well, maybe they should come and live in my community where we understand that the quality of life is deeply dependent upon your health. there was indeed a very interesting experiment in oregon over the last few years. we had funds -- not enough funds for everyone to participate in medicaid called the oregon health plan. so there was a lottery. so for the first time anywhere in the nation, there was the ability to sign those to sign the up against the control group who didn't. found out that medicaid made a profound difference in people's lives t shouldn't come as any surprise that health care makes a profound difference, but many people on this floor have questioned whether health care really matters. it is always interesting to hear people who have access to health care, who have it because they're wealthy, who have it because they have a job right

here that gives them health care wondering why we should bother to care about health care for others. these issues are issues we must address as we go forward. now, let me just check in here on my time. let me note then that if we proceed with a plan that is guaranteed to paralyze this chamber over the next six months with an impossible hurdle at the end of that period, we will destroy this economy. we are flat right now. we're not gaining ground. we had a bill, small business innovation bill, research bill here on the floor, debated it for six months, routine bill. my colleagues across the aisle voted not to end debate so there couldn't be a vote on taking this bill forward. deeply determined to prevent bills creating jobs from getting to the president's desk.

well, indeed, because we haven't been able to take those key pieces of legislation and go forward, here we are with a grat economy, and now they want to take it to its knees. because if we create this uncertainty over the next six months, the interest rate goes up on the treasury bills, the interest rate goes up on home mortgages, the interest rate goes up on car loans, the interest rate goes up on everything. interest is an empty tax, a tax on every family. the estimate would be about $2,000 a year and it buys us nothing -- nothing but destruction of the economy. and in a mus that must not happ. thank you, mr. president. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i appreciate the comments of the person that preceded me. we are heading into a territory

where we've never been before, and in washington you get to get your sunday funnies on saturday. so i took a little peek at dilbert today. it emphasizes the problem. "i am preparing for the complete meltdown of our financial system. i've got six months of food and water. i've got batteries and flashlights and gold coins, and the lady with the triangular hair says, "i'm prepared too. i have your home address and i notice that your preparations are light on defensive weaponry." then she say, "could you add some protein bars to the shopping list?" i want to share with you a letter from a 10-year-old in wyoming that made our statewide newspaper. he says, "what is the government think of me? i think they thim a not smart because i'm too young to know what they're doing, like raising the national debt. don't they know i owe the country about $45,000?

i'm only ten years old. i could buy a lot with $45,000. that's more than my dad earns. but it wouldn't buy everything. government shouldn't try to buy everything. it is my job and the people's job to buy things we need. i don't want the government to think for me. they don't know i'm a little brother who doesn't like it when my big brothers tell me what to do, because they aren't always responsible for their own things. i don't tell my brothers what to do with their money. i'm smarter than they think i am. they should follow the rules." i'd ask that the entire letter be printed at the completion of my speech. and i thank eric -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: and i thank him for his sage advice. it is disappointing to be here today dreask the unite addressid states senate on a topic that we should have dealt with months

ago. our country is in a financial crisis. erskine bowles, the cochairman of the deficit commission, coined the situation we face as -- quote -- "the most predictable economic crisis in history" -- end quote. and yet there is no clear path forward to deal with both the short-term need to raise the debt limit and the long-term need to get spending under control. i'm disappointed we have made this discussion about the debt ceiling instead of our ever-increasing spending. when you spend beyond your means, you have to cut back. that's what the 10-year-old said. the plans we are considering at this stage in the debate are plans four the next two years. while there is merit in making the spending cuts these bills make, they are not the ultimate solution. we need more significant action. we need to move forward with something bold. my republican colleagues and i have proposed such plans. i have proposed a solution that would cut just one penny from every dollar we spend for six

years and then cap the spending at the historical amount of revenue that we take in during the seventh year. in the eighth year we would have a balanced budget. unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to even debate measures like my penny plan or the cut, cap, and balance act or even the plan put forward by speaker boehner. at the same time, they refuse to debate these issues%, they refuse to put forward their own plan for long-term structural changes. they're only willing to debate plans that make changes in the short term and so we're stuck here on a weekend debating a plan that's deeply flawed. i think it's important to look at where the debate is today versus where it was when president obama was sworn in. it's clear that we've come a long way from where we were when president obama took office. in 2009, democrats in congress passed a so-called economic stimulus bill that cost $1 trillion to pay for it, we borrowed that money. and as the unemployment numbers

prove, all that borrowing didn't solve our economic problems. apparently we spent over $275,000 per job, and none of those employees got paid that well. in 2010, president obama's second year in office, democrats in congress forced through an unpopular health care bill which was rot with budget gimmicks and will ultimately cost or country trillions of dollars. the president's attempt at health care reform was so unsuccessful that the largest problem facing our debt and deficit situation is what we will do to contain health care costs. another $1 trillion borrowing, another $1 trillion wasted. the american people were fed up and in november of 2010, they voted for real change. those votes ushered in a new attitude and seven months into a republican-controlled house of representatives, the debate is entirely different. instead of looking at where we can spend money, we're looking

for where we can cut. instead of looking at where how to borrow more money, we're looking at how we can change our spending habits so we have a spending plan that will work in the future. the republicans have heard the people's call for smaller government and less spending and are committed to taking action. either this year -- earlier this year republicans led efforts to cut spending in appropriations bills for the first time in years. now we need a solution to cut trillions of dollars in spending at this moment that we allow the president to have some additional borrowing authority to pay for the purchases we've already made. the cuts republicans have proposed are the largest cuts ever seen, but it still isn't enough to fix the problem long-term. why aren't we looking at a long-term solution to this problem? why are we forced to look at short-term piddly spending cuts at the same time we give the

president authority to borrow lots more money. this isn't one person or one party's fault. the president does have us in a box. during his state of the union message, the president could have explained to the american people the dire situation we're facing. the deficit commission had already painted the picture. the president needed to premier that picture. he could have explained that we're borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar that we spend, much of it from china. he could have explained that we're on a spending spree that must be stopped. that was and is the true state of the union. after the state of the union, he could have sent us a serious budget modeled after his own deficit commission. instead, he used the state of the union to talk about more spending and his budget was ary ridiculous proposal, so ridiculous that it didn't receive a single vote, republican or democratic, when it was put before the senate. let me repeat that.

