if they think it's wrong for the tea party people to stand on principle and say we're not going to raise the debt ceiling, then they can say the same thing about president obama when he was a senator, but if they're going to criticize the tea party folks for standing on principle, criticizing leadership, saying they don't want to raise the debt ceiling, they might want to think about what their colleague, then-senator obama did. the fact of the matter is name calling doesn't help her. let's stop talking about extremist tea party folks. i won't call the president an extremist when he voted against the debt ceiling extension. he has already admitted that he made a mistake and republicans in the leadership in both the house and senate have made it clear that we believe the debt ceiling should be extended. we want to be able to do that, for a variety of reasons that we have discussed. we do not want to put the american economy in jeopardy. we don't want to jeopardize the savings of people who could see those savings dissipate if the stock market continues to go

down, and so we do need to -- to get this issue behind us. the majority leader complained this morning that republicans need to come talk to him. the majority leader needs to come talk to him. he said i would have hoped that someone would come to us, come to the table, and he specifically referred to senator mcconnell. and my response is why do the republicans always have to come up with the ideas? you know, three times, the house of representatives has passed a proposal only to be criticized each time by the democrats who invite them to come up with proposals. you remember the first was the ryan budget, savaged by my democratic colleagues and by the president. house republicans said yes, senate democrats said no. then they came up with cut, cap and balance, something that's pretty popular around the country. it would cut spending, it would cap it and it would ultimately have a balanced budget amendment that would keep it capped. democrats roundly criticized that. in the senate, they voted it down. and so finally, john boehner

came up with his last proposal, and it also included a balanced budget amendment declared dead on arrival the third time. democrats say no. and i'm just getting -- i think republican leaders are getting a little tired of being invited by our democratic friends to come up with ideas only to have them voted down and criticized, and where is the democratic proposal? where is the proposal by the president? i think it's time for democrats to come up with an idea and maybe republicans can take a look at it and see whether we like it. finally, the majority leader said we have got another filibuster in our path. they, meaning republicans, stall and delay. well, last night, leader mcconnell said let's have the vote tonight, right now. we don't need to stall or delay another minute. the majority leader said no, i don't want to vote on my proposal yet. i want to vote on it at 1:00 a.m. on sunday morning.

leader mcconnell said today we're ready to vote on it today without delay, now, at 3:00, at 6:00, whatever, let's vote on it. we don't need to continue to waste time. the majority leader said no, we'll vote on it at 1:00 a.m. sunday morning. okay. i'll be here, but i wonder what the american people think of such a dysfunctional body that we can't even by unanimous consent bring a matter to the senate floor, vote on this motion to proceed to invoke cloture to proceed to the leader's bill. well, those are some things that i just wanted to comment on that the leader had to say. finally, what i would like to do is put into the record, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to insert at the close of my remarks a "wall street journal" editorial called "the road to a downgrade," dated july 28. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you.

and let me quote from just a piece of this. the editorial starts by noting that the president inherited a recession and responded -- i'm quoting now -- "by blowing up the u.s. balance sheet. spending as a share of g.d.p. in the last three years is higher than at any time since 1946. in three years, the debt has increased by more than than $4 trillion, thanks to stimulus, cash for clunkers, mortgage modification programs, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, record expansions in medicaid and more. the forecast is for $8 trillion to $10 trillion more in red ink through 2021. mr. obama hinted in a press conference earlier this month that if it weren't for republicans, he would want another stimulus." "the wall street journal" says scary thought. none of this includes the obamacare entitlement that will place 30 million more americans on government health rolls. and then they conclude this is the road to fiscal perdition. the looming debt downgrade only

confirms what everyone knows. congress has made so many promises to so many americans that there is no conceivable way those promises can be kept. tax rates might have to rise to 60%, 70%, even 80% to raise the revenues to finance these promises, but that would be economically ruinous. and it concludes, "this instance on no reform reinforces the notion that our entitlement state is too big to afford but also too big to change politically. this is how a aaa country becomes aa, the first step on the march to greece." end of quotation. charles congratulat krauthammerl observer of the political scene, in his column friday in "the washington post" concluded with the following words: "obama faces two massive problems: jobs and debt. they're both the result of his

spectacularly failed keynesian gamble, spendin spending that la stagnant economy with high and chronic unemployment and a stag staggering debt burden." and that's the problem, mr. president. a staggering debt burden that requires us to increase our debt ceiling and republicans are saying, in order to stop this cycle of more promises and more spending, we've got to apply some accountability, some common sense and good judgment, and that means, first and foremost, stop the spending. i would note, as i said before, that under president obama, annual spending has gone up by $1.2 trillion each of the years. the deficit by peds 1.4 trillion. and i ask again, do you notice any correlation there? that's the problem. and i know my democratic colleagues love to complain about president bush, but i would note that in the year

