without caps on future years' spending is unconscionable. now, i would hope going forward that we would have a balanced budget amendment that would go to the states, because most states have a balanced budget in their constitutions, and they have mostly sound fiscal policies. if we had to live with those same constraints, i believe we would not get into this kind of a situation again. so i hope that eventually we will have a balanced budget amendment that we can get two-thirds vote for and send to the states, and see if that isn't a worthy amendment to our great continuing resolution. but in the meantime, cut and cap is what we can do and i hope we will. thank you, madam president,

and i yield the floor. mr. lee: madam president, i come to the floor this evening to refute some of the arguments that have been made by some of my colleagues, points that are important for the american people to understand, points that if not clarified could lead to a misunderstanding, lead to resentment which is misplaced. one of the points that i've heard made this evening by one of my colleagues is that the debt limit issue has never been held hostage quite like it has now. i'm not quite sure what was meant by this, but i do want to clarify this point. if someone had held this hostage before on any of the dozens and dozens of times that the debt limit has been raised over the course of many years, maybe it would have been a good thing. maybe it would be a good thing for us not to be dealing right now with a national debt that has almost reached $15 trillion.

maybe we should consider the fact that those who are being held hostage are those who will one day have to repay this debt. considering that some of those people are not yet here because they have yet to be born and in some instances their parents have yet to meet. we have to ask the question whether they are being held hostage themselves. held hostage to a government that always demands more money so that it can exercise more power over us and as it acquires more power, exercises more of that over us, thus restricting our liberty, it demands more money as it acquires more money, it exercises more power and the prosper pet debates itself. -- perpetuates itself. this is how we get to the point where the american people are being held hostage. so if this process has not been held up in the past, then shame

on those who could have held it but didn't. it's incumbent upon us who serve here and now to represent those who are sometimes underrepresented, who represent those most vulnerable members of society who are not yet old enough to vote or not yet born. this is a multigenerational problem. it's a multigenerational obligation that we're taking upon. our entire country in connection with this had debate. so if my colleague who made this point just about a half an hour ago meant that we should never have vigorous, aggressive debate and discussion over whetherrates good idea to take on $2.5 trillion in new debt in one fell swoop, perhaps we should revisit that asums. perhaps we ought to second guess ourselves a little bit more than we in recent decades lest we hold hostage an entire

generation. another point that was made by that same colleague is that republicans have put forward plans to challenge, to undermine, to bring about immediate cuts to social security and medicare. this simply isn't true. quite to the contrary, the cut, cap and balance act of which i was the lead sponsor in the senate, before it was introduced in the house by my friend jason chaffetz before it was passed, the cut, cap and balance protected medicare. it bolstered, it strengthened those programs. so it is utterly false and i believe disingenuous for anyone to argue that that proposal or any other that i'm aware of, for that matter, would bring about cuts to social security and medicare. this is not the point of this legislation. quite to the contrary, the point of this slain is -- legislation is to protect what

we need to do through the u.s. government. whether you are someone who would describe himself as a conservative and perhaps most concerned about national defense or whether you are perhaps more liberal and you're most concerned about protecting our entitlement programs, you ought to agree with the principles underlying the cut, cap and balance approach. with the fact that we need a balanced budget amendment. because if we don't put these measures in place now, if we don't agree now we need to restrict our borrowing authority, every one of these programs will be jeopardizeddized. as we reach the mathematical, the economic borrowing capacity of the united states government, the more we borrow, the more we run into the risk that those who lend us money, those who buy our u.s. treasuries, will one day be unwilling to lend us more money, at least not without

additional interest payments. we could very quickly go from spending about $250 billion a year in interest as we now are to spending something much closer to a trillion dollars a year in interest. based on just a few interest points, interest rate points. as this a goes up our ability to fund everything goes down. in closing, madam president, it's important to point out here that what's being requested here is the largest debt limit increase in american history, about $2.5 trillion. unprecedented. the idea here is to give the u.s. congress enough borrowing power to take us almost two years down the road, two years, by the way, that's roughly the amount of time that has elapsed since the democrats in the senate even introduced a budget. one has to ask why extend the debt limit for such a long period of time? the president gave us the answer

the other day. he wants to insulate himself from the political process. he wants to make it not a political issue. political issues are themselves things that the voters are concerned about, as well they should be. because voters pay taxes, voters are affected by the decisions we make. we need to have voters connected, not disconnected from this process. we need to act now but we need to act responsibly and the only way to do that is to raise the debt limit only after we pass the balanced budget amendment. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent alternating blocks of time continue until 9:50. with the majority controlling the time until 9:20 and the

republican side until 9:50 and the majority leader or a designee be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. udall: madam president, i rise tonight as i have for many weeks to call for a bipartisan solution to our deficits and debt. for us to bridge, to use a term we utilize in colorado, the mountainous divide, in order to avoid defaulting on our only gaigdz. -- obligations. bipartisanship is a familiar theme in my home state of colorado and i know coloradans agree with me that's the only way forward. my constituents have been flooding my office with calls of frustration, urging me to keep fighting for a solution to this impending debt limit crisis that we face. they know the stakes are high, madam president, and they know we've got to compromise to get something done. and as i've traveled my state over these summer months, i haven't found one single person