his state of the union about spending and his budget was such a ridiculous proposal it didn't receive a single vote, not a republican vote or a democratic vote, when it was put before the senate. while the senate has failed to lead and deserves a substantial portion of the blame, we in congress have also put ourselves in this box. during the last administration, we should have worked to contain spending. while we missed that opportunity when it was clear that weed intoed to make a major -- that we needed to make a major change, democrats should have ignored the president's lack of leadership and put forward a budget 0 proposal in the senate. the house passed a budget but rather than taking their proposal seriously, my democratic colleagues demonized the plan as the end of medicare. they preferred finding a campaign issue as odd d omed to actually solving the financial problems we face. unfortunately, we're quickly running out of options. we are at a catch-22. the country can't afford more debt but has to have it. if we don't raise the debt

ceiling, we won't be able to pay all off bills and the interest rates will go up. in other words, if we pass a plan that doesn't fundamentally change the way we do business in washington, we increase the debt limit with no end in shieght and interest rates go up. the majority in the senate that brought you banking reform has run up a huge debt and we've all masmed out the nation's credit cards. now they want to increase the amount of the mortgage. mowing trying to get a loan when nothing has brn pai been paid oe principal of the loan for years. imagine the lender's reaction when he's told that the mortgagee will be back shortly for another loan. let me put this in concrete terms. i'm trying to keep these numbers proportional to the $14 trillion debt. imagine that you have a loan on a very large house with a mortgage of $1.4 million. since buying the harks you have

made interest payments but not a single payment on the principal. you determine you need more money to spend so you go to the lend he had and you ask an additional loan of $2 30,000. at the same time you do that you are honest and warn the lender that you'll be back next year and for the next nine years asking for $100,000 more each year. you also let the lender know that you don't want to pay off any of the principal on the loan, just make interest payments each year. i don't think any lender would take you seriously. but if he or she did, they would explain that you would have to obtain a variable-rate loan. a variable-rate loan means that the changes in risk to the economy could drive interest rates much higher and there's there'd be no protection from these higher interest rates. in other words, your loan with an excellent interest rate of 2.5% could go to an interest rate of 5% or 10% or like under president carter over 18% a ye

year. a 1% increase in the interest rate for the u.s. debt would cost another $1.3 trillion over ten years. that's just a 1% raise. the lender would point out that the raise in debt plus the rise in interest rates could result in your entire paycheck going to interest, and the interest payments would have to come ahead of food rs clothing, and any social needs for you or your children or your parents or grandparents. that's what we're fog about here as a potential future for the united states. the entire interest payments going to pay -- would be the only thing that we could pay for. if the banker were foolish to consider such a loan, he'd want to know what spending changes you were going to make. he would expect changes immediately, not piddly changes this year for a promise of a big change in the ninth year. he would want some proof that you were serious. if we act now and agree to cut 1% -- the 1% solution -- just

one penny of each dollar from our spending and reduce the cap to the new spending level by that year for each of the next seven years, the lingdzer might consider your -- the lender might consider your loan seriously. there's good chance you would expect 2% or 3% in cuts for the first year to demonstrate you're serious. we are in that situation today in congress. the president is asking for a $2.4 trillion loan increase, the largest increase in our nation's history. our spenders will explain to us, if we were worried about the low income, the down interesteddening and the less fortunate today, we should see what will happen to those individuals if we don't cut spending. if we reach a situation where all our revenues are going to interest payments on the debt, the future prioritization to pay for our debt will be unbearable. we can't go out 18 months. the american people don't trust us. we need to be accountable to the people.

we need an enforceable, accountable plan with quicker results. some might argue that the lender would just expect you to bring in more money. well, my democratic colleagues suggest just that when we say we must raise taxes. but everyone knows that if you ask your boss for a raise because you can't control your spending, you could be fired or demolted and as a result, you could bring in less revenue i don't need to tell you that our bosses, the american people don't expect a tax increase every time washington gets addicted to giving away money. the plan the majority leader has offered used budget gimmicks to avoid real spending cuts and gives the president a debt limit increase that while politically expedient, fails to put our country on a workable path. it doesn't provide a way to assure any substantial cuts will be made. while it may be -- maybe makes some necessary spending cuts today it does not provide us relief from our long challenges

and does not put us in a situation where we would be forced to make tough choices. we know that the majority leader's proposal won't pass. every republican has made clear that they will oppose the proposal, and so it doesn't have a chance to move forward. we had made clear we will not give the president the largest single debt ceiling increase in history for double the average time generally allowed since 1940 through the proposal the majority leader has offered. we've offered to vote on this proposal time and time again, and for reasons beyond comprehension, he refuses to allow a vote. he did a vote within 30 minutes of the time that the house bill came over here, but he wants to drag out the vote on his bill. i know that's delay to bring the pressure to the last minute, but that isn't how reasonable government works. i wish we had taken action earlier to avoid the situation we find ourselves in today. i wish the proposal before us was a serious effort to make structural change to how we spend money. instead, we all know the plan put forward by the majority

