the fossil fuels. the incentives to find fossil fuels, ending the bush tax cut extensions, the bush-obama tax cut extensions and assuming which we did in our math that every simpson single dime came in, that you didn't slow the economy down, you didn't raise unemployment. we use a number that every dime came in and was applied straight to the deficit and to the debt, all three of the rhetorical points we heard over and over and over today add up to a half an hour of borrowing. . one more time, and this is a habit, what would you like to do with the other 23.5 hours. mr. west, i yield my time back to you. mr. westmoreland: thank you, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reminds members not to

refer to occupants of the gallery. mr. westmoreland: we must empower small business owners. job creators are being burdened that prevent job creation and hinder economic growth. these regulations are damaging for the real job creators in the country, our small business owners. we must remove federal regulations that are redundant, harmful to small businesses and impede investment in job creation. the small business administration has reported that government regulations are estimated to cost our economy over $1.75 trillion. in 2009, the administration considered adding another $184 regulations that are estimated to cost the economy in excess of $100 million each and likely to

cause more americans to lose jobs. i would like to yield to my friend and colleague from colorado, mr. tipton. mr. tipton: thank you, congressman west. you know, tonight, we are talking about small business in america. the number one job creator in america. i'm a small businessman. i'm not a career politician. it seems to me that once you come to this place and you are surrounded by pillars of marble, vast expanses of grass and glorious mon youments that seem to cloud your vision on what's going on back at home, we are seeing businesses right now, they aren't the meg aver -- mega corporations that are talked

about by my colleagues, small businesses trying to build a future. i live in western colorado. my district encompasses a good portion of the entire state of colorado, the eighth largest district in the united states. 54,000 square miles. the number one employer, small business. traveling through that district, i found it remarkable. as i have stopped in small businesses and visited with the owners, sub-s corporations, l.l.c., people just trying to make a living, as i visited in those chupets, -- communities, one message comes through loud and clear, government is overregulating our america.

congressman west just mentioned a very important figure. in this country, we are paying $ 1.750 bill quon a year in terms of regulatory costs that is impeding america's ability. some of our friends always want to take that to the extreme, saying we want to eliminate all regulations. it's not the case. when we go back to the beginning of the 20th september try starting to build cars in this country, in new york city, there were two cars. stop lights were not a bad idea. the government is overreached. it is hurting small business and our opportunity to truly to be able to grow america. let me tell you a story about a constituent of mine. started out with nothing. he and his wife invested and

scraped together dollars and worninged hard and over the course of the years they built a small car dealership in western colorado. he called me up and said washington simply doesn't get it. they seem to believe that they need money more than we do here at home. and that brings us back to a lot of the conversation which westbound having over the last few days in terms of the debt and deficit in this country. we currently have a debt in this nation, $14.3 trillion. come the end of end of september, we will be adding $1.4 trillion on top of that national debt. a crushing burden on the promise of america. his granddaughter, she isn't old enough to know how much she owes, but her portion of that

national debt is now well in excess of $45,000. if our children, if our grand children are going to inherit the promise of america, we have to restrain, we have to slow down, we have to reduce the spending in washington d.c. we can't afford it. the numbers are too high. our colleagues will tell us that taxes are the answer. they like to call it a balanced approach. we need more of your money because washington needs it more. they fail to point out that through the bills they have passed through this chamber, congressman west and i, we weren't here. we didn't help create the problem, but we are here to try and help solve the problem. they increased the debt on the backs of the american people when they passed obamacare.

i'm concerned about that, because it is hurting jobs in america. that small businessman who started that business from nothing, was able to grow that car dealership, is afraid to hire because he doesn't know what the costs are going to be from government-run health care. we have a pretty good idea from the up-front costs and costing us better than a $1 trillion. our senior citizens are worried about that. through the actions of our counterparts, $562 billion was cut out of medicare to fund that program. and starting in january of this coming year, the president will appoint his 15-member commission to start rationing health care for senior citizens and we are fighting to stop that. connectivity the that we see in our economy, between government

regulations, excessive taxation and having too many people in washington who never got dirt under their fingernails, never met a payroll, never created a job, never worked in the private sector, that's the disconnect between here and at home. we have people right now who are gathering around their catchen tables and looking at resources that are coming in and can't spend more than they take in. tomorrow morning, the small businesses are going to unlock the doors and they know they have to spend within the limitations of the income that they have. 49 of our states live under a balanced budget requirement, just like the men and women who led in the communities of those states. isn't it about time, isn't it about time that washington

applied the same principles? some will say no, but that's a challenge more importantly. that is the opportunity that we truly face, right now in this country. we have an opportunity to change the course of american history for the better. to embrace once again the values that truly made this country the freest, the richest and greatest nation on the face of the earth and that the earth will truly ever see. american intellectualship, american know-how, that we have to have the freedom, the resources and the opportunity to do that. government has not become no longer the steppingstone of success but has indeed become

the stumbling block. this is our chance. this is our opportunity. we have many votes here how to vote today. this is not the end of the debate, but it is the beginning of a solution. if we embrace that opportunity, that special and unique thing that it is to truly be an american, american exceptionalism and allow americans to do what they do best, to innovate, create and to build, we will be able to get this country back on the right course. but it will not come as long as we continue to build government, protect programs and forget about the people who sent us to washington. let's stand up once again for the american people, for the small business people who truly make america work and the number one job creators in our country.

and i yield back. mr. westmoreland: thanks to my colleague, mr. tipton from colorado. mr. speaker, we know that not all regulations are bad, but so many are obstacles to job creation. a recent study by the heritage foundation found that 43 major regulations were imposed in fiscal year 2010, with a total economic cost of $26.5 billion, the highest total since 1981. the cost of regulations is a big obstacle for american job creators. but when you think about regulations, here are an example of some of the once that can make you laugh. the department of energy requires microwaive makers to

measure the amount of energy their products use in the off position. the environmental protection agency wants stricter regulations on the amount of dust on american farms. the department of interior wants to impose a fee on christmas tree sales to promote christmas tree sales. when you think about how government regulations destroy american jobs, these are the statistics that will make you cry. according to a louisiana state university professor, the department of interior's defacto moratorium of exploration in the gulf of mexico could cost $36,1 -- 36,137 jobs. in addition, more than 80,000 jobs could be lost due to the e.p.a. regulations targeting the

cement industry. and e.p.a. gas regulations could cost $1 -- 1.4 million jobs. the american people place an upper limit on the damage that washington democrats could inflict on the economy by firing house democrats in the last election. in election, we began to implement the job for america. we voted to repeal the government takeover of health care, roll back costly regulations, cut job destroying regulations and talk about how much more we can spend to one that talks about how much we can cut in spending. the united states congress in 2009 passed the president's $800

billion stimulus package which we now have convincing proof that it did nothing to reduce unemployment. today, the house of representatives has sent nine real life job-creating bills to the u.s. senate, yet those bills continued to be sit waiting to be voted on similar to the cut, cap and balance that we september on over that the senate majority leader has tabled. i have introduced my own legislation to reduce unploict, h.r. 1663. the president continues with an economic policy based on job-killing over regulation and implementation of obamacare. how many more months are we going to see the stagnant job growth. the unemployment is at or above

9%. the president has to realize his policies have failed and it is time to go in a different direction. the solution rely on regulatory policies which incentivize long-term private sector growth. we must restore confidence, provide access to capital and create economic certainty. now is not the time for more rhetoric on spending, borrowing and raising taxes. our country is in a crisis and time is running out. we must remember that it is those same ma and pop stores on main street back in our respective districts that creates the jobs for our teenagers during the summer months, local hair salon that my wife and two daughters visit often that would be affect d.

uneconomic uncertainty created by debt, regulatory burden on small businesses and uncertain gurd is slowing commerce. today, the g.d.p. announcement in the last quarter of 1.3% growth is further proof that president obama's tration's economic strategy is not working. unemployment still remains above 9%. in the inner city in our black communities is at 16.2% and unfortunately for our veterans, of which i am one, that unemployment rate is 13%. and we just talked about our quarrel g.d.p. growth, that is unacceptable for the most powerful economy in the world.

. in may, house republicans put forth a plan for america's job creators. that includes commonsense policies to remove uncertainty by reducing regulatory burdens, lowering business tax rates to 25%, spurring exports by quickly passing the pending free trade agreement and introducing a budget that gets our nation's fiscal house in order. the sooner we enact policies like these into law, the sooner our small businesses will be able to lead us out of this economic downturn. and, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader. gem goal -- mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it's been quite an eventful day here on the house floor. a lot of scurrying, a lot of things going on in committee rooms, different meeting rooms around the capitol today. and actually last night when i

finished talking, meeting with folks around midnight or so it appeared that republicans would start today with basically not much change to the bill we had yesterday, but we had a conversation this morning, the republican members of congress -- conference this morning, the republican members of congress, and added to the former -- the boehner bill was the requirement that before the president would get the full hunch of the debt ceiling being lifted, there had to be a balanced budget amendment passed from the house with 2/3 vote, of course, and from the senate with 2/3 vote and we sent to the states by archivist of the capitol for the

ratification. now, it's a shame that a balanced budget amendment is needed. but if there could have been a piece of legislation that were prepared and passed and tight enough to require always that a balanced approach be taken, no more money spent than money coming in, then we wouldn't have had to worry about a balanced budget amendment. what we've seen over the last 100 years or so in this country has been runaway spending. and i think of the line jim carrey had in one of his movies, somebody stop me. and congress needed somebody to stop congress. but the only way to do that, constitutionally and legally, was to change the constitution

so that congress could be stopped from spending more money than it took in. i was going to vote no on the boehner bill as of yesterday, as of last night, but this morning, to find out that the speaker, as he said he would, has listened to the conference and put back in the balanced budget amendment requirement, it already had a requirement in there that there would be a vote, but we knew that the senate had already voted, 51 votes, to table the balanced budget amendment. they didn't even want to debate it. and now, tonight, as i speak, the senate has wasted no time with the majority leader of the senate, a democratic party

leader. i would bet that he has not bathered to read the bill, that he's not bothered to see what's there and perhaps the majority leader reid does not know that 70% or so of all american adults would like to see a balanced budget amendment passed. tonight, again, he is working against the will of the american people just like he and then speaker pelosi did in pushing for obamacare to be passed, the majority of americans did not want that kind of government intrusion into their lives. well, the democrats still

control the senate so once again they're working their private will against the will of the american people. so i don't know what the tally is that was being taken as i walked onto the floor but i would imagine that leader reid would not have brought the boehner bill with the requirement of having a balanced budget amendment passed by 2/3 to the floor of the senate unless he knew once again he had the 51 democratic senators who were willing to vote to table the bill that is required -- that has required so much sweat, i don't know about tears, but a lot of sweat and a lot of frustration, i know i've had plenty, anger at times,

frustration. but we came together and got the bill done and i ended up being a yes for a number of reasons but one waps the most important -- one was, the most important was that the balanced budget amendment was going to be required to pass 2/3 the house and senate before the president got the debt ceiling increased -- increase that he so desperately wants. to table that, once again -- it's bad enough that the senate, all this time, has been trashing things that we've been fighting for and getting accomplished in the house but to table it and not even going to let republicans who want to speak on this issue come to the floor of the senate and have a fair debate, simply because one party controls the majority, you want

to keep the other side from coming to the senate floor and having a fair debate over a balanced budget amendment? it is just staggering to think that once again, just like when obamacare was crammed down the throats of americans, not with any sugar, it was a sour piece of medicine and now not even to allow debate over a balanced budget amendment to be brought to the senate floor -- i don't think the founders intended that . i don't think the founders intended that when 70% or so of the americans felt something was critical for the ongoing and

good of the country that you would have one group in either house who would prohibit even discussing debate -- discussing, debating a bill, using the rules and 51 senators to prevent debate. i mean, that's how this country -- one of the things that's helped make it great. this was one place you used to could say whatever you wanted. as it's been credited to different people. but i disagree with what you say but i'll defend your right to say it and now it appears the senate is operating and you rule , i disagree with what you say so i am going to use procedural maneuvers and prevent you from saying what you want to say.

and i'll say this about speaker john boehner, too. he knows that i have not been happy with many of the things that has gone on. but unlike the majority leader in the senate, he has made no effort to prevent me from coming to the house floor and speaking my mind, such as it is, here on this floor. we're supposed to have freedom of speech but the senate will not allow the working of the people's will on the senate floor. now, i've heard some people say, mr. speaker, that the fact is by our passing this bill today in the house that we provided a vehicle for the senate to use to completely strip out and put

some contorted piece of legislation on and send back down here. well, the fact is that the senate did not need this bill today to have a vehicle to send a contorted piece of legislation back toward us. now, the constitution makes clear anything that produces revenue has to originate in the house. that's the constitution. but it is also important for people to understand, mr. speaker, the lention to which the rules -- lengths to which the rules have been twisted and i think misused in order to make something happen that never should have. and a good example -- a good example is this monstrosity some called obamacare.

it's god different names. -- it's got different names. but the original name of this bill was, quote, an amendment -- i'm sorry, h.r. 3590 and he calls it the bill from the house of representatives. so this was a senate bill, obamacare was a senate bill, started in the senate, derived in the senate. well, then, since the democrats raised revenue in obamacare, created new taxes and increased taxes, well that's a revenue-generating bill, then how in the world could the senate originate the bill since it generated revenue? the constitution makes very clear they can't do that. well, what the senate did was take h.r. 3590 entitled, quote, an act to amend the internal

revenue code of 1986 to modify the first time homebuyers credit in the case of the members of the armed forces and certain other federal employees and for other purposes. that's obamacare. and i would humbly submit that any bill that starts as a lie, because this bill was a lie, a bill that starts as a lie can't be a very good bill in the end. . any building that has a proper foundation with weather a lot of storms. this bill has a lie for foundation. the obamacare bill, it's h.r. 3590, an act to amend the internal revenue code to modify the first time home buyers' credit in cases of the members

of the armed forces and they had to do double pay and this paper is very, very thin so they could get this stuff in here. it is interesting. the bill started as a bill to help veterans and our military, but this bill to help veterans and our military, those who are putting their lives at risk for our liberty, for our benefit, that was stripped out, but this bill begins page one, line 1 to help our veterans and strikes every single word, deleting every single word in the bill to help our veterans and our military and substitutes

therefore obamacare. that bill started as a lie. they took a bill that had nothing to do with health care and they stripped every word that would help our military and made it obamacare. that is phenomenal. just incredible. so, the senate didn't need us to pass a bill today for them to do the same thing to take some well intentioned bill, some bill that did great things for america to beginning line win, page one and deleting every word in the bill and substituting therefore, whatever con torted mess that the senate is going to send done here. some of the senate leadership

have taking their shots in the media, they have not passed anything. they have fought -- today makes fwice as the nation moves toward not having enough money, while the house has been embroiled in serious debate and discussions trying to put together a bill and we did that and it had 234 votes and the senate immediately tabled. the truth is, i thought we should wait for the senate to do anything. and i disagree with the speaker's strategy. the speaker's strategy, well, if they won't take that, well, let's try again. we will compromise on the things that we want and send a bill that's clearly a compromise of the things we want, so surely

the senate will take it up and surely they will pass it. we know from majority leader reid he was going to make sure that was dead on arrival. we know the president has drawn lines in the sapped to keep things moving. and we heard the president talk about his bill. and i can recall sitting listening to the president's speech talking about my bill, this bill, don't misrepresent my bill and he used the word lie here on the house floor talking about what he believed to be misrepresentations of his bill and i asked the secretary after that, the president keeps talking about his bill. i mean, his bill, my bill, this bill, where can i get a copy of

the president's bill? and the secretary said, i think he was talking about a set of principles. i was right. the president talked about this bill, my bill, but he had no bill. people talked about how belf his clothes were, but the fact was that the emperor was naked, there was no bill. there was no bill then and as the president talks about his bill, there's no bill. as harry reid talks about his bill, there is no bill. there is something involved in the senate, as i snand it, chairman dreier has filed it and we'll see what happens. but the phenomenal thing is how

badly off track this congress has gotten when one of the houses, in this case, the senate, will not even allow debate over something that the vast majority of americans want. forget red, forget blue, let's get responsible. 160 billion in deficit spending, 2006, my second year here, was not responsible. and democrats won the majority as a result because they promised we'll eliminate that 160 billion spending and man, oh , man were they right. and now this year, as a result of their actions, the last four, we will have $1. trillion in

spending, $2.2 trillion. the numbers from the first quarter of this year, which was very little growth at all in our economy, which people got depressed about when the original numbers came out was a third about what they originally thought it was. things aren't looking good. this is president obama. it's his economy. but the change that speaker pelosi and majority leader made in the first two years of this president's tenure, they set us on a track that is leading to a major crash. now we've already heard in recent days that august 2 deadline that the president set like i said some weeks back,

that was not a particularly special day. it happened to be the president's big birthday celebration, but otherwise it wasn't a particularly significant day. and snore daschle set the partisan center or whatever it is, they were echoing that august 2 was the day, and they lumped in social security. the law is clear. social security gets paid and just like in 198 and 1996 when thr is a shortfall one month, the treasury secretary is supposed to sell off some of the treasury notes, $2.6 trillion in treasury notes. so enough to pay the benefits and expenses of social security.

so there is no risk of that failing. there are many times more than enough money to pay our debts as they come due in august. and so we have been told, actually it is not august 2, maybe it's like a couple of weeks. we're not sure. but sometime in the future. well, in the house it has been taken seriously even august 2 was not a magic date and we have passed two bills and the senate has passed zero. that's irresponsible. absolutely irresponsible. that invokes no confidence that this government will ever be able to do what it needs to. so i know i got emails, calls and letters, members of congress all over the floor on both sides

of the aisle have got i don't know calls and letters and majority of those in my office having encouraged me to stand firm and it's great to represent a district that understands not to cave in to field mon goring. and it has been rough. you don't like to be chided by friends who don't like the position you are taking on a bill, but i'm ever so grateful that the bill was made imminently made better this morning. and not only that talking through the day and i do appreciate speaker boehner face to face, eye to eye, he has been very gracious all week, it's others that have made it kind of tough at times, but -- he wants

to do something. and talking with chairman paul ryan, chairman of the budget committee, i'm also sfed that we have a number of wonderful things coming. we can perhaps figure out at some point, the senate will get concerned about going against the will of the majority of the senate, at some point. they are going to realize, we should not keep going against 70% of the american public because a lot of us have elections incomes year. gee, maybe we ought to do something that the majority of the americans want. one of the things that i heard rush limbaugh talk about in the 1990's when congress wasn't a blip on my radar was the

zero-baseline budget and it didn't make any sense. as it was explained, we have automatic increases in every agency's budget in the federal government, every agency has automatic increases every year while senior sit science don't get automatic colas. all those budgets. why? we ought to have a zero baseline budget every year so nobody gets an automatic increase in the agencies. and we could save trillions if we just required every budget in the federal government to start out and prove what they need for the year. zero baseline budget.

