[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 117 (Saturday, July 30, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5092-S5132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PROCESSING 
                                 DELAYS

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to refer the House 
message to accompany S. 627, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 627, an act 
     to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act 
     Processing Delays with an amendment.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House of 
     Representatives to the bill, with Reid amendment No. 589, to 
     cut spending, maintain existing commitments, and for other 
     purposes.
       Reid amendment No. 590 (to amendment No. 589), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill 
     to the Committee on the Budget, with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 591, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 592 (to the instructions (amendment No. 
     591) on the motion to refer), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 593 (to amendment No. 592), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
from 1:30 to 7:30 is equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees in alternating 30-minute blocks, with the 
majority controlling the first block of time.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, those who are following this debate--and I 
think many across America are--should understand what just happened. 
There was a discussion about the filibuster. A filibuster is a Senate 
rule that does two things: It says you cannot move an item to a vote, 
and you have to wait a period of time to have what is called a cloture 
vote. In order to pass a cloture vote, you need 60 votes, not a 
majority. So I would just correct, if I can, the record. A filibuster 
does more than delay the vote; it establishes a higher vote 
requirement--60 votes, not a majority.
  Yesterday, the Speaker of the House brought before his body of 435 
Members

[[Page S5093]]

the proposal to end this deadline. He received 218 votes--one more than 
half of the membership. He had a majority vote--not one more but a 
majority vote. We are asking for the same opportunity. Let us bring our 
proposal forward for a majority vote. The Republicans have refused. 
They have put us into a filibuster. They have said: No, we will require 
60 votes, and we will delay the vote until possibly 1 a.m. Sunday 
morning. That is where we are.
  Let me say a word about the underlying issue. This morning, as many 
Members of the Senate, I wanted to get away from this place and spend a 
few minutes reflecting on something other than the give-and-take of the 
political debate. I got up early, walked over to Eastern Market, bought 
a cup of coffee, and sat on a bench for about 3 hours just watching 
people walk by and trying to clear my mind. While sitting there, I got 
an e-mail from a buddy of mine from high school. Now, that goes back a 
few years. His name is Eddie Renollet, and he lives in Florida. I would 
like to read into the Record what my buddy from high school wrote to me 
this morning. He said:

       I sent this e-mail to our Republican Senator from Florida, 
     too. I have rode out the storms of many high seas in the last 
     20 or so years, but this one has me worried. Let's get the 
     ship on the right course and get this fixed. You all need to 
     get past being Democrats and Republicans. Many mistakes have 
     been made over the past years. Compromise and get this 
     squared away. I am in the later years of my life, and I will 
     be damned, if I want to see it go down the drain because you 
     all can't agree on the debt issue. I am neither a Democrat, 
     Republican, or Tea Party person. I'm an American. And I 
     believe that you both have my best interest at heart.

  Eddie Renollet from Florida. I would just say, under these 
circumstances, he expresses the views of many people across America. 
This is not a crisis which we couldn't control. This isn't an 
earthquake or a tornado or a hurricane. It isn't a war. It is a created 
political crisis.
  The extension of the debt ceiling has been done routinely 89 times 
since 1939--55 times by Republican Presidents, 34 times by Democratic 
Presidents, and President Ronald Reagan holds the record having 
extended the debt ceiling 18 times in 8 years, without confrontation, 
without the American economy threatening a collapse. This is a 
manufactured political crisis, and it is time for both parties to rise 
and come up with a solution.
  What the majority leader has put on the table--half of it--was a 
proposal by Senator McConnell, the Republican leader. Some people 
didn't like it. Majority Leader Reid said it will be bipartisan; I am 
putting McConnell's proposal on the table. I will put a proposal, as 
well, on the table from our side, make it bipartisan, and move it 
forward. Now 43 Republican Senators have said they are not voting for 
it, so we are at a standoff.
  A word about the President's role in this: President Obama--and I 
know this because I attended the meetings as a member of the 
leadership--spent more time on this issue than any President I can 
recall. He met at least six or seven times for 2 and 3 hours at a time 
with the leadership of the House and Senate--Democrats and 
Republicans--and tried to work out differences. He proposed the 
creation, under Vice President Biden's leadership, of the group that 
would negotiate. It sat and met for months, and then, finally, the 
Republican leader in the House, Eric Cantor, walked out. He made quite 
a noise as he left the room, and said: I don't want to be part of this 
anymore.
  Then the President started working with Speaker Boehner directly to 
get something worked out, and twice Speaker Boehner walked away from 
that.
  So to fault the President in this is not fair. He has engaged all the 
leaders time and time again. Last Saturday, Senator McConnell said: We 
no longer need the President in this picture. We are going to do it 
ourselves.
  Well, we spent a week at it, and we have not achieved that. I am sure 
the President is ready and willing to do everything in his power to get 
this back on track.
  What is at stake in this debate is the fate of the American economy 
at a point when we are recovering from a recession with millions of 
Americans out of work. Those who are showing great bravado and giving 
great political speeches are calling bluffs with other people's chips. 
What will happen at the end of the day, regardless of what the 
politicians say back and forth, is that ordinary people are going to be 
affected--their lives, their businesses, their savings are going to be 
affected by what we decide to do in the next few days.
  I think what we need to do is clear, and Senator Reid's proposal 
addresses it: No. 1, reduce spending. Let's get this deficit under 
control. Senator Reid's proposal does just that--$2.4 trillion in 
spending reductions--all of which have been voted for by Republicans 
already. So there is no controversy there. It is bipartisan.
  Secondly, we cannot lurch into another round of this debate every few 
months. The President is right, and this bill reflects it, that we need 
to move this debate until after next year so our economy is strong 
again, and the next debt ceiling vote will be in 2013. Let's not face 
this again and again. America doesn't want to see this movie over and 
over.
  I would also say the provision in Senator Reid's bill, proposed by 
Senator McConnell, that would, in fact, say the President has to 
personally ask to extend the debt ceiling, is a responsibility the 
President will accept, and he should accept it.
  I think what Senator Reid last offered is a balanced approach, a 
bipartisan approach, and it should be the basis for a compromise. But I 
certainly hope one thing comes out of this exchange on the floor this 
morning. I hope Senator McConnell will finally agree to sit down with 
Senator Reid, on a bipartisan basis, work with the House leaders and 
the President, and get this done. The American people are running out 
of patience, if they haven't already run out of it, and we are running 
out of excuses.
  We have a limited amount of time left to avert a crisis that will 
affect a lot of innocent people across America. It is time for us to 
roll up our sleeves, on a bipartisan basis, and get this job done.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Republican leader, a few moments ago, said this 
happens around here from time to time--that 60 votes are required. Is 
it not true the reason 60 votes are required from time to time is 
because there is the threat of a filibuster unless the opponents 
succeed in getting an agreement that there be 60 votes?
  It is the short way to find out whether the debate will be had. Is it 
not true, though, that it is the threat of a filibuster the opponents 
make which produces an agreement to get 60 votes?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Michigan has been here longer than I 
have. He knows this better than I do. But he is right. This threat of a 
filibuster has raised the vote requirement from a majority to 60, and 
that is the issue that was being discussed on the Senate floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it not true--if I may ask my friend--whether the threat 
is carried out, we will know tonight at 1 a.m.? Because at 1 a.m. 
tomorrow morning, we will vote not on the Reid measure but on a motion 
which 18 Senators signed which reads as follows: That we, the 
undersigned Senators, in accordance with rule XXII, hereby move to 
bring to a close the debate on the Reid motion. Is that not true?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is what the vote will be at 1 in the morning.
  Mr. LEVIN. So what we will be voting on is not, as the Republican 
leader characterized it--which he says he is willing to vote on right 
away--the Reid motion but a vote on whether we will end debate on the 
Reid motion?
  And is it not further true that people who vote no tonight are voting 
to filibuster the Reid motion?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Michigan is correct. Those who say they 
want to bring this to a vote will have an opportunity to join us in 
doing so by producing at least 60 votes when we vote at 1 in the 
morning.
  Mr. LEVIN. Finally, would the Senator from Illinois agree, if tonight 
Republicans refuse to bring this debate to a halt and to allow a vote 
on the Reid motion, would the Senator from Illinois not agree there 
will be a strong negative public reaction to a filibuster on a measure 
in the face of an economic calamity which would avoid that calamity?

[[Page S5094]]

  Mr. DURBIN. I would agree with the Senator from Michigan. Time is of 
the essence. Any delay at this point jeopardizes any possibility of a 
compromise to avert this economic crisis.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would just add to what Senator Reid, 
Senator Durbin, and Senator Levin have said: that a 60-vote requirement 
is a filibuster. It is to block this.
  Now, speaking of how long people have been here, I came here when 
President Ford was President. I have served under President Ford, 
President Carter, President Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, 
President William Jefferson Clinton, President George W. Bush, and now 
President Obama. I cannot remember, with any of those Presidents prior 
to President Obama, of this insistence for a 60-Member vote to raise 
the debt limit ceiling.
  Certainly, with the number of times we raised the debt limit under 
President Ronald Reagan, I do not remember one single Republican 
suggesting that we needed 60 votes. The same was true I believe under 
President George H.W. Bush, and under President George W. Bush. The 
numerous times the debt ceiling was raised, not a single Republican 
said it is so important we must have a 60-vote margin.
  Yet all of a sudden, with President Obama, the whole criteria 
changes. Suddenly the rules that were good enough for Republicans with 
a Republican President are something to be changed with this President.
  The American public, Republican or Democratic, can see through that. 
This is a different standard. We are saying this President must follow 
different rules from every President before him--Republican or 
Democrat. There is no way that can be considered fair; no way that can 
be considered anything but a gimmick.
  It is unfortunate that a partisan faction first manufactured this 
debt limit crisis and now continues to prevent a bipartisan solution. 
An unwillingness to compromise and find a bipartisan solution has led 
us to the brink. The United States of America is now just 3 days away 
from defaulting on its obligations for the first time in the history of 
this country. And Senators are demanding we have to have a 
supermajority vote to stop this from happening.
  That is not responsible. We are needlessly risking financial turmoil 
throughout this great country, and it will send ripple effects 
worldwide. A temporary solution is no solution at all. It would 
undermine the stability that our economy needs to grow.
  Now is the time to set aside partisan bickering, pass a bill. It is 
the time for the grownups in the room to take over and reach a 
bipartisan solution on the debt ceiling, as has been done every time in 
the 37 years I have been here.
  A my-way-or-no-way faction in the other body has had no qualms about 
playing Russian roulette with our entire economy and with every 
American family in it. Regrettably, as we all saw so clearly again 
yesterday, the House leadership's response to win this faction's votes 
has simply been to shift their bill even further away from helpfulness 
or reality. Everybody knows the House debt bill, written under this 
duress, was a sham, with no chance of passing and with no chance of 
averting a debt catastrophe.
  On Friday, at the finish line, shortly prior to a vote on their debt 
bill, House leaders added to their package the idea of amending the 
U.S. Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. This was done as a 
desperate attempt to win a few more votes. This is not the time for 
bumper sticker politics. It is a time for real leadership and real 
bipartisanship.
  Many in this body recall, as I do, the period just two short decades 
ago when we were able to not only balance the Federal budget but to 
create budget surpluses that were on their way to paying off the 
national debt. On the one hand, we had people who said let's pass a 
constitutional amendment for some time a decade or two decades in the 
future. We actually voted to balance a budget. Not a single Republican 
voted to balance the budget. They talked about it, but not a single 
Republican voted to balance the budget. We had to actually have Vice 
President Gore vote to break a tie vote. But we balanced the budget. It 
created enormous surpluses, it started paying down the national debt, 
over 20 million new jobs were created, and President Clinton was able 
to give a huge surplus to President George W. Bush. Unfortunately, 
decisions made by that administration and ratified by the new Congress 
squandered the surplus and started, once again, piling up debt.
  So this good and great Nation does not need the straitjacket of one-
size-fits-all change to our Constitution to do what needs to be done. 
We have done it. What the American people want and need and deserve is 
a return to wise and disciplined leadership. We need the return of 
willingness by those of us chosen to serve within the Halls of 
government, to cooperate and to forge bipartisan solutions.
  At this point, Majority Leader Reid's debt reduction package of $2.2 
trillion in spending cuts is Congress's best chance to avoid default 
and prevent a disastrous credit-rating downgrade. Unlike the House 
plan, the Reid solution is an invitation to consensus. The Senate 
solution incorporates spending reductions reached in bipartisan 
negotiations, yielding greater overall budget savings sooner than the 
House proposal. But it would also save the country the ordeal of going 
through this torment again just a few months from now. We have seen how 
this current debate has taken much longer to do what we need to do.
  As this calamity has unfolded in slow motion, it has been smothering 
the chance for action on nearly all other national priorities, from 
jobs to national security, to air traffic control. The congressional 
deadlock has prevented passage of a routine renewal of the Federal 
Aviation Administration's charter to operate. Today, the Senate could 
be considering the America Invents Act that is a bipartisan, bicameral 
bill ready to move across the finish line that creates hundreds of 
thousands of jobs and unleashes American innovation and does not add a 
penny to the deficit. But instead of acting on constructive and 
necessary priorities such as these, we are stuck playing a dangerous 
game with our economy. The deadline for default would not change. I 
commend Leader Reid for his willingness and desire to work in the 
spirit of compromise with the Republican leader and others to find a 
bipartisan solution to halt this perilous march to the edge of the 
financial cliff.
  All American people want this solved now, with a fair solution and 
through the give-and-take of our representative government, not by some 
extra special vote but just vote it up or vote it down. I am confident 
that if we can work together, Congress will avert this looming, man-
made economic calamity. It is late but it is not yet too late for 
Republicans and Democrats to come together, for the sake of our 
country, in fashioning a bipartisan solution to raise the debt limit, 
reduce our long-term debt, and give our economy the long-term 
foundation to prosper.
  I have had the privilege to represent Vermont in the Senate for 37 
years. I have been blessed enough to witness many times when the Senate 
has shown its remarkable ability to rise to reflect the conscience of 
the Nation. I believe now is such a time for Democrats and Republicans 
in the Senate, for the good of the country, to once again rise to the 
occasion and to have us be the conscience of the Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan is on the floor, who is one of the best legal minds in 
the Senate, I wanted to engage him to further to take us through the 
delay tactics that are presently now underway.
  Given the fact that we have a solution right underneath our noses, a 
solution that is so close between the two opposite sides that all we 
would have to do is to have a majority vote or all we would have to do 
is to have a few Republican Senators but we are engaged in this 
stalling tactic that is literally going to take us all night, I would 
like to ask the distinguished Senator from Michigan, given the rules, 
given the fact that a filibuster is now underway, what can the minority 
in the Senate hope to achieve, since we are so close to agreement?

[[Page S5095]]

  Mr. LEVIN. The reason people filibuster is to try to defeat a measure 
and stalling and delaying a vote is much worse than just defeating a 
measure. It is defeating the American economy. It will be putting the 
economy in a ditch if we do not resolve this issue.
  So we have to be very clear on what the vote is tonight. It is not a 
vote on the Reid measure. It is a vote on this motion to bring the 
debate--and these are the words of the motion: We, 18 Senators, move to 
bring to a close the debate on the Reid motion.
  That is what we are voting on and the Republican leader tries to coat 
that or characterize that as a vote on the Reid motion. It is not. We 
want to vote on the Reid motion. We want to vote. But we will not be 
allowed to vote on the Reid motion, on the proposal which the majority 
leader has offered which has a majority support in this Senate; we will 
not be allowed to vote on that if debate is not ended, if the 
filibuster continues because 60 Senators are not willing to end it. We 
will have at least 50-plus to end debate.
  But let it be clear, let the public understand that if we are not 
allowed to vote on the Reid measure tonight, the Republicans presumably 
will continue their filibuster, and we are not going to just simply 
allow them to defeat it. We are not going to just simply sit down and 
say: Well, we couldn't end the debate and the filibuster; we didn't get 
60 votes--if we don't--tonight. We are not going to do that. That is 
not going to happen tonight. This is too important to simply let a 
minority defeat the will of the majority by a filibuster.
  The Republican leader wants to characterize this again, and 
mischaracterize this, saying he is willing to have a vote right now on 
the Reid motion. No, he is not. If we were allowed a vote on the Reid 
motion, that would be fine. That is a regular majority vote. But what 
the Republican leader wants is to require 60 votes on the Reid motion 
in order for it to pass. That is not the way things happen under our 
rules. Under our rules, 60 votes are required to end a debate if the 
minority threatens a filibuster and insists it will filibuster unless a 
measure gets 60 votes.
  So we know what is happening. We saw it last night. We saw it here 
today. It is clearly the threat of a filibuster, in the hope we will 
say that Reid will be pulled down and defeated if we don't get 60 
votes. That is what this is all about. This time, we simply cannot 
allow this measure to be talked to death and a vote denied. We cannot 
be thwarted because the American economy is at stake.
  So tonight, if we don't get 60 votes--and let me repeat this so 
everyone understands it. Tonight, if 60 votes are not there to end 
debate, if the Republicans intend to filibuster, then tonight that is 
what is going to happen. The public will see very clearly it is a 
filibuster, if they haven't seen it already.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I will make comments later. I see the Senator 
from New Hampshire is here.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are allocated 30 
minutes each. But I have no objection to the Senator having 5 
additional minutes as long as 5 additional minutes are added to the 
Republican side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senator from 
New Hampshire will have 10 minutes and the Republican side will have an 
extra 5 minutes.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I appreciate the consideration of my colleague from 
Georgia.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor because I wish to share with 
people what I am hearing from my constituents in New Hampshire about 
the situation we are in in Washington.
  I have heard from small business owners, from retirees, from working 
people all across the State, and one of the things that struck me about 
the majority of people whom I have heard from is they are willing to 
make sacrifices to help this country address our debt and our deficits. 
But they want to see us in Congress act and they want to see us 
compromise. Let me just take a few minutes and share some of the 
comments I have received from the people of New Hampshire.
  First is from Diane, who is from Manchester, our largest city. Diane 
says:

       Please get off the party line and work together. My welfare 
     and the welfare of my small business is at risk. I only 
     employ 5 people, but it's 5 people that don't need to collect 
     unemployment or take another job. Don't take away what's left 
     of my retirement by crashing the market. Work as a ``we,'' 
     not as an ``I,'' and get it done. This is not the first time 
     the debt cap needs to be raised and it won't be the last. 
     Please do what will have to be done anyway so we can continue 
     to bring this country back. I don't want to lose my business. 
     Who is going to win the next election is not what any of you 
     should be thinking about. I believe if you don't act, all of 
     you will lose.

  David from Meredith says:

       At the age of 25, I am already the owner of a small 
     software company in the lakes region. We currently have five 
     employees with plans to grow. We are expecting our profits 
     for next year to exceed $1 million. As an employer, small 
     business owner, and at my age, I feel as though I will be 
     greatly affected by budget decisions we make during the next 
     week and into the future. I want to make sure that America 
     stays as one of the best Nations in the world. I have never 
     written a letter to any Member of Congress before tonight.

  Then we have Janine from Auburn who says:

       Settle the budget now. The dysfunction in Congress is 
     embarrassing this country. As a small business owner, I can't 
     afford the uncertainty of a political fiasco. If interest 
     rates rise, I can't keep my business afloat. I would rather 
     pay increased taxes.

  Eric from Hollis says:

       As a small business owner, I am unable to plan and hire 
     employees due to the uncertainty the current standstill in 
     Washington has created. Please get the USA back to work and 
     making progress and stop the bickering.

  Then Brenda from Enfield says:

       My 77-year-old husband retired last year. I am planning on 
     retiring this year collecting Social Security at full 
     retirement age of 65. We have been good citizens, running our 
     own small business for 40-plus years, and we have been 
     diligent in taking responsibility for our own retirement 
     savings. As you know, over the past 2 years, due to economic 
     pressures, we have faced substantial reductions of our 
     retirement portfolio and, again, now face irreparable damage 
     just as we retire. My husband and I urge you to do whatever 
     it takes to build a cooperative bridge in Congress to protect 
     the economy from further trauma.

  Cynthia from Exeter says:

       I am receiving Social Security due to a disability, but I 
     would gladly give up $5 a month if everyone shared in the 
     idea of balancing our Nation's budget issues and deficit. I 
     would like to see revenue raised at the same time I would be 
     willing to sacrifice some of my Social Security.

  Finally, Sue from Campton says:

       My husband and I would be willing to pay higher income 
     taxes--and we would be in that higher tax bracket--to come up 
     with a compromise to save this great Nation. I hope that when 
     you read this message you will understand that there is a 
     majority of Americans who are willing to sacrifice for our 
     country. Please find compromise. Our great State of New 
     Hampshire and our country depends on it.

  I want to tell Diane and David and Sue and all the others who have 
called and e-mailed and written to me that I agree with them. We must 
act and we must compromise. That is what I am trying to do. That is why 
I have supported a comprehensive approach to dealing with this 
country's debt and deficits. It is an approach that has been 
bipartisan, offered by the so-called Gang of 6. It addresses all 
aspects of our budget: domestic discretionary spending, defense 
spending, mandatory programs, and revenues. But I understand we are not 
going to be able to get that done between now and Tuesday, so that is 
why I am willing to support an approach that only makes cuts to the 
budget, because I know we have to compromise. But compromise means that 
everyone, all sides--the House and the Senate, Republicans and 
Democrats--all sides have to give up something. I believe we have good 
people in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, the majority of whom 
want to see a resolution to this impasse. The time is now for all of us 
to compromise and to do what is in the best interests of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today when the Chaplain opened the 
Senate, he prayed for divine guidance to end

[[Page S5096]]

the paralysis of analysis in Congress. I thought it was an excellent 
point. When I heard the two leaders speak today I realized where that 
paralysis was. We were paralyzed by analyzing our differences and 
failing to look at what we have reached common ground on already.
  I have been worried about a default on our debt for some time, but 
right now I am worried about Congress defaulting on our country. 
Failure should not be an option for us in this case and it is time we 
started finding common ground. So for the purpose of discussion, I want 
to put forward some thoughts about where we agree, some identification 
of where we do not but where we could be.
  We have already agreed, in one form or another--whether it was the 
Vice President's group or the Speaker's group or whoever--that we ought 
to have a $1 trillion downpayment in initial cuts to bring about 
deficit reduction.
  There is common agreement between both sides in the Senate and I 
think in the House as well that we need a short-term committee, equally 
divided in a partisan way, to come up with at least another $1.8 
trillion that results in reductions in debt and in deficit. We have 
agreed on those two things.
  Third, we have agreed we do not want to default on our debt. There 
may be a handful of people around here who think that is a good idea, 
but with all due respect it is not a good idea and the ramifications of 
default are already showing themselves in small measures in the market 
but will show themselves a lot greater next Wednesday if we fail.
  Where do we differ? We do not differ on raising the debt ceiling, we 
just differ on when we raise it, how we raise it, and how long we raise 
it. The President favors raising it past the election in November 2012. 
There are others who want to have votes every 6 months or 10 months. 
Frankly, there is something to be said for waiting until after the 
November election of 2012 so we have 18 months of stability and 
predictability in the United States of America; there is not the 
uncertainty of us coming back.
  There are a lot of differences on the other side about whether we 
have a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget vote. Frankly, I 
cannot understand why in the end anybody would reject both bodies being 
able to have a vote in regular order on a constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget. We are supposed to vote. We are supposed to 
confront those decisions. I think an agreement could be reached between 
those two differences that would ensure us moving closer to an 
agreement on the entire package.
  Third, and probably toughest, we do not disagree on the committee 
that is appointed to find the $1.8 trillion or better in savings or 
cuts, but we disagree on the mechanism with which that is enforced. I 
want to talk about that for a minute. There is a fear--and a lot of it 
is justified because of the way we are acting right now--that if you 
had a committee of 12, 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans, charged with 
finding $1.8 trillion or more in reductions, they would never agree; 
therefore, they would be gridlocked; therefore, those reductions would 
not take place. I understand that fear and agree with the concern for 
that fear. So we need a mechanism where there is a risk for them to do 
that.
  One of the discussions that has been floating around--last night it 
was in a discussion I had with the officer presiding right now--is you 
should allow the Congress itself to create a committee with an equal 
number of Democrats and Republicans of some accountable number, such as 
10 or 20, to come together. If the committee fails to make its 
recommendations and make alternative recommendations, that must by 
requirement of the law be voted on on the floor of the House and 
Senate. If for some unbelievable circumstance that did not happen, 
there has to be an absolute fail-safe to ensure that failure is not an 
option. I have suggested automatic sequestration. I know that causes 
heartburn with some. But somewhere there is a silver bullet. The Lone 
Ranger had it. Tonto had it. Wyatt Earp had it. Why can't the Congress 
find it? Why can't we find the majority bullet that is the enforcement 
mechanism that ensures we come together on the $1.8 trillion or more? 
If we do those things, we have an agreement. We have already agreed in 
principle on most of them and we understand our differences on the ones 
we have not agreed on. We ought to be spending the next 24 hours 
finding out where our differences are and coming to find common ground 
because we are not that far apart.
  I want to go back to the prayer of Barry C. Black this morning. I 
listen to his prayer just about every morning because it is very 
insightful. In fact, there is a clear message in it and he is usually 
talking to all of us because he watches all of us and he is concerned 
and I am concerned.
  I have three children and nine grandchildren. I said in my campaigns 
the rest of my life is about leaving them a country as prosperous, 
free, and great as the country my parents left me. If we blink on this 
issue before us, that is not going to be the case. There is irreparable 
harm that can come from a failure to act. It doesn't harm me as a 
politician, it harms my kids and my grandkids. It harms those people I 
know on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and it harms those 
standing right now on a firing line somewhere in Afghanistan, realizing 
today could be their last day on this Earth so America could live to 
see another day. That is how serious the consequences are.
  I suggest instead of being paralyzed by our analysis of where we 
differ, let's come to an analysis of where we find common ground. We do 
on raising the debt ceiling; we know we should raise it. We know we 
could find $2.8 trillion and hopefully more in cuts in the deficit and 
spending over time. We know we have to extend the debt ceiling to some 
point in time, and if it is past the Presidential election of 2012, 
let's ensure that each body in regular order can vote on a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, which leaves us with 
one difference, and that difference is what is the enforcement 
mechanism on the $1.8 trillion cut that the joint committee, equally 
divided, is supposed to come up with.
  I submit we can find the common ground to find the silver bullet that 
causes that to happen and I encourage all of us to forget now where we 
differ and recognize where we agree and then work on building a bridge 
on those differences so the United States of America does not default 
on its debt and the Congress of the United States does not default on 
its obligation to the people of the greatest country on the face of 
this Earth, the United States of America.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the discussion has boiled down to a 
desire by the President to have the largest debt increase in the 
history of America at a time when our spending is out of control, and 
this debt ceiling limit that we have now reached is at a point where it 
does need to be raised.
  I thought we had a national consensus that as part of raising the 
debt ceiling we would begin to change our habits around here; we would 
do things better; we would not be running up so much debt because every 
witness who has testified before our Budget Committee has said we are 
on an unsustainable path. They mean that. We cannot sustain the debt 
path we are on. We have never been in a deeper fix.
  The President wants this huge debt increase, but he only wants to 
have a very modest decrease in spending. The bill that is before us 
would decrease spending about $927 billion. It might sound like a lot, 
but over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, we will increase the debt of America by $10 trillion--$10,000 
billion, not $927 billion. That will not change the debt trajectory. We 
have to have more than $927 billion in spending reductions.
  It appears we are not going to be able to get that. The Democratic 
majority in the Senate will not allow it and say they are prepared to 
let the country default if we try to cut any more. So we have to 
continue the dialogue and the debate about the course we are on.

[[Page S5097]]

  Why is it so important to get a bigger debt ceiling increase? I 
thought and believed we had an agreement that the debt ceiling should 
not be increased more than spending is decreased, that spending is 
decreased over 10 years. We cut it $1 trillion, we raise the debt 
ceiling $1 trillion. We give 10 years of spending cuts, but immediately 
we get a $1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling.
  Why are we in this fix? I hate to say it, but this is why, there is 
no doubt about it: The President said last week:

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

  Through the next election. It is all about him. It is about politics. 
It is about his desires, what he wants. That is not correct. This is 
about America, what is good for our country.
  The House of Representatives submitted a fabulous budget earlier this 
year. It reduced spending by as much as $6 trillion over 10 years. This 
bill would only reduce it $1 trillion. Why would the House of 
Representatives, after much debate, pleading, hard work, why would they 
agree to send a bill over here that only does $1 trillion in spending 
cuts over 10 years? The reason is they love our country. They know this 
is a dangerous time. They know at this point in history we don't need 
to create more uncertainty on top of the tremendously dangerous debt 
path we are on.
  By not raising the debt limit we don't know for sure what will 
happen. Bad things could happen, so they have made a tremendous 
compromise in what they proposed and sent it over here. It seems the 
only thing the President cares about is not having to talk about this 
again until after he gets reelected.
  I think we need to understand something. This is not enough reduction 
in spending. It will not change the debt trajectory we are on now, 
which is on a path to do $9 trillion to $13 trillion more in debt added 
to our Nation's books in 10 years. It is just not enough.
  We raise the debt ceiling, and we get out of this immediate crisis, 
and in doing so we send a message to the world, the American people and 
the financial markets that we are still working on it. We are still 
going to bring down the numbers. We know we cannot continue on this 
rate of spending. We know that so we are going to work to get the 
numbers down, and we are not going to wait 2 years after some 
convenient or inconvenient election. We are going to start early next 
year or late this year, and we will stay on it until we make the kind 
of changes that put us on a path to growth and prosperity. I feel 
strongly about that.
  I know people don't want to hear us talking about this bill or that 
bill or who is for this and how many votes it has. They are tired of 
hearing that. They want us to make changes. I do not think the American 
people just want a deal. That is how the media spins it and politicians 
spin it: Is there a deal? Is there not a deal? The American people want 
us to change our debt course. They want us to get off the path that is 
taking us to financial destruction. It really is. I don't know when it 
will happen, but everybody says we cannot continue, and in a period of 
years we will be in a situation like Greece, and the numbers are pretty 
clear in that regard. There is no doubt about it. It doesn't have to 
happen, so we can do something about it.
  Republicans have passed a good budget that would reduce the debt and 
put us on a path to prosperity. That was rejected by our Democratic 
leaders. Indeed, they brought it up and mocked it. President Obama 
called for a conference at the White House. He put Congressman Ryan, 
the brilliant young budget chairman in the House right in front of him, 
and then he mocked and attacked the budget that the House did that 
would actually do something for America and make us better. I don't 
appreciate that. We have to do something. I am prepared to compromise. 
I feel deeply that we need to cut more spending than this, but we are 
at a point in history where we need to pass a debt ceiling increase. We 
just have to. We don't need to quit talking about the problem. We need 
to continue the dialogue, continue the debate, and continue to look for 
and find ways to reduce spending.
  The House passed a cap-and-balance bill that would have capped 
spending and created a permanent constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget, and then they passed the Boehner legislation that was voted 
down last night. That legislation would have cut all spending at just 
about the amount that Senator Reid wants, the $900-or-so billion. 
Speaker Boehner didn't exaggerate how much it was. He agreed to that 
amount and agreed to raise the debt ceiling immediately by an amount 
equal to the amount of spending we reduced over 10 years. It was a very 
generous, significant compromise from the position they believed was 
correct and that they took openly and publicly through the normal 
legislative process when they passed their budget.
  Now our Democrats in the Senate have not passed anything. They didn't 
even bring up a budget. Now it has been 822 days since Congress has 
passed a budget. A budget was not passed here when my Democratic 
colleagues had 60 Democratic Senators.
  Senator Reid said it would be foolish to pass a budget. Why is that? 
Well, he meant it would be foolish to have his Members actually have to 
vote.
  When you move a budget, it has priority. It cannot be filibustered. 
It can be passed with a 50-vote margin, but people get to offer 
amendments and people would have to vote on amendments. The people who 
produced the budget would have to say how much taxes they were 
increasing, how much spending they were cutting, and how much debt was 
still going to be out there, and they did not want to expose 
themselves. They did not want to come before the American people and 
show where they stood. They preferred to bring up the House budget and 
vote it down and mock it while the leadership didn't have the courage 
or the responsibility to pass a budget themselves. They would show 
where they wanted to go with the future of America. It is just that 
simple.
  We need to go back to the regular order in the Senate, and that means 
presenting a budget, bringing up bills, having votes, having 
amendments, having people be accountable to their constituents. If you 
were sitting back home, you would want to see government reduce some of 
this reckless spending. Wouldn't you want to know how your elected 
officials, the people representing you, voted? Well, we have had no 
votes, and that has been the plan--to shield the Members from votes so 
their constituents could not hold them accountable.
  For heaven's sake, we don't want to have a vote in January or 
February when we have an election in November. Why, that is too close. 
People would see what we did. They might remember it when election day 
came up. They might not like it that they don't have a plan to do a 
better job of changing the unconscionable debt course this country is 
on.
  That is the way they think in Washington, and it is not acceptable. 
We are borrowing 40 cents of everything we spend.
  Mr. President, do we have a time agreement at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 20 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  Well, it is a big deal, and we need to get this done. There are just 
not enough votes to pass the Reid bill, and there are not enough votes 
to pass the Boehner bill. That is just obvious, even though Speaker 
Boehner drew down dramatically the amount of spending cuts the House 
believes should be achieved.
  We have to get our folks busy while we are continuing to debate into 
the night instead of actually recognizing that the Reid bill doesn't 
have the votes to pass the Senate, and it absolutely doesn't have the 
votes to pass the House. It just doesn't. At this last desperate 
moment, hopefully, our leaders will get busy, quit worrying about those 
things, and actually begin to suggest something we can work on. We 
really should not be in this position.
  As I have explained at some length--and I will not repeat it--but I 
don't like it. I do not like it. I don't think it is right that we have 
a couple of Senators and a couple of House Members, our leaders, go off 
and somehow plop down on the Senate their solution to our problem, and 
if we don't pass it, the government is damaged and the economy is 
damaged because they have waited until the absolute eleventh hour-plus 
to produce it.

