is recognized. mr. hoeven: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. h.o.v. thank you. mr. president, i would like to speak this afternoon about an issue that i believe -- mr. inhofe: thank you. mr. president, i would like to speak this afternoon about an issue that i believe is paramonth -- mr. hoeven: thank you. mr. president, i would like to speak this afternoon about an issue that i believe is paramount to control our deficit. i want to begin by tell ug a little bit about my home state of north dakota. that's because today while much of the nation is greatly challenged by a recession and joblessness, north dakota is strong, arguably the strongest that we've been at any time in our history. the reason is jobs. last week north dakota at 3.7% once again has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, a distinction that we've held since june of 2008. nationally, as you know, the picture is much different.

as i speak, nearly 14 million americans are still out of work. the rate of unemployment is hovering at nearly 9%. where it has been for many months. another 8 million americans are underemployed, working part-time because their hours have been cut or they haven't been ail to find a full-time job. sadly, a million more have just stopped looking. make no mistake, america has a budget problem because of too much spending. but also because america has a jobs problem. i ask you, how do we generate revenues to help balance our budget, pay down debt and provide the essential services people need without raising taxes. jobs -- how do we empower people to access affordable health insurance and quality health care without intrusive ghast

programs? again -- jobs. how do we help secure social security and medicare for our seniors and future generations: jobs. mr. president, if we put 10 million of those 14 million unemployed workers back on the job, at the average national wage of about $45,000, it would generate more than $50 billion in additional revenues for the social security truflt fund and an additional $13 billion for medicare every year. obviously, that would make a huge difference for both of those programs. clearly, to fully address our current economic predicament we need to create jobs and lots of them. those jobs will be created by the private sector, not by government. by the private sector. but to help our entrepreneurs and businesses create them, we must build the best business climate possible. ten years ago in north dakota, we set a course to do just that. beginning in 2001, when i first

took office as governor of north dakota, we made conscious policy decisions that would over time grow and diversify our economy and create thousands of jobs for our citizens. first, we set out to build the best business climate possible forge ago legal tax and regulatory climate that would attract investment and stimulate innovation. second, we developed a road map for success, an economic strategic plan that targeted industries where north dakota holds natural advantages owing to our resources and our people. as part of our larger strategy, we also developed a comprehensive energy policy called "empower north dakota," which worked aggressively to develop all of our state's natural resources and energy resources both tradditional and renewable. we even established a north dakota trade office, a

public-sector, private-sector partnership that brings new dollars in our state. as a result of these efforts, between 2000 and 2009, north dakota's economy grew at an average annual g.d.p. growth rate of 6.4%. so by the end of the decade, we had grown by 75%. that compares to a national growth rate over the same time period of 41%. and all that work to cultivate overseas markets worked, too. our exports of farm machinery, biotech prudes and other north dakota goods grew by more than 300% in 10 years. that compares to a national growth rate of just over 60%. as a result, we balanced our budget year in and year out and today we have no general obligation debt. we have a substantial surplus and strong reserves to secure our economic future. furthermore, to get there we not

only held the line on taxes, we reduced them. we reduced property tax and we reduced income tax. over the decade, we generated nearly 15% growth in total employment, encompassing almost every sector of our economy. and every region of our state. at the same time, we boosted per capita income in 84% of the national average cialtion well below the national average in 2000, and today we're above the national average, 103% of the national average in per capita income and we've moved up from 37th among all the states to 17th. in terms of our ranking among the 50 states. "the wall street journal," "newsweek," the "new york times," "usa today," the economist, forbes, money magazine, even "the london times ""all have written about north dakota's progress. joel cotkin in a recent piece called "north dakota's approach -- quote -- essentialable

thinking" -- about the economy. last year the chamber of commerce ranked north dakota number one of all 50 states as the top economic job creator and performer for the decade. now, the things we did in north dakota are not unique to our state. the principles that we used are based on common sense and a belief that the american economy is the engine that drives the car. we can create jobs and lift our nation out of the financial quandary that we're a in. if w we have the will to act and if we focus tirelessly on the kinds of things that create jobs and opportunity for our people. to do that, i would like to propose a three-part strategy to get america working again. first, we need to create a legal tax and regulatory climate that gets business investment off the sidelines. and gets people back to work.

second, we need to rein in spending and control our debt and deficit. and, third, we need a comprehensive progrowth energy policy to fuel our economy, reduce our dependence on foreign energy, and create good jobs for american workers. let's go through each one ever these very straightforward recommendations, starting with the need to create a strong business climate for america with the kind of legal, tax, and regulatory certainty that investors need to create jobs. that means passing legislation that wil eliminate or modify misguided regulations that are impeding busines businesses in r country. that effort is already under way in the senate. senator pat roberts of kansas has hoferredz a bill called the regulatory responsibility for our economy act, which i am proud to cosponsor. this bill will give the force of

through a presidential executive order issued earlier this year that proposes to review -- quote -- "rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insurvetion or excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand in some cases or repeal them." if passed, our bill will make sure that we will take a cleareyed look at the rules and help restore regulatory certainty to the markets. when we talk about unwarranted laws and regulations, however, we don't need to look too far into the past. we need only to look at -- we can also look at recently enacted laws that impede job creation and sap economic vitality. last year's federal health care bill, for example, included a 1099 reporting provision that introduced a new level of bureaucracy and expense for america's nearly 28 million small businesses. the very engines of job creation in this country. but it's not only the feature of

last year's -- excuse me. small businesses have created 64% of all the new jobs in this country over the past 15 years. and they account for more than 97% of all employers. if we expect them to create jobs and get our economic engine going again, we need to reduce the regulatory burden, not bury them under burdensome, new mandates like the 1099 requirement. that's why i and a bipartisan group of senators, led by mike johanns, signed on to a bill that just this week eliminated this ownerous provision in last year's health care law and sent it off to the president for signature. i want to commend my good frie friend, senator johanns, for his leadership and hard work 0en this important issue. but that's not the only feature of last year's health care bill that is undermining our business climate, driving up health care costs, and limiting choice for

consumers. punitive lawlts and defensive medicine are inflating the cost of health care for american consumers by as much as $100 billion every year. yet the health care bill that is 240now being implemented acrossr country doesn't reduce these costs. we need tort reform that will help make health care more available and reduce cost. similarly, we need to exspanned competition among health insurance companies. more competition will give consumers more choice, and expand the pool of the insured, thus, creating further downward pressure on the cost of premiums. just as importantly, by reducing health care costs and the regulatory burden on american businesses, we can help them to reduce costs and do what they do best: create jobs. and competition works to our advantage not only in markets at home but in global markets as

well. another way to strng our economy and get job creation going again is by promoting more international trade. smart trade agreements can restore america's competitive edge, create more income for american citizens, more opportunities for americanent preen nurse, and more foreign dollars to help balance our trade deficit and our budget. they can also help us turn around our trade imbalances with countries like china, south korea, and the european union. we have multibillion-dollar trade deficits with all of them. $23 billion with china in january alone. we can start the process of turning these deficits around by ratifying impending trade agreements with south korea, colombia, and panama that have been languishing for three years. our trade imbalance with south korea aloan last year was $10 billion. but the agreement awaiting approval right now could create up to 250,000 american jobs. on the other hand, if we fail to

act, we stand to lose 380,000 jobs to the european union and canada who have already completed their own trade agreements with those countries. with bipartisan support for these agreements, there's no reason for further delay. we need to afnlgt empowering american businesses and entrepreneurs to do business around the world is just common sense. and that common sense is pr presighsly what we need to apply to all of our nation's challenges. i can give you a good example in my home state of north dakota. right now we're facing serious flooding in the red river valueland for sometime we've been working to fight chronic annual flooding in the red river valley, which includes the city of fargo, one of our region's most dynamic economic engines. part of government's role in creating an environment for private investment and economic development is securing and protecting infrastructure so that businesses can thrive.

