and most people believe a filibuster means you're trying to delay something. and i want to make clear to the american people, senate republicans are ready to vote on the reid, cloture on the reid proposal in 30 minutes, in an hour, as soon as we can get our colleagues over to the floor we're ready to vote. but requiring 60 votes, particularly on a matter of this enormous importance, is not at all unusual. it's the way the senate operates. so, mr. president, i will not belabor it any further. we would be happy to vote at any time the majority leader thinks it would be appropriate to vote on his proposal. i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president, a filibuster is known all over america as a way to stall to prevent votes. that's all this is about. if my republican colleagues are

so anxious to vote, let us have a vote. we would move this matter down the field very quickly. and finally, i would say the matter that is now known as the reid amendment, is that the president's first choice? no. he wanted to do what he called the grand deal, and he thought he had that worked out with the speaker. but the president knows what i have put forward is good for the country. it extends the debt ceiling, it reduces the debt. so i say to my friend, the republican leader, the president will sign my legislation. my friend says that he wants something the president would sign. he will sign this. he'll sign it. we could pass it tonight, get it through the house, he would sign it tomorrow. so, mr. president, i would hope the world understands, our country understands because all senators understand there is another filibuster being conducted on an effort to prevent our moving forward to handle the debt situation we have in our country. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to refer the house message to accompany s. 627 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 627, an act to establish the commission on freedom of information act processing delays, with an amendment. the presiding officer: and under the previous order, the time from 1:30 until 7:30 shall be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees in alternating 30-minute blocks, with the majority controlling the first block of time. the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, those who are following this debate -- and i think many across america are -- should understand what just happened. there was a discussion about the filibuster. the filibuster is a senate rule that does two things. it says that you can't move an

item to a vote, and you have to wait a period of time to have what's called a cloture vote, and in order to pass a cloture vote, you need 60 votes, not a majority. so i would just correct, if i can, the record. a filibuster does more than delay the vote. it establishes a higher vote requirement. 60 votes, not a majority. yesterday, the speaker of the house brought before his body of 435 members the proposal to end this deadlock. he received 218 votes, one more than half of the membership. he had a majority vote, not one more, but a majority vote. we are asking for the same opportunity. let us bring our proposal forward for a majority vote. the republicans have refused. they have put us in a filibuster. they have said no, we will require 60 votes and we will delay the vote until possibly 1:00 a.m. sunday morning. that's where we are.

let me say a word about the underlying issue. this morning, mr. president, like many members of the senate, i wanted to get away from this place and spend a few minutes reflecting on something other than the give and take of the political debate. i got up early and walked over to eastern market, bought a cup of coffee and sat on a bench for about three hours, just watching people walk by to try to clear my mind. while sitting there, i got an email from a buddy of mine from high school. that goes back a few years. his name is ed renalet and he lives in florida. i'd like to read into the record what my buddy from high school wrote to me this morning. he said, "i sent this email to our republican senator in florida, too. i have rode out the storms of many high seas in the last 20 or so years. this one has me worried. let's get the ship on the right course and get this fixed." he goes on to say -- "you all need to get past being democrats and republicans. many mistakes have been made

over the past years. compromise and get this squared away." i"i am in the later years of my life, and i will be damned if i want to see it go down the drain because you all can't agree on the debt issue. i am neither a democrat, republican nor tea party person. i'm an american and i believe that you both have my best interests at heart." eddie renalet from florida. i would just say that under these circumstances, he expresses the views of many people across america. this is not a crisis which we couldn't control. this isn't an earthquake or a tornado or a hurricane. it isn't a war. it is a created political crisis. the extension of the debt ceiling has been done routinely 89 times since 1939, 55 times by republican presidents, 34 times by democratic presidents, and president ronald reagan holds theyears without a confrontatio,

