it's about politics. it's about his desires, what he wants. but that's not correct. this is about america, what's good for our country. the house of representatives submitted a fabulous budget, i thought, earlier this year. it reduced spending by as much as $6 trillion over ten years. this bill would only reduce it it $1 trillion. why would the house of representatives after much, much, much debate, pleading, soul searching, why would they agree to send a bill over here that only does $1 trillion in spending cuts over ten years? the reason is they love our country. they know this is a dangerous time. they know at this point in history we don't need to create

more uncertainty on top of the tremendously dangerous debt path we are on by not raising the debt limit, we don't know for sure what will happen. bad things could happen, so they have made a tremendous compromise in what they propose and sent it over here. but the only thing the president cares about is not having to talk about this again until after he gets re-elected, i suppose. so i think we need to understand something. this is not enough reduction in spending. $900 billion, $1,000 billion, it is not enough. it will not change the tara g.a.o.ity which is on the path which is adding a trillion

dollars debt to our nation's books in ten years. it's just not enough. so we get our debt ceiling, we get out of this immediate crisis, at least we do that, and we send the message to the world and to the american people and to the financial markets that we are still working on it, we are still going to bring down the numbers. we know we can't continue on this rate of spending. we know that. so we're going to work to get the numbers down and we're not going to wait two years after some convenient or inconvenient election. we're going to start early next year or late this year, and we're going to stay on it until we make the kind of changes that put us on a path to growth and prosperity. so i feel strongly about that, and i know people don't want to hear us talking about this bill or that bill, who is for this and how many votes it has. they are tired of hearing that. they want us to make changes, and i don't think that the

american people just want a deal. that's where the media spins it and politicians spin it. is there a deal, is there not a deal? the american people want us to change our debt course. they want us to get off the path that is taking us to financial destruction. and it really is. i don't know when it will happen, but everybody says that we cannot continue and in a period of years we will be in a situation like greece, and the numbers are pretty clear in that regard. there is no doubt about it. and it doesn't have to happen, so we can do something about it. so republicans have passed a budget, a good budget that would reduce the debt and put us on a path to prosperity. that was rejected by our democratic leaders. indeed, they brought it up and mocked it.

president obama called for a conference at the white house. he put congressman ryan, the brilliant young budget chairman in the house right in front of him, and then he mocked and attacked the budget that the house did, that would actually do something for america and make us better. then he talks about, well, people are partisan around here. that -- you know, i don't appreciate that. we have got to do something. i'm prepared to compromise. i feel deeply that we need to cut more spending than this, with you we're at a point in history where we need to pass a debt ceiling increase, we just have to, but we don't need to quit talking about the problem. we need to continue the dialogue, continue the debate and continue to look for and find ways to reduce spending. the house passed a cap and balance bill that would have capped spending and created a permanent constitutional

amendment to balance the budget, and then they passed the boehner legislation that was voted down last night, and that legislation would have cut all -- spending just about the amount that senator reid wants, $900 billion or so. he didn't exaggerate how much it was, speaker boehner didn't, but he agreed to that amount and agreed to raise the debt ceiling immediately by an amount equal to the amount of spending we reduced over ten years. a very generous, significant compromise from the position they believed was correct and that they took openly and publicly through the normal legislative process when they passed their budget. so now our democratic in the senate, they haven't passed anything, isn't even bring up a budget. now it's822 days since congress

has passed a budget. a budget was not passed here when my democratic colleagues had 60 senators, 60 democratic senators, they didn't pass a budget. senator reid said it would be foolish to pass a budget. why is that? well, he meant it would be foolish to have my members actually have to vote. and when you move a budget, it has priority, it can't be filibustered. it can be passed with a 50-vote margin, but you get to offer amendments and people would have had to have voted on amendments, and the people that produced a budget would have to say how much taxes they were increasing, how much spending they were cutting and how much debt was still going to be out there, and they did not want to expose themselves. they did not want to come before the american people and show where they stood. they preferred to bring up the