in the case of fargo in the valley, the federal emergency management agency, fema, has found it necessary to buy out houses in that area because it's more cost-effective than protecting them year in and year out. now, when the agency buys out a property, however, it has a hard and fast rule prohibiting building structures on that property, even flood mitt gas emissions structures to prevent development that might require future protection from flooding. it's a reasonable ban and some, maybe in many cases, but certainly not in all. as a consequence of the rule, every year the federal government helps to pay to build temporary levees to protect homes along the red river and every year we're compelled to tear those levees down again at great expense to the government after the flood, and ultimately of course great thence expense to the taxpayer. everyone knows that permanent dikes could clearly be more cost-effective and save money for local, state, and federal

governments. reserve dents know it. fema knows s local officials know t but under current law ness a nothing they can do about it. that's why i'll be introducing legislation called the fema common sense and cost-effectiv cost-effectiveness act of 2011 to give the agency the flexibility it needs to make commonsense decisions in these cases. building those levees once and leaving them in place will provide better flood protection for people and for property, better fiscal stewardship and save taxpayer dollars. and that's important. because good fiscal stewardship is now a matter of pressing, decisive consequence for america's future. that's why the second thing we need to do, of no less importance than build ago good business climate is to reduce spending. we need to control spending by the federal government. here the numbers speak more clearly than words. revenues this year are projected

to -- projected d to be -- revenues now, are projected to be $2.2 trillion. at the same time, current spending by the federal government is more than $3.7 trillion. leaving a deficit of $1.5 trillion to $1.6 trillion. to meet that shortfall, we're borrowing 40 cents of every single dollar we spend and our debt is growing at the rate of $4 billion a day. every dollar used to service the debt is a dollar that won't be used to rebuild america's infrastructure, that won't be used to keep social security solvent, that won't be used to reduce taxes on american businesses so they can create jobs and raise the standard of living for american workers. mr. hoeven: that's why i and 63 other senators, 32 republicans and 32 democrats, sent a letter to president barack obama earlier this month urging him to show leadership in those efforts to achieve comprehensive deficit

reduction. it's also why i and 46 other u.s. senators announced last week we were cosponsoring a bill to create a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. and i want to thank our leader, senator mcconnell, for leading that effort. nearly all states have been bound for years by constitutional provision to keep spending within their means, and this amendment requires that the federal government do no less. it would cap spending and balance our budget, but it also allows an appropriate exception for times of war. at the same time, it provides a transitional pathway to implement the law and protect programs like social security and medicare for our seniors and future generations of americans. to put this into perspective, the cost of serving america's -- servicing america's debt over

the next ten years over the president's proposed budget, $992 billion, is more than the entire social security deficit for the decade which is about $600 billion. in fact, fixing our debt and deficit involves not only setting priorities and cutting discretionary spending, which we're already working hard to do -- and we need to work hard to do -- but also addressing the three entitlement programs, social security, medicare, and medicaid, which count for more than 60% of federal spending. we need to undertake a bipartisan effort to reform these important programs in a way that both safeguards our seniors and other vulnerable individuals now while protecting the solvency of these programs for generations to come. we need our president to engage with us in this process. we can do it. we must do it. and we need to start now. and my third recommendation is

that we begin the process of building a comprehensive energy policy for the nation. an empower america plan, if you will, that promotes the development of all of america's energy resources, both traditional and renewable. creating a comprehensive energy policy is especially important because our entire county, our entire economy and, consequently, job growth depends on affordable and abundant energy. a few weeks ago, the u.s. chamber of commerce released a study identifying 351 stalled energy programs nationwide that are costing the american economy $1.1 trillion in lost economic impact and, more importantly, nearly 2 million jobs annually. by impeding our energy industry, we are imeegh impeding one of tt potent areas of prospective job growth. yet congress has not passed a comprehensive energy policy in our country in years.

and, frankly, i don't know that we can wait any longer for that single, sweeping master plan that will do it all at once. we need to build it as expeditiously as we can. in north dakota, we built empower north dakota over a decade piece by piece and saw firsthand the power of energy development to boost our economy. by embracing empower north dakota, our state alone has realized $12 billion in new energy-related investments since 2005. with the right kind of energy policy, imagine what the impact would be for our nation. to expedite the process of building that energy policy on a national level, i'm working with leader mcconnell and entirety republican conference to create the kind of legal and regulatory climate our country needs to jump start america's energy sector and create jobs. for example, this week, mites myself, along with -- this week, myself, along with other senators, cosponsored an

amendment introduced by senator mcconnell to the small business authorization bill. based on legislation offered earlier this month by senator inhofe, which i and others cosponsored, this legislation sought to curb the e.p.a.'s authority to regulate greenhouse gas and encourage domestic energy development. a permanent measure like this is needed to provide the certainty that businesses need to maybe billion-dollar investments in new energy projects. and, more importantly, create the good-paying jobs that a robust energy sector can provide our country. our measure won 50 votes yesterday but failed to gain the 60 necessary for passage. we need to continue to work with our colleagues across the aisle to pass this legislation or legislation like it because impeding the energy industry is not a republican problem or a democrat problem, it's an american problem.

it's a challenge that we need to step up and solve. that's why in a similar bipartisan effort, i am working with senator joe manchin to support the e.p.a. fair play-a play-act, to create more certainty and more energy investment for our country. i've also asked the energy information administration to conduct a focused analysis of regulations that could be impeding the development and growth of the nation's domestic energy production in an efforts to find more ways -- in an effort to find more ways to create rules of the road that will encourage energy companies to invest billions and to build our energy future in america. increased domestic energy production is a three-fur. we not only promote economic vitality but we reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy and we create jobs. while the -- well, the reality is we can do all these things and more. we can provide a commonsense legal and regulatory

environment, a favorable business climate for our industries. we can build a comprehensive energy policy that leverages all of our vast energy resources together with good environmental stewardship. and we can reduce spending and we can live within our means. we can pay down debt and leave our children a strong financial legacy instead of a large debt burden. these are all things we can and we must do for our nation. we need to work together, high fellow senators, to do just that. for the strength and financial well-being of our country today and for the benefit of future americans for generations to come. the future is truly in our handsment thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i want to congratulate the junior senator from north dakota for his

initial speech here in the senate and say to all of our colleagues, it should be no surprise that he was sent here by the people of north dakota by an overwhelming margin. during his tenure as governor, the state enjoyed extraordinary success. he -- at a time when many states were struggling financially, north dakota had bulging surpluses, low unemployment, almost entirely as a result of the outstanding job then-governor hoeven did in representing the people of north dakota. so as i say, it's no surprise that they sent him to join us here in the senate by an overwhelmingly large majority, and i congratulate him on behalf of all of our colleagues on his initial speech. mr. . the presiding officerthe presid.

