vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 75, the nays are 20. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: quorum is present. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, today the speaker and republican leader -- the presiding officer: would the majority leader -- could we've a little -- mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. today the speaker and republican leader held a press conference to announce they're in talks with the president and that a bargain to raise the debt limit is in the works understan and i. mr. president, members. senate, that's not triewvment i just spent two hours with the president, the vic vice preside,

and the agreement is not in a meaningful way. the republicans still refuse to negotiate in good faith. revenues off the calendar. no way we can talk about revenues. entitlements, oh, they're after entitlements -- medicare, social security. the speaker and republican leader should know that merely saying you have an agreement in front of television cameras doesn't make it so. the republican leader says he's engaged. fortunately members of his congress, at least as far as i'm concerned, are more engaged than he is. there are meaningful talks going on with some of his members with my senators. while the republican leader is holding meaningless press conferences, his members are reaching out to me and other members, as i've just indicated.

they're coming forward with thoughtful ideas to try to move the process forward. i welcome their ideas and ask all members to continue these discussions. america is watching us and are demanding a result that's balanced. i say to my friend -- and he is my friend, the republican leader -- i'll come to his office, i'll go to the white house with him, ail do anything that i can do to try to move this process forward. but i say, as respectfully as i can to my friend, the senior senator from kentucky, the process has not been moved forward during this day. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the fact of the matter is that the only way we're going to get an agreement before tuesday is to have an agreement with the president of the united states. the only person in america of the 307 million of us who can sign something into law. and i'm more optimistic than my

friend, the majority leader. we both talked to the president today. we talked to the vice president several times. i think we've got a chance of getting there. what i think is not helpful is the process we're going through here on the senate floor having a -- show votes over live quorums, having a reluctance on the part of the majority to have a vote on a measure they favor, which we'v we've been prepared o vote on since last night. look, we need to be in a position where all of us in the leadership can come back here and say that we think we've reached a framework of an agreement that we can recommend to our leaders and be briefing our members. and the sooner we can do that is correct the sooner we can reassure the american people that we're going to get a result on a bipartisan basis. and so that's what i'm working

on. and i'm not interested in scoring any political points. i'm interested in getting an outcome for the american people. and the only way that can be done is with the president of the united states. and we're going to continue to work on that, get this problem solved, let everybody in the country know that we're not going to default for the first time in our history. that's how i'm going to spend my time until we get that outcome, that i can come up here and recommend to my colleagues. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we are here today right now for this reason: it's spelled f-i-l-b-u-s-t-e-r. it's a filibuster. they won't allow us to have an updarn vote on our amendment. that is filibuster. by the any other term, it is a filibuster. that's why we're here. i hope that the negotiations go

on. we're willing to be as fair as we can, but there has to be something that the president and vice president biden and the rest of us think is a step in the right direction. i guess talking is a step in the right direction, but that's about it. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the matter that we have before us which is amendment number 589, that we have an up-or-down vote on that, no -- as we have all the time, of course. there would be no points of order and like we do here all the time. have a vote on it right now. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, reserving the right to object, these are direct quotes from my friend, the majority leader. he says, "in the senate, it's

always been the case you need 60 votes. always been the case you need 60 votes." this is the majority leader of the united states senate. for him to suggest that a matter of this magnitude in a body that requires 60 votes for almost everything is going to be done with 51 votes makes no sense at all. i object. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the majority leader. mr. reid: it is -- first of all, it is unconscionable that the republicans would filibuster legislation that would put a default on our obleses. it is unprecedented, unprecedented. since 1962 congress has raised the debt limit 74 times, including 18 times under president reagan and there was never a threat of a filibuster, and it was always by majority vote. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i might say, i actually cut short a conversation with the vice president to come out here

for this important vote on a live quorum. i'd like to get back to work so we can hopefully solve this problem and it seems to me, mr. president, it would be good idea for the majority to decide to allow the vote on the proposal they say they're in favor of. therefore, i would ask unanimous consent that the vote on the pending cloture motion occur at 6:30. mr. reid: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, you can put lipstick on it, a nice siewrkts even a skirt sometimes, it's still a filibuster. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? a senator: could we have order? mr. hatch: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask for order in the chamber. the presiding officer: would the speaker hold for a moment. would the senator hold. the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that i may be able to complete my remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, later tonight we will vote on the majority leader les bill to reduce the deficit and increase the nation's starttory debt limit. -- statutory debt limit.