[[Page S5098]]

  It should have never happened that way. It is irresponsible, and it 
undermines the integrity of the entire congressional process. We have 
seen this coming all year long. We should not have allowed it to happen 
in this way.
  Well, let me talk a bit more technically about the Reid bill. It 
purports to reduce spending and savings by $2.4 trillion. That is not 
correct. Actually, it reduces the debt that would be increasing by only 
$927 billion, and we have done our best with the Budget Committee staff 
to be honest and fair about it.

  That is about the same number Speaker Boehner has in his, but 
Majority Leader Reid insists his saves $2.4 trillion. Why? Because if 
it is $2.4 trillion, he can justify that the next time we address this, 
which will be after the next election, will be 2 years away.
  He doesn't cut that much. What he claims is not accurate. Why? Well, 
they are working into the night to see how they can make the accounting 
look better. They didn't like the 927 figure, so what do they do? They 
look at the budget projections where it was projected war costs would 
be coming down. Actually, we will have a $40 billion reduction this 
year in the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those costs are coming down. 
The President had projected they would come down to $50 billion soon 
and would stay at that for the rest of the year, which would mean $1 
trillion less spending. Remember, we are going to increase the debt by 
$9 to $13 trillion, but $1 trillion would have been--by reducing the 
war cost, we save $1 trillion. But that was already in the books. That 
is already accounted for.
  So how did they do it? Well, they came in and they put in a bill that 
mandated the come-down because, oddly enough, the Congressional Budget 
Office doesn't assume war costs will come down. The Congressional 
Budget Office assumes that it will stay up and we will spend this $1 
trillion more on the war when there is no intent to do that. Therefore, 
they put it in the legislation and require it to come down, these 
numbers, and all of a sudden CBO scores $1 trillion in extra savings 
without any change in spending projections or reality at all.
  Speaker Boehner didn't count his bill as reducing spending by that $1 
trillion when he took the same numbers, same assumptions that spending 
on the war would come down. But they did that to try to make it look as 
though they were reducing spending more; therefore, they could extend 
the debt limit more, they would make it past the election, and they 
could get the political result they want. That is really what it is.
  Another way they get another $300 billion gimmick is that if we 
assume a $1 trillion reduction in the war, then we are not paying 
interest on that money because we would have to borrow it because we 
are already in debt, and every amount we can reduce means we borrow 
less money. Every less-spending provision saves money, and it also 
saves interest on that money. Well, it would be $300 billion in 
interest saved under the theory--the gimmick--that is being used here. 
So that really amounts to $1.3 trillion in overestimating right there 
on the amount of savings in the Reid plan.
  I thank the Chair. I hope we will reject the Reid proposal, and I 
hope our leaders can achieve in short order a change in our plans for 
managing our money, raise the debt ceiling, and begin to put this 
country on a sound path.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I am happy to come to the 
floor with two of my colleagues--my colleague from Minnesota and my 
colleague from Alaska--to speak about the damage created by the 
Republicans' insistence on looking at just one side of the equation and 
failing to understand what businesses need to move forward during the 
next 28 minutes or so.
  As my good friend from Alabama leaves the floor, I wish to say that I 
have enjoyed working with him on many issues. We have been shoulder to 
shoulder advocating for gulf coast restoration and many other issues. 
However, I have to strongly disagree with some of the points he has 
just made, and I will go into those in just a moment.
  Part of the problem with the Senator from Alabama and other Senators 
on that side is that when they speak to the American people on this 
issue, they only talk about one side of the equation; that is, 
spending. They never, ever talk about revenues. Anybody--any family, 
any individual, any business, any high school student, any college 
student--understands--like the commercial running on television now 
that talks about equations--equations have two sides, not one. There is 
a spending side and there is a revenue side.
  If a family's budget is out of whack--they are spending too much, and 
they are not taking in enough money--they could get a third job and fix 
that problem by bringing in more money to the budget or a second job or 
a part-time job and bring in more revenue, and that problem is solved 
or they could choose to not get another job and cut back spending all 
the way down to their income and solve the problem.
  The problem with the other side is they are disingenuous. They do not 
want to be truthful with the American people and say that not only do 
we have a spending problem, which all Democrats agree with, but we also 
have a revenue problem, and that is why we are on this floor fighting 
today.
  I wish to show beyond a shadow of a doubt the truth about what I am 
speaking. This is data from the Senate Appropriations Committee. This 
shows discretionary defense spending, all other spending, and mandatory 
programs for 10 years.
  In 10 years, from 2001 until today, 10 years later, defense spending 
has increased $364 billion--73 percent--and that is because we have had 
two wars and any number of defense and security issues. We can debate 
whether that is right, but we have spent 73 percent more money, 
adjusted for inflation.
  For mandatory programs, the increase has gone up 310 percent in 10 
years. That is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is the 
driver. This is the budget-buster. There are all sorts of solutions to 
that problem. Unfortunately, we are not talking about any of them 
today. But the push on the spending is coming from mandatory programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the charts I have been referring to.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            TABLE 1.2--SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (  ) AS PERCENTAGES OF GDP: 1930-2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Total                                On-Budget                              Off-Budget
                                                                  GDP (in   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Year                               billions of                             Surplus or                             Surplus or                             Surplus or
                                                                  dollars)     Receipts     Outlays     Deficit (     Receipts     Outlays     Deficit (     Receipts     Outlays     Deficit (
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------)--------------------------------------)--------------------------------------)-----
1930..........................................................         97.4          4.2          3.4          0.8          4.2          3.4          0.8  ...........  ...........  ...........
1931..........................................................         83.9          3.7          4.3         -0.6          3.7          4.3         -0.6  ...........  ...........  ...........
1932..........................................................         67.6          2.8          6.9         -4.0          2.8          6.9         -4.0  ...........  ...........  ...........
1933..........................................................         57.6          3.5          8.0         -4.5          3.5          8.0         -4.5  ...........  ...........  ...........
1934..........................................................         61.2          4.8         10.7         -5.9          4.8         10.7         -5.9  ...........  ...........  ...........
1935..........................................................         69.6          5.2          9.2         -4.0          5.2          9.2         -4.0  ...........  ...........  ...........
1936..........................................................         78.5          5.0         10.5         -5.5          5.0         10.5         -5.5  ...........  ...........  ...........
1937..........................................................         87.8          6.1          8.6         -2.5          5.8          8.6         -2.8          0.3           -*          0.3
1938..........................................................         89.0          7.6          7.7         -0.1          7.2          7.7         -0.5          0.4           -*          0.4
1939..........................................................         89.1          7.1         10.3         -3.2          6.5         10.3         -3.8          0.6           -*          0.6
1940..........................................................         96.8          6.8          9.8         -3.0          6.2          9.8         -3.6          0.6           -*          0.6
1941..........................................................        114.1          7.6         12.0         -4.3          7.0         11.9         -4.9          0.6            *          0.6
1942..........................................................        144.3         10.1         24.3        -14.2          9.5         24.3        -14.8          0.6            *          0.6

[[Page S5099]]

 
1943..........................................................        180.3         13.3         43.6        -30.3         12.7         43.5        -30.8          0.6            *          0.6
1944..........................................................        209.2         20.9         43.6        -22.7         20.3         43.6        -23.3          0.6          0.1          0.6
1945..........................................................        221.4         20.4         41.9        -21.5         19.8         41.8        -22.0          0.6          0.1          0.5
1946..........................................................        222.6         17.7         24.8         -7.2         17.1         24.7         -7.6          0.6          0.1          0.5
1947..........................................................        233.2         16.5         14.8          1.7         15.9         14.7          1.2          0.6          0.1          0.5
1948..........................................................        256.6         16.2         11.6          4.6         15.6         11.5          4.1          0.6          0.1          0.5
1949..........................................................        271.3         14.5         14.3          0.2         13.9         14.2         -0.3          0.6          0.2          0.5
1950..........................................................        273.1         14.4         15.6         -1.1         13.7         15.4         -1.7          0.8          0.2          0.6
1951..........................................................        320.2         16.1         14.2          1.9         15.1         13.8          1.3          1.0          0.4          0.6
1952..........................................................        348.7         19.0         19.4         -0.4         17.9         18.9         -1.0          1.0          0.5          0.5
1953..........................................................        372.5         18.7         20.4         -1.7         17.6         19.8         -2.2          1.1          0.6          0.5
1954..........................................................        377.0         18.5         18.8         -0.3         17.3         18.0         -0.8          1.2          0.8          0.4
1955..........................................................        395.9         16.5         17.3         -0.8         15.2         16.3         -1.0          1.3          1.0          0.3
1956..........................................................        427.0         17.5         16.5          0.9         16.0         15.4          0.6          1.5          1.2          0.3
1957..........................................................        450.9         17.7         17.0          0.8         16.2         15.6          0.6          1.5          1.3          0.2
1958..........................................................        460.0         17.3         17.9         -0.6         15.6         16.3         -0.7          1.7          1.6          0.1
1959..........................................................        490.2         16.2         18.8         -2.6         14.5         17.0         -2.5          1.7          1.8         -0.1
1960..........................................................        518.9         17.8         17.8          0.1         15.8         15.7          0.1          2.1          2.1           -*
1961..........................................................        529.9         17.8         18.4         -0.6         15.5         16.2         -0.7          2.3          2.2          0.1
1962..........................................................        567.8         17.6         18.8         -1.3         15.4         16.4         -1.0          2.2          2.4         -0.2
1963..........................................................        599.2         17.8         18.6         -0.8         15.4         16.1         -0.7          2.4          2.5         -0.1
1964..........................................................        641.5         17.6         18.5         -0.9         15.0         16.0         -1.0          2.6          2.5          0.1
1965..........................................................        687.5         17.0         17.2         -0.2         14.6         14.8         -0.2          2.4          2.4            *
1966..........................................................        755.8         17.3         17.8         -0.5         14.8         15.2         -0.4          2.5          2.6         -0.1
1967..........................................................        810.0         18.4         19.4         -1.1         15.4         16.9         -1.6          3.0          2.5          0.5
1968..........................................................        868.4         17.6         20.5         -2.9         14.7         17.9         -3.2          2.9          2.6          0.3
1969..........................................................        948.1         19.7         19.4          0.3         16.7         16.7         -0.1          3.1          2.7          0.4
1970..........................................................      1,012.7         19.0         19.3         -0.3         15.7         16.6         -0.9          3.3          2.7          0.6
1971..........................................................      1,080.0         17.3         19.5         -2.1         14.0         16.4         -2.4          3.3          3.0          0.3
1972..........................................................      1,176.5         17.6         19.6         -2.0         14.2         16.4         -2.2          3.4          3.2          0.2
1973..........................................................      1,310.6         17.6         18.7         -1.1         14.1         15.3         -1.2          3.5          3.5            *
1974..........................................................      1,438.5         18.3         18.7         -0.4         14.5         15.1         -0.5          3.7          3.7          0.1
1975..........................................................      1,560.2         17.9         21.3         -3.4         13.9         17.4         -3.5          4.0          3.9          0.1
1976..........................................................      1,738.1         17.1         21.4         -4.2         13.3         17.3         -4.0          3.8          4.1         -0.2
TQ............................................................        459.4         17.7         20.9         -3.2         13.8         16.8         -3.1          3.9          4.1         -0.1
1977..........................................................      1,973.5         18.0         20.7         -2.7         14.1         16.7         -2.5          3.9          4.1         -0.2
1978..........................................................      2,217.5         18.0         20.7         -2.7         14.2         16.7         -2.5          3.9          4.0         -0.2
1979..........................................................      2,501.4         18.5         20.1         -1.6         14.6         16.2         -1.6          3.9          4.0           -*
1980..........................................................      2,724.2         19.0         21.7         -2.7         14.8         17.5         -2.7          4.2          4.2           -*
1981..........................................................      3,057.0         19.6         22.2         -2.6         15.3         17.8         -2.4          4.3          4.4         -0.2
1982..........................................................      3,223.7         19.2         23.1         -4.0         14.7         18.5         -3.7          4.5          4.7         -0.2
1983..........................................................      3,440.7         17.5         23.5         -6.0         13.2         19.2         -6.0          4.3          4.3           -*
1984..........................................................      3,844.4         17.3         22.2         -4.8         13.0         17.8         -4.8          4.3          4.3           -*
1985..........................................................      4,146.3         17.7         22.8         -5.1         13.2         18.6         -5.3          4.5          4.3          0.2
1986..........................................................      4,403.9         17.5         22.5         -5.0         12.9         18.3         -5.4          4.5          4.2          0.4
1987..........................................................      4,651.4         18.4         21.6         -3.2         13.8         17.4         -3.6          4.6          4.2          0.4
1988..........................................................      5,008.5         18.2         21.3         -3.1         13.3         17.2         -3.8          4.8          4.1          0.7
1989..........................................................      5,399.5         18.4         21.2         -2.8         13.5         17.3         -3.8          4.9          3.9          1.0
1990..........................................................      5,734.5         18.0         21.9         -3.9         13.1         17.9         -4.8          4.9          3.9          1.0
1991..........................................................      5,930.5         17.8         22.3         -4.5         12.8         18.3         -5.4          5.0          4.1          0.9
1992..........................................................      6,242.0         17.5         22.1         -4.7         12.6         18.1         -5.5          4.8          4.0          0.8
1993..........................................................      6,587.3         17.5         21.4         -3.9         12.8         17.3         -4.6          4.7          4.0          0.7
1994..........................................................      6,976.6         18.0         21.0         -2.9         13.2         16.9         -3.7          4.8          4.0          0.8
1995..........................................................      7,341.1         18.4         20.6         -2.2         13.6         16.7         -3.1          4.8          3.9          0.9
1996..........................................................      7,718.3         18.8         20.2         -1.4         14.1         16.3         -2.3          4.8          3.9          0.9
1997..........................................................      8,211.7         19.2         19.5         -0.3         14.5         15.7         -1.3          4.8          3.8          1.0
1998..........................................................      8,663.0         19.9         19.1          0.8         15.1         15.4         -0.3          4.8          3.7          1.1
1999..........................................................      9,208.4         19.8         18.5          1.4         15.0         15.0            *          4.8          3.5          1.3
2000..........................................................      9,821.0         20.6         18.2          2.4         15.7         14.8          0.9          4.9          3.4          1.5
2001..........................................................     10,225.3         19.5         18.2          1.3         14.5         14.8         -0.3          5.0          3.4          1.6
2002..........................................................     10,543.9         17.6         19.1         -1.5         12.7         15.7         -3.0          4.9          3.4          1.5
2003..........................................................     10,979.8         16.2         19.7         -3.4         11.5         16.4         -4.9          4.8          3.3          1.5
2004..........................................................     11,685.6         16.1         19.6         -3.5         11.5         16.4         -4.9          4.6          3.2          1.3
2005..........................................................     12,445.7         17.3         19.9         -2.6         12.7         16.6         -4.0          4.6          3.2          1.4
2006..........................................................     13,224.9         18.2         20.1         -1.9         13.6         16.9         -3.3          4.6          3.2          1.4
2007..........................................................     13,891.8         18.5         19.6         -1.2         13.9         16.4         -2.5          4.6          3.3          1.3
2008..........................................................     14,394.1         17.5         20.7         -3.2         13.0         17.4         -4.5          4.6          3.3          1.3
2009..........................................................     14,097.5         14.9         25.0        -10.0         10.3         21.3        -11.0          4.6          3.7          1.0
2010..........................................................     14,508.2         14.9         23.8         -8.9         10.6         20.0         -9.4          4.4          3.8          0.5
2011 estimate.................................................     15,079.6         14.4         25.3        -10.9         10.7         22.0        -11.3          3.7          3.3          0.4
2012 estimate.................................................     15,812.5         16.6         23.6         -7.0         12.5         19.9         -7.4          4.2          3.7          0.5
2013 estimate.................................................     16,752.4         17.9         22.5         -4.6         13.6         18.6         -5.1          4.4          3.9          0.5
2014 estimate.................................................     17,782.2         18.7         22.4         -3.6         14.4         18.5         -4.1          4.3          3.9          0.5
2015 estimate.................................................     18,804.1         19.1         22.3         -3.2         14.7         18.4         -3.7          4.3          3.9          0.5
2016 estimate.................................................     19,790.5         19.3         22.6         -3.3         14.9         18.7         -3.8          4.4          3.9          0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 0.05 percent or less.
Note: Budget figures prior to 1933 are based on the ``Administrative Budget'' concepts rather than the ``Unified Budget'' concepts.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, what the Republicans fail to tell 
people, which makes me so angry and should make everyone angry, is that 
all other spending in the Federal Government has remained flat. There 
has been a zero-percent increase in 10 years, if we adjust for 
inflation--zero, not a 2-percent increase, not a 3-percent increase. 
These are the facts.
  It is also true that we are spending more money--25 percent of GDP--
than at any time since World War II, but that spending is being driven 
by defense and mandatory. But what do they want to cut? What are they 
demanding to be cut today? They are demanding cuts from this line item, 
including agriculture, health, education, and respite care for the 
elderly. This is what they want to cut. This is why Democrats are 
saying: Wait a minute, take a couple of steps back. That is what this 
fight is really about.
  In addition to waging this fight--and one would think this is a big 
fight to have--we would have it in the safest place possible. Some 
would think we would be having it in the safest place possible. My 
colleagues know that in the old western movies, when two guys

[[Page S5100]]

want to shoot it out, they say: Meet me on the edge of town. Do these 
guys meet you on the edge of town? No. Do you know where they meet us? 
Right on Main Street, where small business and big business and self-
employed have been struggling for years, coming out of the greatest 
recession that in large measure they helped to create. Where do they 
want to stage this fight? On Main Street. That is what this fight is 
about. They could have chosen anyplace for this battle, but where do 
they choose it? They choose it over raising the debt ceiling, which, if 
we don't fix it in the next 72 hours, it is going to raise interest on 
every business.
  I am already getting piles of letters from Louisiana that I will 
include in the Record from small business owners pleading with us to 
come to a deal because they are holding the economy hostage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters I just 
referred to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 27, 2011.
     Mrs. Monique Jones,
     Raceland, LA.
       Senator Landrieu, I am writing with my concern regarding 
     the debt ceiling issue. I am appalled at the current GOP 
     tactics, their inability to compromise and their absolute 
     refusal to put the good of the nation, the economy and the 
     average middle class American before some rigid political 
     ideology. Louisiana may be a red state, but the Tea party 
     does not speak for all of us! Increasingly, I am frustrated 
     and dismayed that there is no ability to grasp even common 
     sense ideas--debt reduction works by increasing revenue and 
     cutting spending, for example--or their apparent amnesia and 
     the fact that it was previous administrations that put wars 
     on the credit card! Why weren't they shouting over fiscal 
     responsibility back then?
       I have contacted my Congressman expressing my lack of 
     support for Cap, Cut and Balance. I am equally not impressed 
     with the Reid plan. I SUPPORT tax increases, closing 
     corporate tax loopholes and . . . please . . . please . . . 
     can Hedge Fund Managers pay their fair share? I'll be frank, 
     my husband and I are small business owners, registered 
     Independents and completely middle class. Our income was 
     decimated by the oil spill, and last year we paid a lot more 
     taxes than GE did. Not fair!
       Please Senator, do what is right for the middle class. Get 
     some revenues. Protect Medicare. I understand that we need to 
     cut spending, but not on the backs of the middle class. How 
     about letting the Bush tax cuts expire for starters? The 
     President and the democrats have compromised, but the GOP 
     reminds me of playground bully. Shaking down the other kids 
     for their lunch money. I am appalled that they would rather 
     run the country into the ground than compromise! This 
     moderate Independent is angry.
       The President asked that we give you guys a shout out to 
     let you know what we think. I support the Democrats. I will 
     do so in upcoming elections as well. The GOP has proved 
     themselves incapable of actual governance.
           Sincerely,
     Monique M. Jones.
                                  ____

                                                    July 27, 2011.
     Mr. Matthew Cope,
     Baton Rouge, LA.
       Dear Senator Landrieu, What is wrong with revenues?? Or why 
     not close a few tax loopholes (or does that constitute tax 
     increases--bilge water!!).
       Look at what people were paying in taxes under Eisenhower--
     we are supremely under-taxed. Why do people think we can fund 
     multiple wars with tax cuts and no revenues??? No one has an 
     inkling of what sacrifice is. Go see Captain America: it's 
     all about the war effort and doing your part. No one does 
     that (or even thinks about it) anymore. Stop enriching those 
     who need it the least. I am a 40-year-old small business 
     owner--all this default talk is doing nothing but making it 
     harder for me to grow my business. And I vote!!!
           Sincerely,
     Matthew Cope.
                                  ____

                                                    July 27, 2011.
     David Beriss,
     New Orleans, LA.
       Dear Senator Landrieu, please stop the idiotic debt ceiling 
     debate. It is time to raise the debt ceiling and move on to 
     legislation that creates jobs.
       Cutting government spending and reducing government jobs is 
     a ridiculous and irresponsible policy when we are trying to 
     recover from a recession. Please stop letting the Republican 
     ideologues drive the political debate in Washington. There is 
     only one issue that matters: jobs. The debt ceiling debate is 
     an artificial crisis and a distraction from what matters.
       Get this done and move on!
       It is all about jobs, not about stupid ideological 
     smokescreens like ``big government,'' or a ``balanced budget 
     amendment'' (which is a truly stupid idea, by the way).
       Can we count on you to work forcefully to get the Senate 
     (and all of Congress) to focus on issues that really matter, 
     like creating jobs?
           Sincerely,
     David Beriss.
                                  ____

                                                    July 27, 2011.
     Mr. Daniel Threlkeld,
     Fort Polk, LA.
       Senator Landrieu, first of all, I want to thank you for 
     your support of our military. I am a Captain in the Army and 
     have humbly served our great country for nearly 13 years. I 
     am writing to you today to let you know how disheartened and 
     down-right disgusted I am with how our government is dealing 
     with today's economic problems--in particular the debt 
     ceiling issue. I have dealt firsthand with the enormous 
     emotional trauma caused by the last budget problem which 
     almost caused our young fighting men and women to temporarily 
     stop getting paid. At the time, I was a Battery Commander 
     stationed at Fort Lewis. I had combat veterans who served 
     multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan wearing the weight of 
     this country on their shoulders only to have that same 
     country almost turn its back on their pay and benefits. I had 
     numerous Soldiers who lived paycheck to paycheck, and even a 
     temporary stop in pay would have been devastating to that 
     Soldier and his family. Fortunately, you all reached an 
     agreement several months ago at the last minute in which you 
     passed the 2011 Budget so we could get paid.
       Now we are at another impasse, and now the military once 
     again faces the possibility of not getting paid. Not only 
     that, but all of the arguing and bickering amongst our 
     Congressmen & Women are bringing our entire economy down. 
     Bottom line: You (all of Congress and the President) need to 
     reach a deal. Throw out all of the politics, Democrat versus 
     Republican tricks, and unite as Americans and make a deal 
     that will bring our country out of this mess. Don't turn your 
     backs on the very people who elected you. Please, from one 
     humble American to another, make a deal and secure our 
     future. I have faith that you will help make this happen.
           Respectfully,
                                       CPT(P) Daniel S. Threlkeld.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Has anybody read the newspapers this morning? It is 
full of cartoons: Republicans holding the economy hostage. They are not 
holding Barack Obama hostage. They are not holding Democrats hostage. 
They are not holding the Federal Government hostage. They have decided 
to fight the battle on Main Street, holding economic growth hostage, 
and they think that is a compromise or a fair fight. This hostage isn't 
strong enough to survive this siege.
  Do we ever hear any one of them say that perhaps we need to raise a 
penny or two or three? Absolutely not. Now, there are Senators who have 
agreed to do so, but they haven't been as vocal as they possibly could 
be. I am honored to serve with many good Republicans who understand 
this equation has two sides: both taking spending down in the right 
ways and raising revenue.
  Let me get one more fact out there, and I will turn it over to my 
colleague.
  I understand corporate tax rates are higher than some other countries 
in the world, and our corporations are having some tough times, as well 
as some businesses. But I am going to submit data for the Record which 
shows that the top 400 companies in this country are not paying a 35-
percent rate, they are not paying a 34-percent rate, their practical 
rate is 17 percent. Why would that be the case? Because this Tax Code 
is full of loopholes for special interests that many of them on the 
other side think are justified.
  So we are not going to be able to solve all of these problems today, 
but I wanted to come to the floor on behalf of businesses--small 
businesses and large--and say that when the Republicans start talking 
about both sides of the equation, these Democrats, including myself, 
will walk up and negotiate. In the meantime, we are going to work hard 
to find a deal that works for the American people, and one solution 
that will work for the American people is not to have to repeat this 4 
months from now.
  I am going to conclude with this. Just a few months ago, we were 
getting letters from the other side saying business needs certainty, 
business needs to know what taxes they are going to pay. They need to 
have certainty. And then, all of a sudden, today this side is arguing 
that we have to go through this debate 4 months from now.
  I am telling my colleagues that this hostage will not survive their 
siege. We have to fix this for the long term now.
  I am going to turn it over to my colleague from Minnesota, who is 
going to talk about the businesses in her State and what she is hearing 
from businesses in her State and why this is so

[[Page S5101]]

grossly unfair from Republicans who want to bring this economy to its 
knees, and they are doing a really good job of it.
  I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank very much the Senator from 
Louisiana for her passionate remarks. There is a reason she has that 
passion, and it is because we are in the ninth inning. This is it. The 
time for political posturing is over. There is no more time to say we 
are not going to talk to each other. There is no more time to pretend 
we can have one plan and then another plan. It is time to get an 
agreement.
  Look at what has happened in just the past week. The markets have 
gone down more than they have in over a year. We have seen realtors--
and this is a study that just came out a few days ago--people backed 
away from one out of six deals this past month. If you look at the 
month before, it was only 1 out of 25. People are feeling the 
uncertainty in this economy, and it is time to come to a bipartisan 
agreement.
  Last week, I held a call with business leaders from across my State 
to update them on the status of negotiations, to hear their thoughts 
and their concerns, and to answer their questions. Their message back 
to me was clear and unified: If we fail to act, the consequences for 
our economy are real and serious. I will be honest. They don't care 
what combination of votes--Democratic, Republican--it takes to get us 
across the finish line. Many of them may prefer Republican plans, and 
some would prefer a Democratic plan. What they want is consistency. 
They want us to get this done. They want us to not default on our debt. 
They want a deal to be passed by August 2 that prevents the United 
States from defaulting on its financial obligations and provides some 
long-term certainty.
  Now, make no mistake, they see our debt crisis as real and serious 
and something that must be addressed. But while failure to bring the 
national debt under control is threatening America's future, the danger 
of default is already harming our economy. We must address both. The 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called the possibility of default 
unthinkable and unacceptable, arguing it will have real, immediate, and 
potentially catastrophic consequences.

  As economists and experts from across the ideological spectrum have 
said, if this continues, interest rates will rise for everyone. That is 
what they say. This will mean higher rates for American consumers and 
the small businesses that drive our economies. Car loans, mortgages, 
businesses, and student loans will all be more expensive. Higher 
borrowing costs and a falling dollar means slower economic growth and 
slower job creation. That is the last thing we need right now.
  Just an hour ago I received in my office an e-mail from a major 
employer in my State saying the commercial paper market nearly seized 
up yesterday, and by the afternoon only overnight rollovers were 
possible. That is what they were seeing, and that is identical to what 
happened to capital markets in September of 2008, according to this 
major company. They said this in the e-mail:

       The sooner the debt limit issue can be resolved, the sooner 
     this market can begin functioning as it should and the sooner 
     lenders will begin lending for longer than overnight.

  Here are some things I heard from business leaders in my State. This 
is from Hubert Joly, the president and CEO of Carlson Companies, 
headquartered in Minneapolis. It owns and manages over 2,000 hotels and 
restaurants across this country and across the globe. He writes this:

       As one of the largest private family owned companies in the 
     United States, Carlson would like to highlight how critical 
     it is for Congress to reach a constructive compromise before 
     August 2 to ensure that the U.S. does not default on its debt 
     obligations. The ongoing uncertainty--

  Note that word--

     and lack of resolution of the debt ceiling debate is not 
     healthy for the global financial markets or for consumer 
     confidence. It is highly detrimental to the overall economy 
     and to the travel and hospitality industry which millions of 
     families in the U.S. depend upon for their livelihood. We 
     therefore urge congressional leadership to act in the best 
     interests of the nation and deliver a compromise agreement 
     that avoids default and demonstrates the nation has a 
     credible plan to reduce the federal deficit. A short-term fix 
     is not sufficient, as we must not allow or accept prolonged 
     uncertainty, which will only create volatility and 
     instability for the globe and the U.S. economy.

  I have multiple other letters--from snow mobile manufacturers, etc., 
which I will later put in the Record. Since we are having dozens come 
in every hour, I want to get them all gathered for tomorrow. But one 
gentleman said this:

       In regard to the current debt ceiling situation, default is 
     not an option and reasonable compromise is what we need to 
     add certainty that will lead to growth for American 
     manufacturers.

  Certainty and growth. Another one:

       The current debate over the debt ceiling has serious 
     implications for American business. For example, the impact 
     to my company will be felt not only by 3,300 U.S. employees, 
     but by suppliers, customers, and, consequently, shareholders.

  Just in case you do not draw the connection, these are major 
businesses that are in small towns throughout my State--sometimes the 
only major employer in those towns. That is what they are saying. Let 
me tell you, these are not Democrats who are writing those letters. 
They are not siding on one particular plan or the other. They are just 
saying: We need a compromise, and we need it by August 2.
  Ken Powell, chairman and CEO of General Mills, a major Fortune 500 
company, writes:

       We think it is critically important for the entire 
     country--both at the business and individual level--that 
     Congress come to an agreement on this issue and move forward.

  An individual from a major financial institution that manages the 
savings and retirements of over 2 million individual business and 
institutional clients writes this:

       I urge the U.S. Congress to reach a bipartisan agreement to 
     raise the debt ceiling and return the country's focus to 
     economic growth and job creation.

