in their tracks over here without further opportunity. most importantly, without a response by the democratic party this the senate or otherwise. so if there is either party in this discussion that is refusing to compromise, it's not ours. if there is any group that has failed to offer solutions, it cannot be described as the tea party movement. i ask my colleague, the junior senator from kentucky, do you see any -- any element within the tea party movement, any element within the republican party that is unwilling to compromise or wanting to block just for the sake of blocking? mr. paul: no, from going to hundreds of tea party rallies and grassroots rallies with voters across america, what i see is they want what's best for america. i don't think they really particularly care whether it's a republican plan or a democrat plan, they want what's best for america. but the want a solution. and the problem with the debate

here in washington is all of the proposals seem to want to add more debt. we have $14 trillion worth of debt, and both the republican and the democrat proposal, we're going to add $7 trillion to $8 trillion more in debt. what i think the folks in the tea party and those who are concerned about passing this debt along to their kids and grandkids want, they want us to spend less. i think a great contrast and what illustrates the problem here is that spending is going up 7% a year. nobody is really talking about cuttg that spending. they're cutting about the rate of growth of that spending. there's a new pla out called the one penny plan. it would actually have real cuts of one penny on every dollar spent. the other side pulls the hair and says, oh, you're so rad calf. we say we just want to cut one penny out of every dollar of government spending. is that radical? so the president has said it's a dysfunctional place. he is right in that sense. but i think some of the dysfunction comes from the hypocrisy or the other side not

really listening. for example the balanced budget amendment. they say polls show rtinely 75% of americans are for it. and routinely about 14% of americans seem toe approving of this body. so the question i would have is maybe it's that we're not listening well enough. maybe we're not doing what the people want. mr. lee: that certainly appears to be the case. and it's a reminder to us of the fact that no matter how much we might be tempted at times to demagogue this issue, no matter how tempting it will be for certain members of this bodyo cast blame elsewhere, they cannot escape one simple fact, whic is that the american people are demanding me. they are demanding that we spend less. they're demanding that we stop this barbaric practice of perpetual, massive-scale defici spending. why? because it erodes iividual

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

they completely change their ideas. the president was a u.s. senator. he spoke on this floor and here are his words in 2006. the fact that were here today debating raising the america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. he was sort of pointing fingers. everybody is pointing fingers. it's someone else's fault. i call that the empty partisanship but his conclusion voting to raise the debt limit would send a bad signal to our leaders that they're doing the right thing. i've often said there is no objective evidence that washington or congress is spending your money wisely. the pentagon says they're too big to be audited. can't bance their books. there was $100 billion unaccounted for in the becoming year. $5 billion that the g.a.o. sound. duplicate programs. 82 different programs training workers. could we not maybe deal with one federal program training workers

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

but wre also, we've become profligate spenders, spending money that we don't have. and really, i think we risk great dangers. and i would a the question to the senator from utah is, what's the answer? how do we get out of this when we seem to be so far apart and even on both sides we don't seem to be tackling the issues in a way that would cause or allow for significant cuts in spendi? mr. lee: i have a friend named ron mcmill lynn, lives in my hometown of alpine, utah, and he's the author of a number of books dealing with business negotiation, dealing with trying to figure out how you c get to compromise. the presiding officer: the time has expired. mr. paul: can we have an extension of two minutes to finish our thoughts? mr. durbin: i don't object as long as this side is given an additional two minutes. mr. paul: thank you. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: and in that series of

books, the crucial conveation line of books, one of the things he encourages people to do is to find whatever common ground they can reach. i think there is common ground among the american people generally that we should balance our budget. not everyone agrees about how we balance the budget, what should be cut, but they do agree that we should balance it. that being the case, that's where we ought to focus our efforts, is on amending our law of laws, that 224-year-old document that has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. change it again to improve it, to restrict congress' borrowing power. the plan proposed by the democrats that's now about to come before us puts our budgeting process on autopilot, doesn't reqre another bug for two years -- her to budget for tw -- another budget fortwo yeae to fund itself without additional debate in congress. this is wrong, this is not the right approach, i object to it. r that reason, i, along with

my other republican colleagues, are prepared to vote on this and vote no on thisight now. we are not the ones delaying this vote. mr. paul: mr. president, i would say that what americans don't like is empty partisanship. that's what's going on today. the democrats are standing up and beating their chest and saying, "republicans won't let us have vote." it's urue. i've offered to have the vote. you've seen the objection here before your own eyes. they won't vote on this. let's dispense with the empty partisanship, let's move forrd and have a vote. and if they would let us have one amendment, an amendment that would gradually balance the budget over seven to eight years, i'll vote for their proposal and i'll ensure enough votes that it will pass. thank you, mr. president. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: before yielding to the senator from north carolina, i would like to note that last night, the two senators who just finished their colloquy, had an opportunity to vote for the boehner plan which required a constitutional balanced budget amendment and both senators lee and paul are registered as

having voted to table the boehner approach which include that requirement for a mr. pres? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to give a voice to minnesotans, to relay their thoughts on how congress should resolve this impasse and raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default. on wednesday i received an e-mail from a constituent in st. louis park, my home towfnlt this e-mail reads, "dear senator, i am a republican. i am a minnesotan. i am a small business owner. i am considered to have a high income relative to the average american. here's my request: please work together to get this debt limit impasse settled." on thursday i received this e-mail from a man in bloomington. he writes, "i am a small business man in the middle of a fund-raising effort. the concern over the debt ceiling has caused all the angle investors to put off any

discussion of investment until they know what is going to happen. this has stopped my ability to raise funds which will lead to a new -- two new high-quality jobs in minnesota. i support a simple bill that increases the debt limit to get us through the 2012 elections as has been done hundreds of times before." yesterday i received an e-mail from a couple also. "we are retired small business owners who are watching our very, very conservative retirement account drop and plunge due to the inability of congress to come up with a plan for the debt ceiling. we trust your judgment as a senator, but plead with congress and the senate to come up with a solution. we absolutely cannot afford to see our retirement savings sink again like they did in 2008." and it's not just individual citizens. i received a letter from dakota county's administrator.

reads in parkts "if the federal government does not resolve its fiscal issues in a timely and responsible manner, it will drive up costs to taxpayers here in dakota county. being able to borrow at the lowest possible rates has meant that our county's taxpayers have gotten mordz an better public facilities from libraries to senior housing to highway interchanges and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars for both property taxpayers and senior housing residents in the past several years alone. the city of chaska reached out to my office explaining that they are planning to sell debt in august to fund a street reconstruction program and refund their water treatment plant. if congress fails to act, these projects will come at a much higher cost to residents of chaska. i received a particularly compelling e-mail yesterday from a woman from falcon heights. she wrote, "i'm writing again to say i support the president and

realize a need to compromise. it is scary for a 66-year-old retired school teacher who has medicare and social security, scary is a default and what it would do to the economy." that's advice from sue. sue gets t she gets that congress's failure to act may have a direct impact on her. but the impact is really for the whole economy. and sue is asking for us to compromise. and compromise we have. let me make one thing clear. leader reid's plan is a compromise. let me make another thing clear. house speaker boehner's plan is a tea party plan. harry reid's plan is a true compromise. it contains all spending cuts and zero revenues. during these debates, there have

been lots of ratios floating around. senator conrad, the budget chairman, proposed a balanced and sensible flan had a one-to-one spend cut to revenue ratio. personally, i like that approach. president obama was negotiating a 4-1 or even 5-1 spending cut to revenue ratio. in the reid plan, there's no ratio. it's 100% cut cuts zero revenue. secondly, will contains dollar-for-dollar spending cults to match the debt ceiling increase. this is exactly what the republicans have been asking for. yesterday, this morning i learned that 43 of my republican colleagues have signed a letter to leader reid signaling their opposition to his proposal. why? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in

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

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

g.d.p. that's what they all propose. we haven't had a spending ratio that low since 1966. and today's america is very different than 1966. we have a much older population. today we have a higher percentage of people drawing on social security and medicare benefits, more than ever before. health care costs are 15% higher, even during president reagan's 10-year spending average, 28% of g.d.p. what would an 18% cap really mean? let's use the republican study committee's budget proposed in april as an example. a budget like theirs is roughly what we would expect if we capped spending at 18% of g.d.p. their budget cut non-defense discretionary funding by 70% by 2021. like the ryan plan, the

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

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

and a balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18% would essentially do exactly the same thing. this is a perfect example of political posturing. we voted down speaker boehner's plan last night for that very reason. his plan wasn't about finding a real solution, it was all about political posturing. if it became law, it would subject americans to a very scary republican study committee reality. house republicans have shown that they don't really want that. the american people definitely don't want 5. the american people have clearly said that they want compromise. they want an honest effort to meet in the middle. sue from falcon heights is one of them. leader reid has responded to the pleas of the american people by offering us a sensible compromise. i urge my colleagues to be

statesmen for the sake of the country. please, come to the table. we are trying to work with you. for the sake of the country, the clock is ticking. thank you, mr.ught out in the debate. when washington says it's going to cut spending, it's untruthful with the american public. because both the boehner bill and the reid bill increase discretionary spending over the next 10 years by one of them $830 billion and the other $832 billion. how is it that we can with a straight face in this body talk about a cut when in fact we're going to -- and c.b.o. says

we're going to actually increase the spending in the discretionary accounts over the next 10 years nearly a trillion dollars. and you've heard the debatin the house, in the senate of a sput. and of course, that goes to what the heart of the problem is in our country. is words get twisted around to the advantage of the politicians, but to the disadvantage of the american citizens. we are in trouble financially. most people agree with that. we have programs that are in difficult straits. as a matter of fact, they're broke. they're not just in difficult straits. here's the ones that are broke. medica part a trust fund, worst case scenario, this year, 2016. that's the fund that solves and pays for hospitalizations for our seniors.

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

act, it is now estimated 25 million more people will go into medicaid. so it's broke. the census. it was broke before it started. cost twice what it did 10 years ago. $8 billion more than what was estimated. fanny and freddy, we know they're bke. $190 billion you have now committed for to pay to get them out of the hock. congress created that. $190 billion and that is where we are today. it's goingo be $300 billion or $400 billion that we will have to pay. social security. people say it's not broke. we have $2.5 trillion worth of i.o.u.'s. the fact is that that money's gone, congress stole it, spent it on other things and now we lack the ability to go into international financial markets to borrow that money to put that

trust fund whole. so why do we need to reform social security? so we c make sure it's there in the future. what we did know is in 2032 now, according to the trustees that everybody on social security will only get 77% of what they're promised and every year after that it will decline. so that when my kids are on social security, they will get about 40% o what the average social security recipient gets now. and we know we can fix it and we know we can fix it and maket sustainable forever. but we won't do that because that's politically difficult. the u.s. post office is bleeding every day. yet we haven't fixed it. we're going to do a gimmick to buy it some time. but the fact is, is we've set it up under a system when they netiate labor contracts under the arbitration system they can't consider the financial health of the post offic that would be like paying

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

insurance for the people who presently have insurance at work. hundreds of billions of dollars of additional taxpayer money are going to be required to subsidize the exchanges that those people are going to go into. beuse the penalty for dropping somebody's insurance is economicallyoo low to keep employers from doing that. so we have all these programs that are broke, and we have a discussion about the debt ceiling, but we're not talki about what the real problem is. is this government is twice the size it was 10 years ago. twice as big. and it would be great if all of it was constitutional, it could be great it was if it was all effective, if it was efficient and it would be great if we could afford it. but the fact is we're where we are today with $1.6 trillion deficits because we can't afford the government we have. and so we've not concentrated on

the very areas where we can find mutual agreement, we've had three bipartisan bills in here where we've cut money, significant money, a billion here, $5 billion here, $7 billion here, go through the senate with vast majority votes only to go nowhere. because the allowance for the debate o the underlying bills was stopped. the bills were pulled. so what do we do? well, the first thing we do is we look at what the problems are. what are the problems? we have a hundred different programs with a hundred sets of bureaucracies for surface transportation alone. why do we do that? why haven't we fixed it? that's a question the american people ought to be asking. we have 82 programs to improve the quality of our teachers run by the federal government across seven different agencies. only one of tm is the department of education. why are we doing that?

where is the assessment of how well they work? where is the metrics to say we should be spending ts money in this way because we're getting return? not one of them has a metric on it. not one of them has ever been measured of whether or not it's fective. we have 88 economic development programs in four agencies for which we spend $6.8 billion and we have another 100 economic development programs in six other agencies for which we spent another $4 billion and not one of them has ever been measured to see does it improve economic activity. d if in fact it does, why do we have 188? separate agencies to speculate economic development. i mean this isn't complicated stuff. it's common sense. every american other than the congress would fix that. we have 56 programs to teach financial literacy to the american people. first of all, i'd question whher or not we ought to be

teaching anybody financial literacy as a government when we run so poorly. but if in fact we do, why do we have 56 and, oh, by the way, not one of them has ever been measured to see if it effectively teaches somebody financial late reas. we have 47 job training programs, cost $18 billion a year, nine different agencies, nine different sets of bureaucracies, and all of them but three overlap with the other. at's according to the government accountability office. why? why would we d that? we have 18 programs for food for the hungry. that's something we all want to be involved in. 18? why 18 sets of bureaucracies? how well are they working? are they effective? could we do them better? the question hasn't been been asked by congress. we have homeless programs for both prevention and assistanc

20. six different agencies. so you have 20 different sets of bureaucracies that are designed to do the same thing. disaster response and preparedness, inside fema alone , inside fema alone w have 17 different programs. inside that one agency which is part ofhe departmentf homeland security. i asked the question why? why has it been a priority for us to work on those? why would you do? a senator: would the senator be willing to yield for a colloquy? it may surpre the senator, i hope not. but it might surprise some people listeningo this. mr. kerry: to hear from this have side of the aisle a lot of people here have enormous respect for what the senator has been talking about and fighting for and what he has achieved. and i might add he is one of

those courageous senators who has come together in the last months, working months as part of the so-called gang of six, to try to bridge the gap here. and see if we can't find a way forward. and as i listened to him, there's an enormous amount of common sense in the questions that he's asking. these are questions all of us need to join into, and we need to join into them in a process that allows us to be able to fairly and in a balanced way work on the grand bargain, as you call it, the big fix. now, i'd ask the senator, because i think a lot of americans listening to this debate -- i've been listening to it somewhat on the floor, somewhat back in the office -- and i think people have got to be saying to themselves, these guys are kind of talking past each other or something's being missed here, because you hear this side, some things sound reasonable, you hear reasonable things over here.

so people say what's hanging up this process? why is the entire country being held hostage here? so i'd like to help my colleague if he'd kind of help us bear down on what we need to do here. and i'd ask him if it isn't fair and accurate to say that the so-called gang of six -- terrible name, i think, maybe we call them the g-6 -- came together with an understanding that we needed balance in the approach to satisfy both sides and build a critical mass. and that balance required cuts. you have to put the big items, the big-ticket items on the table. that means fixing social security, reforming it for the long term, medicare, medicaid, unsustainable the current paths. defense, we've got to find a handle on some of the procurement and expenditures. but we also -- and i think the senator joined in this -- have to close some tax loopholes and have tax refm and find some

level of revenue at an appropriate ratio that allows us to fix this. and that's where the problem has been, that there are a group of folks over in the house who have just insisted no revenue at all. and what i'd ask the senator, isn't it fair to say that the gang of six came up with a sort of more balanced approach on which i believe the senate could find the ground of compromise? what senator reid has proposed i believeas cuts that republicans have supported. maybe not quitenoug yet so maybe we can negotiate that. mr. coburn: let me reclaim my time. mr. kerry: absolutely. mr. coburn: there are absolutely no cuts in either what senator reid or speaker boehner proposed in the discretionary spending. the spending will rise $832 billion over the next two years -- ten years in the discretionary accounts. now, only in washington is that

a cut. and, quite frankly, i'm willing to work with my colleagues. i've been out there. i say we have to move and eliminate some of these loopholes, that we have to reform the tax code. i'm willing to take the heat from my side on that. i don't have any problem. what i'm not wilng to take any more is a senate that won't work on the details of the specific problems. and what i'm trying to do is to outline where the problems are. where is the -- and we didn' do it when we were in charge either, senatorerry. there's been a failure of leadership in this country, in this body to attack the very problems. when we have 47 job-training programs and none of them are working well, because that's what we do know, because the very few times they've been looked at, they don't work, and we're spending $18 billion a year and we're not fixing them? the american people got to say,

what is wrong with you all? so what -- what we have to do is we have to evaluate the effectiveness of every program in the federal government. we have to limit the overhead costsf federal programs. we've put ideas out there. this is $9 trillion worth of cuts. not washington cuts, american cuts, money you're not going to spend that's less than what we're spending today, not money you're not going to spend that you would have spent more the next year. this is real cuts. each one of these is in here backed up by the facts, not biased. you could disagree with where you would make the cuts but you can't disagree with the facts in here, because all the facts come from the congressional research service, the general accounting office, the office of management and budget, the president's budget in terms of his recommendations and why, and the c.b.o. we won't go there. my problem with the senate is we won't do our work.

and we're as guilty. i don't -- this is not partisan to me. our country's future is at sta stake. and when we have two bills, one last night and one today, that is -- a literally lying to the american people when they say "cuts," i think it's unconscionable. mr. kerry: would the senator further yield? mr. coburn: well, let me finish if i will, i will give you a chance and i will yield back to you in a moment. mr. kerry: very good. mr. coburn: the fact is, we won't tell the truth to the american people. and the first truth is, if we'll be honest with them, they will understand what the necessities that will have to be brought forward in this country to be ableo solve the problems. by denying what the problem is, we will never get the consensus in this country and the embrace of the american people to do what everybody in this body knows is eventually going to have to be done. we will not have a medicare system that's like the medicare system we have today in five years. it is absolutely unsustainable. we will never be able to borrow

the money to do it. we're going to get a debt downgrade no matter what we do. we will not be able to borrow the money. so rather than continue to be dishonest with the american people about the status of where we are, what weught to do is embrace them and call for the very things that made this country great, the sacrifice of the citizens of this country to rebuild the potential for our future, to re-create a rewal in our country that embraces the things that made us great, a true free enterprise system with a limited government that will actually allow people toe rewarded for hard work, their own blood, sweat and toil and get that back and have a government take a fair share of that. on theup side, it should be more. on the downside, it should be less. i agree. the question is, is will we do it? will we continue a charade to the american people, continuing to tell them we're going to cut $800 billion, $900 bilon out of theiscretionary budget when, in fact, we're going to crease it $832 billion?

there's only $2 billion difference between senator reid's plan and speaker boehner's on discretionary spending and both of them are untruthful to the american people. both ofhem take the american people at a lap and say we can wink and nod at you and we can tell you something's that not true and we can walk out of here saying we spent less money. well, you're only going to spend less money than what we planned to spend, which was way too much in the first place, which was totally unsustainable as well. so let's just be honest with them. our deal is we don't have the courage to actually make the cuts that are listed in here. we don't have the courage to eliminate the waste. we don't have the courage to eliminate the duplication. why? because every one of these programs has a political backing and we're politicians. and -- and unfortunately, too often we're that instead of statesmen. it's time for us, both sides, to lead this country, to lead the country in a vision of here's the real truth of our problem.

now let's have a debate about what should be the number-one priority. how much should we spend on defense? should we continue to allow contracts to go way oveun? should we continue allow requirementreep in contracts, not just in defense, in homeland security, in h.h.s.? we have the same problems we have in defense, we have in all the other big agencies. we buy $64 billion worth of i.t. every year in this country. and $37 billion of it is wasted, totally blown. why? an what have we done about it? not one thing. just go look at the high-sk list for the g.a.o. on i.t. every year that happens. the census bureau snt $600 million on a device that never worked, there was no penalty for the company that did it. we paid it anyhow.

it was a cost-plus contract. and the reason it never worked is because we had requirement eep all the way through. we don't have any grownups making the purchases for this countr nobody with experience. so we're doing the wrong things at the wrong time. what we need to be doing is the right things at the right time for the right reason considering that we make sure we take care of those that need us to take care of them and then we demand participation of everybodylse. we need to cap the total number of federal employees. not because we want to but because we don't have any other choice. and we don't have to let anybody go. just through attrition, we can downsize the federal government. we waste $15 billion every five years on managing properties in this country that we own that -- that -- they're vacant, and yet we're spending that money on them. but we can't get a real property bill tough.

w -- how -- how valuable to us is $15 billion? we've got to start paying attention to the pennies and the nickels and the dimes, and we won't do it. unnecessary government printings, including us. i've been trying to get the elimination of this for three years. there's millions and millions and millions of dollars we can save by not printing the copies of this every day that nobody looks to except i did see my good friend from illinois actually look at a vote last night. but he could have got it on-line out of his blackberry. the point is we'reearing down trees to print paper we don't need. how much time do i have left? the presiding officer: the senator has 8 1/2 minutes remaining on the republican side. . coburn: all right. [inaudible] mr. kerry: mr. president, i would just ask the senator again, what i'm trying to do is help us get out of this predicament we've got where

we've got a couple of days before the united states defaults. everything the senator has said is worthy of inquiry, but isn't it true that if we could get -- i mean, part of the reid proposal and the boehner proposal proposes a joint committee that will be structured somewhat like a be closing commission that will require the senate and the house to vote in expeditious fashion on these kinds of proposals, whatever the joint committee proposes, and if the joint committee doesn't succeed in proposing something, then hopefully either the gang of six or the simpson-bowles commission. so isn't it key now to resolving this crisis and not defaulting our ability to be able to come together on a sufficient trigger or some sufficient mechanism that guarantees we're actually going to deal with the things similar to what the senator is raising? mr. coburn: well, i would not disagree that those negotiations

are going on as we speak. i'm not a party to them. i don't know if you are. i suspect the -- the -- the president pro tempore is, and we're not going to get to decide that. that's going to come to us for a decision. i don't -- look, i worked a long number of months with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. i put my name on a bill that really doesn't fix it but it was something to get us moving, it's better than where we areoday. i agree with you. but what i would tell you is that's not good enough. we are not good enough yet to where we need to be if we're actually going to solve the problem. let me just finish going through this. we need to end no-bid contracts in this country. give you a specific example. before he left here, senator lemieux got through the business bill prescreening of

payments on medicare payments so that we look -- rather than we pay them and then go chase the fraud, we got through a bill that required the center for medicaid services to put in a program to look to see if they ought to pay the bill. and what did they do? they signed a ct-plus contract for $77 million with a firm that's never done that before and didn't take a particularred-price contract from firms that have already done it before. tell me how we let that happen, and yet it happened. and when we had testimony in our committee, they said it was a fixed-price contract tonal write back and say it wasn't a fixed-price contract. we need some common sense inur government. i'll finish this upeal quick. we need to disclose the text and cost of legislation prior to passage. we need to identify duplitive government programs. we've done that. that's in here. there's hundreds and thousands of them throughout the federal

government. we need to eliminate them. we need to mandate congressional oversight. that's where our leaders, i think, have failed on both sides. they haven't mandated the committee chairmen have to do the oversight that's required to solve this problem. we need to freeze the size of this government. we can't affor the government we have today. the debate is about what will happen in the future, what will be the revenue increases, what will be the spending increases. but nobody's talking about decreasi the size of the federal government. we can't afford this government. we can't afford to continue to spend the money that we're spending. so i'll close with this, if we continue to be less than straightforward with the american people about what we're doing here, about the reid bill -- the reason i wanted to

debate the boehner bill is i wanted to make this point on the boehner bill. when we call something a cut of $900 billion, just because the c.b.o. says we'reoing to spend $900 billion less than what we were planning to spend but still $832 billion more than that we are spending now, that's not a cut anywhere except in washington. and we ought to admit it. if that's the best we can do, the american people need to know th's the best we can do. but we can't play the games anymore. i have another colleague, i think, that would thraoeubg >> before the house vote on the debt ceiling, house armed services committee told them they could not support the senate debt and deficit bill because of defense spending. the committee chair and other members take part in this 30 minute news conference.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> good afternoon. i am chairman of the house armed services committee. we have many of our chairman of support -- subcommittee chairmen with us and the chairman that served on both committees. the chairman of the veterans affairs committee. last night, for the second time, the house of representatives passed a responsible plan to arrest the

nation's deficit and avoid a government default. senator reid dismissed this, offering a proposal that is a little more than smoke and mirrors. let me put this plainly. it would give the president full freedom to continue his spending spree. it makes in significant reforms to the real driver to our debt -- entitlement programs, while backing the -- hacking away at dwindling resources needed by our armed forces to keep america safe. this president has for three years tried to pay for massive and irresponsible increases in domestic spending on the shoulders of our troops. severing funding for our military by half a trillion dollars. that policy has failed. our debt has exploded while our military funding has withered. our men and women have

diffone too much to be shortchanged by this president and his allies. we owe them our liberty, but this administration treats them as another number on the chalkboard. the impact has been nothing short of striking. our navy fleet is eroding. the smallest it has been since 1916. we are down 50,000 manpower since 9/11. the army and marines are stretched dangerously thin, separated from their families and using hardware that has breen chewed up by a decade of fighting. those planes average of 30 years of age, forcing constant maintenance to keep them in the air. these warriors have bennett

willfully neglected for too long. now i understand that the chairman of the joint chiefs is in afghanistan, visiting with the troops. the question they are asking, are they going to be paid if this default happens? let me put this plainly. if senator reid's plan passes, if we stand idly by while this administration pays down its domestic spending spree with the blood and sweat of our troops, our military will break. by accepting three years of defense cuts, we allowed ourselves to be distracted from the entitlement programs that are bankrupting the country. that stops here. it stops with this committee. the budget that we submitted last night cancels' president obama's credit card. it creates the conditions necessary for businesses to flourish, strings are government, and most important halts three years of neglect to

our armed forces. thank you. now i would like to ask randy from arizona -- i don't know that came. from virginia. we were just talking about how hot it was. from virginia, the chairman of our readiness subcommittee. >> i want to first thank the chairman for holding this conference. i think this is an important issue. over the last several weeks, we heard a lot about the word compromise, but the american people realize that overlaid on any type of compromise are two other words -- or maybe one word. we need to make sure we have common sense and would never compromise behalf. we do not understand why is that the democratic administration constantly believes we need to compromise our national strategic assets. many of us when jimmy carter gave away the panama canal, we

scratched our head and said that does not make common sense. when this administration started talking about reducing some of our missile defense systems in europe, we said that did not make common sense. of course, when we watched this, we gave the space program away to the russians and chinese. some of us said that did not make common sense. this takes the cake. when we are looking at $859 billion. if we let that go through, then we will watch and we will sit and presided over the dismantling of the greatest military the world has ever known. that is not just an hour words. we had a hearing this week where we had the vice chiefs there and each one of them said how devastating cuts of this magnitude would be. if we look at the marine corps, they have said specifically they cannot meet the needs of the combatant commanders today, but if they have to make these cuts,

it will come out of personnel and there will have to reduce their force structure and have to have a new strategy and how they tried to defend the u.s. if you look at the army, the army general said that it would end up coming out of the force structure and have to reduce the forces that we have and that we just could not sustain this kind of cuts. if you move on to the air force, the general had interesting thing. he recognized the growth the chinese have, and he said something very true and shocking. he said, when the chinese say they will have 300 j-20's in 5 years, you had better believe it and we had better be ready. we have these kinds of cuts, we are taking a very old fleet and cutting that dramatically. when we look at the navy, we had

the and roll that testified with the navy, and how difficult it would be to sustain cuts of this magnitude. already, the navy has $367 it million shortfall in their maintenance. the result is that we have gone from 8%-22% from failures on their in serves which is now acceptable. when you look at the shipbuilding plan the pentagon has presented to us, they indicate that we need a floor of 131 ships. the panel that reviewed the qdr said we needed 346 ships. the current plan according to cbo will not get as the 313. it could drop as down to 270. at a time when the chinese, for the first time in our lifetime, have more ships and their navy

than in ours. we cannot afford to do that with these kinds of cuts. this is why we have to take a stand and make sure we do not allow them to happen. thank you. >> now i would like you to hear from a gentleman from florida, alan west, the man who commanded troops in the field. where's allen? >> thank you. it was about three weeks ago had the opportunity to go down and visit some of our soldiers, men and women, at hunter army airfield. when i talk to the leadership of the combat aviation brigade, who were recently returned back from operations in afghanistan, i heard things that sent a chill down my spine. when the commanders told me that we are starting to have to budget toilet paper in the barracks, because that reminded me of the times i was at fort bragg as a battalion executive officer and i had to do the same thing. it reminded me of the times we

had to identify a vehicle or howard certification or piece of equipment - -howitzer or other piece of equipment to make sure that we kept other equipment because we did not have the spare parts necessary. it reminded me of the time we did not have the artillery that we could go out and train our crew. it reminds me of a time when friends of mine and armored units said they had to park their tanks and use golf carts to do tactics. it reminded me at a time when i deployed to iraq in 2003 and we did not have enough body armor, so i had to lend my body armor to my driver. thank god when he was shot in the chest, he had the right type of body armor. now, i stand here as a congressional representative and having lived through those times in uniform, i am not going to turn my back on the men and women, some and many are my friends, and one of them is my nephew. i am not going to turn my back

and allow them to have to suffer and goes to the types of things we had to go to just so we could have midnight basketball programs that were brought forth from administration. it says in our constitution, one of the responsibilities of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. and perhaps the president should have thought about this in all of these budget cuts before he committed us to an operation in libya, we are wasting precious american tax payer dollars. it is unacceptable for me. i will not stand by and allow with the greatest military the world has ever known, the military my father served in new world war ii, my older brother served in in vietnam and i gave 22 of might years -- 2 years of my life in, to destroy that. and for those of you that did not remember, you are looking at

a person that even before he was sworn in talked about there are places where we can cut the defense budget, but it is not about wholesale cuts. it is the same as i found three wasteful department of defense programs and we got those programs eliminated. that is what we need to do, instead of having these major cuts, because we cannot afford to send our men and women, four and five times, into combat some operations without the proper training and equipment. thank you very much. >> we have with this also the chairman of the subcommittee on defense appropriations, mr. bill young from florida. will you tell them what the reid program would do? >> i think you have covered that very well. i apologize for being late, but there was an accident on the highway. not me, i was not involved in the accident. my comments will be very brief.

the chairman and i worked together ever since we had both become chairman in this congress. and we are determined that we are going to provide for the national defence, but we will make savings were weekend. and this year, in cooperation with the chairman and the armed services committee, the defense appropriations subcommittee reduced h.r. 1, the cr, which was last year's defense preparations bill, reduced it by $18 billion. the bill we just passed in the house for fiscal 2012, reduced it by $18 billion. so we are working to save where we can, but we made very sure that we did not make any reductions that would affect our readiness or that would affect anybody serving in our military, and that is a commitment we have and the commitment we will keep. and part of that commitment will

be voting against the reid proposal. there is one final comment. our investment in our nation's defense, and the men and women that were the uniform and provide for the nation's defense, should not be some magic political number. not be pulled out of a hat, and not just decided based on if we can get the votes. it should be decided on what is the threat. what is it that the united states of america is going to have to do to maintain our security and to provide the equipment thta allen was talking about to determine that if a soldier needs equipment, it is available. that is my commitment. it was a real pleasure for the tremendous spirit of cooperation that exists between the defense appropriations

subcommittee and the armed services committee and the outstanding members of both of those committees. thank you very much. good to see you all this morning. >> thank you, chairman. >> any questions? >> yes? >> can you compare the proposal yesterday to the one today? >> can you see it? you will have copies. follow along with me. on the top line, that is the budget that was submitted to was a year ago february from the president. the numbers are what would be spent in defense over the next

10 years. if you follow-on to the fourth line, you see the ryan budget that we passed earlier. as has been stated by chairman young, we have made cuts in defense. we have made cuts in defense. if you look at that, over the next 10 years, from the president bozos submit all from a year ago, we have cut $315 billion out of defense. if you go down to the next line, the preparations bill, we have cut -- we took those numbers. it is cost of living increases, spread out. cut $439 billion. we are saying that is it.

if you look at the read budget, it cuts $859 billion, which is another 400 billion over and above the cuts the people are trying to live with right now. the budget that was passed yesterday would freeze our spending at the level that was passed last year. at, until weoking have a balanced budget, we can only control a two-year cycle. that is what that bill would do. >> you voted for cap and balance. if i understand it correctly, the senate version puts spending in five or six different pots. it is a percentage of gdp.

mr. young, you said that it was based on the number and it should be based on what the need is. how can you vote for cut, cap, and balance, but you cannot have an across-the-board cut? >> what we're looking at is going out 80 years. when we get into defense budgets, annual budgets that we vote on that become law, the authorization bill, the appropriations bill, we understand what the environment is going to be. we are passing a rebels. the senate is not. we will end up in a c.r. we will negotiate. we have a bottom line we will not go below on defense. we will fight those battles as we go. >> you may have answered this form a. is there any combination of cuts

that you see coming from the you negotiate over? >> there does not seem to be a lot of negotiating. the speaker has tried since the first of this year. the first time he met with the president, he told him we would help him. he wanted us to extend the debt limit. the speaker told him at that time, we will do that, but only if we have a corresponding cuts in spending. he has been trying all year to negotiate. when he gets up to the line, they moved the line. it has been difficult. i understand we are down to crunch time. there will have to be something negotiate. we will work that out before monday, hopefully. >> mitch mcconnell has been representing republicans.

they are working on some sort of senate proposal. what is your message to him in terms of where you are willing to compromise and where you are not? whether it is defense or otherwise? >> we will not -- we are on the defense committee, authorizing appropriations. we will not cut below this line of $439 billion. where we got here is secretary gates, a couple of years ago, was talking about, we could not go below a 1% increase in the future over inflation. i think he saw this coming down the track and was trying to be proactive. he came up with asking the service chiefs. cut $100 billion. they could use that and find efficiencies for things that were more important. they did that.

when he came to us and explained it, he said, we found another $78 billion. it took out that percentage over inflation he had been talking about a few months earlier and said that we will cut the force of the marines and the army. he said, that is the end. we cannot go more because it will have to come out of force. we have men and women who have been deployed 5, 6, 7, 8, i talked to a marine who was going to afghanistan for his ninth deployment. you know, this is wearing our army and our marines and service people out. we said, that is it. the president gave a speech and said, we need to cut another $400 billion. >> the chairman has asked me to look at this from the readiness

subcommittee popov you. in the senate, they want to argue and compromise on numbers. we are not looking at numbers. we're looking at changing a system. please don't miss what the chairman just said. if you look at the national defense, four questions have to be answered. they have always had to be answered. the first one is this, what is the true risk assessment? what is the threat to the united states of america? it is crucial that we ask that question and accurately. the second question that has to be asked is, what are the resources are combatant commanders need to fulfill the mission is necessary to defend the united states of america from those threats? the third question is, how can we get those resources in the most efficient means possible? the fourth one is, what can we afford to spend? what is the risk that we assume

if we don't spend this money? we're here is the crucial issue. the only thing the administration and the senate has been asking is part of question number four, which is, what do they think we can afford to spend, and what do they want to spend? they have not been putting on the table and asking, what is the risk the united states of america assumes if we do not supply the resources necessary. what all of us are saying is this, we are not going to go there. we will make sure we are asking all of those questions. that is the only way we can defend this country. we cannot compromise asking those questions because we cannot change the risk that the country faces. >> yes? >> use a $439 billion is your bottom line.

even the most generous part of the proposal goes below that. >> that is something, when chairman young gets negotiations on the c.r. and sits down with his counterparts in the senate, he will fight to keep that, i am sure. do you want to say any more? he just had an operation. in the hospital, they dropped him. did you know that? >> we have to meet with the senate. you know that. on defense issues, the senators are usually investing less than the house is prepared to do. in the house, we are bound by the 302b allocations, as determined by the budget

resolution itself. the members i have talked to have told me, don't care about us having a budget at all this year. we are not exactly sure where we go. we send that bill to the senate. we are not waiting for their action. we will stay within our allocations. we will not exceed that budget. we are going to do everything we can as the chairman has said. the top number has got to be one that keeps us secure. there is no question about that. we are not going to go beyond where we think we can do it safely. the major cuts that we made this year were made by scrutinizing almost every contract to see if

there is slippage, to find out if there was any cancellation in mind of a contract. we were able to work out a number of arrangements where contracts were being canceled, we would play termination costs to the contractor, and we were able to work with a contractor to get them to not take termination costs, but to use the money to complete the program. some of those were extremely successful. there are a lot of ways to come up with these dollars. it is getting more difficult all the time because of the slush funds. we have pretty much taken all the slush funds. we continue to work. it is an agonizing job. the members of congress should be very happy with the members of this committee because we don't play politics. there is no politics in any of the work that we do. it is strictly what is good for

the country, for our nation's defense, and what is good for the men and women who provide the nation's defense. >> last question. >> yes. we have seen reports that the wars have cost up to $4 trillion when all is said and done. in the context of the debt reduction debate and sustaining the strong military force, if you have some sort of revenue raiser that would target those costs specifically -- would you support a tax or something like that? >> you can always send in more to the treasury, if you like. i would encourage you to do that if you feel that way. we will not support a tax increase. the problem is not that we need more taxes.

we need to cut the spending. we have had runaway spending in the last few years. if we cut the whole defense budget and the whole rest of all are things that we get a chance to vote on, we would still be running a deficit. though real problem is the courage to address the entitlement programs. that is the only way to really fix that. this will get people back to work. if we can cut unemployment in half, take 40 million people who are out of work, if we got half of them back to work, it would make a huge difference in our deficit and budget. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> both houses of congress are in session this weekend for the ongoing debt ceiling negotiation. president obama urged democrats and republicans to resolve their differences and pass legislation he can sign by tuesday to reduce the deficit and avoid a default and the degrading of the credit rating. kyl gives his address and warns of the consequences of not meeting the deadline for raising the debt ceiling. >> today, i would like to speak to you about getting our fiscal house in order. republicans just spent precious

days trying to pass a plan the majority of republicans and democrats have already said they would not vote for. it is a plan that would not solve our fiscal problems, but force us to relive this crisis in a few months. it would hold our economy captive to washington politics once again. if anything, the past few weeks have demonstrated that is not acceptable. any solution to avoid the fault must be bipartisan. it must have the support of both parties that% here to represent the american people. there are multiple ways to resolve this problem. congress must find common ground on a plan that can get support from both parties in the house and in the senate. there has got to be a plan that i can sign by tuesday. the parties are not that far apart. there is rough agreement on where we need to cut to reduce the deficit. we agree on a process to tackle

tax reform and entitlement reform. there are plenty of ways out of this, but there is little time. we need to reach a compromise by tuesday so our country will have the ability to pay bills on time, bills like social security checks, veterans benefits, and contract we have signed with thousands of americans businesses. we don't, for the first time ever, we could lose our triple a credit rating, not because we did not have the capacity to pay our bills, but because we did not have a triple the political system to match it. make no mistake. those who reflectively oppose tax increases on anybody, a lower credit rating could be a tax increase on everybody. we could all pay higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and credit cards. that would be inexcusable and self-inflicted by washington. the power to solve this is in our hands. all that is needed is a simple vote that democrats and republicans have taken for

decades, including all the leaders in congress today who have done it 18 times -- 17 times under president bush. it does not allow congress to spend more money. raising the debt ceiling gives our country the ability to pay the bills the congress has already racked up. it gives the united states of america the ability to keep its word and it lets businesses and our economy breathe a sigh of relief. on monday night, i ask you to make your voice heard in this debate and the response was overwhelming. one of the e-mails was from a woman named kelly smith who want to send this message to washington. "i keep my home and clean. i work hard at a full-time job and give my parents and the money i can so they can afford medications. i pay my bills. by all appearances, i am a responsible person. all i am asking is that you be responsible. i have my house in order.

all i am asking is that you get yours the same way. -- the same with." we need to get our house in the order. democrats in congress and some senate republicans have been listening and have shown themselves willing to make compromises. now all of us, including republicans in the house of representatives, need to demonstrate the same kind of responsibility the american people show every day. the time for putting party first is over. the time for compromise on behalf of the american people is now. thank you. >> good morning. i'm the senate republican whip jon kyl of arizona. by now, but americans the lawmakers are engaged in a difficult debate about the debt ceiling, the legal limit to the amount of money the federal government can borrow. the debt ceiling is currently set at a little more than $14 trillion and if the congress and the president don't reach an agreement to raise it by

tuesday, the treasury secretary tells us america will no longer be able to pay its bills. the consequences of missing this deadline could be severe. it is precisely because of washington barrault's so much money, more than 40 cents out of every dollar spent. spending would have to shrink by 40% quickly. what is more, markets would likely respond, dropping in value and hurting their retirement savings of millions of americans. republicans have tried to work with democrats to avoid this result and put our country on a better path, but we need them to work with us. we start from the understanding that the reason the debt ceiling is a problem is because of runaway washington spending. republicans have been united in the belief that raising the debt ceiling without making significant spending reductions would be irresponsible. the debt crises rolling across europe, we know it is only a

matter of time before people start to question whether america can sustain its huge and growing debt. if we don't do something about our spending problem now, the scenes we have seen playing out across europe could happen in america. if we don't change the way washington operates, we will not get control of our government or our future. in short, we hope that the need to increase the debt ceiling could be an opportunity to make some very hard decisions to reduce government spending. unfortunately, after weeks of negotiations, it became clear that democrats in washington did not view this as an opportunity to rein in spending. instead, they sought as an opportunity to impose huge tax increases on american families and small businesses. president obama is simply too committed to the european style of big government that his policies have set in motion. to democrats in the washington,

the answer's not to cut spending, but raise taxes, and -- and keep on spending. democrats claim they would only target of a privileged few, but behind-the-scenes, they argue for broader tax increases. the simple fact is, in order to afford the government this president wants, taxes would have to be increased dramatically, and for middle income americans, not just the wealthy. job-killing tax increases are the wrong medicine for our struggling economy. back in 2009, president obama admitted that you don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession. this is -- this is just as true today. at the moment, more than 14 million americans are looking for work and cannot find it. according to economists, healthy economy is one in which unemployment is around 5%. the unemployment rate today is 9.2%. we have more bad news as of

yesterday. the economy grew at an annual rate of just 1.3% in the second quarter. the first quarter growth was downgraded to just 4/10 of 1%. raising taxes will only make this worse and prolonging the debt crisis will only add to the ongoing economic uncertainty. republicans believe we must solve our debt crisis. we believe we can solve it if democrats will work with us. no one will get everything they want. we can solve the problems at once, but surely we can reach an agreement that will increase the debt ceiling, impose accountability, and begin reducing the size of our federal government. that may not be what some in washington really want, but it is what americans and the economy really need. >> on "washington journal," amy kremer talks about the influence

thehe tea party on debate. catherine rampell discusses what happens if the u.s. the fault. -- defaults and that impact on consumers. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> if you are asking me to try to be direct with you about a political situation, i am not going to be predictable in terms of saying, the left is always right, the right is always wrong. i will tell you what i honestly think and see if we can agree. we may have. of disagreement. i will try to give you my honest assessment. >> sunday, fox news juan williams on the controversial comments that resulted in his firing from national public radio. his new book is "muzzled."

c-span's "q&a." >> the u.s. house rejected the debt ceiling plan offered by harry reid. the vote was 173-246. it needed to/free to pass. it allows a $2.40 trillion increase in the debt ceiling while cutting the deficit by $2.20 trillion over the next 10 years. here is the house floor debate on the bill. this is an hour and 10 minutes. the speaker pro tempore:or what purpose does the gentleman from california rise seek recognition? mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2693, to cut spendi, maintain existing coitments and for other purposes, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2693, a bill to cut spending, maintain existing coitments and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> parliamentary inquiry, mr.

speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman has the right to be heard. the gentleman from massachusetts will state h inquiry. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, is it true at a bill considered under suspension of the rule denies the minority party the right to offer any amendments or even a motion to recommit? the speaker pro tempore: a motion to suspend is not liable to amendment on the floor. mr. mcgovernfurther parliamentary inquiry, meerks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. mcgovern: is it true that it requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in order for a bill to vote? the speaker pro tempore: under rule 15, a motion to suspend it will have 3, a quorum being present. mr. mcgovern: further parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry.

>> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: is it also true, mr. speaker, that a bill considered under suspension of the rules does not pass if it receives a simple majority vote but not 2/3 of the vote? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. mcgovern: and further parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. mcgovern: does this mean that speaker boehner's bill to raise the debt lit and to destroy medicare would have failed if itould have been considered under suspension of the rules yesterday? the speaker pro mpore: the gentleman has not stated a quirequoir. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. drer: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this measure and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: mr. speaker --

te speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i think this is the first time that i've offered a reid proposal in the house of representatives. anone might ask why it is that we are here doing this, and it's very apparent to me why it is that we're here doing this. and that is we want to ensure that next tuesday we see an increase in the debt ceiling so the social security checks go out, we have -- we bring about spending reductions and maintain the credit rating of the united states of america and do everything that i believe that both republicans and democrats alike want to have take place. as you know, mr. speaker, we have passed from this house two measures within the last two weeks. the cut, cap and balance measure and just last night the boehner proposal which as we all know stem from a bipartisan meeting that he had exactly one week ago this afternoon in his meeting with senator reid right

down the hall. and unfortunately mr. reid no longer supports the proposal that we passed last night, and senator reid has said on several occasions that his plan is the only plan that can pass both houses of congress. now, five minutes agoenator mcconnell once again asked senator reid to bring up this plan that senator reid said was the only one that could pass both houses of congress and senator reid said no. thursday night i introduced this measure of senator reid's and was asked in the rules committee yesterday by mr. mcgovern whether or not we would bring it up and i said we didn't plan to. but the fact is senator mcconnell, having made the request now at least twice in the other body to have it brought up, asked us to raise

this measure here and that's exactly what we are doing. now, if we look at where it is that we're headed, we all want to have a bipartisan compromise that will ensurehat on tuesday we see that inease in the debt ceiling take place and do these other things. that's what the speaker of the house and the demoatic leader of the united states senate, along with leader mcconnell, leader pelosi discussed a week ago today. and as speaker boehner said from the well last night, this was an agreement which was supported by senator reid. but things have changed, things have changed, we know that. but there is one thing that has not changed. and that is we have to act as quickly as possible. we need to come up with a compromise and you know what? since senator reid happens to believe that his measure is the only one that can pass both

houses of congress, we are going to let him know when we defeat it here in the house of representatives that it is not the plan that can gain broad support in the house and the senate. and so for that reason, mr. speaker, we are bringing this up , we, i believe, should have an opportunity for every member of this house to go on record on this issue and i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this proposal so that we can come together with an important bipartisan compromise to achieve the goal that we all say that we share and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this process has become a joke. it is a disgrace. it's an insult to the american people. i would say to my friends on the

other side of the aisle, now is the time to act like grownups. this is the time to put our country before your political party. this is the time to put our country before the tea party. this is the time to do what's right. today you are bringing up the latest version of the reid plan. under not only a closed rule but under the most restrictive process we have in the house. usually reserved for noncontroversial bills. this is a $2.5 trillion bill ing brought up under the same process that you bring up bills naming post offices. 20 minutes of debate, no amendments allowed, we're not even allowed to offer a motion to recommit to where you need a 2/3 supermajority. under this process your own bill would have failed. that's right. if your bill were brought up under this procedure, your bill would ha lost last night. mr. speaker, the only bill we should consider on the house floor is one that has been agreed to by the house and senate leaders and the president of the united states. so why are we doing this today?