2007, which was a year before the recession, the deficit under president bush was just $161 billion. a tenth of what the deficit is today. so, mr. president, my colleagues and i all need to focus on the issue before us, which is to begin to reduce spending, to insert some accountability into the process, to include some system changes so that we can't continue this unwe woul unwe woy government spending that we never seem to be able to stop. and the evidence of how difficult it is is that for the last four weeks now we have been arguing with each other about how we're going to affect $2.4 trillion in savings in order to extend the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion. and we can't figure out a way to do it.

and that should show you what's wrong with our system. and why we need to put some accountability into it. now, i am confident that over the next 48 hours or so that the white house and legislative leaders are going to find a way to both extend the debt ceiling and to come up with savings that begin to create a down payment on this incredible debt as well as system reforms that will give not just the markets but american businesses and families some sense of assurance that we will be able in the future to avoid the problem that some european countries are going through right now. but that will mean that we have to forget about this business of tax increases, which are the worst medicine possible in time of recession, as the president himself noted; find ways to reduce spending that we can

agree upon; provide accountability in our government in the future; and in that way assure everyone that we can continue to grow, that growth will produce prosperity and ironically more revenues to the federal treasury, but more important i will the standard of living that americans have become accustomed to and have every right to expect. mr. president, i note -- i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask by unanimous consent that i be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: there's 12 1/2 minutes left. mr. rubio: 12 1/2 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. i rise here on the senate floor today to speak on the tremendous issue that's captivated and rightfully so the attention of our country. let me start by saying that i do

not enjoy or relish the role of attack dog. i never found any fun that that. i don't intend to tbhak here in the snavment i have been here for only seven months but means i haven't been here long enough to think any of the stuff that's going on is normal. i certainly don't think any of the stuff that goes on here too often is normal. the fact that i've been here seven months has served me well in that regard. washington is full of people from all over the world and all over the country that have traveled here this week to come and watch their government at work and see the monuments of the city and find themselves in the middle of this debate. it is important to remind people what we're debating because although it is an important and difficult issue, it is not hard to understand. the united states of america more or less -- these are rough numbers but accurate -- spends about $300 billion a month. it has $180 billion a month that

comes to the federal government through taxes and other sources of reknew and that -- revenue and that means that the senate will come to order to meet its bills, it needs to borrow $120 billion. now, for much of the history of this country, there have been increases in the debt limit and the ability to borrow money. but what has happened over the last few years is that it's no longer a retune vote because the people who give us our credit rating are saying too much of the money you spend every month is borrowed and we want you to show us how over the next ten years you are going to borrow less as a percentage of what you spend. and so that's why, for years, where the debt limit was routine vote, it no longer can be. it is not something that was made up in some conservative think tank. but the reality that we cannot continue to borrow 40% to 41% of every penny that the government spends has brought us to this point. so you would think that seeing that, our government and our leaders here in both parties would react to that immediately and work on it.

and i've heard lot of talk today about delaying votes. i would argue to you that this issue has been delayed at least for the last two and a half years. in the two years before i even came here, neither this -- this chamber neither proposed or passed a budget. it is a startling figure that for the last two years this government has operated without a budget. the presiding officer: order in the chamber, please. please continue. mr. rubio: so think about that. two years have gone by without a budget. the first tw years that the president was the president, no budgets. some people would say, well, that's because partisanship in washington. well, that's not true. in the two years before i got here, both the house and senate were controlled by members of the democratic party, which are the president's party. in fact, in this chamber for at least one of those two years 60 votes, 60 out of 100 members here caucused with the democrats. 's aas you recall, on christmas