  None of us in this Chamber wants to see our economy damaged. 
Democrats do not want it. Republicans do not want it. As these letters 
show, the business community in this country knows we cannot have this 
happen. What they want is for us to work together to show the American 
people and the world that Washington is not broken; that instead we are 
willing to put aside our politics to do what we have been elected to do 
and get this done. That is what is right for America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska is here to 
finish out this segment, which is focusing on the difficulties that 
businesses are going to have. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
joining us for this segment.
  I just want to get something in the Record before yielding to the 
Senator from Alaska.
  I said the spending is high, 25 percent of GDP. Everyone acknowledges 
that. We are working hard to get it down. But I want to put in the 
Record that revenues coming into the Treasury are the lowest since 
World War II, at 14 percent. We do not have revenues in this solution 
because Democrats have compromised and conceded on this point, which is 
a very difficult compromise for us to make when faced with the truth of 
the situation. But in trying to compromise, we have done that. We have 
not been met halfway. I hope the minority leader will reengage with the 
majority leader--having said last night he did not believe he wanted to 
engage with the majority leader to try to come to a compromise--because 
businesses are depending on it.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an 
excellent column in the Washington Post today to capstone my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From the Washington Post]

                          (By Colbert I. King)

                       Limbaugh's Singular Focus

       Rush Limbaugh was responding to my observation during 
     Gordon Peterson's ``Inside Washington'' show on ABC-7 last 
     weekend that an anti-Obama mood was fueling some of the 
     opposition to getting anything done in Washington. Referring 
     to Limbaugh's commentary earlier in the week, I said that he 
     made ``no reference to saving the country, no such reference 
     to averting disaster with the debt ceiling. It was a question 
     of helping or hurting Obama.''

[[Page S5102]]

       I wasn't wrong. Limbaugh continued his anti-Obama rant 
     during last Monday's show: ``Mr. King is, in a way, exactly 
     right. . . . The point is you can't save the country if you 
     don't defeat Obama.''
       Which helps explain the virtual knee-jerk opposition of 
     right-wing Republicans to anything that comes out of the 
     Obama administration. It also explains their willingness to 
     put the country on the path to economic suicide if the 
     downgrading of U.S. debt will help bring down President 
     Obama. For wingers, there is no price too high to pay to 
     break Obama. Sabotaging the president of the United States 
     is, in their view, good for the country.
       It seems to have been ever thus. Limbaugh was pulling for 
     the Obama administration's downfall even before the president 
     took the oath of office. Four days prior to Obama's 
     inauguration as the nation's 44th chief executive, Limbaugh 
     famously declared, ``I hope he fails.''
       Barack Obama, contends Limbaugh, is the danger from which 
     America must be saved.
       As the Limbaugh camp sees it, Obama is a threat to the 
     American way of life. They hold that he is the cause of 9 
     percent unemployment and the reason homeowners are 
     underwater. Three years of Barack Obama--not eight years of 
     George W. Bush--are why prosperity is beyond the reach of 
     many Americans. And it is the prospect of, in Limbaugh's 
     words, ``Obama having control over all the money and choosing 
     to whom to send it, to distribute it, or redistribute it,'' 
     that threatens America.
       That Obama hasn't collapsed keeps conservatives like 
     Limbaugh up nights. They won't acknowledge it, but under 
     Obama's leadership--and within three years after inheriting 
     one of America's worst enemies--a bleeding al-Qaeda is on the 
     run, and Osama bin Laden is swimming with the fishes.
       Troops are finally coming home from a costly, Bush-inspired 
     Iraq war that is leaving our arch regional foe, Iran, 
     strategically better off than it was before the U.S. 
     invasion.
       The automobile and financial services industries--on the 
     ropes when Bush left office--are back on their feet. For the 
     first time, 30 million uninsured Americans will face the 
     future with health insurance.
       Not to mention the mess Bush left behind: a projected $1.2 
     trillion deficit, two wars and huge tax cuts for the 
     wealthy--all financed by borrowing.
       Obama, to be sure, has spent trillions, in part because he 
     was trying to extend health-care coverage and stave off 
     another depression. But prior presidents incurred most of the 
     nation's $14.3 trillion debt.
       The country is going downhill, Limbaugh asserts, ``because 
     of policies implemented by [Obama] who, I don't care, is 
     either clueless or is himself a saboteur.'' Note the 
     allusions to stupidity and subversion--staple slurs in the 
     conservative book of slime.
       Make no mistake that is the mindset that stands in the way 
     of saving the country.
       Produce a package that staves off default, lifts the debt 
     ceiling high enough to cover federal obligations into 2013, 
     reins in the budget by cutting $4.5 trillion over the next 
     decade through spending reductions and the elimination of tax 
     loopholes and tax breaks benefiting the rich, and guess what? 
     A solid phalanx of congressional right-wingers, egged on by 
     Limbaugh, says no. And, hell no, if it means Barack Obama 
     might share the credit.
       Getting Obama isn't just an important conservative 
     Republican goal; it seems to be their only goal.
       And Limbaugh has the unmitigated gall to go on and on about 
     how much he cares about saving the country, telling his 
     listeners: ``Every waking moment . . . even when I am on the 
     golf course, I care.''
       Now that's what you call sacrifice.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Alaska, who has been an 
absolutely outstanding champion for small business not only in Alaska 
but around the Nation, who will talk with us about this short-term, 
repeat, 6-month uncertainty and how damaging that would be to 
businesses in Alaska. I thank the Senator for joining us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana very 
much. I am happy to join my friend from Louisiana and my friend from 
Minnesota. I am a small business owner. I have been from my teenage 
years. My wife is a small business owner. I understand the plight they 
go through--how to raise capital, how to start a small business, how to 
take a dream to reality. Sometimes those dreams do not work out so 
well, and what happens next?
  As we sit here and talk about the short term versus the long term, in 
business you lay out a business plan. It is a long-term plan. 
Businesses that set a short-term plan are the ones that have those big 
banners that say: ``Going out of business.'' Those are the short-term 
planners in the business world.
  We debate today--and I think we are a lot closer than maybe the media 
likes to portray--but it is a difference between in the next 6 months 
do we deal with this issue and have another debt limit vote in 6 months 
from now, and another 6 months later, and 6 months, or do we plan for 
the long term, get our economy more stable, more certain, so businesses 
can invest and do the right thing?
  As I said at the beginning, any business that you see that has a 
short-term plan usually has a sign that says: ``Going out of business'' 
or ``Quitting.''
  We are not going to quit. We are going to have a long-term plan.
  I heard earlier today my colleague and friend from Georgia, from the 
other side, who practiced in real estate, Senator Isakson. Both of us 
have been in the real estate business for many years. As he said, also, 
we are closer than people think we are. But we have some slight 
differences, ones we need to make sure we resolve and move to a long-
term plan.
  Earlier this week, I challenged businesses that want to have a short-
term plan to call my office; I would be happy to mention them on the 
floor of the Senate. I waited and I waited and I waited. No one--not 
one business--called my office and said: Give me a short-term plan. But 
I will tell you, several Alaskan businesses did call my office and say: 
Compromise. Get a long-term plan.
  Let me read to you from just a couple.
  JoeMarie Thomson from Anchorage owns Crucible Designs, a Web site 
design firm. She writes:

       I'm very concerned about the posturing surrounding the debt 
     ceiling negotiations. As a small business owner I'm already 
     seeing the effects of this uncertainty. My clients are also 
     small business owners and so I am right in the line of fire 
     on this one.
       I've heard from more than a few clients that if the U.S. 
     defaults on the debt that the resulting interest rates will 
     put them out of business. With this fear increasing the 
     closer we get to August 2, it's really hurting my bottom 
     line.

  Another one, Rita Fleckenstein from Anchorage, owns Rita's Family 
Daycare, a small daycare center for children. Her husband is retired 
Air Force.

       It is my sincere hope that you will try to influence your 
     other Alaskan partners to take a balanced approach to solve 
     the current budget crisis. I am a small business owner and 
     loyal Alaskan voter and I am tired of all this posturing 
     among the House members.

  She is referring to the debate that occurred last night.
  A man from Anchorage:

       I am a long time Alaskan, father of two, Iraq war veteran, 
     small business owner, and my small business provides 
     engineers and managers to the oil and gas industry in Alaska. 
     I am a registered independent but am conservative in regards 
     to budgetary issues.
       . . . As a small business owner, I would never jeopardize 
     the well being of my family, my employees, or my clients in 
     regards to a business agreement or transaction. There is 
     always room to compromise and allow all parties engaged in 
     the deal to walk away with the feeling they got a fair deal. 
     . . . I fully expect increases in my taxes and am ok with 
     that in order to continue to support our country.

  Another one, actually from someone I know well, who owns Arctic Wire 
and Rope, Eric McCallum. He won Alaskan manufacturer of the year in 
1986 and employs 14 people. He is important to our oil and gas 
industry. Fortunately, Eric has no debt, but he is terribly concerned 
about the debt crisis. He says small businesses like his are the 
``canary in the mineshaft'' and will be negatively impacted more than 
big businesses. Eric states:

       There will be far more impact on Main Street than Wall 
     Street from this debt crisis.

  Eric adds that he is more than willing to pay his fair share to help 
balance the Federal budget.
  These have come in and in and in, and it is amazing to see what 
people are talking about in my State. There are 68,000 small businesses 
in Alaska. My wife is one of those. Almost 16,000 employ many 
employees. The fastest growing segment of our business community in 
Alaska is small business, growing by almost 31 percent over the last 6 
years.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, to the Senator from Louisiana, 
as a small businessperson, all they want to see is certainty. They want 
the bickering, the partisan bickering to end. They want certainty so 
they can continue to invest and see their future.
  There are just some simple differences that I think the folks from 
both sides can sit down and work through. One is, clearly, how long

[[Page S5103]]

should this debt limit increase go for? As I said earlier, if you do a 
short term, that is the business that is saying: I quit. I am out of 
business. If you do a long term, it gives certainty and opportunity to 
plan and build for the future.
  Should we have a vote up or down separate from the debt limit issue 
on a balanced budget amendment? It is a great debate. More than likely, 
we will probably have that debate. I have supported a balanced budget 
amendment before. But it is time we raise the debt limit to create the 
long-term certainty we need for our small business community not only 
in Alaska but throughout this country, where they are the backbone that 
will drive this economy in the right direction.
  It is an honor, again, to be down here with the chairwoman of the 
Small Business Committee. She has worked tirelessly on bill after bill. 
We were unsuccessful this year on a couple that were critical to small 
businesses because we could not get past the logjam. Maybe this will 
break the pathway, if we can get past this debt limit in a bipartisan 
way, where we can then bring many more other small business bills back 
to the floor because what I hear most often from Alaskans, beside the 
frustration of what is going on here, is they want us to focus on 
building this economy, to get regulation out of the way, to help invest 
in the needed things to ensure that businesses can create the jobs we 
desperately need not only for the people who are unemployed today, but 
for future generations. That is what we need.
  So, again, Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. 
Again, I thank my friend from Louisiana for the opportunity to say a 
few words but also for her leadership and her continued tenacity to 
fight for the small businessperson every single day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. President, how much time do we have in this segment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senators, again, from 
Minnesota and Alaska for coming and making the point and underlying and 
scoring the point that this filibuster the Republican caucus is holding 
today--not allowing us to have a simple majority vote on the Reid 
plan--is hurting business.
  As the Senator said, this is a pattern, unfortunately, it seems like 
coming from the other side. We had to overcome their filibuster just 
last year to pass the small business bill that is now having a terrific 
effect throughout the country in some pockets. We still are not where 
we would like to be, of course, in job creation, and the recovery is 
slow. I am starting to think that maybe that is what they want--for the 
recovery to be slow.
  Then they filibustered the SBIR bill, which is the largest single 
research investment program for small businesses in America. We still 
cannot get that passed. They are filibustered.
  Then they filibustered the EDA bill, which is one of the most 
important programs to Chambers of Commerce, which is not a liberal 
stronghold in America. Now they are filibustering this bill and 
demanding a two-step solution, and no businessperson has written to 
Congress saying they think that is a good way to go.
  The opposite. They are saying: Get this over with now. The 
uncertainty is killing us.
  I will yield to the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Just for a question. The way I understand this is, for 
people who may be watching or listening, a filibuster requires 60 
votes. All we are asking for is the same thing the House of 
Representatives did last night on their bill.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. A simple majority.
  Mr. BEGICH. A simple majority, allow an up-or-down vote so we can 
determine what plan or what action we take. That is all we are asking 
for.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. It would be clear if we could get 51 votes that the 
Reid plan would pass, just like the Boehner plan passed. Neither one 
can get the other side to agree. But at least then we would have the 
basis for a compromise.
  But, no, the Republicans have decided we cannot have that vote. So 
this is getting strung out, and with every hour, with every day, 
businesses are hurting. Maybe that is what they want because, then, the 
President can be blamed for businesses not doing well, when they are 
the ones who are stepping in the way.
  The details from the budget summary that I stated: 14 percent of the 
revenues coming in--this is on the Web site for anybody who wants to 
know. I have letters from Louisiana that I printed in the Record from 
businesses that have written to me saying: Not a two-step process, a 
one-step process. Get a good solution and move on.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to begin by speaking for just a 
moment about some comments the distinguished majority leader gave this 
afternoon in his opening comments and then talk a little bit about the 
general issue we are faced with--frankly, in an effort to see if we can 
come to common ground.
  Let me start with a couple comments the majority leader made this 
afternoon. He has talked more than once about the fact that in his 
view, the Republican leaders have wasted time by pursuing a proposal 
they knew the Senate would not pass. I think there are two things to 
say about that.
  One could say the same about the majority leader's proposal. He hopes 
the Senate will not pass that either. So we have two proposals, one by 
Speaker Boehner that passed the House of Representatives but Senator 
Reid declared dead on arrival, and indeed it was tabled last night; the 
other, the Reid proposal, which is also dead on arrival in the Senate. 
As Leader McConnell noted this morning, there is a letter that has 
sufficient signatures on it to defeat it, and, in addition to that, I 
can tell you I have talked to my colleagues--all my Republican 
colleagues--and it will be defeated. I think the majority leader knows 
that.
  So the only question with regard to the Senate majority leader's 
proposal is, Why would we waste additional time debating a proposal we 
know is going to fail? Why have that vote at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning? 
Let's get it done, get it over with, and move forward. I think that is 
the best way to try to reach a conclusion.
  I would also note the reason the majority leader declared the Boehner 
proposal dead was for two reasons; one, because it had a balanced 
budgeted amendment attached to it. I just wish to make the point that I 
know most of my Democratic colleagues do not support a balanced budget 
amendment. But I do think it is worth noting that depending upon which 
poll, 70, 80, more than 80 percent of the American people support a 
balanced budget amendment.
  I do not think we can blame Speaker Boehner for including a balanced 
budget amendment in the Boehner legislation that was sent over here. It 
is pretty logical that if the American people say they support 
something with that degree of support, that we would include it in 
legislation to try to balance the budget.
  But the majority leader here said no. That means it is dead on 
arrival in the Senate. That should tell us something about the Senate 
Democrats. President Obama talks about the need for a balanced 
approach. Speaker Boehner says: How about a balanced budget? Leader 
Reid says no. That is the first point.
  It seems to me the second point is there is a difference of opinion 
about how long this debt ceiling extension should last. Speaker Boehner 
has always said there should be at least a dollar-for-dollar reduction 
in spending for every $1 the debt ceiling is increased. I think that 
makes sense. If we are going to increase the debt ceiling $2.4 
trillion, then we ought to have $2.4 trillion in savings; otherwise, we 
are going to have to keep on raising the debt ceiling over and over. I 
would note the savings are savings that occur over a 10-year period of 
time. So it is not as though we are cutting that immediately, although 
the debt ceiling

[[Page S5104]]

extension would be $2.4 trillion for just the next 16 months. That is 
how much debt we are going to accumulate, just to the end of President 
Obama's term in office.
  There is not enough savings to do that, that has been agreed to. 
Republicans have all kinds of ideas about savings that could get to 
$2.5 trillion. Democrats have said no. The only thing we can agree on 
is about $1.2 trillion. So the Republican leader said: Fine, let's do a 
debt extension equal to $1.2 trillion. That takes us at least through 
the end of the year, and then we will have a committee--both sides 
agree we need to have a select committee that will make recommendations 
for how to get the remainder of the savings and potentially more. That 
is a good idea.
  But the President has said he does not want to rely on that process 
because maybe it will not result in actual savings he can count on. He 
might have to veto it. For whatever reason, he is not confident it 
would occur, and he does not want to have to face this issue again at 
the time he is campaigning for election. I do not blame him for that. 
He might well view it as a distraction. It certainly is unsettling to 
the markets.
  But I would argue that as much it is a result that we would like to 
avoid, by the same token, it does focus the public's attention on what 
we need to do around here, which is reduce spending. We did not get 
into this mess for any other reason other than the fact that we have 
spent too much money.
  We have had annual spending of about $1.2 trillion since President 
Obama became President. We have had annual deficits of about $1.4 
trillion. Do we see any connection there? Obviously, our problem is 
spending. So we need to get a handle on that. That is why I think the 
Boehner proposal made sense, but the leader says it was dead on 
arrival. He was right. The Reid proposal is also dead on arrival. Let's 
get it over with and move on to a solution we can agree with.
  The second thing I wanted to mention, the majority leader has been 
very critical of what he calls tea party extremists, people who do not 
want to vote to increase the debt ceiling under any circumstances. It 
kind of reminds me of Senator Barack Obama, who voted against extending 
the debt ceiling, and the language is eerily similar. It is ``failed 
leadership'' he pronounced. Tea party folks say this represents failed 
leadership, so we are not going to vote for a debt extension.
  The President did not vote for the debt ceiling extension when he was 
a Member of this body. I do not say that to criticize the President but 
rather just to suggest to my colleagues that we ought to have the same 
standard applied to all. If they think it is wrong for the tea party 
people to stand on principle and say we are not going to raise the debt 
ceiling, then they can say the same about President Obama when he was a 
Senator. But if they are going to criticize the tea party folks for 
standing on principle, criticizing leadership, saying they do not want 
to raise the debt ceiling, they might want to think about what their 
colleague, then-Senator Obama, did.
  The fact is, name calling does not help. Let's stop talking about 
extremist tea party folks. I would not call the President an extremist 
when he voted against the debt ceiling extension. He has already 
admitted he made a mistake. Republicans in the leadership in both the 
House and Senate have made it clear we believe the debt ceiling should 
be extended. We want to be able to do that, for a variety of reasons we 
have discussed.
  We do not want to put the American economy in jeopardy. We do not 
want to jeopardize the savings of people who could see those savings 
dissipate if the stock market continues to go down, and so we do need 
to get this issue behind us.
  The majority leader complained this morning that Republicans need to 
come talk to him. The minority leader needs to come and talk to him. He 
said I would have hoped someone would come to us, come to the table, 
and he specifically referred to Senator McConnell.
  My response is, Why do the Republicans always have to come up with 
the ideas? Three times the House of Representatives has passed a 
proposal only to be criticized each time by the Democrats who invite 
them to come up with proposals. Remember, the first was the Ryan 
budget--savaged by my Democratic colleagues and by the President.
  House Republicans said yes; Senate Democrats said no. Then, they came 
up with cut, cap, and balance, something that is pretty popular around 
the country. It would cut spending, would cap it, and would ultimately 
have a balanced budget amendment that would keep it capped. Democrats 
roundly criticized that. In the Senate, they voted it down.
  Finally, John Boehner came up with his last proposal, and it also 
included a balanced budget amendment--declared dead on arrival. The 
third time Democrats said no. I think Republican leaders are getting a 
little tired of being invited by our Democratic friends to come up with 
ideas, only to have them voted down and criticized. Where is the 
Democratic proposal? Where is the proposal by the President? I think it 
is time for Democrats to come up with an idea and maybe Republicans can 
take a look at it to see whether we like it.

  Finally, the majority leader said we have another filibuster in our 
path. ``They,'' meaning Republicans stall and delay. Last night, Leader 
McConnell said: Let's have the vote tonight, right now. We do not need 
to stall or delay another minute.
  The majority leader said: No, I do not want to vote on my proposal 
yet. I want to vote on it at 1 a.m. on Sunday morning. Leader McConnell 
said today: We are ready to vote on it today without delay--now, at 3 
o'clock, at 6 o'clock, whatever. Let's vote on it. We do not need to 
continue to waste time. The majority leader said: No, we will vote on 
it at 1 a.m, Sunday morning. OK. I will be here. But I wonder what the 
American people think of such a dysfunctional body that we cannot even, 
by unanimous consent, bring a matter to the Senate floor, vote on this 
motion to invoke cloture to proceed to the leader's bill.
  Those are some things I just wanted to comment on that the leader had 
to say. Finally, what I would like to do is ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record, at the close of my remarks, a Wall Street 
Journal editorial entitled ``The Road to a Downgrade,'' dated July 28.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me quote from a piece of this. The 
editorial starts by noting that the President:

     . . . inherited a recession and responded by blowing up the 
     U.S. balance sheet. Spending as a share of GDP in the last 
     three years is higher than at any time since 1946. In three 
     years the debt has increased by more than $4 trillion thanks 
     to stimulus, cash for clunkers, mortgage modification 
     programs, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, record expansions in 
     Medicaid, and more.
       The forecast is for $8 trillion to $10 trillion more in red 
     ink through 2021. Mr. Obama hinted in the press conference 
     earlier this month that if it weren't for Republicans, he'd 
     want another stimulus.

  Wall Street Journal says:

       Scary thought: None of this includes the ObamaCare 
     entitlement that will place 30 million more Americans on 
     government health rolls.

  Then they conclude:

       This is the road to fiscal perdition. The looming debt 
     downgrade only confirms what everyone knows: Congress has 
     made so many promises to so many Americans that there is no 
     conceivable way those promises can be kept. Tax rates might 
     have to rise to 60 percent, 70 percent, even 80 percent to 
     raise the revenues to finance these promises, but that would 
     be economically ruinous.

  It concludes:

       This insistence on no reform reinforces the notion that our 
     entitlement state is too big to afford but also too big to 
     change politically. This is how a AAA country becomes AA, the 
     first step on the march to Greece.

  Charles Krauthammer, a terrific observer of the political scene, in 
his column Friday in the Washington Post, concluded with the following 
words:

       Obama faces two massive problems--jobs and debt. They're 
     both the result of his spectacularly failed Keynesian gamble: 
     massive spending that left us a stagnant economy with high 
     and chronic unemployment--and a staggering debt burden.

  That is the problem, a staggering debt burden that requires us to 
increase our debt ceiling, and Republicans are saying: In order to stop 
this cycle of more promises and more spending, we have to apply some 
accountability, some common sense, some good judgment. And that means,

[[Page S5105]]

first and foremost, stop the spending. I note, as I said before, that 
under President Obama annual spending has gone up $1.2 trillion in each 
of the years and the deficit by $1.4 trillion. I ask again, do you 
notice any correlation there? That is the problem.

  I know my Democratic colleagues love to complain about President 
Bush. I note that in the year 2007--a year before the recession--the 
deficit under President Bush was just $161 billion--a 10th of what the 
deficit is today.
  Mr. President, my colleagues and I all need to focus on the issue 
before us, which is to begin to reduce spending, to insert some 
accountability into the process, and to include some system changes so 
that we can't continue this unwieldy government spending we never seem 
to be able to stop. The evidence of how difficult it is is the fact 
that for the last 4 weeks now we have been arguing with each other 
about how we are going to effect $2.4 trillion in savings in order to 
extend the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion. We can't figure out a way to 
do it. That should show you what is wrong with our system and why we 
need to put in some accountability.
  I am confident that over the next 48 hours or so, the White House and 
legislative leaders are going to find a way to both extend the debt 
ceiling and come up with savings that begin to create a downpayment on 
this incredible debt as well as system reforms that will give not just 
the markets but American businesses and families some sense of 
assurance that we will be able, in the future, to avoid the problem 
some European countries are going through right now. But that will mean 
we have to forget about this business of tax increases--which is the 
worst medicine possible in a time of recession, as the President 
himself noted--find ways to reduce spending we can agree upon, provide 
accountability in our government in the future, and in that way assure 
everyone that we can continue to grow, that growth will produce 
prosperity and, ironically, more revenues to the Federal Treasury but, 
more importantly, the standard of living Americans have become 
accustomed to and have every right to expect.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2011]

                        The Road to a Downgrade

       Even without a debt default, it looks increasingly possible 
     that the world's credit rating agencies will soon downgrade 
     U.S. debt from the AAA standing it has enjoyed for decades.
       A downgrade isn't catastrophic because global financial 
     markets decide the creditworthiness of U.S. securities, not 
     Moody's and Standard & Poor's. The good news is that 
     investors still regard Treasury bonds, which carry the full 
     faith and credit of the U.S. government, as a near zero-risk 
     investment. But a downgrade will raise the cost of credit, 
     especially for states and institutions whose debt is pegged 
     to Treasurys. Above all a downgrade is a symbol of fiscal 
     mismanagement and an omen of worse to come if we continue the 
     same habits.
       President Obama will deserve much of the blame for the 
     spending blowout of his first two years (see the nearby 
     chart). But the origins of this downgrade go back decades, 
     and so this is a good time to review the policies that 
     brought us to this sad chapter and $14.3 trillion of debt.
       FDR began the entitlement era with the New Deal and Social 
     Security, but for decades it remained relatively limited. 
     Spending fell dramatically after the end of World War II and 
     the U.S. debt burden fell rapidly from 100% of GDP. That 
     changed in the mid-1960s with LBJ's Great Society and the 
     dawn of the health-care state. Medicare and Medicaid were 
     launched in 1965 with fairy tale estimates of future costs.
       Medicare, the program for the elderly, was supposed to cost 
     $12 billion by 1990 but instead spent $110 billion. The costs 
     of Medicaid, the program for the poor, have exploded as 
     politicians like California Democrat Henry Waxman expanded 
     eligibility and coverage. In inflation-adjusted dollars, 
     Medicaid cost $4 billion in 1966, $41 billion in 1986 and 
     $243 billion last year.
       Rather than bending the cost curve down, the government as 
     third-party payer led to a medical price spiral.
       LBJ launched other welfare programs--public housing, food 
     stamps and many more--that have also grown over time. Last 
     year, the panoply of welfare programs spent about $20,000 for 
     every man, woman and child in poverty, according to Robert 
     Rector of the Heritage Foundation.
       Social Security's fiscal trouble began in earnest in 1972 
     with bills that increased benefits immediately by 20%, added 
     an annual cost of living adjustment, and created a benefit 
     escalator requiring payments to rise with wages, not 
     inflation. This and other tweaks by Democrat Wilbur Mills 
     added trillions of dollars to the program's unfunded 
     liabilities. Believe it or not, these 1972 amendments were 
     added to a debt-ceiling bill.
       None of these benefit expansions were subject to annual 
     budget review and thus they grew by automatic pilot. They are 
     sometimes called ``mandatory spending'' because Congress is 
     required by law to make payments to those who meet 
     eligibility standards, regardless of other spending needs or 
     tax revenues.
       According to the most recent government data, today some 
     50.5 million Americans are on Medicaid, 46.5 million are on 
     Medicare, 52 million on Social Security, five million on SSI, 
     7.5 million on unemployment insurance, and 44.6 million on 
     food stamps and other nutrition programs. Some 24 million get 
     the earned-income tax credit, a cash income supplement.
       By 2010 such payments to individuals were 66% of the 
     federal budget, up from 28% in 1965. (See the second chart.) 
     We now spend $2.1 trillion a year on these redistribution 
     programs, and the 75 million baby boomers are only starting 
     to retire.
       We suspect that in the 1960s as now--with ObamaCare--
     liberals knew they had created fiscal time-bombs. They simply 
     assumed that taxes would keep rising to pay for it all, as 
     they have in Europe.
       On Monday night Mr. Obama blamed President George W. Bush's 
     ``two wars'' for the debt buildup. But national defense 
     spending was 7.4% of GDP and 42.8% of outlays in 1965, and 
     only 4.8% of GDP and 20.1% of federal outlays in 2010. 
     Defense has not caused the debt crisis.
       Many on the left still blame Ronald Reagan, but the debt 
     increase in the 1980s financed a robust economic expansion 
     and victory in the Cold War. Debt held by the public at the 
     end of the Reagan years was much lower as a share of GDP (41% 
     in 1988 and still only 40.3% in 2008) compared to the 
     estimated 72% in fiscal 2011. That Cold War victory made 
     possible the peace dividend that allowed Bill Clinton to 
     balance the budget in the 1990s by cutting defense spending 
     to 3% of GDP from nearly 6% in 1988.
       Mr. Bush and Republicans did prove after 9/11 that the 
     Washington urge to spend and borrow is bipartisan. 
     Republicans launched a Medicare drug benefit, record outlays 
     on education, the most expensive transportation bill in 
     history, and home ownership aid that contributed to the 
     housing bubble. The GOP's blunder was refusing to cut 
     domestic spending to finance the war on terrorism. Guns and 
     butter blowouts never last.
       Then came Mr. Obama, arguably the most spendthrift 
     president in history. He inherited a recession and responded 
     by blowing up the U.S. balance sheet. Spending as a share of 
     GDP in the last three years is higher than at any time since 
     1946. In three years the debt has increased by more than $4 
     trillion thanks to stimulus, cash for clunkers, mortgage 
     modification programs, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, record 
     expansions in Medicaid, and more.
       The forecast is for $8 trillion to $10 trillion more in red 
     ink through 2021. Mr. Obama hinted in a press conference 
     earlier this month that if it weren't for Republicans, he'd 
     want another stimulus. Scary thought: None of this includes 
     the ObamaCare entitlement that will place 30 million more 
     Americans on government health rolls.
       This is the road to fiscal perdition. The looming debt 
     downgrade only confirms what everyone knows: Congress has 
     made so many promises to so many Americans that there is no 
     conceivable way those promises can be kept. Tax rates might 
     have to rise to 60%, 70%, even 80% to raise the revenues to 
     finance these promises, but that would be economically 
     ruinous.
       Yet Mr. Obama and most Democrats still oppose any serious 
     reform of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This 
     insistence on no reform reinforces the notion that our 
     entitlement state is too big to afford but also too big to 
     change politically. This is how a AAA country becomes AA, the 
     first step on the march to Greece.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RUBIO. Then 12\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I rise on the floor today to speak on the 
tremendous issue that has captivated the attention of our country.
  I do not enjoy or relish the partisan role of attack dog. I never 
found any fun in that. I don't think it is constructive, and I don't 
intend to become that in the Senate.
  I have only been here for 7 months, which means I haven't been here 
long enough to think any of the stuff that is going on is normal. I 
certainly don't think anything that goes on around here too often is 
normal. So I think the fact that I have only been here for 7 months has 
served me well in that regard.
  One of the things I have noticed this week is that Washington is full 
of--and rightfully so--people from all over the world and our country 
who have traveled here this week to come and watch

[[Page S5106]]

their government at work and to see the monuments of the city, and they 
have found themselves in the middle of this debate.
  I think it is important to remind people about what we are debating. 
It is not a complicated issue. It is straightforward, and here is the 
way I describe it. The United States--and these are rough numbers but 
accurate--spends about $300 billion a month. It has $180 billion a 
month that comes to the Federal Government through taxes and other 
sources of revenue. That means that in order to meet its bills at the 
end of every month, it needs to borrow $120 billion.
  For much of the history of this country, there have been increases in 
the debt limit and the ability to borrow money. But what has happened 
over the last few years is that it is no longer a routine vote because 
the people who give us our credit rating are saying: Too much of the 
money you spend every month is borrowed, and we want you to show us how 
over the next 10 years you are going to borrow less as a percentage of 
what you spend. So that is why, for years, where the debt limit was 
routine, it can no longer be routine.
  This wasn't just made up in a conservative think tank. The reality is 
that we cannot continue to borrow 40 to 41 percent of every dollar the 
government spends, which is what brought us to this point. You would 
think that, seeing that, our government and leaders in both parties 
would react to that immediately and work on it.
  I have heard a lot of talk today about delaying tactics and delaying 
votes. I argue to you that this issue has been delayed at least for the 
last 2\1/2\ years. In the 2 years before I even came here, neither this 
Chamber nor the other proposed or passed a budget. It is a startling 
figure that for the last 2 years this government has operated without a 
budget. Think about that. Two years have gone by without a budget.
  The first 2 years President Obama was in office, no budget. Some 
people would stay: Well, that is because of the partisanship in 
Washington. That is not true. In the 2 years before I got here, the 
House and Senate were controlled by members of the Democratic Party, 
the President's party. In this Chamber, in at least 1 of those 2 years, 
they had 60 votes; 60 out of the 100 Members here caucused with the 
Democrats. On Christmas Eve of 2009, they were able to pass a health 
care bill that was very controversial because they had the 60 votes in 
the President's party.
  Do you know how long it has been since this Chamber proposed a 
budget? It has been 822 days. That is a long time. A lot of things have 
happened in the last 822 days, but proposing a budget is not one of 
them. We got here in January. Seven months have passed, and there is 
still no budget. Again, there has not been a budget passed, proposed, 
or offered, and there is still no budget--822 days and every single day 
I have been here.
  In the last 7 days on this debt debate, we have finally seen a 
proposal from the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader. You would 
think he would have brought it to the floor. Not until last night. 
Again, he offered a proposal over the weekend, and still for 6 days we 
sat around and we did nothing around here. It was never brought to a 
vote.
  You would think these issues would have been worked on in January, 
February, and March--nothing. This Chamber has done nothing. Talk about 
delay tactics--they have been delaying for 2\1/2\ years.
  The President doesn't have the luxury of some of these things. By 
law, he has to propose a budget. And he did. I will tell you how 
ridiculous that budget was. Not a single Member of the Senate voted for 
it, including Democrats. It increased the debt. That is how absurd the 
budget was.
  Where is the President's plan? We have not seen it. Here is the 
President's plan: a blank sheet of paper. He hasn't offered a plan. 
Again, if this were a Republican President, I would say the same thing. 
I do not understand how, on an issue of this magnitude, of this 
generational importance, the President of the United States has not 
offered a plan. If somebody has seen the President's plan, please send 
it to me because nobody else has seen it. It doesn't exist.
  This has been their plan all along, by the way. The plan all along 
was not to take a position, let the days count down until we got to 
this point, with 72 hours to go, and force a vote on something they 
wanted. I believe that has been the plan the entire time. You can see 
it carrying itself out.
  Do you want to know why people across America get grossed out by 
politics? It is by watching this kind of stuff happening. First of all, 
today and for much of this time, I have heard attacks and name-calling. 
If we had $1 billion for every time I hear the words ``tea party 
extremists,'' we could solve the debt problem.
  Let me read some quotes about the debt limit. I found some pretty 
extreme quotes, and here is one:

       The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's 
     debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a 
     debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve 
     better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase 
     America's debt limit.

