Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 116 (Friday, July 29, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 116 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5030-S5034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE DEBT CEILING

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a historic weekend in Washington,
and I think those who are visiting the Capitol and following the
proceedings understand the gravity of the decisions that lie before us.
On August 2, our debt ceiling expires. That has never happened in our
history. One time there was a technical period of 1 or 2 days, but
there has never been a long period of time when the United States of
America basically defaulted on its debt. And it is a very serious
matter. It is one that affects our Nation, our debt, and literally
every family and business that lives within our boundaries.
Here is the reason why it is so important. In 1939, we created this
law which said that a President could come to Congress periodically and
ask for the authority to borrow money to pay for the things Congress
has already appropriated. So, as an example, when Members of the House
and Senate say to the President of the United States: We want you to
continue to wage war in Afghanistan, at the cost of $10 billion a
month, this President knows he will have to borrow about $4 billion a
month to meet that congressional appropriation. You see, we borrow
about 40 cents for every dollar we spend.
Similarly, when it comes to the payments we make to our veterans who
are disabled, we have promised them: We will pay you because you served
our country and you lost a limb or you were injured, and we will
compensate you for that loss for the rest of your life. We understand
in making that commitment we are also making a commitment to borrow the
money necessary to do it.
So periodically a President will come to Congress and say: I
understand our obligations which you have sent to me and I have
approved, and now I ask you to extend my authority to borrow the money
to meet those obligations. That has happened 89 times since 1939. Since
we passed this law, Presidents of both parties have come to Congress
and asked for that authority. As I mentioned, not one time did Congress
say no except that one technical period in I believe 1979--89 times, 55
times by Republican Presidents and 34 times by Democratic Presidents.
When you look at the Presidents who have requested extensions of the
debt ceiling I have just described, the President who holds the record
for the most requests is President Ronald Reagan, who, in an 8-year
period of time, asked to have the debt ceiling of the United States
extended 18 times, more than twice a year. During the Ronald Reagan
Presidency, the debt of the United States tripled. That is why he came
to Congress so often.
The President who ranks second in terms of increasing our national
debt during his 8 years is President George W. Bush. The debt of
America virtually doubled during his Presidency because we waged two
wars we didn't pay for; we did something we had never done in our
history: cut taxes particularly for the rich in the midst of a war; and
we had many programs unpaid for.

[[Page S5031]]