house budget and vote it down and mock it while they weren't even -- didn't have the courage, the leadership or the responsibility to pass a budget themselves that would show where they wanted to go with the future of america. it's just that simple. i hate to say it but it is. we have avoided the budget process, and i don't think that the process is broken. i think we have broken it. so we have got to change how we do. we need to go back to the regular order in the senate. that means bringing up bills, having votes, having amendments, having people be accountable to their constituents. so if you were sitting back home, you want to see government reduce some of this reckless spending, don't you want to know how your constituents voted? well, we have had no votes, and

that's been the plan, to shield the members from votes so they could be held accountable, and for heaven's sakes, we don't want to have a vote in january or february when we have an election in november. why, that's too close. people would see what we did. they might remember it when election day came up. they might not like it that i don't have a plan to do a better job of changing the unconscionable debt course this country is on. so that's the way they think in washington. it's not acceptable, and we're borrowing 40 cents of everything we spend, every dollar we spend is borrowed. mr. president, do we have a time agreement at this point? the presiding officer: the senator has five minutes and 20

seconds remaining. mr. sessions: i thank the chair. well, so it's a big deal and we need to get this done, and there are just not enough votes to pass the reid bill and there are just not enough votes to pass the boehner bill. that's just obvious. even though speaker boehner drew down dramatically the amount of spending cuts that the house believes should be achieved. and so we have got to get our folks busy, so why we are continuing to debate into the night instead of actually recognizing that the reid bill doesn't have the votes to pass the senate and absolutely doesn't have the votes to pass the house, it just doesn't, so we have got to at this last desperate moment, hopefully our leaders will get busy, quit worrying about those things and actually begin suggesting something that we can work on. we really shouldn't be in this

position. as i have explained sat -- at some length -- i won't repeat it, but i don't like it, i do not like it. i don't think it's right that we have a couple of senators and a couple of house members, our leaders go off and somehow plop down on the senate their solution to our problem, and if we don't pass it, the government is damaged and the economy is damaged because they have waited until the absolute 11th hour-plus to produce it. it it should never have happened that way. it's irresponsible and it undermines the integrity of the entire congressional process. we've seen this come all year long. we should not have allowed it to happen in this way. well, let me talk a little bit technically about the reid bill. it purports to reduce spending and savings by $2.4 trillion.

that is not correct. actually, it increases -- reduces the debt that would be increasing by only $927 billion, and we've done our best with the budget committee staff to be honest and fair about it. that's about the same number that speaker boehner has in his. but majority leader reid insists his saves $2.4 trillion. why? because if it's $2.4 trillion, he can justify it be put -- the next time we address this will be after the next election, will be two years away. he doesn't cut that much but he says he cuts that much, and it's not an accurate thing. why is it not accurate? well, they've got their budget apparatchiks working into the

night to see how they can make the accounting look better. they didn't like the $927 billion figure, so what do they do? they look at the budget projections that it projected war costs would be coming down. actually, we'll have a $40 billion reduction this year in the cost of iraq and afghanistan. those costs are coming down. the president had projected they would come down to $50 billion soon and would stay at that the rest of the year, which would mean $1 trillion less spending. remember, we're going to increase debt by $9 trillion to $13 trillion, but $1 trillion would have been the war. by reducing the war costs down, you save a trillion dollars. but that was already in the books. that's already estimated. and so how did they do it? well, they came in and they put in a bill that mandated it to come down because, oddly enough, the congressional budget office

doesn't assume the war costs will come down. the congressional budget office assumes that it will stay up and we'll spend this trillion dollars more on the war, when there's no intent to do that. president bush wouldn't have spent that much money. and, therefore, they put it in the legislation and require it to come down to these numbers, and all of a sudden c.b.o. scores a trillion dollars extra savings. well, any change in spending projections or reality at all, speaker boehner didn't count his bill as reducing spending by that trillion dollars when he took the same numbers, same assumptions that spending on the war would come down, but they did that to try to make it look like they were reducing spending more, therefore, could extend the debt limit more and they could make it past the election and they could get the political