without the american economy threatening a collapse. this is a manufactured political crisis, and it's time for both parties to rise up and come up with a solution. what the majority leader has put on the table, half of it was a proposal by senator mcconnell, the republican leader. some people didn't like it. majority leader reid said it will be bipartisan, i am putting mcconnell's proposal on the table. i'm going to put a proposal on the table as well from our side. make it bipartisan and move it forward. now 43 republican senators have said they are not voting for it. so we are at a standoff. a word about the president's role in this. president obama -- and i know this because i attended the meetings as a member of the leadership here. president obama spent more time on this issue than any president i can recall. he met at least six or seven times for two and three hours at a time with the leadership of

the house and senate, democrats and republicans, and tried to work out differences. he proposed the creation under vice president biden's leadership of a group that would negotiate. it sat and met for months, and then finally the republican leader in the house, eric cantor, walked out, and he made quite a noise as he left the room, said i don't want to be part of this anymore. and then the president started dealing with speaker boehner directly to try to get something worked out, and twice speaker boehner walked away from that. so the president, to fault him in this process, is not fair. he has engaged all the leaders time and time again. last saturday as senator mcconnell said, he said we no longer need the president in this picture. we're going to do it ourselves. well, we spent a week at it and we have not achieved that. i'm sure the president is ready and willing to do everything in his power to get this back on track. mr. president, what is at stake in this debate is the fate of the american economy at a point when we are recovering from a

recession with millions of americans out of work. those who are showing great bravado and great political speeches here are calling bluffs with other people's chips. what's going to happen at the end of the day here, regardless of what the politicians say back and forth, is that ordinary people are going to be affected. their lives, their businesses, their savings are going to be affected by what we decide to do in the next few days. i think what we need to do is clear, and senator reid's proposal addresses it. number one, reduce spending. let's get this deficit under control. speaker -- senator reid's proposal does just that. $2.4 trillion in spending reductions, all of which have been voted for by republicans already. so there's no controversy there. it's bipartisan. secondly, we cannot lurch into another round of this debate every few months. the president is right and this bill reflects it, that we need to move this debate until after

next year so that our economy is strong again and the next debt ceiling vote will be in 2013. let's not face this again and again. america doesn't want to see this movie over and over. i would also say the provision in senator reid's bill proposed by senator mcconnell that would, in fact, say that the president has to personally ask to extend the debt ceiling is a responsibility the president will accept, and he should accept. i think what senator reid has offered is a balanced approach, a bipartisan approach, and it should be the basis for compromise, but i certainly hope one thing comes out of this exchange on the floor this morning. i hope that senator mcconnell will finally agree to sit down with senator reid on a bipartisan basis, work with the house leaders and the president and get this done. the american people are running out of patience if they haven't already run out of it, and we're running out of excuses. we have a limited amount of time left here to avert a crisis that

will affect a lot of innocent people across america. it is time for us to roll up our sleeves and on a bipartisan basis get this job done. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: would the senator yield for a question? mr. durbin: i would be happy to yield for a question. mr. levin: the republican leader said a few moments ago that it happens around here from time to time that 60 votes are required. is it not true that the reason from time to time 60 votes are required is because there is a threat of a filibuster unless the opponents succeed in getting an agreement that there be 60 votes? it's the short way to find out whether or not debate will be ended. is it not true, though, that it's the threat of a filibuster that the opponents make which produces an agreement to get 60 votes? mr. durbin: the senator from michigan has been here longer than i have, he knows this better than i do, but he's right. this threat of a filibuster has raised the vote requirement from a majority to 60, and that is the issue that was being discussed on the floor.