earlier today, the house of representatives decisively rejected the majority leader's proposal. if i got it right, the vote was 246-173. 13 did not vote but there were 11 democrats who voted against the proposal as well. it will be defeated here in the senate later this evening or whenever the majority leader allows it to be voted on. and it's fine with me whatever he decides to do. as a substantive matter i deeply oppose the efforts of the majority leader. his plan does not tackle the task at hand. the president would get a $2.7 trillion debt limit increase -- a senator: mr. president, could we have order, please? the presiding officer: would the gentleman hold for one minute. mr. hatch: i will. the presiding officer: can people bring their conversations to the cloakroom, please.

the senator from utah. mr. hatch: thank you, mr. president. the president would get a a $2.7 trillion increase burr less than that in cuts. most are budgetary gimmicks. they assume savings from war spending the president has not requested and that is unlikely that -- that will be unlikely to materialize. it companies not include a balanced budget amendment. most importantly from my perspective it assumes a massive tax increase in 2013 by allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax relief to expire allowing the a.m.t. to mitt hith the middle-class taxpayers and allowing for estate taxes -- mr. schumer: would the gentleman yield for a moment? mr. hatch: i'd be happy to yield. the presiding officer: let's please show our colleague some courtesy.

will conversations please cease and be taken to the cloakroom. the gentlemanfrom utah. mr. hatch: thank you, mr. president. most importantly from my perspective, the majority leader's approach assumes a massive tax increase in 2013 by allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax relief to expire, allowing the alternative minimum tax to hit middle-class taxpayers, something we have not allowed, and allowing for increases in estate taxes that are a business and job killer. but we are scheduled to vote on this bill late this evening, actually early on sunday morning. americans might ask why in the world are we doing this? republicans were ready to take this vote yesterday evening. this delay in voting does not match up with the asserted urgency of raising the debt ceiling. yesterday the senate majority leader stated here on the floor that, quote, the country

dwawlts on its debt at 12:00 midnight on tuesday. tuesday is august 2. but is this true? what are these claims based on that the majority leader is making? amazingly we do not know for a fact whether the united states does run short of cash to pay its obligations on august 2. we were told by the treasury secretary way back in may that august 2 might be a date when treasury runs out of money to pay our bills. we have seen estimates of the treasury's position on the floor that came either from a local think tank or from wall street financial firms. the treasury will not give us updated information. it's outrageous. the last time treasury informed congress of its estimates of its cash position was in may. when it backed off of a prior guess and extended their estimate of running dry of cash by three weeks. since that last update, i made a simple request of members of

the financial stability oversight counsel, commonly called fsoc which is chaired by the treasury secretary. i asked for an update on treasury's cash and liquid assets to be delivered by close of business on thursday, and i asked for that as ranking on the senate finance committee. i also asked for contingency plans of treasury and our financial regulators outlining what they will do if the debt limit is not raised or if we face a ratings downgrade on our u.s. debt. treasury has not responded to this request. it's outrageous. they know what they're going to do. we were toll that the nation will fall of a financial cliff at midnight on august 2 at midnight. that's a lot of precision. down to the hour. but is it true? i don't know. the american people don't know. so security -- social security recipients in utah don't know

