near and too serious

Washington, D.C. Today, U.S. Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI15) issued the following floor statement for the record regarding his vote in favor of S. 365, the Budget Control Act of 2011. S. 365 passed the House by a vote of 269 to 161:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in heavy-hearted support of S. 365, an imperfect, bipartisan compromise to raise the debt ceiling and reign in federal spending. House and Senate leaders have been bickering for months over this issue, and we have waited until the 59th minute of the 11th hour to reach an agreement. If we do not raise the debt ceiling by tomorrow, our economy will be deeply shaken, resulting not only in massive losses to Wall Street, but also in increased costs and interest rates for American families. With the severe threat of default upon us, it is time to come together for our Nations best interests.

This is not the bill I would have written, and I do not know a single Member of Congress who believes this bill is perfect. I agreed with President Obamas sentiments today when he said that ‘as with any compromise, the outcome is far from satisfying. However, as a Member of Congress, there are times when you must hold your nose and vote for a compromise that, while imperfect, is necessary. I believe this is one of those times. The grave threat of default is far too near and too serious not to vote for this agreement.

I am happy to see that this compromise provides long-term economic certainty, raising the debt ceiling until 2013. This will give our markets, investors, and economic partners abroad confidence in the U.S. economy and our ability to pay our bills. It also takes a bold step toward fiscal responsibility, resulting in over $2.1 trillion in deficit reduction, as recently scored by the Congressional Budget Office. I believe it is important to seriously address our national debt so as not to burden future generations.

The bill will immediately enact strict ten-year spending caps on both defense and non-defense programs, resulting in $917 billion in savings. It also creates a bipartisan congressional committee which will identify an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November 23, 2011, including from entitlement and tax reform. Both the House and Senate will hold an up or down vote on the committee's proposal.

I believe this compromise cuts too far into many important government programs and that these spending reductions will not be easy to swallow. Discretionary spending will be brought to its lowest levels since the Eisenhower Administration. I am reassured, however, that cuts will not be made to Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, Pell Grants for low-income college students, or civilian and military retirement programs.

I am greatly disappointed that this compromise does not immediately include revenue increases for the wealthiest Americans, and I believe it places the brunt of the burden of deficit reduction on low-income and middle-class families. I am optimistic, however, that the future plan set forth by the bipartisan congressional committee on deficit reduction will include such revenue increases. Instead of protecting tax breaks for Big Oil, corporations that ship jobs overseas, and the very richest among us, these groups should share in the sacrifice.

We could each sit here refusing to support a bill that does not mirror our individual priorities, allowing the U.S. to default on its loans and permitting an economic catastrophe. Or we could come together and support a compromise that, while imperfect, gets the job done. We were elected to be mature civic leaders who could put public interests before self interests. I urge my colleagues to serve that purpose by supporting this bill.