So President after President has used this statutory authority to
come to Congress and ask for approval to extend the debt ceiling.
President Obama has done the same. As of August 2, his authority to ask
to borrow money will expire. That is a serious moment if we default on
the debt. It will be the first time it has happened in our history.
What will it mean to the United States of America to default on our
debt and fail to extend the debt ceiling? Well, imagine if you decided
as a homeowner to stop making your mortgage payments. Within a period
of time, you would receive a phone call from your creditor saying: Did
you forget your check this month? And if you say: No, I am just not
going to pay it, you understand the consequences--your credit status is
going to be affected.
The credit status of the United States is the best in the world. We
have a AAA bond rating--the highest of any nation--and because we have
that high bond rating, we have the lowest interest rates that we pay to
borrow money.
Well, go back to the homeowner. If you have just defaulted on your
mortgage, your credit report is going to look pretty bad. The
likelihood that you could turn around and borrow money the next month
is in doubt, and if someone will loan you money at that point, it will
be at the highest interest rate because you are a risk now; you failed
to make your mortgage payment. Similarly, if the United States fails to
extend the debt ceiling, our credit rating will go down from AAA, the
interest rate charged the U.S. Government will increase, and what has
been considered the rock-solid, best economy in the world will be
jeopardized by this action.
What does it mean for the interest rate on the debt of the United
States to go up? This calculation has been made by many, and I believe
it is accurate. For every 1 percent increase in the interest rate the
United States pays on its debt, we will add $130 billion a year to our
debt--$1.3 trillion, roughly, over a 10-year period of time. So the
failure to extend the debt ceiling, the default of the United States,
and higher interest rates will make our debt worse. That is why what we
are facing this week in Washington is so terrible, because what we are
dealing with here is a politically manufactured crisis. We are dealing
with a self-inflicted wound.
Because the House Republicans under Speaker Boehner refuse to extend
the President's request for the debt ceiling when our current authority
expires August 2, we could find ourselves paying higher interest rates
and even deeper in debt. And it gets worse because when the interest
rates paid by the U.S. Government go up, interest rates across our
economy go up. What it means is that a lot of innocent people who are
borrowing money to buy a car or a home or to pay for college loans or
to pay off their credit card are going to pay more. It is like imposing
a tax on every family and business in America at the worst possible
time. We are recovering from a recession. Too many people are out of
work. Businesses need to expand and borrow money. Raising interest
rates stops that. This doesn't have to happen. This self-inflicted
wound by the House Republicans and Speaker Boehner does not have to
happen.
In fairness to Speaker Boehner, his goal is to reduce America's debt.
I accept that challenge. In fact, for the last year and a half, I have
engaged personally on a bipartisan basis to meet that challenge, first
as a member of President Obama's deficit commission, the Bowles-Simpson
fiscal commission. We sat for months and listened to testimony, and
finally 11 out of 18 of us voted for the report issued. What it came up
with was a 10-year plan to reduce our debt by $4 trillion--not easy. It
sounds as though it would be easy when you look at all the money we
spend, but when you get into the specifics, it is politically painful.
But what we agreed to do was to put everything on the table. And I want
to tell you, I did that with some reservation.
I am concerned about many things in our country but two things in
particular. I am concerned about the most vulnerable people in America,
those who are aged, poor, and sick. I want to make certain that at the
end of the day, America still has a safety net, that this good and
caring Nation is doing everything it can to help these people.
What programs do they rely on? Well, they rely on the earned-income
tax credit under our Tax Code, the childcare tax credit, Medicaid, the
health insurance that covers one-third of the children in America and
many elderly people in nursing homes. So when we talk about cuts in
these programs, I was very sensitive to them and determined to make
sure we didn't cut any more than necessary to reach our goal.
We also put revenue on the table. We have to do that. How can we ask
working families in America to pay more on their children's college
student loans and be prepared to sacrifice and how can we ask the
seniors in America to be willing to sacrifice when it comes to their
Medicare Program and not turn to the wealthiest people in our country
and ask them to join in this sacrifice? That has become the major
stumbling block in this negotiation. You see, Republican Speaker
Boehner has said: I will not accept any--underline the word ``any''--
tax increases on the wealthiest people in America. I will agree, he
said, to cut everything else, every other benefit for every other
person, but not one penny more in taxes from the wealthiest people in
America. That doesn't strike me as fair or just or reasonable, but that
is where we are.

We also put spending cuts in this program, substantial spending cuts
so that every single program in America would be closely inspected,
reduced in spending, and move us toward a deficit-reduction goal.
Then I went a step further. I joined with five of my colleagues--
three Republicans and three of us on the Democratic side--and we sat
down for 6 months and worked on something called the Gang of 6 and came
up with a specific plan of how to do this.
Well, Mr. President, you know we had a meeting a couple weeks ago,
and we invited most of the Members of the Senate to come and listen to
what we had proposed. Forty-nine Senators showed up, Democrats and
Republicans, in a room not far from here and listened as we laid out
what we considered a bipartisan plan to deal with the deficit. We then
went back to those Senators and said: How many of you will put your
name on the line to join us in a bipartisan effort to reduce the
deficit? And we are now up to 36 Senators who have done that. Over one-
third of the Senators have signed on to a bipartisan effort to reduce
the deficit.
What a sharp contrast that is from what is going on in the House of
Representatives, where right now the Speaker of the House, the
Republican Speaker, is negotiating only with Republican Members to pass
a plan. I don't think that is what the American people sent us here to
do. I don't think they said to Democrats, come to Washington but don't
speak to Republicans, or to Republicans, come to Washington but don't
speak to Democrats. The bottom line is that, Democrats and Republicans
notwithstanding, we are all Americans, and we all have a
responsibility.
So here we are today at this impasse, and Speaker Boehner announced
Monday night, when he had a press conference at the same time as the
President's announcement to the Nation, that he had a plan--he called
it a bipartisan plan--that he would pass in the House of
Representatives. We expected that to happen Tuesday, and it didn't; and
then Wednesday, and it didn't; and then yesterday, and he failed to
pass it then, too. We waited all night until 11:00--when we finally
adjourned--for the Speaker to pass what he considered to be a good plan
and for us to react to it. Now we hear the Speaker may be able to get
to it later in the afternoon or in the early evening hours. Mr.
President, this is unacceptable.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, that is unacceptable. By my calculation,
we have 4 days before we default on our debt, 4 days before the
American economy suffers this mortal blow, 4 days before we default on
America's full faith and credit for the first time in our history, 4
days while businesses across America are withholding agreements and
negotiations that create

