Treasury Secretary Lew Discusses the Debt Limit
Bipartisan
Policy Center
“Treasury
Secretary Lew to Discuss Debt Limit”
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Key
Topics & Takeaways
- Debt Limit: Secretary Lew
highlighted that Congress had reached bipartisan compromise on the budget which
would fund the government for two years and raise the debt limit so that the
country can continue to meet its obligations.
- Treasury Data: Lew
noted there are many uncertainties around the debt limit and said the Treasury
has shared their data so that others can perform their own independent
analysis.
- Dodd-Frank: Lew
said Administration would strongly oppose any amendments to appropriations
bills that would undermine the core provisions of Dodd-Frank.
- DOL Fiduciary:
Former Senator Nickles expressed concern with the Dept. of Labor’s fiduciary
rule which re-writes the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
without Congressional input, saying he is opposed to executive branch
legislation and suspects there will be a rider on an appropriations bill that
defunds the Administration’s effort.
Speakers
- Secretary Jacob J. Lew,
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury
- Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Former Chair, Senate Budget Committee
- Representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.), Partner, Mercury LLC, Former Elected House Leadership
- Senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), Former Chair, Senate Budget Committee
- William Hoagland, Senior
Vice President, Bipartisan Policy Center
Opening Remarks by Secretary Lew
U.S.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew highlighted that Congress had reached a bipartisan
compromise on the budget that would fund the government for two years and raise
the debt limit, so that the country can continue to meet its obligations. He
further urged Congress to move forward as quickly as possible to provide stable
funding for the government and raise the debt limit.
Additionally,
Lew advocated for Congress to implement the 2010 International Monetary Fund
(IMF) quota and governance reforms stating, “failure to act threatens U.S.
leadership and influence over the IMF decision-making process, and causes other
nations, including some of our allies, to question our commitment to the IMF
and other multilateral institutions.”
Lew
closed by noting that while progress on a deal is very encouraging, time
remains short for Congress to act on the debt limit and noted that the Treasury
has only one week before it runs out of borrowing authority to continue to meet
the country’s obligations.
Question and Answer
When
asked if there were aspects of the debt ceiling that should be changed or
altered to avoid brinksmanship in the future, Secretary Lew responded that he
believes that the debt limit does not make sense as a way of controlling
spending or policies. Lew added that he thought Congress should look at the way
the debt limit is handled for future administrations but that now probably
isn’t the best time to do it.
When asked if he would be able provide any market
assurances or guidance if Congress does not pass an agreement on the debt limit
by the “X-date,” Lew responded that he has been clear on the dates and he
believes Lew noted there are many uncertainties and said the Treasury has
shared their data so that others can perform their own independent analysis,
adding that it would be irresponsible for the government to operate without any
borrowing capacity.
Lew
was asked if Speaker Boehner’s lame duck status playing a large part in
reaching a deal on the debt limit created comfort over the ability to resolve
debt ceiling issues in the future. Lew responded that this agreement is a two
year deal and that Congress would not have to act on the debt limit until 2017
and added that Congress will still have to write appropriation bills, stressing
that the bills will need bipartisan support and should be passed as “clean”
bills.
When
asked
if President Obama would be able to support any appropriation bills that
contain amendments aimed at repealing parts of Dodd-Frank, Lew responded that
the Administration has been very clear that Dodd-Frank has been central to
rebuilding the economy and that maintaining it is critically important. He
added that the Administration would strongly oppose any amendment that would
undermine the core provisions of Dodd-Frank.
Panel Discussion
William
Hoagland, Senior Vice President, Bipartisan Policy Center,
asked former Representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.), Partner,
Mercury LLC, if the debt limit agreement would have been possible had Speaker
Boehner not agreed to give up his position. Webber responded “no,” adding if
Speaker Boehner was not giving up his seat and brought this agreement, the
Freedom Caucus likely would have brought a motion to vacate his chair as
Speaker of the House. Webber said that once Boehner leaves Congress he will likely
get credit for showing leadership at a critical time.
Hoagland
asked former Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Former Chair of
the Senate Budget Committee, whether, after looking at the agreement on the
debt limit, he thought it looked like a good deal. Conrad responded that the
deal is not perfect; however said it is extremely important because it avoids
what could have been a disaster. Conrad added that if the U.S. had failed to
meet the requirements of full faith and credit it would have been disastrous
for the country, the credit markets, and the equity markets of the U.S.