  That is from a tea party extremist, right? No. This is a quote from 
March 16, 2006, from then-Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
  I found another extremist quote:

       Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, 
     because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, 
     because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard 
     for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of 
     economic management, I am voting against the debt limit 
     increase.

  That must be a tea party extremist Member of the House, right? No. 
This is from March 16, 2006, from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.
  Last but not least is a quote from September 27, 2007:

       I find it distasteful and disturbing to increase the debt 
     limit yet again. Clearly, we need to change course. And this 
     debt limit bill is just another reminder of that.

  That is Majority Leader Reid from Nevada on that date in 2007.
  Yet now these same quotes in this context, where we are talking about 
raising the debt limit more than it has ever been raised in one vote, 
is extremism? This name-calling is absurd, and it sets this process 
back.
  The other thing I hear: Oh, it is not reasonable. It is a waste of 
time. This bill cannot pass the Senate--talking about the House bill. 
Does that disqualify a bill? Well, the Senate bill cannot even pass in 
the Senate.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. RUBIO. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator, and I appreciate it.
  I ask the Senator this: As ironic as it may be that on occasion 
people in the past have indeed voted against the debt limit--both 
Republicans and Democrats alike--is it not true that in those 
situations, those votes did not hold the Nation hostage, did not come 
at a moment of enormous economic fragility, as we are in today, and did 
not run the risk of default because it was going to pass overwhelmingly 
every time? Is that not true?

  Mr. RUBIO. I will say two things. First, if the Senator from 
Illinois, Barack Obama, had gotten his way, we would have been in the 
same position we are in right now. He voted against it. The President 
has now said he made a mistake and would not have said that were he 
here today. My point is that the rhetoric 2 years ago was not 
considered extremist language.
  Now, I think it is a myth. There may be a handful of people in the 
House and Senate, perhaps, who believe the Nation doesn't have to raise 
the debt limit, but by and large everybody recognizes that something 
must be done about it. I speak for myself, not for any other Member of 
the Chamber.
  What I have also said is that it would be a terrible mistake to lose 
this opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt and that the 
debt limit gives us an opportunity to do something meaningful about the 
debt because the crisis America faces is not one I have defined but one 
defined by the ratings houses and agencies that have said: If you do 
not get spending in order, we don't care whether you raise the debt 
limit or not, we will downgrade you. What that means is an increase in 
interest payments for every American.
  Mr. KERRY. If the Senator will yield, I appreciate what the Senator 
is saying. First of all, everybody understands the danger of the rating 
agencies right now. The problem is, we have to reach across the aisle 
and negotiate.

[[Page S5107]]

We have to come to an agreement. Right now, there is not a lot of 
negotiating going on.
  I ask the Senator if he doesn't agree that there is an enormous 
difference between the--a moment ago, the Senator said ``if he had 
gotten his way.'' The whole point is that everybody knew he wasn't 
about to get his way. That was a truly symbolic vote. Today, however, 
is it not true that we are on the brink of a default, and the absence 
of negotiation or of a settlement presents us with a far more serious 
consequence to the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling today?
  Mr. RUBIO. I just ask, is it possible to negotiate with someone who 
does not have a plan or will not offer a plan or put a plan on the 
table? The finger-pointing is relevant, but it is not an essential 
issue here.
  Also, in March of this year--March 30, to be exact--I wrote an op-ed 
piece that ran in the Wall Street Journal which outlined the things I 
was looking for to be a part of this debate. I was told in March of 
this year that we didn't have enough time to do all those things, 
although later we found that perhaps we did--this grand bargain.
  I am prepared, as I stand here today, if there is a meeting going on 
after this, I am prepared to discuss the things I believe we need to 
do, not just to raise the debt limit--raising the debt limit is the 
easiest thing this country has to do right now. That is one vote away. 
It is hard to show the world we are serious about putting our spending 
in order so that we can pay our bills down the road.
  That is a combination of things I have outlined very clearly not just 
in March of this year in the Wall Street Journal but in repeated 
speeches on this floor.
  We need to do two things. We need to grow our economy. While the debt 
is the biggest issue in Washington, jobs are the biggest issue facing 
America. If we can get more people back to work, we will have more 
people paying taxes. If we had more people paying taxes, we would have 
more revenue for our government. So that is the first thing we need to 
do, figure out how we can create jobs in America, and I think there is 
bipartisan agreement on what we can do to do that.

  The President himself mentioned regulatory reform as a necessity in 
his State of the Union. Let's do it. We have all talked about tax 
reform--flattening and simplifying our Tax Code. If there are things in 
that Tax Code that do not belong there because they are the process of 
good lobbying instead of good policy, then let's go after those things. 
Let's talk about that.
  I think we all agree there have to be some changes in discretionary 
spending. But we also agree that doesn't solve the problem. That is a 
small piece of our overall budget. We have to save Medicare, because it 
goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. We have to save Medicaid, 
because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is.
  I can tell that you history will back me up on what I am about to 
say. There is no government--run by conservatives, Republicans, 
Democrats, put whoever you want there--if given the opportunity, that 
will not spend more money than it has. It will do it. It will do it 
every time. That is why I believe there are at least 20 Members of the 
Senate in the other party who have voted for some version of the 
balanced budget amendment. Yet it is something we cannot get a vote on, 
much less discuss here in the Senate.
  I believe there can be compromise on those outlines. But since I 
believe my time is about to expire, let me close with this. Compromise 
is fantastic. I would love nothing more than to leave this building 
tomorrow night having said the Republic still works; I was able to 
stand shoulder to shoulder with people from States far from mine, with 
views different from mine, but who love their country so much we were 
able to come together and save it when it faced this catastrophe. I 
would love nothing more than compromise. But I would say to you that 
compromise that is not a solution is a waste of time. If my house is on 
fire, I can't compromise about which part of the house I am going to 
save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down. We either save 
this country or we do not. To save it, we must seek solutions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 15 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have arrived at a moment of truth: 
The American economy and our standing in the world hang in the balance 
as a result of the Republican plan to derail the functioning of our 
country and bring about the precarious prospect of a major default in 
our financial condition.
  Democrats have bent over backward to compromise. Yet the Republicans 
continue to put our country in jeopardy. The American people and the 
American economy are determined for a reprieve from this disaster. We 
just heard comments by our colleague from across the aisle about 
getting our tax structure in order. It reminds me of a condition where 
there is a fire in a house and people start arguing about the color of 
the fire engine.
  What we have in front of us is an imminent disaster that could upset 
the balance of our functioning as a society and put America, for the 
first time, in a position of having less support from around the world; 
preventing people who are hard at work from being able to make ends 
meet. So we ask: Isn't this a time for our Republican friends to stop 
playing ``gotcha,'' stop putting politics ahead of the needs of our 
middle-class families and, instead, start putting the people before 
politics?
  Make no mistake, the people we serve are nervous and concerned. 
Purchasing power has declined while wage increases have been 
insufficient for family needs. Many in America are working their 
fingers to the bone to get out of this economic squeeze and keep their 
families intact, while all this time the richest among us see 
monumental gains in their incomes and their wealth.
  The people who have the burdens of maintaining our infrastructure, 
running our military, and defending the very foundation of our 
democratic country are struggling daily to stay in their homes, hold on 
to their health care, and get their kids to college. The American 
people are the ones--the ordinary people, the middle-income people--who 
will suffer the most if the Republicans force the U.S. Government to 
default next week. Fourteen million Americans are already out of work, 
but more than half a million may join the unemployment line if we don't 
raise the debt limit.
  That is only the beginning. The default crisis will send interest 
rates skyrocketing, which will be adding even more expense on the 
American middle class, making it harder for them to meet basic family 
needs. They will be forced to pay higher interest rates for mortgages, 
student loans, car loans, and credit cards. That money won't help 
create jobs or rebuild our economy. It will be going to the banks and 
to China and to investors who are going to demand higher yields for 
U.S. bond purchases because they will be seen as less reliable in their 
likelihood of being paid back.
  We are also likely to see another calamity on Wall Street if the 
United States doesn't pay its bills. The stock markets have already 
been seeing daily declines in anticipation of a reckless attempt to put 
politics in the middle of a financial Armageddon. One analysis found 
that shareholders in U.S. stocks lost more than $400 billion during the 
past week, while House Republicans were fiddling with a scheme they 
knew would never become law. But they do not want to write law, they 
want to destroy the Obama Presidency. That is what the mission is.
  The Dow has just had its worst week in a year, and consumers do not 
have spare dollars for investments because their incomes are consumed 
by spending money on basic necessities, and because they are aware of 
losses that will occur from the prospect of default.
  Imagine what it will mean to the 401(k) savings of middle-class 
Americans--much of it accumulated over years--if faith in our country 
and its value decline sharply as default looms ahead. Their values can 
go down precipitously.
  Other retirement savings can also be wiped out--all because of these 
punitive actions by Republican representatives. The pain will be 
excruciating for the neediest Americans. Seniors living on a fixed 
income can be forced to go

[[Page S5108]]

without their Social Security checks and the critical health care they 
receive through Medicare. We might not be able to deliver promised 
benefits to veterans or paychecks for the men and women wearing our 
country's uniform in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I want to be clear: A default will injure America's reputation 
throughout the world. It will weaken faith in the world's most 
respected financial power, leaving our country's credibility, 
stability, and financial leadership in doubt. Simply put, defaulting on 
the debt could trigger an economic collapse of historic proportion.
  That is why I plead with our Republican colleagues to join us without 
delay in adopting Majority Leader Reid's plan. Senator Reid's plan will 
provide certainty for middle-class Americans and to the markets because 
it will provide stability through 2013, and stability is what we need 
right now.

  This plan isn't perfect. Many of us, including me, believe it should 
include revenues. It doesn't. But that is why it is called a 
compromise. After we adopt this plan and step back from the brink, we 
need to work on a balanced approach to get our country back on sound 
economic footing. That means asking the wealthiest among us to pay 
their fair share.
  I am one of those who was very fortunate in my business experience. I 
started a company with two other fellows and we have 45,000 employees 
today. Why? Because our country was there for me after I served in 
uniform in World War II. I was able to get an education at Columbia 
University, and we started a company called ADP. Now 45,000 people have 
their jobs because of ADP.
  Our Republican colleagues have to abandon their obsession to protect 
the wealthiest among us at an unaffordable cost to the poor and the 
middle class, and recognize the value of our country's human 
infrastructure. No economy can grow if it doesn't invest in physical 
infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, railways, and no society can 
prosper if it doesn't invest in education. We need to prop up our human 
infrastructure to fill the future jobs in technology and science and 
research.
  Let's face it, building houses and other physical facilities are 
never built from the top down. The work requires a strong foundation to 
guarantee reliability, endurance, and safety, now and for the future. 
Middle-class families form America's foundation--the pillars of 
strength, faith in the future, a belief that Americans can survive 
challenges and catastrophes, and the further belief that no place on 
Earth exists with more freedom and liberty than our blessed country. 
But all that could evaporate if default is permitted to occur.
  Over the past half century, the debt ceiling has been raised 75 
times--almost two-thirds of them under Republican Presidents. In fact, 
the debt ceiling was increased 18 times under President Reagan and 7 
times under President George W. Bush. Our country has never defaulted 
on its obligations, and default must be prevented if we love our 
country.
  It is time for the Republicans to abandon their ``my way or the 
highway'' approach. It is time for the Republicans to stop playing 
politics with our country's economy. The time for politics is election 
day 2012--not now.
  Let's do our work, keep our precious ship steady and afloat. Majority 
Leader Reid's plan is our last best hope to avoid a disaster, and we 
need to act on it without further delay.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and the remainder of any 
time I may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if there is one thing in this long, 
difficult debate there is no question about, one thing all of us have 
long known, one simple truth we must get past if we are going to avoid 
default, it is that any bill to get us out of this crisis will need 
Democratic and Republican votes. There is no partisan solution--no 
other path, no magic trick at the eleventh hour. There is just 
compromise. After all the bluster, all the back and forth, and all the 
posturing, there is just the bill we have before us today. It is a bill 
that doesn't have everything that all of us want. It is not the bill 
that any one of us would have crafted, if we had our way. But it is a 
bill that can and should be passed to avoid an economic catastrophe 
that would leave families in every single one of our States reeling.
  I understand that compromise has been hard to come by in these 
negotiations, no matter how hard we try. But with Senator Reid's bill, 
we have taken the Republicans at their word. We have come to the 
negotiating table and have put forward a plan that goes to great pains 
to meet every one of the criteria they have called for.
  They said they wanted cuts that exceed the debt limit raise. This 
bill delivers that. They said they wanted no new tax revenues. This 
bill delivers that. They said they wanted to put in place a process to 
make even more cuts later. This bill delivers that. They have said they 
too want to avoid default. This bill is our way out.
  I know my Republican colleagues don't want to see us default. I know 
while we don't see eye to eye on all issues, we all fight for the 
people of our States. So I know my Republican friends are hearing the 
same things from families in their home States that I am hearing from 
mine. I know their offices have been flooded with calls and e-mails 
from families trying to figure out what they would do if the support 
they depend on to stay in their homes or put food on their table is 
suddenly cut off. I know they are hearing from the same seniors and 
veterans and college students with the same message: Put America first. 
Get it done. Compromise.
  I got a letter just like that from Anne Phillips, from Tacoma, WA, 
who, after 18 years working, was laid off during the recession. Anne 
told me about how she felt she was doing the responsible thing by 
getting up and dusting herself off and going back to college. But now, 
she said, she is worried sick because of the fact that the interest 
rates on her student loans, which she relies on to pay for her school, 
would shoot up if we defaulted. In her letter, Anne made clear who the 
real victims of this default would be. She said:

       Ultimately people like me, my husband, my family, and all 
     the people I know, who are doing their best every day to make 
     a contribution to society will pay the expense.

  I also heard from a woman named Brenda Starkey and her husband, 
retired Navy veterans from Republic, WA. They told me if we don't meet 
this challenge, they may not be able to afford Medicare payments or VA 
medical copayments, not to mention basic necessities such as food or 
electricity or water. Brenda wrote:

       I was taught in school about Henry Clay and his great 
     compromise. I still believe this is the way our government is 
     supposed to work, with both sides giving some ground until a 
     common position is met. We deserve more from our government.

  I also heard from Social Security recipients such as Alisa Terry from 
Bellingham, WA, who told me how important that monthly check is to her 
and just what it would mean if it didn't go out next month. She said, 
simply:

       Social Security is my lifeline. It stands between me and 
     homelessness.

  This isn't just about politics; it is about these people and millions 
more who may not even realize their well-being is on the line today. It 
is about average American families whose credit card interest rates 
would skyrocket. It is about homeowners whose mortgage payments will 
increase by over $1,000 a year. It is about rising food and utility and 
gas prices and what that would mean for our already cash-strapped 
families, and it is about retirement plans that would plummet.
  These Americans are looking for real leadership and a real solution 
to this problem. They don't want more games or gimmicks or short-term 
patches. For anyone who believes a short-term extension is a good idea, 
I want everyone to envision what that would mean.
  Imagine we are right back here on the brink doing the same thing in 5 
short months, only now we are 5 or 6 months closer to an election and 
the battle lines are drawn deeper than they are today, and we are also 
smack in the middle of one of the most important economic times of the 
whole year for retailers and consumers, the holiday season. Imagine 
what the effect of this crisis and this standstill would feel like 
then. Imagine holiday shoppers worried that their credit card interest 
rates are going to shoot up or that next month's mortgage payment is 
going to

[[Page S5109]]

break the bank or retailers reluctant to stock their shelves or hire 
because they are worried about a major disruption in the economy or 
seniors on Social Security worried their check will not be mailed and 
their heating bill will go up, not to mention veterans or college 
students or our troops who would, once again, be put in the spiral of 
anxiety and insecurity at the holiday times.
  They don't want to relive this. America doesn't want to go through 
this again, and they shouldn't have to--nobody should. That is exactly 
why we need to come together now.
  As I said before, the bill in front of us this evening is not ideal. 
But it gets us to where we need to get to today to protect our families 
and small businesses across America from market uncertainty and the 
threat of default. This legislation does make deep and serious cuts to 
government spending. It does protect Medicare and Social Security 
benefits that we promised to our seniors and it puts the country on a 
more sustainable fiscal track and allows us to continue working to 
reduce the debt and deficit without the threat of economic calamity 
hanging over our heads again.
  Democrats have compromised and compromised again and again, and this 
bill that is before us now is the fruit of those compromises. It is 
also the last and best hope of preventing us from defaulting in a few 
short days on the full faith and credit of our Nation for the first 
time in our history. There is no other choice. The markets are waiting 
and watching. Credit rating agencies are waiting and watching. 
Countries around the world are waiting and watching. But, most 
important, the American people are waiting and watching. I hope we pass 
this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address this issue of the debt 
limit and how we are going to go forward. I think it is important, 
given the conversation I have been hearing this morning, to understand 
some of the key features that are under discussion.
  The first is that the plan that came from the House last night, the 
Boehner plan, requires the second half of the debt ceiling to be lifted 
only if a balanced budget amendment is passed and sent out to the 
States. In other words, it puts a two-thirds vote of each Chamber 
basically on the process 6 months from now.
  What that does is it says to our Nation that we are going to be in 
continuous debate over this issue the next 6 months, facing a two-
thirds vote that is very unlikely to happen. So this crisis is not 
going to end, not on August 2, not on August 3, not on August 4 but not 
for 6 months into the future. Then it is not going to end because we 
are not going to have a two-thirds vote.
  It sends exactly the wrong message to our business community which is 
waiting for a sense of stability that we are through this moment. It 
sends the wrong message to the international world that is looking at 
the question of whether they are going to buy Treasury bills. It sends 
the wrong message in regard to our reputation in the world.
  This plan of continuing the crisis for 6 months in order to bring 
this Nation to its knees just so folks campaign on the fact that they 
will do better, if you will, does not represent the best of the 
American spirit. We should be coming together to solve problems, not to 
extend problems, not to amplify problems, not to hurt families across 
the United States of America and hurt small businesses across this 
land.
  The second thing the proposal did that we faced last night is it took 
defense spending off the table for 2 years. Why is this important? It 
is important because defense spending has grown by over 300 percent in 
the last decade. It is important because the recent Secretary of 
Defense, Robert Gates, said there are over $100 billion of defense 
programs that do not contribute to our national security. We must be 
looking at programs that do not contribute for their intended purpose 
if we are going to take and address our fiscal situation with the best 
possible path for America.
  Then the Speaker said: Do you know what. There is going to be a 
supercommittee, but I, the Speaker, am only going to allow it to 
consider cuts to direct spending, and I will not appoint anyone who 
would look at the full range of options that is to include programs 
tucked into the Tax Code.
  Just a few minutes ago, my colleague from Florida said if there are 
tax programs which are there not because of good policy but because of 
good lobbying, those need to be on the table. He is absolutely right. 
It is a situation where every citizen understands that whether we spend 
$10,000 on a grant or spend $10,000 on a tax credit, it is the same 
$10,000.
  There is a reason the Boehner plan has put tax loopholes and tax 
earmarks and tax programs off the table; that is because inserted into 
the Tax Code are programs for the wealthy and the well-connected. Why 
do they want their programs in the Tax Code? Very simply, they avoid 
the annual authorization process. They avoid the annual appropriations 
process. In a way, we can think of them as superprograms because they 
don't get reviewed regularly. That is where the well-connected and the 
wealthy want to have their programs placed, and they have been very 
successful. It has been over a quarter century since we have had a 
systematic review of these programs. But here we are in a fiscal 
crisis. It makes sense to examine the tax loopholes, many of which have 
outlived their use, and many others which may still be very valid--and 
those are the ones we should keep--but we need to examine all of them.

  I had a colleague come to the floor the other day, a colleague across 
the aisle, and he made this argument. He said: There are some tax 
programs that benefit the middle class, and he proceeded to put up all 
these charts and all these numbers about programs that benefit the 
middle class. He concluded that because some of the tax programs 
benefit the middle class, no tax programs should be discussed as part 
of this issue.
  Well, let's apply the same logic to our appropriations programs. 
Can't anyone say there are some direct spending programs that benefit 
the middle class? But then do we turn around and say all these programs 
should be left unexamined as a result? Of course not. Nor was my 
colleague across the aisle willing to make that argument. But why did 
he make such an absurd argument that because some programs are useful, 
we shouldn't look at any of the programs in the Tax Code? Because he 
wanted to protect the programs for the wealthy and well-connected. I 
will tell you, today, there is something terribly wrong with coming to 
this floor to protect the programs for the best off in our society and 
doing so under the false claim that they are here to fight for working 
families. That is wrong, and that is why we must look at every single 
program.
  There is another problem in the bill that we have; that is, if you 
take Boehner at his word and he is going to take the $1.5 trillion in 
the Tax Code under tax expenditures and not allow them to be examined, 
then the only place we end up going to reach the numbers involved is 
Medicaid and Medicare: Medicaid, health care for the poor; Medicare, 
health care for our seniors.
  It seems there are Members of this Chamber who want to think of 
health care as a special privilege for only those who are wealthy in 
our society. Maybe they should come and live in my community, where we 
understand that the quality of life is deeply dependent upon one's 
health.
  There was indeed a very interesting experiment in Oregon over the 
last few years. We did not have enough funds for everyone to 
participate in Medicaid, called the Oregon Health Plan, and so there 
was a lottery. So for the first time anywhere in the Nation, there was 
the ability to study those who got to sign up against a control group 
of those who didn't. We found out Medicaid made a profound difference 
in people's lives. It shouldn't come as any surprise that health care 
makes a profound difference, but many people on this floor have 
questioned whether health care matters. It is always interesting to 
hear people who have access to health care, who have it because they 
are wealthy, who have it because they have a job right here that gives 
them health care, wondering why we should bother to care about health 
care for others. These issues are issues we must address as we go 
forward.
  Let me note then that if we proceed with a plan that is guaranteed to 
paralyze this Chamber over the next 6

[[Page S5110]]

months, with an impossible hurdle at the end of that period, we will 
destroy this economy. We are flat right now. We are not gaining ground. 
We had a bill, small business innovation bill, research bill on the 
floor, debated it for 6 weeks, a routine bill. My colleagues across the 
aisle voted not to end debate so there couldn't be a vote on taking 
this bill forward.
  They were deeply determined to prevent bills creating jobs from 
getting to the President's desk. Indeed, because we have not been able 
to take those key pieces of legislation and go forward, here we are 
with a flat economy.
  Now they want to take it to its knees. If we create this uncertainty 
over the next 6 months, the interest rate goes up on the Treasury 
bills, the interest rate goes up on home mortgages, the interest rate 
goes up on car loans, the interest rate goes up on small businesses, 
and we get greater unemployment. Is that the outcome we want? Interest 
is an empty tax, a tax on every family. The estimate is it would be 
about $2,000 a year and it buys us nothing, nothing but destruction of 
the economy. That must not happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator who 
preceded me. We are heading into a territory where we have never been 
before.
  In Washington you get to get your Sunday funnies on Saturday, so I 
took a little peek at ``Dilbert'' today. I hope everybody will look at 
that because it emphasizes the problem.
  ``Dilbert'' says:

       I am preparing for the complete meltdown of our financial 
     system. I've got six months of food and water. I have 
     batteries and flashlights and gold coins.

  The lady with the triangular hair says:

       I'm prepared too. I have your home address and I noticed 
     that your preparations are light on defensive weaponry.

  And she says:

       Could you add some protein bars to the shopping list?

  I want to share with you a letter from a 10-year-old in Wyoming that 
made our statewide newspaper. He wrote:

       What does the Government think of me?
       . . . They think I'm not so smart because I'm too young to 
     know what they're doing, like raising the national debt. 
     Don't they know that I owe the country about $45,000. I'm 
     only 10 years old. I could buy a lot with $45,000.
       . . . That's more than my dad earns. But it wouldn't buy 
     everything.
       Government shouldn't try to buy everything.
       It is my job, and the people's job to buy things we need. I 
     don't want the Government to think for me. They don't know 
     I'm a little brother who doesn't like it when my big brothers 
     tell me what to do, because they aren't always responsible 
     for their own things. I don't tell my brothers what to do 
     with their money.
       I'm smarter than they think I am. They should follow the 
     rules.

  I thank Eric Mitchell, Crowheart, WY, for his sage advice.
  Mr. President, it is disappointing to be here today addressing the 
U.S. Senate on a topic that we should have dealt with months ago. Our 
country is in a financial crisis. Erskine Bowles, the cochairman of the 
Deficit Commission, coined the situation we face as, ``the most 
predictable economic crisis in history,'' and yet there is no clear 
path forward to deal with both the short-term need to raise the debt 
limit and the long-term need to get spending under control. I am 
disappointed we have made this discussion about the debt ceiling 
instead of our ever increasing spending. When you spend beyond your 
means, you have to cut back.
  The plans we are considering at this stage in the debate are plans 
for the next year to 2 years. While there is merit in making the 
spending cuts these bills make, they are not the ultimate solution.
  We need more significant action. We need to move forward with 
something bold. My Republican colleagues and I have proposed such 
plans. I have proposed a solution that would cut just 1 penny from 
every dollar we spend for 6 years and then cap spending at the 
historical amount of revenue we take in during the 7th year. In the 8th 
year, we would have a balanced budget.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to 
even debate measures like my penny plan or the Cut, Cap, and Balance 
Act or even the plan put forward by Speaker Boehner. At the same time 
they refuse to debate these measures, they refuse to put forward their 
own plan for long-term structural changes. They are only willing to 
debate plans that make changes in the short term, and so we are stuck 
here debating a plan that is deeply flawed.
  I think it is important to look at where the debate is today versus 
where it was when President Obama was sworn in. It is clear that we 
have come a long way from where we were when President Obama took 
office.
  In 2009, Democrats in Congress passed a so-called economic stimulus 
bill that cost $1 trillion. To pay for it, we borrowed that money, and 
as the unemployment numbers prove, all that borrowing didn't solve our 
economic problems. Apparently, we spend over $275,000 per job--and none 
of those employees got paid that well. In 2010, President Obama's 
second year in office, Democrats in Congress forced through an 
unpopular health care bill which was wrought with budget gimmicks and 
will ultimately cost our country trillions of dollars. The President's 
attempt at health care reform was so unsuccessful that the largest 
problem facing our debt and deficit situation is what we will do to 
contain health care costs. Another trillion dollars borrowed. Another 
trillion dollars wasted.
  The American people were fed up with congressional Democrats' 
reckless spending spree and, in November 2010, they voted for real 
change. Those votes ushered in a new attitude, and 7 months into a 
Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the debate is entirely 
different. Instead of looking at where we can spend more money, we are 
looking at what we can cut. Instead of looking at how to borrow more 
money, we are looking at how we can change our spending habits so that 
we have a spending plan that will work in the future. Republicans have 
heard the people's call for smaller government and less spending, and 
are committed to taking action.
  Earlier this year, Republicans led efforts to cut spending in 
appropriations bills for the first time in years. Now, we need to find 
a solution to cut trillions of dollars of spending at the same time we 
allow the President to have some additional borrowing authority to pay 
for the purchases we have already made. The cuts Republicans have 
proposed are the largest cuts ever seen, but it still isn't enough to 
fix the problem long term.
  Why aren't we looking at a long-term solution to this problem? Why 
are we forced to look at short-term, piddly spending cuts at the same 
time we give the President the ability to borrow lots more money? This 
isn't one person or one party's fault.
  The President does have us in a box. During his State of the Union 
Message, the President could have explained to the American people the 
dire situation we are facing. The Deficit Commission had already 
painted the picture. The President needed to premiere that picture. He 
could have explained that we are borrowing more than 40 cents of every 
dollar we spend--much of it from China. He could have explained that we 
are on a spending spree that must be stopped. That was and is the true 
state of the Union.
  After the State of the Union, he could have sent us a serious budget 
proposal modeled after his own Deficit Commission. Instead, he used the 
State of the Union to talk about more spending and his budget was such 
a ridiculous proposal it didn't receive a single vote--Republican or 
Democratic--when it was put before the Senate.
  While the President has failed to lead and deserves a substantial 
portion of the blame, we in Congress have also put ourselves in this 
box. During the last administration, we should have worked to contain 
spending. While we missed that opportunity, when it was clear that we 
needed to make a major change this year, Democrats in the Senate should 
have ignored the President's lack of leadership and put forward a 
budget proposal in the Senate. The House passed a budget, but rather 
than taking their proposal seriously, my Democratic colleagues 
demonized the plan as the end of Medicare. They preferred finding a 
campaign issue as opposed to actually solving the financial problems we 
face.
  Unfortunately, we are quickly running out of options. We are at a 
catch 22. The country can't afford more debt,

[[Page S5111]]

but has to have it. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we won't be 
able to pay all of our bills and interest rates will go up. On the 
other hand, if we pass a plan that doesn't fundamentally change the way 
we do business in Washington, we increase the debt limit with no end in 
sight and interest rates go up.
  The majority in the Senate that brought you banking reform has run up 
a huge debt and we have all maxed out the Nation's credit cards. Now 
they want to increase the amount of the mortgage. Imagine trying to get 
a loan when nothing has been paid on the principle of the previous 
loan. Now imagine the lender's reaction when he is told that the 
mortgagee will be back shortly for another loan.
  Let me put this in concrete terms because it might be easier to 
understand. I am trying to keep these numbers proportional to the $14 
trillion debt. Imagine that you have a loan on a very large house with 
a mortgage of $1.4 million. Since buying the house, you have made 
interest payments, but not a single payment on the principal. You 
determine you need more money to spend, so you go to the lender and 
request an additional loan of $230,000. At the same time you do that, 
you are honest and you warn the lender that you will be back each year 
for the next 9 years asking for $100,000 more each year. You also let 
the lender know that you don't want to have to pay off any of the 
principal on the loan, just make interest payments each year.
  I don't think any lender would take you seriously, but if he or she 
did, they would explain that you would have to obtain a variable rate 
loan. A variable rate loan means that changes in the risk or the 
economy could drive interest rates much higher and there would be no 
protection from those higher interest rates. In other words, your loan 
with an excellent interest rate of 2.5 percent could go to an interest 
rate of 5 percent or 10 percent, or like under President Carter, over 
18 percent a year. A 1 percent increase in interest rates for the U.S. 
debt would cost another $1.3 trillion over 10 years. That is just a 1 
percent raise.
  The lender would point out that the raise in debt plus the rise in 
interest rates could result in your entire paycheck going to interest--
and the interest payments would have to come ahead of food, clothing, 
and any social needs--for you, or for your children or your parents or 
your grandparents. That is what we are talking about here as the future 
for the United States--interest payments on the debt being the only 
thing we could pay for.
  If the banker were foolish enough to consider such a loan, he would 
want to know what spending changes you were going to make. He would 
expect changes immediately, not piddly changes this year for a promise 
of a big change in the 9th year. He would want some proof that you are 
serious.
  If we act now and agree to cut 1 percent--the 1 percent solution, 
just 1 penny of each dollar--from all our spending and reduce the cap 
to the new spending by that level for each of the next 7 years, the 
lender ``might'' consider your loan. There is a good chance he would 
expect 2 percent or 3 percent in cuts for the first year to demonstrate 
that you are serious about kicking your spending habit.
  We are in that situation today in Congress. The President is asking 
for a $2.4 trillion loan increase--the largest loan increase in our 
Nation's history. Our lenders will explain to us, if we are worried 
about the low income, the downtrodden, and the less fortunate today, we 
should see what will happen to those individuals if we don't cut 
spending. If we reach a situation where all of our revenues are going 
to interest payments on the debt, the future prioritization to pay for 
our debt will be unbearable. We can't go out 18 months. The American 
people don't trust us. We need to be accountable to the people. We need 
an enforceable, accountable plan with quicker results.
  Some might argue that the lender would just expect you to bring in 
more money. My Democratic colleagues suggest just that when they say we 
must raise taxes. But everyone knows that if you ask your boss for a 
raise because you can't control your spending, you could be fired or 
demoted and, as a result, you would be bringing in less revenue. I 
don't need to tell you that our bosses--the American people--don't 
think much of how we have been working for them, and they don't expect 
a tax increase each time Washington gets addicted to giving away money.
  The plan the majority leader has offered uses budget gimmicks to 
avoid real spending cuts and gives the President a debt limit increase 
that, while politically expedient, fails to put our country on a 
workable path. It doesn't provide a way to assure any substantial cuts 
will be made. While it maybe makes some necessary spending cuts today, 
it does not provide us with relief from our long term challenges and 
does not put us in a situation where we would be forced to make the 
tough choices.
  We know that the majority leader's proposal won't pass. Every 
Republican has made clear that they will oppose the proposal and so it 
doesn't have the chance to move forward. We have made clear that we 
will not give the President the single largest debt ceiling increase in 
history for double the average time generally allowed since 1940 
through the proposal the majority leader has offered. We have offered 
to vote on his proposal time and time again, and for reasons beyond 
comprehension, he refuses to allow a vote. He did a vote within 30 
minutes of the time that the House bill came over here, but he wants to 
drag out the vote on his bill. I know delay will bring the pressure 
until the last minute, but that is not how a reasonable government 
works. I wish we had taken action earlier to avoid the situation we 
find ourselves in today. I wish the proposal before us was a serious 
effort to make structural change to how we spend money.