[[Page S5032]]

jobs, 4 days where America people have to worry that if we default on
our debt, the government will have to pick and choose those who will
receive government checks in August.
The Senator from Pennsylvania came to the floor for the last 2 days
and said: Oh, if we default on the debt, we can manage that. Really? If
we default on the debt, we will have $172 billion to spend and $306
billion in obligations.
He said: Well, of course we have to pay interest on the other debts.
We don't want to default on everything. OK.
He said: Of course we have to pay everybody under Social Security.
Yes.
He said: Of course we have to pay our soldiers who are in combat.
Agreed. All good ideas.
Then he said: And then we will work the others out.
Whom did he leave off the list? He left every Federal employee off
the list. That would be all of the people working at the Central
Intelligence Agency monitoring terrorists to stop them from attacking
the United States. That would be the air traffic controllers in our
airline system across America. That would be the Federal prison guards
working the Federal correctional facilities. That would be all of our
veterans receiving disability checks.
Easily managed? Not so fast. It wouldn't be easily managed. There
would be losers in that process, and many of them are innocent people
who would be lost to the frustration of this political process.
There is a way through this, but the only way through it is if
Members of both parties come together and do it quickly. I don't think
it is going to happen in the House. The House has decided they are
going to do an all-Republican, all-day approach. That isn't going to
solve the problem in the House or the problem on Capitol Hill.
This morning, the majority leader, Harry Reid, standing at this desk,
turned to Senator McConnell from Kentucky, the Republican leader, and
said: Now it is our turn. Now we have to step up. Now we have to come
up with a bipartisan approach and show leadership. Senator Reid is
right. Senator McConnell has demonstrated in the past that he has been
willing to do that and now more than ever he should. I think the 36
Senators who have stepped up, joined me and others in saying we can
find a bipartisan way to deal with this must be heard. Our voices must
be heard but, more importantly, the spirit of compromise must be heard.
That is what the American people expect of us. They didn't send each of
us here to win every battle under our own terms and not give. They sent
us here to govern and to respect this great country.

I would sincerely hope we will approach the next 72 hours with the
spirit of humility--humility to understand that so many innocent people
across America, families and businesses, are waiting on us and counting
on us. We cannot fail them. No one will care at the end of the day who
has the great political headline, but we will all be judged--Democrats
and Republicans, House and Senate--as to whether we met our
constitutional obligation to this Nation and the people who live here.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the challenges we face are difficult. I
am proud of the work the House of Representatives has done. I do not
appreciate it being suggested that somehow they are unreasonable
because I don't believe that is fair to say about them. They worked
very hard. They complied with the congressionally mandated statutory
requirement to pass a budget. They passed a 10-year budget that was
honest and open. It was publicly debated in the House of
Representatives. They passed it, and it would have fundamentally
altered the debt trajectory of America. It would put us on a sound
path. It could have gone a little farther, frankly, but it goes farther
than anything else we have seen and puts us on the path to a sound
economic future.
What happened in the Senate? I am ranking Republican on the Senate
Budget Committee. We are required to mark up a budget in the Senate by
law. It doesn't say you go to jail if you don't follow the law. It
doesn't have any penalty, I will acknowledge. It is a law, but we don't
have to follow it, except we certainly have an obligation to do so.
Certainly we would want, I think, to have a budget in the Senate. We
have not had one now for over 800 days, over 2 years. We were within a
week--less than that--of commencing hearings to mark up a budget that
would be moved by the Democratic majority. When they do so, it is not
even subject to a filibuster. It can be passed with 50 votes, and there
are 53 Democrats in the Senate. The majority party always has that
obligation to move a budget. Senator Reid, the Democratic leadership,
decided they wouldn't do it. He said it would be foolish to have a
budget so we haven't passed a budget.
The House has said it would reduce spending by up to $5 trillion or
$6 trillion. Because of the Senate's objection and the President's
objection, they have agreed to raise the debt limit by $1 trillion, and
they have agreed to cut spending in America by $1 trillion. They have
tried to reach an agreement so we wouldn't have a shutdown. Then, all
of a sudden, my Democratic colleagues now come forward and say they
don't want to accept that. They want the Reid amendment.
The Reid amendment has the same actual savings. We have looked at the
numbers and we have seen how they have done it. There is about a $1
trillion savings in the Reid bill with a reduction in spending of about
$1 trillion. He claims it is $2.7 trillion. That is almost three times
what it actually achieves. Therefore, they want to continue to raise
the debt limit by almost $3 trillion, the largest amount it has ever
been raised. Why? Because the President said so. This is what the
President said a week ago:

The only bottom line that I have is that we extend this
debt ceiling through the next election, into 2013.

The President thinks this is about him. It is all about him. This is
about America and what is good for this country. It is not about the
President. It is not about politics. If it were about politics, I
wouldn't vote for the Boehner amendment and neither would a lot of
those patriotic Members of the House because it is not enough. It does
not do what we need to do. We need to do $4 trillion, $5 trillion, $6
trillion over 10 years. The debt is going to increase over the next 10
years from $9 trillion to $13 trillion, and $1 trillion is not enough.
It can only be seen as a step in the right direction. So forgive me if
I am a little frustrated about that.
I want to talk about something that is problematic and needs to be
known. It is not being focused on, and this is Senator Reid's amendment
and his solution to the deficit problem. He wants to raise the debt
ceiling so we can keep borrowing money and spending more than we take
in. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. The President
this morning said he liked the Reid amendment and is what he wishes to
see. He doesn't like the House version. I think there are some things
we all ought to think about and know that are in the Reid amendment.
As I have said, we have gone 821 days without a budget. The law
requires us to have a budget. A lack of a congressional budget
contributes to our fiscal nightmare. Since we last passed a budget, we
have spent $7 trillion. The reason we don't have a budget is because it
is carefully and deliberately orchestrated that we not have one by the
leadership of this Senate. They have planned for just the eventuality
that is occurring. I have warned for weeks and months on the floor of
the Senate that we would be at the eleventh hour with people scurrying
around in secret, plotting deals to try to figure out how to deal with
the crisis this Nation faces. That is exactly what is happening.
Today it was announced that the second quarter economic growth was
1.3 percent. That is anemic and well below what we were hoping to see
and thought we might. We have had expert testimony that the debt we
have pulls down economic growth. Had the Senate adopted a budget in a
timely manner this year, as the House did, we would not be at this
last-minute crisis. It was deliberately orchestrated because it gives
maximum leverage to the President and the press. The question becomes
not what is in the deal, but do you have a deal? Just do anything. We

[[Page S5033]]