in colorado who has demanded more partisanship and more dysfunction. but here we are, seemingly on a saturday night with just that, my constituents, coloradans, are searching for answers and solutions, yet all we seem to have here is more questions. and for the life of me, i just don't understand why when our economy is still fragile, we're so close, it seems, to sensing it to additional turmoil. now, those who know me know i'm not quick to anger or express frustration, but i just can't help but join coloradans in looking at the situation that we're in with disbelief. we have hard-working and well-intentioned members from both parties who are willing to do the right thing for our country, but partisan bickering is seemingly continuing to artificially push our economy closer and closer literally to

the brink. now, it's easy to chalk this up to a broken washington. to say that congress simply is unable to agree. but that ignores the truth, and that truth, madam president, is a small minority of folks are bent on throwing sand in the gears of our legislative machinery. we extend a hand in the hopes of reaching an agreement, and then over and over again this group rejects the idea of governing together and instead reaches for another handful of sand. the majority of us here don't agree with that. the majority of us in both parties do not want to default on our debt obligations. madam president, it seems to me that our country's economic situation is like a patient that's just literally coming off life support. we're nursing our economy back to health. and the last thing we need is a self-induced heart attack. but that will happen in three

days. in three days, we're set, our nation is set to default on its debt. and that's like like an american he american family that would decide not to pay its bills or to quit making mortgage payments. i know it's a natural inclination perhaps to not want to pay those bills, but americans know there are consequences to default, and that it's irresponsible to turn a blind eye on bills that come due. and it's important to note that these are bills that we already have incurred, that previous congresses -- in fact, this congress, could you argue -- has already voted for and therefore have incurred. and we've been here before. president reagan raised the debt limit 18 times in order to enable the treasury to pay our debts as they came due. they were routine. they were often voice votes and when they were recorded votes they were overwhelming.

president george w. bush raised it seven times. they there were no conditions put on the raising of our debt ceiling. let me take a second and be clear. raising the debt ceiling isn't something i want to do. and i'm sure anybody in the senate is not all that keen to do it. but we do have those obligations. and a year ago, a year and a half ago, i should say more accurately, i agreed with republicans and fellow democrats that we should take advantage of a discussion we had at the end of 2009 about raising the debt ceiling, and we should take advantage of that by putting in place real measures to reduce our debt. and i held out my vote at that time to raise the debt limit as a way to compel the white house to create a fiscal commission to address our long-term deficits and debt. i was pleased when president obama created such a commission, he nominated two great americans, al simpson who was a senator in this very body

and former white house chief of staff erskine bowles to head up the effort. i think as we knew at the time and we know even more now these two men are patriots, they brought people together from both parties and they came up with a $4 trillion plan, common sensical, to bring in our -- and rein in our debt problems. we applauded them. coloradans did, americans all over the country did. they brought a commonsense apreach just like we would in our own personal finances. so with we approached our current debt limit this year and faced the possibility of defaulting on our debt, i joined members of both parties in urging us here in the congress to do two things. first, to address our debt limit problem to prevent a first-ever and completely avoidable default so that america could and would pay its bills. and secondly, enact a

comprehensive and bipartisan $4 trillion plan based on the simpsons-bowles deficit reduction recommendation so we get our fiscal house in in in or for generations of americans to come but for those of us here today as well. if you look back at this, this in some ways was unpopular. folks on the far right and the far left began to sow seeds of division in order to prevent a compromise. people in our party, madam president, objected to spending cuts and entitlement reforms while republican purists like grover norquist complained about increased revenues. that brings us to the events of the last several weeks. those of us who support a commonsense middle ground and who believe our country's biggest national security threat is our growing national debt know that both sides need to compromise. and that we need a long-term,

comprehensive, bipartisan -- bipartisan plan to truly heal the fiscal illnesses that have beset us. this is obvious just looking at the numbers. but it became even clearer when our creditors and u.s. rating agencies began to question whether america was a creditworthy nation. can you manning that, they began to ask will america pay its bills, will we be able to pay its bills or will we go the way of an ireland or a greece and other financially destabilized nations. to me, the answer's clear. a broke nation is a weak nation. and if america's not only going to lead the global economic race but win that race, as we know we can, as we have done throughout our history, we need to implement the bowles-simpson recommendations. and with that knowledge, a smart

group of people from both parties began working out a way to do so, but there was one huge impediment. hundreds, literally hundreds of members of congress signed a pledge promising not to touch the tax code, putting tax purity ahead of fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction. even though the united states brought in a record low amount of revenue last year, what they insist we do would whether intentionally or unintentionally balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, the elderly and the disenfranchised alone. and even though the bowles-simpson commission recommended a blending of 75% spending cuts and 25% revenue increases, they seemingly, this small minority here in the capitol, can't embrace any plan

that includes additional revenue. even though our tax code is littered with literally thousands of special interest tax breaks and corporate giveaways that do nothing to create jobs, they just can't embrace, it seems, tax reform. and even though a bipartisan plan would send a message to the markets that america's ready to lead and that congress is capable of independent thinking and problem solving, they have rejected a bipartisan way forward, a way in which we govern together, so that plan sits idle, mr. president, it just sits to the side. all sides have tried other efforts, but they face the same problems. the speaker, speaker boehner and the president, president obama sought to strike an alternative grand bargain as a way to address our structural deficits and debt to avoid default, and