  Instead we all know the plan put forward by the majority leader will 
be voted down later tonight or tomorrow, and we will be in the same 
place we are right now--in the box where we need to raise the debt 
limit, but we also need to make structural changes to get our fiscal 
house in order to keep the markets from melting down.
  We do recognize that we are about to enter territory where our 
country has never been. The stock markets are already reacting. Because 
we are debating short-term solutions, this debate will continue on even 
after we act on the debt ceiling.
  I hope we can come together on a debt ceiling increase and a plan for 
real spending cuts. That is where the emphasis needs to be, and it has 
to have enforcement. I hope the debt ceiling is limited to the amount 
of guaranteed cuts. I hope we can put our country on a sustainable, 
fiscal path.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my 
Republican colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we are in the midst of a debt crisis, I 
think some of it created by the President because he has refused to 
take off the table the fact we would default on our debt. I think that 
is irresponsible, and without a doubt the President should come forward 
and say he will pay the interest on the debt.
  On our side we have been willing to compromise all along. We have 
been offering plans. We passed two plans in the House. Now we have a 
plan before us, a Democratic plan, to raise the debt ceiling, and there 
are some of us who would vote for this Democratic plan who might 
require some amendments or some compromise. There would have to be some 
input from our side. Yet even though this bill was introduced yesterday 
and Republicans said they would vote for it, the Democrats are now 
filibustering their own bill. What is funny is, they filibuster their 
own bill and then point fingers and say we are trying to stop things. 
We are here today to try to move things forward.
  In the spirit of trying to reach a compromise before the deadline 
comes, I would ask unanimous consent that the vote on the pending 
cloture motion occur immediately or as soon as possible, 5 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, under the 
filibuster rules of the Senate, there is a requirement of 60 votes for 
cloture. We have said we are prepared to move to a timely vote on this 
pending amendment, a majority vote, the same as Speaker Boehner had in 
the House. I would object unless the Senator from

[[Page S5112]]

Kentucky wants to amend his unanimous consent request to make it clear 
that this will be a unanimous consent which I have spelled out in 
detail, if he would like me to present it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
remind the Senator that there is a difference between the Senate and 
the House. Our Founding Fathers gave great power and leeway to the 
Senate. We were meant to be a check and a balance against unbridled 
enthusiasm sometimes from one party or another. So I would object to 
that motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to present an amendment. This amendment would be an amendment 
to the Reid bill. Under this amendment what would happen is, I have at 
least 10 Republicans who will vote for the Harry Reid bill which would 
allow a compromise, which allows the debt ceiling to rise.
  I know the President is worried about having campaign time. He is 
worried about getting back out and doing some fundraisers. He does not 
want to consider the debt ceiling again before his reelection campaign. 
So this amendment I would offer would allow us to move forward in a 
bipartisan way.
  All Republicans are asking for is that we balance our budget 
gradually over a 7- to 8-year period. What this amendment would do that 
I am asking unanimous consent to present is an amendment that says we 
will raise the debt ceiling contingent upon passing a balanced budget 
amendment.
  I would ask unanimous consent I be allowed to present this amendment 
to the Reid bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. PAUL. What I think this illustrates is compromise--the pundits 
say compromise is the mark of an enlightened person. We are trying to 
compromise. I just offered to pass the leader's bill. I have offered to 
work with them. I am from the tea party. They say we will not 
compromise. I am willing to raise the debt ceiling. In fact, we worked 
on a motion that has gotten more votes than any other motion that has 
been set forward, and that was cut, cap, and balance that would have 
required a balanced budget amendment to be passed but would have raised 
the debt ceiling.
  What do we hear from the other side? Intransigence. Who is refusing 
compromise? It sounds to me like the other side is refusing compromise.
  I have with me my distinguished colleague from Utah and would like to 
hear his thoughts on where the fault lies and where we could come to if 
we were to compromise to try to find an agreement.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, a number of us, myself included, have been 
arguing since January--ever since we arrived here and were sworn in 
this very room--that the national debt is a permanent problem. The 
almost $15 trillion that we now owe as a nation is permanent. It is 
going to take a long time to pay off. There are people who are not yet 
old enough to vote. There are people who will be born in a few years 
who are not even here who will one day have to assist in paying off 
that debt.
  The fact that this is a long-term problem means it requires a long-
term solution. That is why we have been saying all along that we ought 
not raise the debt limit yet again--extending our national debt by 
another $2.5 trillion, more or less, without a permanent solution in 
place.
  Herein lies the problem. It is difficult or impossible for one 
Congress to come up with a set of budget numbers that would necessarily 
bind future Congresses. We can come up with a plan to cut $2 trillion 
or $3 trillion over a 10-year or 15-year period, but if future 
Congresses don't want to go along with that, they can find their way 
out of it. This has happened again and again as we have seen with 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, as we have seen with the pay-go rules. Congress 
becomes a walking, breathing waiver unto itself. We need a permanent 
solution. This is why we have settled on the need for a balanced budget 
amendment.
  As my distinguished colleague--the junior Senator from Kentucky--has 
just pointed out, there is no intransigence in our position. Those of 
us who identify with the Republican Party, those of us who identify 
with the tea party are people who want a solution. We were sent here 
with a mandate by voters, a mandate that says the Federal Government is 
too big and too expensive.
  Now, resistance to this message from the other side of the aisle, as 
vehement as that resistance may be, is not genuine if what it says is, 
in this instance the insistence for a balanced budget amendment is 
itself reflective of an unwillingness to compromise. There are myriad 
opportunities to compromise within that general framework. We have 
offered that. We have extended that.

  Republicans have now submitted no fewer than two bills that have 
passed the House of Representatives to address the debt limit issue, 
both of which have been stopped dead in their tracks over here without 
further opportunity, most importantly, without a response by the 
Democratic Party in the Senate or otherwise.
  If there is either party in this discussion that is refusing to 
compromise, it is not ours. If there is any group that has failed to 
offer solutions, it cannot be described as the tea party movement.
  I ask my colleague--the junior Senator from Kentucky--do you see any 
element within the tea party movement, any element within the 
Republican Party that is unwilling to compromise or that is wanting to 
block just for the sake of blocking?
  Mr. PAUL. No. From going to hundreds of tea party rallies and 
grassroots rallies with voters across America, what I see is they want 
what is best for America. I don't think they particularly care whether 
it is a Republican plan or Democratic plan. They want what is best for 
America. They want a solution.
  The problem with the debate in Washington is all of the proposals 
seem to want to add more debt. We have $14 trillion worth of debt, and 
both the Republican and the Democratic proposal will add $7 trillion to 
$8 trillion more in debt.
  What I think the folks in the tea party want--and those who are 
concerned about passing on the debt to their kids and grandkids want--
is to spend less. I think a great contrast and what illustrates the 
problem is spending is going up 7 percent a year. Nobody is talking 
about cutting that spending. They are talking about cutting the rate of 
growth of that spending.
  There is a new plan out called the one penny plan. It would have real 
cuts of one penny on every dollar spent. The other side pulls their 
hair and says: Oh, you are so radical.
  We say: We want to cut one penny out of every dollar of government 
spending. Is that radical?
  The President has said it is a dysfunctional place. He is right in 
that sense. I think some of the dysfunction comes from the hypocrisy or 
from the other side not really listening.
  For example, the balanced budget amendment. They say polls show 
routinely 75 percent of Americans are for it. Routinely, about 14 
percent of Americans seem to be approving of this body. The question I 
would have is--maybe it is we are not listening well enough. Maybe we 
are not doing what the people want.
  Mr. LEE. That certainly appears to be the case. It is a reminder to 
us of the fact that no matter how much we might be tempted at times to 
demagogue this issue, no matter how tempting it might be for certain 
Members of this body to cast blame elsewhere, they cannot escape one 
simple fact, which is the American people are demanding more. They are 
demanding that we spend less. They are demanding that we stop this 
barbaric practice of perpetual massive-scale deficit spending. Why? 
Because it erodes individual liberty. It takes money people have not 
yet made and spends it and obligates them to repay it--in some cases 
before they are old enough to vote, in other cases before they are even 
born. We need a permanent solution.
  When we put something in the Constitution, it serves as a permanent 
reminder of the fact that we, as a people,

[[Page S5113]]

have made a decision, and we are going to move forward. Not everybody 
will necessarily agree as to how best we should move forward having 
made that decision. The American people overwhelmingly, to the tune of 
75 percent, support the idea that we should amend the Constitution to 
restrict Congress's deficit spending power.
  Mr. PAUL. When people talk about Washington being dysfunctional, and 
they are upset with what is going on in Washington, I think one of the 
things that upsets people is hypocrisy--people who say one thing and do 
another. That is a sad state of affairs. People run on one idea and 
then they completely change their ideas.
  The President was a Senator, and he spoke on the Senate floor. Here 
are his words in 2006.

       The fact that we are here today debating raising America's 
     debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.

  He was sort of pointing fingers. Everybody's pointing fingers. It is 
someone else's fault. I call that sort of the empty partisanship. His 
conclusion, then, is voting to raise the debt limit would send a bad 
signal. It would send a signal to our leaders that they are doing the 
right thing.
  I have often said there is no objective evidence that Washington or 
Congress is spending our money wisely.
  The Pentagon says they are too big to be audited. They cannot balance 
their books. There was $100 billion unaccounted for in the budget last 
year. There are $5 billion worth of duplicate programs the GAO found. 
There are, I believe, 82 different programs to train workers. Could we 
not deal with one Federal program training workers instead of 82 
different ones doing the same thing? But this is it. The President said 
raising the debt ceiling would be a mistake. Now that he is President, 
he has changed his mind. I think the hypocrisy of that is what makes 
Americans unhappy.
  The President said the same thing on war. He said no President should 
unilaterally go to war without congressional authority, and here we are 
at war in Libya with no vote in Congress. He said he has a piece of 
paper from the United Nations. We didn't elect the United Nations. We 
have a Constitution, and it requires those issues be debated in 
Congress.
  People are unhappy because we are not doing the people's business. We 
haven't had a budget in 800 days. Do you know what. It is against the 
law. It is against the law not to have a budget. We haven't had a 
budget in 800 days, but the budget law says we should have a budget 
every year. We are supposed to match our appropriations bills with the 
budget. We are not doing it.

  The American people are unhappy we are dysfunctional and that we are 
not doing the people's business. We have also become profligate 
spenders--spending money we don't have. I think we risk great dangers.
  I ask the question to this Senator from Utah: What is the answer? How 
do we get out of this when we seem to be so far apart, and even on both 
sides we don't seem to be tackling the issues in a way that would allow 
for significant cuts in spending?
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have a friend by the name of Ron McMillan, 
who lives in my hometown of Alpine, UT. He is the author of a number of 
books dealing with business negotiations, dealing with trying to figure 
out how compromise can be reached.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senators has expired.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an extension of 
2 minutes to finish our thoughts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. I don't object, as long as this side is given an 
additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. In that series of books, the crucial conversation line of 
the books, one of the things he encourages people to do is to find 
whatever common ground they can reach.
  I think there is common ground among the American people generally 
that we should balance our budget. Not everyone agrees about how we 
balance the budget, what should be cut, but they do agree we should 
balance it. That being the case, that is where we ought to focus our 
efforts. We should focus our efforts on amending that law of laws, that 
224-year-old document that fostered the development of the greatest 
civilization the world has ever known. We should change it, again, to 
improve it, to restrict Congress's borrowing power.
  The plan proposed by the Democrats that is now about to come before 
us puts our budgeting process on autopilot. It doesn't require another 
budget for 2 years, preserving the ability of ObamaCare to fund itself 
without a single additional debate in Congress. This is wrong. This is 
not the right approach. I object to it. For that reason, I, along with 
some of my other Republican colleagues, am prepared to vote on this and 
vote no on it right now. We are not the ones delaying this vote.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I would say that what Americans don't like 
is empty partisanship. That is what is going on today. Democrats are 
standing and beating their chests saying: Republicans will not let us 
have a vote. It is untrue. I have offered to have the vote. We have 
seen the objection before our own eyes. They would not vote on this.
  Let's dispense with the empty partisanship. Let's move forward and 
have a vote. If they would let us have one amendment--an amendment that 
would gradually balance the budget over 7 to 8 years--I will vote for 
their proposal and I will ensure enough votes that it will pass.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I yield to the Senator from North 
Carolina, I wish to note that last night, the two Senators who just 
finished their colloquy had an opportunity to vote for the Boehner plan 
which required a constitutional balanced budget amendment. Both 
Senators Lee and Paul are registered as having voted to table the 
Boehner approach, which includes that requirement for a balanced budget 
amendment.
  I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, we are here debating the government's 
fiscal deficit. It is an important topic, one worthy of serious debate. 
Of course, I wish I could characterize the mindless partisanship of the 
last several months as serious debate, but I fear this do-nothing 
debate is distracting us from another deficit that is front and center 
in the hearts and minds of the American people; that is, the jobs 
deficit.
  Just yesterday, the Department of Commerce reported that the economic 
recovery has been far slower than previously thought. Our economy grew 
at a rate of less than 1 percent in the first half of 2011. That is not 
news to the hard-working families of North Carolina where unemployment 
statewide is almost 10 percent and nearly one-half million people are 
looking for work. They have been struggling since the housing boom went 
bust 4 years ago. Those people with jobs haven't seen the size of their 
paycheck increase, but their monthly bills have certainly been 
increased, along with the cost of gasoline. Just getting to your job in 
the morning, if you are fortunate to still have one, is more expensive. 
Yet we spend all our time in Washington bickering, posturing, and name-
calling. Our constituents must be watching from home scratching their 
heads and wondering why Washington is debating whether we should avoid 
a default that would make this economy even worse.
  Let me tell my colleagues what is happening in North Carolina. Since 
the start of the recession in 2007, we have lost over 300,000 jobs in 
my State. More than two-thirds of the counties--68 out of 100--have 
unemployment rates above 10 percent. In my hometown of Greensboro, the 
unemployment rate is stuck at 10.8 percent--the same level as last 
year. That is right, no change in 12 months. People are working harder 
without getting ahead or looking for work longer without being able to 
find a job. Yet we continue to spend all our time in Washington 
bickering and posturing and name-calling.
  The people of North Carolina and the people of this great country are 
fed up with political games. They are telling me enough is enough. What 
they want is for Members of Congress to come to the table--Democrats, 
Republicans, and Independents--and find bipartisan solutions that can 
get our economy growing and put people back to work;

[[Page S5114]]

for example, commonsense legislation such as the America Works Act that 
I introduced to create a nationwide and industry-recognized portable 
credential system so employers with job openings can find those workers 
with the right skills, and workers with the right skills can find the 
jobs they are qualified for.
  There is also the bipartisan Hire a Hero Act that my colleague from 
Massachusetts and I introduced to combat the unacceptable trend of 
higher unemployment among our veterans.
  Let us not forget we have a program that has been expired since 
February that helps workers who have had their jobs shipped overseas 
find new work. There is action we could take, but these commonsense 
ideas aren't getting their due time because of the partisan shenanigans 
going on now.
  This past month, I went on a budget-listening tour across North 
Carolina, and the messages I kept hearing were that we need to address 
our mounting debt and get our long-term fiscal house in order. We 
borrow 40 cents of every $1 we spend, and it is hurting our ability to 
invest wisely in the things we need to, such as education, 
infrastructure and research and development that will ensure a 
prosperous American future.
  Yesterday, with my office receiving a barrage of calls from concerned 
constituents, I answered the phones all afternoon. The message I heard 
was loud and clear: Please stop the partisan posturing and get 
something done.
  Unfortunately, the plan from the House falls far short of those goals 
of bipartisanship and consensus. Instead of aiming for compromise and 
certainty, it represents just another partisan, short-term patch that 
ensures the debate will drag on for another 6 months. After what 
Washington has put our country and the market through, I don't know 
anybody who thinks it is a good idea to do this for the next 6 months.
  We all need to remember what we were put in office to do. We were not 
sent to fight for the sake of fighting. We were not sent to see who 
could win the most political points, and we certainly were not sent to 
throw this country into a default crisis because of our own inability 
to compromise.
  But we were sent to get the work done. We were sent to work together 
on solutions to the most pressing challenges of our time. Most 
important, we were sent to rev up the great American economic engine to 
allow businesses to hire and to get the American people back to work.
  The clock is ticking. The challenges of reducing our debt and our 
deficit are undoubtedly difficult, but they are not impossible--not if 
Washington takes to heart the message of principled compromise and 
leadership I receive every day from North Carolinians. We must commit 
to a balanced, bipartisan plan that reduces our debt while protecting 
our seniors, students and veterans and makes the critical investments 
in education, infrastructure, and research and development we need for 
a prosperous American future. We need to focus on the most important 
goal of all; that is, jobs, jobs, jobs.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Reid amendment and to put 
this crisis behind us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, we are faced with a difficult challenge, 
and we know the American people watching us over so many days now 
understand the basic challenge we face. It is a challenge of reducing 
deficit and debt and cutting spending but also making sure we have a 
bipartisan agreement to pay our bills and to meet our obligations.
  I think if I had to boil it down to four words, it is these, in terms 
of what people in Pennsylvania have told me we must do. It is very 
simple, but I think it encapsulates everything we have to do in the 
next couple hours--the next couple days--and that is compromise for our 
country. That is what people are looking for, people all across the 
country.
  I hear from families in Pennsylvania all the time. These are families 
who have led lives of struggle and sacrifice, families who have lived 
through so much already. Many remember and have lived through the Great 
Depression and World War II and wars after that, economic downturns, 
personal tragedies, job loss--all kinds of misery and all kinds of 
difficulty. But throughout our State, and I think throughout the 
country, people have figured out a way to work together, to compromise 
in their own lives, even when they don't want to make a compromise, and 
they have figured out a way to work together, whether it is at a work 
site or at home.
  I hear these same messages from people all the time. Let me give a 
sample of some of the feedback I have gotten from Pennsylvanians just 
in the last couple days. We purposefully chose three excerpts from 
three letters from three parts of our State: southwestern Pennsylvania, 
the middle of the State, and the eastern side of our State.
  From Fayette County, way out in western Pennsylvania, here is an 
excerpt from a letter I just received:

       In order that we do not dip back into recession, it is 
     imperative that responsible people start acting in a 
     responsible manner. Get this issue resolved in a manner that 
     is best for the American people and not what is best for 
     ``political parties.''

  That is part of one letter from southwestern Pennsylvania.
  Then, I move to the middle of our State, literally called Centre 
County:

       Please stop the bickering and work together to get the job 
     done. . . . Do your jobs. Come to a compromise.

  That is what people in the middle of Pennsylvania wrote to me just 
recently.
  Then, thirdly, an excerpt from a letter in the eastern part of our 
State, Bucks County, a suburban Philadelphia community. I will read two 
sentences from this letter:

       We must immediately raise the debt ceiling so that we do 
     not default on our debt payments that would negatively impact 
     our Nation. Next we must tighten our belts and develop plans 
     to reduce expenditures and raise revenue which would pay off 
     all debt just like my family's household did.

  There we have it, three parts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
three different letters from three different constituents, all 
expressing some fundamental, basic sentiments they have and I think 
some very fundamental messages.
  What are they? I think I can boil them down to four. The first is 
work together and compromise. That is in almost every letter we see: 
work together and compromise.
  The second is they want us to cut spending. They know that in their 
own lives they have had to cut spending. They have had to change their 
spending habits to deal with this economic trauma they have been living 
through. Even if they haven't lost a job, even if they haven't lost 
their house or their hopes or their dreams, they have had to cut 
spending.
  The third is to focus on jobs. One of the casualties of week after 
week of focusing on this question of raising the debt ceiling meant we 
weren't taking action to incentivize the creation of jobs by use of the 
Tax Code or other strategies.
  Fourthly, I think the message they are telling us, obviously, is to 
reduce deficit and debt. They know we may not be able to put in place a 
plan right now to be able to do that, but they expect us to put in 
place the foundation for that or strategy or a pathway to get to 
substantial deficit and debt reduction. So whether it is cutting 
spending or reducing deficit and debt or whether it is telling us to 
compromise and work together or focus on jobs, I think the message the 
people of Pennsylvania are giving me--and by extension all of us--is 
very clear.
  That is why, when I look at what is in front of us tonight when we 
are debating--we are going to be debating the proposal set forth by the 
majority leader--some basic elements in here that aren't just sound 
policy, but they are, in fact, incorporating compromise, already 
significant compromise; for example, making sure that if one side said 
we have to have a dollar-for-dollar reduction in spending to meet the 
challenge of raising the debt ceiling, the majority leader's plan does 
that.
  One side says we should not have any revenue, we should not have any 
additional revenue as part of this agreement. The majority leader said: 
OK. I will accept that. I will compromise. So there are two significant 
and substantial compromises he has already made in this proposal, and 
he is open to more, as he has said all day long, and for many days now, 
he has been open to more compromise.

[[Page S5115]]

  The legislation cuts spending significantly. There is almost $2 
trillion alone in spending reductions for so-called discretionary 
spending. There are lots of savings in other ways throughout the 
legislation. It creates a bipartisan committee that will recommend 
additional deficit reduction to be voted on by the end of this year. 
Then, an important part of what the majority leader has put forward 
today--or yesterday, I guess--in his proposal was part of what Senator 
McConnell put forth, the Republican leader.
  So by my count, there are three or four major compromises already in 
what the majority leader put forth. And he is open to more compromise. 
I think that is what the people of Pennsylvania expect me to do, and I 
think that is what the people of the United States expect all of us to 
do.
  Finally, one of the best parts of this proposal is that it gives us 
certainty. I hear from businesspeople all the time--big firms, medium-
sized firms, and small businesses. They tell us over and over that in 
addition to the pressure they feel--the difficulty they have in keeping 
their employment levels up, the difficulty they have in making ends 
meet in the aftermath of a recession--they tell us over and over: We 
are business leaders, and we need certainty or I am running a small 
business in Pennsylvania, and I need certainty. I need to know what my 
tax rates will be. I need to know what the business climate will be 
like. Please give me certainty.
  One of the best features of what the majority leader put forth is 
there is certainty. We are not going to have to debate this and fight 
about it every 6 months. It provides some certainty into calendar year 
2013. That is why I think a 6-month extension makes no sense at all. 
But you do not have to take our word for it. The rating agencies have 
made it very clear--if you do a 6-month extension, you are taking a 
very dangerous step that could lead to a downgrade in our credit 
rating.
  So I think the Reid plan already has substantial compromise, and, of 
course, we can compromise more. So I think it is very clear what the 
people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are telling me. In the midst 
of all the suffering--in our case, 479,000 people still out of work. We 
have an unemployment rate of 7.6, which some States wish they had. But 
it does not really matter what a percentage is; when you have 479,000 
people out of work, even though the number has been going down for the 
last year, people are hurting. They are still struggling. They are 
still worried. They are anxious. They are worried about their 
children's future. The least they ask of us in this debate, the least 
we must do for them, is to come together, work together, surrender some 
political points of view, surrender some personal disagreements we 
have, come together, and reach a compromise. I believe what they are 
telling us over and over is that we need a compromise for our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to give a voice to 
Minnesotans to relay their thoughts on how Congress should resolve this 
impasse and raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default.
  On Wednesday, I received an e-mail from a constituent in St. Louis 
Park, my hometown. His e-mail reads:

       Dear Senator. I am a Republican. I am a Minnesotan. I am a 
     small business owner. I am considered to have a high income 
     relative to the average American. . . . Here's my request: 
     Please work together to get this debt limit impasse settled.

  On Thursday, I received this e-mail from a man in Bloomington. He 
writes:

       I'm a small businessman in the middle of a fund raising 
     effort. The concern over the debt ceiling has caused all the 
     angel investors to put off any discussion of investment until 
     they know what is going to happen. This has stopped my 
     ability to raise funds which will lead to new high quality 
     jobs in Minnesota. I support a simple bill that increases the 
     debt limit to get us through the 2012 elections as has been 
     done hundreds of times before.

  Yesterday, I received an e-mail from a couple in Bemidji:

       We are retired small business owners who are watching our 
     very very conservative retirement account drop and plunge due 
     to the inability of Congress to come up with a plan for the 
     debt ceiling. We trust your judgment as a Senator, but plead 
     with the Congress and the Senate to come up with a solution. 
     We absolutely cannot afford to see our retirement savings 
     sink again like it did in 2008. . . .

  And it is not just individual citizens. I received a letter from 
Dakota County's administrator. The letter reads, in part:

       If the federal government does not resolve its fiscal 
     issues in a timely and responsible manner, it will drive up 
     costs to taxpayers here in Dakota County. . . . Being able to 
     borrow at the lowest possible rates has meant that our 
     County's taxpayers have gotten more and better public 
     facilities--from libraries to senior housing to highway 
     interchanges--and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars for 
     both property taxpayers and senior housing residents in the 
     past several years alone.

  The city of Chaska reached out to my office, explaining that they are 
planning to sell debt in August to fund a street reconstruction program 
and refund their water treatment plant. If Congress fails to act, these 
projects will come at a much higher cost to residents of Chaska.
  I received a particularly compelling e-mail yesterday from a woman 
from Falcon Heights. She wrote:

       I am writing again to say I support the President and 
     realize a need to compromise. It is scary for a 66 year [old] 
     retired schoolteacher who has Medicare and social security. 
     Scarier is a default and what it would do to the economy.

  That is advice from Sue. Sue gets it. She gets that Congress's 
failure to act may have a direct impact on her but the impact is really 
for the whole economy. And Sue is asking for us to compromise.
  And compromise we have. Let me make one thing clear: Leader Reid's 
plan is a compromise. Let me make another thing clear: House Speaker 
Boehner's plan is a tea party plan.
  Harry Reid's plan is a true compromise. It contains all spending cuts 
and zero revenues. During these debates, there have been lots of ratios 
floating around. Senator Conrad, the budget chairman, proposed a 
balanced and sensible plan that had a 1-to-1 spending cut to revenue 
ratio. Personally, I liked that approach. President Obama was 
negotiating a 4-to-1 or even 5-to-1 spending cut to revenue ratio. In 
the Reid plan, there is no ratio. It is 100 percent cuts and zero 
revenue.
  Secondly, it contains dollar-for-dollar spending cuts to match the 
debt ceiling increase. This is exactly what the Republicans had been 
asking for. Yet, this morning, I learned that 43 of my Republican 
colleagues have signed a letter to Leader Reid signaling their 
opposition to his proposal. Why? Well, they say the savings from 
winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan do not count. 
Specifically, they say these savings are ``a widely ridiculed 
accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism.'' Yet all but 3 of the 43 
Senators who signed this letter voted for the Ryan budget on May 25 of 
this year. That budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical 
in savings. So those savings were legitimate enough to secure their 
support for the Ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their 
support for Leader Reid's debt ceiling compromise. Here we are on the 
precipice, and suddenly they have done a 180-degree turn. Either these 
savings count or they do not. You cannot have it both ways.
  So we are proposing exactly what Republicans have been saying they 
want. Yet, instead of accepting this deal, they are using what precious 
time we have to push forward with their agenda. And it is not even 
their agenda, it is the tea party agenda. Their radical agenda is a 
wolf in sheep's clothing.

  Last night, we voted down Speaker Boehner's plan, which requires the 
passage of a balanced budget constitutional amendment. A balanced 
budget amendment sounds, on its face, sensible, but in reality, all of 
the current House proposals for a balanced budget amendment would have 
disastrous consequences for our Nation.
  A balanced budget constitutional amendment would do permanent damage 
to our social safety net by slashing spending to 18 percent of GDP. 
That is what they all propose. We have not had a spending ratio that 
low since 1966, and today's America is very different than in 1966. We 
have a much older population. Today, we have a higher percentage of 
people drawing on Social Security and Medicare benefits--more than ever 
before. Health care costs are 50 percent higher. Even during President 
Reagan's tenure, spending averaged 21 percent of GDP.