-- as you will recall, on christmas eve, they were able to pass a bill. you know how long it has been since this chamber passed a proposed a budget? that's 822 days. a lot of things have happened in the last 822 days. so then we got here in january, seven months have passed, still no budget. again, not budget passed, proposed, offered. here's our budget. still no budget. 822 days and every single day that i've been here. now, in the last seven days on this debt debate, we have finally seen a proposal from the esteemed senator from nevada, the majority leader. you would think, has he brought it to the floor to vote in not until last night. so, again, offered a proposal over the weekend and still for six days we sat around and what did we do around here? nothing. it was never brought to a vote. you would think these issues

would have been worked on in january, february, march -- nothing. this chamber has done nothing. you talk about delay tactics? they've been thraig for two and a half years -- they've been dislaig for two and a half years. the president doesn't have the luxury of some of these things. he has to propose a budget by law, and i d let me tell you how ridiculous the budget was. not a single member of this senate voted for it, including the democrats. it is a budget that didn't lead to the debt limit. it increased the debt. that's how absurd it was. where is the president plan? we haven't seen it. we haven't seen t here's the president's plan, a blank sheet of paimplet he doesn't have a plan. he hasn't offered a plan. again, if this were a republican president, i would say the same thing. i do not understand how an issue of this magnitude, of generational importance, the president of the united states has not offered a plan. if someone has seen the president's plan, please send to to me because no one else has seen it. it does not exist.

so this has been the plan all along, by the way. the plan all along was not to take a position, to let the days count down until we got to this point with 72 hours to go and then force a vote on something that they wanted. i believe that that has been the plan the entire time. and you can see it carrying itself out. you want to know why people all across america get grossed out about politics? it is by wasmg this kind of thing happen. for today and for much of this time i have seen all these attacks and name-calling. if we had $1 billion for every time i hear the word "tea party extremist," we could solve this debt problem. so all this name-calling -- lelt me read some quotes about this debt limit and i found some pretty extremist quotes. here's one. it says, "the fact that we are here today to debate raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership's failure. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. americans deserve better. i, therefore, intend to oppose ththe to increase america's debt

limit." a quhoat from a tea party extremist, right? no. this is a quote from march 16 of 2006 from senator barack obama of illinois. i found another extremist quote. this one says, "because this mass of accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, i am voting against a debt limit increase. well, that must be from a tea party extremist member of the house, right? no. this is march 16, 2006, from senator joe biden of delaware. last but not least, here's a quote from september 27 of 2007. it sayings, "i find it distaste l and disturbing to increase the debt limit yet again. clearly we need to change course and this debt limit bill is just another reminder of that." and that is from the distinguished senator from nevada, the majority leader. on that date in 2007.

and yet now these same quotes in this context, what we're talking about raising the debt limit more than has ever been raised in one vote, is extremism in this name-calling is be a sudden and sets this process back. the other thing i hear -- oh, it is not reasonable. this is a waste of time. this bill can't pass the senate when they talk about the house bill. so now it disqualifies the bill the fact that it can't pass the senate. well, guess what? the senate bill can't pass in the senate. the senate bill can't pass in the senate. mr. rockefeller: will the senator yield fao a question? mr. rubio: i'll yield. mr. kerry: i thank the senator for doing that. that's become somewhat unusual in the senate today. i truly appreciate it. i would ask the senator, as ironic as it may be that on occasion people in the past have indeed voted against a debt limit -- both republicans and democrats alike -- is it not true that in those situations those votes did not hold the

nation hostage, did not come at a moment of enormous economic fragility as we are in today, and did not run the risk of default because it was going to pass overwhelmingly every time? is that not true? mr. rubio: to the senator from massachusetts, i would say two things. the first is that those votes -- put it to you this way. if the senator from illinois, senator obama, had had his way, we'd be in the same position that we are in now. i recognize the president has now said that the debt limit is -- he made a mistake and he wouldn't have said that were he here today. my point, i would say to the senator from massachusetts, is that rhetoric two years ago was not considered extremist rhetoric and now that rhetoric, which by the way i have not found. i think it is a milgt. there may be a handful of building both in the house and senate perhaps that believe that the nation doesn't have to raise the debt limit. but by and large everyone recognizes that something must be done about the debt limit. what we have also said -- i speak for myself. let me not speak for any other member of this chamber or the

next. what i have also said is that it would be a terrible mistake to lose this opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt. and that the debt limit gives us an opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt, because the crisis that america faces is not one that i have defined. but one that has been defined by the rating houses and rating agencies who have said if you do not get your spending in order, we don't care whj you raise your debt limit or not, we will downgrade you. that means an increase in every american's interest payments. mr. kerry: will the senator further yield? mr. rubio: yes. mr. kerry: i would just say first of all that everybody understands the danger of the rating agencies right now. the problem is, we got to reach across the aisle and negotiate. we've got to come to agreement. right now there's not a lot of negotiating going on. i would ask the senator, if he doesn't agree that there is an enormous difference between -- the senator a moment ago said if he had gotten his way.