no automatic increases. when i got here in 2005, zero baseline budget made sense. and during that congress, i filed a bill to require a zero baseline budget. no automatic increases every year. and it didn't make sense that republicans would bring it to the floor because any time you slowed the automatic increase, there were people that called you a draconian fool and making cuts, you weren't making cuts but slowing the rate of growth. and the only way to fix that was to say no automatic increases and i pushed for that in my first congress in 2005 and 2006 and republicans were in the majority and our leadership particularly in 2006 when i talked to the leadership then and i was pushing it then, i was

told, we can't do that. we should have major tax reform. this is a great time to push for a flat tax, a simplified tax that is fair, simpler and so that everybody has their fair share. i don't want a mega rich person making a 10% or 12% income tax. everybody should have an interest of what happens here and not because they have lots of money and don't put anything in. people need to have a vested interest in this congress by paying income tax in. and the lowest rate is down 15%. what maybe 5%. i have forgotten. but the top rate has been 39%. some people want it to go higher. even though the top rate is 39%, there is mega rich that don't

pay 39%. why not have a fair tax that will be a flat tax, everybody pay the same amount of tax. that ought to be fair. everybody ought to have the same thing. the great he con miss that revived the economy out of the carter administration was saying this week, i agree with what he said and i have been talking about what he said and i appreciate that man, he said we ought to have a flat tax and he said i believe you can get there and have the same amount of revenue if you have 12%, 13% flat tax and have a mortgage interest deduction and allow deductions for choortable contributions. . but, boy, that would be so much more fair. no megarich would get out without paying nothing. g.e. shouldn't, you know, have to pay nothing, get away with

paying nothing, just because they have friends in the administration and get lobbying and all that kind of stuff. everybody ought to have to pay something. i'm ok with reducing corporate tax because when you do that you're reducing the tariff we're putting on our own products. and if you took off the 35% tax we put on every american -- corporate american good produced, there's no telling how many more markets around the world would just be begging for american products that would be 35% less of a tariff on those goods. we could compete anywhere if we keep the tariff down on our own goods. people talk about putting tariffs on other people's goods. we ought to get it off our own. and then you would see massive amounts of economic booming going on and people would be hired and more people would pay the 12%, 13% income tax, you'd have more revenue than ever coming in to the american

coffers, the government, that would create jobs and as people know the best form of welfare is a job. you feel good about yourself. but it's hard to feel too good about what's going on down there and as i've said before, down in the senate, above the door, from the president's sitting position in the senate, above the left door is the words, he, god, has smiled on our undertaking. it's part of our great seal. on the back of every dollar bill. it's hard to believe that god could be smiling on people that will not allow debate on a responsible balanced budget amendment. mr. speaker, how much time? the speaker pro tempore: approximately four minutes.

mr. gohmert: thank you. in the time i have left, let me just say, we've gotten so many calls, emails, letters, encouragement and so many of them say, we're praying for you in washington, that you'll could the right thing. -- that you'll do the right thing. some of en-- some of us happen to believe, i don't try to push my religious beliefs on others, but some of us happen to believe that as we're told in the old testament that the word is the source of all wisdom. there's no wisdom outside of that. ben franklin apparently believed that as he said in 1787. the longer i live the more convincing proofs i see of this truth. god governs in the affairs of men. well, peter marshall was senate chaplain back in the 1940's and a constituent gave me this book with many of the prayers that he

pray there had on the senate floor and i want to finish, mr. speaker, with a prayer prayed by peter marshall, u.s. chaplain for the united states senate in the 1940's and on the senate floor, as the senators are down there, it makes a wonderful prayer. peter marshall prayed, we pray to thee, o christ, to keep us under the spell of immortality. may which nen again think an act as if thou were dead. let us come to know thee as a living lord that because i liven you shall live also. help us to remember that we are praying cot conquerer of death, that we may no longer be afraid nor be dismaid by the world's problems and threats since thou has overcome the world. in thy strong name we live for

thy living presence and thy notorious power. amen. peter marshall, 1940's. u.s. senate floor. mr. speaker, may that be our prayer also. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the hous

>> the senate has blocked the house bill. they voted 59-41. it's expected to vote on its own version this weekend, authored by senate majority leader harry reid. both the house and senate will be in session through the weekend. the house is in tomorrow at noon working on a compromise bill as we get closer to the august 2 deadline. the house gavel's in saturday at noon eastern. and now we will show you wrap-up debate from earlier today on the

house floor before the debt measure passed. here's speaker john boehner. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield the remainder of my time to the gentlemen from ohio, speaker of the house. >> gentleman from ohio is recognized. today's report on the economy reminds us our economy is still not creating enough jobs. americans are worried about finding work. they're worried about our economy and they're worried about the mountain of debt facing them and their children. . today we have a chance to end the debt limit crisis. with this bill i think we're keeping our promise to the american people that we will cut spending by more than the increase in the debt limit.

and we are imposing caps to stop the expansion of government by giving our economy a chance to grow and create jobs. and we're advancing the great cause in the balanced budget amendment to the constitution. let what this bill now says is before the president can request an additional increase in the debt limit two things have to happen, joint committee of the congress must produce a spending cut larger than the increase in the debt limit and both houses of congress must send to the states a balanced budget amendment. listen, a balanced budget amendment, it is -- it's time

for this to happen. it enjoys support in both houses of this congress and it enjoys bipartisan and widespread support across our country. the bill also ends this crisis without raising taxes, which would cripple our economy. there's no gimmicks. there's no smoke screens here. they represent the old ways of doing things. now, the bill before us still isn't perfect. no member would argue that it is. it's imperfect because it reflects an honest and sincere effort to end this crisis by sending the bill over to the senate that at one time was agreed to by the bipartisan leadership of the united states senate. to my colleagues in the senate if they were here i would say this -- if this bill passes, this house is sent you not one but two different bills to cut spending by trillions of dollars over the next decade while

providing an immediate increase in the debt ceiling. and to the american people would i say we tried our level best. we have done everything we can to find a common sense solution that could pass both houses of congress and end this crisis. we try to do the right thing by our country but some people continue to say no. my colleagues, i have worked since the first week of this session when we were sworn in, in january to avoid being where we are right at this moment. two days after we were sworn in, the treasury secretary sent us a letter asking us to increase the debt ceiling. i immediately responded by saying we would not increase the debt ceiling without serious cuts in spending and serious reforms to the way we spend the people's money. [applause]

we passed the budget. the other body spent over 800 days and still no budget. no plan. this will be the second bill we sent over to the senate and yet not one piece of legislation that the senate passed that deals with this crisis and my colleagues i can tell you i have worked with the president and the administration since the beginning of this year to avoid being in this spot. i have offered ideas. i have negotiated. not one time, not one time did the administration ever put any plan on the table. all they would do was criticize what i put out there. i stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the president of the united states, i stuck my neck out a mile. and i put revenues on the table.

in order to try to come to an agreement to avert us being where we are. but a lot of people in this town can never say yes. a lot of people can never say yes. this house has acted and it is time for the administration and time for our colleagues across the aisle, put something on the table! tell us where you are! [applause] thank you. and, yes, people can be critical of what we have done but where are the other ideas. at this point in time the house is going tookt and we're going to act again. it is time for our colleagues across the aisle to tell us what they're for. tell us how we can end this crisis.

ronald reagan has been quoted throughout this debate over the last few weeks. and ronald reagan would probably be flattered, i'm sure, if he were here. but ronald reagan on his desk had a little plackered and that little plackered was real simple. it says -- it said -- it can be done. i have a replica of that black on my desk. let me tell you members of the house. it can be done. it must be done and it will be done if we have the courage to do the right thing. so for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our future, i'm going to ask each of you as a representative of the people of the united states to support this bill, to support this process and end this crisis now.

>> all time for debate on the bill has expired pursuant to how resolution 375. the bill is amended. the question is on those rereading the bill signify, aye? though owesed -- opposed no? . the ayes have it. >> that will establish the freedom of information act processing delays. >> for what purpose does the gentle woman from new york seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. >> is the gentle woman opposed

to the bill? >> oh, yes, i am, opposed to this bill. >> the gentle woman qualified. the clerk will report the motion. >> point of order reserved. clerk will road. >> recommit the bill senate 627 to the committee on rules with instructions to report the same become to the house forthwith with the following amendment -- section 4013-3 b by adding nut clause, prioritize deficit reduction from corporate subsidies before cutting education. the joint committee shall first consider the elimination of one, oil and gas subsidies for the major integrated oil companies and, two, subsidies for corporate use of aircraft before cutting essential program that's are necessary for the creation of jobs, economic recovery and investment in america's future. >> pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

well, here we are. >> the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the eyes of the world are upon us. the eyes of the american people are upon us. and most importantly, the eyes of the people who put their faith in us in sending us to this institution are certainly upon us. as we engage in this debate, i will say there's one thing that is clear to me -- that everyone in this room loves this great company, loves this company.

we are a resilient people. mr. speaker, never, ever in this history has there been an intentional disaster perpetrated by people who are sent here to be the caretakers of this country. and that is exactly what will happen if you refuse to take action, prevent default and pay our nation's bills now, not six months down the road. >> we it -- we will take you live to the senate gallery for remarks by majority leader harry reid. >> senator murray asked to be excused because of a family situation. all good. her husband is here.

tonight a bipartisan majority in the senate rejected the boehner short-term plan. clearly, we are seeing something we have seen a lot here in the senate. but this time the country's attention is focused on it, a filibuster. a filibuster to prevent us from moving forward on this legislation. this is a compromise. we change td more today. we would have changed it more but as i indicated on the floor, we had no one to negotiate with. the republican leader said he wouldn't negotiate with me. i don't know whose that is. not mine. >> your pizza's ready. >> there really is not a worse

possible time to be conducting a filibuster. they're forcing us to wait until tomorrow morning -- today's still friday, until sunday morning at 1:00 a.m. to have this vote. our economy hangs in the balance and for the first time in the history of our country, unless there is a compromise or they accept my bill, we're headed for economic disaster. it's time for the republicans to step forward. there's been some movement today. as i indicated on the floor we were supposed to have a meeting in my office this afternoon with some republicans and that fell through but we're told that the press picked up as they were walking into a conference they had three republican senators so they were interested in my bill. we hear a lot of happy talk about this. but they need to step forward. republicans are blocking their ability to compromise. they're doing -- they're refusing to negotiate with us and all we do is talk and that

is enough to get done. house will vote up or down what we're told on my proposal. we should be allowed to do the same. that's all we're asking. it's time for us to be adults. it's what the american people want. it's time to come together in a compromise. it's what the american people want and that's what we need to do. senator durbin? >> i'm sure you recall the speech given to the american people monday night by speaker boehner. he talked about his bipartisan bill and he talked about the fact he was going to pass it in the house of representatives. we waited for that on tuesday. again on wednesday. then on thursday. finally today passed it but it wasn't bipartisan. all republican votes, not a single democratic vote and a scant majority, 218 out of 435-member house. when it came to the united states senate, it was dead on arrival on barpe basis. a bipartisan majority of

senators, 59 voted to table the boehner proposal and now we have a chance to reopen this conversation. i can tell you there's a growing sentiment among senators on both sides of the aisle to sit down and reach a reasonable compromise and to save our economy from the disaster that awaits us if we fail to extend this debt ceiling. what these senators on the republican side are waiting for is a permission slip from senator mcconnell. he told them to hold back until bane her his chance. hold back until the boehner bill came to the floor. that's all history now. the american people want us to move forward. they want us to come up with a bipartisan apretch that doesn't have us relive this scene that we have seen from the past week over and over and over again like the old groundhough day movie. we want to get this done in a way so that we can say the economy is going to move forward with a certainty, we'll have a debt ceiling extension and we

will not jeopardize it with this problem of self-imposed political problems and wounds that can be avoided. it's a shame. we waited all day. this morning senator reid went up to senator mcconnell on the floor and said let's talk. let's work this out. nothing, nothing all day long. not a word. later at the end of the day a call from senator mcconnell who said, i'm not going to negotiate with you. that's unfortunate. the american people deserve better. let me say one last thing -- if senator mcconnell would give us the same vote standard in the senate that was given to speaker boehner in the house, we could pass senator reid's proposal, a proposal which includes major elements suggested by senator mcconnell. but, no, they insist on a filibuster. he said 60 votes had become routine. routine because filibusters have become routine. on the republican side of the aisle. it isn't what's necessary to enact this law that's so critical to the future of america. we're going to fight this

filibuster and i hope in the end some republicans will cross over and join us and break this stalemate and come up with a bipartisan agreement. >> well, thank you. you know this morning at 10:00 a.m. in the floor of the senate leader reid and senator mcconnell to come negotiate. the door was open all day. nobody knocked. nobody walked in. some said, well, speaker mcconnell wanted to wait until the house disposed of boehner. but after the boehner amendment was defeated, in a telephone conversation with leader reid i was sitting there, senator mcconnell, still refused to negotiate. we will not solve this problem by standing there and folding our arms and saying, i am not talking to anybody. and the nation's future is at

risk. republican senators, i have talked to ten today. they want to come to an agreement. but until senator mcconnell gives them the green light, nothing is going to happen. and they get the vibes, and perhaps the direct word, i don't know, from the republican leader, don't do anything. we all know in the senate we can't pass anything without a bipartisan agreement. we aull know the senate is the only way out of this mess. you have seen the huge difficulties in the house. their inability to even tie their own shoes. so it's up to the senate and that means it's up to senator mcconnell to either negotiate himself or give permissions to others to negotiate so that we can finally come to a bipartisan agreement. the only game in town is the modified reid bill.

it's a bill that has elements proposed by republicans include senator mcconnell. it's a bill that has elements proposed by democrats. but it meets the strict churs both parties have laid out on our side, that it must extend the debt ceiling beyond 2012. no short-term extension that too much royals the market. on their side, no revenues and as many cuts as increases in the debt ceiling. if they don't like it, even though it seems to have been a prescription drawn from their needs, what do necessity want as an alternative? they're very good at saying no. they're not very good at laying out a plan that can actually pass. instead what do they do? they just filibuster.

they say you can't proceed to a bill and vote on it. they say they're going to force us to delay and delay and delay until we get up to the deadline. the country is in crisis. this is not a time for politics as usual. i think we have shown that we are willing to give significantly in their direction. we're still waiting for speaker mcconnell, leader boehner -- sorry, we're still waiting for leader mcconnell and speaker boehner to move even a little bit in our direction. >> we'll take a few questions. not many. we're all a little tired. had a long night. >> you have mr. mcconnell's language to your bill, because three weeks ago he was going to have the bill cut guarantee.

one thing you didn't do is add any triggers that would add real significant weight that would force this deficit reduction committee for real cuts. why didn't you do that? >> we had -- we had a closet full of triggers that people have suggested literally. dozens of them. even though they're good ideas, earlier this week, few days ago, i was sitting talking to jack lieu, office management and budget and rob neighbors, who we all know is such a good person. we talked for an hour and a half about different triggers. i came to the conclusion we're negotiating with ourselves. we can't get the republicans to agree to any trigger that involves revenue. we cannot, the american people know this because they agree with us, we are not going to have cuts to more programs, more programs and more programs without revenue.

that is a line we've drawn in the stand and we're going to stick to it. i spoke a couple times tonight with leader pelosi. she agrees with me 100%. >> so the house passed two plans now. since this is the only game in town now, what is the contingency plan? >> i think senator schumer laid that out pretty clearly, the plan is to work off our bill. we have a message from the house. if an agreement comes up, it's easy to amend that and send it back to the house. they only need one vote over there. to think with a straight face, to think with the straight face they sent us something american people would accept, budget, cap and cut, whatever that is, and this thing, that's not legislation. that was a extravaganza over

there that made them all look very foolish. yes? >> everyone is now wondering friday night, going into the weekend, what is the end game? how is this going to end up? i know you're calling for leader mcconnell to come to the table and negotiate, but what is the way forward here? >> it's up to the republicans. right now we have a fine proposal. extends the debt ceiling to march 2013, yet reduces the debt by $2.4 trillion. it's a fine piece of legislation. sets up the joint committee to make even further cuts. it will be something we believe and senator mcconnell will acknowledge this strongly as leader pelosi, we could get something out of that. we are waiting for them to do something, anything. move towards us. if that fails, they should go broad bill because -- and that is things they already voted on and things they've agreed to.

last question. >> since the debt ceiling increased to 2.4 and increased savings from $2.2 trillion to $2.4 trillion, can you lay out how you do it and factor you used a january baseline, were all of your savings due to the line. >> i told you all before, we laid out all of our numbers. you can dissect them and look at them but this is what the c.b.o. recommended and we followed their advice. thank you. >> earlier tonight in the house bill from speaker boehner passed 218 to 210 with no democrats voting in favor. the bill then moved to the senate where it was blocked 59-41. the house takes up a bill authored by senator reid and

members will gavel in tomorrow at noon eastern. can you watch the house here on c-span and the senate will be in tomorrow starting at 1:00 eastern. you can watch developments there on c-span 2. we did interrupt earlier some of the rebroadcast of the action on the house floor from earlier. you can always catch that in its entirety at c-span.org. next, reaction earlier from house democrats on the debt and deficit legislation from earlier today.