that looked pretty promising, but it appears to me that when the going got tough, the speaker didn't stay at the table. and when it became apparent that the corporations and the wealthy would have to bear the responsibility for balancing the books, the house speaker walked away. another chapter unfolded. things looked promising when the vice president and the house majority leader tried to reach an agreement on a deficit reduction plan, but then when it became clear again that revenues had to be a part of the picture, if we truly wanted to do something big and good for our country, they walked away from the table. tax purity was more important than deficit reduction. knowing that economists, mr. president, and market analysts and business leaders, credit rating agencies, world leaders and the american people were imploring us, imploring us

to find an agreement to avoid default on our debt obligations, democrats relented. we're now debating what the republicans said they wanted, a spending cut-only plan. i can't tell you the depth of my disappointment that we couldn't pursue a truly comprehensive approach to reducing deficits and debt, one that would set the stage to continue growing our economy and create jobs. but in the name of compromise, i agreed that something versus nothing is better than default and further economic turmoil. but now it appears on a saturday night just a few hours from midnight that even that's not enough. after putting together a plan that includes 100% of the republican endorsed spending cuts to avoid default, we are at an impasse again.

we have got a plan here on the floor of the senate that cuts cuts $2.47 trillion from the federal budget without any revenue. not a single tax loophole is closed, and yet we still can't get our house colleagues to help us prevent a first-ever default of the federal government. mr. president, i have learned to not question motivations of my colleagues, but i have to ask myself what is it that they want now in the house of representatives, and they want exactly, it seems to me, what bank of america, standard and poor's, j.p. morgan chase, moody's and other economic experts have warned us we can least afford. that is, constant turmoil and dysfunction. literally, whether they understand this or not, they want us to walk our economy, america's economy, the biggest economy in the world right up to

the cliff edge of default over and over again. markets and business leaders have told us they want to increase investment, they want to create more jobs, they want to get our economy back on track. what they need is certainty, but it seems like there are those in the capitol, in our congress that have decided it was in the best political interest to create uncertainty, exactly the opposite of what our markets and our business community are telling us. and it is the same members of congress, the same individuals who ironically complain that our president hasn't done enough to create jobs or spur economic growth, and yet we're perilously close and they are perilously close to cutting off the economic growth we need to create jobs. mr. president, in the interest of being direct, if we drawlt,

this would be an economic catastrophe of our own making. it's not something beyond our control like a hurricane or an earthquake, a tornado, a drought. we can avoid the impending chaos and the job loss and the downgrading of our retirement savings that's coming our way, and if we don't, it will be because some members of congress were unwilling to take yes for an answer. some members of congress right now are unwilling to take yes for an answer, but let me begin to close my remarks on a little more optimistic note. i want to be really clear. there are members in both parties that are willing to be responsible. i was pleased to hear that senator alexander, the third ranking republican of the senate, say what would be best, instead of having a republican plan competing with a democratic

plan, would be to have the speaker, senator reid and senator mcconnell recommend to us a single plan. senator thune said yesterday i think if you look at the basic framework, it wouldn't be that hard to figure out something that we could perhaps agree upon. i listened to senator isakson and senator murkowski express similar thoughts earlier today. so i think there is real kernels here of optimism and a way forward, but i -- for the life of me, i can't understand why we can't keep our focus on job creation in the global economic race. the rest of the world isn't waiting for us. they're on the march. i'm an old mountain climber in more ways than one, mr. president, and i can tell you that i have learned that there are some similarities between attempting some of the world's highest peaks and work

here in washington, d.c., but the difference i found is that when the going gets tough here on capitol hill, it always seems like not only do you face the challenges the mountain presents but there is a team of saboteurs who are trying to push and pull you off the mountain. and i really have to say that i believe if all of us would turn away from and frankly ignore the partisan campaign machines that are out there always churning, we could really get something meaningful done here. so the people of colorado from whom i take my instructions and to whom i listen, they have let it be known to me these last few days -- and i think the rest of the nation probably feels this way -- they don't care who wins politically. frankly, i don't care who wins politically either. what i care about is passing legislation, meaningful legislation, long-term legislation that will stave off

a government default and a downgrade in our nation's credit rating. either of those outcomes are not acceptable, and at this point, mr. president, the only plan, the only comprehensive plan, the only long-term plan that gets that done is the reid plan. so let's focus on the reid plan. i urge my colleagues to support the vote we're going to have, the historic vote we'll have later this evening. let's get it done. let's get our country back on track. let's win the global economic race. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be

vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, there are no easy answers to our current dilemma. the majority leader's proposal is the best option we have to overcome the bipartisan impasse. failure to increase the debt limit is not an option. working families can -- can't afford the increased costs associated with default and seniors can't afford not to have their social security payments. in my time as a mayor, as a state legislator, as a member of the house of representatives and now as a senator, i have learned that there are times when one needs to stand and fight and there are other times when one needs to reach a compromise. i'm not comieted about the decisions we are being forced to make, but i think the majority leader has crafted a proposal that can bring the two parties together and avoid economic disaster without destroying medicare, social security and other priorities of working families. and if you compare that to speaker boehner's proposal, that is just more of the partisan