result they want. that's really what it is. i'm just telling you. it's what it is. well, another way to get it -- another $300 billion gimmick is if you assume a trillion-dollar reduction in the war, then you're not paying interest on that money because we'd have to borrow it because we're already in debt and every amount of money that you can reduce means you borrow less money. every less spending provision saves money and it also saves interest on that money. well, it would be $300 billion in interest saved under the theory, the gimmick that's being used here, so that really amounts to $1.3 trillion in overestimating right there on

the amount of savings in the reid plan. mr. president, i thank the cha chair. i hope that we will reject the amendment, the reid proposal, and i hope our leaders can achieve in short order a change in our plans for managing our money, raise the debt ceiling, and begin to put this country on a sound path. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i'm happy to come to the floor with two colleagues, a colleague from minnesota and a colleague from oregon, to speak about the damage created by the republicans' insistence on looking at just one side of the equation, failing to understand what businesses need to move forward in the next 28 minutes or so. as my good friend from alabama leaves the floor, i want to say that i've enjoyed working with him on many issues.

we've been shoulder to shoulder advocating for gulf coast restoration and many other issues. but i have to strongly disagree with some of the points that he's just made and will go into those in just a moment. part of the problem with the senator from alabama and other senators on that side is that when they speak to the american people on this issue, they only talk about one side of the equation and that is spending. they never, ever, ever talk about revenues. and anybody, any family, any individual, any business, any high school student, any college student understands, like the commercial that's running on television now that talks about equations, equations have two sides, not one. there's a spending side and there's a revenue side.

so if your family budget is out of whack, you're spending too much, you're not taking in enough money, you could get a third job and fix that problem by bringing in more money to your budget or a second job or a part-time job and bring in more revenue and that problem is solved. or you could not get another job and cut back spending all the way down to your income and solve your problem. the problem with the other side is, they are disingenuous, they do not want to be truthful with the american people and say that not only do we have a spending problem, which all democrats agree with, but we also have a revenue problem. and that's why we're on this floor fighting today. and i want to show beyond a shadow of a doubt the truth about what i'm speaking about. this is data from c.b.o. and o.m.b. this isn't democratic data. this shows discretionary defense

spending, all other spending and mandatory programs for ten years. in ten years, from 2001 until today, ten years later, defense spending has increased $364 billion, 73%, and that is because we've had two wars and any number of defense and security issues. we can debate whether that was right or not. we've spent 73% more money adjusted for inflation. for mandatory programs, the increase has gone up in ten years 310%. that's social security, medicare, and medicaid. this is the driver. this is the budget buster. now, there are all sorts of solutions to that problem. unfortunately, we're not talking about any of them today. but the -- the push on the spending is coming from

mandatory programs. what the republicans fail to tell people, which makes me so angry and should make everyone angry, is that all other spending in the federal government has remained flat. zero percentage increase in ten years if you adjust for inflation. zero. not a 2% increase, not a 3% increase. now, these are the facts. it's also true that we are spending more money, 25% of g.d.p. higher than any time since world war ii, but that spending is being driven by defense and mandatory. but what do they want to cut? what are they demanding to be cut today? they are demanding this line item, with agriculture, health, education, respite care for the elderly, this is what they want

to cut, this is why democrats are saying, wait a minute, take a couple of steps back. that's what this fight is really about. now, in addition to waging this fight, you would think this is a big fight to have, we would have it in the safest place possible. could i have order, please. we would be having it in the safest place possible. you know in the old western movies when two guys want to shoot it out, they say, "meet me on the edge of town"? do these guys meet you on the edge of town? no. you know where they meet us? right on main street, where small business and big business and self-employed have been struggling for years coming out of the greatest recession that in large measure they helped to create. where do they want to stage this fight? on main street. that's what this fight is about. they could have chosen any place for this battle, but where did

they choose it? they chose it over raising the debt ceiling, which if we don't fix in the next 72 hours, is going to raise interest on every business. i'm already getting piles of letters from louisiana that i'm going to put into this record from small business owners pleading with us to come to a deal because they're holding the economy hostage. has anybody read the newspapers this morning? it is full of cartoons. republicans holding the economy hostage. they're not holding barack obama hostage. they're not holding democrats hostage. they're not holding the federal government hostage. they've decided to fietd the fie battle on main street, holding business, economic growth hostage and they that i that's a compromise or a fair fight -- and they think that that's a compromise or a fair fight. this hostage isn't strong enough to survive this siege. do you ever hear any one of them say that perhaps we need to raise a penny or two or three?

absolutely no. now, there are senators that have agreed to do so but they haven't been as vocal as they possibly could be. i am honored to serve with many good republicans that understand that this equation has two sides, both taking spending down in the right ways and raising revenues. and let me get one more fact out there and i'm going to turn it over to my colleague. i understand corporate tax rates are higher than some other countries in the world and our corporations are having some tough times and some businesses, but i'm going to submit data to this record that shows that the top 400 companies in this country are not paying a 35% rate, they're not paying a 24% % rate, their practical rate is 17%. why would that be the case? because this tax code is full of loopholes for special sphwhaz many ointereststhat many of ther

side think -- special interests that many of them on the other side think is justified. so we're not going to be able to solve all these problems today, but i wanted to come to the floor on behalf of businesses, small businesses and large, and say when the republicans start talking about both sides of the equation, these democrats, including myself, will walk up and negotiate. in the meantime, we're going to work hard to find a deal that works for the american people, and one solution that will work for the american people is not to have to repeat this four months from now. and i'm going to conclude with this. just a few months ago we were getting letters from the other side saying, business needs certainty, business needs to know what taxes they're going to pay, they need to know certainty. and then all of a sudden today this side is arguing that we have to go through this debate four months from now? i'm telling you, this hostage will not survive their siege. we have to fix this for the

long-term now. and i'm going to turn it over to my colleague from minnesota who's going to talk about the businesses in her state and what she's hearing from businesses in her state and why this is so grossly unfair from republicans that want to bring this economy to its knees, and they're doing a really good job of it. and i turn the floor over to the senator from minnesota. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, well, thank you very much to the senator from louisiana for her impassioned remarks, and there's a reason she has that passion. it's because we're in the ninth inning here. this is it. the time for political posturing is over. there's no more time to say we're not going to talk to each other. there's no more time to pretend that we can have one plan and then another plan. it's time to get an agreement. look at what's happened in just the past week. the markets have gone down more than they have in over a year. we have seen realtors -- and this is a study that just came out a few days ago -- one out of six deals this past month, people backed away from. well, if you look at the month before, it was only one out of 25.

people are feeling the uncertainty in this economy and it is time to come to a bipartisan agreement. last week, i held a call with business leaders from across my state to update them on the status of negotiations, to hear their thoughts and their concerns, to answer their questions. their message back to me was clear and unified. if we fail to act, the consequences for our economy are real and serious. i will be honest, they don't care what combination of votes -- democrat, republican -- it takes to get us across the finish line. many would prefer a republican plan, some would prefer a democratic plan. but what they want is consistency. they want us to get this done. they want us to not default on our debts. they want a deal to be passed by august 2 that prevents the united states from defaulting on its financial obligations and provide some long-term certainty. now, make no mistake, they see our debt crisis as real and

serious, something that must be addressed. but while failure to bring the national debt under control is threatening america's future, the danger of default is already harming our economy today. we must address both. the u.s. chamber of commerce has called the possibility of default unthinkable and unacceptable, arguing that it will have real, immediate, and potentially catastrophic consequences. as economists and experts from across the ideological spectrum as this continues, interest rates will rise for everyone. that is what they say. this will mean higher rates for american consumers and the small businesses who drive our economies. car loans, mortgages, businesses and student loans will all be more expensive. higher borrowing costs and a falling dollar means slower economic growth and slower job creation. that is the last thing we need right now. just an hour ago i received in my office an e-mail from a major employer in my state saying that the commercial paper market

nearly seized up yesterday, and by the afternoon only overnight rollovers were possible. that's what they were seeing, and that was identical to what happened to capital markets in september of 2008, according to this major company. they said this in the e-mail: "the sooner the debt limit issue can be resolved, the sooner this market can begin functioning as it should and the sooner lenders would begin lending for longer than overnight." here's some things i hurt from -- heard from business leaders in my staeufplt this is from a president and c.e.o. who owns and manages over 2,000 stra*upbts -- businesses across the country. "carlson would like to highlight how critical it is for congress to reach a constructive compromise before august 2 to ensure the u.s. does not default on its debt obligations.

the ongoing uncertainty -- note that word -- and lack of resolution of the debt ceiling debate is not healthy for the global financial markets or for consumer confidence. it is highly detrimental to the overall economy and to the travel and hospitality industry which millions of families in the u.s. depend upon for their livelihood. we, therefore, urge congressional leadership to act in the best interest of the nation and deliver a compromise agreement that avoids default and demonstrates the nation has a credible plan to reduce the federal deficit. a short-term fix is not sufficient, as we must not allow or accept a long uncertainty which will only create volatility and instability for the globe and the u.s. economy. multiple other letters from snowmobile manufacturers, which i will later put in the record since we're having dozens come in every hour. i want to get them all gathered for tomorrow. but he says this: in regard to the current debt ceiling situation, default is not an

option, and reasonable compromise is what we need to add certainty that will lead to growth. growth for american manufacturers. certainty and growth. another one: the current debate overt debt ceiling has serious implications for american business. for example, the impact to my company will be felt not only by 3,3000 u.s. kpwhroes, but by -- employee, but by shareholders. in case you don't draw the connection, these are major businesses that are in small towns throughout my state, sometimes the only major employer in those states. that's what they're saying. these are not democrats that are writing this letter. they are not siding on one particular plan or the other. they are just saying we need a compromise and we need it by august 2. ken powell, chairman and c.e.o. of general mills, a major fortune 500 company, he writes, "we think it is critically important for the entire country, both at the business

and individual level, that congress come to an agreement on this issue and move forward. a major financial institution that manages the savings and retirements, over 2 million individual business and institutional clients, he writes this: "i urge the u.s. congress to reach a bipartisan agreement to raise the debt ceiling and return the country's focus to economic growth and job creation." none of us in this chamber want to see our economy damaged. democrats don't want it. republicans don't want it. and as these letters show, the business community in this country knows that we cannot have this happen. what they want is for us to work together to show the american people and the world that washington isn't broken, that instead we're willing to put aside our politics to do what we've been elected to do and get this done. that's what's right for america.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, thank you. the senator from alaska is here to finish out this segment which is focusing on the difficulties that business is going to have. and i thank the senator from minnesota for joining us for this segment. i just wanted to get one more thing in the record before yielding to the senator from alaska. i said the spending is high, 25% of g.d.p. everyone acknowledges that. we're working hard to get it down. but i want to put in the record that revenues coming into the treasury are the lowest since world war ii at 14%. we don't have revenues in this solution because democrats have compromised and conceded on this point, which is a very difficult compromise for us to make when faced with the truth of the situation. but in trying to compromise, we have done that. we have not done that halfway. and i hope the minority leader will reengage with the majority leader having said last night he

didn't feel like he wanted to engage with the majority to try to come to a compromise, because businesses are depending on it. finally, i want to put into the record a portion of an excellent column in "the washington post" today to capstone my remarks. i thank the senator from alaska who's been an absolutely outstanding champion for small business not only in alaska but around the nation, to talk with us about this short-term repeat six months uncertainty and how damaging that will be to businesses in alaska. and i thank the senator for joining us. mr. begich: thank you very much to the senator from louisiana. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: i'm happy to join my friend from louisiana, my friend from minnesota. i am a small business owner. have been since my teenage years. my wife is a small business owner. i understand the plight they go through on how to raise capital, how to start a small business, how to take a dream to reality, and sometimes those dreams don't work out so well and what

happens next? as we sit here and we talk about the short term versus the long term, in business, you lay out a business plan. it's a long-term plan. businesses that set a short-term plan are the ones that say going out of business. those big banners you read, those are the short-term planners in the business world. we debate today, and i think we are a lot closer than maybe the media likes to portray, but it is a difference between the next six months do we deal with this issue and have another debt limit vote in six months from now and another six months later and six months, or do we plan for the long term, get our economy more stable, more certain so businesses can invest and do the right thing? as i said at the beginning here, any business that you see that has a short-term plan usually has a sign that says "going out of business" or "quitting." we're not going to quit here.

we're going to have a long-term plan. i heard earlier today my colleague and friend from the other side who practices in real estate, from georgia, senator isakson -- both of us have been in the real estate business for many years. as he said also, we're closer than people think we are, but we have some slight differences, ones that we need to make sure we resolve and move to a long-term plan. i challenged earlier this week to businesses that wanted to have a short-term plan to call my office. i'd be happy to mention them on the floor of the senate. i waited and i waited and i waited. no one, not one business called my office and said "give me a short-term plan." i will tell you several alaska businesses did call my office and said "compromise, get a long-term plan." let me read you a couple.

jill tom *f thomas writes i'm concerned, as a small business owner, i'm already seeing the effects of this uncertainty. my clients are also small business owners and i see -- and so many i, right in the line of fire on this one. i've heard from more than a few clients that if the u.s. defaults on the debt, the resulting interest rates will put them out of business. with this fear increasing, the closer we get to august 2, it's really hurting mile bottom line. another one, rita from anchorage owns rita's day kaeurbgs small day care center for children. her husband is retired air force. it is my sincere hope that you will try to influence your other alaskan partners to take a stand to solve the crisis. i'm a loyal alaskan voter and i'm tired of all this posturing among the house members. she's referring to the debate that occurred last night. a man from anchorage.

i'm a longtime alaskan, father of two, iraq war veteran, small business owner and my small business provides engineers and managers to the oil and gas industry in alaska. i'm a registered independent, but i am conservative. in regards to the budgetary issues. as a small business owner, i would never jeopardize the well-being of my family, my employees and kphaoeu phao*eu kphraoeupbts -- and my clients with regard to business transactions. all would walk away feeling they got a fair deal. i fully expect an increase in my taxes and i'm okay in order to continue to support our country. another one, actually someone who i know well who owns arctic wire and rope owned by eric mccollum. he won the alaskan manufacturer of the year in 1986, employs 14 employees. he is important to our oil and gas industry. fortunately, eric has no debt, but estherably concerned about

the debt crisis -- but he is terribly concerned about the debt crisis. he is a small business owner. there will be far more impact on main street than wall street from this debt crisis, eric states. eric adds that he's more than willing to pay his fair share to help balance the federal budget. these have come in and in and in, and it's amazing to see what people are talking about in my state. 68,000 small businesses in alaska. my wife's one of those. 15,000, almost 16,000 employ many employees. it's the fastest-growing segment of our business community in alaska, is small business, growing by almost 31% over the last six years. mr. president, to my colleagues, to the senator from louisiana, as a small business person, all they want to see is certainty.

they want the bickering, the partisan bickering to end. they want certainty so they can continue to invest and see their future. so there are just some simple differences that i think the folks from both sides can sit down and work through. one is clearly how long should this debt limit increase go for. as i said earlier, you do a short term, that's the business that's saying i quit, i'm out of business. you do long term, it gives certainty and opportunity to plan and build for the future. should we have a vote up or down, separate from the debt limit issue on a balanced budget amendment? it's a great debate. more than likely we'll probably have that debate here. i've supported a balanced budget amendment before. but it is time we raise the debt limit to create the long-term certainty we need for our small business community not only in

alaska, but throughout this country, where they are the backbone that will drive this economy in the right direction. mr. president, it's just an honor again to be down here with the chairwoman of the small business committee. she has worked tirelessly bill after bill. we were unsuccessful this year on a couple that were critical to small business because we couldn't get past the logjam here. maybe this will break the pathway if we can get past this debt limit in a bipartisan way that, we can then bring many more of those small business bills back to the floor because what i hear most often from alaskans besides the frustration what have's going on here is they want us to focus on building this economy, to get regulation out of the way, to help invest in the needed things, to ensure that businesses can create the jobs that we desperately need not only for the people who are unemployed today, but the future generations. that's what we need. so again, mr. president, i thank you for the opportunity.

and again to my friend from louisiana, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about your leadership and your continued tenacity to fight for the small business person every single day. i yield. ms. landrieu: i thank the senator. mr. president, how much time do we have in this segment? the presiding officer: 3 minutes. ms. landrieu: thank you. i thank the senators again from minnesota and alaska for coming and making the point and underlying and scoring the point that this filibuster that the republican caucus is holding today, not allowing us to have a simple majority vote on the reid plan, is hurting business. as the senator said, this is a pattern, unfortunately, it seems like coming from the other side. we had to overcome their filibuster just last year to pass the small business bill that is now having a terrific effect throughout the country in some pockets. we still are not where we would like to be, of course, in job

creation and the recovery is slow. i'm starting to think that maybe that's what they want for the recovery to be slow because then they filibustered the sbir bill which is the largest single research investment program for small business in america. we still can't get that passed. they are filibustered. then they filibustered the e.d.a. bill which is one of the most important programs to chambers of commerce which are not a liberal stronghold in america, and now they are filibustering this bill and demanding a two-step solution which no businessperson has written to congress saying they think that's a good way to go. the opposite. they are saying get this over with now, the uncertainty is killing us. yes, i will yield to the senator from alaska. mr. begich: just for a question. the way i understand this is for people who may be watching or listening, a filibuster requires 60 votes. all we're asking for is the same thing that the house of representatives did last night on their bill.

ms. landrieu: a simple majority. mr. begich: simple majority. allow an up-or-down vote so we can determine what plan or action. that's all we're asking for. ms. landrieu: it would be clear if we could get 51 votes, the reid plan would pass just like the boehner plan passed. neither one can get the other side to agree, but at least we would then have the basis for a compromise. but no, the republicans have decided we can't have that vote, and so this thing is getting strung out. with every hour, with every day, businesses are hurting, maybe that's what they want because then the president can be blamed for business not doing well when they are the ones that are stepping in the way. i want to submit for the record the details from the budget summary that i stated and put this into the record, mr. president. 14%. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: 14% of the revenues coming in. this is on the website for anybody that wants to know. and i am going to submit

records, letters from louisiana to the record for businesses that have written to me saying not a two-step process, a one-step process, get a good solution and move on. i yield the floor, mr. president, and i thank the senators again for coming down and sharing their concerns. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. kyl: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: i'd like to speak for a

moment about some comments the distinguished majority leader gave this morning in his opening comments, and then talk a little bit about the general issue that we're faced here, frankly in an effort to see if we can come to common ground. let me start with a couple of things that the majority leader said this morning. he has talked more than once about the fact that in his view the republican leaders have wasted time by pursuing a proposal that they knew the senate wouldn't pass. i think there are two things to say about that. one can say the same thing about the majority leader's proposal. he knows that the senate will not pass that either, so you have two proposals, one by speaker boehner that passed the house of representatives but senator reid declared dead on arrival here and indeed it was tabled last night, and the other, the reid proposal which is also dead on arrival here in the senate, as leader

mcconnell noted this morning, there is a letter that has sufficient signatures on it to defeat it, and in addition to that, i can tell you that i have talked to my colleagues, all of my republican colleagues and it will be defeated and i think the majority leader knows that. so the only question with regard to the senate majority leader's proposal is why would we waste additional time debating a proposal we know is going to fail, why have that vote at 1:00 a.m. tomorrow morning? let's get it done, get it over and move forward. i really think that's the best way to try to reach a conclusion here. i would also note that the reason that the majority leader declared the boehner proposal dead was for two reasons, really. one because it had a balanced budget amendment attached to it. and i just want to make the point that i know that most of my democratic colleagues don't support a balanced budget amendment, but i do think it's worth noting that depending on

which poll, 70%, 80%, more than 80% of the american people support a balanced budget amendment, and i don't think you can blame speaker boehner for including a balanced budget amendment in the boehner legislation that was sent over here. it's pretty logical that the american people say they support something with that degree of support that you would include it in legislation to try to balance the budget. but the majority leader here said no, that means it's dead on arrival in the senate. well, that should tell you something about the senate democrats. president obama talks about the need for a balanced approach. speaker boehner says how about a balanced budget. leader reid says no. well, that's the first point. it seems to me that the second point is that there is a difference of opinion about how long this debt ceiling extension should last. speaker boehner has always said there should be at least a dollar-for-dollar reduction in spending for every dollar that the debt ceiling is increased, and i think that makes sense.

if we're going to increase the debt ceiling $2.4 trillion, then we ought to have $2.4 trillion in savings. otherwise, we're just going to keep on having to raise the debt ceiling over and over and over again. and i would note that the savings are savings that occur over a ten-year period of time, so it's not like we're cutting that immediately. although the debt ceiling extension would be $2.4 trillion for just the next 16 months. that's how much debt we're going to accumulate just to the end of president obama's term in office. there isn't enough savings to do that that's been agreed to. republicans have all kinds of ideas about saving that could get to $2.5 trillion. democrats have said no. the only thing we can agree on is about $1.2 trillion. and so the republican leader said fine, let's do a debt extension equal to to $1.2 trillion. that takes us at least through the end of the year. then we'll have a committee,

both sides agree we need to have a select committee that will make recommendations for how to get the remainder of the savings and potentially more, and that's a good idea. but the president has said he doesn't want to rely on that process because maybe it won't result in actual savings that he can count on, he might have to veto it. for whatever reason, he is not confident it would occur, and he doesn't want to have to face this issue again during the time that he is campaigning for election. and i don't blame him for that. he might well view it as a distraction. it certainly is unsettling to the markets, but i would argue that as much as it's a result we would like to avoid, by the same token, it does focus the public's attention on what we need to do around here, which is reduce spending. we didn't get into this mess for any other reason other than the fact that we had spent too much money. we have had annual spending of about $1.2 trillion since

president obama became president. we have had annual deficits of about $1.4 trillion. do you see any connection there? obviously, our problem is spending. so we need to get a handle on that, and that's why i think th boehner proposal made sense. but the leader says it's dead on arrival, and he was right. the reid proposal is also dead on arrival. let's get it over with and move on to a solution that we can agree with. the second thing i just wanted to mention, the majority leader has been very critical of what he calls tea party extremists, people who just do not want to vote to increase the debt ceiling under any circumstances. it kind of reminds me of senator barack obama who voted against extending the debt ceiling, and the language is early similar. it's failed leadership, he pronounced. tea party folks say this represents failed leadership so we're not going to vote for a debt extension. and the president didn't vote for the debt ceiling extension when he was a member of this body. now, i don't say that to criticize the president, but rather just to suggest to my colleagues that we o