leader will be voted down later tonight or tomorrow and will be in the same -- we'll be in the same place we are right now, in the box where we need to raise the debt limit but also need to make structural changes to get our fiscal house in order to keep the markets from melting down. we are about to enter territory where our country has never been. the stock markets are already creating. because we -- reacting. this debate will continue on even after we act on the debt ceiling. i hope we can come together on a debt ceiling increase and a plan for real spending cuts. that's where the emphasis needs to be. and it has to have enforcement. i hope the debt ceiling is limited to the amount of guaranteed cuts. i hope we can put our country back on a sustainable fiscal path. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to gauge in a colloquy with my republican colleague. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: the president has refused to take off the table the fact that we would gault dwawlt on our debt. that's irresponsibility and without a doubt the president should come forth and say he will pay the interest on the debt. on our side we've been willing to compromise all along. we've been offering plans. we passed two plans in the house. now we have a plan before us, a democrat plan to raise the debt ceiling, and there are some of us who would vote for this democrat plan who might require some amendments or some compromise, it would have to be

some input from our side. and yet even though this bill was introduced yesterday and republicans said they would vote for it, the democrats are now filibustering their own bill. what's funny, they filibuster their own bill and then point fingers and say we're trying to stop things. we're here today to try to move things forward and so in the spirit of trying to reach a compromise before the deadline comes, i would ask unanimous consent that the vote on the pending cloture motion occur immediately or as soon as possible 5:00 p.m. today. the presiding officer: the gentlemanfrom illinois. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. under the filibuster rules of the senate, there is a requirement of 60 votes for cloture. we have said that we are prepared to move to a timely vote on this pending amendment, a majority vote, the same as the vote that speaker boehner had in the house, and i would object unless the senator from

kentucky wants to amend his unanimous consent request to make it clear that this will be a unanimous consent which i have spelled out here in detail if he'd like me to present it. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, i would remind the senator that there is a difference between the senate and the house. our founding fathers gave great power and leeway to the senate. we were meant to be a check and a balance against unbridled enthusiasm sometimes from one party or another, and so i would object to that motion. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mr. durbin: object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. paul: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to present an amendment. this amendment would be an amendment to the reid bill, and under this amendment what would happen is i have at least 10 republicans who will vote for the harry reid bill which would allow a compromise, which would allow the debt ceiling to rise.

i know the president is worried about having campaign time. he's worried about getting back out and doing some fundraisers. he doesn't want to consider the debt ceiling again before his election or his re-election campaign. so this amendment that i would offer would allow us to move forward in a bipartisan way. all republicans are asking for is that we balance our budget gradually over a seven to eight-year period. what this amendment what do and i'm asking unanimous consent to present is an amendment that says we will raise the debt ceiling contingent upon badge of a balanced budget amendment. by ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to present this amendment to the reid bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. paul: see, what i think this illustrates is that, you know, compromise, everybody says the pundits say that compromise is the mark of an enlightened person. we're trying to compromise.

i just offered to pass the leader's bill. i've offered to work with him. i'm from the tea party. they say we won't compromise? i'm willing to raise the debt ceiling. in fact, we worked on a motion that got more votes than any other motion that's been set forward and that was cut, cap and balance that would have required a balanced budget amendment to be passed, but would have raised the debt ceiling. what do we hear from the other side? intransigence. who is refusing to compromise? sounds to me like the other side is refusing to compromise. i have with me my distinguished colleague from utah. i'd like to hear his thoughts on where the fault lies and where we could come to if we were to compromise to try to find an agreement. mr. lee: mr. president, a number of us, myself included, have been arguing since january, ever since we arrived here and were sworn in in this very room, that the national debt is a permanent problem. the almost $15 trillion that we now owe as a nation is

permanent. it's going to take a long time to pay off. there are people who are not yet old enough to vote, there are people who will be born in a few years who are not even here who will one day have to assist in paying off that debt. now, the fact that this is a long-term problem means that it requires a long-term solution. that's why we've been saying all along that we ought not to raise the debt limit again. extending our national debt by another $2.5 trillion more or less, without a permanent solution in place. herein lies the problem. it's difficult or impossible for one congress to come up with a set of budget numbers that will necessarily bind future congresses. we can come up with a plan to cut $2 trillion or $3 trillion over a 10 or 15-year period but if future congresses don't want to go along with that they can find a way out of that. this has happened again as we've seen with

gram-rudman-hobblings, with the pay-go rules. congress is a living, breathing waiver unto itself. we need a permanent solution and this is why we settled on the need for a balanced budget amendment. as my distinguished colleague, the junior senator from kentucky has just pointed out, there is no intransigence in our position. those of us who identify with the republican party, those of us who it -- who identify with the tea party, we were sent here with a mandate by the voter, a mandate that says the federal government is too big and too expensive. now, resistance to this message from the other side of the aisle as vehement as that resistance may be, is not genuine if what it says is that this instance, insistence for a balanced budget amendment is itself reflective of an unwillingness to compromise. there are myriad opportunities to compromise within that general framework. we've offered that.

we've extended that. republicans have now submitted no fewer than two bills that have passed the house of representatives to address the debt limit issue. both of which have stopped dead in their tracks over here without further opportunity. most importantly, without a response by the democratic party this the senate or otherwise. so if there is either party in this discussion that is refusing to compromise, it's not ours. if there is any group that has failed to offer solutions, it cannot be described as the tea party movement. i ask my colleague, the junior senator from kentucky, do you see any -- any element within the tea party movement, any element within the republican party that is unwilling to compromise or wanting to block just for the sake of blocking? mr. paul: no, from going to hundreds of tea party rallies and grassroots rallies with voters across america, what i see is they want what's best for america.

i don't think they really particularly care whether it's a republican plan or a democrat plan, they want what's best for america. but they want a solution. and the problem with the debate here in washington is all of the proposals seem to want to add more debt. we have $14 trillion worth of debt, and both the republican and the democrat proposal, we're going to add $7 trillion to $8 trillion more in debt. what i think the folks in the tea party and those who are concerned about passing this debt along to their kids and grandkids want, they want us to spend less. i think a great contrast and what illustrates the problem here is that spending is going up 7% a year. nobody is really talking about cutting that spending. they're cutting about the rate of growth of that spending. there's a new plan out called the one penny plan. it would actually have real cuts of one penny on every dollar spent. the other side pulls their hair and says, oh, you're so rad calf. we say we just want to cut one penny out of every dollar of government spending. is that radical?