[[Page S5116]]

  What would an 18-percent cap really mean? Well, let's use the 
Republican Study Committee's budget, proposed in April, as an example. 
A budget such as theirs is roughly what we would expect if we capped 
spending at 18 percent of GDP. Their budget cut nondefense 
discretionary funding by 70 percent by 2021. Like the Ryan plan, the 
Republican Study Committee's budget ended Medicare as we know it, 
changed it into a voucher program, and raised eligibility to 67, but it 
did it more quickly. Their budget raised the Social Security retirement 
age to 70. It resulted in important programs such as food stamps and 
Medicaid getting cut by 50 percent.
  The Republican Study Committee's budget was the Ryan budget on 
steroids. I would like to remind you of what happened to it on the 
House floor--this is an interesting story--because this story shows you 
just how extreme this budget was.
  Most House Republicans did not actually want such a harmful, 
Draconian budget to be the official House budget, but many of them 
wanted to go on record to brag to their tea party supporters that they 
voted to slash $9 trillion in Federal spending. So they scheduled a 
vote and just assumed Democrats would vote it down for them. Then they 
could just blame the Democrats.
  Well, the minority whip, Steny Hoyer, caught wind of their plan and 
had an idea. Moments before the vote, he asked Democrats to vote 
``present.'' This would leave the onus squarely on the Republicans to 
vote it up or down. Chaos erupted in the House, as Republican 
leadership realized what was happening. Too many votes had been cast in 
favor of the radical budget, and it was on the verge of actually 
passing. Frantically, Republican leadership got a number of their 
Members to switch from ``yes'' to ``no.'' In the end, 119 Republicans 
voted in favor and 120 against. Crisis averted. That is how bad this 
plan was. And a balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18 
percent would essentially do exactly the same thing. This is a perfect 
example of political posturing.
  We voted down Speaker Boehner's plan last night for that very reason. 
His plan was not about finding a real solution; it was all about 
political posturing. If it became law, it would subject Americans to a 
very scary Republican Study Committee reality. House Republicans have 
shown they do not really want that. The American people definitely do 
not want that. The American people have clearly said they want 
compromise, they want an honest effort to meet in the middle. Sue from 
Falcon Heights is one of them.
  Leader Reid has responded to the pleas of the American people by 
offering us a sensible compromise. I urge my colleagues to be statesmen 
for the sake of the country. Please come to the table. We are trying to 
work with you for the sake of the country. The clock is ticking.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining in the period 
allotted to Democrats?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you. I see Senator Coburn is on the floor. I assume 
he is the first speaker on the Republican side.
  I wish to thank the Senator from Minnesota for his comments on our 
budget situation. For the many who have gathered here and are watching 
this at home and listening to this debate, this is a historic weekend 
where we have an opportunity--in fact, a challenge--to come forward and 
craft a bipartisan solution which is good for this country and avoids--
avoids--the disaster that would happen Tuesday night if we fail to 
extend our debt ceiling.
  The United States of America has never failed to extend its debt, not 
once. In the last 72 years, since we enacted this law, we have had 
requests from Presidents on both sides of the aisle to extend the debt 
ceiling 89 times--55 times by Republicans, 34 times by Democrats. The 
President who holds the record for extending a debt ceiling--is 
President Ronald Reagan, 18 times in 8 years, tripling the national 
debt.
  Not once, not one time, did he face what we are facing here, a threat 
from the other side of the aisle that if we do not give in to their 
requests, we will default on our national debt. That would be a 
catastrophe. It is one thing to call a bluff. It is another to call a 
bluff with someone else's chips, because the victims--if we default on 
this debt--will not be Members of Congress. The victims will be 
families and businesses all across the United States.
  If we watch interest rates go up as we are in the midst of an 
economic recovery, people will be laid off. More people will be 
unemployed. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. We need to come to 
an agreement. We need to come to our senses. What the American people 
have told us across the board is we need to reduce spending, we need to 
reduce our deficit, we need to do it in a sensible way, as the Senator 
from Minnesota said, to carefully choose these areas of waste and 
inefficiency and unnecessary spending but not to cut the essential 
benefits that people need.
  You will hear those come to the floor and say, oh, we are just 
spending more money. Well, the obvious answer is, in some respects we 
are. But keep in mind this one statistic. On January 1 of this year, 
10,000 Americans reached the age of 65. On January 2, another 10,000. 
On January 3, again. Every day since January 1 and every day for the 
next 19\1/2\ years, the baby boomers are now reaching retirement age. 
Having paid into Social Security and Medicare for a lifetime, they 
fully expect and deserve the legal benefits they have been promised. 
That is a new obligation of government, but one that we accepted when 
we enrolled them in the system. Now we can find ways to make sure those 
benefits are going to be guaranteed into the future with sensible 
changes in entitlement programs and with sensible changes in our 
spending.
  I find it hard to believe that many on the other side are arguing 
they cannot find 1 penny--1 penny--that can be saved in the Pentagon. I 
think we can save money there without endangering our security.
  I find it also difficult to understand the argument that we cannot 
raise 1 penny in taxes on the wealthiest people in America if we are 
asking everyone else across the board to sacrifice. We have got to have 
a balanced approach. The Presiding Officer from Virginia was part of a 
group of six Senators, three Democrats and three Republicans--we have 
been joined in our effort by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Bennet--
trying to find a bipartisan way to deal with this deficit situation.
  I am heartened to say that some 36 Senators have come forward, on 
both sides of the aisle, saying we can deal with this as adults. We can 
deal with it in a comprehensive and balanced way. We can keep our 
promise to people when it comes to the basic programs such as Social 
Security and Medicare, and we can do it in a fashion that reduces our 
deficit and avoids the crisis which we are facing.
  So I hope that--I see the Senator from Oklahoma here. He was part of 
that gang. It seems as though we have all gathered here on the floor at 
this moment--many of us have. I would hope in that spirit we can come 
to a bipartisan agreement to resolve the current crisis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have been listening in my office for the 
last several hours to the debate. I think there is one thing that has 
not been brought out in the debate. When Washington says it is going to 
cut spending, it is untruthful with the American public, because both 
the Boehner bill and the Reid bill increase discretionary spending over 
the next 10 years by--one of them $830 billion, and the other $832 
billion.
  How is it that we can, with a straight face in this body, talk about 
a cut when, in fact, CBO says we are going to actually increase the 
spending in the discretionary accounts over the next 10 years nearly $1 
trillion.
  You have heard the debate in the House, in the Senate, of a spending 
cut. And, of course, that goes to what the heart of the problem is in 
our country; words get twisted around to the advantage of the 
politicians but to the disadvantage of the American citizens. We are in 
trouble financially. Most people will agree with that. We have programs 
that are in difficult straits.
  As a matter of fact, they are broke, they are not just in difficult 
straits.

[[Page S5117]]

Here are the ones that are broke. Medicare Part A trust fund. Worst-
case scenario this year to 2016. That is the fund that solves and pays 
for hospitalizations for our seniors.
  We have heard a lot of statements said about Medicare. The average 
Medicare recipient paid $130,000 into Medicare. The average Medicare 
recipient takes $350,000 out. How long do we think that can continue? 
How long can we continue to tell seniors that we can continue a program 
based on its utilization rates, based on its reimbursement rates, based 
on the tax rates, that has a $220,000 difference between what goes out 
in benefits versus what comes in? It is broke.
  Medicaid is broke. The reason it is broke is because the States are 
broke trying to take care of it. We mandate what they must do, and yet 
the States are choking on Medicaid, and we are choking on matching the 
amount of dollars. Under the Affordable Care Act, it is now estimated 
25 million more people will go into Medicaid. So it is broke.
  The Census. It was broke before it started. It cost twice what it did 
10 years ago, $8 billion more than what was estimated.
  Fannie and Freddie. We know they are broke. They are $190 billion--
that you have now committed for, to pay to get them out of hock--
Congress created that $190 billion. That is where we are today. It is 
going to be $300 or $400 billion that we have to pay--we will be 
required to pay, citizens of this country.
  Social Security. People say it is not broke. We have $2.5 trillion 
worth of IOUs. Well, the fact is, that money is gone. Congress stole 
it, spent it on other things. Now we lack the ability to go into 
international financial markets to borrow that money to put that trust 
fund whole.
  So why do we need to reform Social Security? So we can make sure it 
is there in the future. What we do know is in 2032 now, according to 
the trustees, everybody on Social Security will only get 77 percent of 
what they are promised, and every year after that it will decline, so 
that when my kids are on Social Security, they will get about 40 
percent of what the average Social Security recipient gets now. We know 
we can fix it. We know we can fix it and make it sustainable forever. 
But we will not do that because that is politically difficult.
  The U.S. Post Office is bleeding every day. Yet we have not fixed it. 
We are going to do a gimmick to buy some time. But the fact is, we have 
set it up under a system when they negotiate labor contracts under the 
arbitration system. They cannot consider the financial health of the 
Post Office. That would be like paying somebody to mow your grass and 
saying, they will set the price on it and you cannot negotiate what the 
price is. Yet they are going to lose $8 to $10 billion this year and 
more every year going forward, and we have not fixed it, not done 
anything.
  Cash for Clunkers. Absolute--when you look at the dollars--and the 
home buyer program, the new home buyer program--they actually had a 
negative effect on the economy. That is what the studies show now. So 
we blew through all of that money.
  The highway trust fund--what is used to build highways and roads and 
bridges in our country--is broke. We are looking for $13 billion to try 
to make it whole, and all we did was transfer the last 3 years to that. 
Rather than reform it, we did not do anything about it.
  The new government-run health care program. Here is what we know. The 
new studies show that over half of the employers in this country will 
drop their insurance for the people who presently have insurance at 
work. Hundreds of billions of dollars of additional taxpayer money is 
going to be required to subsidize the exchanges those people are going 
to go into, because the penalty for dropping somebody's insurance is 
economically too low to keep employers from doing that.
  We have all of these programs that are broke, and we have a 
discussion about the debt ceiling, but we are not talking about what is 
the real problem. This government is twice the size it was 10 years 
ago. Twice as big. It would be great if all of it were constitutional, 
it would be great if it were all effective, it would be great if it 
were all efficient, and it would be great if we could afford it. But 
the fact is, we are where we are today, with a $1.6 trillion deficit, 
because we cannot afford the government we have.
  So we have not concentrated on the very areas where we can find 
mutual agreement. We have had three bipartisan bills in here where we 
have cut money, significant money, billion here, $5 billion here, $7 
billion here, $3 billion here, go through the Senate with vast majority 
votes, only to go nowhere, because the allowance for the debate on the 
underlying bills was stopped. The bills were pulled.
  So what do we do? Well, the first thing we do is we look at what the 
problems are. What are the problems? We have 100 different programs 
with 100 sets of bureaucracies for surface transportation alone. Why do 
we do that? Why have we not fixed it? That is a question the American 
people ought to be asking.
  We have 82 programs to improve the quality of our teachers, run by 
the Federal Government across 7 different agencies. Only one of them is 
at the Department of Education. Why are we doing that? Where is the 
assessment of how well they work? Where are the metrics to say we 
should be spending this money in this way because we are getting a 
return? Not one of them has a metric on it. Not one of them has ever 
been measured on whether it is effective.
  We have 88 economic development programs in 4 agencies, for which we 
spend $6.8 billion, and we have another 100 economic development 
programs in 6 other agencies, for which we spend another $4 billion, 
and not one of them has ever been measured to see if it improves 
economic activity. And if, in fact, it does, why do we have 188 
separate agencies to stimulate economic development? I mean, this is 
not complicated stuff. It is common sense. Every American, other than 
the Congress, would fix that.
  We have 56 programs to teach financial literacy to the American 
people. First of all, I question whether we ought to be teaching 
anybody financial literacy as a government when we run it so poorly. 
But if, in fact, we do, why do we have 56? And, oh, by the way, not one 
of them has ever been measured to see if it effectively teaches 
somebody financial literacy.
  We have 47 job training programs which cost $18 billion a year, 9 
different agencies, 9 different sets of bureaucracies, and all of them 
but three overlap with the other. That is according to the Government 
Accountability Office. Why? Why would we do that?
  We have 18 programs for food for the hungry. That is something we all 
want to be involved in. Eighteen? Why 18 sets of bureaucracies? How 
well are they working? Are they effective? Could we do them better? The 
question has not even been asked by Congress.
  We have homeless programs for both prevention and assistance--20, 6 
different agencies. So you have 20 different sets of bureaucracies that 
are designed to do the same thing.
  Disaster response and preparedness, inside FEMA alone. Inside FEMA 
alone, we have 17 different programs, inside that one agency, which is 
part of the Department of Homeland Security.
  I ask the question: Why? Why hasn't it been a priority for us to work 
on this?
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it may surprise the Senator--I hope not, 
and I don't think so--but it might surprise people listening to us to 
hear from this side of the aisle that a lot of us have enormous respect 
for what the Senator has been talking about and fighting for and what 
he has achieved. I might add he is one of those courageous Senators who 
has come together in the last months working as part of the so-called 
Gang of 6 to try to bridge the gap and see if we cannot find a way 
forward.
  As I listen to him, there is an enormous amount of common sense in 
the questions he is asking. These are questions all of us need to join 
in. We need to join into them in a process that allows us to be able to 
work in a balanced way on the grand bargain, as you call it, the big 
fix. I ask the Senator, because I think a lot of Americans listening to 
the debate--and I have been listening on the floor and listening some 
back in the office--people have to be saying these guys have been 
talking

[[Page S5118]]

past each other because we hear things over there that sound reasonable 
and we hear things on this side that sound reasonable. But people are 
asking: What is hanging up this process? Why is the entire country 
being held hostage?
  I ask my colleague if he would help us kind of bear down on what we 
need to do. I ask him if it is not fair and accurate to say that the 
so-called Gang of 6--a terrible name--maybe we can call them G6 or 
something--but they came together with an understanding that we needed 
balance in the approach to satisfy both sides and build a critical 
mass. That balance requires cuts. We have to put the big items--big 
ticket items on the table, and that means fixing Social Security, 
reforming it for the long-term; Medicare and Medicaid, which are 
unsustainable on their current paths; defense, where we have to find a 
handle on some of the procurement and expenditures. The Senator has 
joined in this. We have to close some tax loopholes and have tax reform 
and find some level of revenue at an appropriate ratio that allows us 
to fix this. That is where the problem has been. There is a group of 
folks in the House who have insisted no revenue at all.
  I ask the Senator, isn't it fair to say the Gang of 6 came up with a 
more balanced approach in which, I believe, the Senate could find a 
ground of compromise--what Senator Reid has proposed, I believe, has 
cuts that the Republicans have supported--maybe not quite enough yet 
and maybe we can negotiate that.
  (Mr. DURBIN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, Let me reclaim my time. There are 
absolutely no cuts in what either Senator Reid or Speaker Boehner 
proposed in discretionary spending. The spending will rise $832 billion 
over the next 10 years in the discretionary accounts.
  Only in Washington is that a cut. Quite frankly, I am willing to work 
with my colleagues. I have been out there. I said we have to move and 
eliminate some of these loopholes; we have to reform the Tax Code. I am 
willing to take heat from my side on that.
  What I am not willing to take anymore is a Senate that will not work 
on the details of the specific problems. What I am trying to do is 
outline where the problems are. Where is the leadership? We didn't do 
it when we were in charge either, I say to Senator Kerry. There has 
been a failure of leadership in this country, in this body, to attack 
these very problems. When we have 47 job training programs and none of 
them are working well--because that is what we do know, because the 
very few times they have been looked at, they don't work--and we are 
spending $18 billion a year and we are not fixing them, the American 
people have to say: What is wrong with you all?
  What we have to do is evaluate the effectiveness of every program in 
the Federal Government. We have to limit the overhead cost to Federal 
programs. We have put ideas out there--and this is $9 trillion worth of 
cuts--not Washington cuts but American cuts--money we are not going to 
spend that is less than what we are spending today, not money we are 
not going to spend that we would have spent more the next year. These 
are real cuts. Each one of these is in here, backed by the facts, not 
biased. We could disagree with where we make cuts but not with the 
facts in here.
  All the facts come from the Congressional Research Service, the 
General Accounting Office, the OMB, the President's budget, in terms of 
his recommendations and why, and the CBO. We will not go there.
  My problem with the Senate is that we will not do our work. We are as 
guilty--and this is not partisan to me. Our country's future is at 
stake. When we have two bills--one last night and one today--that are 
literally lying to the American people when they say cuts, I think it 
is unconscionable.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator further yield?
  Mr. COBURN. Let me finish, if I may. I will yield to the Senator in a 
moment. The fact is, we will not tell the truth to the American people.
  The first truth is, if we will be honest with them, they will 
understand the necessities that will have to be brought forward to be 
able to solve the problem. But denying what the problem is, we will 
never get consensus in this country and the embrace of the American 
people to do what everybody in this body knows is eventually going to 
have to be done.
  In 5 years, we will not have a Medicare system that is similar to the 
Medicare system we have today. It is absolutely unsustainable. We will 
never be able to borrow the money to do it. We are going to get a debt 
downgrade no matter what we do. So rather than continue to be dishonest 
with the American people about the status of where we are, we ought to 
embrace them and call for the very things that made this country 
great--the sacrifice of the citizens to rebuild the potential for our 
future, recreate a renewal in our country that embraces the things that 
made us great--a true free enterprise system, with a limited government 
that will actually allow people to be rewarded for their hard work and 
their blood, sweat, and toil--get that back and have the government 
take a fair share of that. On the upside, it should be more; on the 
downside, it should be less. I agree.
  The question is, Will we do it or will we continue a charade to the 
American people, continuing to tell them we are going to cut $900 
billion out of the discretionary budget when, in fact, we are going to 
increase it 832?
  There is only a $2 billion difference between Senator Reid's plan and 
Speaker Boehner's plan on discretionary spending. Both are untruthful 
to the American people. Both of them take the American people as a lap 
and say we can wink and nod at them and tell them something that is not 
true and walk out of here saying we spent less money. We are only going 
to spend less than we planned to spend, which was too much in the first 
place, which was unsustainable.
  Our deal is that we don't have the courage to actually make the cuts 
listed in here. We don't have the courage to eliminate the waste, and 
we don't have the courage to eliminate the duplication. Why? Because 
every one of these programs has a political backing. We are 
politicians. Unfortunately, too often, we are that instead of 
statesmen. It is time for us--both sides--to lead this country, to lead 
the country in a vision of here is the real truth of our problem.
  Now let's have a debate about what should be the No. 1 priority. How 
much should we spend on defense? Should we continue to allow contracts 
to go way overrun? Should we continue to allow requirement creep in 
contracts--not just in defense but in homeland security, HHS. The same 
problems we have in defense we have in all the other big agencies. We 
buy $64 billion worth of IT every year in this country, and $37 billion 
of it is wasted, totally blown. Why? What have we done about it? Not 
one thing. We don't look at the high risk for the GAO on IT. Every year 
that happens. The Census Bureau spent $600 million on a device that 
never worked. There was no penalty for the company that did it. We paid 
it anyway. It was a cost-plus contract, and the reason it never worked 
is because we had requirement creep all the way through.

  We don't have any grownups making the purchases for this country--
nobody with experience. So we are doing the wrong thing at the wrong 
time. We need to be doing the right things at the right time for the 
right reasons, considering that we make sure we take care of those who 
need it and demand participation from everybody else.
  We need to cap the total number of Federal employees--not because we 
want to but because we don't have any other choice. We don't have to 
let anybody go; just through attrition we can downsize the Federal 
Government.
  We waste $15 billion every 5 years on managing properties in this 
country that we own that are vacant. Yet we are spending that money on 
them. We cannot get a real property bill through. How valuable to us is 
$15 billion? We have to start paying attention to the pennies, nickels, 
and dimes. We will not do it.
  Unnecessary government printing--including us. I have been trying to 
get the elimination of this for 3 years. There are millions of dollars 
we can save by not printing the copies of this every day, which nobody 
looks at--except I did see my good friend from Illinois looking at a 
vote last night. But he could have gotten it online out of

[[Page S5119]]

his BlackBerry. We are tearing down trees to print paper we don't need.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining on 
the Republican side.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, again--I am trying to 
help us get out of this predicament where we have a couple days before 
the United States defaults. Everything the Senator has said is worthy 
of inquiry. Isn't it true that if we could get--part of the Reid 
proposal and the Boehner proposal proposes a joint committee that will 
be structured somewhat like a Base Closing Commission, which will 
require the Senate and the House to vote in an expeditious fashion on 
these kinds of proposals, whatever the joint committee proposes, and if 
the joint committee doesn't succeed in proposing something, hopefully, 
either the Gang of 6 or the Simpson-Bowles commission will.
  Isn't the key to resolving this crisis and not defaulting our ability 
to be able to come together on a sufficient trigger or some sufficient 
mechanism that guarantees we are actually going to deal with this in a 
similar fashion to what the Senator is raising?
  Mr. COBURN. I don't disagree that those negotiations are going on as 
we speak. I am not a party to them. I don't know if the Senator from 
Massachusetts is. I suspect the Presiding Officer is. We are not going 
to decide that. That will come to us for a decision. Look, I worked for 
a long number of months with my colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle. I put my name on a bill that doesn't fix it, but it was 
something to get us moving. It is better than where we are today. I 
agree with the Senator. But that is not good enough. We are not good 
enough yet to be where we need to be if we are actually going to solve 
the problem.
  Let me finish going through this. We need to end no-bid contracts in 
this country. To give a specific example, before he left, Senator 
LeMieux got through on the business bill prescreening of payments on 
Medicare payments, so we don't just pay them and then go chase the 
fraud. We got through a bill that required the Centers for Medicaid 
Services to put in a program to look to see if they ought to pay the 
bill.
  What they did is signed a cost-plus contract for $77 million with a 
firm that has never done that before and didn't take a fixed-price 
contract from firms that have already done it before. Tell me how we 
let that happen. Yet it happened. When we had testimony in the 
committee, they said it was a fixed-price contract, only to write back 
and say it was not a fixed-price contract. We need some common sense in 
our government.
  We need to disclose the text and cost of legislation prior to 
passage. We need to identify duplicative government programs. We have 
done that in here. There are hundreds of thousands of them throughout 
the Federal Government. We need to eliminate them. We need to mandate 
congressional oversight. That is where our leaders have failed on both 
sides. They have not mandated the committee chairmen to do the 
oversight required to solve this problem. We need to freeze the size of 
this government. We cannot afford the government we have. The debate is 
about what will happen in the future. What will be the revenue 
increases and the spending increases?
  Nobody is talking about decreasing the size of the Federal 
Government. We can't afford this government. We can't afford to 
continue to spend the money we are spending.
  I will close with this. If we continue to be less than 
straightforward with the American people about what we are doing, about 
the Reid bill--and the reason I wanted to debate the Boehner bill is I 
wanted to make this point on the Boehner bill--when we call something a 
cut of $900 billion, just because the CBO says we are going to spend 
$900 billion less than what we were planning to spend, but it's still 
$832 billion more than what we are spending now, that is not a cut 
anywhere except in Washington. We ought to admit it. If that is the 
best we can do, the American people need to know that is the best we 
can do. But we can't play the games anymore.

  I have another colleague, I think, who would like to speak, and with 
the remaining time, I would yield to her.
  Is the Senator from Alaska interested in speaking?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. It is my 
understanding we were bumping up against the vote at 5:30. Is that 
correct, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans have 3 minutes 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I had hoped to be able to speak at 
greater length than 3 minutes this afternoon, but the message that 
Senator Coburn has been delivering is so incredibly important. I want 
to join Senator Kerry's remarks in thanking him for being one who has 
been working to find not a deal but to find a solution to the issues we 
face today.
  As we have deliberated all day long, there has been a lot of finger-
pointing, a lot of blame. As the Senator from Massachusetts has noted, 
a lot of times it seems as if the comments are just going past one 
another rather than directed in a purposeful way that would actually 
make a difference to this debate.
  We started out this morning with messages from the leader arguing 
over who was filibustering. We have all talked about the need to see 
compromise, and then we go on to say why we can't compromise. What we 
need to be working toward is a solution to the problem as opposed to 
attempting to cobble together a deal at the last moment that will gain 
those necessary votes.
  The one thing I would hope we are all working toward is to avoid the 
default we all fear. We have all been listening to our constituents 
calling us this weekend. As we read our e-mails, as we talk to friends 
and neighbors, the concern is very real. One thing we have managed to 
do on a bipartisan basis in this Congress over the past few days is to 
incite fear in the American public, to make our constituents angry, 
frustrated, and mad. Well, misery loves company. We are angry, 
frustrated, and mad here. But I would like to suggest, as the hours 
wind down, we come together as a body in the Senate and the House to 
find that compromise.
  Senator Isakson stood on the floor earlier this afternoon and spoke 
of the contours of a proposal that worked to integrate the good ideas 
of several different Members--of Senator Reid, of Speaker Boehner, and 
of the minority leader, Senator McConnell. We should be working to find 
those areas where we agree because those areas are, in fact, in place.
  I am hopeful, Mr. President, as the majority leader comes back in 
from his meetings he will have some encouraging news for us as we work 
through these last hours.
  I would like to gain some additional time later on this evening to 
speak more in detail, but I see the majority leader before us waiting 
to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the 
following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

                             [Quorum No. 5]

     Brown (MA)
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Coburn
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Johanns
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     McCain
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reid (NV)
     Schumer
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to 
request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from

[[Page S5120]]

South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), 
and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--5

     DeMint
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Lieberman
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, today the Speaker and Republican leader held 
a press conference to announce they are in talks with the President and 
that a bargain to raise the debt ceiling is in the works and is close.
  Mr. President, Members of the Senate, that is not true. I just spent 
2 hours with the President and Vice President and Leader Pelosi. It is 
fair for me to say that the engagement there is not in any meaningful 
way. The Republican leader still refused to negotiate in good faith. 
Revenue is off the calendar--no way we can talk about revenues. 
Entitlements--oh, they are after entitlements: Medicare, Social 
Security.
  The Speaker and Republican leader should know that merely saying we 
have an agreement in front of television cameras doesn't make it so. 
The Republican leader at the press event says he is engaged. 
Fortunately, Members of his caucus, at least as far as I am concerned, 
and my Members, are more engaged than he is. There are meaningful talks 
going on with some of his Members with some of my Senators. While the 
Republican leader is holding meaningless press conferences, his Members 
are reaching out to me, and other Members, as I have just indicated. 
They are coming forward with thoughtful ideas to try to move the 
process forward. I welcome their ideas and ask all Members to continue 
these discussions. America is watching us, and they are demanding a 
result that is balanced.
  I say to my friend--and he is my friend--the Republican leader, I 
will come to his office, I will go to the White House with him, I will 
do anything I can do to try to move this process forward, but I say as 
respectfully as I can to my friend the senior Senator from Kentucky 
that the process has not been moved forward during this day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader--the Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the fact is that the only way we are 
going to get an agreement before Tuesday is to have an agreement with 
the President of the United States--the only person in America of the 
307 million of us who can sign something into law. I am more optimistic 
than my friend the majority leader. We have both talked to the 
President today, talked to the Vice President several times. I think we 
have a chance of getting there.
  What I think is not helpful is the process we are going through here 
on the Senate floor: having show votes over live quorums, having 
reluctance on the part of the majority to have a vote on a measure they 
favor, which we have been prepared to vote on since last night.
  Look, we need to be in a position where all of us in the leadership 
can come back here and say that we think we have reached a framework of 
an agreement we can recommend to our Members and be briefing our 
Members. The sooner we can do that, the sooner we can reassure the 
American people we are going to get a result on a bipartisan basis. So 
that is what I am working on, and I am not interested in scoring any 
political points. I am interested in getting an outcome for the 
American people, and the only way that can be done is with the 
President of the United States, and we are going to continue to work on 
that, get this problem solved, and let everybody in the country know we 
are not going to default for the first time in our history. That is how 
I am going to spend my time until we get that outcome and I can come up 
here and recommend it to my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are here today right now for this reason. 
It is spelled f-i-l-i-b-u-s-t-e-r--filibuster. There are delaying 
tactics proceeding right now. They will not allow us to have a vote, an 
up-or-down vote on our amendment, and this is a filibuster. By any 
other term, it is a filibuster. That is why we are here. I hope the 
negotiations go on. We are willing to be as fair as we can, but there 
has to be something that the President and Vice President Biden and the 
rest of us think is a step in the right direction. I guess talking is a 
step in the right direction, but that is about it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the matter we have before 
us, which is amendment No. 589--that we have an up-or-down vote on 
that, as we have all the time, of course. There would be no points of 
order, as we do it here all the time. Have a vote on it right now.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, these 
are direct quotes from my friend the majority leader. He says: ``In the 
Senate it has always been the case you need 60 votes.'' ``Always been 
the case you need 60 votes.'' This is the majority leader of the 
Senate. For him to suggest that a matter of this magnitude, in a body 
that requires 60 votes for almost everything, is going to be done with 
51 votes makes no sense at all. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, it is unconscionable that the 
Republicans would filibuster legislation to prevent a default on 
national obligations. Frankly, it is unprecedented. Since 1962, 
Congress has raised the debt limit 74 times, including 18 times under 
President Reagan, and there was never a threat of a filibuster, and it 
was always by majority vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I might say I actually cut short a 
conversation with the Vice President to come out here for this 
important vote on a live quorum. I would like to get back to work so we 
can hopefully solve this problem.
  It seems to me it would be a good idea for the majority to decide to 
allow the vote on the proposal they say they are in favor of; 
therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the pending cloture 
motion occur at 6:30.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. A filibuster in any other words----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, you can put lipstick on it, a nice suit, 
even a skirt sometimes, it is still a filibuster.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for order in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold for a moment?

[[Page S5121]]

  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to complete my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, later tonight we will vote on the majority 
leader's bill to reduce the deficit and increase the Nation's statutory 
debt limit. Earlier today the House of Representatives decisively 
rejected the majority leader's proposal. If I got it right, the vote 
was 246 to 173. Thirteen did not vote, but there were 11 Democrats who 
voted against the proposal as well. It will be defeated here in the 
Senate later this evening or whenever the majority leader allows it to 
be voted on. It is fine with me, whatever he decides to do.
  As a substantive matter, I deeply oppose the efforts of the majority 
leader. His plan does not tackle the task at hand. The President would 
get a $2.7 trillion debt limit increase but less than $1 trillion in 
cuts, and most of those cuts are gimmicks, budgetary gimmicks. They 
assume savings from more spending that the President has not requested 
and that will be unlikely to materialize. It does not include a 
balanced budget amendment. Most important from my perspective, it 
assumes a massive tax increase in 2013 by allowing the 2001 and 2003 
tax relief to expire, allowing the AMT to hit the middle-class 
taxpayers, and allowing for increases in estate taxes.
  Most important, from my perspective, the majority leader's approach 
assumes a massive tax increase in 2013 by allowing the 2001 and 2003 
tax relief to expire, allowing the alternative minimum tax to hit 
middle-class taxpayers, something we have not allowed, and allowing for 
increases in estate taxes that are a business and job killer.
  We are scheduled to vote on this bill late this evening, actually 
early on Sunday morning. Americans might ask why in the world are we 
doing this? Republicans were ready to take this vote yesterday evening. 
This delay in voting does not match with the asserted urgency of 
raising the debt ceiling. Yesterday, the Senate majority leader stated 
on the floor that the country defaults on its debt at 12 midnight on 
Tuesday.
  Tuesday is August 2; is this true? What are these claims based on 
that the majority leader is making? Amazingly, we do not know for a 
fact whether the United States does run short of cash to pay all its 
obligations on August 2. We were told by the Treasury Secretary way 
back in May that August 2 might be a date when Treasury runs out of 
money to pay our bills. We have seen estimates of the Treasury's cash 
position on the floor that came either from a local think tank or from 
Wall Street financial firms.
  The Treasury will not give us updated information. It is outrageous. 
The last time Treasury informed Congress of its estimates of its cash 
position was in May when it backed off of a prior guess and extended 
their estimate of running dry of cash by 3 weeks. Since that last 
update, I made a simple request of members of the Financial Stability 
Oversight Council, commonly called FSOC, which is chaired by the 
Treasury Secretary. I asked for an update on Treasury's cash and liquid 
assets to be delivered by close of business on Thursday, and I asked 
for that as ranking on the Senate Finance Committee.
  I also asked for contingency plans of Treasury and our financial 
regulators outlining what they will do if the debt limit is not raised 
or if we face a ratings downgrade on our U.S. debt. Treasury has not 
responded to this request. It is outrageous. They know what they are 
going to do.
  We were told the Nation will fall off a financial cliff on August 2 
at midnight. That is a lot of precision, down to the hour. Is it true? 
I don't know. The American people don't know. Social Security 
recipients in Utah don't know and Treasury won't tell us. I might add 
the rating agencies don't know either. We are being asked to give the 
President the largest increase in debt limit in our Nation's history. 
Get that. We are being asked to give the President the largest increase 
in our debt limit in our Nation's history. His last one was the largest 
at that time. We were asked to consider policies that involved 
trillions of dollars, with no effects that will occur over decades, 
with no current information about how much money the government has and 
expects to have over the next few days and weeks.
  Treasury told me yesterday that they are working on getting me some 
information. Yet I still don't know how much money Treasury now has to 
pay its bills and neither does anybody else on the floor. We don't know 
how much it expects to have over the next few days and weeks or whether 
Treasury still believes that midnight August 2 has any particular 
significance. The politicians all insist August 2 is the date. I am 
beginning to have my doubts. If that was the case, wouldn't it make 
sense for the majority leader to schedule votes commensurate with this 
urgency? Why waste more than 24 hours, which is what the majority 
leader did by refusing our offer to vote last night on his bill. It is 
not going to change the vote.
  It is not unreasonable to conclude that maybe that August 2 date is 
not all it is cracked up to be. We can't say for sure because the 
administration, despite my request more than 48 hours ago, has refused 
to provide Congress with information regarding its cash position. But 
others seem to think so.
  Yesterday, Moody's Investors Service stated, clearly:

       It remains our expectation that the government will 
     continue with timely debt service. . . . If the debt limit is 
     not raised before August 2, we believe that the Treasury 
     would give priority to debt service payments and could thus 
     postpone a potential debt default for a number of days.

  Does Moody's know more than our Treasury Secretary and FSOC that has 
been set up to help us to understand these things? They have been 
working on it for months. Why can't they give us the information?
  This analysis is consistent with everything my colleague and friend 
from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, has been saying for months.
  He understood early on that regardless of the rhetoric there would be 
no default on August 2. The administration is fully capable of 
prioritizing payments. There is a much more pressing issue than 
imminent default--a credit downgrade due to the failure of Congress to 
use this opportunity to take significant deficit reduction measures. 
That is the real takeaway from Moody's report:

       Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted, 
     would likely lead Moody's to adopt a negative outlook on the 
     AAA rating. . . . The chances of a significant improvement in 
     the long-term credit profile of the government coming from 
     deficit reductions of the magnitude proposed in either plan 
     are not high.

  That is Moody's. Our debt has become so unmanageable that we face a 
credit downgrade with consequent higher interest rates if we do not 
enact a big-time deficit reduction package.
  This year is our third straight trillion-dollar deficit. Our national 
debt is $14.5 trillion. The President's budget would add $13 trillion 
in additional debt if he gets his way. I don't know about you, but I 
cannot tolerate that. That is added to already almost a $15 trillion 
debt today.
  I have spoken previously about the debt bubble the Nation finds 
itself in, but I wish to reemphasize that point in light of the 
warnings from ratings agencies that our credit faces a downgrade absent 
real deficit reduction. Currently, Federal debt held by the public 
equals a modern record of about 69 percent of GDP and it is headed to 
100 percent and we all know it.
  The Congressional Budget Office reports that current tax and spending 
law takes that figure to 76 percent of GDP over the next 10 years, and 
we all know it is going to hit 100 percent if we keep going with what 
the President is doing and, unfortunately, with what my friends on the 
other side are doing.
  To put that number in perspective, at the end of fiscal year 2008, 
the debt held by the public reached about 41 percent. That is less than 
2\1/2\ years ago. That was under the Bush administration. That is 41 
percent compared to 70 percent today. As bad as the 76-percent figure 
is that we will reach--according to the Budget Office--President 
Obama's budget would raise debt held by the public to 87 percent of GDP 
by his own actuaries. I have to tell you they very seldom have been 
accurate or right. They are always low.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, if we continue current 
tax

[[Page S5122]]

policy and don't raise rates, fix the alternative minimum tax, provide 
estate tax relief, provide for a fix to the physician payment system--
that is the SGR--policies supported by clear majorities of Americans by 
2021, debt held by the public will reach no less than 97 percent, which 
is precisely what I have been talking about.
  Here is the sticky wicket. CBO projects the cost of simply paying the 
interest on all this debt will rise to $792 billion--that is if CBO is 
right and generally they are on the low side--in other words, 3.3 
percent of GDP in 2021. What happens if interest rates go up? They are 
likely to up. Currently, interest rates are very low. The 10-year 
Treasury rates are currently around 3.5 percent.
  During the past 2 years, this administration has spent recklessly, 
raising the total debt from $10.6 trillion to almost $14.5 trillion 
today. Because debt was cheap, the President was able to take on a lot 
of it. The true cost of this debt was hidden by low interest rates.
  What will happen when interest rates rise? What happens if interest 
rates rise to levels seen during the 1980s or 1990s? Think of my 
suggestion that these rating agencies of government are always low. 
Interest rates are going to rise and the costs are going to rise too.
  During the 1980s, rates on 3-month Treasury bills and 10-year notes 
rose to over 8 percent and 10 percent, respectively. During the 1990s, 
rates on 3-month and 10-year notes rose to 5 percent and 6.6 percent, 
respectively. That cost as laid out by CBO could be astronomical. Under 
President Obama's 2012 current budget, the CBO projects deficit rates 
over the next 10 years resulting in an estimated $10 trillion being 
added to this $14.5 trillion public debt--a 100-percent increase.
  Under the scenario where interest rates rise to the historical 
average of the 1990s, the public debt is projected to grow an 
additional $8 trillion or a 77-percent increase. Under the scenario 
where interest rates rise to the historical average of the 1980s, the 
public debt would grow $14.5 trillion, doubling in size. This is the 
real impact of Moody's warning.
  It is bad enough that President Obama has taken on so much debt that 
it may result in a downgrade of our credit, but it is even worse that 
faced with that downgrade he and his Democratic allies refused to 
deleverage. Should we get downgraded for failure to enact a serious 
deficit reduction package, our debt will only grow larger because 
increased interest rates will increase the cost of borrowing. We all 
know about budgetary gimmickry around here, and this place is filled 
with it. This economic debt is filled with it. The arguments about the 
future are filled with it.
  Americans should be less concerned about the August 2 deadline than 
the fact that over the long term our debt bubble runs the risk of 
becoming a debt spiral that turns into a death spiral for our economy.
  Let me close by making two points. First, given the treacherous 
fiscal waters we are in, Congress and the American people need to know 
where the U.S. Treasury stands. It is unacceptable that they are being 
asked to make decisions based on a proclaimed August 2 deadline with no 
facts to back it up.
  I urge all Americans, all Utahans, and all Social Security recipients 
to get in touch with the Treasury right now and ask them to show us the 
money. Call Treasury, send them an e-mail, send out a tweet. Show us 
the money. We have a right to know cash in the Treasury comes from the 
taxes that hard-working Americans pay. Government is charged with 
stewardship over use of that cash. Withholding information is a 
shirking of that responsibility, and I do not think anybody on this 
floor believes that Treasury does not know what they are going to do. I 
don't believe any Senator believes they should be stopping the 
information from coming to us, especially at this time.
  We should not run Treasury and manage taxpayer resources the way 
Bernie Madoff ran his hedge funds, by taking cash and when asked for 
information refusing to give it and just saying: Trust me.
  I have a simple question: Does Treasury expect to run out of cash on 
Tuesday, August 2? The President and his Treasury Department must 
answer this question--which brings me to my second point. It is much 
more critical that we get a deficit reduction package right than that 
we adhere to this arbitrary August 2 deadline. There is one bill that 
gets that right from my perspective, and that, of course, is cut, cap, 
and balance. So far, the only bipartisan votes taken by the Congress in 
this debt ceiling debate are the vote for cut, cap, and balance in the 
House and the House vote to defeat the majority leader's bill. Those 
are the only two that are bipartisan.

  This debate is not over yet. I expect Senator Reid's bill to fail 
tonight, but then it is back to the drawing board. My hope is that the 
President will then do what he has so far refused to do; that is, to 
take a leadership role in this debate, to stand up to his base and 
encourage his party to take real steps to reduce the deficit. I am not 
going to hold my breath.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time is left on 
the Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Following my colleague from Utah who talked about getting the 
President engaged in these discussions, I noticed a large story in 
Thursday's New York Times: ``President on Sidelines in Critical Battle 
over Debt Ceiling.'' President on the sidelines.
  We are at a time where we are facing the largest threat to our 
national security, and we cannot have the President on the sidelines.
  When I talk about the single largest threat to our national security, 
I am not talking about a terrorist organization. I am not talking about 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am not talking about natural disasters, 
disease, epidemics, and not famine. I am talking about our national 
debt. Our national debt is the threat. It is the greatest threat to our 
national security.
  I will tell my colleagues this isn't a problem for one party, the 
other party; it is a problem for all of us as Americans. I am not the 
only one who is saying that. Actually, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff, ADM Mike Mullen, has said the most significant threat to our 
Nation's security is our debt. Let me repeat: The most significant 
threat to our national security is our debt. My colleagues may notice 
that Admiral Mullen makes no mention at all of the debt ceiling. He is 
speaking specifically about the debt. He is doing that because the debt 
ceiling isn't the problem; our national debt is the threat.
  We have $14 trillion of debt, and it continues to grow. We are 
borrowing every day over $4 billion. That is over $2 million every 
minute.
  We say: Where does the money come from? Well, of the money we spent 
last year in this country, over 41 cents of every dollar we spent--over 
41 cents of every dollar--is borrowed money, a lot of it from foreign 
countries, and specifically from China. How do we stay a strong and 
independent leader of the world if we owe that kind of debt to anyone, 
especially to another country who may not have our best interests at 
heart?
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff clearly understands this. 
But it is not just our military leaders who understand this, families 
and business owners all across Wyoming understand it, and the American 
people understand it. We all know what the American people want. They 
want cuts to spending now, they want to control spending in the future, 
and they want accountability. They sure don't believe they are getting 
it out of Washington.
  I received an e-mail this week from a gentleman from my hometown of 
Casper. He looked at this whole thing and he said:


[[Page S5123]]


       The fact that the debt ceiling needs to be raised is where 
     the problem lies. This is a systemic problem that will either 
     be fixed or it will eventually destroy this Nation. I urge 
     you to stand strong and oppose any spending that exceeds 
     revenue. Using the debt ceiling, we understand, this could be 
     a painful path. It could lead to economic problems. My 
     forefathers put their lives at risk to prevent this kind of 
     idiocy that the Federal Government has become.

  He is talking about a debt of $14 trillion.
  He said:

       Every one of my family members and neighbors is prepared to 
     weather the storm now to prevent future catastrophe.

  My friends on the other side of the aisle are focused on the debt 
ceiling. It seems to me they have lost sight of the real problem, and 
that problem is the debt. Instead of working toward a higher debt 
ceiling, we need to be discussing ways to get our fiscal feet back on 
the floor, to get our fiscal house in order, and to provide the 
accountability the American people want.
  I listened to the President's address to the Nation last Monday 
night. It seemed to be more of a campaign speech than an address about 
the issues facing this country. There was blaming going on, it seemed 
to me. Scare tactics, class warfare. He used the word ``balanced'' 
about seven times. He kept talking about a balanced approach.
  Americans don't want a balanced approach; they want a balanced 
budget. They want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That 
is the way we do it in Wyoming. That is the way many States do it. They 
want us to live within our means and balance the budget year after year 
after year.
  There is a lesson we could learn from so many States around the 
country: Live within your means every year.
  The American people want us to seek a real solution. They want a real 
solution that provides them with the peace of mind to know they will 
not be subjected to this sort of activity on a repeated basis. They 
want the peace of mind as well as the economic security that they 
believe as Americans--they believe as Americans--is a basis for this 
great country. They are looking for a solution that recognizes the 
current system in Washington is broken, and they are looking for a 
solution that says we realize we need to take immediate action to fix 
it.
  Why is it broken? Why do we need immediate action? It is broken 
because we have failed to live within our means for so very long. It is 
also broken because this body, the Senate, has not had a budget for 
over 800 days. For over 800 days there has not been a budget in the 
Senate. One brought forth by the President failed; it got no votes. 
Ninety-seven people voted against it. Not one Democrat voted for the 
President's budget--not one.
  It seems to be broken because Washington is more focused on short-
term political gain instead of the long-term consequences of our 
actions. We saw that a little earlier with the discussions on the 
Senate floor. I am ready to vote on the proposal on the Senate floor. 
The minority leader recommended a vote immediately. Yet it was objected 
to by the majority leader.
  Since the beginning of this entire debate, I have had a very clear 
bottom line. We need to avoid defaulting and implement the spending 
controls to get our finances back in order. What is the President's 
bottom line? The President said it:

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

  The President's only bottom line: Ignore and avoid the biggest threat 
to our national security until after the next election.
  Contrary to what the President wants, we cannot ignore, we cannot 
avoid this issue until after the next election. People all across the 
country are worried about their jobs. They are worried about the 
economy. They are worried about the debt, and they are worried about 
the spending. The American people want us to take action. They want us 
to cut costs. They want us to control spending. They want us to enforce 
accountability across every branch of the Federal Government. They 
would like us to put progress ahead of partisanship. They want us to 
put people before politics. The decisions that must be made aren't easy 
for either party. This isn't about Democrats, Republicans, 
Independents; it is about America. It is about this country.
  People all across the country--and I have been in my office since 
early this morning, and we have been answering the phones. What I am 
hearing is what all of my colleagues should be hearing if they are 
answering their phones: Enough is enough. That is what the American 
people are saying.
  We are now at the eleventh hour, and we must not lose sight of our 
goal. It is more important to find a real solution than it is to settle 
for a quick compromise.
  So I look at some of these letters and calls and e-mails that have 
been coming in, and one is from Pinedale, WY. It says:

       It is better to bite a small bullet now than a cannon shell 
     later on.

  That is a Wyoming way of talking. That was from Pinedale, WY.
  A couple from Casper, a different e-mail:

       This country is in dire financial straits. Since I work for 
     the Federal Government, I have more to lose than most 
     Americans, but I don't want to give this administration a 
     blank check.

  This is someone who works for the Federal Government: I don't want to 
give the administration a blank check.

       We have to get this country back on track to fiscal 
     responsibility and this is the open debate. I realize my job 
     could be cut just to get there, but the national debt is too 
     large to ignore.

  This is a Wyoming person talking, putting the country in front of 
politics and putting the country in front of himself.
  He goes on to say:

       We must get it under control or there is more to lose than 
     just our jobs. The economic consequences of not getting this 
     under control will devastate this country years down the 
     road. We have to start now before it is too late.

  Then another from a woman in Casper who said:

       It is time to cut up the Federal Government's credit card. 
     The current debt situation is an insult to all of us who live 
     within our means. People in the country live within their 
     means; States that balance their budget every year live 
     within their means. It is time for Washington to live within 
     its means.

  People are tired of the budget tricks. They are tired of the 
accounting gimmicks. They are tired of the empty promises. That is what 
is affecting the people of this country. They want accountability, and 
it is our responsibility to provide it to them.
  People are looking for peace of mind, for good judgment, and they 
want people to listen to them. Yet what I see are people focused on 
politics on the other side of the aisle at a time when the greatest 
threat to our Nation--to this great country, to America--is a national 
debt that is out of control and that is increasing at the rate of over 
$4 billion every year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to 
complete my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Is there a time limit?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes. The Democrats have the next 30 
minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask to be informed when I have 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. President, when Harry Truman served in the seat Senator McCaskill 
of Missouri holds today, he used to sit back over there, in back of the 
row where a lot of the newer Senators sit. He, from that vantage point, 
would often watch the great debates on the New Deal. He listened long 
into the night. He used to frequently write home to his wife Bess.
  One late night after a long debate, he wrote about his experience of 
sitting in the Senate--this was early on--and of the awe he felt 
sitting in this institution and looking across at his colleagues, I 
assume imagining the ghosts of Calhoun and Clay and other great 
Senators.

  He wrote to his wife, and he said: I sit here in the Senate looking 
at this institution and at my colleagues and I pinch myself and I say, 
``How the hell did I get here?''
  A number of months later, it was very late at night, and he was again 
sitting there, and he wrote to his wife, again watching the debate and 
looking across at his colleagues, and he wrote to her and said, ``I ask 
myself, how the hell did they get here?''

[[Page S5124]]

  Anyway, I suspect at this moment in America a lot of Americans are 
looking at the Senate, at the Congress, and they are asking a similar 
question, wondering whether we get it.
  I have enormous respect for this institution. I still believe in the 
phrase ``the world's greatest deliberative body,'' which has, 
unfortunately, become a punch line in these days, but when we are 
bipartisan and serious is still a true description, still possible when 
we rise to the moment. I have seen the Senate over the course of 26 
years in those moments, as have other colleagues here. I have seen it 
with Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole and so many others. I have seen what can 
be accomplished here.
  Regrettably, today, our allies and our enemies abroad and our friends 
here at home--the American citizen--are watching with either alarm or, 
in the case of our enemies, delight as they question America's 
leadership. Some abroad have even suggested this is a sign, a moment of 
American decline. So even without default, believe me, just the absence 
of decision and the presence of partisan chaos--they are running up a 
huge cost for this country.
  The other day, I received a letter from 20 mayors from Massachusetts. 
The letter states:

       The time to compromise and resolve this issue is now.

  They complained that their communities were under the microscope from 
Moody's because we had not gotten our acts together here in Washington. 
Their letter was honest and eloquent. And, frankly, it should not be so 
difficult for their warnings and their example to be heeded in the 
Congress.
  The mayors' call for compromise, frankly, should not be so difficult. 
The call for compromise by the American people ought to be listened to 
and acted on and in very short order.
  I have served in the majority and I have served in the minority since 
I have been here. I have served with Republican Presidents, Democratic 
Presidents, in both situations, when we are in the minority and in the 
majority. I have cast tough votes in times of divided government, under 
Republican and Democratic Presidents, from Reagan to Obama, and I have 
never seen the governing process so broken because one faction of one 
side has made compromise--the essence of democracy and the bedrock of 
our governing system--not just a dirty word but, in their view, a form 
of treason.
  The warnings of mayors were echoed yesterday by the leaders of our 
financial industry. Yesterday, CEOs of major financial institutions 
wrote:

       Our economic recovery remains very fragile. A default on 
     our Nation's obligations, or a downgrade--

  Just a downgrade--

     of America's credit rating, would have an enormous impact on 
     Americans and on investor confidence--raising interest rates 
     for everyone who borrows, undermining the value of the 
     Dollar, and affecting stock and bond markets--and, therefore, 
     dramatically worsening our Nation's already difficult 
     economic circumstances.

  Those are their words. Notwithstanding that, we continue to see our 
own well-being at risk.
  This is one of those times where it is not cliche and it is not 
hyperbole to say that the whole world is watching, because the whole 
world has something at stake in what we do or do not do. For the world, 
there are serious consequences in that. As chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, I have heard from officials all over the 
world and global business leaders, and the message is always the same. 
They are watching in amazement, in puzzlement, and horror at what is 
going on in Washington. Our friends and allies, whose economic fortunes 
and economies are linked to our own, doubt us, and they are worrying 
about the impact of our dysfunction on their economies. Our economic 
rivals--believe me, our economic rivals--are laughing all the way to 
the bank. At a time of global economic uncertainty, we should 
absolutely not be adding to that uncertainty by failing to resolve our 
debt crisis. The International Monetary Fund is warning that actions 
still need to be taken to stave off contagion from Europe's sovereign 
debt crisis.
  It is not insignificant that while Harry Reid has been busy trying to 
find Republicans to join Democrats in a bipartisan solution, Speaker 
Boehner was exclusively negotiating to end the civil war between the 
responsible and the unreasonable within the Republican Party. The 
Speaker negotiated with Republicans to make a bad bill worse.
  I think the distinction between what has happened in the House and 
the Senate is a very important one in terms of where Americans are 
going to find a resolution to this challenge. Here in the Senate, we 
have been working day and night, talking with Democratic and Republican 
colleagues across the aisle in order to find a way forward. And for 
most of us--or at least many of us; certainly, a sufficient number to 
be able to pass a solution--for them, there are not any preconditions. 
Everything is on the table. But we are still facing the obstinate, 
ideological rigidity from House Republicans--House Republicans--who 
have threatened to take our Nation into default and downgrade the 
Nation's credit rating and do even more harm to a fragile economy 
simply to get their way.
  So what is it that divides us right now? I think a lot of Americans 
listening to the debate probably have a serious question about: What is 
the difference between these folks? What is it that divides them?
  Well, the Boehner plan, which was sent over here, had three 
fundamental problems in it that Democrats were unwilling to support.
  First, it would force huge cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid because of the structure and manner of the cuts they were 
demanding.
  Second, it included a constitutional amendment provision which 
required that the constitutional amendment actually be passed within 6 
months before the next debt limit could be raised. Because there is no 
certainty that would happen or could happen, it set up an automatic 
default. So the Boehner plan was setting up the U.S. Government to go 
right through this exercise again and have an automatic default.
  Third, there was a timeframe in the Boehner amendment that required 
us to go back and visit this in February of next year, which would have 
meant the minute we come back in September, the entire Congress would 
have been consumed with the very same thing we have been doing now, 
which would not give certainty to the marketplace.
  So it was not politics that prevented us from proceeding forward on 
the Boehner plan. It was the substance of that plan.
  The Reid plan, which we are debating right now, which is on the 
floor, is a plan that because of the Republican insistence on no 
revenues has no revenues. Many people on our side of the aisle object 
to that. But we have accepted that is the price we need to pay as a 
matter of our compromise in order to get out of this crisis. So we have 
compromised on revenues.
  It has cuts. All the cuts are cuts the Republicans have already voted 
for that, again, many of our folks do not like. But they have 
compromised, our folks, and they have provided the cuts that the 
Republicans asked for. Because it has a timeframe that goes until after 
next year, that means we will provide certainty to the marketplace and 
avoid a downgrade of our credit. The Boehner plan would guarantee a 
downgrade of our credit. So these are enormous differences.
  Finally, the Reid plan provides a tight process, a plan that we know 
is familiar around here. Like the way we deal with military bases, we 
require votes. The votes have to take place, and we would be required 
within a very short number of months to deal with America's long-term 
debt and budget crisis, and people would have an ability to put their 
cuts on the table.
  But we would also, we hope, have an opportunity to have revenues. 
That is the big sticking point here in the Senate. We need to know that 
if there is a trigger that is used in an automatic way in which money 
is going to be held back, that money has to be held back in a fair and 
balanced way. You do not just cut, you also have to have the 
possibility of revenue. Because if you do not have the possibility of 
revenue, then the side that only wants to cut can wait for nothing to 
happen and the cuts take place automatically. There is no threat to 
them. There is no leverage for them to come to agreement on the other 
things.

  That is reasonableness, I believe. I think what we are looking for 
here is

[[Page S5125]]

reasonable. It is fair, and it is balanced. The House strategy has been 
essentially not to negotiate, not to negotiate.
  We also know there are a lot of misstatements out here. Senator Reid 
corrected one a moment ago about a deal. In addition to that, we keep 
hearing people say that there is no plan, that the President does not 
have a plan, that nothing has been reduced to writing.
  Well, as Senator Moynihan used to say here: Anybody is entitled to 
their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. The 
fact is, the President put a detailed plan for $4.7 trillion of cuts 
over 10 years with reductions in defense, and Medicare, Medicaid, 
Social Security, all on the table to find savings in those programs.
  It is incredible to me to keep hearing people say there is no plan 
when there has been plan after plan. Chairman of the Budget Committee 
Conrad has been warning us for years about this. He sought to get a 
bipartisan deficit commission created by the Senate. It could not 
happen because the Republicans blocked it. So what happened? President 
Obama appointed one of his own. It reported back. We still have not 
dealt with that.
  Because the votes aren't there to support a simple increase in the 
debt limit, we've bent over backwards to find a compromise that links 
the debt limit to commitments on significant deficit reductions.
  Back in February, the President offered a budget that included more 
than $1 trillion in deficit reduction. When Republicans said his budget 
didn't contain enough cuts, he came out with a new proposal two months 
later which provided a comprehensive, balanced deficit reduction 
framework to cut spending, bring down our debt and increase confidence 
in our nation's fiscal strength. This framework would have reduced the 
deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years or less and reductions would have 
been phased in over time to protect and strengthen our economic 
recovery and the recovering labor market. It contained a balanced 
approach to bringing down our deficit, with three dollars of spending 
cuts and interest savings for every one dollar from tax reform that 
contributes to deficit reduction. It called for $770 billion in non-
security discretionary spending cuts, $400 billion security spending 
cuts, $489 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings, $360 billion in 
other mandatory savings, and $1 trillion from tax reform. How could I 
repeat this proposal if it hadn't been written down?
  After that was rejected, in his negotiations with the Speaker, the 
President put an unprecedented $ 4.7 trillion dollars of deficit 
reduction on the table, including painful cuts to programs millions of 
working Americans depend on, even cuts we Democrats hate as a matter of 
principle--and the President offered them along with closing wasteful 
corporate tax loopholes in order to achieve ``shared sacrifice.'' I 
believe it would have had significant support in the Senate--instead, 
House Republicans rejected it and walked away from the process.
  The so-called ``Gang of Six'' in the Senate worked for months to 
strike a compromise that was balanced as well--it too could have won 
significant backing here in the Senate and was applauded by Senators as 
ideologically and philosophically different as me and the conservative 
senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn. For House Republicans, this too was 
unacceptable, because they believe there is not a single new revenue or 
tax savings that can be supported in the entire 72,000 page U.S. Tax 
Code.
  Recognizing both the stakes for our country, the danger to the 
economy, and House Republican intransigence, Majority Leader Harry Reid 
has now offered approximately $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction 
without additional revenue, composed of cuts Republicans had previously 
supported. That too was rejected. The leader's proposal would give our 
economy the certainty it needs to create jobs today, not 6 months from 
now and it provides a certain process for Congress to do its work for 
the next 4 months.
  Time and time again, I hear those absolutists criticizing the 
President and majority leader's handling of the situation. They ask 
what our plan is? Well, take your pick--we have offered compromise 
after compromise and every time they have said no.
  No, the House Republicans would rather spend their time negotiating 
with themselves and criticizing other proposals than negotiating with 
Democrats or trying to show that they are willing to compromise.
  Here in the Senate, Senator McConnell offered a reasonable compromise 
that would get us past this hurdle. He proposed a path forward in good 
faith as way to provide stability for our economy and not have this 
saga continue. What did House Republicans do? They walked away from 
even a Republican proposal to ensure our nation didn't default and our 
economy wasn't hurt.
  So what do House Republicans want? They want legislation called the 
Cut, Cap and Balance Act. It is so extreme that even Paul Ryan's 
draconian budget wouldn't fit into its limits.
  A week ago today, the Senate defeated the bad version--cut, cap and 
balance. This vote made it extremely clear that cut, cap and balance 
did not have a path forward, but repeatedly House Republicans push for 
it even though it has already failed in the Senate and the President 
threatened to veto it.
  So when the talk of the ``grand bargain'' failed, what did the House 
Republicans do? They further entrench themselves in an extremist 
position and turn to a new way of passing cut, cap and balance. Have 
they tried to find a way forward to reaching a real compromise? No, 
they continue to negotiate among themselves.
  And their current refusal to negotiate across party lines flies in 
the face of the very Republican principles they have espoused.
  Why do we oppose the Boehner plan? Because the experts have said that 
Boehner's plan could trigger many of the consequences as default 
itself--including a surge in interest rates that will hurt every 
American with a mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, or a credit 
card--because it would make passage of a balanced budget amendment a 
condition for increasing the debt ceiling in 6 months. In other words--
automatic default if they don't get their way. Since there is not two-
thirds support in the House and Senate for this amendment, it 
guarantees default.
  Bruce Bartlett, a former economic adviser to President Reagan said:

       This is quite possibly the stupidest Constitutional 
     amendment that I think I have ever seen. It looks like it was 
     drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.

  Mr. President, that is President Reagan's adviser.
  Just the other day, my friend and colleague Senator McCain stated 
that thinking a balanced budget amendment can pass--``is worse than 
foolish.'' He went to say:

       That is not fair to the American people to hold out and say 
     we will not agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a 
     balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is unfair. 
     It is bizarrro.

  We can't do this. We can't keep going down this road. This stalemate 
cannot stand. It is time to for us reach across the aisle. Senator 
Reid's plan tries to do that. It doesn't touch the Republican holy 
grail of revenues. Not a dime. And 100 percent of the spending cuts in 
Senator Reid's deficit reduction plan were supported by Republicans. 
They were included in proposals from Speaker Boehner's plan, House 
Majority Leader Cantor, and House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan. Just 
last night, Senator Reid amended his plan to include Senator 
McConnell's provision to give the President the authority to increase 
the debt limit in steps. This gives Members of Congress the chance to 
register disapproval for increases in the debt limit. This is yet 
another compromise by the Democrats.
  So I think there has been a great effort by Democrats to make changes 
to deal with the Republican objections. I would ask, what is the single 
Republican concession? What is it they have given as a matter of 
compromise? Nobody can tell you that because there has not been one. In 
fairness, in the Gang of 6, a great group of Republicans joined with 
Democrats, and they did make a concession, and they took political 
risks. They went out and said: Yes, there have to be cuts, but there 
also have to be revenues. I applaud those Republicans who joined in 
that effort. That is what we need to find here now. That is the way we 
are going to make the difference here.

[[Page S5126]]

  It is the place to start a compromise but it takes two sides to 
compromise. And it takes both Houses of Congress to pass a bill. It 
shouldn't be this difficult for Congress to do its most fundamental job 
under the Constitution and preserve the credit rating and reputation of 
the most powerful nation on Earth.
  And it doesn't take an amendment to the Constitution for us to 
balance the budget either. It takes the courage of our convictions. We 
have been here before. In the 1990s, our economy was faltering because 
deficits and debt were freezing capital. We had to send a signal to the 
market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. We did just 
that and as result we saw the longest economic expansion in history, 
created over 22 million jobs, and generated unprecedented wealth in 
America, with every income bracket rising. But we did it by making 
tough choices. We cast tough votes and some Senators even lost their 
seats but they committed the country to a path of discipline that 
helped unleash the productive potential of the American people. Working 
with Republicans, we came up with a budget framework that put our 
Nation on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since Andrew 
Jackson's administration. It didn't take a constitutional amendment--it 
took courage.
  Mr. President, we can do that again--if we get real. If we get 
serious. There is a bipartisan consensus just waiting to lift our 
country and our future if Senators are willing to sit down and forge it 
and make it real. If we are willing to stop talking past each other, to 
stop substituting sound bites for substance. If we are willing finally 
to pull ourselves out of ideological cement that has been mixed over in 
the House.
  I believe we can compromise. I think the only place to resolve this 
crisis is in compromise.
  I believe I have additional time, but I wanted to know where I am 
with time. I will wrap up very shortly.
  As we know, it takes both Houses to pass a bill. It should not be 
this difficult for Congress to do its most fundamental job under the 
Constitution. It does not take an amendment to the Constitution to 
balance the budget. How could I say that? Because in the 1990s, we 
balanced the budget. We created 23 million new jobs. We raised the 
income of everybody in America. And the fact is we did what was 
necessary to put us on a track to pay down the debt of our country by 
2012. We sent a signal to the marketplace.
  We can do this again if we get real, if we get serious. I believe 
there is a bipartisan consensus here in the Senate waiting to lift our 
country and our future, if Senators are willing to sit down and forge 
it and make it real, if we stop talking past each other. The world's 
most deliberative body could become that again. But the reason it is 
not viewed as that today is not that the institution itself has failed; 
it is not that it cannot be deliberative. It is because the people in 
it have not yet decided to live in the tradition of those predecessors 
who earned the reputation for this institution. It is because, unlike 
the years when I first came here in the 1980s, some have decided to use 
this institution for a 24/7 365-days-a-year campaign, to make 
everything that happens here the prisoner of ideology and politics 
rather than the instrument of debate and decision.
  I think it would do us good to remember that until recent history, 
this institution has been the birthplace of compromise and delivered 
some of the great legislative achievements that have reshaped our 
Nation out of compromise, bipartisan compromises here in the Senate--
the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1969, the creation of Medicare in 1965, 
Social Security reforms of 1983.
  We all know that during the Constitutional Convention, Roger Sherman 
and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut developed a bicameral legislative 
structure that broke a deadlock, and it created--it is in the 
Constitution. It is why we have a Senate and a House today: compromise.
  Everyone who remembers the history books remembers the Compromise of 
1850 drafted by Henry Clay that diffused a 4-year confrontation between 
the slave States of the South and the free States of the North. Even in 
our most difficult moments, we have been able to find a way to 
compromise.
  In the end, it is people who define this place. It is we Senators. 
And in my conversations with colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
I am convinced there are plenty of people here who are prepared to 
reach across the aisle and prove that the United States and the U.S. 
Senate can live up to this moment. I believe that in the next 48 hours 
the Senate will prove our ability to live up to our constitutional and 
our personal responsibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I will take 11 minutes. I ask unanimous 
consent that when the time comes back on the Democratic side, I be 
granted an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.

[[Page S5127]]

  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.

[[Page S5128]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I wonder if I may ask how much time is 
allocated. We are a little out of kilter with the allocation of time. 
How much time do I have to speak? I want to make sure my colleagues 
have sufficient time to speak also.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Republicans 
control the next 24 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. I will not begin to use that amount of time. I think I can 
use 10 minutes or less, and I will leave some time for my colleagues.
  I can't count how many times I have been here speaking about the same 
subject, but this subject occupies all of us and it has done so for 
this entire session of the Congress.
  Three days are left until we reach that date on which the White House 
and the Treasury has said we will default. Right now, we are debating 
on a Saturday night over a bill that has already been defeated in the 
House of Representatives by a substantial vote, including with 
Democratic support. We are debating a bill tonight that we know will 
not pass here. The irony of being charged with filibustering the 
majority leader's bill, the Reid bill, is somewhat bizarre given the 
fact that Republicans are willing to give Senator Reid and the 
Democrats a vote on this bill as soon as they want it. It has been 
going on now for many hours. I think everything that can be said for or 
against this bill has probably been said. Nevertheless, the majority 
leader himself objected to our offer to stop talking on both sides and 
get to the vote. That is where we are.
  I have been talking for some time now about the fact that the current 
fiscal crisis the United States faces demands Congress to recognize 
seriously the enormity of the problem and come forward with a bold 
plan. We need a bold plan to begin to address, over a period of time, 
what is necessary to assure the financial markets and the American 
people that we understand the plight we are in; that we have taken not 
only rational steps but significant steps to address the problem we are 
in; and that we are willing to put comprehensive plans in place to get 
us on the path to fiscal health.
  Yet here we are, and after months of debate, we are now debating over 
just a small step forward, which, in my opinion, will not begin to 
satisfy the serious problems we have. A small step will not begin to 
satisfy all of those who are concerned about whether we truly grasp 
what is necessary to be done; whether we truly understand that we need 
to send a signal to the financial world, to the world itself, and to 
the American people, that we have taken the necessary steps to put our 
country on the right fiscal path.
  Now, it is clear, and it has been said so many times, that our 
spending addiction has become much worse in the last 2\1/2\ years. We 
have seen a 24-percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending 
under the Obama administration. We have seen a staggering increase in 
the debt from $10.6 trillion on Inauguration Day to $14.3 trillion 
today--a $3.7 trillion increase in just a 2\1/2\-year period of time. 
Clearly, these attempts by the President to address our economy have 
not succeeded. The President's stimulus plan cost an additional $862 
billion, and we haven't seen an economic stimulus. The latest reports 
are staggering to all of us as we find out that our growth in the first 
quarter of this year was far under what had been projected and had been 
calculated initially, and unemployment is not going down. People are 
out of work.
  Clearly, we need to make significant strides forward. I will not go 
into all of the details of the flaws of the Reid plan. It has been 
talked about, and it was soundly rejected by the House. We know it will 
not achieve the necessary number of votes to go forward, but we are 
debating it.
  I want to talk about the larger question, which is, are we going to 
take significant steps to put us on the right track, or are we going to 
compromise to the point where the rating agencies, the financial world, 
and even the American people look at it and say: Is that it? Is that 
all you can do?
  What is interesting is that my colleagues on the other side have 
talked about a compromise. They say we should move to the middle. But 
it is like taking a scale of 10 and reducing it down to 4, and instead 
of a compromise being 5, they have lowered the top line to 4 and said 
we need to get down to 2 or 1\1/2\. And if we are not willing to go 
that far, then they say we are not willing to compromise. That is 
distorted logic.
  More important, it is logic, or illogic, that is driving us to an 
incomplete solution to a very real problem. It doesn't take much to 
understand how this is being viewed. Just in the last couple of days, 
the New York Times ran a headline basically saying ``Recovery Still 
Slow and New Data Show Little Growth Ahead.''
  The Washington Post has a headline, ``A Stranglehold on our Domestic 
Policy,'' by Michael Gerson, who used to be one of my staff members.
  There is another one by Robert Samuelson, ``Why Are We in the Debt 
Fix? We Have to Address Healthcare Spending.'' The Wall Street Journal 
reports, ``U.S. GDP Grows just 1.3 percent.'' On and on it goes.
  My own view of this--which is not because I am a brilliant economist, 
I am not; and not because I am a financial analyst, I am not--but I 
have talked to dozens of people who don't have political skin in the 
game but simply have analyzed this in an objective way and indicated 
that, unless we come forward with something close to--actually 
something above a $4 trillion limit in spending reductions over a 
decade, combined with a path to entitlement programs restructuring and 
curbing excessive mandatory spending, combined with an overhaul of our 
complicated Tax Code to make American businesses more competitive and 
spur economic growth, we will not be addressing the problem.
  So the problem is that too many people are thinking that if we just 
end up with this compromise, if one side or the other will move just a 
little, we will be able to increase or avoid default on the debt limit, 
and we will have addressed the problem.
  For those who say this is just step 1, and we can address it in step 
2--the balance we weren't able to do here--I don't think the American 
people have much confidence in that. I don't think the American people 
have much confidence when we say we will have a group of Senators and 
Congressmen, on a divided basis of Republicans and Democrats, sit down 
and then report something to us and that will solve the problem.
  The difficulty there is that those are the same people here who have 
not been able to solve it in 7 months of debate--sometimes with 
Democrats and Republicans engaging in those debates. I don't think it 
is going to be solved because we may arrive very much at the same 
stalemate that has arisen after these 7 months of debate, partly 
because there are two visions in place here. I think what this debate 
is all about is this: what is the proper role of the Federal 
Government, and what can the Federal Government afford to do and not 
afford to do?
  On the one hand, we have people who say government has grown too big. 
Republicans are saying we cannot afford big government anymore, and it 
is hurting the economy. That is a vision for the future that is very 
different from our colleagues across the aisle, who basically see 
government as much more engaged in the process and don't want to cut 
back on a number of programs and a number of initiatives and policies 
that have been put into place over the years.
  It is not quite that clearly divided by this aisle. There are people 
on both sides who have shades of one way or shades of the other way. 
But the reality is, if we look around the world and look at models as 
to what makes economies flourish and what makes governments financially 
stable, we see

[[Page S5129]]

that an overgrowth of promises--overpromising Parliaments and 
Congresses--finally bridges us to the point where we no longer can 
afford what we have promised people. That is where we are now.
  Without putting those practices into place, I fear that whatever we 
do will not be sufficient. We will get the downgrade anyway, and we may 
get a precipitous action that puts us in a far more difficult situation 
than it would have been had we come forward with something significant 
now, at a level in which those who are analyzing this say we have it, 
the U.S. government is serious about it, they have locked it in and 
made sure it can't be overturned, and injected certainty into the 
future. Even though some of that certainty is painful, it will be 
rewarded, I believe, with support because it is sufficient to take the 
necessary first steps.
  Knowing we are 3 days away from default, I propose that if we can't 
come to agreement on something sufficient, we should provide an 
extension, short-term, whether it is 4 weeks, 6 weeks, or 8 weeks, 
guarantee that we will not default with the amount of money on the 
increase in the debt ceiling, in return for an equivalent amount of 
spending cuts. This would give us some time to come together and do 
what I have outlined--or something close to it--so that in the end we 
do not have an immediate default, and we do have a commitment to go 
forward and put something of substance in place and give it one last 
shot.
  Maybe I am a starry-eyed optimist. Maybe I am just hoping that 
whatever we do can be built upon and brought to the point where it will 
become effective, rather than fearing that what we do will be relegated 
as a step far too short to address the problem of our time.
  Madam President, I wish we had done more. I think we still can do 
more. But decisions have to be made in a very quick matter of time, 
whatever we do. Even if we end up passing something that is 
insufficient, I hope we will start work the very next day on addressing 
the real problems that we face and putting something into place that 
will restore confidence and ensure that America is not going to become 
a second-rate nation; that we are not going to see a devaluation of our 
dollar and a loss of confidence in the American people, investors, and 
the world. I hope we put something in place that ensures America will 
still be the place to do business, to live, to prosper, and to have a 
safe haven for funds.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my 
colleague from Indiana whom I heard a moment ago. I think he is 
absolutely right. We have deeper and more important problems we need to 
address, along with the important decisions we make over the next 24 
hours on the debt limit. It is necessary to extend the debt limit, but 
it is not sufficient. We also have to deal with these underlying fiscal 
problems, and I think my colleague from Indiana stated that well.
  I rise to talk about the debt limit proposal and how we can provide a 
pathway forward on a bipartisan basis--again, not just to solve this 
immediate problem that confronts us but also to deal with these deeper 
and very serious problems we have with our fiscal deficits and a weak 
economy. It may be good to start by asking why we are here. We are here 
because we have a law that says the U.S. Government can borrow only so 
much. The law says the U.S. Government can borrow only up to $14.3 
trillion.
  That is a lot of money--$14.3 trillion. It is approximately 95 
percent of our economy. This is unprecedented, of course. We have never 
had debts at this level before. Many economists look at this and 
believe it is already having a very negative impact on our economy to 
have this huge debt out there because it affects the private sector. 
But we have come to this $14.3 trillion limit, and now, in order for 
government to continue to provide everyday government services, 
benefits to our troops, veterans, Social Security, and so on, the limit 
needs to be raised.
  The Federal Government now borrows more than 40 cents of every $1 
that is spent. It seems to me only common sense that when we have maxed 
our credit card, which is what the Federal Government has done, and 
when we have this deep underlying problem of these huge deficits--$1.4 
trillion this year, a record level also--and mounting debt, we should 
deal with the underlying problem before we extend the credit card 
limit. So that is why we are here.
  I think it is an appropriate debate. I wish it could have been 
resolved sooner. I think it can be resolved over the next day or so, 
but I think it is an important discussion we have to have. The 
President has made it clear he would like the debt limit increased, and 
he would like it increased high enough to last through the 2012 
election. Interesting, because election day is not part of the economic 
calendar. It is not the end of a fiscal year. It is not the end of a 
calendar year. It is the political calendar. It is unfortunate during 
this time of such budgetary uncertainty, we seem focused on political 
deadlines.
  Meeting this request the President has made--that it be extended 
until beyond the election--would be the largest debt increase that has 
ever been approved by the Congress. It would be over $2 trillion. So, 
again, I think it is appropriate we have this discussion before we 
agree to the largest debt limit increase in the history of our country. 
We have never raised the debt limit that much at one time before.
  The President also says we need to do this because the markets want 
the certainty that a long-term debt limit increase will provide. I 
think there is something to that, in the sense of market certainty. If 
there could be a longer debt limit increase, I suppose it would add to 
market certainty. But markets don't just want a solution to this debt 
limit issue. In fact, I would argue what they want even more is a 
solution to the soaring debt itself, and this is not based on 
conjecture, it is based on looking at what those who are analyzing our 
economy say.
  We have all heard about Fitch, Moody's, and Standard & Poor's. These 
are the credit agencies a lot of people have been talking about. They 
are the ones threatening to downgrade our debt. They say we should 
extend the debt limit, but they also say that is just the first step; 
that we also have to deal with the underlying fiscal problems in our 
country or the downgrade will occur. They want a serious commitment to 
reining in the spending spree that has buried us in debt in the first 
place. So this has to be dealt with.
  A friend of mine, Keith Hennessey, sent me an e-mail tonight, and he 
had an interesting way to put it, for people who follow the financial 
markets. He said: We face both a liquidity crisis right now--which is 
that the Federal Government can't borrow to meet its needs--but we also 
face a solvency crisis--which is that the accumulation of the Federal 
Government deficits into the debt are at historic levels, and already 
harming the economy in very significant ways. So we need to deal with 
both.
  One way to show this commitment to the solvency problem--to the debt 
problem--is to be sure we guarantee $1 in spending cuts for every $1 we 
raise the debt limit. There is a formula that was laid out several 
months ago by Speaker Boehner, and I think it has been widely agreed 
to. We will see it in what Majority Leader Reid has proposed. As we 
will talk about in a minute, unfortunately, some of the budget savings 
he thought were there, based upon the Congressional Budget Office 
analysis, are not real cuts, but that was the formula he used. The 
President has also talked about this formula, and I think it is widely 
agreed we need to be sure we are only extending the debt limit to the 
extent that we are reducing spending. So if it is going to be over $2 
trillion of debt limit extension, we need to find $2 trillion in 
spending reductions over time.
  It is interesting. As I have analyzed how this formula would work 
over time, it actually makes sense for our economy. If we raise the 
debt limit $1 but also cut $1 in spending, it not only helps us in the 
short term but over a 10-year period, what the CBO tells us in terms of 
what the debt is likely to be, just about at the 10th year we would 
actually balance the Federal budget. We will not get rid of the debt--
the debt will continue to grow all during that time period, 
unfortunately--but there would actually be, at the end of that process, 
an annual balanced budget by repeatedly applying that formula

[[Page S5130]]

every time we need to raise the debt limit.
  I don't think that necessarily was the intent when the formula was 
derived, but it is interesting that it is a formula that makes sense to 
get us to, at least over 10 years, the point where we are not spending 
more than we are taking in. Given that the President and the majority 
leader would like to see a debt increase of over $2 trillion, and 
Republicans--and even many Democrats--want to be sure there is an equal 
size spending cut, it seems to me there is an obvious way forward.
  We can raise the debt limit for this extended period of time, but we 
have to require equal spending cuts, and they have to be real. If they 
are not meaningful and credible spending cuts, then we will have the 
same negative economic consequences we have been talking about tonight: 
The credit agencies will downgrade our debt and we will have higher 
interest rates, which will affect every American family--student loans, 
credit card loans, certainly our mortgages. It will affect small 
businesses trying to get credit and that are trying to hire people. If 
you have a car loan, it will affect you. It affects the entire economy. 
So we have to deal with this issue in a real way, in a way that is 
credible and meaningful.
  Unfortunately, the proposal that Majority Leader Reid put forward, 
which was intended to meet this formula we have talked about--$1 
spending cuts for every $1 in increases--has some spending cuts that do 
not meet that standard of being credible and meaningful. The biggest 
one is about $1 trillion in what is called the global war on terrorism 
spending reduction.
  A little background on this. When we are writing the budget baseline, 
the Congressional Budget Office says we have to assume all the 
discretionary spending that is happening now will continue into the 
future. So they assume, for the next 10 years, we will spend about $150 
billion a year on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But nobody believes 
or hopes that will happen. It has not been requested by the President. 
No one intends to spend that money. In fact, the President's own budget 
assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be spent over the 
next decade, we will spend about $600 billion. That is what the 
President's budget says. That is what people assume. This means Senator 
Reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion 
that is not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a 
credible proposal. Why? Because it is money that is not planning to be 
spent.
  It is a little akin to a family saying: Let's assume we are going to 
take a vacation we are never going to take, and it is going to cost us 
$10,000 and then saying: We saved $10,000 on our budget.
  I wish it weren't so. I wish the $1.1 trillion was a credible 
spending reduction we could rely on. But the Washington Post, the Wall 
Street Journal, and many other observers have looked at this and said: 
Frankly, it is not a meaningful reduction in spending. So there are 
some meaningful reductions in spending in the proposal of the majority 
leader, but this particular one, unfortunately, is a big part of what 
he has proposed. Out of his $2.7 trillion in cuts, about $1.1 trillion 
is this proposal on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We might hear it 
referred to on the floor as the OCO spending--overseas contingency 
operations.
  I think one thing we should do as a Congress is make sure these cuts 
are meaningful and credible, and we can do that.
  Second, let's expand this initial round of spending cuts. Right now, 
if we take out the war spending we just talked about and then look at 
the Congressional Budget Office's score of the majority leader's 
proposal, the cuts are just under $1 trillion. It is still a 
substantial, and I think a credible, proposal of just under $1 
trillion, but that is all that is guaranteed. However, Washington is 
scheduled to spend about $46 trillion over that same period--the next 
decade. Think about that: $46 trillion and increase spending, by the 
way, by about 57 percent during that time period.
  I think we can do a lot better than just cutting $1 trillion over the 
next 10 years, and I think we can do it in a bipartisan fashion. I say 
that because I have identified $2.8 trillion in spending reductions 
that have been agreed to by some bipartisan process.
  The Biden talks, the Gang of 6, the President's fiscal commission, 
and some of the President's own discussions specifically came up with 
some spending reductions in addition to this $1 trillion. So my hope 
is, we can take some of these spending cuts that have been agreed to 
through some bipartisan process and apply them to this initial package.
  Finally, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner's proposals both 
have this deficit reduction committee. It is an approach which makes 
sense, to be sure we get at the longer range problem, which is our 
unsustainable--very important but unsustainable--entitlement programs; 
tax reform, which will help stimulate more economic growth; and budget 
reform, which is clearly needed.
  I have been here 6 months. We have done nothing on a budget. In fact, 
the Senate hasn't done a budget in 2 years. It sounds like we are in 
need of some reforms to make this place work. So this committee makes 
sense.
  The majority leader calls for the committee to reduce the budget 
deficit to 3 percent of GDP. I think that is an interesting proposal. I 
think we need to be sure we know how long it would take to reach that 
level and how long we should maintain it, because there is no timeframe 
in his proposal.
  So 3 percent of GDP, does that mean we would wait until a certain 
time period and, say, if it is a 10-year proposal, the ninth year or 
tenth year and suddenly make those reductions? If so, the reductions 
would not be nearly as significant.
  Instead, we should put a timeframe in place, 5 years or 10 years--I 
would prefer 5--and say that there will be reductions starting in the 
first fiscal year to meet the 3-percent target. If you don't do that, 
then over that period of time, 5 years or 10 years, we will not see the 
kinds of reductions in spending that I think Majority Leader Reid 
wishes to see and I know that many of us here on this side of the aisle 
believe are necessary.
  Eventually, we have got to balance the budget, as we talked about 
earlier, and it needs to be something within the 3-percent committee 
that leads us to that.
  Also, under the majority leader's bill, there is no requirement to 
actually enact any of the deficit reduction committee's reforms. I 
think he has a very interesting proposal in terms of having an 
expedited process on the floor, an up-or-down vote, no amendments. I 
think that is smart. But if the deficit reduction committee deadlocks 
or if the deficit reduction committee fails to get the votes here on 
the floor of the Senate, there needs to be some mechanism, a fail-safe 
mechanism or so-called trigger for accomplishing dollar-for-dollar 
cuts.
  The House plan responsibly makes much of this debt limit increase 
contingent on the cuts being actually approved and signed into law. If 
the President and Majority Leader Reid want the entire debt limit 
increase now, we would need some guarantee that this deficit reduction 
would actually take place. A commonsense compromise would be to add 
sequestration language, meaning you sequester across the board all 
spending, if the deficit reduction doesn't work, deadlocks, or doesn't 
pass on the floor even under these procedures. I would say you could 
limit that sequestration to the size of the debt limit increase, not 
even the size that Speaker Boehner has, which was $1.8 trillion, or 
Leader Reid I think assumes, which is even higher than that for his 
debt reduction committee, but just be sure it meets this formula of $1 
spending cuts for every $1 of extension for the debt limit. That seems 
to be the kind of proposal that, at this late hour, could be agreed to 
and certainly should be.
  Sequestration, by the way, is not a new concept. It has enforced 
nearly every budget reform law of the past 20 years in the Congress. It 
can guarantee that, one way or another, we will receive the deficit 
reduction equal to the debt limit increase, which is, again, the intent 
by Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, and others.
  Finally, I think we need to allow the Senate to vote on a balanced 
budget amendment. Let's have a vote. Leader Reid has talked about that, 
Speaker Boehner has talked about that. I think it is important to 
provide the representatives of the American people

[[Page S5131]]

the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on a balanced budget, or in 
many forms of a balanced budget, because there are different iterations 
of a balanced budget.
  It seems this path forward should be able to satisfy both sides. The 
President and the majority leader would get the larger debt increase 
limit they want; there would be guaranteed deficit reduction necessary 
to begin fixing the budget and assuring financial markets that we are 
up to the task.
  I think when you look at the various options we have before us, there 
is a way forward here. There is a way forward that says, Let's ensure 
that we have this upfront spending; let's remove the global war on 
savings gimmick; let's strengthen the initial savings, provide 
guarantees that this deficit reduction committee will actually work; 
and then let's have a vote on the balanced budget amendment.
  Finally, I have heard the President talk about the importance of 
having a debt limit increase because of the market uncertainty in the 
economy. I agree that we need to do everything we can to stimulate this 
economy right now. We had bad news this week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. However, again getting back to our earlier discussion, 
if we simply extend the debt limit and don't deal with the underlying 
issue of our fiscal problems, what we called earlier the solvency 
crisis, we will have these same negative economic consequences.
  With low growth in this quarter and, unfortunately, high unemployment 
over 9 percent, we need to do everything we can to encourage pro-growth 
economic policies, including tax reform, as we talked about, as well as 
using the energy resources we have in this country, regulatory relief, 
and, yes, dealing with our debt and deficit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Reid amendment.
  First of all, I am sorry we are engaged in a filibuster. We are using 
parliamentary procedure in a way that only delays us taking votes. We 
are days away from default. We are days away from our bond rating being 
downgraded. If we fail to raise the debt limit, the United States of 
America will be irrevocably fractured. We cannot fail and we cannot 
falter. We must act, and we must act tonight.
  Last night, the Senate rejected the Boehner plan because it wasn't a 
solution. It would lead us over the cliff because it did not meet 
certain tests. If the Republicans force us into default or downgrade, 
it will be the biggest tax increase on Americans. When interest rates 
go sky high, it will be a tax on Americans.
  We know that we have to agree to additional spending cuts, but it has 
got to be long term. We have to have a path forward for eliminating tax 
earmarks and entitlement reform that does not lead to a stampede to 
shrink Social Security benefits or to raise the Medicare age.
  Mr. Boehner took it upon himself last week to come up with a 
solution. He told the President he--Mr. Boehner--was the guy to do it. 
Well, he didn't succeed. His proposal was failed leadership and failed 
economics because it did not meet the threat to our economy from 
default and downgrade. Mr. Boehner insisted that there be a vote in 
December to raise the debt ceiling; that the House and Senate must pass 
a balanced constitutional amendment. That is false. In America we can 
guarantee a vote, but we can't guarantee an outcome.
  Here are the facts: We will be downgraded if we don't take action or 
if action is not taken seriously. So we must have serious policy, we 
must have a pragmatic process to reform taxes, and also the way to deal 
with entitlements. Those who rate our credit, such as Moody's, said a 
short-term extension would lead to downgrade in credit. Under the 
Boehner proposal we would be downgraded immediately because of his 
criteria.
  The Republicans' refusal to say yes to the $2 trillion spending cut 
that is proposed in the Reid resolution is mind boggling. We are 
agreeing to $2 trillion worth of cuts.
  As a Democrat, as a New Deal Democrat, as a Fair Deal Democrat, I 
have now agreed to more cuts than I would ever do under any other 
circumstances. I have compromised. Other Democrats of my political 
persuasion have compromised. Where is the compromise on the other side? 
We need compromise, first of all, to get a vote, and then to get it 
done. I am scared that if we go into a default, interest rates will 
skyrocket. But the President is going to have to set priorities. 
Benefits will be affected.
  Today I have a Marine Corps pin on. Why did I wear a Marine Corps 
pin? First of all, because of their words ``Semper Fi,'' always 
faithful. How about us? Why can't we be as good as the military we send 
into war? Those men and women are willing to put their lives on the 
line to fight and defend for democracy. Why can't we be willing to put 
our political careers on the line to fight and defend for democracy? I 
am willing to make the tough choices. I have already made a tough 
choice to support the significant and Draconian cuts in domestic 
spending with very little coming out of defense, but more should come. 
I wanted to get rid of sacred cows such as the ethanol subsidy, such as 
the oil and gas subsidy, those sacred cows that slurp it up and milk 
the public trough. But, oh, no. We couldn't go to revenues, we just had 
to go to cuts.
  So guess what. Democrats have compromised. We have gone 80 percent of 
the way. Why can't they come the other 20 percent and say yes to Reid? 
Reid gives us a deadline through 2013, which provides the certainty 
that the credit ratings would like. We make a significant downpayment 
on reducing the debt, and we have a political process--and I am willing 
to put more teeth in it--a political process to get rid of tax 
earmarks. And that is what they are; make no mistake, they are tax 
earmarks for the pampered and the prosperous. I am ready to reform that 
and then take a look at entitlement reform.
  I think the Reid proposal is the path forward. But I say, as we wrap 
up, could we put politics aside? Could we put partisan sniping aside? 
Could we not come together? We on this side of the aisle have made 80 
percent of a compromise. We look to the other side to give us the other 
20 percent. It will not be giving the Democrats that; it will be 
ensuring the solvency and security of the United States of America.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the alternating 
blocks continue until 9 p.m. in the following manner: the majority 
controlling the time until 8:20 p.m.; Republicans controlling the next 
30 minutes; and the majority controlling the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the tea party Members in the House have 
achieved a remarkable feat. As the New York Times put today:

       The scope of their victory in reshaping the debt ceiling 
     bill to reflect the fiscal hawkishness of the most 
     conservative House Members cannot be overstated.

  In other words, despite Democratic control over the White House, 
despite Democratic control over the Senate, despite overwhelming 
opposition from the American people, a small minority of the Members of 
the Republican-controlled House have successfully pushed an extreme 
rightwing agenda onto the American political landscape. This rightwing 
ideology is a set of beliefs which represents the interests of the 
wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations. It is 
an ideology which ultimately wants to destroy Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid, and make devastating cuts in education, Head 
Start, environmental protection, nutrition, infrastructure, and every 
other program which protects the interests of working families and the 
middle class.
  It is an ideology which believes that despite the fact that the rich 
are getting richer, the middle class is shrinking, and poverty is 
increasing, all of the burden for deficit reduction should rest on 
working people, despite the fact that in the last 25 years the top 1 
percent has achieved 80 percent of all new income. But this rightwing 
ideology says we have got to cut back on education, we have got to cut 
back on

[[Page S5132]]

health care, we have got to cut back on Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, and every other program a middle class and a working class, 
hurting desperately in the midst of this recession, depend upon.
  In my view, this is an ideology which is grotesquely immoral and it 
is also bad economic policy. It has failed time after time, most 
recently during the Bush administration when, during his 8 years in 
office, we lost 500,000 private sector jobs, the worst job performance 
record in modern American history. It is an ideology which, in poll 
after poll, has been rejected by the American people.
  For example, a few days ago a Washington Post poll came out, and 72 
percent of the American people--and this is similar to every other poll 
I have seen--said that if we are going to be effective in dealing with 
deficit reduction, the most preferred way is to ask those people making 
more than $250,000 a year to pay more in taxes--72 percent of the 
American people.
  The Republicans, on the other hand, have fought time and time again 
to say that the wealthy and the largest corporations, some of which 
make billions in profit, pay nothing in taxes. They are not to be asked 
for 1 cent of sacrifice in deficit reduction; just working families, 
just children, just the elderly, just the sick.
  It seems to me in this very late date of this debate we face four 
options, none of which is particularly good.
  The first option is what some of the rightwing extremists have wanted 
all along: Let us default. It is not a problem. So what if millions of 
Social Security recipients don't get their check. So what if veterans 
don't get the check they were promised. So what, if sick people who 
were dependent upon Medicare and Medicaid cannot get the medical help 
they need? No problem, let's default. Clearly, most of us understand 
that scenario would be a disaster for this country, for our economy, 
and, in fact, for the entire global economy.

  The second option we are looking at is a bill that was passed Friday 
in the Republican House, the so-called Boehner bill. This bill would 
require massive cuts right now to a wide variety of programs and, most 
importantly, it would bring this congressional circus back into action 
immediately because within 6 months we would have to go over this 
debate once again. That is an absurd proposal. And included in that 
proposal, because they want huge amounts of cuts 6 months from now, no 
question, massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--that is 
what the Boehner proposal is about.
  The third option is the Reid bill. This bill, while by no means as 
destructive as the Boehner bill, is also bad news for working families. 
Because of the Republican commitment to the wealthiest people in this 
country and the largest corporations, it also would make heavy cuts on 
working families and not one penny of revenue coming from the rich and 
large corporations.
  Let me discuss the one remaining option that seems to me to make at 
least some sense. It is not a great option but the best available. That 
has already been spoken about by my good friend Tom Harkin. It seems to 
me that the least onerous option available to us today is for the 
President of the United States to exercise his authority under the 14th 
amendment to the Constitution to pay the debts incurred by the United 
States. The Constitution is very clear in saying that the debts of the 
United States ``shall not be questioned.''
  The President swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, 
and many constitutional scholars believe the 14th amendment gives the 
President the authority and responsibility to pay our debts regardless 
of the dysfunctionality of the U.S. Congress. I think that is just what 
he should do if he is left with no other way to protect the full faith 
and credit of the United States.
  I believe former President Bill Clinton is absolutely right in saying 
that if he were still in the White House, that is what he would do. 
Clinton said, and I agree with him:

       I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea 
     that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for 
     expenditures it has appropriated is crazy.

  Let me be clear about what exactly this means and why it is so 
important that the President use this amendment now, at this particular 
moment in history. Let's remember that the debt ceiling was raised 18 
times under Ronald Reagan and 7 times under George W. Bush, when the 
national debt increased by some $5 trillion. If we concede to the 
rightwing Republicans and if we make all of these cuts right now 
because they refuse to raise the debt ceiling, this sets a horrendous 
precedent for the future of congressional action. What this would mean 
is that no matter what legislation and appropriations were passed by 
the future Congress, the new Congress could simply say: We refuse to 
pay those bills. This would cause massive uncertainty in the financial 
market, drive interest rates up, and cloud the entire legislative 
process of the U.S. Congress. That is wrong and must not happen.
  I understand there are those who disagree with this option, and I 
respect that. But I think we have an obligation to our senior citizens 
and our veterans to say: Yes, you are going to get the Social Security 
checks and the other benefits you have been promised. We have an 
obligation to our children and to the sick that, yes, you are going to 
get the Medicare and Medicaid benefits you have been promised. 
Incredibly, we have an obligation to the men and women in our Armed 
Forces who are putting their lives on the line. We have an obligation 
to them to make sure they get paid.
  If Republican recalcitrance prevents us from reaching an agreement, 
then the President of the United States must do what is best for our 
people and for the future of this country. He must use his 
constitutional authority under the 14th amendment to pay our debts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Mikulski). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time do I have under the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 13\1/2\ minutes remaining on the 
Democratic side.

                          ____________________