mr. manchin: madam president, i, too, rise in support in congratulating the senator from north dakota on his maiden speech. i'm known then-governor hoeven for quite some time. his wife and my wife have been very good friends. what you heard is basically a background of the success that he has had in the leadership of his great state. what you don't know is his ability to reach across the aisle in a bipartisan manner. i can only say that john's a dear friend and john's the type of personality that we need in this body to mend this partisan gridlock that we find ourselves in. and i can't tell you how pleased i am to be still a colleague of his and look forward to many years of success working together, reaching out, finding the problems that we have, addressing the problems and then, like a good governor, taking on and making some good decisions, as he's done so well in north dakota. so my dear friend, it's so good to have you here. congratulations.

mr. hoeven: madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. tester: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i'd ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. madam president, this week i got an e-mail from a first grader in mi seoul la, montana, seven years old. her note told me that -- it said, "senator tester, please pass a budget so that i can go to yellowstone national park this weekend." "or at least wait until monday to shut down the government." i get a lot of letters and calls reminding me what's at stake if some of our colleagues continue to put politics ahead of doing what's right. but i'll always remember that e-mail from missoula. madam president, even seven year olds expect us to get our job done. they expect us to work together to pass a budget. they expect us to work together

to make responsible cuts. they expect us to make sure we don't put our government's entire economy on life support. and that's exactly what will nap some in congress let the government shut down. they'll fail all of us. if drawing a line in the sand becomes more important than working together, i think that's shame. of course, we can't afford the status quo either. we all know the problem. everyone wants to point fingers. i can spend my time pointing to those who thought it was a good time to put two wars we're fighting onto the taxpayers' credit card or those who squandered $128 billion budget surplus in a matter of months about ten years ago. but i'll leave it at this: our debt and spending problem is not something that we got into overnight, and it's not something that we're going to get out of overnight. it is not going to be fixed by slick talking points ginned up by washington, d.c., consultants

t won't be fixed by symbolic gimmicks. and it certainly won't be fixed by irresponsible decisions like ending medicare as we know it. it won't be fixed by gutting student financial aid or our physical infrastructure. those create jobs now, when our economy needs it the most. our spending and debt problem will be fixed by embracing a responsible, credible long-term strategy to cut our debt, to cut spending, discretionary and mandatory. right now we're talking about cuts to only 12% of the budget known as discretionary spending. to -- to strengthen our entitlement programs so they work for future generations. to reform our tax code so it's fair and sustainable. and to cut our defense where we can afford to cut it. we owe it to all americans to get the job done but we owe it to them to get the job done responsibly. and that's going to require some

volume. but we've done it before. during the great depression, we endured incredible sacrifices but we had inspirational leadership who challenged us to grow our way to prosperity n. world war ii, we worked together and made sacrifices at home to build the machinery that helped us win victory. that momentum also created a powerful middle class. the attacks of september 11 brought us together again and again we grew strong. when we work together, we succeed. it's in our d.n.a. it's what makes us the strongest, most innovative nation in the world. now we've got to summon that strength and determination again to lead our way out of economic challenges. it won't happen with gimmicks. it's going to take responsible decision making, compromise, and shared sacrifice. several of our colleagues here in the u.s. senate are already leading the way. i want to compliment senators

chambliss and coburn and conrad and crapo and durbin and warner. they're working on a bipartisan strategy to cut debt and cut spending. their plan will include cuts to discretionary spending. it will make our entitlement programs stronger. it will propose cuts to defense spending, and it will include tax reform. last year, senator alan simpson, and earn skin bowles led a bipartisan commission outlining a smart, long-term credible strategy tore cutting debt and spending. senator simpson and mr. bowles say they had 14 reasons for volunteering their reasons on the debt commission. between them, they have 14 grandkids. while i may not embrace every component of their plan, i applaud their hard work, their leadership, their patriotism. and their hard work is a solid blueprint that we are already building from. i'm ready to join them and so are many of us in this chamber with you just need to do it.

montanans are patriots, mr. president. they are ready and willing to follow our lead in providing a fair tax code, that provides certainty and fairness. they're willing to share in the pain of responsible spending cuts that won't take our economy backwards. and they know that we can afford to make cuts in defense. they know we need to fix but not dismantle or privatize our entitlement programs. what's the alternative? well, we may find out the hard way if folks aren't willing to work together to reach agreement by midnight tomorrow. shutting down the government means our troops in iraq and afghanistan won't get their paychecks on time, even though they'll still be serving us. this week, i heard from a soldier deployed in afghanistan. he says he would be okay in a short shutdown because he has some savings but if their paychecks stop coming, a lot of his fellow soldiers will be hurt. many have lower ranks, many have pressing financial obligations

like mortgages and car payments, kids to take care of. they would get the short end of the stick. we have a duty to make sure the people who fight for us in harm's way don't have to worry about something as simple as getting a paycheck. that's why today i signed on to an important piece of legislation to ensure american troops on active duty continue getting paid if the government shuts down. but members of congress are a different story. if the government shuts down, we don't deserve to get paid, plain and simple. i want to say thanks to my colleagues for unanimously approving our measure to prevent congressional pay during a shutdown. now, the house needs to follow our leadership. if they fail and if i still get a paycheck, i'm going to give it back. a shutdown also means that government doesn't honor business contracts so that would cost jobs. it means the i.r.s. suspends refunds. a republican shutdown means new home loan guarantees will stop. it means the s.b.a. stops

approving business loans. cotton processing will be suspended. and it means social security, medicare, and veterans' benefits checks could be delayed. right now in montana, there are 1,240 veterans benefits claims that are outstanding. if the government shuts down, those 1,240 veterans cannot be addressed. and a seven-year-old in missoula, montana, won't be able to see her national parks this weekend. we can't afford that. nobody deserves it. we can do better and we will. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from montana. [inaudible] mr. tester: mr. president, i have i ask unanimous consent consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to end the quorum call.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, a few weeks ago as we were debating whether to move to this bill on the floor now, i sent a letter to the distinguished majority leader, senator reid. and i was joined by several of my colleagues. and we'd made real simple point, and the simple point was this, we have a spending and a debt crisis. we need to act and we need to act now. and so rather than continue to bring up various cats and dog bills, various matters that aren't related to that crucial, central spending and debt question before us, we should focus on the task at hand. we should focus on our greatest challenge, meetin meaning that spending. the majority leader did not heed that call. he proceeded with this bill.