gamesmanship and the path we have to take becomes clear. so i rise today in favor of the majority leader's plan in the hope that reason will prevail on the other side and that our republican colleagues will finally agree to help govern and not make irrational demands that drive us down the road to default. having said that, these debt negotiations have left america longing for a better time and a better government, a time when public service was, as robert kennedy said, a noble profession when public servants served the public's interests, when they came together and found common ground and respected the opinions of those on the other side. my generation has always viewed public service as a noble profession and the fight for what we believe is right as a noble cause. but none of us should expect to win every battle. none of us should dismiss the valid beliefs of those whose

politics we oppose but have been duly elected and sworn in to represent their state or their district. the tea party republicans in the house seem to have forgotten that we live in a democracy, and in a democracy, people hold different views. contrary but equally valid opinions. they have problems from a different perspective, a different background, and have a different view on the best solution. the art of governing is bridging those differences. governing is finding common ground. governing is what ronald reagan talked about in his autobiography "an american life" when he spoke about the importance of political compromise. he understood in a representative democracy, each of us has a right to our opinion, but not a right to our own way. president reagan said -- and i quote -- "when i began entering into the give-and-take of the

legislative bargaining in sacramento" -- this is when he was governor, "a lot of the radical skefrbgts who supported -- conservatives who supported me during the election didn't like it. compromise was a dirty word to them and they wanted all or nothing. and they wanted it all at once. if you don't get it, some said don't take anything." sound familiar? it should. it is the view of today's radical tea party, the same view ronald reagan confronted. reagan went ton say -- quote -- "i learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom get everything you ask for. and i agree with f.d.r. who said in 1933, ' i have no expectations of making a hit every time i come to bat. what i seek is the highest possible batting average. if you got 75% or 80% of what

you were asking for, i say you take it and fight for the rest later. that's what i told these radical conservatives who never got used to it." ronald reagan in his own words, a lesson from a conservative hero, for those modern-day radical conservatives who watched us walk 90 yards down the field but would rather move the goal post and meet us at the ten-yard line. ronald reagan would tell them grow up, step up and govern. but they have reiterated the mantra of the radical conservatives reagan faced, if you don't get it all, don't take anything. end phupbd burke, another conservative icon once said something radicals would label as weakness or too liberal. he said nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because oepblgd do a little -- because he could only do a little. house republicans have chosen to do nothing.

edmund burke understood the art of governing and the art of compromise. ronald reagan knew how radical conservatives think, how they negotiate and now they are seeing how they stand in the way of governance and governing to maintain the purity of ideology. clearly democrats offered much. we have offered the other side an opportunity to govern and they have rejected it on ideological grounds. we've lived up to our duty to govern. they have lived up to ronald reagan's own view of radical conservative tactics and philosophy. i say to my friends it is time to compromise and time to govern. mr. president, i was shocked to witness the audacity of the house republicans who stepped to the mike known week one by one, each claiming if this nation defaults on its obligations, it will be the president's fault. democrats have come a long way and the republicans know it. they just won't accept it. and they can't sell it to the

american people because the american people know the truth. everyone knows that the house tea party republicans have rejected every proposal. they even rejected the republican speaker's original proposal. they claim to love democracy and freedom of speech only when it is their speech, only when it expresses their ideas and their beliefs. they claim to love our system of government, but clearly are at a war with the idea of governing and with all those on this side who i would respectfully remind them have also been elected to serve just as they. they claim to embrace constitutional notions of tolerance and majority rule but clearly see such notions as an inconvenient obstacle to getting their own way. they have the audacity to blame us for offering them what they want and then to claim we haven't offered enough. the fact is with the plan the majority leader has put forth, democrats are now offering

exactly what the republicans asked for, and yet they still will not take yes for an answer. they even claim that they are willing to compromise as long as it is within their framework, the framework of their original demands, that they will compromise on the kind of balanced budget amendment we pass, that they will only compromise on how deep the cuts to entitlements are. but they will not compromise on subsidies to big oil companies or billionaire tax cuts that wealthy americans have themselves, though they've told us that they won't compromise on that. in effect, their only compromise is getting their own way and calling it compromise. well, there is a difference between compromise and total capitulation. there must be common ground. they simply can't call for surrender. there's an old scottish proverb

that says "better bend than break." i say to my colleagues we have done the bending, and now it's time to govern. i say to my colleagues, better bend than break, because in this case it is our economic integrity that stands to break. it's time for the truth. it's time we look at the real impact on real people's lives if republicans continue to stand firm, unwilling to bend, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to govern but clearly willing to take america down the road to default. according to secretary geithner, the consequences for the nation and millions of my home state of new jersey would be deep and far-reaching. failure to raise the debt limit, failure to allow treasury to meet the obligations that the united states has already incurred would be the ultimate tax increase on every american. as such, surely it would violate the radical rights

pwhrepblged -- pledged to grover norquist. it would be a tax increase. a no-compromise republican tax increase would come in the cost of increased rates. the cost of mortgage payments would increase over $1,000 annually. equity prices would decline which in turn would reduce retirement savings and affect the security of every american. there would be reductionness spending and developments. jobs would be lost, businesses would fail, credit card interest would increase, families would be paying more for gas, more for utilities, more for groceries. based on j.p. morgan's tp-pbl analysis -- financial analysis on the crisis in 2008 interest rates and treasury bonds could rise. between mortgages and credit cards alone, an increase of 75 basis points would translate into an additional $10 billion in consumer borrowing costs