Hoagland
asked former Senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), Former Chair of
Senate Budget Committee, what the chances are that the agreement will be
adopted quickly, given that a number of Senators are up for reelection next
year and some are campaigning to become president. Nickles responded that he
wanted to give credit to Speaker Boehner, Senator McConnell, and the leaders of
Congress for coming together to reach a deal. Nickles added that he believes
the agreement will pass in both the House and the Senate, stating that the
agreement is not perfect but goes a long way to curb entitlements.
Hoagland
noted that Congress tends to act only when “under the gun” and asked Conrad if
he believed that this was the standard order of legislating today. Conrad
responded that when he was a member of Congress it was his hope that members
could tackle issues without self created crises, but said he was “not so sure
anymore” given the current climate in Congress. Conrad noted it seemed that the
only time legislation could get past the finish line was when deadline with
real consequences loomed.
Hoagland
asked Nickles if he believed that one of the best ways to get the President’s
attention is by using the debt limit. Nickles responded that the budget
agreement, in his opinion, would never have happened if it were not for the
debt limit. He further added that the debt limit is a great tool for passing
legislation and noted that Congress was able to pass the Congressional Review
Act as a result of the debt limit. Nickles raised opposition to Lew’s prior
remarks that appropriation bills need to be passed clean, stating that the
Constitution stipulates Congress controls appropriations and it is up to
members of Congress to negotiate what goes into these bills.
Question and Answer
An
audience
member asked Nickles and Conrad if they regretted voting to repeal the
Glass-Steagall Act and if they believed that it should be reinstated. Nickles
responded that he did not recall how he voted and said that he is concerned
with Administration’s fiduciary rule which re-writes the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) without Congressional input. Nickles stated he is
opposed to executive branch legislation and suspects there will be a rider on
an appropriations bill that defunds the Administration’s effort. Conrad
responded that he remembered his vote on repealing Glass-Steagall and that he
put a lot of thought into his decision.
An
audience member asked if there will be significant revisions to the Affordable
Care Act (ACA), four to five years into the future. Nickles said he believes
that regardless of who becomes the next president, the ACA will see significant
changes. He added that if a Republican is elected, the Act would likely see
something close to a “repeal and replace” process. Conrad responded that we
will likely always have some form of the ACA while recognizing that there are a
number of problems with the Act that will need to be addressed in the future.
Weber responded that the Act will be revised but said the process will occur
more slowly and over time. He added that he believes that the ACA will survive
in some form since it is already being institutionalized.
For
more information on this hearing, please click here.
Bipartisan
Policy Center
“Treasury
Secretary Lew to Discuss Debt Limit”
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Key
Topics & Takeaways
- Debt Limit: Secretary Lew
highlighted that Congress had reached bipartisan compromise on the budget which
would fund the government for two years and raise the debt limit so that the
country can continue to meet its obligations.
- Treasury Data: Lew
noted there are many uncertainties around the debt limit and said the Treasury
has shared their data so that others can perform their own independent
analysis.
- Dodd-Frank: Lew
said Administration would strongly oppose any amendments to appropriations
bills that would undermine the core provisions of Dodd-Frank.
- DOL Fiduciary:
Former Senator Nickles expressed concern with the Dept. of Labor’s fiduciary
rule which re-writes the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
without Congressional input, saying he is opposed to executive branch
legislation and suspects there will be a rider on an appropriations bill that
defunds the Administration’s effort.
Speakers
- Secretary Jacob J. Lew,
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury - Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Former Chair, Senate Budget Committee
- Representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.), Partner, Mercury LLC, Former Elected House Leadership
- Senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), Former Chair, Senate Budget Committee
- William Hoagland, Senior
Vice President, Bipartisan Policy Center
Opening Remarks by Secretary Lew
U.S.
Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew highlighted that Congress had reached a bipartisan
compromise on the budget that would fund the government for two years and raise
the debt limit, so that the country can continue to meet its obligations. He
further urged Congress to move forward as quickly as possible to provide stable
funding for the government and raise the debt limit.
Additionally,
Lew advocated for Congress to implement the 2010 International Monetary Fund
(IMF) quota and governance reforms stating, “failure to act threatens U.S.
leadership and influence over the IMF decision-making process, and causes other
nations, including some of our allies, to question our commitment to the IMF
and other multilateral institutions.”
Lew
closed by noting that while progress on a deal is very encouraging, time
remains short for Congress to act on the debt limit and noted that the Treasury
has only one week before it runs out of borrowing authority to continue to meet
the country’s obligations.
Question and Answer
When
asked if there were aspects of the debt ceiling that should be changed or
altered to avoid brinksmanship in the future, Secretary Lew responded that he
believes that the debt limit does not make sense as a way of controlling
spending or policies. Lew added that he thought Congress should look at the way
the debt limit is handled for future administrations but that now probably
isn’t the best time to do it.