let's be honest, you'rdoing it to score some cheap political points. i would like to remind the speaker of the house that he's the speaker of not just the republican party but that he's the speaker of the whole house. now is a time to bring us together, nottary us apart -- not tear us apart. maybe the reid bill is the one that can unite us because it achieves tremendous savings without decimating medicare, medicaid and social security. but, mr. speaker, to bring it up under this process is cynical and it demeans the housef representatives. i would say to the republican leadership, enough political stunts. our country is facing a terrible economic crisis. a crisis that you created and one that you can avoid. but we've run out of time. now is the time for leadership, not bad political theater. now is the time to be to behave like legislators. please rise to the occasion. the reid bill is not the bill i would have written. it's not the truly balanced approach that i would have hoped for. there are no revenues in this

bill. but i think it's the best approach that is on the table right now. and i'm willing to compromise. so i will vote yes on this bill. i'm willing to put my country first. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. members are advised to address their comments to the chair. not to other members. the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: at this time i'm happy to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished former chairman of the committee on appropriations, my friend from california, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. lewis, is recognized for as much me as he wishes to consume. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, if it were not for the remarks of my colleague from california as well as his colleague from the rules committee, iouldn't be making these remarks. i'll begin with a quote. the facts that we are here today

to debate raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. increasing america's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. leadership means that the buck stops here. inead washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backsf our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership, americans deserve better, unquote. senator barack obama, march of 2006. by 2009 senator obama had become president obama. in two years since he became president, federal spending has increased by over 5ds00 billion a year -- $500 billion a year. in the past two years he has

added nearly $4 trillion to our national debt. now president obama is in favor of increasing the national debt limit. when, oh, when will the real barack obama stand up? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california elds back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, sordered. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, my colleagues, our neighbors, our friends sent us here to be responsible and to come to the aid of our country at a time of

crisis. our country is at such a time now. our people confront uncertainty and fear and they're looking to us, looking to us for the courage to compromise and act to prevent default and to prevent gridlock and irresponsibility. yesterday we learned that investors in american stocks lost more than $400 billion when just a few days ago speaker boehner said he could not compromise with president obama. now we're standing -- notwithstanding the remarks of my friend from california, the chairman of the rules committee, who talks about aipartisan compromise, i tell my friend, you have not moved a single centimeter towards compromise with our side of the aisle.

not a single centimeter. and what do we see in the united states senate, my friends? we see a majority leader of the united states senate who has the president with him, so, yes, you control 1/3 and you control over 40%, so you can stop things from happening in the senate, but the people aren't looking to us for what we can stop. they're looking to us for what we can do. for what we can do to make our country healed at this point in me. so what has senator reid done with this bill that you introduced, guaranteed to fail? this is the second time you've put a bill on the floor to extendhe debt limit guarantee to fail. it is a pattern, frankly, i is a -- i say to you, my friends, and it's a pattern that the american

public ought not to count on. what senator reid has done is he's taken the view of the speaker boehner and leader cantor and said, we need a long-term solution. and then he has compromised notwithstanding the fact that all of us on this side believe that the wealthiest among us should help take us out of this crisis and not rely on the most vulnerable among us. and so there is norevenue in senator reid's bill, notwithstanding the overelming numbers of us on this side of the aisle believe that's good policy. and i know that some oyou on your side of the aisle believe that as well. senator reid has set up a process so that we can continue to look at what we know we need to look at, bringing our deficit and debt down for which we are all responsible, my friends. i thank the gentleman.

so we confront this moment of responsibility. i believe my side of the aisle will overwhelmingly say yes, not because they like this bill but because they believe it is a compromise that can work. because it takes so much of the demands that you have made on your side of the aisle, but if you came to congress expecting perfection, if you came to congress expecting only that you do it your way and no other way, you will be disappointed. as all of us are disappointed because it cannot happen that way. our founding fathers brought us from many places with many perspectives to try to heal our country and provide for the general welfare. let us avoid default. let us set ourselves on a path of compromise. my friends on the republican side of the aisle, we're going to vote for the most part for

this bill. we do not believe it's perfect. but we believe it's possible. america expects us to do that. the summer soldis and sunshine patriots will retreat at this time of crisis. do not do that. i yid back the balance of my time. mr. dreier: i yield my friend an additional 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i will say that i was prepared to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from maryland and explain to him that if senator reid believes that this is a great compromise why will he not respond to senator mcconnell's repeated requests to bringt up in the united states senate? and with that, mr. speaker, with

that, mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield one minute to our presidential candidate, our good friend from still water, minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. the use will be in order. mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker. throughout this debate over guaranteeing insane never-before-seen in the history of this country levels of spending, president obama has coolly stood on the sidelines, his arms crossed, very simply castigating republicans for not giving him a $2.4 trillion blank check. meanwhile the only plan that the president has put forward is his february budget which in itself contained yet one more $1.5 trillion deficit. the president has no plan. only the republicans have offered plans. now is the time for the president to show leadership and the only leadership that he's showing is one that's saying,ities ,ities ,ities --

saying, tisk, tisk, tisk. weall on the president of the united states to finally engage in the process. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota, mrs. bachmann, yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me just remind the gentlelady that no one on the democtic side ever walked out of a meeting. at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise anextend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: i've been here almost 29 years. this is a disgraceful moment. this country wants compromise. what you're doing with this bill is to undermine the chances of compromise. that's what you're doing. you're trying to throw a monkey wrench in the reid bill before

it can even leave the station. that's what you're doing. you' trying to make sure that the senate cannot work its will. why isn't this bill being brought up? because senator reid wants to sit down with senate republicans and work out a compromise and you're bringing up this bill to mke sure that this will never happen, this is a disgraceful moment, mr. dreier, it is a disgraceful moment. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. levin: no. mr. dreier: madam speaker, may i yield time to friend? may i yield time to my friend from michigan? am i allowed to eld time to my friend? mr. levin: mr. dreier, you have always spoken and the -- mr. dreier: i am the author of this measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not been recognized. mr. levin: i want you to yield to me. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

mr. levin: mr. dreier, it's clear what you're doing here. mr. reid wants to sit down and work with mr. mcconnell. what you're trying to do is make sure that a signal is sent to the senate, don't bother, we're going to -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. levin: yes. mr. dreier: i say the action we are about to do here today is see the process that senator mcconnell and senator reid work together. why? mr. levin: i take back my time. mr. dreier, that is pernicious nonsense. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their comments to the chair, not otherwise. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i didn't hear you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: i said members are reminded to address their comments to the chair and not to others. mr. dreier: i will not only address you, madam chair, i won't point my finger at you as i address you.

the speaker pro tempore: thank you. mr. dreier: let me say, madam speaker, that senator mcconnell has just minutes ago asked senator reid to bring the reid propos to the floor of the united states senate and a decision has been made by senator reid not to bring the measure up. on at least three occasions senator mcconnell has asked since senator reid has said that his proposal is the only one that can pass both houses of congress, senator mcconne has asked us to show what we all know and had a is there is not going to be a majority of suppt in the -- all know and there is not going to be a majority of support. we look forward to the discussions that will take place between speaker boehner, senator reid, leader mcconnell, leader pelosi. and with that, madam speaker, i'd like to yield 30 seconds to a hardworking new member o congress from indiana, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for 30 seconds.

mr. young: thank you, madam speaker. we need to cut spending now. we need to control spending in the future. but the american people understand that our foremost constitutional duty here i congress is to make sure that america is safe. former secretary gates said that further cuts to our military will mean there are certain things our military won't be able to do and places they won't be able to go. this proposa the reid-obama plan, proposes to cut spending by $85 billion or 10 years compared to the president's fiscal year 2011 budget. yet, the president and senator reid h told us which places we won't be going and which missions we won'ting doing. it's irresponsible. i can't support this proposal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, a member of the committee of the ways and means, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: this republican ploy is too clever by hat.

at the very same time republican senators are filibustering against bringing up this proposal in the senate. the house republicans are insisting on bringing it up here so they can vote it down. while it is imperfect and imbalanced, this reid proposal protects educational opportunities for college students, it protects retirement security through medicare and social security, and it provides more important resources for public services than the reactionary house republican budget. with house republicans still at fault for refusing to seek any type of middle ground, the reid bill is the least worse alternative to avoid default. as desperate as they were last night,o cobble together a handful of votes to pass a partisan boehner bill, they are even more desperate to defeat this reasonable middle ground because they insist it must have 2/3 votes in this body. let us join democrats in unity

to approve this proposal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself 10 seconds to remind my friend from texas that the measure we voted on last night stemmed from the bipartisan agreement that was put together one week ago this afternoon right down the hall. and with that i'm happy to yield one minute to my good friend from jefferson, louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. if you look at the reid bill it doesn't even start to address the problem. with all of the budget gimmicks and shell games, people would recognize if you have an honest conversation it doesn't even start to tackle the spending problem. now, hardworking american families back home know the problem in america is not we got corporate jet owners and millionaires and billionaires, the problem is that washington spends too much money. you don't solve that problem by sending more money up to washington to spend even more. and so when the president talks about a balanced approach, what he really means is more job-killing tax hikes. families back home know what we really need is a balanced

budget amendment to put accountability back in place in washington, to control this rampant out-of-control spending in washington and to finally attack the real problem and that's washington spending. i oppose the bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jery, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: madam speaker, this agreement offers the calm, reasonable compromise the country wants. st amerins don't want to let the debt ceiling expire. this bill solves that problem. most americans say, you know what, you probably could cut about 5% in most government programs. not everybody believes that, but that's what this bill does. most americans say there ought to be some other way to look at difficult entitlement programs and other issues that the bill sets up a process to do that. what the bill does is recognize the difference between the two parties and puts that difference aside.

the majority party wants to make rical changes in medicare and social security. we do not. we believe that the wealthiest americans should pay their fair share to solve this problem. the majority party does not. the bill leaves that disagreement aside, focuses on the areas of agreement. you know, american troops on patrol are not askin under what conditions they should do their duty this afternoon. they're understanding their duty and they're doing it, and so should we. pass this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield 130ekds to my good friend from colorado, a hardworking new memb of the class of 87 people that came in here to change this place, mr. tipton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. tipton: thank you. when we hear our colleague from texas this is the least worst

alternative and that's our best choice? i think the american people demand and deserve better. it's time we put people before politics and partisanship aside so that we can have progress for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: for what time? mr. mcgovern: i yield for unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for unanimous consent. ms. jackson lee: i stand here united for america voting yes on this bill to save medicare, medicaid and social security. as an american i ask unanimous consent to put my statement into the record. he speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, a member of the financial services committee, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. scott: thank you very much. thank you very much, mr.

chairman. ladies and gentlemen of the house of representatives, this is not a nation of tea party people. it is not a nation of democrats or republicans. it is a nation of all of us, and what the reid plan presents, it represents the tea party, the republicans and the democrats and the president of the united states. this is what the american people expect us to do. that is what has made this country great. at critical times we've come together and we have compromised. we're protecting medicare. we're protecting social security. we're protecting medicaid as the people of this country want. and yet, as the republicans and tea party wants, there are no tax increases in this. as the president of the united states has asked us, therewill be a second act in the year 2013. ladies and gentlemen of this house, the time is present. it is time for us to do the american thing. stand up for the amerin people and let us compromise in

the best interest of a of us so this nation will not go into default. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what ppose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: mam speaker, i yield myself 15 second. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: the house is not in order, mam speaker. well, it is now. madam speaker, i think it's very important to note that yesterday and today we are continuing to hear that under the boehner proposal that cuts in medicare and social security would take place when in fact both the boehner and reid proposals have virtually identical, identical plans to put into place -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: joint select committee that would in fact report back tohis institution. thank you very much for helping to obtain order, friends. and madam speaker, i'm happy to yield one minute to my very good friend from houston, a member of the appropriations committee, mr. culberson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

recognized for one minute. mr. culberson: thank you. madam speaker, it's important for everyone to know the reason the house is considering this bill today is to put up another guardrail, to show what the house cannot do. it's important in any compromise to understand what can and cannot be done. the house will not pass this new constitutional conservative majority of the houswill not pass the reid bill because of its devastating cut to our u.s. military. the house is going to find a way to compromise with the senate, but it is not going to include massive cuts in the military. it's -- as we've established, not going to include tax increases. it looks like it's going to include some sort of select committee that will make recommendations to the congress. we're going to find a way to make sure that america does not hit the brick wall of running out of the ability to borrow. but this is one of the most important debates, one of the most important votes we will have in our ief time here in congress is to make sure we're protecting our kids and grandchildren from a crushing unaffordable level of debt. so we're working hard to find what the limits are, -- limits

are of what the house and senate will do. we're not going to cut the military as the reid bill would. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 second. combovegove make no mistake about it. from day one this majority has put the military on the chopping block. and the reid would disamate medicare as we know it and -- the boehner bill would disamate medicare and the military as we know. i yield to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam speaker. i would point out that to my good friend from texas, madam speaker, as a constitutional conservative he should recognize that the constitution itself was a series of compromises. and our nation and our economy is being pushed closer and closetory default. hardliners on the right, extremists by any other name, have refused to compromise. we are putting in jeopardy the

payment of social security obligations, paying the members of our military, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff yesterday couldn't even answer in the affirmative that he was confident that those payments could be made if we fault. we're putting in jeopardy the full faith and credit of our nation. yesterday, seniors in my district called my office in tears wondering whether we would deult and what those consequences would mean for them. these are real people who live on social security to survive. we have many strongly held views on both sides of the aisle. i don't like everything in the reid proposal before us. but compromise is critical. i recognize that i can't have everything 100% my way. democrats have been at the compromise table for months. with an empty chair onhe other side of the aisle. it is time on the other side of the table, it's time for republicans to warm that seat across from us. . dreier claims that republicans have brought the reid proposal to the floor to show that it doesn't represent a bill that can pass the house.

yet, the process is a sham. the bill has been brought under a rule that requires a 2/3 vote of this house for passage which they know cannot happen. what are republicans afraid of? they're afraid if their propose might just show how much support there is for this proposal. where are the cooler heads in the republican caucus? where are they? they appear to not exist. your caucus seems to be held hostage by extremists and have driven the moderates from the room and from the discussion. allowing extremists to take over is doing harm to our country. president obama, house and senate democrats have said that we are willing to support cuts. even to programs we would not -- can i have another 15 seconds, please? mr. govern: i yield the gentlelady 15 seconds. ms. wasserman schultz: we said we would support cuts even to programs we would normally fight to preserve. republicans have doubled down in a groundhog day move that has pushed dead on arrival

proposals by bringing us closer to the brink of chaos. at the end of the day the stewardship of our economy is in jeopardy. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the gentleman from california is recognized. . mr. dreier: i'm happy to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from from washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized for one minute. miss harrah beutler: the reason we came here, this caucus is here, the freshmen are here because the american people said enough. they said you are spending too much of our money. that's what this conversation is about today. the president stood on the -- across the row tuppeda a couple years ago and said it's a failure of leadership to raise failure of leadership to raise the debt