stress enough how much we need those jobs. so it's too bad, but i do appreciate my friend, the senator from texas, for being so forward leaning on this and not being partisan. i appreciate that very much. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the chair lays before the body the house message to accompany s. 365, that i be recognized to move to concur in the house amendments. that the time until noon, tuesday, august 2, be for debate on the motion to concur equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. at noon, the senate proceed to vote on the reid motion to concur. that the motion to concur be subject to a 60-vote threshold, that no amendments, points of order or motions be in order to the message prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection, so ordered.

mr. reid: for the information of all senators, it is my intention to have the chair lay before the senate the house message to accompany s. 365 at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, august 2. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: r. president, we

do have a financial crisis in our country. the debt limit that we will be considering tomorrow is the thermometer, the canary in the coal mine that tells us we are at a dangerous level. for example, we have reached it faster and at higher levels than we ever have, the result of which is that our debt rise is telling us that we have to raise our debt limit. those things happen periodically, but this one would be the largest debt limit increase in our history, and it is a fact that we have never had such a surge. the deficit this fiscal year ending september 30, just for

one year, would be $1,500 billion, $1.5 trillion, the largest deficit president bush ever had, and it was large, was was $450 billion. the last two years have been dollars 1.2 trillion. this year is expected to be be $1.5 trillion. we will go from interest on our debt this year of $240 billion to the tenth year under the budget that was sent here by the president. i will acknowledge a budget voted down 97-0. in the tenth year, that one-year interest would be $940 billion. that, for example, our education budget is around 100. our highway budget is around 40. $940 billion will crowd out tremendous portions of the good things we would like to do with

taxpayers' money. instead of being able to improve our infrastructure or do other things that we think could be good, we will be sending that money, much of it, to debt holders abroad to pay them back for the money they have loaned us that we have been spending now, because 40 cents of every dollar we spend this year -- really 42, i believe -- will be borrowed. so that is a situation that's very real to us, but i have always felt that we do have a responsibility to be honest with our constituents, and we are going to need to raise the debt limit. we just have to. it places too much risk on our economy, i think, to not raise it. we might as well be honest about that. we have got ourselves in a fix, and it will have to be raised. but i want to share some thoughts about why i am uneasy about the legislation that's

before us and why i will not be able to support it. i have been warning for months now that we are heading to a situation in which we will have a last-minute 11th hour bill that the senate will be asked to pass it without adequate time to review it, that other bad things could be included in this debt limit increase, and it's not the kind of process that we need to pursue. our democratic leadership decided at some point they did not want to bring up a budget. they instructed the budget committee chairman of which i'm the ranking member, not to bring up a budget. when asked about it, the majority leader said it would be foolish to have a budget. we've gone now 824 days without a budget under the democratic

majority in the senate. at a time we've had the largest deficits in american history, the largest -- close to it, and we don't have a budget. they said it would be foolish to have a budget, and the question is, why would it be foolish? because if you pass a budget, and one can be passed with a mere 50 votes, it's given an expedited procedure that can't be filibustered, it's guaranteed a vote in 50 hours, but you have the right to file amendments. and people would have a right to file amendments. and when you file amendments and get a vote on those amendments, then people are held accountable. and they have to vote yea or nay, whether they think this is a good step or not. so we've had a lot of people say

we'd like to do more but we are sorry we can't do more. well, maybe if we'd had a budget up here we'd have had a chance to vote for more spending. or maybe people who are suggesting that really wouldn't be for that. so they -- the problem was that a decision was made that it would be too difficult to execute the normal regular order in the senate to bring forth a budget, and actually have amendments filed and senators do what they're paid to do. now, i think that's particularly problematic in light of what happened in the last election. the american people are not happy with us. they rightly believe that congress cannot justify a situation in which 42 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed. that congress cannot justify a

$1.5 trillion deficit this year. they're not happy about that. i've been to town meetings and people say you work for me. i'm not happy. you've seen that on television in the last election. and it was a shellacking for those who thought that business as usual ought to continue in the united states of america. that money could just be borrowed, borrowed, borrowed and spent, spent, spent, and when the problems get hit, we'll just raise taxes on the american people and they'll have to pay for our spending binge. so that's kind of what it was all about, frankly. and so we had an election and it was a shellacking for the big spenders. it just was. and they were demanding, among other things, accountability. they were demanding that we in congress be responsible for what

we do, and do it out in the open and stand up and be willing to answer in our town hall meetings and so forth for what we've done. a fair request in a great republic like ours, i think. so i've been a critic of this idea that we won't have a budget, we won't vote. and in fact we haven't voted. had very, very few votes. we had the reid proposal and the boehner proposal and finally this compromise proposal. our colleagues brought up -- the democratic majority brought up the house budget so they could vote it down. it was an historic budget. they did it publicly, they voted on the floor. there were amendments. they reduced spending by as much as $6 trillion. they changed the debt course of america. i would like to have seen them