so the president has said it's a dysfunctional place. he is right in that sense. but i think some of the dysfunction comes from the hypocrisy or the other side not really listening. for example the balanced budget amendment. they say polls show routinely 75% of americans are for it. and routinely about 14% of americans seem to be approving of this body. so the question i would have is maybe it's that we're not listening well enough. maybe we're not doing what the people want. mr. lee: that certainly appears to be the case. and it's a reminder to us of the fact that no matter how much we might be tempted at times to demagogue this issue, no matter how tempting it will be for certain members of this body to cast blame elsewhere, they cannot escape one simple fact, which is that the american people are demanding more. they are demanding that we spend less. they're demanding that we stop this barbaric practice of

perpetual, massive-scale deficit spending. why? because it erodes individual liberty, it takes money that people have not yet made and spends it and obligates them to repay it in some cases before they're old enough to vote, in other cases before they're even born. and so we need a permanent solution. when we put something in the constitution, it serves as a permanent reminder of the fact that we as a people have made a decision and we're going to move forward. not everybody will necessarily agree as to how best we should move forward having made that decision. but the american people overwhelmingly to the tune of 75% support the idea that we should amend the constitution to restrict congress' deficit spending power. mr. paul: i think the other thing when people talk about washington being dysfunctional and they are upset with what's going on in washington, i think one of the things that upsets people is hypocrisy.

people who say one thing and do another. and, you know, it really is, that's the sad state of affairs -- sad state of affairs. people run on one idea and then they completely change their ideas. the president was a u.s. senator. he spoke on this floor and here are his words in 2006. the fact that we are here today debating raising the america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. he was sort of pointing fingers. everybody is pointing fingers. it's someone else's fault. i call that the empty partisanship but his conclusion voting to raise the debt limit would send a bad signal to our leaders that they're doing the right thing. i've often said there is no objective evidence that washington or congress is spending your money wisely. the pentagon says they're too big to be audited. can't balance their books. there was $100 billion unaccounted for in the becoming year.

$5 billion that the g.a.o. sound. duplicate programs. 82 different programs training workers. could we not maybe deal with one federal program training workers instead of 82 different ones doing the same thing? but this is it. the president said that raising the debt ceiling would be a mistake but now that he's president he's changed his mind. the hip hypocrisy of that is whi think makes americans unhappy. the president said the same thing on war. he said no president should unilaterally go to war without congressional authority and here we are at war in libya with no vote in congress. he says he has a piece of paper from the united nations. we didn't elect the united nations. we have a constitution and it requires those things be debated in congress. people are unhappy because we're not doing the people's business. we haven't had a budget here in 800 days. do you know what? it's against the law. it's against the law not to have a budget. we haven't had a budget in 800 days but the budget law says we should have a budget every year. we're supposed to match our appropriations bills with the

budget. we're not doing it. the american people are unhappy. we are dysfunctional but we're not doing the people's business. but we're also, we've become profligate spenders, spending money that we don't have. and really, i think we risk great dangers. and i would ask the question to the senator from utah is, what's the answer? how do we get out of this when we seem to be so far apart and even on both sides we don't seem to be tackling the issues in a way that would cause or allow for significant cuts in spending? mr. lee: i have a friend named ron mcmill lynn, lives in my hometown of alpine, utah, and he's the author of a number of books dealing with business negotiation, dealing with trying to figure out how you can get to compromise. the presiding officer: the time has expired. mr. paul: can we have an extension of two minutes to

finish our thoughts? mr. durbin: i don't object as long as this side is given an additional two minutes. mr. paul: thank you. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: and in that series of books, the crucial conversation line of books, one of the things he encourages people to do is to find whatever common ground they can reach. i think there is common ground among the american people generally that we should balance our budget. not everyone agrees about how we balance the budget, what should be cut, but they do agree that we should balance it. that being the case, that's where we ought to focus our efforts, is on amending our law of laws, that 224-year-old document that has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. change it again to improve it, to restrict congress' borrowing power. the plan proposed by the democrats that's now about to come before us puts our budgeting process on autopilot, doesn't require another bug for two years -- her to budget for tw -- another budget fortwo yeae

to fund itself without additional debate in congress. this is wrong, this is not the right approach, i object to it. for that reason, i, along with my other republican colleagues, are prepared to vote on this and vote no on this right now. we are not the ones delaying this vote. mr. paul: mr. president, i would say that what americans don't like is empty partisanship. that's what's going on today. the democrats are standing up and beating their chest and saying, "republicans won't let us have a vote." it's untrue. i've offered to have the vote. you've seen the objection here before your own eyes. they won't vote on this. let's dispense with the empty partisanship, let's move forward and have a vote. and if they would let us have one amendment, an amendment that would gradually balance the budget over seven to eight years, i'll vote for their proposal and i'll ensure enough votes that it will pass. thank you, mr. president. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: before yielding to the senator from north carolina, i would like to note that last night, the two senators who just finished their colloquy, had an opportunity to vote for the boehner plan which required a

constitutional balanced budget amendment and both senators lee and paul are registered as having voted to table the boehner approach which include that requirement for a balanced budget amendment. i yield to the senator from north carolina. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mrs. hagan: mr. president, we are here debating the government's fiscal deficit today and it's an important topic, one worthy of serious debate. of course, i wish i could characterize the mindless partisanship of the last several months as serious debate, but i fear that this do-nothing debate is distracting us from another deficit that is front and center in the hearts and minds of the american people and that is the jobs deficit. just yesterday, the department of commerce reported that the economic recovery has been far slower than previously thought. our economy grew at a rate of less than 1% in the first half of 2011. now, that's not news to the hard-working families in north