for the reasons jannetty lined, i and those -- reasons i outlined i and those others sigors moved toward this bill. as we're on the eve of a potential government shutdown, i believe what's transpired has sort of made my point over again. why haven't we been focused on that crucial spending and debt challenge like a laser beam to come together to offer sensible solutions to avoid these 11th hour or 12th hour negotiations because here we are again, here we go again, another crisis, another 11th or 12th hour negotiation, another potential government shutdown. well, i'm sorry we didn't focus like a laser beam on this central challenge sooner, but now that we're here, mr. president, i come to the floor to urge my colleagues to

do the reasonable, sensible thing and adopt what the house of representatives is about to adopt, a plan to at least keep the government functioning smoothly for another week as we try to resolve this situation for the entirety of the remainder of the fiscal year. and so i strongly support this one-week continuing resolution that i believe will very soon pass the house. you know, mr. president, we all say we're against an unnecessary government shutdown. i certainly say that and mean it. if we all say it and if we all mean it, i believe we'll support this sensible measure as we try to come to an agreement, all of us, on a plan for the remainder of the fiscal year. this one-week c.r. would keep the government functioning smoothly, would avoid those disruptions and threats that are

concerning to many americans. that sensible, commonsense plan would also offer significant cuts to the current level of spending, $12 billion of cuts, and what's important is those cuts are not very controversial. they come out of proposal propos mostly from the democratic side. they mostly come out of the president's own budget proposal or the senate democratic plan for cuts or a series of nonpartisan suggestions that were made by the congressional budget office. so i think it's reasonable to look to those sources of proposed cuts and work from those lists, and that's what this proposal does. and then the only other thing that's included in the proposal is two relatively noncontroversial so-called riders. one about guantanamo bay, which

is pretty much current law right now because of language in the defense authorization bill. and a second regarding abortions performed in the district of columbia. with regard to that second rider, again, this should be relatively noncontroversial, particularly since this very language was in full force and effect from 1996 until 2009. it was the law for that extended period of time. president bill clinton signed that ban into law six times. president barack obama signed that very language into law in 2009. vice president joe biden voted for the legislation, including this d.c. abortion banning language, seven times since 1995. even nancy pelosi on the house

side voted for legislation, including this language, 14 times. and here the distinguished majority leader, senator reid, voted for legislation including this language 10 times since 1995. so, again, this is not extremely controversial and it's certainly no reason to shut down the government. so in summary, mr. president, i'm sorry we haven't been focused on this central challenge and this central issue for the last two weeks as i had urged with my colleagues. i think we should focus, like a laser beam, on spending and debt and i think we should have been doing that for the last several weeks rather than bring the bill before us on to the floor. but we are where we are and given that, i hope we'll do the reasonable commonsense thing. and -- thing and continue negotiations for the rest of the fiscal year, but in the mean time pass the one-week measure that's about to be passed by the

house of representatives. it continues the operatio operaf the government, it also funds the department of defense for the entire fiscal year. it takes what should be beyond politics off the table. it protects our military. it gives full funding for our military men and women. it gives them certainty. we should all be for that. it cuts $12 billion from current funding levels, but takes the vast majority of those cuts, again, from the president's own lip, from senate democrats' own lips, and from a nonpartisan list of the congressional budget office. and it only includes two so-called riders which have been granted wide acceptance in the past including being passed, voted on, supported by senator reid, nancy pelosi, barak obama,

joe biden, and others multiple times since 1996. that is a reasonable path forward. that is a responsible way to prevent a government shutdown as we continue to negotiate for an overall resolution of this matter for the remainder of this fiscal year. i hope all of us, democrats and republicans, will listen to the american people, will do the reasonable commonsense thing, will move forward in a reasonable way as we negotiate on broader issues and good faith, and i hope will pass this one-week measure at a minute right now as we continue to look for an overall resolution for the rest of this the fiscal year. thank you, mr. president. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

i

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise today to express my strong concerns about the direction that republicans in the tea party want to take our country beginning with an irresponsible government shutdown simply for the sake of pursuing a social agenda. and continuing their reckless budget plan that will devastate seniors and those most vulnerable over the next decade while rewarding millionaires with even more tax breaks. i looked at this republican budget put out by chairman ryan

and it's a proposal that takes $1.5 trillion out of health care for seniors and children and gives it to the wealthiest but it does not even limit subsidies for special corporate interests like big oil. and in some doing, it fundamentally resets our values and turns back the clock on the progress we've made to protect our parents and grandparents, seniors and children in this country and keep the playing field reasonably level. but even before that discussion, i want to take a few -- make a few things clear about the implications of shutting the government down and what we on this side have already cut from the president's budget to reach an agreement. we started this year off with

$41 billion less in spending than the president requested. plus, in march we cut another $10 billion below last year's funding levels, including the complete elimination -- complete elimination -- of 33 federal programs. in total, we have offered up $33 billion in cuts for the remainder of the current funding year, which ends in september. but the most radical elements of the republican party won't take "yes" for an answer. they say we have not come far enough, which in tea party terms means we haven't given them everything they want. so they'll shut the government down rather than take "yes" for an answer. i saw a picture front page of one of the papers and it said, with a tea party banner, it

said, "shutshut er down." well, i thought we were here to keep the government going. it's clear their real reason for shutting the government down at this point is to promote a social agenda that is not acceptable to the broader part of the country. they're willing to shut down the federal government, put our economy, our small businesses, our veterans at risk and potentially delay tax refunds for millions of american families, all simply to make a political point and to try impose a social agenda of a minority on the majority. shutting down the federal government over -- over a woman's right to choose or the federal government's ability to enforce laws that protect our children's health in my view takes irresponsibility to a whole new level.

even the speaker of the house himself has said a shutdown will -- quote -- "end up costing more than we save." the speaker's right. it would cost about $8 billion every week or .2% of g.d.p. every week the government is shut down. now, the speaker's right on the substance but he has not yet been willing to lead and deal with the tempest in the tea party on his right threatening to cut our economic recovery short to satisfy a narrow right-wing political agenda. at a time when small businesses are just beginning to get access to capital they need to create jobs for american families, a shutdown will result in $400 million in capital each week not going to small businesses through the s.b.a. loan program

and will throw the engine of small business job growth into neutral when we want it to be in overdrive. in the last shutdown, more than a million dollars in small business loans to 5,200 businesses were delayed so we know what small businesses are in for if we have another shutdown. mr. president, this is not the time in our recovery efforts to say "no" to helping small businesses put people to work. in housing, the f.h.a. loan process, which accounts for 30% of the housing market, will be interrupted just as we enter the height of the spring season homebuying in my state of new jersey. with prices low and so many houses on the market, this is not the time to prevent 15,000 homeowners from getting a home loan every week, more than half

of which are for new home purchases that would reduce the inventory of the surplus properties. now, unfortunately because social security is a mandatory -- fortunately, i should say, because social security is a mandatory funding program, seniors and the disabled will continue to receive their checks. but if we let the tempests in the tea party shut down the government, interruptions at the social security administration could delay changes in people's benefits and payments. in just four days of the last shutdown, 112,000 new claims for social security, retirement and disability benefits were not taken. over 800,000 callers were unable to reach the social security administration and certainly in this economy this is not a time to leave those who rely on social security with nothing. and with the tax season upon us,

it's certainly not the right time to delay tax refunds that families are anxiously awaiting in order to make ends meet and put into the economy and help the recovery keep going. it's not the time to shut down 368 national park service sites, the smithsonian, the statue of liberty, the monuments, museums, national parks across the country which in the last shutdown lost nine million visitors and the tourism revenues to those communities. given our last shutdown occurred in the dead of winter, we can expect a shutdown in the midst of spring breaks and high tourist season to have a higher impact on tourism and family wallets that have planned visits to national museums. if we shut down the government for five weeks, we could lose up to $1.2 billion based on th