>> everybody set? good afternoon of the thank you for joining us. i'm proud to be joined by the vice chair of our caucus and, of course, person who has been taking the lead for democrats in the budget discussions, chris van holland. first of all, i want to start by saying sense speaker boehner walked away from the table last friday we noticed u.s. stocks and the american people have lost $405 billion. the gravity of this situation as we continue to compete is something that we feel and have felt for a long time could be avoided 18 times under president reagan, the debt ceiling was raised.

seven times under george bush the debt ceiling was raised. as we have said both on the floor and here before you defaulting on the american people is not an option. and yet what we see unfolding in the former republican party is the capitulation to special interests. the special narrow interests of one segment of a party that is controlling the very future of all americans. impacting and being willing at all costs to take the nation to the precipice, to the cliff of disaster. time is running out. a proposal is being put forward that we're told in the rules committee. even the chairman of the rules committee said it can't be signed by the president. and so why is it that we are

putting the american people through this. people who are wondering aloud, what is going on in washington, d.c.? at a time that they're crying out for help in jobs and economic security, an ideological manufactured crisis is unfolding before us. an ideological, manufactured crisis no longer controllable by the speaker because events have not unfolded beyond his control. washington warned about what would happen in terms of party excesses. and what would happen to us if we became a nation from not where the threats gather but from within. when people seek to destroy the government itself.

imagine standing in the way of social security, of veterans checks, of people's pensions and not fully appreciating the gravity of that, only more concerned about bringing government itself down. this is a frightening time for this country. a time when the president of the united states has stood there has horatio at the bridge and continues to offer calm and sang sangine advice and encourage people when forces here won't even allow it to happen whether it's a cloture vote in the senate or whether it's the tea party in the house, this is a travesty that this is happening to the american people. this is a manufactured crisis. this shouldn't be happening. we should take this from the plate of the american people and get on with the business of

putting this country back to work. that's where this discussion should be. with that, let me yield to the vice chair of the caucus, javier tasara. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i believe most americans are trying to figure out where things stand just four short days before we get to this point -- actually three short days before we get to this point that this country has never seen. and what makes it difficult for the american people to understand what's going on is speaker boehner indicated a week ago that he was walking away from the negotiations because he had a better plan. well, we have since seen the republicans can agree to their own plan here in the house of representatives, and they are clearly feuding among themselves and while they've been feuding

as the chairman pointed out, we have seen americans lose about $400 billion worth of value. in five business days, americans have lost about $400 billion worth of value in their wealth. that's about hatch of what the weres were willing to save in their ten-year plan. five days versus five years of a ten-year plan. that's what happens when you feud and you don't do your work. the failure of the republicans is costing not just republicans and their party, it's costing americans a great deal of money. but we have seen this before and we have seen it described before when the tail wags the dog n this case we see the tail wagging the elephant. and it's unfortunate the republicans don't seem to be listening to the american public. the american public has said

over, over again, get this done. do it bipartisanly. and make sure it's balanced. and in the process don't make social security, which has not added a single cent to these deficits pay for this deficit reduction. don't make medicare recipients lose their medicare benefits to pay for protecting the tax loopholes for special interests. and we understand today republicans admitted they cannot pass the bill we're debating on the floor right now. none other than the chairman of the rules committee, david dreier, who is managing the debate on this bill has said he understands this bill is going nowhere. so three short grades before we're told we may plunge into the abyss and republicans are debating a bill which the chairman of their rules committee is saying he understands that this bill will

go nowhere, clearly the tail is wagging the elephant today. >> i want to thank my colleague here for their leadership in the caucus and just pick up where my friend javier left off with this comment about the tail wagging the elephant. because i think in the last 24 hours, we've confirmed what many people suspected, which is that the tea party republicans may be a noisy and effective protest movement but they're unfit to govern. they're unfit to govern and it is time for speaker boehner to do what he called for himself some time ago, which is to have that adult moment. and unfortunately rather than work to reach across the aisle and form true bipartisan compromise for the good of the country, he's moving in the wrong direction. he's now taking the bill, which

was unacceptable and won't pass in its original form back to the rules committee to make it even more extreme to cater again to the tea party wing of the republican party. that's not going to get us where we need to go. the american people watching this process know that. you now have the house republicans having walked out of the biden talks, two times out of the talks with the president. they rejected the proposal both forward by the republican leader and senator mitch mcconnell and then they rejected their own speaker's proposal but instead of working across the aisle to solve the problem, unfofert knitly the speaker made that problem even worse and is taking this in the wrong direction. this is, as my colleague said, totally self-inflicted wound we're inflicting on the american people every day. it is a manufactured crisis so you have to ask yourself why,

why are they doing this to the country? why are they playing kamikaze pilot with the american economy? their answer, what they tell you, they have to reduce the deficit. that's what they say f you look at their actions, it's just not true. every time someone put forward a balanced deficit plan, they said no and it turns out their real objective is not to reduce the deficit because if that was your objective, you would be willing to eliminate one penny in subsidies for the gas companies for the purposes of deficit reduction. we challenge them. we want them to put up a hand. the first republican who says they're willing to have one penny from closing tax loopholes go to deficit reduction, please come talk to us. if you're interested in deficit reduction, you would be willing to ask the companies to stop paying all of this taxpayer money. but they haven't. that's not their objective.

their objective, as my colleague said, manufacture this crisis and try to impose on the american people a very extreme agenda that involves getting medicare guarantee, slashing medicaid, slashing education. that's what they're about. not about deficit reduction. when they get serious about deficit reduction in a balanced way, we hope they will come talk to us. >> thank you, chris. let me say we concluded our caucus and we started our caucus with the unity that i think demonstrates the importance of this nature to everything that's unfolding to the american people and that unity stems from our defense of medicare, social security and medicaid. let me throw it open to questions. >> thank you very much. do you have any serious talks going on between the senate and house or among senate leaders? >> we're not privy, of course, to the discussions that take place in the inner sanctum over in the senate but we hear there

are discussions that are going on. i don't know if chris would want to comment on that further. >> i think you covered it. >> there may be the beginning of discussions between senator reid and senator mcconnell but we're not familiar with the details. >> yes? >> tell us a little bit about the push for balanced budget amendment being passed before the second stage -- >> totally realistic proposal. >> you like the first version? >> they're open to file such amendments that were passed by the house. >> let's call this for what it is. the initial question is, aside from more theater, this is just more theater. and with the theater is even a more further move to the right and more extreme position. and, you know, you can put the

wings on this pig but it still won't fly. >> do you have issues to talk about from now -- >> i think if you're a tea party member, you have got to be -- listen. they come here. believing that they are patriots and they are full of the pledges that they have taken throughout the campaign. but here i think they have forgotten as chris point out we pledge allegiance to this nation, not to grover norquist or to any other tax pledge. and where they're taking this country is unprecedented. it's never happened before. and while they may take a great deal of pride in that, the reality is -- the reality that looms for the american people best stated by constituent of

mine who said, do they not understand that they've -- we're in the dark abyss of uncertainty? and that's true in global markets, national markets, in our business community. but most importantly for households. they deserve far better from their government. >> our republican colleagues are trying this out because it sounds good on its surface. it is a way of passing the buck. our pot -- our republican colleagues complain about activist judges making decisions. at the end of the day, you would be asking the judges to endorse the balanced budget amendment. did they want federal judges to be deciding whether to cut medicare or raise taxes? this is just a device to pass the buck and a leg confronting the real challenge.

it is all of us getting together to hammer this out in a balanced way. i know it ain't -- i note it is a nice sounding faint. it is a way for members to escape responsibility and lay it on the doorstep of a federal judge. that is not what our founders anticipated. our founders -- not to pass the buck to a federal judge to cut taxes. >> 11,000 times? >> since it -- in 1789, -- since 11,000 ofe had attempts to amend the constitution. 27 amendments. 10 of them in one shot under the

bill of rights. we are now hearing that republicans want to propose the 11,001 constitutional under amendment so that in less than three days, we pass that went has taken 230 years to pass 27 at of the 11,000 that were proposed. that is the height of ridicule the think we can take those efforts by those who've not yet gotten serious in dealing with this serious for any american family, and that is giving your credit rating. republicans are about to allow america's credit rating to go down the drain. >> the president [inaudible] is that something that you share? >> i know the president has

resisted the best -- resisted this, but he -- it is our sincere hope that we would be able to reach a legislative conclusion. if not, and faced with these perilous events that could unfolds, perhaps the president reluctantly may have to do this. it is certainly something that he has said he would not. >> as far as the short term solution, both parties are not

willing proposing that right now. the clock is ticking down so close, how about a three-day, five-day, seven-day just to get it through? is that something that you are starting to think about? >> how many more opportunities to do it should -- should be provided for people to get up and walk away from the table? we saw the theater. as soon as any balance was brought into the discussion. we witnessed mitch mcconnell coming up with a proposal along with harry reid. we watched them walk away from that proposal. we then witnessed the president continuing to reach out. we witnessed a bipartisan group of six, three republicans and three democrats, come up with a proposal. they walked away from that. they walked away from their own speaker's proposal and from the

president's proposal. if barack obama came up with a cure for the common cold or a cure for cancer, they would walk away from that as well. i think the time for politics -- whether it is extending it out six months said they can continue this manufactured crisis' -- i think that is wrongheaded. clearly, if they all came together and said that we have a bill that we will put on before tomorrow and vote on it and it was laid out in detail, i think the president with knowledge that. but we have not seen anything close to that. >> this is clearly a dollars and since issue. -- and cents issue. we're talking about something that is intangible.

somewhat abstract. the full faith and credit of the united states of america, what it means to be the u.s. of a. the most relied upon democracy ever were money still runs to the u.s. when there is trouble around the world. if you want to inspire confidence, bath, maine street, i dare say that to -- back home on main street, the last thing you want to do is to pass a two- day extension. i do not believe any businessman or businesswoman back home on main street would budget this way. or try to run a business this way. i daresay it the largest economy, the world -- in the world should operate this way

either. if we can do this. this was totally manufactured as a crisis. we can get out of it today. we just have to do the right thing. i would hope that republicans would understand that they will inspire little confidence in the american family if they tell us we can kick this can down the road for a few more days. >> thank you very much. >> while the senate waited for the house to take action on the debt ceiling bill, several senators took to the floor to talk about the matter. we begin with remarks by a texas senator. this is just under an hour. objection. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the looming august 2 deadline for

raising the debt ceiling and mang reforms or budget cuts at least that would allow us to show that we are not going to have business as usual in washington but that we are going to raise the debt ceiling with the reforms that are necessary. despite the differences in this body, we are all here to share three conces. first, we do know at this point, because of the time that it has taken us to cobble together something that could be put through both of our houses and signed by the president, that we have fundamental differences in the principles of how we should run our government. i think it is very clear the republicans have stoodor no taxes, especially in this

economic environment. we believe that piling taxes on top of the costs of the obama alth care system that is in the process of being implemented would keep our businesses from hiring people and getting this 9.1% unemployment rate down. i think we all agree that we need to bring that unemployment rate down. but we have fundamental differences about what's causing it and how we can solve it. number two, we all agree, i believe, or 95% of us agree that we cannot default on the debt in our country. i do believe in both houses the vast majority believe that we should not go into default. and the costs of a default are not being considered nearly enough. the costs of a default, of interest rates going up, of having to do backpay, having to

correct some of the many issues that we will face by having some of the people who are owed money not paid and having to pay interest and extra interest if we are in default. we cannot allow that to happen. i think we all agree on that. and we are all troubled with the delay in resolving this issue. the delay i think has been caused for many reasons. of course, our fundamental differences are one, but i believe that although members of congress and leaders in congress have been talking for a long time, i think the president did not get involved until just two weeks or so ago and has ner put forward a real plan and then talked to members of congress one-on-one about having his plan or some iteration of his plan go

forward. now, the senate majority leader and the house speaker have put forward plans. i believe that there is a common ground that can be found between these two proposals, but they are not the same. in fact, i think the republican leader in the senate has also put forward a plan and i think we're seeing the different pieces of the plans that have been put forward now starting to come together. i believe the boehner plan is a good one. i believed in the cut, cap and balance plan, where you cut spending now to make your down payment, you cap spending every year for the next ten years at a level that brings down the overall deficit, and you send a balanced budget to the states for ratification. i feel so certain if we could pass a balanced budgetrom this congress and send it to the

states, it would be ratified and it would put us on the real course for fiscal responsibili responsibility. the course that would assure that social security is sound, that medicare works, and that our children and grandchildren will not inherit a debilitating debt that hurts our economy. so i do believe that cut, cap and balance was the right way forward. but, mr. president, congress is split. we have a majority of democrats in the senate and republicans i the house. therefore, we are not going to get everything that any one of us believes is right and certainly we're not going to get the boehner plan in the senate. but it is the right approach and we will have to take a few steps at a time and i hope that we will be able to come to terms on

that way forward with the principles of cug spending, putting a cap on spending -- of cutting spending, putting a cap spending and not raising the bt ceiling any more than the cuts that can be counted. and that's what is a concern to me about the reid plan. senator reid is calling for $2.7 trillion in an yeast in the debt ceiling. the purpose, as the president has stated, is to get through the next election in 2012 and not deal with this again. but, mr. president, the next election should not be the focus. the focus should be, how do we show that our cntry is on the right track to get this enormous debt whittled down. by whittling down the deficits and having snd budget

principles. this $2.7 trillion would be the largest debt ceiling increase in the history of america. the previous largest debt limit increase was $1.9 trillion which president obama signed into law in february of last year. this debt ceiling increase in senator reid's proposal is not paid for. it offers $1 trillion in cuts for a $2.7 trillion increase. many of those cuts are illusory. they are not cuts that can be counted. to say that we're goingo label $1 trillion of cuts savings from leaving afghanistan and iraq is just not credible. we don't know what the obstacles

are going to be in afghanistan and possibly iraq. we also don't know what we might have to do in the middle east going forward. afghanistan is not settled, mr. president, and we have to have a certain level of stability on the ground in afghanistan or we will have wasted the billions that we have already spent and the lives of our military personnel in afghanistan because it will go back to the way it was before, a center for terrorism that will come to our country or can come to our country. it did once already and we have been over there to try to wipe out al qaeda and the taliban, which has been in league with al qaeda. we have been over there losing american lives and spending

american taxpayer dollars to protect our coury from another 9/11. to say that we're going to cut $1 trillion in the future over the next ten years when we aren't placing the emphasis on what are the conditions on the ground is not sound policy and it's certainly not sound national security policy. so that's illusory. and then the other parts of the cuts that i think are very hard to decipher are cutting waste, fraud and abuse, which w all want to do, but we don't have the guarantee of those cuts. so i think it is important for us to look at the cuts and try to make sure that if we're going to raisehe debt ceiling, we raise it only the amount of the actual cuts that we can produce.

in the majority leader's -- majority leader reid's legislation, there is a joint committee. there is ao one in the boehner bill. but in the majority leader's legislation, the committee has to report but its product doesn't have to be passed and enacted before the debt ceiling is lifted. now, that's the real problem in senato reid's proposal. the bill would lose its expedited status and the joint committee would dissolve on january the 13th o 2012 under senator reid's proposal and then we would still have the lifting of the debt ceiling that has already been enacted. that is not the way to go forward. the joint committee proposed in the boehner plan is forced to produce savings, and the forcing mechanism in this case is the

fact that the debt limit can't be increased unless the cuts are enacted. so you will keep the governor on the debt increase by assuring that there have to be cuts in spending dollar-for-dollar. and, third, there is no balanced budget amendment included in the reid proposal, and, in fact, there's no requiment that we even vote on a balanced budget amendment. now, i know that it would be very difficult to pass a balanced budget amendment right now out of congress. but i do believe it is the best thing we could do for the long-term security of our country. so i would hope that, as we come together -- because we know the reality here; the reid bill is not going to pass the house and the boehner bill is not going to pass the senate exactly -- so we've got to come together with

a plan. maybe it's a short-term plan that just has a dollar-for-dollar cut along with the raising of the debt ceiling, or maybe we can get more after we dispatch with the two bills that are now before the congrs and try to put something together that has the best parts of both. i could not support the reid plan, as it is today, and i do support the boehner plan, but i also know that neither of them is going to pass the other house. so i think it is incumbent on us to now go forward, andet's quickly start doing the work that could produce results, a that is to try to get the best of both of these before the august 2 deadline. and i think we've got to be open to what can work that stays

within the principles of no tax increases and no debt ceiling increase without the same amount of dollars, at least, to be cut from spending, with real cuts that can be assured. i think the american public is looking not for promises but for the assurance in the law that we will note able to raise the debt ceiling without some cutting of spending and reforms that would equal the amount that the debt ceilings increased. we can go forward, mr. president, with those prinples which i think both sides would agree to at this final few hours that we have before that debt ceil something reached. but it is time -- before that debt ceiling is reached. but it is time to vote on these bills and then get down to the real work of determining what is the best in both that we can pass in both

proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: mr. president, we are now reaching a critical hour in the congress of the united states on the question of extending the debt limit of the nation and of fundamentally dealing with the debt of the nation. i don't think there is any serious person in either body that does not understand that we must deal with the debt itself as we extend the debt limit. we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend. the gross debt of the united states will reach 100% of our g.d.p. by the end of this year. the best economists in the country of whatever

philosophical stripe are telling us we're on an unsustainable course that must be changed. mr. president, in the midst of this, we have had the house so far unable to send us a package. now we're told they do have the votes because they have added a balanced budget to the constitution as part of their package. mr. president, the balanced budget that they have previously proposed in the house of representatives can never pass the united states senate, at least as this body is currently constituted. and it should not pass this body. it is deeply flawed. and to attach that to a measure that has to pass both houses

before tuesday of next week frankly is an indication of a lack of seriousness on the part of our colleagues in the house of representatives. ultimately, there has to be a bipartisan agreement. our friends in the other party control the house of representatives. the senate is controlled by my party, the democratic party. we have a democrat in the white house. no serious person can fail to understand that putting a -- an amendment to the constitution of the united states that is deeply flawed into that package absolutely guarantees that it cannot pass in this chamber. that would take a two-thirds vote.

