i'll note that the corker-mccaskill proposal is responsible and mainstream and it could hopefully attract a good deal of support from both sides of the aisle. over in the house of representatives, there are also some good ideas. budget committee paul ryan has been the leader on fiscal issues and that chamber will soon consider his budget plan for the next fiscal year. chairman ryan believes this blueprint could reverse washington's trend of spending beyond its means and passing the debt on to our children and grandchildren, and i believe he's on target. his budget reflects the kind of difficult and politically unpopular choices that lawmakers will need to make in order to do something about our unsustainable spending and debt. and perhaps that's why

another idea that is sponsored by senators corker and mccaskill, a republican and a democrat, is they call it the cap act. and that cap act would cap both mandatory and discretionary spending. it would put all government spending, in other words, on the table. it wouldn't just take the discretionary spending that we're talking about tonight to keep the government funded. we would also include all of the other spending. beginning in the year 2013 the cap act would stare federal spending tkeuplts that over ten -- limits that over ten years would reduce spending to 20.6% of the gross domestic product. calculated a little differently, that is an average of the last 40 years of spending. what it would do is create a glide path by which we could gradually reduce the spending so that you don't have to do it all at once. the reality is if we try to be too strong here in the way we're going to reduce spending, we're not going to be successful because people just won't stand for it. you've already seen the debate today and yesterday. oh, my tkpw-dness, you're going it -- my goodness you're go

clare mccaskill said this. she said, the average american family doesn't blame teachers and firefighters and cops and nurses for the problems america has. you know what, mice message to some of my friends on the far right is, better feedback. >> -- used to feed the o'reilly is. where does that come from? >> i don't know where that came from. we changed the name deliberately. we wanted a more universal name. >> what do you think of the nasdaq? >> i look through it at a new york prison. i wanted to stay the financial capital of the world. i looked to see if any of the mergers made that happen. my worry about the merger, as i made clear, i think the name matters. in this case it matters. the new york stock exchange brand is the greatest brand. my worry about the nasdaq takeover is jobs in new york because there would be a lot of duplication and competition. whereas with the nasdaq and the nyse being one, you would have virtually no competition. >> on the german and, as visibility gets more traction, can you imagin

mccaskill: mr. president, i think there are times around here that we lose sight about what real people are -- are doing in our home states. i think we lose sight of the struggles, their daily struggles, how they live their life with integrity and honor every day and go to work, and yesterday we got a call in my office from a young lady, and she was on her cell phone. she is a nurse, a nurse's aide at the v.a. hospital in st. louis. she was on her break, she was on her cell phone, and she talked to the young lady who answers our phone and said i want you to tell the senator that i've got kids and i bring home the paycheck, and the way i feed my kids is with my paycheck i get working here at the v.a. hospital, and i'm scared. i'm scared. about what's going to happen if all of a sudden i quit getting my paycheck. i've got really no place to turn i'm a single mom, and i am very worried. and then she said would you hold on a minute? and then she handed her cell phone to someone else in the break room at

chairman. >> thank you senator mccaskill. thank you very much. we came close keeping a commitment, and we did the best we could. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]r. >> do you feel blindsided by a quick >> no, not atyo all.is were [inaudible] >> authorization to pull out the would forces. pull >> these are resolutions, though >> these are resolutions. not authorizations. you're talking about -- >> only thing that would enforce them would be the power of the purse cutting off funds, and i don't expect that would happen. in fact, i'm sure it won't happen. >> have had you any discussion with the pentagon about supplemental -- i know secretary gates thinks he can pay for it internally. >> too many other things to look into that. first question, in terms of authorization, the first thing you come up with would are senator paul's sense of the senate and i d

i'll note that the corker-mccaskill proposal is responsible and mainstream and it could hopefully attract a good deal of support from both sides of the aisle. over in the house of representatives, there are also some good ideas. budget committee paul ryan has been the leader on fiscal issues and that chamber will soon consider his budget plan for the next fiscal year. chairman ryan believes this blueprint could reverse washington's trend of spending beyond its means and passing the debt on to our children and grandchildren, and i believe he's on target. his budget reflects the kind of difficult and politically unpopular choices that lawmakers will need to make in order to do something about our unsustainable spending and debt. and perhaps that's why democratic erskine bowles, head of the president's deficit commission, praised the ryan budget as a serious, honest and straightforward approach. end of quote. notably mr. bowles and cochairman alan simpson said the president's budget doesn't go nearly far enough in addressing the nation's fiscal challenges. chairman ryan's budget would return

last year, madam president, i supported the efforts of my colleagues, senator sessions and senator mccaskill, to enact discretionary spending caps. while this proposal by itself could not balance the budget, restraining discretionary spending growth is an important piece of the puzzle. i voted with senator coburn to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending by consolidating duplicative programs and sported senator bennet's -- and supported stpho*r pw ep tkp-rbs senator pw*epb tphofs effort to pay down the deficit. i supported $12 billion in cuts and pushed for many more. these are all important steps, but what our country needs now is for congress to reach across the aisle and build consensus around a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction package that will put us on track to prosperity. ever since the economic downturn, families across the country have huddled around the kitchen table making tough choices about what they hold most door and what they can -- hold most dear and what they can live without. they expect and deserve their leaders do the same. the american people a

i think the legislative cap on spending is something that i worked with senator mccaskill on, you worked with her on, and has potential to help us deal with the crisis we're in. i would just agree with you and i truly feel that the american people have a a right to be angry with congress because congress has run up the largest deficits in history. we're on a trajectory that every witness we've had before the budget committee, and some fabulous witnesses outside the government, all of them say it's an unsustainable path that places our nation at risk. and we have no real plan to deal with it and we should never have been in such a deep hole. so i think people have a right to be upset with us. senator isakson, i know you're one of georgia's most successful and effective businessman, and you've been involved in -- in running the education department of the state of georgia. i guess i would ask you as a businessman and as a -- just an american citizen, how do you feel about where we are and do you think that we are in a serious crisis that requires us to alter our business as usual approach?

senator mccaskill. >> i just finished presiding and raced over here. what about secretary gates or admiral mullen, what is the government's capability of the rebels? we know their shortcomings in terms of their ability to advance in terms of their military operations. what about governance? do we think the international council in benghazi is able to work in remote areas of the country? >> the answer to the second part of the question is no. the government's capability at this point is limited if not nonexistent. >> assuming that we are going to be optimistic here and gaddafi -- gadhafi leave tower quickly, have our allies at nato talk about what happens in the interim -- will this -- will we sit back and watch to see what develops? >> secretary clinton carried the burden to negotiate with our allies and coalition partners. whether that was discussed a few days ago i don't know. >> egypt. i know with what we are committed to and i agree with the assessment that has been made by our leadership in regard to libya. i worry that we are taking our eye off t

mccaskill: in order to stop cancer research for women in this country. i would urge that we come together. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, thank you. i rise today to speak of course on the budget issues we're facing, the continuing resolution, all of the issues that have been talked about over the last week or so. mr. president, oftentimes when i speak on the senate floor, i talk about what it's like back home in nebraska. i do so because i'm enormously proud of my state and it just seems that -- that our state does so many things right. so again today i'm going to take a moment or two to get started here and talk a little bit about that and my experience in dealing with budget issues. i had the great honor at one point to serve a couple of terms as mayor of a really great city, the community of lincoln, nebraska. and it was a strong mayor form of government and so each year i would have the responsibility of preparing a budget and submitting it to a seven-person city council who would take it apar

joe manchin, claire mccaskill, michael bennet, ben nelson, bob menendez, debbie stabenow, jay rockefeller, kay hagan, jeff merkley, ron wyden, mark warner, sherrod brown, tom harkin, chris coons, john tester, sheldon whitehouse, and senator mikulski and senator begich, myself and senator casey are the first two names because it happens to be our bill. it's the boxer-casey bill. so in closing, i want to just spread the word from here over to the house side that we are really serious, those of us who signed this letter. we are keeping this issue in front of the american people. because i assure you, if you walked out and asked anyone that happened to be walking down the street who was not involved here, didn't work for the federal government, and you said this -- in case of a shutdown, because the two sides failed to negotiate an agreement, the only people who are assured of their pay -- assured of their pay -- would be members of congress and the president, what do you think? i think the average person would say, that's wrong. they should pay a price. this is a basic function of theirs. to