and treasury won't tell us and i might add the rating agencies don't know, either. we're being asked to give the president the largest increase in debt limit in our nation's history. get that, we're being asked to give the president the largest increase in our debt limit in our nation's history. his last one was the largest at that time. we were asked to consider policies that involve trillions of dollars with no effects that will occur over decades with no current information. about how much money the government has and expects to have over the next few days and weeks. mr. president, treasury told me yesterday that they are working on getting me some information. yet i still don't know how much money treasury now has to pay its bills and neither does anybody else on the floor. we don't know how much it expects to have over the next few days and weeks or whether

treasury will still -- still believes that midnight, august 2 has any particular significance. but the politicians all insist that august 2 is the date. i am beginning to have my doubts. if that was the case, wouldn't it make sense for the majority leader to schedule votes commensurate with this urgency? why waste more than 24 hours which is what the majority leader did by refusing our offer to vote last night on his bill? it's not going to change the vote. it is not unreasonable to conclude that maybe that august 2 date is not all that it's cracked up to be. we can't say for sure because the administration despite my request more than 48 hours ago, has refused to provide congress with information regarding its cash position. but others seem to think so. yesterday moody's investor service stated clearly, quote, "it remains our expectation the

government will continue with timely debt service. if the debt limit is not raised before august 2, we believe that the treasury would give priority to debt service payments and could thus postpone a debt default for a number of days." does moody's know more than our treasury secretary and fsoc which has been set up specifically to help us understand these things? they've been working on it for months. why can't they give us the information? this analysis, this analysis is consistent with everything that my colleague and friend from pennsylvania, senator toomey, has been saying for months. he understood early on that regardless of the rhetoric, there would be no default -- excuse me -- on august 2. the administration is fully capable of prioritizing payments. there's a much more pressing issue than imminent default. a credit downgrade due to the failure of congress to use this

opportunity to take significant deficit reduction measures. that is the real takeaway from moody's report. quote, "reductions of the magnitude now being proposed if adopted would likely lead moody's to adopt a negative outlook on the aaa rating." the chances of a significant improvement in the long-term credit profile of the government coming from deficit reductions of the magnitude proposed in either plan are not high, unquote. that's moody's. our debt has become so unmanageable that we face a credit downgrade with cons subsequent higher interest rates if we do not enact a big-time deficit reduction package. now, this year is our third straight trillion-dollar deficit. our national debt is 14.3 -- actually $14.5 trillion. and the president's budget would

add $13 trillion in additional debt if he gets his way. i don't know about you, but i can't tolerate that. added to already almost a $15 trillion debt today. i've spoken previously about the debt bubble the nation finds itself in but i want to re-emphasize that point in light of the warnings from ratings agencies that our credit faces a downgrade absent real deficit reduction. currently federal debt held by the public equals a modern record of about 69% of g.d.p. and it's headed to 100% and we all know it. the congressional budget office reports that current tax and spending law takes that figure to 76% of g.d.p. over the next 10 years and we all know it's going to hit 100%. if we keep going with what the president is doing. and unfortunately, what my friends on the other side are doing. to put that number in perspective at the end of fiscal

year 2008, the debt held by the public reached about 41%. that's less than 2 1/2 years ago. that was under the bush administration. 41% compared to 70% today. as bad as the 76% figure is, that we will reach according to the budget office, president obama's budget would raise debt held by the public to 87% of g.d.p. by his own actuaries and i've got to tell you, they've very seldom been accurate or right. they're always low. and according to the congressional budget office, if we continue current tax policy, don't raise rates, fix the alternative minimum tax, provide estate tax relief and provide for a fix to the physician payment system that's the s.g.r., policies supported by clear majorities of americans, by 2021, debt held by the public will reach no less

than 97% which is precisely what i've been talking about. here's the sticky wicket. c.b.o. projects that the cost of simply paying the interest on all of this debt women rise to $792 billion and that's if c.b.o. is right and generally they're on the low side. in other words, 3.3% of g.d.p. in 2021. but what happens if interest rates go up? and they're likely to go up. currently interest rates are very low. 10-year treasury rates are currently around 3.5%. during the past two years this administration has spent recklessly, raising the total debt from $10.6 trillion to almost $14.5 trillion today. and because debt was cheap, the president was able to take on a lot of it. the true cost of this debt was hidden by low interest rates. but what will happen when interest rates rise? what happens if interest rates