the $12 billion worth of visitors brought to the national park communities last year. and if the tea party continues to insist on a government shutdown, military paychecks would be delayed at a time when military families are struggling with multiple deployments and struggling like everyone else to make ends meet. they'll ultimately get paid, but only when the shutdown is finished. in the last shutdown more than 400,000 veterans saw their disability checks delayed. now, let's not repeat that mistake when more of our wounded sons and daughters are returning home from two wars raging abroad every day. and if the tea party continues to insist on a government shutdown, clinical trials of lifesaving drugs will be halted, new patients will not be accepted into clinical research

programs at the national intiewts of health. if the tea party continues to insist on a government shutdown, they'll put our entire economy at risk. as a matter of fact, business leaders have said that a shutdown could result in higher interest rates and chaos in the markets. every week 350 import licenses could be delayed resulting in holding up billions of dollars in american exports at a time when we need those exports to help fuel the recovery. during the 1995 shutdown shutdown, $2.2 billion in u.s. exports couldn't leave the country because of -- because a thousand export licenses could not be issued. the chairman and c.e.o. of verizon who is also the -- with the business roundtable said and i quote -- "i don't think any of the c.e.o.'s would welcome a government shutdown. it would have disruptions in the

supply chain. john england, the president of the business roundtable said -- quote -- "business would face the danger of the law of you unintended consequences. are interest rates could rise and there could be turmoil in the financial markets." this would all happen because republicans being held hostage by deepers have tea partiers have rejected spending cuts for this year because they did not get all that they wanted. because they aren't getting their way on unrelated extraneous social issues like women's reproductive rights and enforcing laws on our books to protect our children's health. they simply will not take yes for an answer. because yes on spending cuts isn't really their only goal. spending cuts is not why they are trying to shut the government down. i would remind our colleagues that democratic governments are not about total victory.

authoritarian governments do that, not democracies. in democracies we are all fairly elected to represent our constituents. we all have a view. we all have a vote. we all have an obligation to govern and legislate for every american, not just for those who hold the views of the tea party. with all due respect, mr. president, tea partyers claim to love the right to free speech but don't believe anyone's views but their own are acceptable. i would say to our colleagues we all have deeply held beliefs. defending them and shouting them from the rooftops is easy. but listening to those who disagree with us is the hard work of government. i would remind my colleagues on the other side that the word congress is derived from a latin verb meaning to walk together.

we have already made cuts to the president's budget. we have already made real cuts in this year's spending. we've offered reasonable compromise that seeks even more cuts, but more importantly a compromise that seeks common ground not capitulation and neither should our colleagues expect capitulation. all we ask is that those on the other side do what's right and act in the broader interest of the nation. not shut down the government, disrupt services, put the economic recovery at risk all to satisfy a narrow political agenda. now, i know there's a lot of fanfare on the republican budget proposal that was put out as we look to the next fiscal year. in my view, it is by far one of the most partisan, idealogical and fundamentally destructive budgets i have seen in my time

in congress. destructive of fundamental protections for every american and for what we've come to accept as fundamental protections that are uniquely american. it fundamentally take takes $1.5 trillion out of health care for seniors and children and it gives it to the wealthy. it would take health care from seniors and children rather than take subsidies from special corporate interests like big oil companies. if republicans got their way, new jersey residents would lose $34 billion in health benefits and almost 400,000 new jerseyians would see their coverage cut entirely. the republican proposal talks about cutting taxes, but in reading it i find two groups whose taxes would be cut, the rich and those who are even richer. corporations and millionaires or those soon to be millionaires would keep all of their recent tax giveaways and would actually see their tax rates slashed by

30%. now, this proposal lose loses $700 billion on the revenue side over the next 10 years by extending the bush tax cuts, particularly to the wealthiest in the country, and trillions more by slashing tax rates for corporations and millionaires. those make more than a million a year will see tax cuts o of $125,000 each from the tax cuts. and tens of thousands more from proposed rate cuts. while people in my state would lose $34 billion in health benefits an 400,000 new jerseyians end up without health coverage at all. this will shift the balance to the wealthy making cuts that do not reflect our values as a people and as a nation. and at the top of the list of draconian republican cuts is medicare. let's, for a moment, look at the

logic of the republican budget proposal when it comes to medicare, a program that since 1965 has protected seniors an made sure no older american would be without health care when they need it the most. in 1965 we passed medicare. why? because senior citizens could not get health insurance. and the reason health insurance companies would not take the risk of insuring older americans who logically would need to see doctors and receive treatment more often than younger americans is rather clear. and even if there was such a plan the cost would be prohibi prohibitive for a senior on a fixed income. so we created medicare and today it is one of our most successful programs and no senior is left without access to lifesaving drugs or the care they need. what are the republicans proposing? they're proposing to end medicare as we know it. they want to privatize medicare.

they say their privatization plan is a way of asking wealthier seniors to pay more. let's ask ourselves logically how much do we think an insurance company will charge in premiums to a 65-year-old american male who may have had a heart attack or a heart ailment or suffers from diabetes? how outrageous do we suppose the premium will be and how much of a voucher will that 65-year-old need to purchase even a minimal health care plan? mr. president, that logic escapes me. today buying a private plan on the open market for a self-employed middle-aged couple can cost as much as $18,000. the average retired american is making on average $19,000 a year. again, the logic escapes me. this proposed privatization plan for medicare completely overlooks the history of why we needed medicare in the first

place. it ill logically assumes insurance companies will provide quality health care coverage at a huge discount to older americans. mr. president, if that isn't wishful thinking, i don't know what is. so let me close by simply saying it is time to make sure this government stays open. it is time that we don't thrust the economy backwards and it is time to ultimately ensure that those who have given service to this country, like the men and women in uniform, don't get hurt and that we do by coming together with a reasonable budget. i ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. menendez: mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i could not agree more that we should not have a government shutdown. i could not agree more that we

need to take steps to protect and improve our economy. and i could not agree more that we need to take steps to make sure that our brave uniformed men and women are fairly compensated and otherwise treated. i must, however, express my profound, albeit respectful, disagreement with my colleague, the junior senator from new jersey. this is not a possible shutdown that we're facing as a result of the republican party or the tea party. as a life long republican and a founding member of the tea party caucus, i can tell you there is not one member of this body, nor is there one member of the senate tea party caucus who -- who wants a government shutdown. certainly no republican. republicans have, from the outset of this, attempted to bring forward proposals to make sure that we don't get into a

shutdown. the question we need to ask ourselves, is why does the president of the united states, president barack obama, want a government shutdown? let's ask a few questions. why was it that a few months ago, after the election, but before the new congress took over, when the president had both houses of congress under the control of his party, why did he opt not to pass a full budget for fiscal year 2011? that was the first seed that he sowed in the direction of a government shutdown. i submit that it was one that was either irresponsible on the one hand or deliberate an malicious on the other intending to bring about a sequence of events that would culminate in a government shutdown. number two, even after the new congress convened, after the balance of power shifted in the house of representatives and after a number of seats in this body shifted, the new congress

convened in january of this year, the president didn't bring forward something that could attract both houses of congress to approve and that he could fund the government with for the balance of the year. he, instead, chose to operate on a series of continuing resolutions. we're now moving up again, what? i believe will be our seventh continuing resolution if it's passed. what we have from the president is radio silence in the direction of what we need to do to move forward. a number of us have suggested all along in this process that at a point in time in america when we have a national debt approaching $15 trillion, at a point in time when we're adding to that debt at a staggering rate approaching $1.7 trillion a year, it doesn't make sense and it isn't responsible to continue even in small increments

perpetuating that degree of reckless deficit spending. so what we want to see more than anything, is it any specific set of social issue legislation. it's not any specific degree of spending cuts. it is, instead, a plan -- some plab plan that mr. -- some plan that will move us in the direction of a balanced budget. that will put us on track so that we might once again enjoy the benefits of a balanced budget. so we might again enjoy the day and age when we don't have a debt to g.d.p. ratio well in excess of 90%. because we know when we have a debt-to-g.d.p. ratio in excess of 90%, which we do now, it slows economic growth in this country by more than half, costing our economy as many as a million jobs every single year. this is ultimately about jobs because our sprawling debt kills jobs and economic growth necessary to create jobs. so, no, this is not a quick

sodic quest for per section. this is simply a quest for that which will suffice to get us back on track for fiscal responsibility. now, i mentioned two seeds that the president has planted to lead to a shut jowrntion the first being his refusal to push through a budget for the entire year, fiscal 2011. the second being his reliance on continued -- continuing resolutions. the third seed he sowed, one that i'm not sure we're going to be able to get around this time, much as we would like to is his threat, just in the last hour or two -- his threat, his promise to veto the continuing resolution that the house is expected to be passing this afternoon and that it may have passed just moments ago. he's threatening to veto that before it even gets over here. one must wonder, why does the president want a shutdown? we have to remember, these are

not drastic changes that have been proposed. in fact, they're not even sufficient in my opinion to get us back on track so that we can say, this heads us in the direction of an eventual balanced budget. these are minor cuts and yet the president insists on moving us inevitably, inexorably in the direction of a shutdown. now, while we're on the subject of addressing a false blame that has been placed on the republican party and on the tea party, i care to address the accusation that has been made by various of my colleagues, an accusation that i believe was made in ignorance and, in any event, is manifestly incorrect. dsh with regard to the tea party, this is a movement whose views are not extreme. what section extreme is a $15 trillion debt that we're adding to at a staggering rate of $1.7 trillion a year. that is extreme. as is what has happened in the

last few years, including the u.s. government takeover of everything from our banking industry to our auto manufacturing industry, to our health care industry. those things are extreme. the tea party movement is something that is shared by many americans, regardless of whether they ever appear at a rally of any kind. it's a spontaneous grass-roots political phenomenon that simply recognizes that our federal government has grown too big and has become too expensive, and we need to do something about that. many of us who consider ourselves part of a tea party movement believe that the best solution, perhaps the only solution, to this is to return to that 223-year-old founding document we call the u.s. constitution, look to those tasks, those powers that are identified as something within the exclusive power, control of the federal government. the more we do that the more well be we can turn to

constitutionally limited government of the sort that can operate on a balanced budget. this is not necessarily even a politically conservative movement. it is neither conservative nor liberal. at the end of the day, it need not be either republican or democratic. it is simply men. it recognizes that this -- it is simply american. it recognizes that this country is founded upon the principle that national governments, as they become large and powerful, have a certain tendency toward gaining an excess of power, and spending in an excess of money, and to prevent ter tyranny, a national government can function best when it has limited, enumerated powers of the sort we granted the federal government a couple of centuries ago. powers including things like national defense, establishing a uniform system of weights and measures, regulating trademarks, copyrights, patents and so

forth. included in that list you won't find anything about a government takeover of health care or manufacturing industries or banking industries. this is neither liberal nor conservative. it's neither republican nor democratic. and it certainly isn't extreme. it is simply american. it is what makes us great. it is parlt of what has created -- it is part of what has created the strongest economy and the greatest civilization the world has ever known. tend of the day, as those who have planted quite deliberately the seeds for an inevitable suddendown seek to blame others -- shut down seek to blame others, we have to remember the seeds that they have sowed and we have to be willing to cast blame where blame is due. the blame here cannot and as long as i'm standing wil will ne placed at the feet of the republican party or the tea party. we do not want a shutdown and we'll do everything we can to fight against it. if we have one, it will be because the president of the united states and members st

other party in this august body have refused to put forward a palatable, defensible budget. thank you. mr. demint: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snoer from south carolina. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i want to associate myself with my colleague from utah. i appreciate the clarity of his remarks, and i'd like to add to them. i'm glad we have some folks here today listening in. there's probably no other place in the country that you could hear so much nonsense than you're going to hear on the senate floor today and unfortunately just heard that from a colleague before my colleague from utah. the house just passed another resolution to fund the government -- fund the military for the rest of our year, pretty much at a figure we've all agreed on. it includes afunding just for one week to keep other aspects of the government open, and it makes some very modest cuts to our budget.

most of these have been agreed to. -- most of these have been agreed to in advance. but there seems to be one stick point: this bill would prohibit funding using taxpayer money to fund abortions in d.c. my colleague, who spoke just a minute ago, said this is an invasion of reproductive rights. but i'm here to tell you that no one has a reproductive right to use somebody else's money for an abortion. and that's all this is about. not only other taxpayers' money but we're borrowing money to do something at a time when the country is nearly broke that americans disagree on and it violates the conscience of many americans. but my colleagues on the other side have decided to make this the crucial issue. either republicans agree to use taxpayer money for abogses or they're going to shut down the government -- for abortions or they're going to shut down the government and say we're emphasizing social issues. this is not a social issue.

it is an american issue. even people who support abortion support the idea that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it. it is a small request. the cuts are small. but it is clear, as the senator from utah just said that this shutdown has been planned by the president and the democratic majority for a long time winning that they are win the p.r. battle thinking that americans are too stupid to figure it out. i'm confident, as we go into this, that americans are much smarter than my democratic colleagues believing. i think they're going to figure out how irresponsible the president has been, how much lack of leadership there has been here in the senate. trying to blame speaker boehner in the house who controls one half of one branch of government for a shutdown when last year the president controlled the whole government, we didn't pass a budget, we didn't fund any aspect of government, and this landed in the lap of the new

congress, which still includes a democrat majority here in the senate. there has not been one bill from the senate that the democrats agree on. the president has not sent down one funding request that we could vote for. we don't have a bill proposed by senator harry reid today that we can vote for to keep the government open. but he is saying what the republicans on the hoh house side are -- on the house side are send over is not good enough. if we had 15 democrats here in the senate who were reasonable, we wouldn't have to deal with this ridiculous, irresponsible government shutdown. i don't know what else republicans in the house could do. they sent over -- over 40 days ago -- a bill that would have funded the government for the rest of the year with very, very nominal cut. it was set up to fail here in the senate. and we've yet to have hardly any

debate on the issue. during all this time, we spent less than, you know, three hours of debate on the most important issue in the country. we spent the last couple of weeks on a small business bill. i bet no american could tell you what we're even talking b and before that we spent a couple weeks on a patent bill. anything we could do to avoid the responsibility of debating the most pressing issue in this country. and i also have to take issue with what the democrats are trying to do here with the tea party. and i'd like to remind them that many, many tea party members are democrats. and they're independents, and they're republicans. and many of them have never been involved with politics before. many are hispanic and african-american and they're all americans. but they're concerned about our country. they seem to be able to do something we can't do here: they add and subttracted and they understand you can't keep spending more than you're

bringing in and expect the country to survive. we've even brought -- we even brought up a resolution here, the senator from utah did, to have a sense of the senate that we should balance our budget. just about every democrat voted against that. do you know what that means? that means that there is an intent to bankrupt our country. because there's no way around it. if you keep spending more than you're bringing in you will bankrupt our country. that's the course this president has got us on. that's the course that senator reid and the democrat majority here in the senate want to keep us on. and when we try to do even modest, nominal reductions in spending, just to change the trend line, they are coached, as senator schumer has said, to call it extreme and to blame it on the tea parties. americans are smarter than that, and i think my colleagues getting ready to figure that owvment so we come down to the

bottom line that the senator from utah just mentions: why are they doing this? they look back to 1997, back in the 1990's, they think that they can win the p.r. battle. and even more importantly, the president needs a distraction. the focus on the president now is revealing a lack of leadership in domestic policy, in foreign policy. he's led use in a mess in libya. he's led use in a domestic mess and has us on a course to bankrupt our country. he's trying to take over health care and all those unions and other people advocating for are now asking for waives. there's been more than 1,000 waives for people who want to get out of this health care bill. this financial reregulation dodd-frank bill is threatening to hurt our economy even more. the president needs a distraction. and this is a correspondent yow graphed distraction to close --

and this is a chore yow graphed distraction to close the shall shall that's what we need right now. americans are asking us to keep fight, be bold. this is not a matter of part i san politics as much as it is a matter of national survival. we have to make some shard decisions. we can't keep spend more than we're bringing n we have to do what families do: tighten our belts, balance our checks and balancecheckbooks. these are not radical ideas. all we have to do is respond to what the house has passed today. the democrats who control this place have not offered any solution. the president has not offered any sliewsmghts and i suspect that we will not even be allowed to vote on the one option we have, what the house sentsdz over here. yet they think americans are so stupid that they can come down to the floor and blame the

republicans who really have no control of the situation except to send us what they think is best from the house. and that's what they're doing. and they need to be applaud. speaker boehner has done everything he can to try to work with all parties here to responsibly keep this government going and at the same time to recognize we cannot keep this reckless spending the president has been doing the last couple of years ag years. this is an urgent and serious matter that i am afraid is being played as a p.r. game by the other sievmentd the misrepresentations i heard just before about the budget being proposed on the house side are very difficult to swallow. the truth is very rare. i hope all americans will take the time to look at what's really going on, because this is all a blame game, and the democrats are counting on americans not paying attention and to take their queue cues fre

national media. we are going to do everything we can to keep the government open to responsibly respond to what the voters told us last november and not play the game blame with the other side. but this is being played as a game instead of a matter of serious national survival, a serious national issue. but the bill that we'll have a chance to hopefully debate, that the house just passed, we'll take our number-one responsibility to defend our country, fund our troops and make sure that's done for the balance of the year. we can argue about the rest next week but let's fund the rest this week and do what we were sent here to do. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. hutchison: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to add the names of the following senators to be cosponsors of senate bill 724: senator manchin, senator udall of colorado, and senator rockefeller. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: madam president, that brings to 43 the number of bipartisan senators, including the sitting chair, who are supporting the bill that will assure that our military personnel are paid even if there is a government shutdown. you know, we all realize the stresses that a military person and a family are under if that

military person especially is deployed overseas. we have troops in afghanistan. i was talking to my staff a minute ago, and he heard from one of his friends in afghanistan on his ninth deployment who had heard about our bill, madam chairman -- madam president, and he thanked us for realizing that there might be a delay in the military pay and for trying to address it if in fact the government is shut down. ninth deployment, and he is worried about whether he is going to be paid on time so that his family, with a one-year-old child, will be able to make sure and pay the mortgage on the first of the month. oh, my gosh, what are we thinking here? now, i think there are certainly legitimate disagreements about the spending and the budget.

i am one who believes that we should be cutting the spending. i think the ways to get there are certainly legitimate areas of disagreement. there should be one thing, madam president, on which we do not disagree and that we would unanimously pass in this united states senate, and that is that if in the event the government does shut down because the sides are still apart when the deadline comes -- friday night -- that our military get their paychecks, and those who are serving our military overseas or wherever with food service and the things that are done by civilian employees serving the military, they too would show up for work and they would be paid. we can't have somebody thinking, oh, golly, now i wonder if i'm supposed to show up to serve the

military meals in afghanistan or in the base in iraq or the police station where our troops are embedded. are we really going to ask those questions? i hope not. i hope that if there is one thing that this united states congress and this president can agree on, it is there should be no question that the mother at home with the one-year-old child whose husband is on his ninth deployment in afghanistan will not worry that she will have that hopefully direct deposit so she can pay her mortgage on time. now, madam president, senate bill 724 just is very simple, very clear that our military will be required to come to work, which will be no doubt for them, and they will be paid on time. the same goes for anybody

serving the military is essential for the service of the military. we have almost 100,000 people in afghanistan today. we have 47,000 in iraq. that is a lot of people who are serving under great stress, and doing a great job under very trying circumstances. and i hope that this united states senate, if in fact the government shuts down, can speak very clearly. now i don't think we can wait until 11:00 friday night to make that determination. the process of getting the bills and the direct deposits and all of that is in right now because the paychecks are imminent and it is about a week until the paychecks come, but you have a process, and we need to assure that process is going forward.

we know that the house as we speak is debating the one-week continuing resolution. it does have the funding for the department of defense until the end of the fiscal year. the president has said he will veto that over the riders that are in the bill, which means we could be facing that government shutdown. madam president, i don't want the government to shut down because i think we don't even know the full consequences of that to the thousands of people who are affected, to the veterans who get benefits and live benefit to benefit. for the military personnel, of course, and those in the department of defense. i think many of us are trying to make the decisions who is essential in our offices. i think it is very hard to do the constituent services if you're in a government shutdown,

and i can't tell you the number of emergencies that i get, people who have loved ones overseas, who can't get visas, can't get back, who have lost passports, and you just have so many calls that people need the services. so we have to select who are the essential services. these are all things that people are not aware of what will happen when there really is a shutdown of government. so i hope that we can come to the agreements, and if, in fact, we have an agreement that some people are saying we do for the top-line spending -- and i haven't heard it yet so i don't know if that's the case, but if the leaders have made a decision that there is now an agreement on that, i would hope that we would be able to act and not have a government shutdown.