mr. levin: is it not true, may i ask my friend, that whether or not the threat is carried out or not, we will know tonight at 1:00, because at 1:00, is it not true, tomorrow morning, we will vote not on the reid measure but on a petition which 18 senators signed which reads as follows -- "that we, the undersigned senators in accordance with rule 22 hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the reid motion." is that not true? mr. durbin: that's what the vote will be at 1:00 in the morning. mr. levin: so what we will be voting on is not as the republican leader characterized it, which he says he's willing to vote on right away. it's not a vote on the reid motion, but a vote on whether we will end debate on the reid motion. and is it not further true that people who vote tonight know are

voting to filibuster the reid motion. mr. durbin: the senator from michigan is correct. and those who say they want to bring this to a vote will have an opportunity to join us in doing so by producing at least 60 votes when we vote at 1:00 in the morning. mr. levin: and finally would the senator from illinois agree that if tonight republicans refuse to bring this debate to a halt and to allow a vote on the reid motion, would you not agree that there will be a strong negative public reaction to a filibuster on a measure in the face of an economic calamity which would avoid that calamity? mr. durbin: i would agree with the senator from michigan, time is of the essence. any delay at this point jeopardizes any possibility of a compromise to avert this economic crisis. mr. levin: i thank my friend. mr. durbin: i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i would just add to what senator reid and senator durbin and senator levin have said. the 60 votes is a filibuster, is to block this. now, we speak of how long people have been here. i came here, president ford was president. i served with president ford, president carter, president reagan, president george h.w. bush, president william jefferson clinton, president george w. bush and now president obama. at no time with any of those presidents prior to president obama was there ever a request for a 60-vote -- a 60-member vote to raise the debt limit ceiling. certainly with the number of times we raised the debt limit under president ronald reagan, not one single republican suggested we needed 60 votes, it was important enough for that. not one -- not once under

president george h.w. bush. not once under president george bush did a single republican say it's so important that we have a 60-vote margin. and yet all of a sudden with president obama, the whole -- the whole criteria changes. suddenly, the rules that were good enough for republicans with a republican president are suddenly to be changed with this president. mr. president, the american public, republican or democratic, can see through that. this is a different standard. we are saying that this president must follow different rules than every president before him, republican or democratic. that just -- there is no way that can be considered fair. in no way that can be considered anything but a gimmick. as unfortunately the partisan faction first manufactured this

debt limit crisis, and now they continue to prevent a bipartisan solution, an unwillingness to compromise and find a bipartisan solution has led us to the break. the united states of america is now just three days away from defaulting on its obligation, and i would remind senators for the first time in the history of this country and for the first time in the history of the country senators are demanding we have to have a supermajority vote to stop that from happening. that is not responsible. we are needlessly risking financial turmoil throughout this great country and it would send ripple effects worldwide. a temporary solution is no solution at all. it would undermine the stability that our economy needs to grow. so now is the time to set aside partisan bickering. pass a bill. it's a time for the grownups in the room to take over and reach a bipartisan solution to the

debt ceiling, as has been done every time in the 37 years i've been here. a "my way or no way" faction in the other body has no qualms about playing russian roulette with our entire economy and with every american family in it. regrettably, as we saw so clearly again yesterday, the house leadership's response to win this faction's vote has simply been to shift the bill even farther away from helpfulness or reality. everybody knows that the house debt bill written under this duress was a sham with no chance of passing and with no chance of averting a debt catastrophe. on friday at the finish line to vote on the debt bill, house leaders added to their package the idea of amending the u.s. constitution with a budget amendment. that was a desperate attempt to win a few more votes. now this is not the time for

bumper sticker politics. it's time for leadership and bipartisanship. now many in this body recall as i do the period just two short decades ago when we were able to not only balance the federal budget, but to create budget surpluses that were on their way to paying off the national debt. now, on the one hand, we had people who said well, let's pass a constitutional amendment for some time a decade or two decades in the future. we showed up and actually voted to balance the budget. not a single republican voted to balance the budget. they talked about it, but not a single republican voted to balance the budget. we had to actually have the vice president, gore, vote in this body because it was a tie vote. but it balanced the budget. it created enormous surpluses. it started paying down the national debt. over 20 million new jobs were created. and president clinton was able

to give a huge surplus to president george w. bush. now, unfortunately, decisions made by the new administration, ratified by a new congress squandered the surplus, once again piling up debt. so this good and great nation does not need the straitjacket of the one size fits owl change to our constitution -- one size fits all change to our constitution to do what needs to be done. we've done it. we need to return to willingness by those of us chosen to serve within the halls of government to cooperate to forge bipartisan solutions. at this point the majority leader reid's tk*ubgs package at -- deficit-reduction package at $2.2 trillion is congress's best chance to avoid default and