When asked if he would be able provide any market
assurances or guidance if Congress does not pass an agreement on the debt limit
by the “X-date,” Lew responded that he has been clear on the dates and he
believes Lew noted there are many uncertainties and said the Treasury has
shared their data so that others can perform their own independent analysis,
adding that it would be irresponsible for the government to operate without any
borrowing capacity.
Lew
was asked if Speaker Boehner’s lame duck status playing a large part in
reaching a deal on the debt limit created comfort over the ability to resolve
debt ceiling issues in the future. Lew responded that this agreement is a two
year deal and that Congress would not have to act on the debt limit until 2017
and added that Congress will still have to write appropriation bills, stressing
that the bills will need bipartisan support and should be passed as “clean”
bills.
When
asked
if President Obama would be able to support any appropriation bills that
contain amendments aimed at repealing parts of Dodd-Frank, Lew responded that
the Administration has been very clear that Dodd-Frank has been central to
rebuilding the economy and that maintaining it is critically important. He
added that the Administration would strongly oppose any amendment that would
undermine the core provisions of Dodd-Frank.
Panel Discussion
William
Hoagland, Senior Vice President, Bipartisan Policy Center,
asked former Representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.), Partner,
Mercury LLC, if the debt limit agreement would have been possible had Speaker
Boehner not agreed to give up his position. Webber responded “no,” adding if
Speaker Boehner was not giving up his seat and brought this agreement, the
Freedom Caucus likely would have brought a motion to vacate his chair as
Speaker of the House. Webber said that once Boehner leaves Congress he will likely
get credit for showing leadership at a critical time.
Hoagland
asked former Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Former Chair of
the Senate Budget Committee, whether, after looking at the agreement on the
debt limit, he thought it looked like a good deal. Conrad responded that the
deal is not perfect; however said it is extremely important because it avoids
what could have been a disaster. Conrad added that if the U.S. had failed to
meet the requirements of full faith and credit it would have been disastrous
for the country, the credit markets, and the equity markets of the U.S.
Hoagland
asked former Senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.), Former Chair of
Senate Budget Committee, what the chances are that the agreement will be
adopted quickly, given that a number of Senators are up for reelection next
year and some are campaigning to become president. Nickles responded that he
wanted to give credit to Speaker Boehner, Senator McConnell, and the leaders of
Congress for coming together to reach a deal. Nickles added that he believes
the agreement will pass in both the House and the Senate, stating that the
agreement is not perfect but goes a long way to curb entitlements.
Hoagland
noted that Congress tends to act only when “under the gun” and asked Conrad if
he believed that this was the standard order of legislating today. Conrad
responded that when he was a member of Congress it was his hope that members
could tackle issues without self created crises, but said he was “not so sure
anymore” given the current climate in Congress. Conrad noted it seemed that the
only time legislation could get past the finish line was when deadline with
real consequences loomed.
Hoagland
asked Nickles if he believed that one of the best ways to get the President’s
attention is by using the debt limit. Nickles responded that the budget
agreement, in his opinion, would never have happened if it were not for the
debt limit. He further added that the debt limit is a great tool for passing
legislation and noted that Congress was able to pass the Congressional Review
Act as a result of the debt limit. Nickles raised opposition to Lew’s prior
remarks that appropriation bills need to be passed clean, stating that the
Constitution stipulates Congress controls appropriations and it is up to
members of Congress to negotiate what goes into these bills.
Question and Answer
An
audience
member asked Nickles and Conrad if they regretted voting to repeal the
Glass-Steagall Act and if they believed that it should be reinstated. Nickles
responded that he did not recall how he voted and said that he is concerned
with Administration’s fiduciary rule which re-writes the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) without Congressional input. Nickles stated he is
opposed to executive branch legislation and suspects there will be a rider on
an appropriations bill that defunds the Administration’s effort. Conrad
responded that he remembered his vote on repealing Glass-Steagall and that he
put a lot of thought into his decision.
An
audience member asked if there will be significant revisions to the Affordable
Care Act (ACA), four to five years into the future. Nickles said he believes
that regardless of who becomes the next president, the ACA will see significant
changes. He added that if a Republican is elected, the Act would likely see
something close to a “repeal and replace” process. Conrad responded that we
will likely always have some form of the ACA while recognizing that there are a
number of problems with the Act that will need to be addressed in the future.
Weber responded that the Act will be revised but said the process will occur
more slowly and over time. He added that he believes that the ACA will survive
in some form since it is already being institutionalized.
For
more information on this hearing, please click here.