go further because even that plan to alter the debt trajectory of america bringing down our deficits still didn't balance in the tenth year. people say the house was radical and they did strange things. not so. read that budget. it was an honest budget based on good numbers and it changed the debt course of america, but it even -- even that, as i said, didn't go as far as we really need to go. so the house did its bit and we did nothing in return. and now we get to the point where the debt limit, august 2, is upon us, and we're supposed to vote. so this morning at 3:00 a.m. apparently legislation was finally put together, and it was brought forth to the floor of the senate and we'll vote tomorrow morning. maybe noon. after a couple of hours' debate tomorrow.

i'm really uneasy about that, and i'm uneasy about what's contained in it. whats to it do? the good part is it reduces our spending by about $2.1 trillion, maybe $2.4 trillion. more solid belief we'll reduce spending if congress adheres to the guidelines -- and it can over a period of years we tend to figure ways around the limits and constraints that are put on spending, but the plan is to reduce spending by $2.1 trillion. a step. it's better than more spending, like we've been doing. and the last -- in the last two years under president obama, when the democratic majority had 60 senators in the senate,

nondefense discretionary spending went up 24%. the budget that the president submitted this year calls for 13.5% increase in education for next year, beginning october october 1, fiscal year 2012. we are in the worst financial shape ever, a 13.5% increase in spending? is that common sense? does that make reasonable judgment, is that a reasonable judgment for america when we are in a situation like this? if it poses a -- it proposes a 9.5% increase in the energy deputy. a 10.5% increase in the state department. it proposes a 60% increase in the highway department and they say there will be a tax, and i asked them well, mr. secretary, what tax? well, it won't be a gas tax.

i said okay, we agree it's a -- not a gas tax tax. what is it tax? well, we'll talk about that. the congressional budget office said that's no income. you can't say you've got income to offset a big increase in high-speed rail and things like that if you don't have a source of the revenue. so that's the kind of situation we find ourselves in. we have a deep philosophical disagreement. the majority in this senate and the president believe in spending. and when they've been caught after having raised this spending -- and when i said 24% increase, that did not include the almost $1 trillion in stimulus package, did not include that. all of which, every penny, was borrowed because we are in debt

when you spend this extra money, you borrow the money. we don't have it to spend. we have a different -- we have disagreement about where we're heading in our country. and we should have had a full, glorious debate in the united states senate. the finance committee should be looking at how to deal with taxes. the appropriation committee should be asking how can we reduce expenditures? every authorizing committee needs to be looking at what they can do to do the job better with less cost and more efficiently. the budget committee should be producing a budget that can be adhered to and passed and that would bind the senate to change the spending trajectory we've been on.

but none of that has happened. instead, we have a bill this morning to raise the debt limit because we spent so much money we're up at the limit and if we don't raise the debt limit, there will be substantial reductions in spending occurring pretty quickly. that's where we are. in this bill that was produced last night -- and i haven't had time to fully study it -- i believe it raises serious questions about the united states senate and how we do business. as i said, i've warned that we would be at the 11th hour when this all came forward. i didn't think it would be at the 11th -- 11.99 hour, at the very last minute with tomorrow being august 2. i thought we'd have more than one day, maybe, to look at this. so we've got this bill before

us. a number of things are in it. but one thing particularly that concerned me as the ranking member of the budget committee is it deems certain budget numbers, and in a way gets around, again, the budget process. and it's going to give my colleagues, the democratic majority, additional avenues to avoid producing a budget for the third consecutive year. it just will. that's why it's in there. it was in there for that purpose. i don't believe that's a healthy process. secondly, i just ask my colleagues to think about this: and i'll wrap up. no need to go into great detail about it. but we're being asked to allow our leaders to select up to 12

people -- 12 people who will be on a special committee, and they'll have almost complete jurisdiction to work on any issue they choose, and after they reach an agreement, if they do, that agreement will be presented to both houses of congress, there will be only 30 hours of debate, no opportunity to amend it, and there will be an up-or-down vote. and i have to say the chances of that up-or-down vote being successful is very, very high. because the product that will come out of that committee will be in harmony with what the leaders who appointed the members of the committee desire. because the power to appoint is the power to control. so the committee will come back with this -- this leadership proposal, it will be on the floor, and it will be for

up-or-down vote and it's likely, very likely to pass. hopefully it will have some good things in it. i don't deny that. hopefully it will be a very -- some very good things in it. but it can't really -- it's unlikely it would go past 2.1 -- 2.4 -- really $1.2 trillion, $1.5 trillion in reduced spending over 10 years. that's the range they basically have been given, $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion on top of the $900 billion that would be would go into effect immediately on the passage of the a legislation. so you come out with $1.2 trillion total. i believe that's an insufficient number. it's not close with what we have to do because over ten years the debt of the united states will increase $13 trillion. $13 trillion more, so reducing