every year at a time when middle-class families can ill-afford any increase at all in expenditures. from an international perspective, defaults would have prolonged and disastrous negative consequences on the safe haven status of treasuries and the dollars dominant role in international financial systems. it would reduce the willingness of investors here and abroad to invest in the united states. in my state of new jersey, the impact of default would be immediate and all too real. payments on a broad range of benefits, on other obligations would be postponed, limited or discontinued. that includes military salaries and retirement benefits for 1,200 troops deployed from new jersey both active and reservists and almost 500,000 veterans, benefits for almost 1.5 million social security beneficiaries and 1.3 million medicare enrollees would be interrupted. student loan payments, medicaid payments to states for seniors and the disabled and nursing

homes, payments needed to keep critical government facilities operating, providing the services people need. the total for all these expenditures for new jersey alone is $80 billion. $80 billion to new jersey alone. that averages out to be about $26,000 per household in my state, a significant portion of the federal government's investment in new jersey and its people at risk. yet the republicans in the house and many in this chamber will not bend, will not compromise, refuse to step up and govern. their ideology demands that they protect entitlements for the most entitled americans: big oil, corporate jet owners and those who hold the majority of the wealth in this nation. in my view, in my life and in my work i've come to understand how wrong they are. when the 400 richest americans at the top hold more wealth than 150 million americans at the bottom, we cannot simply put the burden on those who can ill

afford it. let's be clear, the republican protection of the entitled class has nothing to do with balancing the budget or reducing the deficit, nothing to do with values, nothing to do with faith or cultural conservativism, nothing do with community responsibility. it has everything to do with an extreme antigovernment political agenda that is in fact anticommunity. i believe we can do better for families, better for every american if we live and govern by the values we preach. during this process, those of us on this side of the aisle have held to the sews kwrolgs -- sociologist who once called the ethic of responsibility. george packern in a recent new york article said these are tragically opposed but the truth calling on politics requires a union of the two. we on this side believe in ethical responsibility and doing what is right for the nation.

republicans have shown that they believe in one thing only: achieving their ultimate political end. and in this case achieving that end means standing in the way of any compromise, even if it threatens to paralyze the nation's economy. even if it means rejecting the wisdom of their own hero who understood the importance of compromise and the art of governance. i repeat what reagan said, compromise was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. they wanted all or nothing, and they wanted it all at once. if we don't get it all, some said don't take anything. mr. president, it's time to realize that governing is not about getting it all or being ideologically pure. it's about getting it right for the american people. let america understand that reagan himself stood against those radical conservatives whose rigid adherence to ideology at the expense of reason is now taking us down the

road to default. it is on them and it is up to them to grow up, to step up, and compromise as the american people have said in every poll. they want a balanced approach. that means a combination of significant spending cuts, but also revenues. if they accepted that, we could govern. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i would ask that i be yielded ten minutes. i understand that although this is on the republican time, that there is no objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: mr. president, whatever one's position is on the best way to cut the deficit, we all should be able to agree on this, that we must raise the debt ceiling, we must pay our bills. failing to do so is to invite economic catastrophe. the american people have had

their fill of catastrophe and near catastrophe. recently in afghanistan, admiral mullen, chairman of our joint chiefs, was asked by troops if they'll be paid next month. his answer was, "i honestly can't answer that question." admiral mullen had to tell the troops, "i'd like to give you a better answer than that right now. i just honestly don't know." mr. president, it is inconceivable to me that we will leave our troops in limbo by driving our country over the cliff of default. our nation's economic life is in peril. i don't remember ever in the 32 years that i've been here is our nation more in need of deliberation, statesmanship and compromise. "the new york times" columnist david brooks, who is a

conservative columnist, recently wrote that too many republicans seem to have joined a movement -- his word -- in which -- quote -- "the members do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter what the terms." close quote. i hope that some of our republican colleagues will prove mr. brooks wrong on this matter because of its huge significance. the time for ignoring hard truths is over. blind resistance to compromise may play well with some, but it is no way to solve hard problems or to govern. drawing lines in the sand and issuing ultimatums may make for ringing sound bites, but no press release ever sent a child to college or gave a working family hope for a good job. why republican colleagues cannot bring themselves to support the majority leader's proposal or at least the proposed modifications to it, they can vote no.

but it is unthinkable to filibuster against allowing the senate an opportunity to vote on the reid measure itself as this clock approaches midnight. it is one thing to vote against the reid measure. it is quite another thing to deny the senate by filibustering the opportunity to vote on the reid measure when the issue is of such enormous importance. last evening and again the republican leader -- today again the republican leader said that they would insist on 60 votes to pass the reid amendment. that is the definition of a filibuster threat. it's the very definition. you must have 60 votes. that is based on a threat to filibuster. hopefully some of our republican

colleagues will support senator reid's proposal. it has no new revenue. its spending cuts match the size of the debt limit increase. its cuts have been approved by leaders of both parties. but if our republican colleagues don't seek to modify the reid plan and won't vote for the plan, they at least should allow the senate to vote on it and not to filibuster. now, whether senators vote for or against the reid legislation, the american people will not forgive a filibuster that prevents us from even voting on vital legislation as we rapidly approach a cliff. on the critically important matter now before us, there's going to be a very strong public reaction against those who, with economic calamity looming before us, deny the senate through a threat of a filibuster and the filibuster itself, an