carolina, where unemployment statewide is almost 10% and nearly a half a million people are looking for work. they've been struggling since the housing boom went bust four years ago. those people with jobs haven't seen the size of their paychecks increase but their monthly bills have certainly increased along with the cost of gasoline. just getting to your job in the morning, if you're fortunate to still have one, is more expensive, and yet we spend all of our time in washington bickering, posturing, and name-calling. they must be watching from home, our constituents, scratching their heads and wondering why washington is debating whether we should avoid a default that would make this economy even worse. let me tell you what's happening in north carolina. since the start of the recession in 2007, we have lost over 300,000 jobs in my state. more than two-thirds of the

counties in my state, 60 out of 100, have unemployment rates above 10%. and in high hometown of greensboro, the unemployment rate is stuck at 10.8%, the same level as last year. that's right, no change in 12 months. people are working harder without getting ahead or looking for work longer without being able to find a job. and yet we continue to spend all of our time in washington bickering, posturing, and name-calling. the people of north carolina and the people of this great country are fed up with political games. they are saying and telling me, enough is enough. what they want is for members of congress to come to the table, democrats, republicans, and independents, find bipartisan solutions that can get our economy growing and putting people back to work. for example, commonsense legislation, such as the america works act that i introduced to

create a nationwide and industry recognized portable credential system so that employers with job openings can find those workers with the right skills and that workers with the right skills can find the jobs that they're qualified for. there's also the bipartisan "hire a hero act," that my colleague from massachusetts and i introduced to combat the unacceptable trend of higher unemployment among our veterans. and let us not forget that we have a program that's been expired since february that helps workers who have had their jobs shipped overseas find new work. there is action that we could take but these commonsense ideas aren't getting their due time because of the partisan shenanigans going on now. this past month, i went on a budget listening tour across north carolina and the messages that i kept hearing were that we need to address our mounting

debt and get our long-term fiscal house in order. we borrow 40 cents of every dollar that we spend and it's hurting our ability to invest wisely in the things we need to, like education, infrastructure, and research and development that will ensure a prosperous american future. and yesterday with my office receiving a barrage of calls from concerned constituents, i answered phones all afternoon. the message that i heard was loud and clear -- please stop the partisan posturing and get something done. unfortunately, the plan from the house falls far short of those goals of bipartisanship and consensus. instead of aiming for compromise and certainty, it represents just another partisan short-term patch that ensures the debate will drag on for another six months. and, mr. president, after what washington has put our country

and the markets through, i don't know anybody who thinks it's a good idea to do this for the next six months. we all need to remember that we were put in office -- what we were put in office to do. we were not sent here to fight for the sake of fighting. we were not sent here to see who could win the most political points, and we certainly were not sent here to throw this country into a default crisis because of our own inability to compromise. but we were sent here to get the work done, work together on solutions to the most pressing challenges of our time. more importantly, revving up the great american economic engine to allow businesses to hire and to get the american people back to work. mr. president, the clock is ticking and the challenges of reducing our debt and our deficit are undoubtedly difficult. but they're not impossible, not if washington takes to heart the message of principled compromise

and leadership that i receive every day from north carolinians. we must commit to a balanced bipartisan plan that reduces our debt while protecting our seniors, students, and veterans and makes the critical investments in education, infrastructure and research and development that we need for a prosperous american future. and we need to focus on the most important goal of all and that's jobs, jobs, jobs. mr. president, i urge all of my colleagues to support the reid amendment and to put this crisis behind you. mr. president, i yield the flo floor. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. we're faced with a difficult challenge and we know that the american people watching this over so many days now understand the basic challenge we face. it's a challenge of reducing deficit and debt and cutting spending but also making sure that we have a bipartisan agreement to pay our bills and

to meet our obligations. and i think if i had to boil it down to four words, it is this in terms of what people in pennsylvania have told me that we must do. it's very simple but i think it's -- it encapsulates everything we've got to do in the next couple of hours, really the next couple of days, and that's compromise for our country. that's what people are looking for. people all across the country. i hear from families in pennsylvania all the time. these are families that have led lives of struggle and sacrifice, families that have lived through so much already. many remember and have lived through the great depression and world war ii and wars after that, economic downturns, personal tragedies, job loss, all kinds of misery and all kinds of difficulty. but throughout our state and i think throughout the country, people have figured out a way to work together, to compromise in their own lives even when they

don't want to make a compromise. and they figured out a way to work together, whether it's at a work site or at home. and i hear from people all the time these same messages. let me just give you a sample of some of the feedback that i've gotten from pennsylvanians just in the last couple of days. i -- we purposefully chose three letters -- or excerpts, i should say, from three letters from three parts of our state, southwestern pennsylvania, the middle of the state, and the eastern side of our state. fayette county, way out in western pennsylvania, here's an excerpt from a letter i just received. quote -- "in order that we do not dip back into recession, it's imperative that responsible people start acting in a responsible manner. get this issue resolved in a manner that is best for the american people and not what is best for 'political parties.'" that's one letter, or part of

one letter from southwestern pennsylvania. then i move to the middle of our state, literally called center county: "please stop the bickering and work together to get the job done," says part of the letter. "do your jobs. come to a compromise." that's what people in the middle of pennsylvania wrote to me just recently. and then thirdly, an excerpt from a letter in the eastern part of our state, bucks county, a suburban philadelphia community. and i'll read two sentences from -- from this letter -- quote -- "we must immediately raise the debt ceiling so that we do not default on our debt payments. that would negatively impact our nation. next we must tighten our belts and develop plans to reduce expenditures and raise revenue which would pay off all debt, just like my family's household did." so there you have it. three parts of the commonwealth of pennsylvania, three different letters from three different

constituents all expressing some fundamental basic sentiments that they have and i think some -- some very fundamental messages. what are those? well, maybe i can boil them down to four. number one is work together and compromise. that's in almost every letter we see. work together and compromise. number two, they want us to cut spending. they know that in their own lives, they've had to cut spending. they've had to change their spending habits to deal with this economic trauma that they've been living through. even if they haven't lost a job, even if they haven't lost their house or their hopes or their dreams. so they've had to cut spending. number three, focus on jobs. one of the casualties of this week after week of focusing on this question of raising the debt ceiling meant that we weren't taking action to incentivize the creation of jobs by use of the tax code or other -- other strategy. fourthly, i think the message they're telling us, obviously, is reduce deficit and debt.

and they know that we may not be able to put in place a plan right now to do that but they expect us to put in place the foundation for that or a strategy or a pathway to get to substantial deficit and debt reduction. so whether it's cutting spending or reducing deficit and debt, whether it's telling us to compromise and work together and to focus on jobs, i think the message that the people of pennsylvania are giving me, and by extension i think all of us, i think that message is very clear. that's why when i look at what's in front of us tonight when we're debating, we're going to be debating the proposal set forth by the majority leader. some basic elements in here that aren't just sound policy but they are in fact incorporating compromise, already significant compromise. for example, making sure that if one side says we have to have a

dollar-for-dollar reduction to meet the challenge of racing the debt ceiling, the majority leader's plan does that. one side says we shouldn't have any revenue, any additional revenue as part of that agreement. the majority leader said, okay, i'll accept that. i'll compromise. so there are two significant and substantial compromises that he's already made in this proposal. and he's open to more, as he has said all day long and for many days now. he's open to more compromise. the legislation cuts spending significantly, almost $2 trillion alone in spending reductions for so-called discretionary spending. lots of savings in other ways throughout the legislation. creating a bipartisan committee that will recommend additional deficit reduction to be voted on by the end of this year, and then, importantly, part of what the majority leader put forward today -- or yesterday, i guess, in his proposal was, part of what senator mcconnell put

forth, the republican leader. so by my count, there are three or four major compromises already in what the majority leader put forth, and he's open to more compromise. so i think that's what the people of pennsylvania expect me to do, and i think that's what the people of the united states expect all of us to do. and, finally, one of the best parts of this proposal is that it gives us certainty. i hear from business people all the time. big firms, medium-sighed firms and small businesses. they tell us over and over again that in addition to the pressures that they feel, the difficulty they have in keeping their employment levels up, the difficulty they have in making ends meet, ands in the aftermath of a recession, they will us over and over again, we are business leaders and we need certainty. or i'm running a small business in pennsylvania, and i need

sent. i need to know what my tax rates will be, please give me certainty. one of the best features of what the majority leader put forth is that there is certainty. we're not going to have to debate this thing and fight about it every six months. it provides some certainty into calendar year 2013. that's why i think a six-month extension makes no sense at all. but you don't have to take our word for it. the rating agencies have made it very clear that if you do a six-month extension, you're taking a very dangerous step that could lead to a downgrade in our credit rating. so i think the reid plan already has substantial compromise and, of course, we can compromise more. so i think it's very compleer clear what the people -- so i think it's very clear what the people of the commonwealth are telling me. in the midst of all our suffering, 479,000 people still out of work in our case, we have an unemployment rate of 7.6%

which some states wish they had. but it doesn't matter what a percentage is. when you have 479,000 people oust work, even though the number has been going down for the last year, people are hurting. they're still struggle, still worried, anxious, worried about their children's future. the least -- or what they asked of us in this debate, the least that we must do for them is to come together, work together, surrender some political points of view, surrender some personal disagreements we have, come together, reach a compromise, and i believe that what they are taling us over and over again is that we need a compromise for our country. mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota.

mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to give a voice to minnesotans, to relay their thoughts on how congress should resolve this impasse and raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default. on wednesday i received an e-mail from a constituent in st. louis park, my home towfnlt this e-mail reads, "dear senator, i am a republican. i am a minnesotan. i am a small business owner. i am considered to have a high income relative to the average american. here's my request: please work together to get this debt limit impasse settled." on thursday i received this e-mail from a man in bloomington. he writes, "i am a small business man in the middle of a fund-raising effort. the concern over the debt ceiling has caused all the angle investors to put off any discussion of investment until they know what is going to happen. this has stopped my ability to raise funds which will lead to a

new -- two new high-quality jobs in minnesota. i support a simple bill that increases the debt limit to get us through the 2012 elections as has been done hundreds of times before." yesterday i received an e-mail from a couple also. "we are retired small business owners who are watching our very, very conservative retirement account drop and plunge due to the inability of congress to come up with a plan for the debt ceiling. we trust your judgment as a senator, but plead with congress and the senate to come up with a solution. we absolutely cannot afford to see our retirement savings sink again like they did in 2008." and it's not just individual citizens. i received a letter from dakota county's administrator. reads in parkts "if the federal government does not resolve its fiscal issues in a timely and responsible manner, it will

drive up costs to taxpayers here in dakota county. being able to borrow at the lowest possible rates has meant that our county's taxpayers have gotten mordz an better public facilities from libraries to senior housing to highway interchanges and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars for both property taxpayers and senior housing residents in the past several years alone. the city of chaska reached out to my office explaining that they are planning to sell debt in august to fund a street reconstruction program and refund their water treatment plant. if congress fails to act, these projects will come at a much higher cost to residents of chaska. i received a particularly compelling e-mail yesterday from a woman from falcon heights. she wrote, "i'm writing again to say i support the president and realize a need to compromise. it is scary for a 66-year-old

retired school teacher who has medicare and social security, scary is a default and what it would do to the economy." that's advice from sue. sue gets t she gets that congress's failure to act may have a direct impact on her. but the impact is really for the whole economy. and sue is asking for us to compromise. and compromise we have. let me make one thing clear. leader reid's plan is a compromise. let me make another thing clear. house speaker boehner's plan is a tea party plan. harry reid's plan is a true compromise. it contains all spending cuts and zero revenues. during these debates, there have been lots of ratios floating around.