are going to be in a crisis if you don't pass something. We want a
deal. The House has come up with a very reasonable compromise. It looks
as though some people want to have this fuss and put us through the
crisis even when they get basically what they have asked for.
The Reid amendment to increase the debt limit deems two consecutive
budget resolutions for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. In other words, it
basically takes over the budget process and sets the basic spending
numbers. Does the President think the Senate should go 2 more years
without crafting or passing a budget? We have already gone 2 years. The
Reid amendment sets spending allocations for most Senate committees at
the Congressional Budget Office's rising baseline. These are
bureaucratic members. They work hard, but they are not elected. They
are not constitutionally accountable. It says we are going to deem the
amount we spend by what CBO has projected our growth in spending to be,
and CBO projects growth in spending. They don't set that as right for
America, but they project that is what will occur under the current
circumstances. This deems those higher growing numbers as what should
be.
Without hearings or debates on these allocations, this provision
would provide a further excuse for avoiding a budget and increase the
likelihood that the Congressional Budget Act will be violated for the
third straight year. This is an abrogation of the responsibilities of
the Senate and of the Budget Committee of the Senate. We are not
elected to the Senate and chosen to sit on the Budget Committee to see
most of the budget levels automatically raised based on a set of
spending growth projections by the CBO. They are not empowered to do
that. They don't claim to, actually. I should not demean them. They do
what their duty is. It is this kind of process that has placed the
country in a financial crisis.
We keep locking in spending levels that are going up. When we reduce
the growth in spending a little bit, you know what we say we are doing?
We are cutting spending, and it is spending more. That is the way the
budget is. When they say we are going to save $1 trillion through the
House plan----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask for 2 additional minutes to wrap up.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. The provision that takes over that and sets us on an
automatic growth course is not the right one. Both the Reid amendment
and the House bill say we save about $1 trillion over the next 10
years. I would note that the difference between the two is how long or
how much is achieved by that. Senator Reid wants almost 2 years and the
House Members would do it based on a dollar-per-dollar manner. That $1
trillion in the Reid amendment does not reduce spending. It only
reduces the growth in spending, and that is one of the reasons Congress
is able to hide the amount of money we are spending every year. That is
one reason debt is so high.
The Budget Committee should be allowed to fulfill its duties. The
Budget Committee should be allowed to mark up in fiscal year 2012. It
will begin October 1 of this year. We need a budget now. We are past
due. Once a budget is adopted by the committee, it should be taken to
the full Senate and allowed to be amended as the law provides. I am
disappointed that the President doesn't seem to agree with that. He
seems to have bought into the idea that the regular processes of the
Senate should not be followed. He agrees with Senator Reid, apparently,
that if they can keep it all bottled up to an end and we come up on a
crisis, they can all maneuver in secret and cut a deal. They feel that
is the way we serve the American people.
I feel strongly that we are undermining the great power and
responsibility of the Senate as that place where the great issues are
discussed publicly and openly and where we are accountable and cast
votes. Let me say again, the reason the majority leader did not want a
budget to come up is because when you bring a budget up, you have to
vote, people have alternatives, they offer amendments, and the Members
go on record. He is protecting his Members from having to do the
primary responsibility of Senators who are before the world to cast
their vote and to be accountable to the people who sent them there.
It is not good for this body. This body should be engaged in a
historic debate about the threat the debt poses to our future, and we
have been unengaged. The discussions are being taken in secret without
the American people being able to hold their representatives
accountable. I object.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I try to listen very carefully to
folks at home. I would not quarrel with my friend from Alabama in
saying that it is very clear to me--and it has been clear to me for a
long time--that Missourians are very worried about spending in the
Federal Government. In fact, my friend from Alabama and I started work
on this before, if one can say--we were trying to cut spending before
cutting spending was cool. He and I were working this floor for votes
to try to do something about spending long before last November's
election.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mrs. McCASKILL. Yes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for recalling that event. I know
the Senator continued working across the aisle on another proposal that
has the potential to be more effective than even the one we worked on
together last year. So I thank the Senator for being willing to work in
a way that could be effective to do better.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. There
is nothing wrong with walking across the aisle and finding common
ground. Frankly, it is what I thought would be common when I came to
the Senate. It is kind of what I learned in the history books; that it
would be common.
I have been watching what is developing, knowing my folks at home
want us to cut spending. I certainly have been part of wanting to cut
spending. I have watched this debt ceiling approach. It is like
watching a movie and watching a car driving along, and you are in a
camera above it and you see what is ahead, and you see this cliff and
you see this car driving toward this cliff, and you are thinking, as
you start tensing--Oh, surely, you are not going to go over the cliff.
Well, they have an opportunity to avoid going over the cliff. They
are not going to go over the cliff. We are not going to see these
people die. They are not going to drive over that cliff. They are not
going to knowingly drive over a cliff. I have been thinking for the
last several weeks: There is no way people who are elected--because
they love their country--are going to let the car go over the cliff. I
have to tell my colleagues, I am worried.
What do we have to do to keep from going over the cliff? Make no
mistake about it. It is a cliff. It is a historic moment for our
country. Never before in the history of our country have the world
markets been worried about whether the United States of America will
pay its bills. Never has that happened before in our history. So what
does it take?
Well, it is not complicated what it takes. It takes one basic
ingredient: compromise. To keep from going over the cliff, all we have
to do is compromise.
I will tell my colleagues, reading my mail and listening to phone
calls that have come in on the answering machine--and I am going to
take phone calls myself over the weekend--what Missourians are now
saying: Please don't go over the cliff. Please compromise. I am
confident that is what most Missourians want.
Compromises have already occurred--big compromises. Most of us on
this side of the aisle believe the way we get at our long-term debt
structure is a responsible approach that includes some revenues. I
advocate cleaning out the goodies in the Tax Code so we can lower tax
rates. I don't understand how we can vote to gut the Medicare Program
and at the same time vote to continue writing checks to Big Oil. I
cannot conceive how a Member votes that way. I cannot imagine I would
vote to keep writing a taxpayer check to the most wealthy and
profitable corporations in the history of the world at the same time I
was voting to put Medicare