opportunity to vote on the reid motion to concur. now, compromise does not come easy with an issue such as this, but the people of this country did not elect us to do easy things. they elected us to seek practical solutions. they elected us to lead. the test of leadership had the senate on the matter before us is allowing us to vote. not to vote just on cloture, which is what the republican leader suggests is a vote on the reid motion -- it is not -- but to vote on the reid motion itself. the test of leadership in this senate is not to filibuster the senate so we can't vote on the important reid motion but to allow us to proceed when that cloture motion is voted on. and so i call on senate republicans to offer changes to the reid proposal or vote

against it if you will but not thwart the senate majority from voting to adopt it, should they choose. when the cloture vote is voted on, if cloture is not invoked and the senate is prevented from voting up and down on the reid proposal, under our rules, debate on the reid proposal will continue. the petition which we're going to vote on, i want to read so everybody understands what we're voting on. we're not voting on the reid motion to concur. we're voting on whether or no not -- and these are the words of the petition we're voting on -- "whether or not we will bring to a close the debate on that motion." will we bring to a close the debate so we can vote on the reid motion to concur in the house amendment? so voting against bringing

debate to a close, thereby denying the majority the opportunity to act, does not defeat the majority leader's motion. it stalls, it stymies the senator from acting. and if an end is not brought to debate when this cloture motion is voted on, the reid motion is still the pending matter, and if the republicans then are determined to filibuster against it and not allow us to vote on it, they, i believe, will see the wrath of this country brought down upon them. mrs. boxer: would the senator yield for a question? mr. levin: i would be happy to. mrs. boxer: so i just want to make sure that the people listening to you, you're such an expert on what goes on around here, that they get this and make sure that i get this too. what the senator is -- is saying is that when 1:00 in the morning

comes, we're going to have a vote to determine whether or not we can stop debating the reid amendment and actually vote on it. if we don't get the 60 votes to do that, what has happened is they've just stalled us but the reid amendment is still pending and we can get a vote on that unless the republicans filibuster it and keep talking and talking and talking and don't let us get to a vote; is that correct? mr. levin: the senator from california is exactly right. mrs. boxer: thank you, because i think this is important for the people to understand. and i would happy to senator reid will keep his amendment -- and i would hope that senator reid will keep his amendment on the floor. it is the last vehicle standing to avert a default. and i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. levin: and i thank the senator from california for reinforcing our point. i heard one of our colleagues tonight say that the republicans are willing to give us a vote on this bill.

no, they're not. republicans are willing to have a cloture vote brought up earlier. they then will vote against cloture but that will do nothing in terms of bringing us closer to a vote on the reid amendment because if they will not end debate by voting "yes" for cloture, if they're going to filibuster, which apparently they're going to do -- they're determined to filibuster this bill -- all that happens if we don't get the 60 votes the first time that cloture is voted on is that it will be voted on again and again because they're filibustering, the republicans would then be filibustering against our being able to vote on this bill. and everyone should be very clear on this. i hope the public will understand what is happening. the republicans are not willing to give us a vote on the reid

amendment or on the reid motion. they are not willing to do that. we'd be happy to have a vote on the reid motion immediately but they insist upon -- immediately. but what they insist upon is that we get a supermajority to vote. they want succeed in a filibuster without even filibustering and that's something which is not only not within the senate rules, it is also inconsistent with making progress on resolving this problem. the american people want us to compromise and the refusal to compromise by a few members of this body and by a number of members of the other body is what is stymieing this resolution. and we cannot tolerate that and i think what we must do is continue to offer to compromise. the majority leader is in his office, as he has been all day, waiting to hear from the republican leader with any

suggestions that he wishes to make and amendments to the majority leader's motion. it's been a long wait. it's been a fruitless wait waiting for the republican leader to suggest modifications. if it's not enough that the reid motion already accepts the republican arguments -- no revenue, the cuts have to equal the amount of the increase in the debt limit -- those are key demands of the republicans -- i have a great deal of trouble not including revenues. i think it is an outrage that there is not shared sacrifice in this bill, that the wealthiest among us are still paying the reduced tax rate, for instance, that president bush proposed, that we have loopholes in the law which give incentives to businesses to move jobs overse

overseas, that we have hedge fund managers that are actually paying a lower tax rate on their very large incomes than their own employees pay on lesser incomes because of a loophole in the law. the american people want us to close these loopholes, and i have great trouble that there is no shared sacrifice in the proposal before us. but that's the way it is. this only has spending cuts, so the republicans have gotten th that. only spending cuts. they've gotten their argument also that the amount of any increase in the debt limit be matched by spending cuts. it's now time to say "yes" or to propose an alternative, and i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i think it's become very clear that the democratic colleagues want to raise taxes. they use the phrase "revenues," "revenues," "we need to share sacrifice." that means people need pay more taxes. and as if that doesn't have an impact on the economy that we have. a recent study by one of the international groups found that the united states has the most progressive tax system in the world among the developed nations. this is all the european nations. the wealthy pay more in the united states than in those countries, according to an independent international study. and you've heard the numbers. when a substantial percentage of the income taxes are paid by the top 10% in america.