senator conrad, the budget chairman, proposed a balanced and sensible flan had a one-to-one spend cut to revenue ratio. personally, i like that approach. president obama was negotiating a 4-1 or even 5-1 spending cut to revenue ratio. in the reid plan, there's no ratio. it's 100% cut cuts zero revenue. secondly, will contains dollar-for-dollar spending cults to match the debt ceiling increase. this is exactly what the republicans have been asking for. yesterday, this morning i learned that 43 of my republican colleagues have signed a letter to leader reid signaling their opposition to his proposal. why? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a

widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways.

so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan which requires the passage of a balanced budget constitutional amendment, a balanced budget amendment sounds, on its face, sensible, but in reality all of the current house proposals for a balanced budget amendment would have disastrous consequences for our nation. a balanced budget constitutional amendment would do permanent damage to our social safety net by slashing spending to 18% of g.d.p. that's what they all propose. we haven't had a spending ratio that low since 1966.

and today's america is very different than 1966. we have a much older population. today we have a higher percentage of people drawing on social security and medicare benefits, more than ever before. health care costs are 15% higher, even during president reagan's 10-year spending average, 28% of g.d.p. what would an 18% cap really mean? let's use the republican study committee's budget proposed in april as an example. a budget like theirs is roughly what we would expect if we capped spending at 18% of g.d.p. their budget cut non-defense discretionary funding by 70% by 2021. like the ryan plan, the republican study committee's budget ended medicare as we know it, changed it into a voucher

program and raised eligibility to 67. but it did it more quickly. their budget raised the social security retirement age to 70. it resulted in important programs like food stamps and medicaid getting cut by 50%. the republican study committee budget was the ryan budget on steroids, and i'd like to remind you of what happened to it on the house floor. this is an interesting story. because this story shows you just how extreme this budget was. most house republicans didn't actually want such a harmful draconian budget to be the official house budget. but many of them wanted to go on record to brag to their tea party support theirs they had slashed $9 trillion in federal spending p. so they scheduled a vote just as soon as democrats would vote it down for them and then they

could just blame the democrats. well, the majority whip steny hoyer had an idea. moments before the vote, he asked democrats to vote "prese "present." this would leave the onus squarely on the republicans to vote it up or down. chaos erupted in the house. as republican the republica thep realized what would happen. too many votes had been passed in favor of the republican budget. the republican leadership got autumn inform their members to switch from "yes" to "no" and in the entdz 119 republicans voted in favor and 120 against. crisis averted. that's how bad this plan was. and a balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18% would essentially do exactly the same

thing. this is a perfect example of political posturing. we voted down speaker boehner's plan last night for that very reason. his plan wasn't about finding a real solution, it was all about political posturing. if it became law, it would subject americans to a very scary republican study committee reality. house republicans have shown that they don't really want that. the american people definitely don't want 5. the american people have clearly said that they want compromise. they want an honest effort to meet in the middle. sue from falcon heights is one of them. leader reid has responded to the pleas of the american people by offering us a sensible compromise. i urge my colleagues to be statesmen for the sake of the

country. please, come to the table. we are trying to work with you. for the sake of the country, the clock is ticking. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: recall the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: how much time is remaining in the period allotted to democrats? the presiding officer: four minutes, 20 seconds. mr. durbin: thank you. i see mr. coburn on the floor and i assume he's the first speaker on the republican side? thank you. i thank the senator for his comments on the budget situation. for the many watching this at home and listening to this debate, this is an historic weekend where we have an opportunity, in fact, a challenge to come forward and craft a bipartisan solution

which is good for this country and avoids, avoids the disaster that would happen tuesday night if we fail to extend our debt ceiling. the united states of america has never failed to extend its debt, not once. and in the last 72 years since we enacted this law, we have had requests from presidents on both sides of the aisle to extend the debt ceiling 89 times. 55 times by republicans, 34 times by democrats. the president who holds the record for extending the debt ceiling, president ronald reagan. 18 times in eight years. tripling the national debt. not once, not one time did he face what we're facing here, a threat from the other side of the aisle that if we don't give in to their request, we will default on our national debt. that would be a catastrophe. it is one thing to call a bluff. it's another thing to call a

bluff with someone else's chips because the victims if we default on this the debt will not be members of congress. the victims will be families and businesses all across the united states. if we watch interest rates go up as we're in the midst of an economic recovery, people will be laid off. more people will be unemployed. that is exactly the wrong thing to do. we need to come to an agreement. we need to come to our senses. what the american people have told us across the board is we need to reduce spending, to reduce our deficit. we need to do it in a sensible way as the senator from minnesota said to carefully choose those areas of waste and inefficiency and unnecessary spending but not to cut the essential benefits that people need. you will hear of those come to the floor and say we're just spending more money. well, the obvious answer is is in in some recipes we are. but on january 1 of this year,