i don't believe it would even command a simple majority here, much less a two-thirds vote. so here we are at the 11th hour and people in the other body seemingly are still not serious about coping with the challenge of both extending the debt limit to avoid a default which would be catastrophic and of dealing with the debt itself. mr. president, i understand ideological rigidity. the time for that is past. the time now is to work together in some reasonable way so that we advance legislation that both extends the debt limit to avoid

the catastrophic consequences of a default and to deal with the debt threat itself. mr. president, "the new york times" on wednesday had this story." on all levels of the economy, concern about the impasse." what they were talking about is the rating agencies saying if we don't do both, if we don't extend the debt limit and deal effectively with the debt itself, they're going to downgrade the rating of our credit as a country. mr. president, the story goes on to say -- "economists and analysts are trying to gauge the cost to the economy and the consumers. if the united states loses its solid gold credit rating, a move that appears more likely now that the standoff in washington over government spending has calcified. some economists say the effects of lowering the federal government's credit rating to aa

from aaa can be measured in the billions of dollars, in increased borrowing costs for the government and in the billions more that consumers, corporations, states and municipalities will have to pay for their credit. it also could erode consumer and business confidence, slowing even further the economy and job creation." mr. president, it's started already. we have just learned the latest numbers on economic growth. they are a tepid 1.3%. mr. president, this uncertainty being created here by a failure to deal with our debt and with an extension of the debt limit are creating a head wind for our economy. reducing economic growth, slowing job creation, costing us a stronger recovery. mr. president, i want to remind colleagues, for every one

percentage point increase in interest rates, that adds adds $1.3 trillion to the debt. so kicking this can down the road, not facing up to it has enormous consequences. $1.3 trillion added debt for every 1% increase in interest rates, this is just the effect on the federal government. trillions more would be the effect on consumers, on companies, on other levels of government with an increase in interest rates. mr. president, when we see the proposal by the speaker that apparently the house is now prepared to send us, it has fatal flaws, and here they are. first of all, it would repeat

the default crisis in just six months. that would continue the uncertainty and put the economy at further risk. our friends on the other side have repeatedly said how uncertainty is hurting this economy, and now they want to create themselves more uncertainty. it makes no sense. mr. president, the boehner plan includes significantly less deficit reduction than does the reid plan. the boehner plan, as i understand it, has not been able to calculate its newest version fully. it was in the range of of $1 trillion of savings. majority leader reid's plan is well over $2 trillion of savings. third, the boehner plan provides

no firewall between security and nonsecurity spending. that means even deeper cuts on the domestic side of the ledger because we all know what happens if you don't have a firewall. and finally, it requires an irresponsible balanced budget approach that has been clearly rejected here and will be reject ed again. that's certain. mr. president, standard and poor's has warned against repeat ed debt ceiling debates. here's what they have said on july 26. "we would be concerned if we thought the debt ceiling debate would come back and be open and we'd have to go through all this again and again and again. that would be negative in our view." mr. president, this is the rating agency that determines what the interest rates will be

on the debt of our country. not directly but indirectly, because if they write down our creditworthiness, that will increase interest rates. so they are sending us a very clear signal, don't do the speaker boehner plan that has only a six-month extension and repeat this whole process and create more uncertainty and put the economy further at risk. to avoid a u.s. credit rating downgrade, the s&p wants to see a bipartisan debt reduction effort. not the totally partisan approach that speaker boehner has for the moment chosen to pursue. mr. president, i don't know what could be more clear. the other body is in the control of our friends in the other party. this body is in control of the

democrats. at the end of the day, we have to come together. we have to work together. now, i have been part of two efforts to work together. last year, the fiscal commission, 18 of us given the responsibility to come up with a plan to get our debt under control. at the end of the day, 11 of the 18 agreed on a plan. five democrats, five republicans and one independent. fully bipartisan. i was proud to be part of the 11 that agreed to that plan. this year, i have been part of the group of six, three democrats, three republicans that were asked by about 30 of our colleagues to see if we could find a way to implement the findings of the commission, because for the commission's findings to be implemented, they had to have a super, supermajority. they had to have 14 of the 18 agree. and even though we had 11 of 18,

it wasn't enough. so about 30 senators met at the beginning of this year, the end of last and asked a group of us six, three democrats, three republicans, to see if we could come up with a bipartisan plan. we have worked all year, hundreds of hours, and we have agreed. we have laid out a plan for our colleagues. it is the only bipartisan plan before either chamber. mr. president, speaker boehner at this late hour is still pursuing a plan only on the republican side of the aisle and only in one chamber. that can't possibly be a recipe for success. mr. president, david beers,

standard and poor's global head of sovereign ratings said this on july 26 -- "we will measure the deal on a number of parameters. one is is it credible? and correct, among other things, means to us there has to be some buy-in across the political divide, across both parties, because politics can and will change going forward. and if there's ownership by both sides of the program, then that would give us more confidence. it's not just about the number. it's about the all-in intent." mr. president, are our colleagues listening? the solution cannot be found on just one side of the aisle in one chamber. this is going to require bipartisan, bicameral cooperation. we're going to have to act like

adults. not like kids in a school yard pointing fingers, spreading rumors, spreading blame. that will not lead to success. mr. president, here's the circumstance we face. the red line is the spending line of the united states going back 60 years. the green line is the revenue line of the united states going back 60 years. and what you can see, the revenue of the united states as a share of our national income is the lowest it has been in 60 years. spending as a share of our national income is the highest it has been in 60 years. revenue is the lowest, spending is the highest. that's why we have record deficits. mr. president, clearly you have to work both sides of the equation to get a solution.

some of our friends on the other side are saying don't touch revenue. some of our friends on both sides are saying ah, and don't touch entitlements. don't touch medicare, don't touch social security, don't touch medicaid. mr. president, if you can't touch revenue and you can't touch the entitlements, you can't solve the problem. by definition. when you're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar and you exclude all revenue -- that's half the equation -- and you exclude 60% of federal spending, if you eliminated all the rest of federal spending, every dime for defense, for nondefense discretionary, if you eliminated every dime, you wouldn't solve the problem. mr. president, at some point here we've got to get serious and real with the american people.

the balanced budget amendment that our colleagues in the house sent us previously that's already been rejected here once, now they're putting in the package to send us here again at the 11th hour, a balanced budget amendment that is as deeply flawed as any amendment that i have seen in 25 years in this chamber. let me review what our friends on the other side sent us in a balanced budget amendment that was rejected here just in the last few weeks. it would restrict the ability to respond to economic downturns. meaning you would compound the decline. that's bad economics, and it's not going to pass. number two, it uses social security funds to calculate balance, and subjects that program to the same cuts as

other federal spending. even though social security has its own trust fund and is separately funded. number three, it shifts the ultimate decisions on budgeting to unelected and unaccountable judges. and fourth, it requires a state ratification process that could take years to complete. we don't have years to wait for a state ratification process for a constitutional amendment. we need to make these spending and revenue decisions ourselves and do it now. it's our responsibility. let's not be waiting for the states to ratify a constitutional amendment before we take the action that is necessary. mr. president, the balanced

budget amendment that the house previously sent us has the risk of turning a recession into a depression. why do i say that? because there is no provision in the amendment that they sent us for an economic downturn as being an exemption from the balanced budget requirement. that is hoover economics all over again. how many times do we have to learn the harsh lesson that when we are in an economic free fall, the only entity big enough to pull us out is the collective organization of our government? that is the only place that has the muscle to prevent a recession from turning into a

depression, and the balanced budget amendment our colleagues cept us before would absolutely lock down the federal government's ability to respond. that would be a profound mistake, and contradict all we have learned in economics since the great depression. this is what norm ann ornstein at the american enterprise institute said about this constitutional amendment. he called it 5, quote, "really dumb idea." this is what he said. "few ideas are more seductive on the surface and more destructive in reality than a balanced budget amendment. here's why -- nearly all of our states have balanced budget requirements. that means when the economy slows, states are forced to raise taxes or slash spending at just the wrong time, providing a fiscal drag when what is needed is countercyclical policy

to stimulate the economy. in fact, the fiscal drag from the states in 2009 and 2010 was barely countered by the federal stimulus plan. that meant the federal stimulus provided was nowhere near what was needed but far better than doing nothing. now, imagine that scenario with a federal drag instead." mr. president, "the washington post" wrote an editorial about the house balanced budget amendment headlined "a bad idea returns." rewriting the constitution is the wrong way to deal with the debt. here's what they said in their editorial. "worse yet, the latest version would impose an absolute cap on spending as a share of the economy. it would prevent federal expenditures from exceeding 18% of the gross domestic product in any year.

most unfortunately, the amendment lacks a clause letting the government exceed that limit to strengthen a struggling economy. no matter how shaky the state of the union, policymakers would be prevented from adopting emergency spending such as the extension of unemployment insurance, and other countercyclical expenses that have helped cushion the below of the current economic -- blow of the current economic downturn." mr. president, it doesn't stop there. this is what senator mccain said on the republican balanced budget amendment proposal on july 27. "what is amazing about this, some members are believing we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution in this body with its present representation and that is foolish. that is worse than foolish. that is deceiving many of our constituents. that is not fair to the american people to hold out and say we

will not agreed to raising the debt limit until we pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. it is unfair. it is bizarro. maybe some people who have been in this body six or seven months or so believe that. others know better. it is time we listened to the markets. it's time we listened to our constituents. most of all, it's time we listened to the american people and sit down and seriously negotiate something." senator mccain had it exactly right. sending us a deeply flawed balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states at the 11th hour is not designed to achieve a result. it is achieved, it is designed to achieve a headline. a bumper sticker slogan that will not help us solve the

problem. mr. president, here's what a top economic adviser to former president reagan said about the house balanced budget amendment. he said and i quote, "-- this is bruce bartlett a former reagan administration top economic adviseor. and i quote him. "i have previously explained the idiocy of right-wing advocates of a balanced budget amendment. however, the new republican balanced budget proposal is especially dimwitted. in short, this is quite possibly the stupidest constitutional amendment i think i have ever seen. it looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin. every senator co-sponsoring this balanced budget amendment should be ashamed of themselves." that is from a former top economic advisor to ronald

reagan. is anybody listening? is anybody paying attention to how far off base things have slipped in the other body, to send us at this moment, at this critical juncture a plan that has absolutely no chance of passing in this body, and should not? mr. president, what is so deeply flawed? in addition to the other points i've made, the balanced budget amendment that the house republicans cept us earlier -- sent us earlier set a spending cap of 18% of g.d.p. well, let's add up what that would mean. you can see here social security is the red band. that's about 5% of g.d.p. if you add defense and all other nonhealth care spending that

takes you up to about 16.5% of g.d.p. interest on the debt takes you to over 18% of g.d.p. you notice what's missing here? medicare. in the republican plan, that they sent to us, with a spending cap of 18% of g.d.p., if you fund social security, if you fund defense and other -- and other non-health spending, and you fund interest on the debt, there's no money left. there's no money for medicare. there's no money for medicaid. there is no money for any health care spending.

mr. president, that's what the house of representatives sent us just in the last several weeks as a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the united states. when some of our side called it cut, cap and kill medicare, they weren't kidding. because if you add it up, it doesn't add up. mr. president, not only that, the balanced budget amendment our colleagues in the house sent us just in the last few weeks also said it would take a two-thirds vote to get any additional revenue, even though revenue is the lowest it has been in 60 years. they would apply a two-thirds requirement to get more revenue.

really. so they would protect with a two-thirds vote requirement every tax scam, every off-shore tax haven, every tax shelter currently being used by some to avoid and evade the taxes they owe our country. i've shown this picture on the floor of the senate many times. this is a little building down in the cayman islands. a little five-story building that claims to be home to 18,857 companies. they all say this is their business headquarters. i've said that's the most efficient building in the world. a little five-story building down there and it's the headquarters of 18,000 companies? anybody believe that? anybody believe that 18,000 companies are operating out of that little building down in the

cayman islands? they're not operating their businesses out of there. they are engaged in a giant tax scam to make all the rest of us pick up their responsibilities. all of us who pay what we owe are getting stuck by the companies that are hiding out in this little building down in the cayman islands, avoiding the taxes that they owe our country. because there are no taxes down in the cayman islands so they operate out of this little building down there, five-story building, 18,000 companies. and they avoid paying the taxes that they owe and stick all the rest of us with the responsibility. that's not right. and the constitutional amendment that our colleagues in the house of representatives sent us would

protect that behind a wall of a two-thirds vote, which means you'd have an impossible time ever fixing this problem. it's hard to get a 60% vote around here, much less two-thirds. they would protect every off-shore tax haven, every abusive tax shelter, every unfair tax preference that's in the current code because they would require a 2/3 vote to change it. mr. president, that flawed amendment is not going to pass the united states senate. not now, not later this year, not next year, because it itself would require a two-thirds vote. it is not going to happen.  so i'd say to our colleagues in the other chamber, sending us a totally partisan approach with a

deeply flawed constitutional amendment is not going to work. it is not going to help solve the problem. and now is the final for us to join in a serious dialogue about solving the problem, solving the debt threat overhanging the country, which will require not a trillion-dollar package, as is in the house offering, but a $4 trillion package. the occupant of the chair well knows of what i speak. he was governor of west virginia and he dealt with a piss cal crisis in his state and he guided his state through that crisis of the not just by operating on one side of the aisle, but by working together with people on both sides to come up with solutions.

not political slogans. we are way beyond that. we are within days of a default on the debt of the united states that would have catastrophic consequences for the economy of our country. it's time. it's time, colleagues, to come together to do something that can pass, to deal, yes, with the debt limit but also to deal with the debt itself. it will be an empty gesture if we just extend the debt limit and we don't deal with the debt itself. now, our leader, to his credit, has put something together that begins to take ideas from both sides of the aisle to try to resolve this crisis. it would save the nation from an

immediate economic crisis. it would provide a significant down payment on deficit reduction -- more than $2 trillion -- and it would put in place a special joint congressional committee, equally divided, democrats and republicans, to find additional savings. and there is no new revenue in the plan. our friends on the other side have thus far said, at least in the house of representatives, they can accept no new revenue, none, not a penny. so our leader has said okay, i don't like that but if that's your line in the sand for right now, we will accept it so that we can find a solution that both sides can support. no new revenue, more than a

trillion dollars -- more than $2 trillion of spending cuts, and a special joint committee to come up with a plan to achieve even greater savings. that's a pretty good offer to the other side to say, we hear you, we want to work with you because we need a solution. mr. president, we're just days away from a true crisis, one that would be self-inflicted. colleagues, let's not go there. let's come together. we've shown we can do it in the past. we need to do it now. not with blame, not with finger pointing but by saying this is a

time to join together, to stand shoulder to shoulder to prevent irreparable damage being done to our country. i ask my colleagues, now, now is the time, this day we've got to find a way to come together. i thank the whatever time i shall consume as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: there is a simple reason we are talking about the debt limit increase and it's the fact this president has spent more money than i ever believed would beossie. so far he spent over $10 trilon in three years and next year if he has his way will spend another $3.5 trillion. i remember so well in the clinton administration, i think it was 1995, i was outraged, i came down this to this podium and said can you believe a president has a budget of

$1.5 trillion, and this president has spent $10 trillion in this short time. if he hadn't spent all this money we wouldn't be talking about a debt limit increase right now. i hate to sound so partisan about it but it's truly a partisan iue. the democrats have supported his spending and the republicans have not. the boehner plan that we're going to vote on, they're going toote in the house today and i think we might have an opportunity to vote on here later on tonight, may not be perfect. none of the stuff around here is perfect but it is good and has dramatically improved over the last 12 hours. it allows the debt limit increase but only after we significantly cut spending. never before have we tied in the history of this country a debt limit increase to spending cuts. but it's something we have to do now and that we are so far into this mess. the first step of this plan cuts spending by over $900 billion in exchange for a $900 billion

increase in debt limit. that will last the president to around february and i think it's a fair deal. i'd like to cut the spending more but we can only do so much when we only control the house. the second step of this plan is also good. it establishes a mechanism to quickly consider $1.8 trillion in additnal spending cuts between now and the end of the year. it also requires congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and accepted it to the state for ratification. this is something that just happened in the last 12 hours. people were talking about well, we really want to do something, a balanced budget amendment is the only way it's going to be good for now and for the future. and we've been talking about this for many, many years. i remember so well way back in -- oh, the 1970's i was in the state senate in oklahoma when carl curtis, a wonderful gentleman from nebraska, he was a senator, had been a senator for quite some time, he was the

perennial author of the balanced budget amendment but he never could get it through but he had an idea. he cam to me in the state of oklahoma and he said u know, inhofe, we have been trying to get this balanced budget amendment for a long time and the excuse they use is you're never going to get the required number of states to ratify it. he said i've come up with an idea. we will get 3/4 of the states to preratify a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. to the constitution. that's kindf an ingenious thing. why don't you be the first state? so i did and we passed by resolution in my state of oklahoma in 1975 i believe it was a ratication of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution that didn't exist. that's kind of neat. and we actually got up to almost three-fourths of the states and some of the other forces knocked it down. that's how long we've been doing this. there hasn't been one year that we talked about aalanced budget amendment that -- that -- that hasn't come up for discussion. well, this is probably the first

time that it is a possibility. because we've never been in this spending situation that we're in right now. as i said, $10 trillion i just three years. so right now, we -- we added that just in the last 12 hours and if that legislation passes, the president will get an additional debt limit increase so we're tying it to behavioral patterns and spending and austerity and it's a smart way too do it. this -- this proposal would keep the debt limit and spending debate at the forefront of the national conversation. we must have this conversation. if we don't, we'll be worrying about things a lot worse than an increase in the debt limit. the president wants nothing to do with this. he just wants to -- a blank check to increase the debt so he can continue to raise deficits. why do i think this? well, if we undid all of his policies today, the policies that so rapidly increased the spding and are killing our economy, then we wouldn't need a

debt limit incree. the president's spending addiction is it only -- now, this is unilateral. this is the president of the united states. this was his budget, so it's not a group of people, it's him. and a lot of people are looking -- in washington say, don't y of them really care? well, there's one guy that doesn't and that's the president of the united states. his -- his action are what we're talking about today and we'll ok at the failed policies. first,eave obamacare. there it is. obamacare. now, we're talking about a -- right now trying to get something like $800 billion in all these negotiations so that we can increase the debt limit. in one fell swoop, $1.5 trillion. his plan costs, over the crent decade, once it's fully implemted, the ten-year cost nearly doubles to $2.5 trillion. this law dramatically expands the government's influence and involvement in the health care sector and together with medicare and medicaid, it will result in the financial ruin of this great county. so that' -- of this great count.

so that's $1.5 trillion. second, we have the failed stimulus plan. we all know that it didn't meet any of obama's expectations. of course, it clearly met all of mine. i didn't expect much. it didn't help the economy a bit. it only expanded the size of government. i can remember when we, down here, even though we were opposed to it, i'm among the most conservative members. senator boxer's a very proud liberal and she and i together tried to have an amendment to take some of the money, the $800 billion, and put it -- a large amount into infrastructure. right now we have to have roads and highways and bridges. that's what we're supposed to be doing up here. and, of course, they didn't do it. only 3% of the $800 billion went for that type of infrastructure. over a trillion of this amount, once you add the costs -- that's thousand would get up to a trillion, the cost of interest that we have to pay for the practice spending. so that's a tot now of $2.5 trillio so you've got your stimulus, a trillion, your o obamacare,