i mean, how much more do you do this? and so i don't think -- and i thought we had an agreement just last december with the president in which we agreed that raising taxes in a time of economic danger is not the right thing. not doing something to fix this debt limit now is not a good thing. i don't know what would happen if we don't. i don't think it would be good. i think it runs a risk. but the real danger we have is not the debt limit. the real danger we have is the extraordinary surging debt that this nation has and it's unlike anything we've ever had before. it's systemic. it's part of the structure of the american economy right now that we are spending 40%, 42%

more than we take in. you cannot keep doing that. and the projections for the future are not better. so it's a very dangerous, dangerous trend and we've got to get off of it. so we had a talk about that in the last election. the american people were engaged in that. they weren't happy with their congress. they didn't think congress was managing their affairs very we well. they felt they weren't listening to them when they were asking questions about, how can you keep doing this? you're making our grandchildren, putting them in the poorhouse. you're asking the economy of the united states. -- you're risking the economy of the united states. all you want to do is spend money, buy votes and say you're spreading the wealth around and this is going to make things better. so we had an election and it was a sha shellacking for the big spenders. wasn't that what it was all about? was there a single candidate that i know of that won last

time -- at least new candidate that got elected for the first time -- that didn't talk about the need to constrain spending in washington? that was the theme throughout the election. that was the meaning of the election. so now my colleagues, oh, we can't -- oh, you want to cut spending? oh, they've got these extremists in the house. oh, they don't want to play ba ball. they hadn't served in the congress long enough. they don't know better. they think we can actually cut spending. of course we can't cut spending. oh, that's not the way you do it. you just reduce growth a little bit in spending and save you're cutting spending, even though it's still going up. that's the way -- that's what's been going on here. that's why we are increasing the debt at the most extraordinary rate in over a systemic period of time to a degree that every

economist that's appeared before the budget committee -- i'm the ranking republican on it. everyone that's testified has told us, you have got to stop, this is unsustainable. unsustainable. you cannot keep doing this. do you know, colleagues, that in the last two years, when the democratic majority in this senate was 60 votes that spending for non-defense discretionary spending, not counting the stimulus, just the basic budgetary spending on all our accounts, non-war, non-defense, non-social security, went up 24%? at a time we were running the biggest deficits in the history? 24% increases? and we can't cut spending? and there was an article in "the washington times" yesterday or day before, my colleague,

senator shelby from alabama, asked the secretary of education how he could explain that the secretary of education and the president were proposing that the department of education get a 13.5% increase for next fiscal year, beginning october 1. 13.5% and he defended that. he said he was justified, it was an investment. but when you don't have money, you have to change business. you can't continue to be in denial, and pretend that this is normal, that we can just continue to increase the education department by 13.5%. by the way, the department of energy -- the president proposes, and their secretary defends, a 9.5% increase for the department of energy. which does more to restrict the

production of energy than produce the source of energy in america. the department of state -- 10.5%. i'm talking about their proposal for next year beginning october 1 of this year, the fiscal year. 60% increase they propose for transportation. and they propose a tax for that, but won't say what it is when asked. but it won't be a gas tax because that's not popular, you know. so i asked secretary lahood, so it's a non-- it's a not gas tax tax, is that right, mr. secretary? well, we'll tax with congress about what that tax is. but i can just tell you, mr. lahood, congress is not going to pass a big, fat tax, so you can increase spending on your budget 60%, because we don't have that kind of money. and we don't need to be hammering this fragile, fragile

economy with another big tax increase. besides, what we need to do first and foremost is rein in this surging spending spree we've been on. that's what we need to do. that's just a fact. that's what the american people understand. and i'm offended, frankly, by the suggestion that the people in the house, who swept out a lot of the buddies of the big spenders in the senate, a lot of big spenders in the house are back home pushing, figuratively, up daisies because they were held to account finally, many of them after many years in the congress. they were voted out of office. so the people that beat them are extremists, you see. that's what they like to say.

they won't negotiate. they won't deal. they're irresponsible. they actually think they can come up here and change the trajectory of debt in this country. so they passed a budget in the house of representatives, a brilliant, fine, young congressman, paul ryan, chairman of the budget committee in the house, the republican majority in the house, and they passed a budget that cut spending $6 billion -- $5 trillion, and it changed -- it would change the debt trajectory of america. it didn't quite balance, even at ten years. i would like to have seen it -- but we're in such a hole, phs har--it is hard to get out. but it would have made a big change in where we're going, put us on the right path. senator reid called it up, mocked it, had his members all vote against it.