10,000 americans reached the age of 65. on january 2, another 10,000. on january 3, again. and every day since january 1 and every day for the next 19 1/2 years, the baby boomers are now reaching retirement age, having paid into social security and medicare for a lifetime, they fully expect and deserve the legal benefits that they have been promised. that is a new obligation of government, but one that we accepted when we enrolled them in the system. now we can find ways to make sure those benefits are going to be guaranteed into the future with sensible changes in entitlement programs and with sensible changes in our spending. i find it hard to believe that many on the other side are arguing they can't find one penny, one penny that could be saved in the pentagon. i think we can save money there without endangering our security. i find it also difficult to understand the argument that we can't raise one penny in taxes on the wealthiest people in

america if we're asking everyone else across the board to sacrifice. we've got to have a balanced approach. the presiding officer was part of a group of six, three democrats and three republicans, we've been joined by the senator from colorado, senator bennet, to find a way to deal with this situation. i am heartened to say 36 senators have come forward on both sides of the aisle saying we can deal with this as adults, we can deal with it in a comprehensive and balanced way, we can keep our promise to people when it comes to the basic programs like social security and medicare, and we can do it in a fashion that reduces our deficit and avoids the crisis which we are facing. so i hope that -- i see the senator from oklahoma here, we he was part of that gang, many of us have gathered here on this floor, and i hope in that spirit we can come to a bipartisan agreement to resolve

the current crisis. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. i've been listening in my office for the last several hours to the debate. and i think there's one thing that really hadn't been brought out in the debate. when washington says it's going to cut spending, it's untruthful with the american public. because both the boehner bill and the reid bill increase discretionary spending over the next 10 years by one of them $830 billion and the other $832 billion. how is it that we can with a straight face in this body talk about a cut when in fact we're going to -- and c.b.o. says we're going to actually increase the spending in the discretionary accounts over the next 10 years nearly a trillion

dollars. and you've heard the debate in the house, in the senate of a sput. and of course, that goes to what the heart of the problem is in our country. is words get twisted around to the advantage of the politicians, but to the disadvantage of the american citizens. we are in trouble financially. most people agree with that. we have programs that are in difficult straits. as a matter of fact, they're broke. they're not just in difficult straits. here's the ones that are broke. medicare part a trust fund, worst case scenario, this year, 2016. that's the fund that solves and pays for hospitalizations for our seniors. now, we've heard a lot of statements said about medicare. the average medicare recipient

paid $130,000 into medicare. the average medicare recipient takes $350,000 out. how long do you think that can continue? how long can we continue to tell seniors that we can continue a program based on its utilization rates, based on its briermt rates, based on the tax rates, that has a $220,000 difference between what goes out in benefits and what comes in? it's broke. medicaid is broke. the reason it's broke, because the states are broke trying to take care of it. we mandate what they must do, and yet the states are choking on medicaid. and we're choking on matching the amount of dollars. and under the affordable care act, it is now estimated 25 million more people will go into medicaid. so it's broke.

the census. it was broke before it started. cost twice what it did 10 years ago. $8 billion more than what was estimated. fanny and freddy, we know they're broke. $190 billion you have now committed for to pay to get them out of the hock. congress created that. $190 billion and that is where we are today. it's going to be $300 billion or $400 billion that we will have to pay. social security. people say it's not broke. we have $2.5 trillion worth of i.o.u.'s. the fact is that that money's gone, congress stole it, spent it on other things and now we lack the ability to go into international financial markets to borrow that money to put that trust fund whole. so why do we need to reform social security? so we can make sure it's there in the future. what we did know is in 2032

now, according to the trustees that everybody on social security will only get 77% of what they're promised and every year after that it will decline. so that when my kids are on social security, they will get about 40% of what the average social security recipient gets now. and we know we can fix it and we know we can fix it and make it sustainable forever. but we won't do that because that's politically difficult. the u.s. post office is bleeding every day. yet we haven't fixed it. we're going to do a gimmick to buy it some time. but the fact is, is we've set it up under a system when they negotiate labor contracts under the arbitration system they can't consider the financial health of the post office. that would be like paying somebody to mow your grass and saying they'll set the price on it, and you can't negotiate what the price is.

and yet they're going to lose $8 billion to $10 billion this year and more every year going forward. and yet we've not fixed it, not done anything. cash for clunkers. absolute, when you look at the dollars, and the homebuyer program, new homebuyer program, they actually had a negative effect on the economy. that's what the studies show now. so we blew all through all that money. the highway trust fund. what is used to build highways and roads and bridges in our country is broke. we're looking for $13 billion to try to make it whole and all we did was transfer the last three years to that, rather than reform it, we didn't do anything about it. the new government-run health care programs. here's what we know. is the new studies show that over half of the employers in this country will drop their insurance for the people who presently have insurance at work. hundreds of billions of dollars

of additional taxpayer money are going to be required to subsidize the exchanges that those people are going to go into. because the penalty for dropping somebody's insurance is economically too low to keep employers from doing that. so we have all these programs that are broke, and we have a discussion about the debt ceiling, but we're not talking about what the real problem is. is this government is twice the size it was 10 years ago. twice as big. and it would be great if all of it was constitutional, it could be great it was if it was all effective, if it was efficient and it would be great if we could afford it. but the fact is we're where we are today with $1.6 trillion deficits because we can't afford the government we have. and so we've not concentrated on the very areas where we can find mutual agreement, we've had three bipartisan bills in here where we've cut money,

significant money, a billion here, $5 billion here, $7 billion here, go through the senate with vast majority votes only to go nowhere. because the allowance for the debate on the underlying bills was stopped. the bills were pulled. so what do we do? well, the first thing we do is we look at what the problems are. what are the problems? we have a hundred different programs with a hundred sets of bureaucracies for surface transportation alone. why do we do that? why haven't we fixed it? that's a question the american people ought to be asking. we have 82 programs to improve the quality of our teachers run by the federal government across seven different agencies. only one of them is the department of education. why are we doing that? where is the assessment of how well they work? where is the metrics to say we should be spending this money in

this way because we're getting return? not one of them has a metric on it. not one of them has ever been measured of whether or not it's effective. we have 88 economic development programs in four agencies for which we spend $6.8 billion and we have another 100 economic development programs in six other agencies for which we spent another $4 billion and not one of them has ever been measured to see does it improve economic activity. and if in fact it does, why do we have 188? separate agencies to speculate economic development. i mean this isn't complicated stuff. it's common sense. every american other than the congress would fix that. we have 56 programs to teach financial literacy to the american people. first of all, i'd question whether or not we ought to be teaching anybody financial literacy as a government when we run so poorly. but if in fact we do, w