prevent a disastrous credit rating downgrade. unlike the house plan, the read solution is an invitation to consensus. it incorporates spending reductions reached in bipartisan negotiations, yields greater overall budget savings sooner than the house proposal. but it also saves the country the ordeal of going through this torment again just a few months from now. and we've just seen what this debate, as we take longer and longer to do what we need to do, we watched the stock market just crash this week along, as this calamity unfolds in slow motion, it's been smothering the chance for all other national priorities from jobs to national security to air traffic control. the congressional deadlock has prevented passage of a routinely renewal of the federal aviation

administration. today the congress could be considering a bipartisan, bicameral bill ready to move across the finish line. it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and unleashes american innovation and does not add a penny to the deficit. instead of acting on constructive, necessary priorities, we're stuck playing a dangerous game with our economy. the deadline for default would not change. i commend leader reid for his willingness and desire to work in the spirit of compromise with the republican leader and others to find a bipartisan solution to halt this perilous march to the edge of the financial cliff. the american people want this solved. all american people do. now, with a fair solution through the give-and-take of our representative government, not by some extra special vote, but just vote it up or vote it down. i'm confident if we work together, congress will avert this looming manmade economic

calamity. it's slate but it's not -- it's late but it's not yet too late for republicans and democrats to come together for the sake of our country in fashioning a bipartisan solution to raise the debt limit and reduce our long-term debt and give our economy the long-term foundation to prosper. i've had the privilege to represent vermont in the united states senate for 37 years. i've been blessed enough to witness many times when the senate's shown its remarkable ability to rise up to reflect the conscience of the nation. i believe now is such a time for democrats, for republicans in the senate, for the good of the country to once again rise to the occasion, to have us be the conscience of the nation. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, while the distinguished senator from michigan is here on the floor, who is one of the best legal minds in the senate, i

wanted to engage him to further take us through the delay tactics that are presently now underway. given the fact that we have a solution right underneath our noses, a solution that is so close between the two opposite sides that all we'd have to do is to have a majority vote or all we'd have to do is to have a few republican senators. but we are engaged in this stalling tactic that is literally going to take us all night. and i would like to ask the distinguished senator from michigan, given the rules, given the fact that a filibuster is now underway, what can the

minority here in the senate hope to achieve since we are so close to agreement? mr. levin: the reason that people filibuster is to try to defeat a measure and stalling, delaying a vote here is much worse than just defeating a measure. it is defeating the american economy. it will be putting the american economy in a ditch if we do not resolve this issue. so, we've got to be very clear on what the vote is tonight. it is not a vote on the reid amendment, on the reid measure. it is a vote on this petition to bring the debate -- and this is the words of the petition -- "we, 18 senators, move to bring to a close the debate on the reid motion." that's what we're voting on.

and the republican leader tries to coat that or characterize that as a vote on the reid motion. it is not. we want a vote on the reid motion. we want to vote, but we will not be allowed to vote on the reid motion, on the proposal which the majority leader has offered, which has a majority support in this senate, we will not be allowed to vote on that if debate is not ended, if the filibuster continues, because 60 senators are not willing to end it. we will have at least 50-plus to end debate. but let it be clear, let the public understand that if we're not allowed to vote on the reid measure tonight, the republicans presumably will continue their filibuster, and we are not going to just simply allow them to

defeat it. we are not going to simply sit down and say, well, we couldn't end the debate and the filibuster, we didn't get 60 votes, if we don't tonight. we're not going to do that. that's not going to happen tonight. this is too important to simply let a minority defeat the will of the majority by a filibuster. now, the republican leader wants to characterize this again, and mischaracterize this, saying he's willing to have a vote right now on the reid motion. no, he's not. no, he's not. if we were allowed to vote on the reid motion, that would be fine. that's a regular majority vote. but the republican leader wants is to require 60 votes on the reid motion in order for it to pass. that's not the way things happen