it $2 trillion is not enough. it just is not. we've heard the economists, and people testify before the budget committee, republicans and democrats say that. many economists said the absolute minimum is $4 trillion and this will be half that. so that legislation will then come before us, we'll have an up-or-down vote and presumably it will pass and the great traditions of the senate, full, free, open debate will not occur to the degree that it ought to occur. the regular order will not be followed. the committees will have only an ability to send over advice if they so desire. and as a result, i think we as members of the senate need to ask ourselves -- and i know the

majority leader and the republican leader love this body and respect it, but we're getting pretty far away from the traditions of this body when you don't publicly debate a basketball, you create a committee of limited numbers of people to solve -- to produce legislation that can't be amended and will only be up or down and no ability to have a super -- a majority vote, but a 50 vote, contrary to the normal process of this body. so for those reasons, i feel like as a senator and a ranking member on the budget committee who has wrestled with this for some time, i would not be able to support the legislation. though i truly believe that it is a step forward and i respect my colleagues who have worked hard to try to bring it forward. i thank the chair and i would

yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. mr. reid: i ask that the senate proceed to a period of morning business. i asked that we proceed to s. 1466. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 14 66, a bill to establish the commission on freedom of information act processing delays. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a -- read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, any statements relating to the matter appear in the record at the ppropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the senate proceed to s.2715. the presiding officer:. the clerk: an act to provide the consumer products safety commission with greater authority and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection you the senate will proceed to the measure.

mr. reid: i ask that the bill be read a third time, pad, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, action any statements appear at the appropriate place in the record. officer sphe woks. reid rude i ask that the senate report number. mr. reid: when the senate complete is business today, it adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow morning, august 2. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for that are use later in the day. the presiding officer: twowks. mr. reid: mr. president, the majority leader -- that's me -- will lay before the senate the house message with respect to the debt limit, compromise upon convening tomorrow. a roll call vote on the compromise will be at noon tomorrow. i ask that we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

sponsored by the consumer electronics association and spoke with innovators. first from chicago introduced with some of the leaders and attendees at the national cable television association. >> communicators met up with matthew, senior vice president and general counsel. i'm going to preserve that tivo is a household term now. we don't have to explain what your business is. tell me about this high-speed demonstration that we are seeing of internet to show the speeds that are incomprehensible even to years ago of the delivery. what is the name of your business? >> i think what i am seeing and what that means is operators are realizing they need to innovate and get the internet and to

their set top box into their home in a way that makes sense for cable and that's something tivo has been doing predominantly with smaller cable operators and charters really upgrading experience bringing in broadband content i think it's terrific for the industry to be doing all that and it's something that needs to be done in an age consumers want to watch things on their ipad, want to interact with content in different ways, want to have a multi streamed experience, and have access to youtube on the phone system. it's as simple as that on facebook and integrated. it's all being driven by consumer demand and they are kind of responding to the challenge. >> what percentage of your business right now is hardware versus software technology and we're is that going? >> we make hardware mainly as a

necessary. we don't make money hardware we don't license hardware, we actually run on europe and samsung boxes in europe and will be running on other vendors' hardware in the u.s. in the near future. >> tell me about what you are most excited with your technology issue what are you talking about? >> we are shoving i ron ackley hardware a multi four-tuner dvr and then other devices in the room can access the dvr content from one central location in the room as well as internet content and other things that are all brought together. >> your role as general counsel since you were talking to c-span2 have a message for washington either policy makers or regulators?

>> one thing we are not seeing on the floor today is we are not really seeing any innovation retail. we are not seeing the samsung tv, we are not really seeing an opportunity for more and more devices because this content, you know, for the congressional policy. >> so what's the message then? >> the message still has work to be done in that area. simic the message to congress or the manufacturer's? >> i think it's a message to the industry and regulators and everyone. >> thank you very much for visiting us and i hope to see you in washington. >> thank you. >> on the floor of the 2011 cable show caught up with espn, responsible for sales and marketing. well, this is a show with a lot of promise. what are your -- what's keeping you awake at night these days?

>> i sleep like a baby but when i get up in the morning i think a lot. this is my 23rd ncta show, and i think the complement of technology, the energy, the interest of making one plus one equals eight, the content providers and the distributors is shining through and i think a lot of things are coming out of that. ryan who demonstrates the cloud base to remote control, a lot of applications on the authentication content providers in partnership with other multichannel distributors, so there's a lot of good and interesting things coming out of the show which i think people will serve consumers better in the businesses model over the longer term. >> is there more competition than before? >> we've been in a competitive market space the last 32 years