the whole point is, everybody knew he wasn't about to get his way. that was a truly symbolic vote. today, however, is it not true we are on the brink of a default and the absence of negotiation or the absence of a settlement presents us with a far more serious consequence to the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling today? mr. rubio: to the senator from massachusetts i would say it's impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn't offer a plan. the finger pointing of who has a plan and who doesn't have a plan is relevant but it's not the central issue here. by also say in march of this year, march 30 of this year, i wrote an op-ed piece in "the wall street journal" and outlined the things i was looking for to be a part of this debate and i was told on march of this year that we didn't have enough time to do all those things, although later on we found out perhaps we did, this

grand bargain and i am prepared, as i stand here today, if there is a meeting after this, i'd love to be a part of it. i would love to discuss the things we need to do not just to raise the debt limit. raising the debt limit is the easiest thing. that's one vote away. the hard thing is to show the world we are serious about putting our spending in order so we can show people we'll able to pay our bills down the road. and that is a combination of things that i have outlined very clearly, not just on march of this year in "the wall street journal," but in repeated speeches on this floor. and those are the things, we need to do two things. number one is we need to grow our economy because while the debt is the biggest issue in washington, jobs are the biggest issue facing america. and if we could get more people back to work, we would have more people paying taxes, and if we had more people paying taxes, we'd have more revenue for government. sos that the first thing we need to do is figure out how to create jobs in america and i think there is bipartisan agreement on things we dan do to do that. the president himself mentioned regulatory reform as a necessity

in the state of the union. let's do it. we've all talked about tax reform. and if there are things in that tax code that do not belong there because they are the process of good lobbying instead of good policy, let's go after those things. let's talk about that. i think we all agree that there has to be some changes in discretionary spending but we also agree that doesn't solve the problem. that's a small piece of our overall budget that we have to save medicare because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. that we have to save medicaid because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. i can tell you that history will back up what i'm about to say and that is that there is no government run by conservatives, republicans, put whoever you want there, if you give government the opportunity to spend more money than it has, it will do it. it will do it every time. that's why i believe there are at least 20 members of the senate in the other party who have supported some version of the balanced budget amendment and yes it's something we cannot even get a vote on much less discuss in the senate. i believe there can be compromise on those outlines but here's the last thing i would

say. my time is about to expire so let me close with this. compromise is fantastic. i would love nothing more than to leave this building tomorrow night having said the republic still works. i was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with people from states far from mine with views different from mine but who love their country so much we were able to come together and save it when it faced this catastrophe. i would love nothing more than compromise. but i would say to you that compromise, that's not a solution is a waste of time. if my house was on fire, i can't compromise about which part of the house i'm going to save. you save the whole house or it will all burn down. we either save this country or we do not. and to save it, we must seek solutions. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the gentlemanfrom new jersey. mr. lautenberg: i ask unanimous consent i be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning

business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, we've arrived at a moment of truth in the american economy and our standing in the world hangs in the balance result of the republican plan to derail the functioning of our country and bring about the precarious prospect of a major default in our financial condition. democrats have bent over backwards to compromise, and yet the republicans continue to put our country in jeopardy, and the american people and the american economy are determined for a reprieve from this disaster. and well, you know, we just heard comments by our colleague from across the aisle about getting our tax structure in

order. reminds me of a condition where there's a fire in a house, and they start arguing about -- people start arguing about the color of the fire engine. what we have here in front of us is an immediate disaster program that could upset the balance of our functioning in our society and put america for the first time in a position of less support from around the world and putting people, working people hard at work trying to keep ends meet, are going to be prevented from doing so. so we ask, isn't this time for our republican friends to stop playing gotcha, stop putting politics ahead of the needs of our middle-class families and instead start putting the people before politics? make no mistake, the people that we serve are nervous and

concerned. purchasing power has declined while wage increases have been insufficient for family needs. and many in america are working their fingers to the bone to get out of this economic squeeze and keep their families intact. and all this time, while the richest among us see monumental gains in their incomes and their wealth, the people who have the burdens of maintaining our infrastructure, running our military and defending the very foundation of our democratic country, are struggling daily to stay in their homes, hold onto the health care and get their kids to college. and the american people are the ones, the ordinary people, the middle-income people are the ones who are going to suffer the most if the republicans force the u.s. government to default next week. 14 million americans are already out of work, but more than half a million may join the

unemployment line further if we don't raise the debt limit. and that's just the beginning. a default crisis will send interest rates skyrocketing which will be adding even more expense on the american middle class and make it harder for them to meet basic family needs. they'll be forced to pay higher interest rates for mortgages, student loans, car loans and credit cards and that money won't help create jobs or rebuild our economy. it will be going to the banks and to china and to investors who are going to demand higher yields for u.s. bond purse because -- purchases because they are less reliable in their likelihood of being paid back. we're also likely to see another calamity on wall street if the united states doesn't pay its bills. the stalks have already -- stock markets have already been

seeing declines in the anticipation of a reckless attempt to put politics in the middle of financial armageddon. one analysis found that shareholders in u.s. stocks lost more than $400 billion during the past week, while house republicans were fiddling with a scheme they knew never would become law, but they don't want to write law, they want to destroy the obama presidency. that's what the mission is. the dow has just had its worst week in a year and consumers do not have spare dollars for investments because their incomes are consumed by spending money on basic necessities and because their wary of losses that will occur from the prospect of default. mr. president, imagine what it will mean to the 401(k) savings of middle-class americans. much of it accumulated over

years. if faith in our country and its value decline sharply as defaults loom ahead, their values can go down precipitously. our retirement savings can also be -- other retirement savings can also be wiped out all because of these punitive actions by their republican representatives. the pain will be excruciating for citizens. people will be forced to go out their social security checks and their critical health care they seef through medicare. we might be able to deliver promised benefits to veterans or paychecks for the men and women wearing our country's uniform in afghanistan and iraq. i want to be clear. a default will injure america's reputation throughout the world. it will weaken faith in the world's most respected financial power, leaving our country's

financial leadership in doubt. simply put, defaulting on the debt could trigger an economic collapse of historic proportion. that's why i plead with our republican colleagues, join us without delay in adopting majority leader reid's plan. senator reid's plan will provide certainty for middle-class americans and to the markets because it will provide stability, that's what we need right now through 2013. mr. president, this plan isn't perfect. in fact, including me, believe it should include revenues. it doesn't but that's why it's called a compromise. and after we adopt this plan and step back from the brink, we need to work on a balanced approach to get our country back on sound economic footing, and it means asking the wealthiest among to us pay their fair share. i was one of those who was very fortunate in my business

experience, i started a company with two other fellas and we had 45,000 employees today. why? it was because our country was there for me after i served in uniform in world war ii. i was able to get an education at columbia university and we started the company called a.d.p., 45,000 people have their jobs because of a.d.p. and it means our republican colleagues have to abandon their obsession to protect the wealthiest among us at an unaffordable cost to the poor and the middle class. it means recognizing the value of our country's human infrastructure. no economy can grow if you don't invest in fiscal infrastructure like roads, bridges, railways and no society can prosper if you don't invest in education, propping up our human infrastructure to enable americans to fill the future jobs in technology and science and research.

let's face it. buildings, houses, other physical facilities are never built from the top down. the work requires a strong foundation to guarantee reliability, endurance, and safety now and for the future. middle-class families form america's foundation. the pillars of strength, faith in the future, belief that americans can survive challenges and catastrophes and further belief that no place on earth exists with more freedom and liberty than our blessed country. but all that could evaporate if default is permitted to come. over the past half century, the debt ceiling has been raised 75 times, almost two-thirds of them under republican presidents. in fact, the debt ceiling was increased 18 times under president reagan, and seven times under president george w. bush.

our country has never defaulted on its obligations and default must be presented if -- prevented if we love our country. it's time for the republicans to abandon their "my way or the highway" approach. it's time for the republicans to stop playing politics with our country's economy, time for politics is election day, 2012, not now. let's do our work, keep our precious ship steady and afloat. majority leader reid's plan is our last, best hope to avoid a disaster and we need to act on it without further delay. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i yield back any balance of time, and note --. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, if there is one thing in this long difficult debate there is no question about, one thing that all of us have long known, one

simple truth that we must get past if we're going to avoid default, it's that any bill to get us out of this crisis will need democratic and republican votes. there is no partisan solution, no other path, no magic trick at the 11th hour. there is just compromise. after all the bluster and back and forth and posturing, there is just the bill that we have before us today. it's a bill that doesn't have everything that all of us want. it's not the bill that any one of us would have crafted if we had our way. but it is a bill that can and should be passed to avoid an economic catastrophe that would leave families in every single one of our states reeling. now, mr. president, i understand that compromise has been hard to come by in these negotiations no matter how hard we try but with senator reid's bill we have taken the republicans at their word.

we have come to the negotiating table and have put forward a plan that goes to great pains to meet every one of the criteria they have called for. they said they wanted cuts that exceed the debt limit raise. this bill delivers that. they said they wanted new tax revenues. this bill delivers that. they said they wanted to put in place a process to make even more cuts later. this bill delivers that. and they have said they, too, want to avoid default, and this bill is our way out. mr. president, i know my republican colleagues don't want to see us default. i know that while we don't see eye to eye on all issues, we all fight for the people of our states, and i also know my republican friends are hearing the same things from families in their home states i'm hearing from mine. i know their offices have been flooded with calls and emails from families trying to figure out what they would do if the

support they depend on to stay in their homes or put food on their table is suddenly cut off. i know they're hearing from the same seniors and veterans and college students with the same message -- put america first, get it done, compromise. mr. president, i got a letter just like that from ann phillips from tacoma, washington, who after 18 years working was laid off during the recession. ann told me about how she felt she was doing the responsible thing by getting up and dusting herself off and going back to college, but now she said she is worried sick because of the fact that the interest rates on her student loans, which she relies on to pay for her school, would shoot up if we defaulted. in her letter, ann made clear who the real victims of this default would be. she said, and i quote -- "ultimately, people like me, my husband, my family, and all the people i know who are doing

their best every day to make a contribution to society, they will pay the expense." i also heard from a woman named brenda starkey and her husband, retired navy veterans from republic, washington. they told me if we don't meet this challenge, they may not be able to afford medicare payments or v.a. co-payments not to mention basic necessities like food, electricity and water. brenda wrote, and i quote, i was taught in school about henry clay and his great compromise. i still believe this is the way our government is supposed to work, with both sides giving some ground until a common position is met. we deserve more from our government. i also heard from social security recipients like alissa terry from bellingham, washington, who told me how important that monthly check is to her and just what it would mean if it didn't go out this month, and she said simply -- quote -- "social security is my lifeline. it stands between me and

homelessness." mr. president, this isn't just about politics. it's about these people and millions more who may not even realize their well-being is on the line today. it's about average american families whose credit card interest rates would skyrocket. it's about homeowners whose mortgage payments will increase by over $1,000 a year. it's about rising food and utility and gas prices and what that would mean for our already cash-strapped families. and it's about retirement plans that would plummet. these americans are looking for real leadership and a real solution to this problem. they don't want more games or gimmicks or short-term patches. and, mr. president, for anyone who believes a short-term extension is a good idea, i just want everyone to envision just what that would mean. imagine, we are right back here, right here on the brink, doing the same thing in five short

months, only now we are five or six months closer to an election and the battle lines are drawn deeper than they are today, and we are also smack in the middle of one of the most important economic times of the whole year for retailers and consumers, the holiday season. just imagine the effect of this crisis and this stand still would -- this standstill would feel like then. imagine holiday shoppers worried that their credit card rates are going to shoot up or next month's mortgage payment is going to break the bank. or retailers reluctant to stock their shelves or hire because they're worried about a major disruption in the economy, or seniors on social security worried their check won't be mailed and their heating bill will go up. not to mention veterans or college students or our troops once again who would once again be put in the spiral of anxiety and insecurity right at the holiday times. they don't want to relive this. america doesn't want to go

through this again, and they shouldn't have to. nobody should. and that is why exactly we need to come together now. and, mr. president, as i said before, the bill in front of us this evening is not ideal, but it gets us to where we need to get to today to protect our families and small businesses across america from market uncertainty and the threat of default. this legislation does make deep and serious cuts to government spending. it does protect medicare and social security benefits that we promised to our seniors, and it puts the country on a more sustainable fiscal track, and it allows us to continue working to reduce the debt and deficit without the threat of economic clal amity hanging over our heads again. mr. president, democrats have compromised and compromised again and again, and this bill that is before us now is the

fruit of those compromises. it's also the last and best hope of preventing us from defaulting in a few short days on the full faith and credit of our nation for the first time in our history. there's no other choice. the markets are waiting and watching, credit rating agencies are waiting and watching, countries around the world are waiting and watching, but most importantly, mr. president, the american people are waiting and watching. i hope we pass this bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, thank you very much.