rise to levels seen during the 1980's or 19 90's? think of my suggestion that these rating agencies of government are always low. interest rates are going to rise, and the costs are going to rise, too. during the 1980's rates on three-month treasury bills and 10-year notes rose to over 8% and 10% respectively. during the 1990's, rates on three-month and 10-year notes rose to 3.5% and 6.6% respectively. that cost is laid out by c.b.o. could be stron only cal. under president obama's 2012 current budget, the c.b.o. projects deficits for the next 10 years in a result of $10 trillion being added to this $14.5 trillion public debt, a 100% increase. under the scenario where interest rates rise to historical average of the 1990's

, the public debt is is projected to grow an an additional 8%. the 1980's, the public debt would grow $14.5 trillion, doubling in size. this is the real impact of moody's warning. it is bad enough that president obama has taken on so much debt that it may result in a downgrade of our credit, but it is even worse that faced with -- with that downgrade, he and his democratic allies refuse to deleverage. should we get downgraded for failure to enact a serious deficit reduction package, our debt will only grow larger because increased interest rates will increase the costs of borrowing. we all know about budgetary gimmickry around here and this place is filled with it and this economic debt is filled with it.

the arguments about the future are filled with it. americans should be less concerned about the august 2 deadline than the fact that over the long term, our debt bubble runs the risk of becoming a debt spiral that turns into a death spiral for our economy. mr. president, let me close by making two points. first, given the treasury russ fiscal waters we are in --, treacherous fiscal waters we are in, congress needs to know where the treasury stands. it is unacceptable they are asked to make decisions based on a proclaimed august 2 deadline with no facts to back it up. i ask all americans and all social security recipients to get in touch with the treasury and ask them to show us the money. call treasury, send them an email, send out a tweet, "show us the money." you have a right to know cash in the treasury comes from the taxes that hard-working americans pay. government is charged with stewardship over use of that cash.

withholding information is a shirking of that responsibility, and i don't think there's anybody on this floor believes treasury doesn't know what they are going to do, and i don't believe any senator believes that they should be stopping the information from coming to us, especially at this time. we should not run treasury and manage taxpayer resources the way bernie madoff ran his hedge fund by taking in cash and when asked for information refusing to give it and just saying trust me. i have a simple question. does treasury expect to run out of cash on tuesday, august 2? the president and the treasury eye department must answer this question, which brings me to my second point. it is much more critical we get a deficit reduction package right than that we adhere to this arbitrary august 2 deadline. this is one bill that gets that right from my

perspective and that, of course, is cut, cap and balance. so far the only bipartisan votes taken by the congress on this debt ceiling debate are the vote for cut, cap and balance. in the house, and the house vote to defeat the majority leader's bill. those are the only two that are bipartisan. this debate is not over yet. i expect senator reid's bill to fail tonight and then it is back to the drawing board. my hope is that the president will then do what he has so far refused to do and that is take leadership, take a leadership role in this debate, stand up to his base and encourage his party to take real steps to reduce the deficit. i'm not going to hold my breath. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, how much time is left, may i inquire, on the republican side? the presiding officer: 13 minutes. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i just follow my colleague from utah who talked about getting the president engaged in this -- in these discussions, mr. president. i noticed a large story thursday's "new york times," the headline, "president on sidelines in crate ca critical e over debt ceiling." "president on the sidelines." mr. president, we are at a time when we are facing the largest threat to our national security and we cannot have the president on the sidelines. and when i talk about the single largest threat to our national security, not talking about a terrorist organization, not talking about wars in iraq and afghanistan, not talking about natural disasters, disease,

epidemics, not famine. i'm talking about our national debt. our national debt is the threat. it is the great e threa greatesr national security. i'll tell you this isn't a problem for one party, the other party, it is a problem for all of us as americans. now, i'm not the only one that's saying it. actually, the chairman of the -- of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, has said the most significant threat, the most significant threat to our nation's security is our debt. let me repeat, the most significant threat to our national security is the debt. you may notice, mr. president, that admiral mullen makes no mention at all of the debt ceiling. the presiding officer: would the senator from wyoming cease for a minute. could we have order, please.

mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming may continue. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as i was saying, you will note that admiral mullen makes -- makes no mention at all of a debt ceiling, he is talking specifically about the debt. and he is doing that because the debt ceiling isn't the problem, our national debt is the threat. $14 trillion of debt and it continues to grow. we are borrowing every day over $4 billion. that's over $2 million every minute, mr. president. you say, where does the money come from? well, of the money we spent last year in this country, over 41 cents of every dollar we spent, over 41 cents of every dollar, is borrowed money, a lot of it

from foreign countries, and specifically from china. how do we stay a strong and independent leader of the world if you owe that kind of debt to anyone, especially to another country who may not have your own best interests at heart? the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff clearly understands this. but it's not just our military leaders that understand it, mr. president. families and business owners all across wyoming understand it. and the american people understand it. we all know what the american people want. they want cuts to spending now. they want to control spending in the future, and they want accountability, and they sure don't believe they're getting it out of washington. mr. president, i received an e-mail this week from a gentleman from my hometown of caspar and looked at this whole thing, and he said, you know, the fact that the debt ceiling

needs to be raised is where the problem lies. this is a systematic problem, he says, that will either be fixed or it will be eventually -- it will eventually destroy this nation. he said, "i urge you to stand strong and oppose any spending that exceeds revenue, using the debt ceiling, he says, we, your constituents, understand this could be a painful path, could lead to economic problems. my forefathers put their lives at risk to prevent this kind of idiocy that the federal government has become." he's talking about a debt of $14 trillion. he says, "every one of my family members and neighbors is prepared to weather the storm now to prevent future catastrophe." you know, my friends on the other side of the aisle, they're focused on the debt ceiling. it seems to me that they have lost sight of the real problem and that problem is the debt. instead of working toward a

higher debt ceiling, we need to be discussing ways to get our fiscal feet back on the floor, to get our fiscal house in order and to provide the accountability that the american people want. i listened to the president's address to the nation last monday night. seemed to be more of a campaign speech than an address about the issues that are facing this country. there was blaming going on, seemed to me scare tactics, class warfare. he used a phrase "balanced" about seven times and kept talking about a balanced approach. americans don't want a balanced approach, they want a balanced budget. they want a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. that's the way we do it in wyoming. that's the way many states do it, live within our means, balance the budget year after year after year. there is a lesson that washington could learn from so many states around the country:

live within your means every year. the american people want us to seek a real solution. they want a real solution that provides them with the piece of mind, the piece of mind -- the peace of mind to know that they not be subjected to this sort of activity on a repeated basis. they want the peace of mind as well as the economic security that they believe as american americans -- they believe as americans -- is a basis nor grea -- basisfor this great cou. they're looking for a solution that recognizes that the current system in washington is broken and they're looking for a solution that says we realize that we need take immediate action to fix it. why is it broken? why do we need immediate action? well, it's broken because we have failed to live within our means for so very long. it's also broken, mr. president, because this body, the united states senate, has not had a

budget for over 800 days. over 800 days there has not been a budget in the united states senate. the one brought forth by the president failed, got no votes. no votes. 97 people voted against it. 97 people voted against it. not one democrat voted for the president's budget, not one. it seems to be broken, mr. president, because washington is more focused on short-term political gain instead of the long-term consequences of our actions. and we saw that a little earlier with the discussions on the senate floor. i'm ready to vote on the proposal on the senate floor. the minority leader recommended a vote immediately and yet it was objected to by the majority leader. you know, since -- since the beginning of this entire debate, i've had a very clear bottom line. we need to avoid defaulting, avoid defaulting on our debt and implement the spending controls to get our finances back in

order. now, what's the president's bottom line? well, the president said it -- and i quote -- he said, "the only bottom line i have" he said, "the only bottom line i have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election," he said, "into 2013." the president's only bottom li line. ignore and avoid the biggest threat to our national security until after the next election. mr. president, contrary to what the president wants, we cannot ignore and we cannot avoid this issue until after the next election. people allal cross the country are worried about their jobs, they're worried about the economy, they're worried about the debt and they are worried about the spending. the american people want us to take action today. they want us to cut costs costs. they want us to control spending. they want us to enforce accountability across every branch of the federal government.