so we said, what about your budget, mr. reid? wwell, we don't have one. well, what your your budget? you've got the majority in the senate. you can pass a budget with just 50 votes. why don't you pass a budget? it's foolish to pass a budget, he said. foolish to pass a busmght at a time when this country has never, ever, ever been in a more serious financial condition than we are today. we're borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar we spend. that's a deep hole, and it's not because -- it's not the war. we spend $150-plus billion on the war this year, next year will be $118 billion. the deficit this year will be $1,500,000,000,000. it's about 10%. if you put every part of the war

cost towards our debt, it is only about 10%. its other spending that's putting news this hole. and we do have long-term problems with our entitlement programs and shouldn't we talk about them? or should we do as the president did, bring congressman ryan over to the white house for a speech, sit him right down there in the front of him and then launch into an attack on what he and his members of the house have tried to do? to make america a better place. so they say those guys over there, the and the new women that were elected, they're not reasonable enough. they won't work with us. let me tell you, they proposed $6 trillion reduction. it even -- even that didn't balance in ten years, but it sure was a big step forward. you know what they've done now? the house passed a bill at the

insistence of the president to try to pass a bill, and they passed it that would raise the debt ceiling and cut spending only $1 trillion. is that an extremist thing to do? and they sent it over here, much of it is very similar to what senator reid has proposed, and they called it up within minutes and tabled it. without debate, without discussion. and then they continued to say, as if nothing happened, that these are extremists over here. and they won't listen to reason. and these tea party people are not good for america. but i'm going to tell you one thing the tea party people rngdz an important fact. this congress is spending too much money.

they are exactly correct in that regard. no member of the united states congress can with a clear conscience look their constituents in the eye and say, we have managed their money wisely, that we're in such a shape, we can't even see when we'll balance the budget, because we've mismanaged their economy so badly. and the only idea that anybody seemed to have around here is spend more money and stimulate the economy. and if you spend more money, where does it come from snr it's borrowing because we're already in debt. and every new dime we spend is borrowed. there is a only one way to move out of this and that's to reduce spending. it just s and the american people understand that. i recently had the lrn to be in estonia up there near russia, one of the baltic nations that are so proud to be free and

independent. when the recession hit, they suffered more than we. they had a 15% reduction in their economy. you know what they did? their cabinet members took a 40% pay cut. every employee in estonia took a 10% to 20% pay cut. one of the members told me, i tell you who's really mad is my wife. she's had a doctor. and the medical system got cut. and you know what? they had 5% growth the first quarter. and their debt to g.d.p. is 7%. our debt-to-g.d.p. is 19.5%. they're going to come out of this. and they're not going to have a debt so heavy that it pulls down the economy. mr. president, i don't know what

the agreement time-wise is at this point. can the chair advise me. the presiding officer: the republican time has expired. mr. sessions: i see me colleague from california, and i will yield. i would just note that the idea that the republicans don't want to vote is not correct. we're prepared too vote. we're prepared to vote on the standard procedural matter in the senate of 60 votes. it's done on every significant matter. around here. and that's perfectly normal. and i'm rather amazed, surprised, and almost amused that my colleagues would feign such great pain and anguish that this would occur. they would do exactly the same. that's the way the senate orptz. that's the way they've operated when they were in the minority. and that's the way we operate today. on matters of significance, it takes 60 votes.

so, mr. president, i thank the chair for the opportunity to speak and just raising some political points here. we've been jousting politically, some of which is good and some of which is not. i do say, we need to reach an agreement soon and pass legislation that will raise the debt limit and will reduce our spending trajectory so that we can get this country on a sound path. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, my friend, senator sessions, has said that republicans are prepared to vote on the reid proposal. actually, they're not. they want to vote on whether to allow a vote on the reid proposal. that's what a cloture vote is. and they don't want to vote on

the reid proposal. we have offered that and said that a majority should rule. just like the boehner proposal passed in the house with a simple majority, we want a chance to pass the reid proposal with a simple majority. now, my friend says, that's laughable. why is it laughable? we went back and looked at the record, mr. president, and every vote we can find on increasing the debt was always done by a simple majority. always. so if you want to follow tradition, cut out the filibuster, let us vote, and we will pass the reid proposal tonight. and we can find a way to resolve these problems. my colleague also said, democrats want to raise taxes. let me just say something. democrats want to reduce taxes on the middle class, but we do

believe that multinational corporations, people who earn over $1 billion a year and $1 million a year should pay their fair share. we do believe that. senator sanders researched and you found out that the richest 400 families in america make more than one half of america. can you imagine? the richest 400 families make more than half of america. so those at the top are doing just fine. so let's be clear. we want an up-or-down vote on the reid amendment. we think it is fair, we think it is justice, we marched toward the republicans, we didn't wonts to give up on republicans, but we did. we wanted a clean debt ceiling, not holding it hostage to any -- any machinations. we gave that up. we're willing to talk. we're willing to work. senator reid's office -- i was

just in there -- the door is wide open, waiting for republicans to come in there and work with us. so we hope at this point we will have an agreement and we can climb down off this man-made crisis. there's no crisis. 89 times we've raised the debt. no crisis whatsoever. and now i think it's important that we recognize that this is no crisis. we have a challenge to reduce deficits and debt of we did it with bill clinton. we balanced the budget. we created surplussed. we know how to do it. we'll work with you and do t but we don't need a man-made crisis to pull this entire economy down. to lower the full faith and credit of the united states. imagine holding the full faith and credit of the united states hostage until you get every single thing you want. that is not compromise. that is absolutely irresponsible.

so, mr. president, i want to thank you for your leadership in pointing out what's happening here on the floor, that there is a filibuster to stop us from voting on the reid amendment, and that we're not going to give up. if in fact they decide they want to continue to debate the reid amendment and they don't give us 60 votes to go to a vote on the reid amendment, we're going to keep going, because the reid amendment is a fair amendment. it pulls from both sides of the aisle. it will get us out of this mess that we're in. and get us concentrating on the long-term challenges we face: job creation, deficits and debt reduction. i would yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: