[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12404-12408]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DEBT CEILING

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

[[Page 12405]]

  Well, go back to the homeowner. If you have just defaulted on your 
mortgage, your credit report is going to look pretty bad. The 
likelihood that you could turn around and borrow money the next month 
is in doubt, and if someone will loan you money at that point, it will 
be at the highest interest rate because you are a risk now; you failed 
to make your mortgage payment. Similarly, if the United States fails to 
extend the debt ceiling, our credit rating will go down from AAA, the 
interest rate charged the U.S. Government will increase, and what has 
been considered the rock-solid, best economy in the world will be 
jeopardized by this action.
  What does it mean for the interest rate on the debt of the United 
States to go up? This calculation has been made by many, and I believe 
it is accurate. For every 1 percent increase in the interest rate the 
United States pays on its debt, we will add $130 billion a year to our 
debt--$1.3 trillion, roughly, over a 10-year period of time. So the 
failure to extend the debt ceiling, the default of the United States, 
and higher interest rates will make our debt worse. That is why what we 
are facing this week in Washington is so terrible, because what we are 
dealing with here is a politically manufactured crisis. We are dealing 
with a self-inflicted wound.
  Because the House Republicans under Speaker Boehner refuse to extend 
the President's request for the debt ceiling when our current authority 
expires August 2, we could find ourselves paying higher interest rates 
and even deeper in debt. And it gets worse because when the interest 
rates paid by the U.S. Government go up, interest rates across our 
economy go up. What it means is that a lot of innocent people who are 
borrowing money to buy a car or a home or to pay for college loans or 
to pay off their credit card are going to pay more. It is like imposing 
a tax on every family and business in America at the worst possible 
time. We are recovering from a recession. Too many people are out of 
work. Businesses need to expand and borrow money. Raising interest 
rates stops that. This doesn't have to happen. This self-inflicted 
wound by the House Republicans and Speaker Boehner does not have to 
happen.
  In fairness to Speaker Boehner, his goal is to reduce America's debt. 
I accept that challenge. In fact, for the last year and a half, I have 
engaged personally on a bipartisan basis to meet that challenge, first 
as a member of President Obama's deficit commission, the Bowles-Simpson 
fiscal commission. We sat for months and listened to testimony, and 
finally 11 out of 18 of us voted for the report issued. What it came up 
with was a 10-year plan to reduce our debt by $4 trillion--not easy. It 
sounds as though it would be easy when you look at all the money we 
spend, but when you get into the specifics, it is politically painful. 
But what we agreed to do was to put everything on the table. And I want 
to tell you, I did that with some reservation.
  I am concerned about many things in our country but two things in 
particular. I am concerned about the most vulnerable people in America, 
those who are aged, poor, and sick. I want to make certain that at the 
end of the day, America still has a safety net, that this good and 
caring Nation is doing everything it can to help these people.
  What programs do they rely on? Well, they rely on the earned-income 
tax credit under our Tax Code, the childcare tax credit, Medicaid, the 
health insurance that covers one-third of the children in America and 
many elderly people in nursing homes. So when we talk about cuts in 
these programs, I was very sensitive to them and determined to make 
sure we didn't cut any more than necessary to reach our goal.
  We also put revenue on the table. We have to do that. How can we ask 
working families in America to pay more on their children's college 
student loans and be prepared to sacrifice and how can we ask the 
seniors in America to be willing to sacrifice when it comes to their 
Medicare Program and not turn to the wealthiest people in our country 
and ask them to join in this sacrifice? That has become the major 
stumbling block in this negotiation. You see, Republican Speaker 
Boehner has said: I will not accept any--underline the word ``any''--
tax increases on the wealthiest people in America. I will agree, he 
said, to cut everything else, every other benefit for every other 
person, but not one penny more in taxes from the wealthiest people in 
America. That doesn't strike me as fair or just or reasonable, but that 
is where we are.
  We also put spending cuts in this program, substantial spending cuts 
so that every single program in America would be closely inspected, 
reduced in spending, and move us toward a deficit-reduction goal.
  Then I went a step further. I joined with five of my colleagues--
three Republicans and three of us on the Democratic side--and we sat 
down for 6 months and worked on something called the Gang of 6 and came 
up with a specific plan of how to do this.
  Well, Mr. President, you know we had a meeting a couple weeks ago, 
and we invited most of the Members of the Senate to come and listen to 
what we had proposed. Forty-nine Senators showed up, Democrats and 
Republicans, in a room not far from here and listened as we laid out 
what we considered a bipartisan plan to deal with the deficit. We then 
went back to those Senators and said: How many of you will put your 
name on the line to join us in a bipartisan effort to reduce the 
deficit? And we are now up to 36 Senators who have done that. Over one-
third of the Senators have signed on to a bipartisan effort to reduce 
the deficit.
  What a sharp contrast that is from what is going on in the House of 
Representatives, where right now the Speaker of the House, the 
Republican Speaker, is negotiating only with Republican Members to pass 
a plan. I don't think that is what the American people sent us here to 
do. I don't think they said to Democrats, come to Washington but don't 
speak to Republicans, or to Republicans, come to Washington but don't 
speak to Democrats. The bottom line is that, Democrats and Republicans 
notwithstanding, we are all Americans, and we all have a 
responsibility.
  So here we are today at this impasse, and Speaker Boehner announced 
Monday night, when he had a press conference at the same time as the 
President's announcement to the Nation, that he had a plan--he called 
it a bipartisan plan--that he would pass in the House of 
Representatives. We expected that to happen Tuesday, and it didn't; and 
then Wednesday, and it didn't; and then yesterday, and he failed to 
pass it then, too. We waited all night until 11:00--when we finally 
adjourned--for the Speaker to pass what he considered to be a good plan 
and for us to react to it. Now we hear the Speaker may be able to get 
to it later in the afternoon or in the early evening hours. Mr. 
President, this is unacceptable.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, that is unacceptable. By my calculation, 
we have 4 days before we default on our debt, 4 days before the 
American economy suffers this mortal blow, 4 days before we default on 
America's full faith and credit for the first time in our history, 4 
days while businesses across America are withholding agreements and 
negotiations that create jobs, 4 days where America people have to 
worry that if we default on our debt, the government will have to pick 
and choose those who will receive government checks in August.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania came to the floor for the last 2 days 
and said: Oh, if we default on the debt, we can manage that. Really? If 
we default on the debt, we will have $172 billion to spend and $306 
billion in obligations.
  He said: Well, of course we have to pay interest on the other debts. 
We don't want to default on everything. OK.
  He said: Of course we have to pay everybody under Social Security. 
Yes.
  He said: Of course we have to pay our soldiers who are in combat. 
Agreed. All good ideas.

[[Page 12406]]

  Then he said: And then we will work the others out.
  Whom did he leave off the list? He left every Federal employee off 
the list. That would be all of the people working at the Central 
Intelligence Agency monitoring terrorists to stop them from attacking 
the United States. That would be the air traffic controllers in our 
airline system across America. That would be the Federal prison guards 
working the Federal correctional facilities. That would be all of our 
veterans receiving disability checks.
  Easily managed? Not so fast. It wouldn't be easily managed. There 
would be losers in that process, and many of them are innocent people 
who would be lost to the frustration of this political process.
  There is a way through this, but the only way through it is if 
Members of both parties come together and do it quickly. I don't think 
it is going to happen in the House. The House has decided they are 
going to do an all-Republican, all-day approach. That isn't going to 
solve the problem in the House or the problem on Capitol Hill.
  This morning, the majority leader, Harry Reid, standing at this desk, 
turned to Senator McConnell from Kentucky, the Republican leader, and 
said: Now it is our turn. Now we have to step up. Now we have to come 
up with a bipartisan approach and show leadership. Senator Reid is 
right. Senator McConnell has demonstrated in the past that he has been 
willing to do that and now more than ever he should. I think the 36 
Senators who have stepped up, joined me and others in saying we can 
find a bipartisan way to deal with this must be heard. Our voices must 
be heard but, more importantly, the spirit of compromise must be heard. 
That is what the American people expect of us. They didn't send each of 
us here to win every battle under our own terms and not give. They sent 
us here to govern and to respect this great country.
  I would sincerely hope we will approach the next 72 hours with the 
spirit of humility--humility to understand that so many innocent people 
across America, families and businesses, are waiting on us and counting 
on us. We cannot fail them. No one will care at the end of the day who 
has the great political headline, but we will all be judged--Democrats 
and Republicans, House and Senate--as to whether we met our 
constitutional obligation to this Nation and the people who live here.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the challenges we face are difficult. I 
am proud of the work the House of Representatives has done. I do not 
appreciate it being suggested that somehow they are unreasonable 
because I don't believe that is fair to say about them. They worked 
very hard. They complied with the congressionally mandated statutory 
requirement to pass a budget. They passed a 10-year budget that was 
honest and open. It was publicly debated in the House of 
Representatives. They passed it, and it would have fundamentally 
altered the debt trajectory of America. It would put us on a sound 
path. It could have gone a little farther, frankly, but it goes farther 
than anything else we have seen and puts us on the path to a sound 
economic future.
  What happened in the Senate? I am ranking Republican on the Senate 
Budget Committee. We are required to mark up a budget in the Senate by 
law. It doesn't say you go to jail if you don't follow the law. It 
doesn't have any penalty, I will acknowledge. It is a law, but we don't 
have to follow it, except we certainly have an obligation to do so. 
Certainly we would want, I think, to have a budget in the Senate. We 
have not had one now for over 800 days, over 2 years. We were within a 
week--less than that--of commencing hearings to mark up a budget that 
would be moved by the Democratic majority. When they do so, it is not 
even subject to a filibuster. It can be passed with 50 votes, and there 
are 53 Democrats in the Senate. The majority party always has that 
obligation to move a budget. Senator Reid, the Democratic leadership, 
decided they wouldn't do it. He said it would be foolish to have a 
budget so we haven't passed a budget.
  The House has said it would reduce spending by up to $5 trillion or 
$6 trillion. Because of the Senate's objection and the President's 
objection, they have agreed to raise the debt limit by $1 trillion, and 
they have agreed to cut spending in America by $1 trillion. They have 
tried to reach an agreement so we wouldn't have a shutdown. Then, all 
of a sudden, my Democratic colleagues now come forward and say they 
don't want to accept that. They want the Reid amendment.
  The Reid amendment has the same actual savings. We have looked at the 
numbers and we have seen how they have done it. There is about a $1 
trillion savings in the Reid bill with a reduction in spending of about 
$1 trillion. He claims it is $2.7 trillion. That is almost three times 
what it actually achieves. Therefore, they want to continue to raise 
the debt limit by almost $3 trillion, the largest amount it has ever 
been raised. Why? Because the President said so. This is what the 
President said a week ago:

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

  The President thinks this is about him. It is all about him. This is 
about America and what is good for this country. It is not about the 
President. It is not about politics. If it were about politics, I 
wouldn't vote for the Boehner amendment and neither would a lot of 
those patriotic Members of the House because it is not enough. It does 
not do what we need to do. We need to do $4 trillion, $5 trillion, $6 
trillion over 10 years. The debt is going to increase over the next 10 
years from $9 trillion to $13 trillion, and $1 trillion is not enough. 
It can only be seen as a step in the right direction. So forgive me if 
I am a little frustrated about that.
  I want to talk about something that is problematic and needs to be 
known. It is not being focused on, and this is Senator Reid's amendment 
and his solution to the deficit problem. He wants to raise the debt 
ceiling so we can keep borrowing money and spending more than we take 
in. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. The President 
this morning said he liked the Reid amendment and is what he wishes to 
see. He doesn't like the House version. I think there are some things 
we all ought to think about and know that are in the Reid amendment.
  As I have said, we have gone 821 days without a budget. The law 
requires us to have a budget. A lack of a congressional budget 
contributes to our fiscal nightmare. Since we last passed a budget, we 
have spent $7 trillion. The reason we don't have a budget is because it 
is carefully and deliberately orchestrated that we not have one by the 
leadership of this Senate. They have planned for just the eventuality 
that is occurring. I have warned for weeks and months on the floor of 
the Senate that we would be at the eleventh hour with people scurrying 
around in secret, plotting deals to try to figure out how to deal with 
the crisis this Nation faces. That is exactly what is happening.
  Today it was announced that the second quarter economic growth was 
1.3 percent. That is anemic and well below what we were hoping to see 
and thought we might. We have had expert testimony that the debt we 
have pulls down economic growth. Had the Senate adopted a budget in a 
timely manner this year, as the House did, we would not be at this 
last-minute crisis. It was deliberately orchestrated because it gives 
maximum leverage to the President and the press. The question becomes 
not what is in the deal, but do you have a deal? Just do anything. We 
are going to be in a crisis if you don't pass something. We want a 
deal. The House has come up with a very reasonable compromise. It looks 
as though some people want to have this fuss and put us through the 
crisis even when they get basically what they have asked for.
  The Reid amendment to increase the debt limit deems two consecutive 
budget resolutions for fiscal years 2012 and

[[Page 12407]]

