[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12603-12615]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PROCESSING 
                           DELAYS--Continued

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to say that I listened very 
carefully to the remarks of the senior Senator from Maryland about 
where we find ourselves. I want to associate myself with her remarks on 
what a dire situation we are in at this moment. We really stand tonight 
on the edge of an economic calamity. Why is that? America is at the 
brink of being unable to pay our bills, bills we already voted to pay 
way in the past. When you raise the debt ceiling, it is not about 
future spending, it is about meeting your obligations.
  How did we get to this debt? How did we get to this debt? For many 
years, we ran deficits, and they added up.
  But I remember that when Bill Clinton was President--Madam President, 
I know you remember this--we balanced the budget. We didn't have a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution; we balanced the budget 
by sitting down and figuring out what was wasteful spending, what were 
important investments. We had economic growth, 23 million new jobs, and 
all the revenues that came with them. We had surpluses.
  When George W. Bush became President, he said about this surplus: I 
have to give this back to the people. And he

[[Page 12604]]

gave it back to the millionaires and the billionaires. He put two wars 
on the credit card. Poof--there went the surplus. Then he had a 
prescription drug benefit, but he didn't pay for it, and there went the 
surplus. Two wars on the credit card, prescription drug benefit on the 
credit card, and tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires on the 
credit card, and all of a sudden, we started to see the debt rise.
  My Republican friends who have suddenly discovered this debt never 
said a word when George Bush was President and we raised the debt 
ceiling nine times. Did you see the Democrats out here on the floor 
threatening to hold up the whole country? Did you see the Democrats 
saying: We won't give George Bush an increase in the debt ceiling 
unless he does whatever we want. We didn't do that. We should not ever 
do that. That is what is going on here. Republicans, led by the far 
extreme of their party, are holding this country hostage, and they are 
saying that unless they get their way, they will not relent.
  I pray and I hope--and I am talking to my Republican friends in these 
hours--we will be able to come to some agreement. But I will say this: 
We are now facing a filibuster by my Republican friends. They will not 
allow us to vote on the Reid amendment with just a majority vote. They 
are demanding a supermajority. What I find interesting is they did not 
demand a supermajority vote over in the House on the Boehner proposal. 
That was done by a simple majority. Now they say we need a 
supermajority to vote on the Reid proposal.
  Harry Reid has his door wide open; you know that as well as I. He has 
invited Mitch McConnell--all the Republicans: Come on in. I am here. I 
am ready to negotiate. What is it that you need?
  So far, we know there are conversations going on among Members. We do 
not see that leadership coming from Leader McConnell. I hope he is 
rethinking this because the whole world is watching. They see a 
filibuster tonight. They understand which side is trying to resolve it.
  How did we really get here? I explained how we got to the debt. How 
did we get to this moment? The debt ceiling needed to be raised, and 
our Republican friends said to our President: We are not going to give 
you a clean debt ceiling increase. We want to sit down and work on some 
cuts to the budget.
  Guess what. The President said: I don't know, but we will do it. Come 
on in, we will do it.
  Then the President said: You know what. Let's get a really big deal. 
Let's get a $4 trillion deal. Let's get out of this budgetary crisis.
  The President gave and gave, and what was the reward? First Eric 
Cantor stalked out of the talks. He stalked out. ``I don't want to be 
part of this.'' He took his little blanky and went home.
  Then John Boehner--he is in the talks, and he walks out of the talks 
not once but twice. He said: Well, I am done with this. I am going to 
work with the people on Capitol Hill. I am going to go talk to the 
bipartisan leadership here.
  We said: Fine. We will try to work with you.
  But they want everything their way: My way or the highway. If you 
ever looked up what ``compromise'' means, it means everybody gives a 
little.
  We didn't want to attach this to the debt ceiling increase, but we 
said: OK, we will do it. You feel strongly about it. We will do it.
  They said: OK. We don't want any new revenues.
  They don't want to touch millionaires and billionaires. God forbid 
they should pay $5 more a year to help us.
  We said: You know what, we think it is wrong, but if that is what you 
are saying, we will just do cuts.
  That was not happy. Harry Reid did more cuts than the Republicans--
twice as many. That still was not good enough for them. It is always 
more of what they want.
  I raised a family, and I know sometimes it is tough. This is the 
American family. If you have an argument between two kids in your 
family--I had two children. Now I have four grandchildren. They argue, 
and you have to say: Let's listen to each other first. I will give up 
something, and you give up something. Let's meet in the middle.
  Oh, no. Then you think: Wait a minute, why do they think they deserve 
every single thing they want? What are they thinking? Do they run the 
Senate? No. The Democrats do.
  Madam President, you and I just won reelection. You are the longest 
serving woman ever in this Senate. I am so proud to know you. You have 
had some hard races in your life. I had the toughest race in my life 
coming back here, but I came back here. Leader Reid came back here. 
Patty Murray came back here. Michael Bennet came back here. And we run 
the Senate. President Obama is the President. He happens to be a 
Democrat. And in the House, the Republicans won a huge victory--a huge 
victory. The Republicans run the House, the Democrats run the Senate, 
and the President is a Democrat. Let's see, that is three branches, 
two-thirds run by the Democrats. The Republicans want it all. If one of 
my kids did that, if they were arguing with the other one, I would say 
that is not right. I am not even asking for two-thirds. As Senator 
Mikulski said, we have come a long way from where we want to come. 
Where have they come? They have not come toward us. Now the plan the 
Republicans want is to revisit this debt crisis in 3 months, 4 months, 
5 months from now. Imagine roiling the markets.
  I used to be a stockbroker a very long time ago. In those years when 
the President got a cold, the market went down, everyone was worried. 
We never had a crisis like this. Do you know we have raised the debt 
limit 89 times in our history? No political party--no Republican Party, 
no Democratic Party--has ever held the debt ceiling increase hostage to 
their desires, hopes, and dreams.
  What does the other side want? They will be honest--not all of them. 
They want cuts in Social Security, Medicare. They even had a proposal 
over in the House to end Medicare as we know it. We are not going 
there. We will not go there. We will not be revisiting this every 3 or 
4 months. It is a recipe for a downgrade in our bonds. It is a recipe 
for turmoil in the marketplace. It is a recipe for higher mortgage 
rates. It is a recipe for more unemployment. It is a recipe for chaos.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I was on the phone today listening to people call 
in from Ohio, taking calls. I heard so many people very afraid of the 
Boehner legislation and what might come out of a further compromise. 
Senator Reid, as the Senator said, has offered a good many cuts and 
doing this in a way that is bipartisan.
  Is the Senator hearing that in her State there is a real fear that 
the Republicans in the House are insisting on Social Security and 
Medicare cuts and what that would mean to people in her State?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. We are the largest State in the Union with 38 
million people. We have more people on Social Security and Medicare 
than any other State. They know what the stakes are. They are smart. If 
we look at the polls, 70 percent of the people say: Tax millionaires 
and billionaires; they should pay their fair share. Spare Social 
Security, Medicare, education and the things that we need.
  We are here in a manmade crisis. This is unnecessary. This has never 
been done before, and I think the people have to understand that. Never 
ever has this been done before. We raised the debt ceiling 18 times 
when Ronald Reagan was President. I happened to be in the House of 
Representatives. Yes, a few people here and there voted no once in a 
while, but no one ever thought of bringing down that vote. We cannot 
have the greatest country in the world defaulting on our bonds. We 
cannot have us defaulting on our contracts.
  Small businesses are calling me--I say to my friend from Ohio and my 
friend from Maryland and my friend from Alaska--and they are saying 
they cannot get credit now. The banks are

[[Page 12605]]

fearful. They are only getting overnight credit. What are we doing in 
this manmade crisis? We have a long history of working together at 
times such as this.
  Leader Reid's office is open. The door is open. This is the time to 
work together. We have until 1 in the morning when we hope we can get 
an up-or-down vote on Leader Reid's proposal. I know there are talks 
going on. I have been talking to my Republican friends. They want to 
find a way out of this. But you know what. We have to pledge allegiance 
to the flag, not to Grover Norquist. We have to do what is right for 
the country. I pray and I hope that we do.
  I will say this: If we fail, I hope the President will invoke the 
14th amendment. Everyone should read it. It says the debt of the United 
States shall not be questioned. If we cannot get together, the 
President will have to take responsibility. I hope we can and show the 
world that we can still work together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gentlelady from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I follow my friend from California, 
and I agree wholeheartedly with her that the United States of America 
cannot default on its debts and obligations. I would like to think that 
all 100 of us in this body would concur and agree that we must, using 
every tool that we have at our disposal, using all of our relationships 
and what we have built as Members in this body and in the House of 
Representatives, that we use our best efforts to ensure we do not 
default as a nation but that we go further, that we go further and we 
offer the people of this country a solution to the problems that have 
led us to the point that we are today.
  We have heard a great deal over the course of these past few days 
about the Boehner plan and whether it is good, bad, or indifferent, and 
now the Reid plan and whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. We 
assumably know what the Republicans want and what the Democrats want.
  What about what the people of this country want right now? I don't 
know what all of the people of America want, but I can give you some 
ideas about what I am hearing from the people of Alaska and what they 
are concerned about and what they want from the Senate, from the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and from the President of this country. They 
want us to fix it. Odd that it should be so easy. Just fix it. They 
expect us to do just that. They expect us to fix this problem. That is 
why they have entrusted us with their confidence by allowing us the 
privilege to come and represent them in this body to help resolve these 
issues.
  They don't expect that I, as a Republican, am going to resolve it 
with just the Republicans. They expect that we, as Members of the 
Senate, will resolve this--Republicans and Democrats alike. They 
believe we will achieve a compromise built on the good ideas that come 
from the Republicans and the good ideas that come from the Democrats; 
that we will come together to solve the problems that affect the people 
in the great State of Maryland and the people in the great State of 
Alaska, and all the places in between.
  In our effort to fix this, they expect us to compromise. Compromise 
should not be a negative or a nasty term. It should be what we all work 
to achieve jointly.
  I would suggest that the other thing the people are looking for is 
honesty. They are listening to this debate. We have received phone 
calls in my office all day. We have been receiving them all week. I 
think so many of us have picked up the phones ourselves to hear what 
people are saying when they are calling. They are saying: Wait a 
minute. You guys are throwing numbers around. First of all, Speaker 
Boehner puts out a plan, and, well, it doesn't achieve the 1-to-1 ratio 
that he thought, so he pulls it back and so we have another set. Now 
Senator Reid has his proposal on the floor, but people are talking 
about this $1 trillion that is going for the war effort in Afghanistan 
and Iraq that we know is not really real and these are phantom numbers.
  They are saying: Who are we to believe? Why are you not honest with 
us about the proposals that are out there? Does it cut? Would you 
expect that it will cut if, in fact, we are going to be focused on 
entitlements, Social Security? If we are going to be talking about tax 
revenues and how we might deal with tax reform? Can you not be honest 
with us, the American people, your constituents, the people you 
represent? They want a level of honesty in this discourse. We owe that 
to them.
  People are also looking for certainty. There were some of my 
colleagues who spoke earlier in the day, and they were speaking from 
the perspective of small businesses and how--as a small businessman or 
large businessperson for that matter--it is imperative that in order 
for a person to make those business judgment decisions in terms of 
whether they are going to expand, whether they are going to bring on 
additional employees, they need to have a level of certainty in terms 
of what is going to go on.
  What is going to happen with tax policy? What is the future of the 
economy going to be? What is the jobs picture like? It is not like we 
all have a crystal shiny ball out there that we can predict with great 
precision. We don't. What we ought not be doing is injecting greater 
uncertainty, and that is what is happening right now.
  All throughout this summer we have kind of strung people along. We 
all knew that August 2 was coming. We all knew the revenue was coming 
in and the outlays going out were not going to be measuring up, and we 
were going to be dealing with the potential for a default; we were 
going to be dealing with the potential for a downgrade in our credit 
rating. This is no surprise to anybody. That is where our crystal ball 
actually was pretty transparent. Yet we are not able to pull it 
together.
  We managed to take a recess last week even though we were all 
promised we were going to be here working around the clock because we 
had important business to do. I was here with a colleague on Friday 
morning after the vote, looked around and realized I was perhaps the 
last Senator left here in Washington, DC. I got on a plane at 2:30 that 
afternoon to go to Alaska for crying out loud. We should have been here 
last weekend doing this instead of mere hours before we are up against 
our default deadline.
  What does this do to the certainty or uncertainty in the economic 
climate, to the investment climate? I hesitate to be one that would 
suggest that we need to be making market decisions because we can't 
figure out what is going on here. I can tell you because I am hearing 
it in the halls. People are saying: I don't know about you, but I am 
looking at my investment fund or my retirement fund, and I am moving 
things. That is the kind of confidence they have in our ability to 
figure it out.
  We are seeing it translate in the numbers. We saw that at the end of 
the week with the markets. We know tomorrow evening when the Asian 
markets open, everybody in the world from the financial community--this 
is not just the people in Washington, DC--will be looking to see 
whether we, as a Congress, have figured it out and if we have fixed it. 
If we don't, that continued uncertainty just continues this spiral.
  We can do a lot in the Senate. We can do a lot in the Congress. We 
can pass bills and the President can sign them into law. One of the 
things we cannot legislate is we cannot tell the markets to shape up. 
We cannot tell the markets to pull it back in, everything is going to 
be OK. They are picking up on signals, and the signals right now are a 
level of uncertainty that is rattling.
  The other thing that I think the people of this country are hoping 
for, are asking for, is a level of civility and respect within this 
body to our President, to those in the other body. We all come from 
different persuasions. Alaska is different from Maryland. My politics 
are different from your politics, Madam President, but I have great 
respect for you. We can argue and we can disagree, but we don't need to 
poke fingers in one another's eyes to get our point across.
  I think what the people have seen, as we have engaged in this debate, 
is

[[Page 12606]]

something that does not do justice to the integrity of this 
institution. We need to get back to that point where we can engage in 
good debate and disagree heartily and make our arguments without being 
disrespectful of one another and the perspectives we, as individuals 
representing our constituencies and our States, bring to the table.
  The hour is late. We will have a vote at 1 o'clock in the morning. 
How dignified. What body comes together at the darkest hour to cast a 
vote?
  Last evening, my brother and sister-in-law were in town. They were 
passing through very quickly. They were actually able to be here and 
watch for about an hour and a half while we were engaged in the vote on 
the floor. My brother and sister-in-law are pretty educated people. 
They follow the news. They follow the politicians. They were fascinated 
by what was going on in this body and trying to understand what it was 
that was going on. I was trying to convey it to them, and I realized, 
if it is this difficult for me as a Member of this body to explain to 
somebody who is pretty plugged into what is going on, what is happening 
here, imagine the confusion of the person who just occasionally tunes 
in to C-SPAN, who reads the news or watches the evening news but isn't 
following the day-to-day. What we have managed to do is, on a 
bipartisan basis, confuse the American public, anger them, frustrate 
them, and cause them to be fearful about the future of our country. 
That is not leadership.
  We have an opportunity in these next very short days ahead to regain 
some of this. We have some ideas that are out there. As the Senator 
from California has mentioned, and many others have mentioned, there 
are a great number of talks that are going on. There are talks at the 
leadership level. There are talks going on with those of us who are not 
part of leadership. That is important. But we need to recognize it is 
absolutely critical for the future of our country--not the future of 
our political well-being but the future of our country--that we be 
coming together to resolve the issues, not necessarily just to broker a 
deal but to find a solution that puts the interests of our country 
above our own political interests. That is where we need to be.
  I am an optimist. I am a person who has the glass always half full. I 
remain committed to working with all Members of good will who will 
stand together to work through these difficult details. It is not easy, 
but they never promised us it was going to be.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas. Before she begins, I 
would advise her, her side has 16 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President.
  I rise to speak about the August 2 debt ceiling deadline and the 
proposal that will be before us very soon, developed by Majority Leader 
Reid.
  Here we are again debating legislation that demonstrates our 
fundamental differences in how we should run our government. I wish to 
quote from a recent article by Charles Krauthammer that appeared in the 
National Review. I think it says something I have been saying several 
times in the last week, which is that this is more than a debt ceiling 
debate; it is a debate about our views of government that are so 
different between the parties in our country. Here is what Charles 
Krauthammer said:

       We're in the midst of a great four-year national debate on 
     the size and reach of government, the future of the welfare 
     state, indeed, the nature of the social contract between 
     citizen and state. The distinctive visions of the two 
     parties--social-Democratic versus limited-government--have 
     underlain every debate on every issue since Barack Obama's 
     inauguration: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, health-care 
     reform, financial regulation, deficit spending. Everything. 
     The debt ceiling is but the latest focus of this fundamental 
     divide.
       The sausage-making may be unsightly--

  No argument there--

     but the problem is not that Washington is broken--

  As he describes it--

     that ridiculous, ubiquitous cliche. The problem is that these 
     two visions are in competition, and the definitive popular 
     verdict has not yet been rendered.

  He goes on to say:

       We're only at the midpoint. Obama won a great victory in 
     2008 that he took as a mandate to transform America toward 
     European-style social democracy. The subsequent 
     counterrevolution delivered to that project a staggering 
     rebuke in November of 2010.

  I think that puts a perspective on the debates we have been having 
during the last 2 years and the debate we are seeing now in the last 
few weeks.
  I do know that none of us wants our country to go into default. Both 
sides can agree on that. All of us are troubled with the delay in 
resolving this issue. Uncertainty is not good for our economy, but a 
bad agreement is worse because it will have lasting impacts. It is my 
opinion it will also affect our debtors with a message that we are not 
serious about a $14 trillion debt and we are not going to do anything 
that would try to bring it down or bring down the deficits or change 
the entitlement programs that are a major part--more than half--of our 
budget.
  I support Speaker Boehner's bill, and I support the Cut, Cap, and 
Balance Act. Both of these plans, in my opinion, contain the right 
approach to our budget challenges. I believe the Reid plan is the wrong 
approach. The Reid plan contains what they say is a $2.4 trillion debt 
limit increase which, if enacted, would result in the single largest 
increase in the debt ceiling in the history of America.
  In addition to this unprecedented increase, the Reid plan fails to 
address our current fiscal imbalance. It doesn't do anything to address 
the fundamental problems. It lacks any adequate enforcement, and it 
doesn't ensure that long-term spending cuts are carried out. There is 
no guarantee at all. So we raise the debt limit and we don't have 
anything but a promise, and that is not good enough. It is not good 
enough for the elected leaders of our country, and it is certainly not 
good enough for the American public.
  The debt ceiling increase in the Reid plan is not paid for. Many of 
the cuts outlined in his plan are illusory or hopeful. Hope is not a 
strategy. We can hope to do away with waste, fraud, and abuse, but we 
can't promise right now because we don't have it before us. If we had a 
bill that cuts certain amounts from certain agencies because of waste, 
fraud, and abuse, that would be a commitment we could uphold. But what 
we have is a promise that we will look at it. How many times have we 
looked at waste, fraud, and abuse in our government programs? Yes, we 
ought to do it, but we should not make it the basis of lifting a debt 
ceiling that is crushing the economy in our country.
  To label $1 trillion of cuts as savings from leaving Afghanistan and 
Iraq, which Senator Reid's proposal does, is not credible. For one 
thing, we don't know what the future obstacles in Afghanistan and Iraq 
are. We have to retain a certain level of stability on the ground in 
Afghanistan. I have met with Afghan leaders and women just in the last 
couple weeks, and they also agree that if America leaves precipitously 
without knowing what the stability on the ground is--and we certainly 
haven't seen stability lately with the assassinations of mayors and 
leaders, including the half brother of the leader of Afghanistan--that 
is not stability. It doesn't say they are ready yet. So having $1 
trillion of cuts could undermine our national security. I hope we can 
leave with the right circumstances on the ground, but that is the only 
criteria we should use and not cutting a budget that we know is a 
promise and not a commitment we are assured we can keep.
  Most disturbing of all in the Reid plan: The only possible 
justification for a $2.4 trillion increase in borrowing authority is to 
avoid doing this again before the 2012 election. That is not a reason 
to make public policy. Yes, none of us would want to go through this 
again in the next year. It has been painful--painful for all sides--but 
just saying: We are going to do it with promises and hope for the 
future is certainly not a way to address a major policy issue, and it 
is not going to have the credibility with the American people.
  I believe it would be irresponsible to give the President this 
unprecedented

[[Page 12607]]

additional borrowing authority without requiring the enactment of 
significant spending reductions and reforms. To do so would send a 
worse signal to the markets across the world that are shaky right now, 
looking at this debate. But they are also looking at what the result is 
going to be and who is going to win the battle about how we run our 
government. Can we imagine a $16 trillion debt ceiling with no 
commitment to actually make the cuts that would start getting us on the 
right path? That is not enough. That is why we are here at a quarter of 
9 on Saturday night debating this issue, because we are not going to 
give up on our principles of making sure the fiscal responsibility of 
our country will be worthy of a AAA rating, will be worthy of the 
assuredness that if you buy a bond or a Treasury note or invest in the 
United States of America, that it is a golden commitment, that you can 
count on it, that you can take it to the bank. That is what we are 
fighting for right now.
  I hope so much we can come to an agreement because we all agree that 
defaulting on our debt would not be a good signal to the markets, but 
raising the debt ceiling without the assured cuts, without caps on 
future years' spending is unconscionable.
  I hope going forward we would have a balanced budget amendment that 
would go to the States because most States have a balanced budget 
amendment in their constitutions and they have mostly sound fiscal 
policies. If we had to live with those same constraints, I believe we 
would not get into this kind of a situation again. Eventually, I hope 
we will have a balanced budget amendment that we could get a two-thirds 
vote for and send to the States and see if that isn't a worthy 
amendment to our great Constitution. But in the meantime, cut and cap 
is what we can do, and I hope we will.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I feel compelled to come to the floor this 
evening to refute some of the arguments that have been made by some of 
my colleagues, points that are important for the American people to 
understand, points that, if not clarified, could lead to a 
misunderstanding, lead to resentment which is misplaced.
  One of the points I have heard made this evening by one of my 
colleagues is that the debt limit issue has never been held hostage 
quite like it has now. I am not quite sure what was meant by this, but 
I do want to clarify this point.
  If someone had held this hostage before on any of the dozens and 
dozens of times the debt limit has been raised over the course of many 
years, maybe it would have been a good thing. Maybe it would be a good 
thing for us not to be dealing with right now a national debt that has 
almost reached $15 trillion.
  Maybe we should consider the fact that those who are being held 
hostage are those who will one day have to repay this debt, considering 
that some of those people are not yet here because they have yet to be 
born, and in some instances, their parents have yet to meet. We have to 
ask the question whether they are being held hostage themselves--held 
hostage to a government that always demands more money so it can 
exercise more power over us. And as it acquires more power, exercises 
more of that over us--thus restricting our liberty--it demands more 
money. As it acquires more money, it exercises more power, and the 
process perpetuates itself. This is how we get to the point where we 
are almost $15 trillion in debt. This is how we get to the point where 
the American people are being held hostage. So if this process has not 
been held up in the past, then shame on those who could have held it up 
but did not.
  It is incumbent upon us who serve here and now to represent those who 
are sometimes underrepresented to represent those most vulnerable 
members of society who are not yet old enough to vote or not yet born. 
This is a multigenerational problem. It is a multigenerational 
obligation we are taking upon our entire country in connection with 
this debate.
  So if my colleague who made this point just about half an hour ago 
meant that we should never have vigorous, aggressive debate and 
discussion over whether it is a good idea to take on $2.5 trillion in 
new debt in one fell swoop, perhaps we should revisit that assumption; 
perhaps we ought to second-guess ourselves just a little bit more than 
we have in recent decades lest we hold hostage an entire generation.
  Another point that was made by that same colleague is that 
Republicans have put forward plans to challenge, to undermine, to bring 
about immediate cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This simply is 
not true. Quite to the contrary. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act--of 
which I was the lead sponsor in the Senate before it was introduced in 
the House by my friend Jason Chaffetz, where it was later passed--Cut, 
Cap, and Balance Act actually protected Social Security and Medicare. 
It bolstered, it strengthened those programs. So it is utterly false 
and, I believe, disingenuous for anyone to argue that proposal--or any 
other that I am aware of, for that matter--would bring about cuts to 
Social Security and Medicare. This is not the point of this 
legislation. Quite to the contrary. The point of this legislation is to 
protect what we need to do through the U.S. Government.
  Whether you are someone who would describe himself as a conservative 
and perhaps most concerned about national defense or whether you are 
perhaps more liberal and you are most concerned about protecting our 
entitlement programs, you ought to agree with the principles underlying 
the cut, cap, and balance approach, with the fact that we need a 
balanced budget amendment, because if we do not put these measures in 
place now, if we do not agree now that we need to restrict our 
borrowing authority, every one of those programs will be jeopardized as 
we reach the mathematical, the economic borrowing capacity of the U.S. 
Government.
  The more we borrow, the more we run into the risk that those who lend 
us money, those who buy our U.S. Treasurys, will one day be unwilling 
to lend us more money, at least not without additional interest 
payments. We could very quickly go from spending about $250 billion a 
year in interest, as we now are, to spending something much closer to 
$1 trillion a year in interest based on just a few interest rate 
points. As that goes up, our ability to fund everything goes down.
  In closing, it is important to point out that what is being requested 
here is the largest debt limit increase in American history--about $2.5 
trillion. Unprecedented. The idea here is to give the U.S. Congress 
enough borrowing power to take us almost 2 years down the road. Two 
years, by the way, is roughly the amount of time that has elapsed since 
the Democrats in the Senate even introduced a budget.
  One has to ask, why extend the debt limit for such a long period of 
time? The President gave us the answer the other day. He wants to 
insulate himself from the political process. He wants to make it not a 
political issue. Political issues are themselves things the voters are 
concerned about--as well they should be--because voters pay taxes, 
voters are affected by decisions we make. We need to have voters 
connected, not disconnected from this process.
  We need to act now, but we need to act responsibly. The only way to 
do that is to raise the debt limit only after we pass the balanced 
budget amendment.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the alternating blocks of time continue until 9:50 p.m., with the 
majority controlling the time until 9:20 p.m., the Republican side 
controlling the time until 9:50 p.m., and then the majority leader or 
designee be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I rise tonight, as I have for 
many weeks now, to call for a bipartisan solution to our deficits and 
debt,

[[Page 12608]]

for us to bridge--to use a term we utilize in Colorado--the mountainous 
divide in order to avoid defaulting on our obligations.
  Bipartisanship is a familiar theme in my home State of Colorado, and 
I know Coloradans agree with me that is the only way forward. My 
constituents have been flooding my office with calls of frustration 
urging me to keep fighting for a solution to this impending debt limit 
crisis we face. They know the stakes are high, and they know we have to 
compromise to get something done.
  As I have traveled my State over these summer months, I have not 
found one single person in Colorado who has demanded more partisanship 
and more dysfunction. But here we are, seemingly, on a Saturday night 
with just that. My constituents--Coloradans--are searching for answers 
and solutions. Yet all we seem to have here are more questions.
  For the life of me, I just do not understand why, when our economy is 
still fragile, we are so close, it seems, to sentencing it to 
additional turmoil.
  Those who know me know I am not quick to anger or to express 
frustration, but I just cannot help but join Coloradans in looking at 
the situation we are in with disbelief. We have hard-working and well-
intentioned Members from both parties who are willing to do the right 
thing for our country, but partisan bickering is seemingly continuing 
to artificially push our economy closer and closer, literally, to the 
brink.
  It is easy to chalk this up to a broken Washington, to say Congress 
simply is unable to agree, but that ignores the truth. That truth is 
that a small minority of folks is bent on throwing sand in the gears of 
our legislative machinery. We extend a hand in the hopes of reaching an 
agreement, and then over and over this group rejects the idea of 
governing together and instead reaches for another handful of sand. The 
majority of us here do not agree with that. The majority of us in both 
parties do not want to default on our debt obligations.
  It seems to me our country's economic situation is like a patient who 
is just literally coming off life support: We are nursing our economy 
back to health, and the last thing we need is a self-induced heart 
attack. But that will happen in 3 days. In 3 days, our Nation is set to 
default on its debt. That is like an American family who would decide 
not to pay their bills or to quit making mortgage payments. I know it 
is a natural inclination, perhaps, to not want to pay those bills, but 
Americans know there are consequences to default and that it is 
irresponsible to turn a blind eye on bills that come due.
  It is important to note that these are bills we already have 
incurred, that previous Congresses--in fact, this Congress, you could 
argue, has already voted for and therefore has incurred.
  We have been here before. President Reagan raised the debt limit 18 
times in order to enable the Treasury to pay our debts as they came 
due. They were routine. They were often voice votes, and when they were 
recorded votes, they were overwhelmingly in support of raising the debt 
limit so we could meet previous obligations. President George W. Bush 
raised it seven times. There were no conditions put on the raising of 
our debt ceiling.
  Let me take a second and be clear. Raising the debt ceiling is not 
something I want to do and I am sure anybody in the Senate is not all 
that keen to do it, but we do have those obligations.
  A year ago--a year and a half ago, I should say, more accurately--I 
agreed with Republicans and fellow Democrats that we should take 
advantage of a discussion we had at the end of 2009 about raising the 
debt ceiling, and we should take advantage of that by putting in place 
real measures to reduce our debt. I held out my vote at that time to 
raise the debt limit as a way to compel the White House to create a 
fiscal commission to address our long-term deficits and debt.
  I was really pleased when President Obama created such a commission. 
He nominated two great Americans--Al Simpson, who was a Senator in this 
very body, and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles--to 
head up the effort. I think, as we knew at the time--and we know even 
more now--these two men are patriots. They brought people together from 
both parties, and they came up with a $4 trillion plan--it was 
commonsensical--to bring in and rein in our debt problems. We applauded 
their efforts. Coloradans did; Americans all over the country did. They 
brought a commonsense approach, just as we would in our own personal 
finances.
  So when we approached our current debt limit this year and faced the 
possibility of defaulting on our debt, I joined Members of both parties 
in urging us here in the Congress to do two things: first, to address 
our debt limit problem to prevent a first-ever and completely avoidable 
default so America could and would pay its bills and secondly, enact a 
comprehensive and bipartisan $4 trillion plan based on the Simpson-
Bowles deficit reduction recommendations so we would get our fiscal 
house in order, I should say for generations of Americans to come but 
for those of us here today as well.
  Now, if you look back on this, this in some ways was unpopular. Folks 
on the far right and the far left began to sow seeds of division in 
order to prevent compromise. People in our party objected to spending 
cuts and entitlement reforms, while Republican purists, such as Grover 
Norquist, complained about increased revenues.
  That brings us to the events of the last several weeks. Those of us 
who support a commonsense middle ground and who believe our country's 
biggest national security threat is our growing national debt know that 
both sides need to compromise and that we need a long-term, 
comprehensive bipartisan--bipartisan--plan to truly heal the fiscal 
illnesses that have beset us.
  This is obvious just looking at the numbers, but it became even 
clearer when our creditors and U.S. rating agencies began to question 
whether America was a creditworthy nation. Can you imagine that? They 
began to ask: Will America pay its bills? Will we be able to pay our 
bills or will we go the way of an Ireland or a Greece and other 
financially destabilized nations?
  To me, the answer is clear: A broke nation is a weak nation. If 
America is not only going to lead the global economic race but win that 
race, as we know we can, as we have done throughout history, we need to 
implement the Bowles-Simpson recommendations.
  With that knowledge, a smart group of people from both parties began 
working out a way to do so. But there was one huge impediment: 
Hundreds, literally hundreds of Members of Congress signed a pledge 
promising not to touch the Tax Code, putting tax purity ahead of fiscal 
responsibility and deficit reduction. Even though the United States 
brought in a record-low amount of revenue last year, what they insist 
we do would--whether intentionally or unintentionally--balance the 
budget on the backs of the middle class, the elderly, and the 
disenfranchised alone.
  Even though the Bowles-Simpson commission recommended a blending of 
75-percent spending cuts and 25-percent revenue increases, they 
seemingly, this small minority here in the Capitol, cannot embrace any 
plan that includes additional revenue. Even though our Tax Code is 
littered with literally thousands of special interest tax breaks and 
corporate giveaways that do nothing to create jobs, they cannot 
embrace, it seems, tax reform. Even though a bipartisan plan would send 
a message to the markets that America is ready to lead, and that 
Congress is capable of independent thinking and problem solving, they 
have rejected a bipartisan way forward, a way in which we govern 
together. So that plan sits idly. It sits to the side. All sides have 
tried other efforts, but they faced the same problems. Speaker Boehner 
and President Obama sought to strike an alternative grand bargain as a 
way to address our structural deficits and debt to avoid default. That 
looked pretty promising. But it appears to me that when the going got 
tough, the Speaker did not stay at the table. And when it became 
apparent that the corporations and the wealthy would have to bear the 
responsibility for balancing the books, the House

[[Page 12609]]

Speaker walked away. Another chapter unfolded.
  Things looked promising when the Vice President and the House 
majority leader tried to reach an agreement on a deficit reduction 
plan. But then, when it became clear again that revenues had to be a 
part of the picture if we truly wanted to do something big and good for 
our country, they walked away from the table. Tax purity was more 
important than deficit reduction. Knowing that economists, market 
analysts, business leaders, credit rating agencies, world leaders, and 
the American people were imploring us, imploring us, to find an 
agreement to avoid default on our debt obligations, Democrats relented.
  We are now debating what the Republicans said they wanted, a 
spending-cut-only plan. I cannot tell you the depth of my 
disappointment that we could not pursue a truly comprehensive approach 
to reducing our deficits and debt, one that would set the stage to 
continue growing our economy and creating jobs. But in the name of 
compromise, I agreed that something versus nothing is better than 
default and further economic turmoil. But now it appears, on a Saturday 
night, a few hours from midnight, that even that is not enough. After 
putting together a plan that includes 100 percent of the Republican-
endorsed spending cuts to avoid default, we are at an impasse again. We 
have got a plan here on the floor of the Senate that cuts $2.47 
trillion from the Federal budget, without any revenue, not a single tax 
loophole is closed, and yet we still cannot get our House colleagues to 
help us prevent a first-ever default of the Federal Government.
  I have learned to not question the motivations of my colleagues. But 
I have to ask myself what is it they want now in the House of 
Representatives? And they want exactly, it seems to me, what the Bank 
of America, Standard & Poors, JPMorgan Chase, Moody's, and other 
economic experts have warned us we can least afford: that is, constant 
turmoil and dysfunction. They literally--whether they understand this 
or not--want us to walk our economy, America's economy, the biggest 
economy in the world, right up to the cliff edge of default over and 
over again. The markets and business leaders have told us they want to 
increase investment, they want to create more jobs, they want to get 
our economy back on track, but what they need is certainty. But it 
seems as though there are those in the Capitol, in our Congress, who 
have decided it is in their interest--political interest--to create 
uncertainty, exactly the opposite of what our markets and our business 
communities are telling us--the same Members of Congress, the same 
individuals who ironically complained that our President has not done 
enough to create jobs or spur economic growth. Yet we are perilously 
close, and they are perilously close, to cutting off the economic 
growth we need to create jobs. In the interests of being direct, if we 
default, this would be an economic catastrophe of our own making. It is 
not something beyond our control such as a hurricane, an earthquake, a 
tornado, a drought. We can avoid the impending chaos and the job loss 
and the downgrading of our retirement savings that is coming our way. 
If we do not, it will be because some Members of Congress were 
unwilling to take yes for an answer. Some Members of Congress right now 
are unwilling to take yes for an answer.
  But let me begin to close my remarks on a little more optimistic 
note. I want to be very clear. There are Members in both parties who 
are willing to be responsible. I was pleased to hear that Senator 
Alexander, the third ranking Republican in the Senate, say what would 
be best, instead of having a Republican plan competing with a 
Democratic plan, would be to have Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid, and 
Senator McConnell recommend to us a single plan.
  Senator Thune said yesterday: I think if you look at the basic 
framework, it wouldn't be that hard to figure out something we could 
perhaps agree upon.
  I listened to Senator Isakson and Senator Murkowski express similar 
thoughts earlier today. So I think there is a real kernel here of 
optimism and a way forward. But for the life of me, I cannot understand 
why we cannot keep our focus on job creation and the global economic 
race. The rest of the world is not waiting for us. They are on the 
march.
  I am an old mountain climber, in more ways than one, and I can tell 
you, I have learned that there are some similarities between attempting 
some of the world's highest peaks and working here in Washington, DC. 
But the difference, I found, is that when the going gets tough here on 
Capitol Hill, it always seems as though not only do we face the 
challenges the mountain presents, but there is a team of saboteurs who 
are trying to push and pull you off the mountain.
  I have to say that I believe if all of us would turn away and frankly 
ignore the partisan campaign machines that are out there always 
churning, we could get something meaningful done here. The people of 
Colorado, from whom I take my instructions, and to whom I listen, have 
let it be known to me these last few days--and I think the rest of the 
Nation--they do not care who wins politically. Frankly, I do not care 
who wins politically either. What I care about is passing legislation--
meaningful legislation, long-term legislation--that will stave off a 
government default and a downgrade in our Nation's credit rating. 
Neither of those outcomes is not acceptable. At this point, the only 
plan, the only comprehensive plan, the only long-term plan that gets 
that done is the Reid plan. So let's focus on the Reid plan. I urge my 
colleagues to support the vote we are going to have--the historic vote 
we will have later this evening. Let's get it done. Let's get our 
country back on track. Let's win the global economic race.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I would first like to commend and 
thank Senator Reid for his tireless and relentless hard work, and my 
Democratic colleagues, but also some of my Republican colleagues--
Senator Johnny Isakson, for example--who have demonstrated their 
determination to work together to reach an agreement.
  You know I am new to Washington. I haven't been here for long, but I 
understand more than ever why Americans are so frustrated and often 
appalled about what goes on here.
  This situation is outrageous. We have an impending crisis--self-
created--and devastating possible wounds--self-inflicted--and 
Washington is deadlocked. Washington is gridlocked and straightjacketed 
by self-imposed dysfunction, unable to take action to protect its 
citizens from a financial catastrophe.
  Our Nation is at a crossroads, and we need to rein in spending, cut 
the debt and the deficit, and make the tough choices necessary to get 
our fiscal house in order. And we need to do it now.
  The latest economic news provides all the more reason for the tough 
choices and solutions we need now. It shows our economic recovery is 
anemic and fragile.
  Uncertainty is the enemy. It is the enemy for businesses that are 
deciding whether to hire; for banks wanting to loan money to those 
businesses; for larger corporations sitting on mountains of cash 
waiting to invest and create jobs.
  Jobs and our economy are the main reasons to make tough choices now.
  We cannot keep kicking cans down the road: the time has come to act.
  Families in Connecticut and across the country make tough choices 
every day--and they rightfully expect nothing less from us. Tough 
choices are necessary to help us get our debt and deficit under 
control.
  I have heard from hundreds of Connecticut residents in the last few 
days who are frustrated--appalled--at what is going on in Washington, 
DC.
  Like Bernice from Tolland, CT. She can't believe that we don't have 
an agreement yet because she is worried that she won't receive her 
Social Security check next month.
  And Jane from West Hartford. She is wondering why we are protecting 
sweetheart deals instead of ensuring

[[Page 12610]]

Social Security is protected and strengthened.
  And Rod from New Milford. He just wants us to compromise and to get 
something done and end this nightmare.
  I agree with them--and hundreds more--and I thank them for calling or 
writing.
  I agree that the immediate solution is not only to raise the debt 
ceiling but also to cut spending dollar for dollar to match that 
increase, without tax increases, and without any cuts--none--to Social 
Security and Medicare.
  The markets need a real solution--not a short-term fix--to 
demonstrate that we are committed to achieving real results in cutting 
spending.
  Anne from Hamden, CT makes this point powerfully. She just called 
today to say a short-term plan would not provide the certainty the 
markets are desperately seeking. I agree. It risks a credit-rating 
downgrade and ensures that we would be right back here in another 6 
months.
  Credit ratings and downgrades seem abstract, intangible, but they are 
hugely consequential.
  A downgrade in our credit rating would likely cause an automatic tax 
increase in the form of higher interests for every American with a 
mortgage, car loan, student loan or credit card. The American people 
deserve better.
  Coming together to compromise is essential now. Majority Leader Reid 
has proposed a solution that meets all of the criteria that House 
Republicans have demanded for weeks: It does not raise taxes or other 
revenues. It includes enough spending cuts to meet the amount of debt-
ceiling increase, dollar for dollar.
  These spending cuts are the same as our Republican colleagues have 
previously voted for and supported.
  Most importantly, Senator Reid's plan makes tough spending cuts, but 
doesn't balance our budget on the backs of seniors--it protects vital 
programs and does not make cuts in benefits to Medicare or Social 
Security.
  Time and time again, Democrats have shown that we are willing to 
compromise to avert a catastrophic default. Unfortunately, at every 
turn, Republicans in the House--and now in the Senate--have blocked any 
chance for progress, and continue to put us on an increasingly 
dangerous path as the deadline for raising the debt limit approaches.
  And now, Senate Republicans are willing to filibuster our Nation into 
default.
  Today's filibuster of our efforts to prevent a default is 
unprecedented.
  Since March 1962, Congress has raised the debt limit 74 times--18 
times under President Reagan alone.
  During George W. Bush's administration, Congress passed five stand-
alone debt limit increases, without filibuster or delay.
  Until today, debt limit increases were routine, usually passed by a 
simple 51-vote majority, without the procedural hurdles my Republican 
colleagues are using today.
  They need to come to the table and work with us to find a compromise 
that works--for the good of the country and for the good of our 
economic recovery.
  So I hope that my Republican colleagues will join us in ensuring 
stability for our markets and for our fragile economic recovery in 
order to avoid harm for millions of Connecticut families--and keep our 
economy moving in the right direction.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, there are no easy answers to our current 
dilemma. The majority leader's proposal is the best option we have to 
overcome the bipartisan impasse. Failure to increase the debt limit is 
not an option. Working families cannot afford the increased costs 
associated with default, and seniors cannot afford not to have their 
Social Security payments.
  In my time as a mayor, as a State legislator, as a Member of the 
House of Representatives, and now as a Senator, I have learned there 
are times when one needs to stand and fight, and there are other times 
when one needs to reach a compromise. I am not excited about the 
decisions we are being forced to make, but I think the majority leader 
has crafted a proposal that can bring the two parties together and 
avoid economic disaster without destroying Medicare, Social Security, 
and other priorities of working families.
  If you compare that to Speaker Boehner's proposal, that is just more 
of the partisan gamesmanship, and the path we have to take becomes 
clear. So I rise today in favor of the majority leader's plan in the 
hope that reason will prevail on the other side, and that our 
Republican colleagues will finally agree to help govern and not make 
irrational demands that drive us down the road to default.
  Having said that, these debt negotiations have left America longing 
for a better time and a better government, a time when public service 
was, as Robert Kennedy said, a noble profession, when public servants 
served the public's interests, when they came together and found common 
ground and respected the opinions of those on the other side.
  My generation has always viewed public service as a noble profession 
and the fight for what we believe is right as a noble cause. But none 
of us should expect to win every battle. None of us should dismiss the 
valid beliefs of those whose politics we oppose but who have been duly 
elected and sworn in to represent their State or their district.
  The tea party Republicans in the House seem to have forgotten that we 
live in a democracy, and in a democracy people hold different views, 
contrary but equally valid opinions. They approach problems 
differently, from a different perspective, a different background, a 
different political view, and have differing views on the best 
solution.
  The art of governing is bridging those differences. Governing is 
finding common ground. Governing is what Ronald Reagan talked about in 
his autobiography, ``An American Life,'' when he spoke about the 
importance of political compromise. He understood that in a 
representative democracy each of us has a right to our opinion but not 
a right to our own way.
  President Reagan said:

       When I began entering into the give and take of the 
     legislative bargaining--

  This is in Sacramento. This is when he was Governor--

     a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me 
     during the election did not like it.
       Compromise was a dirty word to them, and they wouldn't face 
     the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. 
     They wanted all or nothing, and they wanted it all at once. 
     If you don't get it all, some said don't take anything.

  Sound familiar? It should. It is the view of today's radical tea 
party--the same view Ronald Reagan confronted.
  Reagan went on to say:

       I learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom 
     get everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who 
     said, in 1933, ``I have no expectations of making a hit every 
     time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible 
     batting average.''
       If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were 
     asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, 
     and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never 
     got used to it.

  Ronald Reagan in his own words--a lesson from a conservative hero for 
those modern-day radical conservatives who have watched us walk 90 
yards down the field, but would rather move the goal posts than meet us 
at the 10-yard line. Ronald Reagan would tell them to grow up, step up 
and govern. But they have reiterated the mantra of the radical 
conservatives Reagan faced: ``If you don't get it all, don't take 
anything.''
  Edmund Burke, another conservative icon, once said something today's 
House Republicans today would label as ``weakness'' or ``too liberal.'' 
He said:

       Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing 
     because he could only do a little.


[[Page 12611]]


  House Republicans have chosen to do nothing. Edmund Burke understood 
the art of governing and the art of compromise. Ronald Reagan knew how 
radical conservatives think, how they negotiate, and now we are seeing 
how they stand in the way of governance and governing to maintain the 
purity of their ideology.
  Clearly, Democrats have offered much. We have offered the other side 
an opportunity to govern, and they have rejected it on ideological 
grounds. We have lived up to our duty to govern. They have lived up to 
Ronald Reagan's own view of radical conservative tactics and 
philosophy.
  I say to my friends, it is time to compromise and time to govern.
  I was shocked to witness the audacity of the House Republicans who 
stepped to the microphone this week, one by one, each claiming that, if 
this Nation defaults on its obligations, it will be the President's 
fault. It will be the Democrats who caused us to default.
  Democrats have come a long way and the Republicans know it--they just 
won't accept it, and they can't sell it to the American people because 
the American people know the truth.
  Everyone knows the House tea party Republicans have rejected every 
proposal. They have even rejected the Republican Speaker's original 
proposal. They claim to love democracy and freedom of speech only when 
it is their speech, only when it expresses their ideas and their 
beliefs.
  They claim to love our system of government, but clearly are at war 
with the idea of governing, and with all those on this side who--I 
would respectfully remind them--have also been elected to serve, just 
as they have.
  They claim to embrace constitutional notions of tolerance and 
majority rule, but clearly see such notions as an inconvenient obstacle 
to getting their own way. They have the audacity to blame us for 
offering them what they want, and then to claim we haven't offered 
enough--that we are the problem.
  The fact is, with the plan the majority leader has put forth, 
Democrats are now offering exactly what the Republicans have asked for, 
and yet they still will not take yes for an answer.
  They even claim that they are willing to compromise as long as it is 
within their framework--the framework of their original demands--that 
they will compromise on the kind of a balanced budget amendment we 
pass. They will only compromise on how deep the cuts to entitlements 
are, but they will not compromise on subsidies to big oil companies or 
billionaire tax cuts that wealthy Americans have, themselves, told us 
they don't need.
  In effect their only compromise is getting their own way and calling 
it compromise. Well there is a difference between compromise and total 
capitulation. There must be a common ground that simply doesn't call 
for surrender. There's an Old Scottish proverb that says: ``Better bend 
than break.''
  I say to my colleagues: We have done all the bending. Now it is time 
to govern.
  I say to my colleagues: ``Better bend than break,'' because in this 
case it is our economic integrity that stands to break.
  It is time for the truth.
  It is time we look at the real impact on real people's lives if 
Republicans continue to stand firm--unwilling to bend, unwilling to 
compromise, unwilling to govern--but clearly willing to take America 
down the road to default.
  According to Secretary Geithner, the consequences for the Nation--and 
for millions in my State of New Jersey--would be deep and far-reaching.
  Failure to raise the debt limit--failure to allow Treasury to meet 
the obligations of the United States that we have already incurred--
would be the ultimate tax increase on every American.
  As such, surely it would violate the radical right's pledge to Grover 
Norquist. And, make no mistake, it would be a tax increase.
  The no-compromise-Republican tax-increase would come in the form of 
increased interest rates--driving up the costs for every American 
family: the cost of mortgage payments would increase over $1,000 
annually; equity prices and home values would decline which, in turn, 
would reduce retirement savings and affect the long-term and short-term 
economic security of every American.
  There would be reductions in spending and investments, jobs would be 
lost, businesses would fail, credit card interest would increase by 
about $250 annually, families would be paying $100 more for gas, $182 
for utilities, and $318 more for groceries.
  Based on J.P. Morgan's financial analysis during the debt ceiling and 
government shutdown debate in 1995 and the crisis in 2008, interest 
rates on Treasury bonds could conceivably rise 75 or even 100 basis 
points.
  Between mortgages and credit cards alone, an increase of 75 basis 
points would translate into an additional $10 billion in consumer 
borrowing costs every year at a time when middle class families can ill 
afford any increase at all in expenditures.
  From an international perspective, default would have prolonged and 
disastrous negative consequences on the safe-haven status of Treasuries 
and the dollar's dominant role in the international financial system.
  It would reduce the willingness of investors here and abroad to 
invest in the United States.
  In my State of New Jersey, the impact of default would be immediate 
and all too real. Payments on a broad range of benefits--on other 
obligations--would be either postponed, limited, or discontinued.
  That includes military salaries and retirement benefits for 1,219 
troops currently deployed from New Jersey, both active and reservists 
and almost 500,000 veterans; benefits for almost 1.5 million Social 
Security beneficiaries and 1.3 million Medicare enrollees would be 
interrupted; student loan payments; Medicaid payments to States for 
seniors and the disabled in nursing homes, and payments needed to keep 
government facilities operating and providing the services people need. 
The total for all these expenditures for New Jersey alone is $80 
billion.
  That averages out to be about $26,000 per household in my State, 
putting a significant portion of the Federal Government's investment in 
New Jersey and its people at risk.
  And yet the Republicans in the House and many in this Chamber will 
not bend, will not compromise, refuse to step up and govern. Their 
ideology demands that they protect entitlements for the most entitled 
Americans--big oil, corporate jet owners, and those who hold a majority 
of the wealth in this Nation.
  In my view, in my life, in my work, I have come to understand how 
wrong they are.
  When the 400 richest Americans at the top hold more wealth than the 
150 million Americans at the bottom, we cannot simply put the burden on 
those who can afford it the least and need our help the most.
  Let's be clear. The Republican protection of the entitled class has 
nothing to do with balancing the budget or reducing the deficit, 
nothing to do with values, nothing to do with faith or cultural 
conservatism, nothing to do with community responsibility, and 
everything to do with an extreme antigovernment political agenda that 
is, in fact, anticommunity.
  I believe we can do better for families, better for every American if 
we live and govern by the values we preach.
  During this process, those of us on this side of the aisle have held 
to what the sociologist Max Weber once called the ``ethic of 
responsibility.''
  House Republicans are pursuing what he called the ``ethic of ultimate 
ends.''
  George Packer in a recent New Yorker article said:

       These ethics are tragically opposed, but the true calling 
     of politics requires a union of the two.

  We, on this side, believe in ethical responsibility, in doing what is 
right for the Nation.
  Republicans have shown that they believe in one thing and one thing 
only--achieving their ultimate political end and, in this case, 
achieving that end means standing in the way of

[[Page 12612]]

any compromise--even if it threatens to paralyze this Nation's economy, 
even if it means rejecting the wisdom of their own hero who understood 
the importance of compromise in the art of governance.
  I repeat what Reagan said:

       Compromise was a dirty word to them, and they wouldn't face 
     the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. 
     They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If 
     you don't get it all, some said don't take anything.

  Well, it is time to realize that governing is not about getting it 
all, it's about getting it right for the American people.
  Let America understand that Reagan himself stood against those 
radical conservatives whose rigid adherence to ideology at the expense 
of reason is now taking us down the road to default.
  It is on them, and it is up to them to grow up, step up, and 
compromise.
  As the American people have said in every poll, they want a balanced 
approach. That means a combination of significant spending cuts but 
also revenues. If they accepted that, we could govern.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask to be yielded 10 minutes. I 
understand there is no objection on the Republican side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, whatever one's position is on the best way 
to cut the deficit, we all should be able to agree on this: We must 
raise the debt ceiling. We must pay our bills. Failing to do so is to 
invite economic catastrophe. The American people have had their fill of 
catastrophe and near-catastrophe.
  Recently in Afghanistan, Admiral Mullen, Chairman of our Joint 
Chiefs, was asked by troops if they will be paid next month. His answer 
was:

       I honestly can't answer that question.

  He added:

       I'd like to give you a better answer than that right now; I 
     just honestly don't know.

  It is inconceivable to me that we will leave our troops in limbo by 
driving our country over the cliff of default. Our Nation's economic 
life is in peril. I don't remember ever in the 32 years I have been 
here when the Nation has been more in need of deliberation, 
statesmanship, and compromise.
  New York Times columnist David Brooks, who is a conservative 
columnist, recently wrote that too many Republicans seem to have joined 
a ``movement''--his word--in which ``the members do not accept the 
logic of compromise, no matter what the terms.'' I hope that some of 
our Republican colleagues will prove Mr. Brooks wrong on this matter 
because of its huge significance.
  The time for ignoring hard truths is over. Blind resistance to 
compromise may play well with some, but it is no way to solve hard 
problems or to govern. Drawing lines in the sand and issuing ultimatums 
may make for ringing sound bites, but no press release ever sent a 
child to college or gave a working family hope for a good job.
  If our Republican colleagues cannot bring themselves to support the 
majority leader's proposal or at least to propose modifications to it, 
they can vote ``no.'' But it is unthinkable to filibuster against 
allowing the Senate an opportunity to vote on the Reid measure itself, 
as this clock approaches midnight. It is one thing to vote against the 
Reid measure, it is quite another to deny the Senate by filibustering 
the opportunity to vote on the Reid measure when the issue is of such 
enormous importance.
  Last evening, and again today, the Republican leader said they would 
insist on 60 votes to pass the Reid amendment. That is the definition 
of a filibuster threat. It is the very definition. You must have 60 
votes. That is based on a threat to filibuster. Hopefully, some of our 
Republican colleagues will support Senator Reid's proposal. It has no 
new revenue. Its spending cuts match the size of the debt limit 
increase. Its cuts have been approved by leaders of both parties. But 
if our Republican colleagues don't seek to modify the Reid plan and 
won't vote for the plan, they at least should allow the Senate to vote 
on it and not filibuster. Whether Senators vote for or against the Reid 
legislation, the American people will not forgive a filibuster that 
prevents us from even voting on vital legislation as we rapidly 
approach a cliff. In the critically important matter now before us, 
there is going to be a very strong public reaction against those who, 
with economic calamity looming before us, deny the Senate, through a 
threat of a filibuster and the filibuster itself, an opportunity to 
vote on the Reid motion to concur.
  Compromise does not come easy with an issue such as this, but the 
people of this country did not elect us to do easy things. They elected 
us to seek practical solutions. They elected us to lead. The test of 
leadership in the Senate on the matter before us is allowing us to vote 
not just on cloture, which is what the Republican leader suggests is a 
vote on the Reid motion--it is not--but on the Reid motion itself. The 
test of leadership in this Senate is not to filibuster the Senate so we 
can't vote on the important Reid motion but to allow us to proceed when 
that cloture motion is voted on.
  So I call on Senate Republicans to offer changes to the Reid proposal 
or vote against it, if they will, but not thwart the Senate majority 
from voting to adopt it, should they choose. When the cloture motion is 
voted on, if cloture is not invoked, and the Senate is prevented from 
voting up or down on the Reid proposal, under our rules, debate on the 
Reid proposal will continue.
  I want to read from the petition we are going to vote on so everybody 
understands what we are voting on. We are not voting on the Reid motion 
to concur. We are voting on whether--and these are the words of the 
motion--we will bring to a close the debate on that motion; will we 
bring to a close the debate so we can vote on the Reid motion to concur 
in the House amendment.
  So voting against bringing debate to a close, thereby denying the 
majority the opportunity to act, does not defeat the majority leader's 
motion. It stalls it. It stymies the Senate from acting. If an end is 
not brought to debate when this cloture motion is voted on, the Reid 
motion is still the pending matter.
  If the Republicans, then, are determined to filibuster against it and 
not allow us to vote on it, they, I believe, will see the wrath of this 
country brought down upon them.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to make sure the people listening to the Senator--
because he is such an expert on what goes on around here--understand 
this and make sure I understand it too.
  The Senator is saying that when 1 a.m. this morning comes, we will 
have a vote to determine whether we can stop debating the Reid 
amendment and actually vote on it. But if we don't get the 60 votes to 
do that, what will have happened is they will have stalled us, but the 
Reid amendment is still pending. We can't get a vote on that if the 
Republicans filibuster it and keep talking and talking and don't let us 
get to a vote; is that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from California is exactly correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague because I think it is important for 
the people to understand. I would hope Senator Reid will keep his 
amendment on the floor. It is the last vehicle standing to avert a 
default, and I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from California for reinforcing that 
point.
  I heard one of our colleagues tonight say the Republicans are willing 
to give us a vote on this bill. No, they are not. The Republicans are 
willing to have a cloture vote brought up earlier. They then will vote 
against cloture. But that will do nothing in terms of bringing us 
closer to a vote on the Reid amendment because if they will not end 
debate by voting yes for cloture, if they are going to filibuster--
which, apparently, they are going to do because they are determined to 
filibuster this bill--all that happens, if we don't get the 60 votes 
the first time that cloture

[[Page 12613]]

is voted on, is it will be voted on again and again because they are 
filibustering. The Republicans would then be filibustering against our 
being able to vote on this bill.
  Everyone should be very clear. I hope the public will understand what 
is happening. The Republicans are not willing to give us a vote on the 
Reid motion. They are not willing to do that. We would be happy to have 
a vote on the Reid motion immediately, but they insist that we get a 
supermajority to vote. They want to succeed in a filibuster without 
even filibustering. That is something which is not only not in the 
Senate rules, it is also inconsistent with making progress on resolving 
this problem.
  The American people want us to compromise, and the refusal to 
compromise by a few Members of this body and by a number of Members of 
the other body is what is stymying this resolution. We cannot tolerate 
that. I think what we must do is continue to offer to compromise.
  The majority leader is in his office, as he has been all day, waiting 
to hear from the Republican leader with any suggestions he wishes to 
make and amendments to the majority leader's motion. It has been a long 
wait. It has been a fruitless wait--waiting for the Republican leader 
to suggest modifications.
  It is not enough that the Reid motion already accepts the Republican 
arguments of no revenue and that cuts have to equal the amount of the 
increase in the debt limit. Those are key demands of the Republicans.
  I have a great deal of trouble not including revenues. I think it is 
an outrage there is not shared sacrifice in this bill; that the 
wealthiest among us are still paying the reduced tax rate, for 
instance, that President Bush proposed; that we have loopholes in the 
law which give incentives to businesses to move jobs overseas; that we 
have hedge fund managers actually paying a lower tax rate on their very 
large incomes than their own employees pay on lesser incomes because of 
a loophole in the law.
  The American people want us to close these loopholes. So I have great 
trouble there is no shared sacrifice in the proposal before us, but 
that is the way it is. It only has spending cuts. So the Republicans 
have gotten that--only spending cuts. They have gotten their argument 
also that the amount of any increase in the debt limit be matched by 
spending cuts. It is now time to say yes or to propose an alternative.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think it has become very clear that 
our Democratic colleagues want to raise taxes. They use the phrase 
revenues--revenues--and we need a shared sacrifice. That means people 
need to pay more taxes, as if that doesn't have an impact on the 
economy.
  We have had a recent study by one of the international groups which 
found the United States has the most progressive tax system in the 
world--among the developed nations. This is all the European nations. 
The wealthy pay more in the United States than in those countries, 
according to an independent, international study. We have heard the 
numbers. A substantial percentage of the income taxes are paid by the 
top 10 percent in America. How much more do you do this?
  I thought we had an agreement last December with the President in 
which we agreed that raising taxes at a time of economic danger is not 
the right thing to do. Not doing something to fix this debt limit now 
is not a good thing. We need to raise the debt limit. I don't know what 
would happen if we don't. I don't think it would be good. I think we 
run a risk. But the real danger we have is not the debt limit; the real 
danger we have is the extraordinary surging debt this Nation has, which 
is unlike anything we have ever had before.
  It is systemic. It is part of the structure of the American economy 
right now that we are spending 42 percent more than we take in. We 
cannot keep doing that. The projections for the future are not better. 
So it is a very dangerous trend, and we have to get off of it.
  We had a talk about that in the last election. The American people 
were engaged in that. They weren't happy with their Congress. They 
didn't think Congress was managing their affairs very well. They 
believed they weren't listening to them when they were asking questions 
such as: How can you keep doing this? You are putting our grandchildren 
in the poorhouse. You are risking the economy of the United States. All 
you want to do is spend money, buy votes, and say you are spreading the 
wealth around and that is going to make things better.
  So we had an election, and it was a shellacking for the big spenders. 
Wasn't that what it was all about? Was there a single candidate I know 
of who won last time--at least a new candidate who was elected for the 
first time--who didn't talk about the need to constrain spending in 
Washington? That was the theme throughout the election. That was the 
meaning of the election.
  So now my colleagues are saying: Oh, we can't. Oh, you want to cut 
spending? Oh, they say, they have these extremists in the House. Oh, 
they do not want to play ball. They haven't served in the Congress long 
enough. They do not know better. They think we can actually cut 
spending. Of course, we can't cut spending. Oh, that is not the way you 
do it. No, you just reduce growth a little bit and spending and say you 
are cutting spending, even though it is still going up. That is what 
has been going on here. That is why we are increasing the debt at the 
most extraordinary rate and over a systemic period of time to the 
degree that every economist who has appeared before the Budget 
Committee--and I am the ranking Republican on that committee--has 
testified that we have to stop; that this is unsustainable--
unsustainable. They have said: You cannot keep doing this.
  Do you know, colleagues, that in the last 2 years, when the 
Democratic majority in this Senate had 60 votes, that spending for 
nondefense discretionary spending, not counting the stimulus, just the 
basic budgetary spending on all our accounts--nonwar, nondefense, 
nonSocial Security--went up 24 percent? This at a time when we are 
running the biggest deficits in history; 24 percent increases? We can't 
cut spending?
  There was an article in the Washington Times yesterday or the day 
before where my colleague, Senator Shelby from Alabama, asked the 
Secretary of Education how he could explain that the Secretary of 
Education and the President were proposing the Department of Education 
get a 13\1/2\-percent increase for the next fiscal year, beginning 
October 1--13\1/2\ percent. But he defended that. He said it was 
justified; that it was an investment.
  But when you don't have money, you have to change business. You can't 
continue to be in denial and pretend this is normal; that we can just 
continue to increase the Education Department by 13.5 percent.
  By the way, the Department of Energy, the President, and their 
Secretary of Defense proposes a 9.5-percent increase for the Department 
of Energy, which does more to restrict the production of energy than 
produce the source of energy in America; the Department of State, 10.5 
percent. I am talking about their proposal for next year, beginning 
October 1 of this year, the fiscal year. Sixty percent they propose for 
transportation, and they propose a tax for that but will not say what 
it is. When I asked, they will not say it is a gas tax because that is 
not popular.
  So I asked Secretary LaHood. So it is a not-gas-tax tax. Is that 
right, Mr. Secretary? Well, we will talk with Congress about what that 
tax is. But I can just tell you, Mr. LaHood, Congress is not going to 
pass a big fat tax so you can increase spending on your budget 60 
percent because we don't have that kind of money. We don't need to be 
hammering this fragile economy with another big tax increase. Besides, 
what we need to do first and foremost is rein in this surging spending 
spree we have been on. That is what we need to do. That is just a fact. 
That is what the American people understand.

[[Page 12614]]

  I am offended, frankly, by the suggestion that the people in the 
House, who swept out a lot of the buddies of the big spenders in the 
Senate--a lot of the big spenders in the House are back home 
figuratively pushing up daisies because they were held to account, 
finally, many of them, after many years in the Congress. They were 
voted out of office. So the people who beat them are extremists, you 
see. That is what they like to say: They will not negotiate. They will 
not deal. They are irresponsible. They actually think they can come up 
here and change the trajectory of debt in this country.
  So they passed a budget in the House of Representatives. A brilliant, 
fine, young Congressman, Paul Ryan, chairman of the Budget Committee in 
the House, the Republican majority in the House passed a budget that 
cut spending $5 trillion, and it would change the debt trajectory of 
America. It didn't quite pass, even at 10 years that I would like to 
have seen, but we are in such a hole it is hard to get out, and it 
would have made a big change in the way we are going and put us on the 
right path.
  Senator Reid called it up, mocked it, had his members all vote 
against it.
  So we said: What about your budget, Mr. Reid?
  Well, we don't have one.
  Well, what about your budget? You have the majority in the Senate. 
You can pass a budget with just 50 votes. Why don't you pass a budget?
  It is foolish to pass a budget, he said. Foolish to pass a budget.
  At a time when this country has never, ever, ever been in a more 
serious financial condition than we are today, we are borrowing 42 
cents out of every dollar we spend. That is a deep hole, and it is not 
the war. We spent $150 billion-plus on the war this year. Next year it 
will be $118 billion. The deficit this year will be $1,500 billion. It 
is about 10 percent.
  If we put every bit of the war costs as part of our debt, it is only 
10 percent. It is other spending that is putting us in this hole.
  We do have long-term problems with our entitlement programs. 
Shouldn't we talk about them or should we do as the President did: 
bring Congressman Ryan over to the White House for a speech, sit him 
right down there in front of him and then launch into an attack on what 
he and his Members of the House have tried to do to make America a 
better place.
  So they say: Those new guys and women over there who were elected, 
they are not reasonable enough. They will not work with us. Well, let 
me tell you. They proposed a $6 trillion reduction. Even that didn't 
balance it in 10 years, but it sure was a big step forward.
  Do you know what they have done now. The House passed a bill at the 
insistence of the Senate and the President to try to pass a bill--and 
they passed it--that would raise the debt ceiling and cut spending only 
$1 trillion. Is that an extremist thing to do? They sent it over here, 
much of it very similar to what Senator Reid has proposed, and they 
called it up within minutes and tabled it--without debate, without 
discussion.
  Then they continued to say, as if nothing happened: These are 
extremists over there. They won't listen to reason. These tea party 
people are not good for America.
  Well, I am going to tell you one thing. The tea party people 
understand an important fact. This Congress is spending too much money. 
They are exactly correct in that regard.
  No Member of the United States Congress can, with a clear conscience, 
look their constituents in the eye and say we have managed their money 
wisely. We are in such a shape we can't even see when we will balance 
the budget because we have mismanaged their economy so badly. The only 
idea that anybody seems to have around here is, spend more money and 
stimulate the economy. If we spend more money, where does it come from? 
It is borrowed. We are already in debt, and every new dime we spend is 
borrowed.
  There is only one way to move out of this; that is, to reduce 
spending. It just is. The American people understand that.
  I recently had the honor to be in Estonia near Russia, one of the 
Baltic nations that is so proud to be free and independent. When the 
recession hit, they suffered more than we. They had a 15-percent 
reduction in their economy. Do you know what they did. The Cabinet 
members took a 40-percent pay cut. Every employee in Estonia took a 10- 
to 20-percent pay cut.
  One of the members told me: I will tell you who is really mad is my 
wife. She is a doctor, and the medical system got cut.
  Do you know what. They had 5 percent growth the first quarter, and 
their debt-to-GDP is 7 percent. Our debt-to-GDP is 95 percent. They are 
going to come out of this, and they are not going to have a debt so 
heavy that it pulls down the economy.
  Mr. President, I don't know what the agreement timewise is at this 
point. Can the Chair advise me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I see my colleague from California, and I will yield. I 
would just note that the idea that the Republicans don't want to vote 
is not correct. We are prepared to vote. We are prepared to vote on the 
standard procedural manner in the Senate of 60 votes that is done on 
every significant matter around here, and that is perfectly normal. I 
am rather amazed, surprised, and almost amused that my colleagues would 
feign such great pain and anguish that this would occur. They would do 
exactly the same. That is the way the Senate operates. That is the way 
they have operated when they were in the minority, and that is the way 
we operate today. On matters of significance it takes 60 votes.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak and 
raise some political points. We have been jousting politically, some of 
which is good and some of which is not. I do say we need to reach an 
agreement soon and pass legislation that will raise the debt limit and 
will reduce our spending trajectory so we can get this country on a 
sound path.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, my friend, Senator Sessions, has said 
Republicans are prepared to vote on the Reid proposal. Actually, they 
are not. They want to vote on whether to allow a vote on the Reid 
proposal. That is what a cloture vote is, and they don't want to vote 
on the Reid proposal.
  We have offered that and said that a majority should rule. Just as 
the Boehner proposal passed in the House with a simple majority, we 
want a chance to pass the Reid proposal with a simple majority.
  My friend says that is laughable. Why is it laughable? We went back 
and looked at the Record, and every vote we could find on increasing 
the debt was always done by a simple majority--always.
  So if we want to follow tradition, cut out the filibuster. Let's 
vote, and we will pass the Reid proposal tonight and we can find a way 
to resolve these problems.
  My colleague also said Democrats want to raise taxes. Let me just say 
something. Democrats want to reduce taxes on the middle class. But we 
do believe multinational corporations, people who earn over $1 billion 
a year and $1 million a year should pay their fair share. We do believe 
that.
  Senator Sanders researched and found out that the richest 400 
families in America make more than one-half of America. Can you 
imagine? The richest 400 families make more than half of America. So 
those at the top are doing just fine.
  So let's be clear. We want an up-or-down vote on the Reid amendment. 
We think it is fair. We think it is just. We march toward the 
Republicans. We didn't want to give up on revenues, but we did. We 
wanted a clean debt ceiling, not holding it hostage to any 
machinations. We gave that up. We are willing to talk. We are willing 
to work. Senator Reid's office--I was just in there. The door is wide 
open waiting for Republicans to come in and work with us.
  So we hoped at this point we would have an agreement and we could 
climb

[[Page 12615]]

down off this manmade crisis. There is no crisis. Eighty-nine times we 
have raised the debt; no crisis whatsoever. I think it is important 
that we recognize this is no crisis. We have a challenge to reduce 
deficits and debt. We did it with Bill Clinton, we balanced the budget, 
we created surpluses. We know how to do it. We will work with you and 
do it. But we don't need a manmade crisis to pull this entire economy 
down, to lower the full faith and credit of the United States.
  Imagine holding the full faith and credit of the United States 
hostage until you get every single thing you want. That is not 
compromise. That is absolutely irresponsible.
  Mr. President, I want to thank you for your leadership in pointing 
out what is happening on the Senate floor; that there is a filibuster 
to stop us from voting on the Reid amendment and that we are not going 
to give up. If, in fact, they decide they want to continue to debate 
the Reid amendment and they don't give us 60 votes to go to a vote on 
the Reid amendment, we are going to keep going because the Reid 
amendment is a fair amendment. It was pulled from both sides of the 
aisle. It will get us out of this mess that we are in and get us 
concentrating on the long-term challenges we face: job creation, 
deficits, and debt reduction.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate everyone's 
patience. It is one of the most difficult times we find in the history 
of our country. There are negotiations going on at the White House now 
on a solution that will avert the catastrophic default on the Nation's 
debt. There are many elements to be finalized, and there is still a 
distance to go before any arrangement can be completed, but I believe 
we should give everyone as much room as possible to do their work. I 
have spoken to the White House quite a few times this evening, and they 
have asked me to give everyone as much time as possible to reach an 
agreement if one can be reached. For that reason, we will hold over the 
vote until tomorrow to give them more time to talk. In fact, we will 
come in at noon and have the vote at 1 o'clock.
  I am glad to see this move toward cooperation and compromise. I hope 
it bears fruit. I am confident that a final agreement that will adopt 
the Senate's long-term approach, rather than the short-term bandaid 
proposed by the House of Representatives, will move forward. There can 
be no short-term agreement, and I am optimistic there will be no short-
term arrangement whatsoever.
  I am also confident that reasonable people from both parties should 
be able to reach an agreement, and I believe we should give them time 
to do so.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the 
Reid motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 627, with amendment 
No. 589, occur tomorrow, Sunday, July 31, at 1 p.m.; further, that the 
mandatory quorum call under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________