$1.5 trillion. then there's the president's relentless pursuit of regulation folegislation for regulation. whatever the president hasn't been able to legislative complish, is he attempting to do it through regulation, most of it through the environmental protection agency. now, cap and trade is a good example. you know, we debated that since -- well, since the kyoto trea was up and clearly the votes aren't there. right now in this chamber, you wouldn't get 25 votes for a cap and trade. and yet everyone'salking about how the debt's important, we're going to have a cap a trade. so now he's trying to do it with -- through regulations. now, that alone would cost the american people $300 trillion to $400 trillion a year. not just one shot. that's a year. he has his boiler mack legislation. that's maximum attainable emissions -- maximum obtainable

controlled technology. in other words, what can we do. what do we have the technology to do to stop the emissions? well, we don't have it. but he as that and, of course, that is billion of dollars a year. ozone regulations, i understand just -- he was going to announce this week a tightening of the ozone regulations that would put 608 of our counties in america out of aainment. i'm from the state of oklahoma, they p 15 of our counties out of attainment. that means in those counties, they can't recruit industries, they can't hire people. manufacture them would have to go out of business because of these ozone regulations. and it's not even in my opinion legathe way that he's doing it because he's supposed to be addressing it every five years. and when he did it -- and when it was done in 2008, it was done on new technology -- that's a requirement -- and yet today he's trying to do it using the same old 2008 technology. again, extremelyxpensive. it's cast a tremendous cloud over the uncertainty of the business sector and that's a key

reason why it has announced today that the economy's only growing at a rate of 1.3% a year. that's terrible,specially when you consider the recession that we're in. generally, as a general rule, economies recover rapidly when comingff of a financial recession. it's not unusual for countries to grow at 4% and 5% and 6% for the years following a recession. but we can't even get around 2%. this has a huge negative effect on the economy and on the government. the president's regulatory agenda is the reason for our unemployment rate above 9% and it's the reason that our economy is growing so slowly. and because of this, our tax receipts are way off their historic levels. now, if we can get the economy to grow faster to sustain -- at a sustained period of time, the effect on tax revenues is really unbelievable. i used to say -- and it's pretty well accepted -- that for a 1% increase in the economy, it -- it equals about $50 billion in new revenue.

and that's the way to gw revenue. certainly president kennedy knew it. president reagan knew it. and so the best way to increase revenue is to -- is to get the economy moving again. and, of course, increase the -- the economy. if the economy grows at a rate of 1% faster than presently forecast for the next decade, then federalax revenues would grow by nearly $3 trillion. and i conservatively estimate that the cost of federal revenues of the president's regulatory agenda has been a trillion dollars. so we have there, through his regulatory behavior, another trillion dollars. that brings our total to $3.5 trillion. then there's an increase in nonsecurity discretionary spending which added up to $500 billion in spending. so we have now the cost of $50 billion and there's expanded and increased spending on unemployment benefits, which are also a consequence of his

regulatory policies that have killed the economy and its recove. and the cost ofhat is another $500 billion. so together, all these failed policies add up to $4.5 trillion contribution to the federal deficits. since inauguration d, the dealt hadebthas increased by $3. it's on pace to increase by more than $5 trillion by the end of the president's first term f. w- term. if we undid all of these failed policies, we wouldn't find ourselves in the situation we find ourselves in today. we wouldn't be here today debating this because it wouldn't be necessary. it is because of the president that we are even talking about raising the debt ceiling today. if we could undo the president's policies, we wouldn't need to raise the debt ceiling at all. and where's the president? he's been totally absent from this entire debt conversation. today he's meeting with a terrorist from cote d'ivoire and he's probably going to go and play golf in the afternoon. i don't know. but he doesn't -- he's not

around here. he's not partipating in this. he doesn't seem to care about debating the debt ceiling. he just wants to raise the deficits. if he did care, he'd see the need for the boehner plan, endorse it and sign it into law but i guess that's too much to ask. well, we're going to have a chance to do this tonight. we're going to have a vote over in the house on the boehner plan i think around 6:00. then it's going to come over here. we'll have an opportunity to do that. and if the democrats will support, just a handful of them, we would be able to get that passed. so we'll wait until tonight and see -- see what happens. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. ms. mccaskill: i try to listen very carefully to folks at home, and i would not quarrel with my friend from alabama in saying that it's very clear to me, it's been clear to me for a long time that missourians were very, very

worried about spending in the federal government. in fact my friend from alabama and i started work on this before -- if you can say that we were trying to cut spending before cutting spending was cool, he and i were working these floor -- this floor for votes to try to do something about spending long before last november's election. mr. sessions: mr. president? ms. mccaskill: yes? mr. sessions: i thank the senator for recalling that event. i know that you've continued with another proposal, working across the aisle, to have a proposal that has potential to go do more -- be more effect think of -- be more effective than the one we worked often last year. so i thank the senator for being willing to work in a way that could be effective to do better. ms. mccaskill: thank you. thank you, mr. president. and i thank my friend from

alabama. there is nothing wrong with walking across the aisle and finding common ground and, frankly, it's kind of what i thought would be common when i came to the united states senate. that's kind of what i'd learned in the history books, that that would be common. i have been watching what has been developing knowing that my folks at home want us to cut spending. i certainly have been part of that and wanted to cut spending, and i watch this debt ceiling approach, and it is like watching a movie and watching a car driving along and you're like in a camera above it and you see what's ahead, and you see this cliff. and you see this car driving towards this cliff, and you're thinking -- you start tensing and you think, oh, surely they're not going to go over the cliff. well, they have an opportunity to avoid going over the cliff. they're not going to go over the cliff. we're not going to see these people die, they're not going to drive over that live, they're not going to knowingly drive over a cliff. and i've been thinking for the

last several weeks, well, there's no way that people that are elected because they love their country are going to let the car go over the cliff. and i got to till, i'm worried. now what do we have to do to keep from going over the cliff? make no mistake about it, it's a cliff. it is an historic moment for our country. never before in the history of our country have the world markets been worried about whether the united states of america will pay its bills. never has that happened before in our history. so what does it take? well, it's not complicate what had at that takes. it takes one basic thing: compromise. to keep from going over the cliff, all we have to do is compromise. and i will tell you, reading my mail and listening to phone calls that have come in on the

answering machine -- and i am going to take phone calls myself over the weekend -- you know what missourians are now saying? please don't go over the cliff. please compromise. i'm confident that's what most missourians want. and compromises have already occurred, big compromises. most of us on this side of the aisle really believe that the way we get at our long-term debt structure is a responsible approach that includes some revenues. now, i'm advocating cleaning out the goodies in the tax code so we can lower some tax rates. i don't understand how you can at the same time vote to gut the medicare program and vote to continue writing checks to big oil. i cannot imagine that i would vote to keep writing a taxpayer check to the most wealthy and profitable corporations in the

history of the world at the same time i was voting to put medicare on a voucher program. saying to seniors, you know, if you're 83 and you got three chronic illnesses and you run out of medicare coverage, you're on your own. i can't imagine doing that. but we compromised. we compromised and said, okay, we'll set revenues aside for now. you won't vote for revenues, republican party, members of the house in the republican party you'll not vote for revenues, we tack revenues off the table. so some people in our party were not happy with that. i got those phone calls. why did you capitulate, why did you give in? we gave in because we care about our country and we don't want to go over the cliff. that's why we gave in. so we gave in on revenues. the republicans wanted us to cut spending by more than we raised the debt ceiling. it's a political thing we need to do, not required by the economics, but we've done that.

so now we've put revenues aside, compromised, we have said we're going to cut spending by more than the rise in the debt ceiling. now the only thing we've not compromised on, the only thing, which i think is really when you think about it -- i didn't think frankly this may have been as big a deal until i stand here today, that is to do this again in six months, to leave this loaded gun on the table? we're going to leave this loaded gun on the table for our econo economy? when you talk to small businesses right now, and they are scared about what's going to happen next week. will they be able to borrow money? will people be able to afford to borrow money to buy cars? will they be able to afford to buy borrow money to buy homes? you talk about the economy going into a tailspin and we want to keep that loaded gun on the table for another six months? there is no way we can provide the certainty in this kind of economic climate if we leave the loaded gun on the table. so the only thing that we've not agreed to that's in the boehner

plan -- well, it depends on which plan it is; they keep changing it to try to get enough votes. but the only thing we are not going to budge on is saying to this country and our business community and job creators, we're going to kill job creation for sure for the next six months by telling you we want to repeat this ridiculous exercise in six months. we're not going to do that. and the irony is the people who want us to do that are the people who have been preaching certainty. we've got to have certainty. by the way, let's do this again in six months. we've got to have certainty. it's really important we do this again in six months. now, i know that the leader is working on trying to get a compromise today and i'm confident that before the someday over there'll be some kind of compromise that will be before this body that we'll have a chance to vote on. and i will tell you this: you will never hear me brag about refusing to compromise. some of my colleagues from missouri that serve in the house

of representatives are willing right now to brag about refusing to compromise. they're willing to say it's a good thing to go off the cliff. i will never brag about refusing to compromise. because i don't think that's what we do here. you look back on history and america's brightest moments usually happened around the table of compromise. those most difficult questions that this country has wrestled with through the years, we have forged our way forward through compromise. and that's what we need today. that's what we need tomorrow. that's what we need as we approach the edge of the cliff. so my last message i leave my colleagues across the aisle: we have shown our willing ness to compromise. please though us yours. and allow us to vote, allow us

to vote on the compromise. if you don't want to vote for the compromise, then don't vote for it. but allow us a chance to vote for it. is that too much to ask? just to allow us an opportunity to move to a vote, to avoid this country having a diminished status permanently in the world? i don't think that's too much to scvment so let us vote, and if you can't compromise on the substance of the compromises that will be put forward, at least allow our voices to be heard by allowing a vote. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be

>> the centers will be working on their own version of the debt ceiling bill this weekend, the one offered by senate majority leader harry reid. the house and senate will be in session through the weekend working on a compromise bill. obama administration officials say the deadline is tuesday, august 2. we will have live coverage this weekend of the house and senate. earlier in the day, president obama spoke to reporters about the debt ceiling issue. he said there are multiple ways to resolve the issue, but it has to be bipartisan and happen fast. he urged democrats and republicans to come together on a plan he can sign. this is all little over five minutes. -- a little over five minutes. >> i want to speak about the

ongoing an increasingly urgent efforts to avoid default and reduce our deficit. the house of resistance is still trying to pass a bill. in the house of representatives is still trying to pass a bill that the majority have said they will not vote for. it will force us to relive this crisis in a few short months, holding our economy captive to washington politics again. in other words, it does not solve the problem. it has no chance of becoming law. it is clear now that any solution to avoid default must be bipartisan. it must have the support of both parties sent here to represent the american people. it will have to have the support of both the house and the senate . there are multiple ways to resolve this problem. senator harry reid has introduced a plan in the senate that contains cuts agreed upon by both parties.

senator mcconnell, a republican, offered a solution that could give us through this. there are plenty of modifications we can make to either of these plans to get them passed through both the house and senate and allow me to sign into law. today i urged democrats and republicans in the senate to find common ground that can get support from both parties in the house, a plan that i consigned by tuesday. keep in mind that this is not a situation where the two parties are miles apart. we are in rough agreement about how much spending can be cut irresponsibly -- responsibly as the first step towards cutting our deficit. the next step is a debate on tax and entitlement reform. i am ready and willing to have the debate. we need to put in place an enforcement mechanism to hold us all accountable for making these

reforms. i will support that if it is done in a smart and balanced way. there are plenty of ways out of this mess, but we are almost out of time. we need to reach a compromise by tuesday so that our country will have the ability to pay its bills on time, as we always have. the bills include monthly social security checks, veterans' benefits, and the government contracts we have signed with thousands of businesses. if we do not do that, if we do not come to an agreement, we could lose our country's aaa credit rating. it is not because we did not have the capacity to pay our bills, we do. it is because we do not have the tripoli political system to match -- the triple a political system to match the triple a credit rating. a lower credit rating would potentially result in a tax increase on everyone with higher interest rates on mortgages, car

loans, and credit cards. that is inexcusable. there are a lot of crises in the world we cannot predict or avoid like hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist attacks. this is not one of those crises. the power to solve this is in our hands. on a day when we have been reminded how fragile the economy already is, this is one burden we can lift ourselves. we can end it with a simple vote that the leaders in congress have taken for decades. it is not a vote that allows congress to spend more money. raising the debt ceiling simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that congress has already racked up. i want to emphasize that. the debt ceiling does not determine how much more money we can spend. it simply authorizes us to pay

the bills we have already racked up. it gives the united states of america the ability to keep its word. on monday night, i asked the american people to make their voices heard in the debate. the response was overwhelming. please, to all of the american people, keep it up. if you want to see a bipartisan compromise with a bill that can pass in both houses of congress and that i consign, let your members of congress know. keep the pressure on washington and we can get past this. my administration will be continuing to work with democrats and republicans all weekend long until we find a solution. the time for putting party first is over. the time for compromise on behalf of the american people is now. can andmplemenconfident that we will solve the problem. for all the intrigue and drama

that has taken place on capitol hill, i am confident that common sense and cooler heads will prevail. as i said earlier, we're running out of time. it is important for everyone to step up and show the leadership the american people expect. thank you. >> the world bank president says congress is playing with fire on the debt limit and that americans should be embarrassed if the u.s. defaults on its debt. he served as the trade representative under george w. bush. he spoke at an event hosted by the society for international development with chapters in over 65 countries. this runs about 45 minutes.

>> it is unprivileged to introduce a conversation between two people i greatly admire. he is a syndicated columnist that you often read in the "washington post." he has been a clear voice for development over a long time. i was one of millions inspired on many occasions by his thoughts and words, including the 2005 inaugural speech by president bush. i have also bought and recommended both of his books, most recently "city of man." the book is about the role of people in faith in the public squares. it is compelling and interesting. the conversation is also going to be informed of the fact michael was part of what he described as an humanitarians conspiracy for the president's emergency plan for aids relief. he was one of the architects of the pepfar initiative that has

saved millions of lives. i will now turn the floor over to michael. >> it is an honor to be with all of you and bob zelig, the president of the world bank. we have been colleagues. i deeply admire his stewardship of the bank. he is a voice for economic for the world's poorest people. that is very important global -- role, particularly in the time of great uncertainty. before we get into things on the development side, let me start with a question that is in the news and probably on the minds of many people here. what effects are the current events in washington having on global confidence in the u.s.

leadership and political system? >> let me try to think about that answer. mike's career is a wonderful example for those of you wonder about the power of words and speech writers. it should be known that on issues like aids, malaria, sudan, that mike was really a conscience driving many of these issues. many people have these positions and take them day to day. they do not go home at night and ask what legacy they will leave. this is something that all of you who know anything about

mike know. really served the american people and the president really well in addition to being a great writer. >> i appreciate that, but you cannot avoid the question. [laughter] >> as with many events like this, there is a short term and may be a bigger perspective. on the short-term perspective, people are playing with fire. the world bank is a pretty big financial institution. we operate in markets all around the world. we have to come up with a series of contingency plans on the second and third order. people have to realize this is taking place in the context where you still have the eurozone in serious

difficulties. they have put together a package, but it is a muddling through process. japan has been struggling to recover through growth for a long time and then had a natural calamity. you had an environment as already fragile and uncertain coming out of the financial crisis. before that, he was also the food and fuel crisis. in an environment where the tools people used in 2008 of various spending and monetary policies, they basically run their course. this is a context in which is a very dangerous environment. to have a debt default of the united states would not only be a financial calamity, but it should be an embarrassment for every american.

there is a medium and long term i spend time reflecting on. the bank has 187 shareholders with developed countries. our clients are primarily developing countries and emerging markets. what is striking is we are in an environment where the nature of the recovery from crisis is multi-speed. with most of the developing countries, the challenge is where the growth has recovered so well that the danger is more overheating or asset price bubbles. the developed countries are struggling with spending, debt, large scale unemployment. this creates a tension in the international system. the world bank came out of the end of world war ii for people were trying to learn the lessons of economic calamity coming out

of the 1930's leading into world war ii. in a sense, that system is now very much in the state of flux. the emerging markets now represents half of global growth. in the 1990's, they may have been 20%. this is happened relatively fast. the relevance of what is going on in washington, europe, or tokyo is that people are trying to decide the norms, rules, expectations of the system. for people in the developing countries i work with, it is a bit of a disappointment and frightening to see the united states that some people have an aberration for or think -- have an admiration for or think has been too pushy. to see if sideline itself, that is a troublesome prospect.

the bigger picture is a combination of dealing with the challenges the u.s., europe, and japan face. it is also about the role they will play in shaping the future international system. african has grown on average about 5% for a decade. a lot of opportunities there uc private capital go in there. china is growing. it depends on how you look at the world. but there are great opportunities but half to beat seized and we have to figure out how developed and emerging markets work together in a different way and they did -- and they did in the past. >> another news item in getting a lot of justified attention is the food crisis in eastern africa. 11 million people are at some risk in the current drought.

i know that the world bank is taking immediate action in a crisis. what can be done to address longer-term food problem in developing countries? >> there is danger in opportunity in this. if we can increase productivity and production in the developing world's, specifically in sub- saharan africa, we can take advantage of higher prices, to overcome poverty, and we at the banks are working with others to try to deal with this problem by looking all across the value chain. this is everything from research on different conditions of climate change and drought and others, and we helped organize something that was actually started by robert mcnamara in

the 1970's, and there is great potential from some of the research in seeds. number two, fertilizers, irrigation, transport systems, the roads -- i was meeting yesterday with president from west africa where the problem is not so much production but getting the goods to market kirit we estimate that half the production is lost on the way a market. bes doesn't have to governmental. we have a private sector that is looking at the value chain and trying to see how you can improve the interruption -- production and productivity depending on the country. in monetary terms, the bank was investing about $4 billion a year in agriculture. now it is close to $8 million a year, and we -- $8 billion a year and we coordinate some of the programs in this area.

but there is also, i think, the phenomenon of how we deal with some of the risk and uncertainty in the system. and the price volatility. what people saw in agricultural markets in 2007 and 2008, not only increasing levels, but the sharp changes in prices, the first-ever on this -- and this is one of the issue that the world bank had been working with the french and german to come up with some ideas, the government's should not make it worse. so when you have a potential storage, when countries put on export bans, if you create a sense of crisis and panic. countries are not going to give up their ability to do that totally, but the least we got an agreement recently that for humanitarian purchases such as the world food program, that they would be able to access theyries' food, even if had exports mansbridge this may seem obvious, but during the crisis in 2007 and 2008, if we

were having a call governments to create an exception so that liberia could get access to food. some better information on stocks. people are used to this in the united states, but in china and india, if we have not had this information. this information can lead to some of the panic and volatility situations. rather than try to control prices, which is not going to work, it makes sense to focus on those most vulnerable and most in need tariff one of the things we started to learn at the bank after the 1997 financial crisis in east asia and latin america is that the macro economics to about -- stability was not enough. if you could lose a generation that you do not have the appropriate food and nutrition. literally a generation, because it could affect the potential of children to reach potential. we have been working with developing countries at

different stages of development on basic safety net programs. just to give you one, the people know pretty well, mexico started something, conditional programs. they go to the 15% most needy and on the condition that people send their children to school and people get health checkups, probably doing more for women's health that in mexico than anything else in the history of the country. we then have taken this model and in one form or another help some 40 countries develop this. the reason why it is important is that this is done in mexico and brazil for about 0.5% of gdp. it is run at reasonable cost prefer some countries in sub- saharan africa, they may not have the capability to do that. so we work with world photogram

-- world food programs, child nutrition and other aspects. so in my view, one of the ways we have to deal with the volatility and uncertainty is that every country should have some basic efficient and effective safety net for those at the bottom. part of the lesson if you look at the northern african countries is that they have extensive programs for their bread subsidies in egypt, increasing everyone's wages, so i'm not just saying from money at the problem very we have learned from other developing countries how to create effective safety nets. if this is one of the important because i believe the food price issue is going to be with us for a considerable time period, for some structural reason that i would be happy to talk about. >> i am interested. is this a permanent circumstance or a temporary problem? >> a good price and and i get a lot. -- a good question and i get a

it a lot. i think the situation we're in now is going to remain with relatively higher prices for a longer period of time for the following reasons. first, what drove some of the prices in 2007 and 2008 is that food stocks have become relatively low offered you look at corn and wheat globally, and there is not a great deal of caution. prices got a little bit better, but the problem with prices that it is a thinly traded commodity. only about 7% of the rice that is produced in the world is traded. what that off of the crisis in 2007 and 2008 was the five-year of that and the people will in bed. the rice market is better but because of that then traded as vulnerable. the basic grains market,

relatively low stocks. normally you expect those stocks to get replenished over time . if but there is another phenomenon, and that is as emerging markets become wealthier, and people eat better and have two meals instead of one meal and they eat more meat, if you see an increase in demand. not blaming anybody. it is understandable process. but what it means is that even if you have some good harvests, if you're not replenishing the stock because it is going into the increased demand. this is a gradual process. what that suggests to me is that for a considerable period of time, we are somewhat at the whim of a weather event, or some other -- what happened in 2008 is that you had weather conditions in europe and north american and australian and others. the pressure on prices and the volatility is going to be a factor and it will be with us for what appeared one other dimension. we seek closer connectivity between energy and food prices

and even 10 years ago. the correlation is very tight. some of this is by no fuel but it is not altered part of it is the use of energy for fertilizers and transport and other things. and there is another phenomenon which is, talking about financial markets, investors look at commodities as an asset class. bonds and equities or mortgages, now u.s. commodities. -- now you have commodities. what we see in the study, the people who move into our commodity markets, necessarily change the trend. that is based on supply and demand, but it could affect the movement and the volatility as move it -- money moves in and out of the markets for for all these reasons, i have argued that the g-20 needs to put food first as an issue. it is that basic sustenance of life. it is the core aspect of all society. allow you deal with the risks and uncertainties, let's also

try to make the opportunity on the production side. just to give people a sense again where creativity and innovation can take something that has a bad reputation to make a more positive. if we worked with sub-saharan african countries on rain index futures. in sub-saharan africa, as this august was coming you probably only have about 5% of the crops are irrigated. where in south asia, it is more like 40%. good rain, a good harvest, no rain, you are in trouble. you can figure out what their rate levels you're going to need in a country to be able to have an assessment of whether they will have a good harvest. so you can buy an insurance policy and use the nasty derivatives for a good purpose. in the private sector, we are helping a number of emerging markets in a partnership with some big banks to actually be able to have the access to commodities and futures markets that are commonplace in the united states which they do not have in some developing markets

because of different aspects of the banking and credit system. in a sense that change of the role of the world bank is how we can also innovating use markets to help deal with some of these risks. >> let me switch topics at a little bit to this political situation. he was house markup this week's on our assistance where ade took a huge hit. -- aid took a huge hit, particularly multilaterally. how the make the case to republicans in this environment particularly that american interests are implicated here, that cuts are dangerous, and what is the best set of arguments right now? >> one i have been reflecting on, as it relates to aid and the u.s. role in the world more generally, if you go back to

1947 when another generation and harry truman engage the united states and the world, and you look levels of income per person or family in the united states, they are about 1/4 of what they are today. and if you gdp as opposed to gnp, he it is even less. the individual american is four times wealthier today that his mother or father or grandmother or grandfather was in 1947. in 1947, americans thought the world was important enough to engage it seriously in terms of economics, investment, trade, security. what does that say about a generation that is four times richer and says that we have to pull back? at the big level this is a fundamental decision about a country. whether the priorities -- and at

another level, i make the point that the types of things that the world bank and many others do is move beyond charity, as it might been seen in the 1950's and 1960's, but it's definite self-interest. what does this mean? first i talked about the fact that all of these countries are about half of global growth. the more growth we get in developing countries, you're not going to get it from europe or japan, and you look at the u.s. companies and others that are doing well, they are benefiting from this growth in some fashion or another, whether rigby the caterpillars, the john deeres, the service industries and sectors, americas about 4% of the world's population. if we want to continue to grow, we have to be able to market to the rest of the world. what has really changed a lot is including sub-saharan africa, infrastructure development, if there is increasing opportunity here for investors as well as on the trade side.

there is another dimension of self-interest. the world is an interconnected place. maybe diseases and stars are influenza or what happens in one part of the world affecting another. it may be a sense of values and who we are as a people, do we care what happens in southern sudan? do we care about what happens in liberia? increasingly what people see in the security areas is the interconnection of these interests. we at the world bank policy one of our major world of the lamar reports about the challenge of post conflict or fragile states, the connection between security, development, governance, and the rule of law for the story of afghanistan is not just soldiers fighting if but a question of what you can create economically sustainable systems for the government eventually owns the challenges of a the own critique of its own country. topic after topic, why i find is, and when i talk to congressman, there are different groups. there are people that are

interested in security, in economics, and then the great things about america is that the religious community has also got more deeply engaged in to these issues. there's constituencies they can do it. but finally, for all of this, there is a tremendous amount of misinformation. the u.s. foreign assistance contribution is less than 1% of the budget. so we are in a difficult budget time. we and everyone else have to figure out how to take cuts. at the world bank, we actually get capitalized and make revenue and we put money back into the developing world. we borrow and provide these benefits. so we are in a different situation than some of the farm assistant players. but that is a lot because the money that was first invested in the world bank is leverage many, many times pursuing u.s. interests. we're going to have opportunities for just a couple of questions at the end of the

session. i think we will have some housekeeping year just to determine how that is one to take place. >> we have so many people in the room. the way we're going to manage the questions is that i would ask if you have cards is your table and pans. if you would please think about your questions for president zoellick now and we will collect those and about five minutes, and you might ask another question while people are formulating that and we will collect questions after that. >> related to the earlier question, in our current fiscal sat rigid situation, accountability as never bork -- been more important when it comes to aid. you talked about democratizing developmental economics. >> at a basic level, it builds up what you see happening in the developing world in a way. the mid 20th-century was a hierarchy from experts which is

gone. the concept of the third world is gone. at a minimum, the nature of these economies are much more learning from each other. and there are interesting things that developed economies can develop from developing economies such as private partnerships, private sector going into infrastructure. but the key notion here is that we as an institution clear role that is much broader than providing findings. we are primarily -- our primary purpose is to take the knowledge and experience, as damaging, with conditional programs, infrastructure programs, banking programs, and being able to share them around the world and help countries customize and a way to build market institutions and capacities. to do that effectively, you have to reach out and get other groups of ideas. this is the democratization. it comes from a series of

experts sources. you create a broader dialogue engagement on these issues. one of the vehicles that the bank is lost in recent years that may end up being the most important thing that i've been able to do their is that we have created a potent information initiative. this is an injustice -- an interesting story they used to go to meetings like this and sometimes a professor would come up and say you have some great information sources there at the bank they go back decades, great resources. but you charge for them. this is a lesson for all of you dealing with bureaucracy. our go back and talk to the economics staff and say why are we charging for this? well, we add some value and we have cost return, and you get this question and you finally realize it was $3 million extra to help someone with their budget. what would finally said is, look, this is a public good. we are making an open and available to everybody.

so we have opened up over 7000 data sets and we're going to be adding to them to go back decades. and we've changed the whole mind-set because now we start have some of our staff come up with different software applications where people can engage in use this. we even created an competition where we said to the world, look, and bring us your ideas and the our data comment relating it to the development goals, and we have over 115 different contestants, and you could see that it opendoc -- it opened up, we did not get much to west africa, but the idea is that people came up with about workability and uses, in 10 years with smart people and our room, we could never come up with them. it opens of the best the notion of democratizing development is that we want to -- it only

works of people on it. it cannot come from outside is a long, no matter how well- intentioned. if you share the affirmation engage the people with their room perspective and solutions, give a much better chance of learning what works and what does not, adding better feedback loops, improving results and accountability, having transparency, because you engage the community in the process. and frankly, opening up the bank to a whole network of people were part of the broader set of partners. and it also drives have you think about things. we would be doing a big report on gender and development in the autumn. we start to say, it is hard to know the effect of this if people are not keeping the data on gender. so we are now opening up a gender day debt initiative. just to give you an example of what this could be in real life, you cannot get on our website

and but as you can now get on our website, punch of the country, see all the projects that we have, puts the project, and learn what is going on in the project. by the end of this year, we will have this to route. what i like to do is move this to a world where people with a hand-held device could also be able to start to interact with that. you'd think that this is what the results are, but this is what we see in the village. this is a full transformation of flattening of what was traditionally seen as a hierarchy ross systems. i think it reflects what happens more broadly in the world. >> let's get to a couple of these questions. in many developed countries, there are issues with property rights. people do not have documents on their property. how could it affect development in poor countries? what can the international aid community do about it? >> property rights are fundamental. since i was making the point

briefly on gender, in not only have to think about basic property rights but who gets property rights. one of the issues in the gender area is in some countries, women did not have access to property. that means it is harder to borrow. it transformed the whole economic process. this is the point about learning from experience as opposed to just textbooks, one of the programs we did in ethiopia, it was intriguing, on the property rights document we simply created space for another name and picture, and a vastly increased their registration for women as well as men on the property. a simple change. at the same time, private rights issues -- we work with countries on land registration schemes, doing business environment, and improving the investment climate for other types of property, and

one person mentioned the role of law, legal systems, these are all components of having use of property rights. at the same time, and this is where the customization is important, some countries have had different types of tenure. sometimes it was tribal or community tenure. you also have to figure how to work and be sensitive to those issues as well. but it is part of broader point was making with the bank about, while we are a big financial player, our real effect is by building those institutions and markets. it may be the property rights that affected micro finance or credits or other aspects. ultimately, it is an empowerment agenda. the ultimate power for everybody is to own something and can be able to build from it. >> can you share some ideas of working on development in the context of civil strife? >> i was just in south sudan for

the independents, are really remarkable that after half a century of civil war. a huge pose conflict challenge. allen also really recommend the world development report on this topic for this year, what are some of the lessons that you have learned about working in conflict and post-conflict situations? >> and start out with a perspective on this, a topic that interests me on one of the trips to the butjuba, you were with me. i am not sure if you were with me and another. what i was always struck by was that you have people who focused on security issues, focused on development issues, sometimes on governance issues, but not really interconnected. in the sense of the bank, our

original name was the international bank for reconstruction and development. our first loan was to france as part of the recovery of europe. to me, that challenges you outlined is the reconstruction issue of the 21st century. how do we interconnect these topics better? as a lot of problems in life, it is an art, not a science. one of the key dimensions would be the importance of basic security, creating inclusive enough coalitions -- this is an import enough concept. you may not be able to get everybody in society but from the political economy view if you have to be able to get a critical mass that will move the issue forward. you have to get early results. let me give you an example of where this may seem obvious but is often hard to achieve. whenever i would talk to the security people in the country, they want a job. they want a job fast.

they wanted to show progress, they wanted to stop young men from going back to violence. you talk to economists and you would say that they news jobs would not last. we learned of paramount, which we are trying to buy and north africa and other places, about ways that you could do more rapid job creation that do not interfere with building the private sector and job creation of over time. for example, there may be a food for work program for you get some basic substance and meanwhile you build some of the local infrastructure. the importance of local ownership. in the case of afghanistan, the u.s. and others have struggled with big infrastructure projects. the project that we all put together with one person years ago has probably done -- the national solidarity program where you have local councils, the maker of decisions, and may have small sums of money,

$50,000, but they decide of small-scale irrigation or school. is at a feeder road? this developed a sense of ownership. and in some of those situations, people would be willing to stand up and protect their community against those who might otherwise threaten a school or an operation. this is a field where it also requires the bank to integrate more effectively with some of the human players, regional bank players, and on the security side, we are seeing the importance of regional security groups. it is in my mind because i've met with west africans today. some of those situations in west africa are very important. what i find interesting is that i find that even for example

where the national defense university is or others, these topics are very interesting to them. what we can do on the development side, reflects a problem that used to route development, is that sometimes people operate in rather toddled categories. -- tunnelled. they still did not interconnect effectively. people do humanitarian and pullout. we need to figure out working with a fluke -- world food program how some of their sourcing issues and help was on the development side, even as they buy humanitarian goods. another area is nutrition and agriculture. you talk about agriculture, you know that you nutrition people in agriculture people are never the twain shall meet. a lot the effort is to try to interconnect the issues without getting bogged down in people's specialties.

when i was in sudan, there is a lot of the use of oil man and others to employ people. it is also regarded as a form of corruption. it's interesting when you have an armed population, that those kinds of programs prevent the emergence of the militias. we look is that as not good for economics or for pluralism, but it is rational and some of those contacts. >> one other cents on this, often the a community with the best of intentions overwhelm countries with very modest capacities. another simple thing that we learn, we have on a series of multi owner trust funds. there is one in the southern sudan for these are critical because if a country has 40 donors and each one is the wrong problem, they have a hard time getting basic staffing.

so they get overwhelmed. it makes much more sense to put the money into one pot, add the country or on its priorities so that they on it, help them build the capacity, and then be very careful in terms of trying to improve the governance and transparency and others so that the money goes where it needs to go. >> here is another question. what is the bank doing to promote the rights and status of women at the policy level? >> i referenced a little that about the gender report that we will have coming out in september. i hope this will move us to another stage, but over the past two years, we have been trying to get people around the world to understand the basic concept, which is that gender equality is smart economics. let's start with the basic concept, if you take 50% of your people, and you do not allow them to reach the potential, it is probably not good for your economy.

the reason i start with the smart economics is that in societies around world, they come into different concept of roles and families and men and women, but what i have found is that it can be the poorest villagers in afghanistan or somebody in europe there realizes that the facts show you that this leads to better economic development. it leads to more income for a family. and that starts to dry whole series of willingness to engage women more effectively. we're looking at issues of everything from the effect on world schooling -- pearl schooling, the infant mortality issues, maternal health issues, a critical aspect for women in developing countries of opportunity. some of the topics that we talk about property ownership, ability to borrow, and so it varies by country and experience. but as we do more research, we learn things about, for example,

the benefits of working for women head of house calls. that data is now quite extraordinary and compelling from a variety of sources, and this is driven by some of the cash transfer programs in latin america, you put the money through the women have households, and the use of money for children in the family and for community is many multiples of the male head of households. being gender attended is not only issues for girls and women. you talk about the problems of young boys soldiers and many of these environment. we try to do some pilots to learn more about these things. we institutionally -- when you run a big institution you have to make sure it is not a check the box issued. we have leaders in our produce and we try to create incentives to allow the tasking leaders to

work on products that have particular gender dementias. i want to build it into the dna of people doing this. any time you face a challenge like this can you have to decide of building it as a separate capacity or trying to learn and then integrated 3 organization. we have tried to use the pilots in specialized aspects, trying to use research to increase people's a tentative -- attentiveness, but then how you scale it up. >> one more question. we have two minutes. can you briefly comment on the latest demise of the world trade talks? >> i did this recently. i got a little attention. what i would just say is this. the general environment is that doha is doomed. people are looking beyond it. i believe that this would be an

extreme tragedy for the international system. at the time we talk about pro- croats trade, we have seen it be one of the best drivers of growth. my own belief is that ironically the u.s. was talking about cutting subsidies and other agricultural subsidies, they could put together a package -- it can do it by then sells. the emerging markets have to step of. they could play a leadership role in driving a ford. i realize that these are harsh choices and complex politics, but i was trying to make the case that simply looking at the u.s. position, if the u.s. is still a leader in the world, there still an opportunity to push this. and if not, then what? what i will do to open markets and tried to create opportunities, and having said this, if it would require europeans to be supportive and

brazil and china and india to also no longer pretend like they are sub-saharan africa. i believe that the africans can help us do that. i was against the view of dumbing doha down. i wanted to and i get a deal on an enemy, so i was making a case for being more bold and aggressive. in the u.s. constitutional system, everything has to go back to congress, but i honestly think that if you are not doing it, the congress is not going to do it for you. it is not going to come -- you will not get a trade deal driven by congress. in need someone in the united states to organize this with a condition in an offense. he also helped to help people adjust to change your the other place where the united states has not kept up is that we have an unemployment insurance system that is eight years of tariff we have a trade adjustment

assistance program that is 50 years old. why not take these tens of billions of dollars and ask yourself, is this the system we would designed to get people back into jobs in an economy that is changing? i think you will find that you wanted different system that can help people adjust to change. >> thank you for your thoughtful answers to a variety of questions. thank you for your service to the world's poor and thank you for being with us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> visit charleston this weekend on book tv and american history tv. featured on book tv on c-span2, confederate charleston author on south carolina's secession from union, saturday at 5:15 p.m. eastern. on american history tv, charleston during the american revolution.

saturday at 7:00 and 11:00 p.m.. they're out the weekend, or about the literary life, and catastrophic 1886 earthquake. charleston, south carolina on c- span2 and c-span3. >> president obama has announced that the administration and auto industry agree that cars and other light vehicles should average almost 55 miles to the gallon by 2025. the new fuel economy standards go beyond the current 2016 targets. that is just over 35 miles to the gallon. the president may be announcing at the gathering of auto industry executives. this runs about 20 minutes. ♪

>> bank you, everybody, thank you. good morning. i have been having a lot of fun this week, but nothing more fun and more important to the future of the american economy than the agreement that we are announcing today. i am extraordinarily proud to be here today with the leaders of the world's largest auto companies, and the folks who represent autoworkers all across america. [applause] i am glad that i have a chance to see some of the great cars that you are manufacturing. as some of you may know, it is only a matter of time until malia gets her learner permit. i am hoping to see one of those

models that gets a top speed of 15 miles per hour. [laughter] the ejector seat anytime boys are in the car. hopefully you guys have some of those in the pipeline. now for the last few months, gas prices have just been killing folks at the pump. people are filling up their tank, and they are watching the cost rise -- $50, $60, $70 pair for some families, it means driving less. but a lot of folks do not have that luxury. they have got to go to work. they have got to pick up the kids, they have got to make deliveries. so it is just another added expense when money is already tight. of course this is not a new problem. for decades, we have left our economy vulnerable to increases in the price of oil. and with the demand for oil going up in countries like china

and india, the problem is only getting worse. the demand for oil is inexorably rising far faster than supply. and that means prices will keep going up unless we do something about our own dependence on oil. that is the reality. at the same time, it is also true that there is no quick fix to the problem. there is no silver bullet here. but there are steps we can take now that will help us become more energy independent. there are steps we can take that will save money at the pump, that will make our economy more secure, and that will help innovative companies all across america generate new products and new technologies and new jobs. so i have laid out an energy strategy that would do that. in the short term, we need to increase safe and responsible oil production here at home to meet our current energy needs.

and even those who are proponents of shifting away from fossil fuels have to with knowledge that we are not going to suddenly replace oil throughout the economy. we're going to need to produce all the oil we can. but while we are at it, we need to get rid of, i think, the $4 billion in subsidies we provide to oil and gas companies every year at a time when they are earning near-record profits, and put that money toward clean energy research, which would really make a big difference. [applause] those are all short-term solutions, though. in the long run, we're going to have to do more. we're going have to harness the potential of startups and clean energy companies across america. we're going to need to build on the progress that i have seen in your factories, where workers are producing hybrid cars and more fuel-efficient engines and advanced electric vehicles.

we need to tap into this reservoir of innovation and enterprise. and that is why we are here today. this agreement on fuel standards represents the single most important step we have ever taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. think about that. [applause] most of the companies here today were part of an agreement that we reached two years ago to raise the fuel efficiency of their cars over the next five years. the vehicles on display here are ones that benefited from that standard. folks buying cars like these in the next several years will end up saving more than $3,000 over time because they can go further on a gallon of gas. and today, these outstanding companies are committing to doing a lot more.

the companies here today have endorsed our plan to continue increasing the mileage on their cars and trucks over the next 15 years. we have set an aggressive target, and the companies here are stepping up to the plate. by 2025, the average fuel economy of their vehicles were nearly double to almost 55 miles per gallon. [applause] this is an incredible commitment that they have made. and this is a pretty tough business guys. then other stuff. and it would not be doing if they did not think that it would ultimately be good business and good for america. think about what this means. it means that filling up your car every two weeks instead of filling up every week.

it will save a typical family more than $8,000 in fuel costs over time. and consumers in this country as a whole will almost save $2 trillion in fuel costs. that's trillion with a t. just as cars will go further on a gallon of gas, our economy will go further on a barrel of oil. in the next 15 years, we're going to reduce the amount of oil we need by 2.2 million barrels per day. and this will help meet the goal that i have set for america -- reducing our dependence on foreign oil by one-third. using less oil also means our cars will produce fewer emissions. so when your kids are biking around the neighborhood, they will be breathing less pollution and fewer toxins. it means we're doing more to protect our air and water. and it means we are reducing the carbon pollution that threatens our climate.

lastly, the standards are not just about the bad things we will prevent. it is about the good things that we will build. as these companies look for ways to boost efficiency, they will be conducting research and development on test tracks. they are going to look to startups working on biofuels and new engine technologies. they're going to continue to invest in the advanced battery manufacturing. they're going to spur growth in clean energy. and that means new jobs in cutting edge industries all across america. i'll give you a couple of examples. there is a company called celgard in north carolina that is expanding its production line to meet demand for advanced batteries. they have hired 200 employees and they are adding 250 more. there's a new one under 23, a clean energy manufacturer in michigan, that just hired its 1000 worker as demand has soared for its vehicle components.

companies like these are taking root and putting people to work in every corner of the country. and after a very difficult time for the automotive sector in this country -- after period of painful restructuring, with the federal government lending a helping hand to two of the big three american automakers -- we are seeing growth and a rise in sales, led by vehicles using new, more fuel-efficient technologies. and that bodes well for the future. that tells us that these standards are going to be a win for consumers, for these companies, for our economy, for our security, and for our planet. so we're happy to welcome all the auto companies to this effort. but i do want to pay special tribute to the extraordinary progress of general motors, ford, and chrysler. it was a little more than two years ago that many doubted

whether these companies would still be around, much less moving forward and leading the kind of change that we are seeing. i also want to point out all this progress we're talking about today, the promise of this agreement, only possible because we have made investments in technology. it is only possible because we are willing as a nation to make sure that young people could afford to go to college and get engineering degrees, to make sure that we are backing the basic research of our scientists, to make sure innovative small businesses could get the credit to open their doors and ultimately maybe be a supplier for one of these big companies. so is willing to close the deficit, -- so as we look to close the deficit, this agreement is a reminder of why it is so important we have a balanced approach. we have got to make serious spending cuts while still investing in our future,

education, research, intelligent -- and technology like clean energy which is so important to our economy. and finally this agreement ought to serve as a valuable lesson for leaders in washington. this agreement was arrived at without legislation. you are all demonstrating what can happen when people put aside differences -- these folks are competitors, you've got labor and business, but they decided, we're going to work together to achieve something important and lasting for the country. [applause] so it comes to tackling the deficit, or it comes to growing the economy, when it comes to giving every american an opportunity to achieve their

american dream, the american people are demanding the same kind of resolve, the same kind of spirit of compromise, the same kind of problem solving that all these folks on stage have shown. they are demanding that people come together and find common ground, that we have a sensible, balanced approach that is based on facts and evidence and us reasoning things out and figure out how to solve problems, and asks everybody to do their part. that is what i am fighting for. that is what this debate is all about. that is what the american people want. so i want to once again thank automakers. i want to thank workers. i want to thank the state of california. [applause] the state of california has consistently been a leader on this issue. i want to thank the environmental leaders and

elected officials, including leader pelosi who is here, and the leaders from the michigan delegation. obviously the state of michigan has a huge stake and has been on the cutting edge of these issues and have helped to pave the way forward. i want to thank all of you for helping reduce our dependence on oil, on growing the economy, and leaving for future generations a more secure and prosperous america. so congratulations, gentlemen. thank you sir very much. ♪ ["stars and stripes forever" playing]

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

[military march playing] ♪

♪ ♪ >> next the assistant to the

president for manufacturing policy and the deputy assistant for the president for energy policy. this is about 10 minutes. >> before i take your questions, i have with me here to people who continue about the tangible, even historic, benefits of compromise. ron bloom is the assistant to the president for manufacturing policy. heather's zichal is the deputy assistant to the president for energy policy. together they worked closely with teams from the department of transportation and the epa to -- and start that agreement on fuel economy. with that, i'll turn it over to them. if you a question for them about their issues, ask them. we would get those done at the top and then i will return to the podium to take your

questions on other matters. thank you. >> as jay said, president obama today announced an historic agreement with 13 major auto manufacturers representing 90% of all vehicles sold in the united states today. this agreement forges historic -- was an historic agreement that nearly doubled fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025. achieving the goals of this historic program will lie on innovative technologies and manufacturing that will spur economic growth and create high- quality domestic jobs in cutting industries -- cutting edge industries across the country. today's announcement builds on president obama is agreement for model year 2012 to 2026 -- 2016 auto standards which will raise fuel is injected 35.5 mpg. these agreements will save american families $1.70 trillion in fuel costs, and by 2025, result in an average fuel

savings of over $8,000 per vehicle. additionally, these programs will dramatically cut the oil we consume, saving a total of 12 billion barrels of oil, and by 2025, reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day, as much as half the oil we import from opec every day. there are a lot of people that helped forge this historic agreement. it was the leadership from ford, gm, and chrysler as well as 10 other companies that joined the president today that truly deserve the bulk of credit for their leadership and commitment to a plan that will reduce our dependence on oil, grow the economy, and leave for future generations a more secure and prosperous america. >> anyone have questions? >> one complaint i've heard about improved fuel efficiency standards is that it means vehicles are not necessarily as safe as bigger, cluck year, but

ultimately perhaps safer vehicles. i was wondering if you could address that . >> certainly. with any rule, whether was the model year 2012 or 2016 standard, or what we're looking to do in the future, we will rely on additional technologies that help us achieve those fuel savings. but that will not come at the expense of american safety. we're talking a lot about different combustion engine technologies. different off-cycle credits, a host of different technologies will help us achieve those standards and protect consumer choice at the same time. >> and i would add the dot, when they look at these questions and put out the technical assessment, which they didn't enjoy it epa, the issue of safety is always paramount to the obligations of dot.

so we're very confident that there will be no compromise in safety, and that has been baked into all the analysis that we did. >> what about the economic impact? some of the automakers were not that excited to get on. but to deal that you efficiency in about a decade is going to mean pressure to their bottom line at a time when the economy is still struggling. >> there is no question that the automakers were challenged by these standards. we do not apologize for challenging them. saving the american sumers $1.7 trillion is a worthwhile endeavor. we're confident that the auto manufacturers will be of to absorb the additional cost and still sellbut we think the amere are saying, they care about fuel economy.

i think we are seeing a trend and seen what consumers want. there is a speculation that -- >> [unintelligible] >> $8,000. we were unsuccessful with the auto companies. a sector was on the table for discussion. there is technical analysis that

you will see. [unintelligible] >> we are very confident that this will not have additional costs. >> [unintelligible] >> anytime there is innovation, d.c. good economic activity and jobs. there is a huge amount of innovation going on in the field. when you put a tough standard out there, there will be new

kinds of activities there is new technology. we believe in in a lot of innovation. >> the price of it, is is beyond a certain reach? >> our judgment is the savings the consumers will receive will be significant of any multiple increase in price. if you would tell people are acting in the markets, but are taking into account the fuel economy. the three years ago, trucks were in much larger percentage of total vehicle sales them the art

today. they are conscious of fuel economy. look at how the companies are advertising. to implement some of these technologies will have some additional costs. >> what about the price point? >> part of what people take into account when they buy is the specter. i think it is what consumer behavior is showing. they take into account in terms of their buying power. >> what about funding from the

government a few years down the road? >> it depends on what was technologically available. >> next the remarks on the house floor during the final debate of the debt ceiling bill. house and senate democrats offer their reaction. later, more on the debt ceiling issue from the floor. >> if you're asking me to be direct with you about the political situation, i will not be predictable by saying the right is always wrong. i will see if we can't agree -- agree. i will give you my honest assessment of what is taking place. >> sunday, on the controversial comments that resulted in the firing from national public

radio. his new book is on c-span q&a. >> of the house approved speaker revise the debt ceiling bill. the measure will provide a $900 billion increase in borrowing authority, which obama administration officials say is official for america to pay all of its bills after next tuesday. there are increases in the debt limit to that will be contingent upon a constitutional amendment that hat -- would have to be sent to states for ratification. >> [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] -2011.

the speaker: my colleagues, i'd like to cut through all the fog here rather quickly. today's report on the economy reminds us that our economy is still not creating enough jobs. americans are worried about finding work. they're worried about our economy, and they're worried about the mountain of debt that's facing them and their children. today, we have a chance to end this debt limit crisis. with this bill i think we're keeping our promise to the american people that we will cut spending by more than the increase in the debt limit. the congressional budget office has certified this commonsense standard and has been backed by more than 150 distinguished economists from across the country. we're also imposing caps to restrain future spending so we can stop the expansion of government while giving our economy a chance to grow and to

create jobs. and we're advancing the great cause of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. what this bill now says is that before the president can request an additional increase in the debt limit, two things have to happen, a joint committee in the congress must produce spending cuts larger than the increase in the debt limit and both houses of the congress must send to the states a balanced budget amendment. listen, a balanced budget amendment, it is -- it's time for this to happen. it enjoys support in both houses of this congress and it enjoys bipartisan and widespread support across our country. the bill also ends this crisis without raising taxes which would cripple our economy and there's no gimmicks.

there's no smoke screens here that represent the old ways of doing things. now, the bill before us still isn't perfect. no member would argue that it is. it's imperfect because it reflects an honest and sincere effort to end this crisis by sending a bill over to the senate that at one time is agreed to by the bipartisan leadership of the united states senate. and to my colleagues in the senate if they were here, i would say this -- if this bill passes, this house has sent you not one but two different bills that cut spending by trillions of dollars over the next decade while providing an immediate increase in the debt ceiling. and to the american people i would say, we've tried our level best. we've done everything we can to find a commonsense solution that should pass both houses of congress and end this crisis. we tried to do the right thing

by our country, but some people continue to say no. my colleagues, i have worked since the first week of this session when we were sworn in in january to avoid being where we are right this moment. two days after we were sworn in, the treasury secretary sent us a letter asking us to increase the debt ceiling. i immediately responded by saying we would not increase the debt ceiling without serious cuts in spending and serious reforms to the way we spend the people's money. we passed a budget. the other body, it's been over 800 days and no budget, no plan. this is the second bill we've sent over to the senate and yet not one piece of legislation out of the senate that's passed that deals with this crisis.

and my colleagues, i can tell you that i have worked with the president and the administration since the beginning of this year to avoid being in this spot. i have offered ideas. i've negotiated. not one time, not one time did the administration ever put any plan on the table. all they would do was criticize what i put out there. i stuck my neck out a mile to try to get an agreement with the president of the united states. i stuck my neck out a mile and i put revenues on the table in order to try to come to an agreement to avert us being where we are. but a lot of people in this town can never say yes. a lot of people can never say yes. this house has acted and it is time for the administration and time for our colleagues across

the aisle put something on the table. tell us where you are. and, yes, people can be critical of what we've done, but where are the other ideas? at this point in time the house is going to act and we're going to act again. but it is time for our colleagues across the aisle to tell us what they're for, tell us how we can end this crisis. you know, ronald reagan has been quoted throughout this debate over the last few weeks and ronald reagan would probably be flattered, i'm sure, if he were here, but ronald reagan on his desk had a little plaquered and that plaquered said something

simple. it said, it can be done. i have a replica on my desk. i tell you, members of congress, it can be done, it will be done if we have the courage to do the right thing. so for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our future, i'm going to ask each of you as the representatives of the people of the united states to support this bill, to support this process and end this crisis now.

the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate on the bill has expired. pursuant to house resolution 375 the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: an act to establish the commission on freedom of information act processing delays. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> oh, yes i am opposed to this bill. the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk: ms. hochul of new york moves to recommit -- >> i reserve a point of order. the clerk: ms. hochul of new york moves to recommit the bill to the committee on rules to

amend section 403-b-3 at the end following a new clause, prioritizing deficit reduction from corporate subsidies before cutting education. the joint committee shall first consider the elimination of, one, oil and gas subsidies for the major integrated oil companies and, two, subsidies for corporate use of aircraft before cutting essential education programs that are necessary for the creation of jobs, economic recovery and investment in america's future. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. hochul: thank you, mr. ms. hochul: well, here we are. >> the house is out of order. ms. hochul: the eyes of the world are upon us. the eyes of the american people are upon us. but most importantly, the eyes of the people who put their faith in us in sending us to

this institution are certainly upon us. and as we engage in this debate, i will say just one thing that is clear to me, that everyone in this room loves this great country, loves this country. america has stood the test of time and risen above disasters as one people. in the last decade alone, rattled by wars, unprecedented natural disasters, the longest recession since world war ii. as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, we are reminded of what we can do when we pull together. we are a resilient people. but, mr. speaker, never, never in this history has there been an intentional disaster perpetrated by the very people who were sent to be the

caretakers of this country. and that is exactly what will happen if we refuse to take action, prevent default and pay our nation's bills now, not six months down the road. i understand that a spirited debate in defense of one's viewpoint, certainly. but when i look down at the copy of the constitution that i keep on my desk, i thank god that our founding fathers had it in their hearts to give and take and yes compromise for what is in the best interest of this country. i can't go back to the hill view restaurant on transit road in lancaster and look into the eyes of my seniors and tell them we didn't get this job done, that we decided to continue this game

of political chicken to dangle defaults cruelly over the heads of our citizens, businesses and economy and hold it hostage while we kicked this can down the road again. mr. speaker, am i supposed to tell the greatest generation that when they passed us the torch, we dropped it because we couldn't compromise? and that is why my amendment is a simple statement of america's priorities. it says before we cut our education for our children, that we first must cut subsidies to big oil and corporate jets. this amendment is one of our last chances to affirm the values that bind us as a nation. i know one of these shared values is our sense of obligation to create a better world for our young people to

inherit and give our people a better chance to achieving their dreams. the next generation will be more prosperous and more secure, but only if we invest in it now. in the human capital, whose creativity, innovation and work ethic can ensure this country remains a world leader and beacon of hope to others. but this is all at risk. speaker boehner's plans results in consequences that i can't imagine anyone in this room really wants. on top of the unconscionable uncertainty, it will leave this economy with a temporary fix and we are putting investments in education that are so critical to our young people to compete with china, india and europe on the global change. my amendment is about priorities, the priorities of the people we represent, because i face slashing programs for seniors, young people, middle

class, all because we are afraid of the influence of big oil? that is wrong on so many levels. i come from a family of entrepreneurs. my mom started a small business and my father helped grow a business from four to 3,200. i get it. i have tremendous respect for companies to have grown to that size. if they have a corporate jet, i don't begrudge them. that's great. but we agree our deficit must be reduced and why can't we ask them, people with big oil and corporate jets give us a hand and make this country great. you know, a hardware store in a county in my district, how is it they pay more in taxes than the big companies that are shipping jobs overseas? i can't explain that to that

family. i cannot do that. and my constituents are hurting in upstate new york. some of them at the time of huge corporate profits can hardly afford to fill their gas tanks. there is one value we share and that is fairness. it is fundamentally unfair. the time of the gentlelady has expired. ms. hochul: i will finish very briefly. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from california. ms. hochul: i do want to reach out our hand -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i wish to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. ms. hochul: i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california withdraws his reservation. mr. dreier: i haven't spoken yet and i appreciate the applause of my colleagues on the other side. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman withdraw his reservation? mr. dreier: i would like to withdraw and claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. mr. speaker, this doesn't prioritize social security, it doesn't prioritize medicare, it doesn't prioritize veterans, doesn't propose one item that would cut spending. all it does is engage in class warfare and increase taxes. vote against the motion to recommit.

>> they are working on a compromise bill. the deadline is tuesday, august 2. [unintelligible] live coverage begins on c-span. now this is about 15 minutes. the senator had to be excused to

do to a family situation. her husband is here. tonight, a bipartisan vote in the senate -- we are seeing something that we have seen a lot. the country is dealing with a filibuster. we are putting forth a compromise the republican leader said he would not negotiate with me. [cell phone ringing] i wonder who that is. [laughter] >> your pizza is ready. [laughter] it really is the worst possible

time to be conducting a filibuster. today is still friday. they are waiting to have this vote. our economy hangs on the balance. for the first time in history, unless there is a compromise, we are headed for economic disaster. it is time for republicans to step forward. there has been some movement today as indicated on the floor. it fell through. when we are told that they had the three republican senators interested in my bill. we hear happy talk about this, but they need to step forward. republicans are blocking their ability to compromise. they are refusing to negotiate with us. we have to get this done.

we should be allowed to do the same. that is all we are asking. it is time for us to be adults. it is time to come together and compromise. it is what the american people want, and it is what we need to do. >> i am sure you recall a speech given to the american people monday night. it was by the house speaker. he spoke about a bill,. we waited for that on tuesday and wednesday and thursday. finally today, they passed it, but it was not a bipartisan. not a single democratic budget. and a slant majority. when it came to the united states senate, it was dead on arrival on a bipartisan basis. the bipartisan majority of senators voted to table the

boehner roposal -- ab proposal. there is a growing sentiment from senators on both sides of the aisle to sit down and reach a reasonable compromise and say our economy and the disaster that awaits us if we fail to deal with this debt ceiling. we are waiting -- republicans are waiting for a permission slip from one senator. there were told to hold back bill came toner bilehner the floor. that is all done now. we do not want to relive this scene that we have seen the past few weeks over and over again. we want to say that this economy will move forward. we do not want to jeopardize

this with a problem of self- imposed political wounds that could be avoided. we waited all day this morning -- senator reid said, let us work this out. nothing. not a word all day long. at the end of the day, we got a call from senator mcconnell saying we will not negotiate. that is unfortunate. the american people deserve better. if he would give us the same vote standard in the senate that was given to the house speaker, we could pass the proposal from senator reid, which includes major elements suggested by senator mcconnell. they insist on filibuster. 60 votes have become routine, because filibuster's have become routine on the republican side of the aisle. it is not what is necessary to enact this law that so critical to the future of america. we will fight this filibuster.

hopefully the republicans will cross over and break the stalemate and come up with a bipartisan agreement. >> thanks. this morning, at 10:00 a.m. on the floor of the senate, senator reid asked senator mcconnell to come and negotiate. the door was open all day, but nobody walks or not. -- not or walked in. knocked or walked in. boehner bill was defeated, senator mcconnell still refuse to negotiate. we will not solve the problem by standing there and fold and imams and a singing i am not talking to anybody. the nation's future is at risk. republican senators, i have

spoken to tenet today, they want to come to an agreement. until essential -- senator mcconnell gives them the green light, nothing is going to happen. perhaps they get a direct word from the republican leader, do not do anything. we all knowwe all know the senae only way out of this mass. we have seen the huge difficulties in the house. their inability to even tie their own shoes. so it is up to the senate, and that means it is up to senator mcconnell, type either negotiate himself or to give permission to others to negotiate so that we can finally come to a bipartisan agreement. the only game in town is the modified reid bill. it has elements from republicans

including senator mcconnell, proposed by democrats, but it meets the strictures that both parties have laid out on our side, that it must extend the debt ceiling beyond 2012, nor short-term extension. on their side, the revenues, and as many cuts as increases in the debt ceiling. if they do not like it, even though it seems to have been a prescription drawn from their needs, what they want as an alternative? they are very good at saying no. parents -- they are not very good at laying out a plan that can actually plan. what did they do? they just filibuster. they say you cannot proceed to the bill and vote on it. they say that they are going to

force us to delay and delay and delay until we get up to the deadline. the country is in crisis. this is not a time for politics as usual. i think we have shown that we are willing to give significantly in their direction. we're still waiting for speaker mcconnell. leader of boehner. we're still waiting for leader mcconnell and speaker boehner to move a little bit in our direction. >> just a couple of questions. we have a long night tomorrow. [inaudible] he did not add any triggers.

-- you cannot add any real triggers. >> we have a closet full of treasures that people have suggested, literal, dozens of them. even though they are good ideas, we were sitting and talking to jack lew, and rob neighbors, such a good person. we talked for an hour about different triggers. i came to the conclusion we were negotiating with ourselves. we cannot get to -- we can i get the republicans to agree to any triggers. the american people know this because they say, we're not going to have cuts to more programs and more programs without more revenue. that is a line that we have drawn in the sand and we're

going to stick to it. i spoke a couple of times the leader pelosi. she agrees with me 100%. >> the house is passed two plans are now. what is the contingency plan that this does not get to the senate? >> senators schumer play that out clearly. the plan is to work off of our bill. we have a message from the house, if an agreement comes up, we will amend that, and we will send that back to the house. they only need one vote over there. to say with a straight face that they sent us something that the american people would accept, the ryan budget, cap and cut, whatever that is, and then this thing? that is not legislation. that was an extravaganza over there that made us all look very foolish.

>> everyone is worried about going into the weekend, what is the endgame? you are calling for senator mcconnell to come to the table and negotiate. what is the way forward? >> right now we have a fine proposal. extend the debt ceiling until march 2013, reduce the debt by $2.4 trillion, it is a fine piece of legislation. we can make further cuts with the joint committee. we could get something out of that. we're waiting them for dues -- waiting for them to do something, anything, move toward us. if that fails, we should go for our bill. it is things that they have already voted on and agreed to. last question.

>> [inaudible] you mentioned the january baseline. >> cbo came up with those numbers and a total of four, we have laid out all of our numbers. you can look at them. this is what cbo has recommended and we have followed their advice. thank you. [unintelligible] >> prior to the vote on speaker boehner's debt bill, john larsen told reporters his caucus is unified in opposing the bill. he described the debate is an

ideological manufactured crisis. he is joined at this 20 minute news conference chris van hollen. >> good afternoon and thank you for joining us. i am proud be joined by the vice chair of our caucus and they have been taking the lead for the democrats in the budget discussions, chris van hollen. i want to start by saying that since speaker boehner walked away from the table last friday, we have noticed that u.s. stocks and the american people have lost $405 billion. the gravity of the situation, as we continue to repeat, is

something that we feel and have felt for a long time could be avoided. 18 times and the present rate in the debt ceiling was raised. seven times under george bush. as we have said both on the floor and here before you, defaulting on the american people is not an option. and it will we see unfolding -- and yet what we see unfolding in the former republican party is the capitulation to special interests, the special narrow interests of one segment of the party that is controlling the very future is all americans. impacting in being willing at all costs to take the nation to

the process, to the cliffs of disaster. time is running out. a proposal is being put forward that we're being told in the rules committee, even the chairman of the rules committee says it cannot be signed by the president. and so why is it that we are putting the american people through this? people who are wondering aloud, what is going on in washington, d.c.? and a time that they are -- at a time that they're crying out for help in jobs and economic security, and ideological manufactured crisis is unfolding before us. an ideological manufactured crisis, no longer controllable by the speaker, because events have unfolded beyond his control. washington warned about what

happened in terms of party excesses' and what would happen to us if we became a nation where not from without the threats that gather, but from within, when people seek to destroy the government itself. imagine standing in the way of social security, of veterans checks, of people's pensions, and not fully appreciating the gravity of that, only more concerned about bringing government itself down. this is a frightening time for this country, a time when the president of the united states stood there as a ratio at the bridge and continues to offer, and san joaquin advise and encourages people to come together when forces here will not even allow it to happen. and whether it is a closure vote in the center -- cloture vote in

the senate or whether it is that tea party in the house, this is a travesty that this is happening to the american people. this is a manufactured crisis that should not be happening. we should take this from the plate of the american people. and get on with the business of putting this country back to work. that is where the discussion should be. with that, let me yield to the vice chair of the caucus, javier bacerra. >> most americans are trying to figure out where things stand just four short days before we get -- actually three short days before get to the point that this country has ever seen. what makes it difficult for the american people to understand what is going on is that speaker boehner indicated a week ago that he was walking away from the negotiations, because he had

a better plan. well, we have sensing that the republicans cannot agree to their own plan here in the house of representatives and their feuding among themselves. while they are feuding, the chairman pointed out, we have seen americans lose about $400 billion worth of value. and five business days, americans lost about $400 billion worth of value in their wealth. that is about half of what the republicans were hoping to save in their 10-year plan. five days versus five years of a 10-year plan appeared that is what happens when you fued and you do not do your work. the failure of the republicans is costing not the republicans and their party, but americans a great deal of money. but we have seen this before.

we have seen a described before when the tail wags the dog. in this case, we see the tail wagging the elephant. the republicans do not seem to be listening to the american public. the american public has said over and over again, get this done, to a bipartisan link -- do it bipartisanly, and pay for this deficit reduction. do not make medicare recipients lose their medicare benefits to pay for protecting the tax loopholes for special interests. and we understand that today republicans admitted that they cannot pass the bill that we are debating on the floor right now. none other than the chairman of the rules committee, david dreier, who is managing the

debate on this bill said that he understands that this bill is going nowhere. three short days before we are told we may plunge into the abyss. republicans are debating a bill which the chairman of their rules committee is saying he understands will go nowhere. clearly the tail is wagging the elephant today. >> i want to thank my colleagues here for their leadership in the caucus. i want to pick up where my friend left off with his comment about the tail wagging the elephant. i think in the last 24 hours, we have confirmed what many people suspected, which is that the tea party republicans may be a noisy and effective protest movement, but they are unfit to govern. they are unfit to govern. it is time for speaker boehner to do what he called for himself

some time ago, which is to have that adult moment. unfortunately, rather than work to reach across the aisle and form a true bipartisan compromise for the good of the country, he is moving in the wrong direction. he is now taking the bill which was unacceptable and will not pass in its original form back to the rules committee to make it even more extreme, to cater again to the tea party wing of the republican party. that is not going to get us where we need to go in the american people watching this process know that. you now have the house republicans having walked out of the biden talks, to times added the toss with the president, -- two times out of the talks with the president, they have rejected their own speaker's proposal, but instead of working across the aisle to solve the problem, the speaker made that

problem even worse and is taking this in the wrong direction. this is, as my colleagues said, a soap -- a totally self- inflicted wound we are inflicting on the american people every day. it is a manufactured crisis. we have to ask ourselves why. why are they doing this to the country? why are they playing american -- kamikaze pilot with the american economy? their answer is that they are going to reduce the deficit. but if you look at their actions, that is not true. every time someone has put forward a balanced deficit reduction plan, they have said no. terms of their real objective is not to reduce the deficit because if they were your detective, if you would be willing to eliminate one penny and subsidies for the gas kind of as companies. we have challenged them. the first republican says that

they are willing to have one penny from closing tax loopholes go to deficit reduction, please come talk to us. if you are really interested in deficit reduction, you would be willing to ask the big oil companies to stop taking all the taxpayer money, but they have not. that is not their objective. their objective is to manufacture this crisis and try to impose on the american people a very extreme agenda that involves ending the medicare guarantee, slashing medicaid, slashing education. that is what they are about, not about deficit reduction. when they get serious about deficit reduction in a balanced way, we hope that they will come talk to us. >> let me say that we concluded our caucus and started our caucus with the unity that i think demonstrates the importance to the american people, and that unity stems from our defense of medicare, social security, and medicaid. let me throw it open to questions.

thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> when not privy to the interest discussions but we hear that there are discussions that are going on. i cannot know if chris would want to comment on that further. >> i think you have covered it. there may be the beginning of that discussion between senator reid and senator mcconnell, but we're not familiar with details. [inaudible] >> totally realistic proposal. [inaudible] >> let's call this for what it is.

a site for more theater, this is just more theater. with the theater is even more a further move to the right and a more extreme position. you can put wings on this page but it still will not fly. -- pig but it still will not fly. [inaudible] >> if you are a tea party member, you have to be -- listen, they come here believing that they are patriots and they are full of the pledges that they have taken throughout the campaign. but here they ever gotten, as kristin pointed out, we pledge allegiance to this nation, not to grover norquist or to any

other tax pledge. where they are taking this country is unprecedented. it has never happened before. while they may take a great deal of pride in that, the reality is that which looms for the american people. it is bested by a constituent of mine who says, do they not understand that we are in the dark day of uncertainty? that is true in business markets and our business community, but most of portly for households. the american people do not deserve this. they deserve far better from their government. [inaudible] >> our republican colleagues are trying this out because it sounds good on its surface. it is a way of passing the bu ck. our republican colleagues who complain about activist judges making decisions, the reality is

that at the end of the day, you would be asking judges to enforce the balanced budget amendment. do they want federal judges to be deciding whether to cut medicare or to raise taxes? this is just an advice -- a device to delay confronting the real challenges, which is us hammering this out in a balanced way. it is a nice sounding thing and we encourage people to take a closer look at what it really does. it is a way for the members to escape responsibility and ultimately lay it on the doorstep of a federal judge. that is not what our founders anticipated. the founders expected to congress and the president to deal with the budget, not to pass the buck to the federal judges to raise taxes or cut medicare or education. butorrect me if i'm wrong, 11,000 -- since 1789, i wanted to check on this. constitutional amendments, since 1789, we have had 11,000

attempts to amend the constitution. since 1789327 amendments. -- since 1789. 27 amendments. we now that they -- we now hear that three days before they plunges into the economic abyss, propose this 11,001st constitutional amendment so that in less than three days, we pass that, when it is taken over 230 years to pass 27 out of the 11,000 that were proposed. that is the height of ridiculed that i think you can say we can take these efforts by those who have not yet gotten serious about dealing with what is very curious for critics serious for every family, keeping your

credit rating. they're about to allow america's credit rating to go down the drain. [inaudible] >> i have said before and i will say it again. i know the president has resisted this, but he is and still remains horatio at the bridge. it is our sincere hope and let me acknowledge and applaud the efforts of our colleagues, chris van hollen and jim clyburn and steny and nancy had been in the room representing our concerns. we hope that we can reach a legislative conclusion. if not, and in face of these perilous events that could unfold, then i share and i know that jim clyburn does another

is, that perhaps the president reluctantly may have to do this. certainly something that he said he would not. term solutionrt- that other not proposing, but what about a seven-day, just to get through, is that something you're starting to think about? >> how many more opportunities should be provided for people to get up and walk away from the table? we sat through and saw the theater. chris witnessed eric cantor walk away from the discussions with the vice president has and is in the balance was brought into the discussion. we witnessed mitch mcconnell coming up with this proposal along with harry reid. we watched him walk away from that proposal.

we witnessed the present and continuing to reach out and then witnessed a bipartisan group of six, as they like to be called, three republicans and three democrats, if come up with a proposal. they walked away from that. they walked away from their own speaker's proposal and from the president's proposal. carolyn maloney said that if obama came up with a cure for cancer, that would walk away from that as well. i think the time for politics and whether it is extending about six months so that they can continue this ideological manufactured crisis, i think that that is wrongheaded. clearly it they all came together and said that we have a bill that we're going to put on the floor tomorrow and vote on and it was laid out in detail, i think the president said, he would knowledge that, but we have not seen anything close to that.

>> this is clearly a dollar and cents issue. these are facts on the ground, decisions have to be made, because money has to be paid. but at the same time, we're talking about something that is intangible. somewhat abstract, perhaps more important, the full faith and credit of the united states of america. what it means to be the usa, the most relied upon democracy ever, where money still runs to the u.s. whenever trouble around the world. if you want to inspire confidence, not just in the international markets, among the bankers of the world, if you want to inspire confidence, back home on main street, i daresay the last thing you want to do is pass another three-day extension to get somewhere.

i do not believe any businessman or woman back home on main street would budget this way or try to run a business this way. i daresay the largest economy in the world should operate this way either. it is time to senator mark -- senator harkin say, man up. this is totally manufactured. to get out of it today. we would have to do the right thing. i would hope that republicans would understand that they will inspire little confidence in the american family if they tell us we can kick the can down the road for a few more days. >> thank you very much. >> while the senate waited for the house to take action on speaker boehner's debt ceiling bill, several senators took to the floor to talk to the matter.

we begin with remarks by texas senator kay bailey hutchison. this is just under an hour. objectn. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i rise today to speak about the looming august 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling and making reforms or budget cuts at least that would allow us to show that we are not going to have business as usual in washington but that we are going to raise the debt ceiling with the reforms that are necessary. despite the differences in this body, we are all here to share three concerns. first, we do know at this point, because of the time that it has taken us to cobble together something that could be put through both of our houses and signed by the president, that we

have fundamental differences in the principles of how we should run our government. i think it is very clear the republicans have stood for no taxes, especially in this economic environment. we believe that piling taxes on top of the costs of the obama health care system that is in the pcess of being implemented would keep our businesses from hiring people and getting this 9.1% unemployment rate down. i think we all agree that we need to bring that unemployment rateown. but we have fundamental differences about what's causing it and how we can solve it. number two, we all agree, i believe, or 95% of us agree that we cannot default on the debt in our country. i do believe in both houses the