i rise to address this issue of the debt limit and how we are going to go forward, and i think it's important, given the conversation that i have been hearing this morning, to understand some of the key features that are under discussion. the first is that the -- the plan that came from the house last night, the boehner plan, it requires the second half of the debt ceiling to be lifted only if a balanced budget amendment is passed and sent out to the states. in other words, it puts a two-thirds vote of each chamber basically on the process six months from now. what that does is it says to our nation that we are going to be in continuous debate over this issue the next six months, facing a two-thirds vote that's very unlikely to happen, so this crisis is going to not end, not on august 2, not on august 3, not on august 4, not for six months into the future, and then it's not going to end because we're not going to have a two-thirds vote. it sends exactly the wrong

message to our business community, which is waiting for a sense of stability that we are through this moment. it sends the wrong message to the international world that it's looking at the question of whether they are going to buy treasury bills. it sends the wrong message in regards to our reputation in the world. this plan of continuing the crisis for six months, in order to bring this nation to its knees just so folks campaign on the fact that they will do better, if you will, does not represent the best of the american spirit, for we should be coming together to solve problems, not to extend problems, not to amplify problems, not to hurt families across the united states of america and hurt small businesses across this land. the second thing that the proposal did that we faced last night is it took defense spending off the table for two

years. now, why is this important? it's important because defense spending has grown by over 300% in the last decade, over 300%. it's important because the recent secretary of defense robert gates said there are over over $100 billion, $100 billion of defense programs that do not contribute to our national security. we must be looking at programs that do not contribute for their intended purpose if we are going to take and address our fiscal situation with the best possible path for america. and then the speaker said, you know what, there is going to be a super committee, but i, the speaker, am only going to allow it to consider cuts to direct spending, and i will not appoint anyone who would look at the full range of options.

that is, to include programs tucked into the tax code. that was just a few minutes ago, my colleague from florida, he said if there are tax programs which are there not because of good policy but because of good lobbying, those need to be on the table. he is absolutely right. it is a situation where every citizen understands that whether you spend $10,000 on a grant or spend $10,000 on a tax credit, it is the same $10,000. now, there is a reason, there is a reason that the boehner plan has put tax loopholes and tax earmarks and tax programs off the table, and that is because inserted into the tax code are programs for the wealthy and the well connected.

and why do they want their programs in the tax code? very simply, they avoid the annual authorization process. they avoid the annual appropriation process. and in a way, you can think of them as super programs because they don't get reviewed regularly. that's where the well-connected and the wealthy want to have their programs placed and they have been very successful in that. it has been over a quarter century since we have had a systematic review of these programs, but here we are in a fiscal crisis, it makes sense to examine the tax loopholes, many of which have outlived their usefulness -- they have outlived their use, and many others which still may be very valid, and those are the ones we should keep, but we need to examine all of them. i had a colleague come to the floor the other day, colleague across the aisle, and he made

this argument. he said, you know, there are some tax programs that benefit the middle class, and he proceeded to put up all these charts and all these numbers about programs that benefit the middle class, and he concluded that because some of the tax programs benefit the middle class, no tax programs should be discussed as part of this issue. well, let's apply the same logic to our appropriation programs. can't anyone say that there are some spending programs, some direct spending programs that benefit the middle class? but then we turn around and say all of these programs should be left unexamined as a result? of course not. nor was my colleague across the aisle willing to make that argument. but why did he make such an absurd argument, that because some programs are useful, we shouldn't look at any of the programs in the tax code? because he wanted to protect the programs for the wealthy and

well connected. and i'll tell you today, there is something terribly wrong with coming to this floor to protect the programs for the best off in our society and doing so under the false claim that you are here to fight for working families. that is wrong and that is why we must look at every single program. there is another problem in the bill that we have, and that is if you take boehner at his word and he's going to take the the $1.5 trillion that are in the tax code under tax expenditures and not allow them to be examined, then the only place you end up going to reach the numbers involved are medicaid and medicare. medicaid, health care for the poor. medicare, health care for our seniors. it seems that there are members in this chamber who want to