they would like us to put progress ahead of partisanship. they want us to put people, put people before the politics. the decisions that must be made aren't easy for either party. this isn't about democrats, republicans, independents. it's about america. it's about this country. people across the country -- and i've been in my office since early this morning and we've been answering the phones. what i'm hearing is what you all should be hearing if you're answering your phones: enough is enough. enough is enough. that's what the american people are saying. we are now at the 11th hour and we must not lose sight of our goal. it is important, it's more important to find a real solution than it is to settle for a quick compromise. and so i -- i look at some of these -- these letters and calls and e-mails that have been coming in, one from pinedale,

wyoming rveght, said, "it is beo bite a small bullet now than a catte -- than a cannon shell lar on." a couple from caspar, different e-mails. "this country is in dire financial straits." and this person says, "since i work for the federal government, i have more to lose than most americans, but i don't want to give this administration a blank check." someone who works for the federal government, "i don't want to give this administration a blank check." we have to get this country back on track to fiscal responsibility and this is the open debate. they go on, "i realize that my job could be cut just to get there, but the national debt is too large to ignore. this is a wyoming person talking, putting the country in front of the politics." putting the country in front of themselves. going on to say, "we must get it

under control or there is more to lose than just our jobs. the economic consequences of not getting this under control will devastate this country years down the road. we have to start now before it's too late." and then another from a woman in caspar. she said, "it is time to cut up the federal government's credit card. the current debt situation is an insult to all of us who live within our means. people in the country live within their means, states that balance their budget every year live within their means. it is time for washington to live within its means. people are tired of the budget tricks. they are tired of the accounting gimmicks. they are tired of the open -- of the empty promises. that is what is affecting the people of this country. they want accountability, and it is our responsibility, mr. president, to provide it to them. people are looking for peace of mind, for good judgment and they

want people to listen to them, and yet what i see are people focused on politics on the other side of the aisle at a time when the greatest threat to our nation, to this great country, to america is a national debt that is out of control and that it is increasing at the rate of over 400 billion a day. with that, thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts is recognized for -- is recognized. mr. kerry: mr. president, i ask simply to be recognized to complete my comments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: and i would ask -- there is a time, however, we have a time limit?

the presiding officer: ten minutes. democrats have the next 30 minutes. mr. kerry: i would ask if i could be informed when i have five minutes -- when i have -- of that 15 minutes, if you would let me know. thank you. mr. president, when harry truman served in the seat that senator mccaskill of missouri holds today, he used to sit back over there in the back of the row where a lot of the newer senators sit and he from that vantage point would often watch the great debates of the new deal. and he listened long into the night and he used to frequently write thoepl his wife -- home to his wife. one night he wrote about his experience of serving in the senate -- this was early on -- and the awe that he felt sitting in this institution and looking

across it to his colleagues, i assume imagining the ghosts of calhoun and clay and other great senators. and he wrote to his wife, and he said, you know, i sit here in the senate looking at this institution and at my colleagues, and i pinch myself, and i say how the hell did i get here? a number of months later, it was very late at night, and he was again sitting there, and he wrote to his wife, and again watching the debate and he looked across at his colleagues and he wrote to her, and he said, i ask myself how the hell did they get here anyway? i suspect that at this moment in america a lot of americans are looking at the united states senate, it the congress, and they are asking a similar question, wondering whether or not we get it. mr. president, i have enormous respect for this institution. i still believe in the phrase

"the world's greatest deliberative body," which has unfortunately budget a punch line in these days, but which when we are bipartisan and serious, is still a true description, still possible when we rise to the moment. i've seen the senate over the course of 26 years in those moments, as have other colleagues here. i've seen it with ted kennedy and bob dole and so many others. i've seen what can be accomplished here. regrettably, today our allies and our enemies abroad and our friends here at home, the american citizens, are watching with either alarm, in the case of our enemies delight, as they question america's leadership. some abroad have even suggested

that this is a sign, a moment of american decline. so even without default, believe me, just the absence of decision and the presence of partisan chaos, they are running up a huge cost for this country. just the other day i received a letter from 20 mayors from massachusetts, and the letter states the time compromise and resolve this issue is now. and they complain that their communities are under the microscope from moody's because we haven't got our acts together here in washington. their letter was honest and eloquent and it shouldn't be so difficult for their warnings and their example to be heeded in the congress. the mayors' call for compromise, frankly, shouldn't be so difficult. and the call for compromise by the american people ought to be listened to and acted on and in very short order. i've served in the majority and

i served in the minority since i've been here. i've served with republican presidents, democrat presidents in both situations when we're in the minority and in the majority. i've cast tough votes in times of divided government under republican and democratic president tpr-z reagan to obama -- presidents from reagan to obama and i have never seen the governing process so broken because one faction of one side has made compromise the essence of democracy and bedrock of our governing system not just a dirty word, but in their view, a form of treason. the warnings of mayors were echoed yesterday by the leaders of our financial industry. yesterday c.e.o.'s of major financial institutions wrote our economic recovery remains very fragile. a default on our nation's obligations or a downgrade, just a downgrade on the credit, would have an enormous impact on

americans and on investor confidence, raising interest rates for everyone who borrows, undermining the value of the dollar in rolling stock and bond markets and, therefore, dramatically worsening our nation's already difficult economic circumstances. those are their words. and tpho with standing -- and tpho with standing that, we continue to see our own well-being at risk. mr. president, this is one of those times where it is not cliche and it's not hyperbole to say that the whole world is watching, because the whole world has something at stake in what we do or don't do. and for the world, there are serious consequences in that. as chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, i've heard from officials all over the world and global business leaders, and the message is always the same. they're watching in amazement and puzzlement and horror at what is going on in washington. our friends and allies whose

economic fortunes and economies are linked to our own doubt us, and they're worrying about the kpwafbgt -- impact of our dysfunction on their economies. and our economic rivals are laughing waeult to the bank. at a time of global economic uncertainty, we should absolutely not be adding to that uncertainty by failing to resolve our debt crisis. the international monetary fund is warning that action still needs to be taken to stave off contagion from europe's sovereign debt crisis. and it's not insignificant that while harry reid has been busy trying to find republicans to join democrats in a bipartisan solution, speaker boehner was exclusively negotiating to end the civil war between the responsible and the unreasonable in the republican party. a whole day passed behind closed doors while the speaker negotiated with republicans to

make a bad bill worse. mr. president, i think that the distinction between what's happened in the house and the senate is a very important one in terms of where americans are going to find a resolution to this challenge. here in the senate, we have been working day and night talking with democrat and republican colleagues across the aisle in order to find a way forward. and for most of us, or at least many of us, certainly a sufficient number to be able to pass a solution, for them there aren't any preconditions. everything is on the table. but we're still facing the obstinate ideological rigidity from house republicans -- house republicans -- who have threatened to take our nation into default and downgrade the nation's credit rating and do even more harm to a fragile economy simply to get their way.