2013. In other words, it basically takes over the budget process and 
sets the basic spending numbers. Does the President think the Senate 
should go 2 more years without crafting or passing a budget? We have 
already gone 2 years. The Reid amendment sets spending allocations for 
most Senate committees at the Congressional Budget Office's rising 
baseline. These are bureaucratic members. They work hard, but they are 
not elected. They are not constitutionally accountable. It says we are 
going to deem the amount we spend by what CBO has projected our growth 
in spending to be, and CBO projects growth in spending. They don't set 
that as right for America, but they project that is what will occur 
under the current circumstances. This deems those higher growing 
numbers as what should be.
  Without hearings or debates on these allocations, this provision 
would provide a further excuse for avoiding a budget and increase the 
likelihood that the Congressional Budget Act will be violated for the 
third straight year. This is an abrogation of the responsibilities of 
the Senate and of the Budget Committee of the Senate. We are not 
elected to the Senate and chosen to sit on the Budget Committee to see 
most of the budget levels automatically raised based on a set of 
spending growth projections by the CBO. They are not empowered to do 
that. They don't claim to, actually. I should not demean them. They do 
what their duty is. It is this kind of process that has placed the 
country in a financial crisis.
  We keep locking in spending levels that are going up. When we reduce 
the growth in spending a little bit, you know what we say we are doing? 
We are cutting spending, and it is spending more. That is the way the 
budget is. When they say we are going to save $1 trillion through the 
House plan----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask for 2 additional minutes to wrap up.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The provision that takes over that and sets us on an 
automatic growth course is not the right one. Both the Reid amendment 
and the House bill say we save about $1 trillion over the next 10 
years. I would note that the difference between the two is how long or 
how much is achieved by that. Senator Reid wants almost 2 years and the 
House Members would do it based on a dollar-per-dollar manner. That $1 
trillion in the Reid amendment does not reduce spending. It only 
reduces the growth in spending, and that is one of the reasons Congress 
is able to hide the amount of money we are spending every year. That is 
one reason debt is so high.
  The Budget Committee should be allowed to fulfill its duties. The 
Budget Committee should be allowed to mark up in fiscal year 2012. It 
will begin October 1 of this year. We need a budget now. We are past 
due. Once a budget is adopted by the committee, it should be taken to 
the full Senate and allowed to be amended as the law provides. I am 
disappointed that the President doesn't seem to agree with that. He 
seems to have bought into the idea that the regular processes of the 
Senate should not be followed. He agrees with Senator Reid, apparently, 
that if they can keep it all bottled up to an end and we come up on a 
crisis, they can all maneuver in secret and cut a deal. They feel that 
is the way we serve the American people.
  I feel strongly that we are undermining the great power and 
responsibility of the Senate as that place where the great issues are 
discussed publicly and openly and where we are accountable and cast 
votes. Let me say again, the reason the majority leader did not want a 
budget to come up is because when you bring a budget up, you have to 
vote, people have alternatives, they offer amendments, and the Members 
go on record. He is protecting his Members from having to do the 
primary responsibility of Senators who are before the world to cast 
their vote and to be accountable to the people who sent them there.
  It is not good for this body. This body should be engaged in a 
historic debate about the threat the debt poses to our future, and we 
have been unengaged. The discussions are being taken in secret without 
the American people being able to hold their representatives 
accountable. I object.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I try to listen very carefully to 
folks at home. I would not quarrel with my friend from Alabama in 
saying that it is very clear to me--and it has been clear to me for a 
long time--that Missourians are very worried about spending in the 
Federal Government. In fact, my friend from Alabama and I started work 
on this before, if one can say--we were trying to cut spending before 
cutting spending was cool. He and I were working this floor for votes 
to try to do something about spending long before last November's 
election.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for recalling that event. I know 
the Senator continued working across the aisle on another proposal that 
has the potential to be more effective than even the one we worked on 
together last year. So I thank the Senator for being willing to work in 
a way that could be effective to do better.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alabama. There 
is nothing wrong with walking across the aisle and finding common 
ground. Frankly, it is what I thought would be common when I came to 
the Senate. It is kind of what I learned in the history books; that it 
would be common.
  I have been watching what is developing, knowing my folks at home 
want us to cut spending. I certainly have been part of wanting to cut 
spending. I have watched this debt ceiling approach. It is like 
watching a movie and watching a car driving along, and you are in a 
camera above it and you see what is ahead, and you see this cliff and 
you see this car driving toward this cliff, and you are thinking, as 
you start tensing--Oh, surely, you are not going to go over the cliff.
  Well, they have an opportunity to avoid going over the cliff. They 
are not going to go over the cliff. We are not going to see these 
people die. They are not going to drive over that cliff. They are not 
going to knowingly drive over a cliff. I have been thinking for the 
last several weeks: There is no way people who are elected--because 
they love their country--are going to let the car go over the cliff. I 
have to tell my colleagues, I am worried.
  What do we have to do to keep from going over the cliff? Make no 
mistake about it. It is a cliff. It is a historic moment for our 
country. Never before in the history of our country have the world 
markets been worried about whether the United States of America will 
pay its bills. Never has that happened before in our history. So what 
does it take?
  Well, it is not complicated what it takes. It takes one basic 
ingredient: compromise. To keep from going over the cliff, all we have 
to do is compromise.
  I will tell my colleagues, reading my mail and listening to phone 
calls that have come in on the answering machine--and I am going to 
take phone calls myself over the weekend--what Missourians are now 
saying: Please don't go over the cliff. Please compromise. I am 
confident that is what most Missourians want.
  Compromises have already occurred--big compromises. Most of us on 
this side of the aisle believe the way we get at our long-term debt 
structure is a responsible approach that includes some revenues. I 
advocate cleaning out the goodies in the Tax Code so we can lower tax 
rates. I don't understand how we can vote to gut the Medicare Program 
and at the same time vote to continue writing checks to Big Oil. I 
cannot conceive how a Member votes that way. I cannot imagine I would 
vote to keep writing a taxpayer check to the most wealthy and 
profitable corporations in the history of the world at the same time I 
was voting to put Medicare on a voucher program. That would be saying 
to seniors, if they are 83 and they have three chronic illnesses, and

[[Page 12408]]

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

                          ____________________