[[Page S5034]]

on a voucher program. That would be saying to seniors, if they are 83
and they have three chronic illnesses, and they run out of Medicare
coverage, they are on their own. I can't imagine doing that.
But we compromised. We compromised and said: OK, we will set revenues
aside, for now. You will not vote for revenues, Republican Party.
Members of the House in the Republican Party, you will not vote for
revenues.
So we took revenues off the table. By the way, some people in my
party were not happy with that. I got those phone calls: Why did you
capitulate? Why did you give in? We gave in because we care about our
country, and we don't want to go over the cliff. That is why we gave
in. So we gave in on revenues.
The Republicans wanted us to cut spending by more than we raised the
debt ceiling. It is a political thing we need to do, not required by
the economics, but we have done that. So now we put revenues aside--
compromise. We have said we are going to cut spending by more than the
rise in the debt ceiling.
Now the only thing we have not compromised on, the only thing--which
I think is, really, when we think about it--I didn't think, frankly,
this may have been as big of a deal until I stand here today--is to do
this again in 6 months, to leave this loaded gun on the table. We are
going to leave this loaded gun on the table for our economy?
People can talk to small businesses right now and learn they are
scared about what is going to happen next week. Will they be able to
borrow money? Will people be able to afford to borrow money to buy
cars? Will they be able to afford to borrow money to buy homes?
We talk about the economy going in a tailspin, and we want to keep
that loaded gun on the table for another 6 months? There is no way we
can provide the certainty in this kind of economic climate if we leave
the loaded gun on the table.
So the only thing we have not agreed to that is in the Boehner plan--
well, it depends on which plan it is. They keep changing it to try to
get enough votes. I don't know what it is today. But the only thing we
are not going to budge on is saying to this country and our business
community and our job creators: We are going to kill job creation for
sure for the next 6 months by telling you we want to repeat this
ridiculous exercise in 6 months. We are not going to do that.
The irony is, the people who want us to do that are the people who
have been preaching certainty: We have to have certainty. By the way,
let's do this again in 6 months. We have to have certainty. It is
important we do this again in 6 months.
I know the leader is working on trying to get a compromise today, and
I am confident that before the day is over there will be some kind of
compromise that will be before this body that we will have a chance to
vote on.
I will tell my colleagues this: People will never hear me brag about
refusing to compromise. Some of my colleagues from Missouri who serve
in the House of Representatives are willing right now to brag about
refusing to compromise. They are willing to say it is a good thing to
go off the cliff. I will never brag about refusing to compromise
because I don't think that is what we do here. When we look back in
history, America's brightest moments usually happened around the table
of compromise. The most difficult questions this country has wrestled
with through the years, we have forged a way forward through
compromise, and that is what we needed to. That is what we need
tomorrow. That is what we need as we approach the edge of the cliff.
So my last message I will leave with my colleagues across the aisle
is this: We have shown our willingness to compromise. Please show us
yours. Please show us yours and allow us to vote. Allow us to vote on
the compromise. If my colleagues don't want to vote for the compromise,
then don't vote for it. But allow us a chance to vote for it. Is that
too much to ask, just to allow us an opportunity to move to a vote, to
avoid this country having a permanently diminished status in the world?
I don't think that is too much to ask.
So let us vote, and if my colleagues can't compromise on the
substance of the compromises that will be put forward, at least allow
our voices to be heard by allowing a vote.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that
the quorum call be equally divided.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________