under our rules. under our rules, 60 votes are required to end the debate if the minority threatens a filibuster and insists that it will filibuster unless a measure gets 60 votes. so we know what's happening. we saw it last night. we saw it here today. it's clearly the threat of a filibuster in the hope that we will say that reid will be pulled down and defeated if we don't get 60 votes. that's what this is all about. and this time we simply cannot, we simply cannot allow this measure to be talked to death i- and a vote denied. we cannot be thwarted because the american economy here is at stake. and so tonight if we don't get 60 votes -- and let me repeat this so that everyone understands it. tonight if 60 votes are not there to end debate, if the

republicans intend to filibuster, then tonight that's what's going to happen. the public will see very, very clearly that it is a filibuster, if they haven't seen it already. i yield -- it's not up to me to yield the floor. mr. nelson: i will make comments later. i see that the senator from new hampshire -- the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. a senator: -- allocated 30 minutes each, but i have no objection to the gentlelady having 5 additional minutes as long as 5b additional minutes are add to the republican side. the presiding officer: without objection the senator from new hampshire will have ten minutes and the republicans will have an extra five minutes. mrs. shaheen: i appreciate the

consideration of my colleague from georgia. thank you, senator isakson. mr. president, i come to the floor today because i want to share what i'm hearing from the people in new hampshire about the situation we're in in washington. i've heard from small business owners, from retirees, from working people all across the state, and one of the things that struck me about the majority of people that i've heard from is that they're willing to make sacrifices to help this country address our debt and our deficits. but they want to see us here in congress act, and they want to see us compromise. so, let me just take a minute, a few minutes and share some of the comments that i've received from the people of new hampshire. first is from diane who is from manchester, our largest city. diane says, "please get off the party line and work together. my welfare and the welfare of my

small business is at risk. i only employ five people, but that doesn't -- but it's five people that don't need to collect unemployment or take another job. don't take away what's left of my retirement by crashing the market. work as a "we" not as an "i" and get it done. this is not the first time the debt cap needs to be raised and it won't be the last. please do what will have to be done anyway so we can continue to bring this country back. i don't want to lose my business," she says. "who's going to win the next election is not what any of you should be thinking about. i believe if you don't act, all of you will lose." that was diane from manchester. now, david from meredith says "at the age of 25, i'm already the owner of a small software company in the lakes region.

we currently have five employees with plans to grow. we're expecting our profits for next year to exceed $1 million. as an employer, small business owner, and at my age, i feel as though i will be greatly affected by budget decisions we make during the next week and into the future. i want to make sure that america stays as one of the best nations in the world." and he goes on to say, "i have never written a letter to any member of congress before tonight." and then we have jeanine from auburn who says, "settle the budget now. the dysfunction in congress is embarrassing the country. as a s -- as a shawl business owner, i can't afford the uncertainty of a political fiasco. if interest rates rise, i can't keep my business afloat. i would rather pay increased taxes. and eric from hollis says, "as a

small business owner, i'm able to plan and hire employees. due to the uncertainty the current standstill in washington has created. pleas get the u.s.a. back to work -- please get the u.s.a. back to work and make the progress and stop the bickering." and then brenda from infield says, "my 77-year-old husband retired last year. i'm planning on retiring at the end of this year. collecting social security at full retirement age of 65. we've been good citizens, running our own small business for 40-plus years and we've been diligent in taking responsibility for our own retirement savings. as you know, over the past two years due to economic pressures, we faced substantial reductions of our retirement portfolio and again now face irreparable damage just as we retire. my husband and i urge you to do whatever it takes to build a

cooperative bridge in congress to protect the economy from further trauma." cynthia from exedor says, "i'm receiving social security due to a disability, but i would gladly give up $5 a month." this is cynthia, who's on social security. "if everyone shared in the idea of balancing our nation's budget issues and committe deficit. i would like to see revenue raised. at the same time, i would be willing to sacrifice some of my social security." and finally, sue from campton says, "my husband and i would be willing to pay higher income taxes and we would be in that higher tax bracket, to come up with a compromise to save this great nation. i hope that when you read this message, you'll understand that there's a majority of americans who are willing to sacrifice for our country. please find compromise.