so what is it that divides us right now? i think a lot of americans listening today probably have a serious question: what's the difference between these folks? what is it that divides them? well, the boehner plan which was sent over here had three fundamental problems in it that democrats were unwilling to support. one, it had huge cuts, would force huge cuts in social security, medicare and medicaid because of the structure and manner of the cuts that they were demanding. secondly, it had a constitutional amendment provision which required that the constitutional amendment actually be passed within six months before the next debt limit could be raised. and because there isn't a certainty that that would happen or could happen, it meant automatic default. so the boehner plan was setting

up the united states government to go right through this exercise again and have an automatic default. and, third, there was a time frame in the boehner amendment that required us to go back and visit this in february of next year, which would have meant the minute we come back in september, the entire congress would have been consumed with the very same thing we've been doing now, which would not give certainty to the marketplace. so it's not politics that has prevented us from proceeding forward on the boehner plan. it was the substance of that plan. now, the reid plan which we're debating right now, which is on the floor, is a plan that because of the republican insistence on no revenues, has no revenues. many people on our side of the aisle object to that, but we've accepted that that's the price we need to pay as a matter of our compromise in order to get out of this crisis.

so we've compromised on revenues. it has cuts. all cuts that the republicans have already voted for and that again many of our folks don't like. but they've compromised, our folks, and they've provided the cuts that the republicans asked for. and because it has a time frame that goes until after next year, that means we will provide certainty in the marketplace and avoid a default arcs downgrade of our credit. the boehner plan would guarantee a downgrade of our credit. so these are enormous differences. and finally, the reid plan provides a tight process, a plan that we know is familiar around here, like the way we deal with military bases. we require votes. the votes have to take place. and we would be required within a very short number of months to deal with america's long-term

debt and budget crisis, and people would have an ability to put their cuts on the table, but we would also, we hope, have an opportunity to have revenues. that's the big sticking point here in the united states senate. we need to know that if there is a trigger that is used, an automatic way in which money is going to be held back, that money has to be held back in a fair and balanced way, which means you don't just cut. you also have to have the threat of revenue. because if you don't have the threat of revenue, then the side that only wants to cut can just wait for nothing to happen, and the cuts take place automatically. there's no threat to them. there's no leverage to them to come to agreement on the other things. that's reasonableness, i believe, mr. president. i think what we're looking for here is reasonable. it is fair. and it is balanced. mr. president, the house strategy has been essentially not to negotiate.

not to negotiate. now, we also know that there are a lot of misstatements out here. senator reid just corrected one a moment ago about a deal. in addition to that, we keep hearing people say that there's no plan. the president doesn't have a plan, that nothing's been reduced to writing. well, as senator moynihan used to say here, anybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. and the fact is that the president put a detailed plan for $4.7 trillion of cuts over ten years, with reductions in defense and medicare, medicaid and social security all on the table to find savings in those programs. we have -- you know, it's incredible to me to keep hearing people say there's no plan when there's been plan after plan. the chairman of the budget committee, conrad, has been warning us for years about this. he sought to get a bipartisan deficit commission created by

the senate. couldn't happen because the republicans vetoed it or blocked it. so what happened? president obama appointed one of his own. it reported back. we still haven't dealt with that. and i think there has been a great effort to move continually to deal with the republican objections. i would ask, what is the single republican concession? what is it that they have given as a matter of compromise? nobody can tell you that because there hasn't been one. in fairness, in the gang of six, a great group of republicans joined with democrats, and they did make a concession, and they took political risks. and they went out and said, yes, there has to be cuts. but there also have to be revenues. now, i applaud those republicans who joined in that effort. and that's what we need to find

here now. that is the way that we are going to make the difference here. the president additionally put an unprecedented $4.7 trillion on the table in his negotiations. i keep hearing people say why wasn't it written down? it called for $770 billion in nonsecurity discretionary spending cuts. it called for $400 billion in security spending cuts, $489 billion in medicare and medicaid savings and $1 trillion from tax reform. how could i repeat this proposal if it wasn't written down? we keep hearing they didn't write it down. mr. president, they're in the negotiations. they have pens and pencils. they have paper. they can sit there and write it down while the president says it to them. this is the most specious, ridiculous, silly, childish argument i've heard in years in the senate. so, we need to move to a different place.