our great state of new hampshire and our country depends on it." well, i want to tell diane and david and sue and all the others who have called and e-mailed and written to me that i agree with them, we must act and we must compromise. and that's what i'm trying to do. that's why i've supported a comprehensive approach to dealing with this country's debt and deficits. it's an approach that's been bipartisan, offered by the so-called gang of six. it addresses all aspects of our budget: domestic, discretionary spending, defense spending, mandatory programs and revenues. but i understand that we're not going to be able to get that done between now and tuesday. so that's why i'm willing to support an approach that only make cuts to the budget, because i know that we have to compromise. but compromise means that

everyone, all sides, the house and the senate, republicans and democrats, all sides have to give something up. i believe we have good people in the senate on both sides of the aisle. the majority of whom want to see a resolution to this impasse. well, the time is now for all of us to compromise and to do what's in the best interests of this country. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. isakson: the senatothe prese senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, today when the chaplain opened the senate, he prayed for divine guidance to end the paralysis of analysis in congress. i thought it was an excellent point, and when i heard the two leaders speak today, i realized where that paralysis really was. we are paralyzed by analyzing our differences and failing to look at what we've reached common ground on already.

i have been worried about a default on our debt for some time but right now i'm worried about congress defaulting on our country. failure should not be an option for us in this case and it's time we started finding common ground. so for the purpose of discussi discussion, i really want to put forward some thoughts about where we agree, some identification of where we don't but where we could be. we've already agreed in one form or another, whether it was the vice president's group or the speaker's group or whoever, that we ought to have a trillion-dollar down payment in initial cuts to bring about deficit reduction. and there's common agreement between both sides in the senate, and i think in the house as well, that we need a short-term committee equally divided in a partisan way to come up with at least another $1.8 trillion that results in reductions in debt and in deficit. we've agreed on those two things. third, we've agreed that we don't want to default on our

debt. there may be a handful of people around here who think that's a good idea, but with all due respect, it's not a good idea and the ramifications of default are already showing themselves in small measures in the markets but will show themselves a lot greater next wednesday if we fail. now, where do we differ? we don't differ on raising the debt ceiling, we just differ on how we raise it, how long we raise it. the president wants it past the election in 2012. there are others who want to have votes every six months or ten months. quiet frankly, there's something to be said for waiting until after the election of 2012, so we have 18 months of stability and predictability in the united states of america. there's not the uncertainty of us coming back. there's a lot of differences on the other side about whether we have a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget vote. and, quite frankly, i can't understand why in the end anybody would reject both bodies being able to have a vote in regular order on a constitutional amendment to

balance the budget. we are supposed to vote. we're supposed to confront those decisions. and i think an agreement could be reached between those two differences that would assure us moving closer to an agreement on the entire package. and then third and probably toughest, we don't disagree on the committee that's appointed to find the $1.8 trillion or better in savings and cuts but we disagree on the mechanism in which that is enforced. and i want to talk about that for a minute. there's a fear, and a lot of it's justified because the way we're acting right now, that if you had a committee of 12, six democrats and six republicans, charged with finding $1.8 trillion or more in reductions, they'd never agree; therefore, they'd be gridlocked, therefore, those reductions would not take place. and i understand that fear and agree with the concern for that fear. so you need a mechanism where there's a risk for them to do that. one of the discussions that's been floating around, was last night in discussion i had, in fact, with the presiding officer right now, is you create -- you

allow the congress itself to allow an equal number of democrats and republicans of some accountable number, like 10 or 20, to come together if the committee fails to make its recommendations and make alternative recommendation as that must by requirement of the law be voted on on the floor of the house and senate. now, if for some unbelievable circumstance that didn't happen, there has to be an absolute fail-safe to ensure that failure's not an option. i have suggested automatic sequestration, and i know that causes heartburn with some. but somewhere there's a silver bullet. the lone ranger had it. tonto had it. wyatt erp had it. why can't the u.s. congress find it? why can't we find the magic bullet that is the enforcement mechanism that assures we come together on the $1.8 trillion or more? if we do those things, we have an agreement. we've already agreed in principle on most of them and we understand our differences on the ones we haven't agreed on. we ought to be spending the next

24 hours finding out where our differences are and coming to find common ground, because we are not that far apart. so i want to go back to the prayer of berry blac of barry bs morning, and i listen to his prayer just about every morning because it's very insightful. there's a clear message in it. because he's talking to all of us and he's watching all of us. and he's concerned and i'm concerned. i have three children and nine grandchildren. i've said in my contamine pairntionz the rest of my -- campaigns, the rest of my life is about leaving them a country is as prosperous and as free as the country my parents left me. if we blink on this issue that's before us, that's not going to be the case. there's irreparable harm that can come from a failure toage. and it doesn't harm me as a politician, it harms my kids and my grandkids. and it harms those people that i know that are social security and medicare and medicaid. and it harms those people i know that are standing right now on a firing line somewhere in afghanistan realizing today could be their last day on this

earth so america can live to see another day. that's how serious the consequences are. so, mr. president, i would suggest that instead of being paralyzed by our analysis of where we differ, let's become analysis of where we find common ground and we do on not raising the debt ceiling. we know we should raise it. we know we can find up to $2.8 trillion, and hopefully more, in cuts in the deficit and spending over time. we know for a fact we have to extend the debt ceiling to some point in time. and if it's passed -- past the presidential election of 2012, let's ensure that each body in regular order can vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. which leaves us with one difference and that difference is what is the enforcement mechanism on the $1.8 trillion cut that the joint committee, equally divided, is supposed to come on? i submit we can find the common ground to find the silver bullet that causes that to happen. and i would encourage all of us to forget now where we differ, to recognize where we agree, and then work on building a bridge

on those differences so the united states of america doesn't default on its debt and the congress of the united states does not default on its obligation to the people of the greatest country on the face of this earth, the united states of america. mr. president, i yield back my time. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: would ask that

the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, the discussion boils down to a desire by the president to have the largest debt increase in the history of america at a time when our spending is out of control and this debt ceiling

limit that we have now reached is at a point where it does need to be raised but i thought we had a national consensus that as part of raising the debt ceiling we would begin to change our habits around here. we would do things better, we wouldn't be running up so much debt because every witness that's testified before our budget committee has said we are on an unsustainable path, and they mean that. you competent sustain the debt path we're on. we have never been in a deeper fix. but the president wants this huge debt increase, but he only wants to have a very modest decrease in spending. so the bill that's before us would decrease spending about about $927 billion. it might sound like a lot, but

over the next ten years, according to the congressional budget office, we will increase the debt of america by by $10 trillion. $10,000 billion dollars. we have got to have more than than $900 billion-plus in spending reductions, and since we're not going to be able to get that, it appears, because the democratic majority in the senate won't allow it, and they're saying we're prepared to shut the government down if you try to produce -- cut any more, then we have got to keep talking. we have got to continue the dialogue and the debate about the debt course we are on so we should not have the largest increase in debt -- the debt in history. indeed, that would just give a blank check to the big spenders.

they could run for two years. and why is it so important to get a longer debt, bigger debt ceiling increase? and i also thought and believe we have an agreement that the debt ceiling shouldn't be increased more than spending is decreaseed. spending decreased over ten years. you cut $1 trillion, you raise the debt ceiling $1 trillion. we give you ten years on spending cuts, but immediately you get a $1 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. why are we in this fix? this is why. i hate to say it. this is why, there is no doubt about it. the president said last week the only bottom line that i have is that we extend this debt ceiling through the next election until