i also hope that we will be able to pass a long-term continuing resolution. it is high time that people know what they can contract for, what government services are going to be ongoing and at what price, at what funding level. nobody would run a small business this way. nobody would run a corporation this way. well, we can't agree, so we will just have a week-to-week continuing resolution in a business? nobody would do that. so i think that we have to be focused on the big picture. yes, we have got six more months in this fiscal year until october 1, and we need to make sure that we get this out of the way so we can focus on what's going to really make a

difference and whether we can get this deficit down and get the debt off the plate of our children in the future, and that is going to be the reforms that will be tied to the -- to the debt ceiling. if we don't have reforms, that's when we should draw the line in the sand and say we're not going to have the debt ceiling lifted without the reforms in place that will not allow us to hit that $14 trillion number in the future. i would hope that we would have a ten-year plan that would start lowering the deficits every year over ten years so that eventually we would have it down to a reasonable amount as compared to our gross domestic product. that would give the credibility to the rest of the world that we're going to meet our obligations, that we would not

default, and that we would be taking hold of our financial situation in this country. that would be the prudent thing to do, and i hope we will all be able to work together to do it. but as of now, i think the important thing for this senate to do is to pass senate bill 724 that now has 43 cosponsors, and it is a bipartisan bill that says the military should not have to worry about a government shutdown. that should be the last thing on their minds. they should be protecting themselves from harm in iraq and afghanistan, and their families should be able to do the best they can to support their families while their loved ones are overseas. and, madam president, i hope that there will be a time going forward that we can pass this bill in short order. not at 11:00 friday night, but in the next day or so if, in

fact, we are not able to see our way to passing the one-week continuing resolution that would prepare us hopefully for the long-term continuing resolution to get this fiscal year out of the way and let us focus on the next year's budget which starts october 1 and the long-term reform that is going to be necessary to start cutting our deficit significantly. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, i understand our democratic leader is meeting with the republican

speaker of the house and the white house and working to try to establish the funding level that we will have for the rest of this fiscal year that ends september 30. let me explain briefly how we got here. a democratic majority in both the house and the senate failed to pass a spending level last year -- pass a single appropriations bill last year, and at the end of our session voted a continuing resolution for five months. in the course of all of that, there was a national election, and one of the most driving -- the most driving force in that election was the american people's deep concern about reckless washington spending and

surging debt that they know is endangering the american economy, can reduce growth, cause a debt crisis and put us on an unsustainable path, burden our children and grandchildren with massive debt, the likes of which we have not seen before. so the continuing resolution that passed last -- late last year carried us five months of the 12-month fiscal year, and i suppose after the shellacking the big spenders took last fall, the biggest shellacking in 80 years, huge numbers of individuals got elected to the house and a large number in the senate committed to containing spending, there should have been no doubt that when we came to

decide how much spending we would have the last seven months of the fiscal year, that there would be proposals to reduce spending. and the house, i thought, responsibly came forward with a plan that they passed, and -- h.r. 1, it calls for a reduction of spending by $61 billion and was sent to the senate over the last seven months of the fiscal year. and the senate has done nothing. they always say we're not going to pass it. we have a vote on the bill, actually more votes were obtained in the democratic-controlled senate for the republican house bill than votes achieved for the senate democrat bill. and ten democrats, senators,

were uneasy with the bill the senate majority produced because it only reduced spending spending $4.6 billion. i mean, had they forgotten what happened in november? had they forgotten that projections continue to grow throughout the year, and instead of a $1.3 trillion expected deficit this year, the numbers have grown to $1.65 trillion? $1,650,000,000,000 in debt added to our country this fiscal year ending september 30. and so we -- did not the american people expect us to do something? well, you would have heard -- you would have thought that this this $61 billion reduction is somehow the end of the world and everything is better. so we have been fighting ever since. we have had a series of short-term continuing resolutions so the government does not shut down.

why should the government shut down? because under our constitution, if the united states congress does not fund a government entity, the entity does not have a right to exist. it can't go out and operate as a government entity if they haven't been funded by the united states congress. so we have got a serious problem here and there is a lot of tension, a lot of concern. i hope our colleagues in all reach an agreement, and i hope that senator reid and speaker boehner can reach an agreement, but i'm uneasy about it. and, frankly, i'm not happy about some of the things that have been occurring. let me just show you what our -- senator reid, our democratic leader has been saying. you know, we want to have a compromise, they say.

why don't you guys all get together and be nice to one another? well, we should and we do even though we sometimes are pretty aggressive in our debate, but it's a bit much when senator reid says that the tea party is trying to push through its extreme agenda, issues that have nothing, nothing, nothing to do with funding the government, as if this is the cause of the fundamental problem we have about how much money we're going to spend. then he goes on to say -- quote -- "they have made the decision to shut down the government because they want to make it harder." for example, for a woman to get a cancer screening. you know, i have asked myself what in the world -- what could he be talking about there? and my staff think the only thing that could be referred to is the proposal to reduce funding for planned parenthood, the largest abortion provider in america. he goes on to say, "do they

really want to shut the government down because the tea party doesn't want scientists to make sure the air we breathe is clean and pure?" close quote. give me a break. he goes on to say -- quote -- ,e time we have to fight over the tea party's extreme social agenda." you know, they had a tape of my good friend, senator schumer, and he hasn't backed down from it, but they all agreed to use the word "extreme." so they called everybody extreme. they had a press conference and he got picked up and he all -- they all called everybody extreme, but one of my fine democratic colleagues wasn't quite strong enough for it. he talked about the extreme republicans, and then he said the extreme republicans, my good friends. well, good for him. but, you know, give me a break. other statements like that, the democratic leader in the house,

nancy pelosi, says -- quote -- "a g.o.p.-run budget is a path to poverty for america's seniors and children and a road to riches for big oil." close quote. and one of the congressmen over there said, "the ryan budget puts yet another brick in the wall between the haves and the have-notes. senator conrad, my chairman of the budget committee, of which i'm a ranking -- the ranking member calls that budget a "unsustainable and unreasonable." well, we've got a problem in america. our debt in this country is dangerous. we're coming out of this recession. we need to continue growth. we need to continue job creation. it's not growing really as good as people say but it's improving a little bit, and it's way slower than most recessions for

us to bounce back. but if we can just keep it goi going, fine. but alan greenspan, erskine bowles, bill gross at pimco bond company, the largest in the world who has stopped buying u.s. treasury bonds and sold all his u.s. treasury bonds, moody's evaluators have all warned us that we could be facing a crisis in short order. so we need to make some changes. also, all of this is being conducted under an atmosphere that's affected by the budget for next fiscal year, the one that will be up and should be passed this spring and would cover october 1 next year for a year, the next fiscal year. and chairman ryan and his

fabulous budget committee in the house have produced a very good budget. it's a courageous budget. it's a long-term budget. it deals with the unsustainable course that our social security and medicare are on, and medicaid. he proposes solutions that save those programs and protect our seniors but yet put us on the right trajectory. it's a fabulous document. that's what they've been hammering here as some sort of extreme document. but what has the senate produced? nothing. the senate hasn't produced anything, nada. and this is most troubling. but what has the other party who's required to submit a budget? the budget act requires the senate to produce a budget. it requires the house to produce a budget. and it requires the president to submit a budget. and the president a week late

but did submit a budget. you know, i truly believe that in light of the dangerous conditions we're in today, the fact, as mr. erskine bowles said -- and mr. bowles, you will recall, is president obama's choice to head the debt commission -- mr. bowles tells us that -- and alan simpson, that we're facing the most predictable economic crisis in our nation's history as a result of the debt we're running up. we cannot continue. this is unsustainable. mr. bernanke, the chairman of the federal reserve, says you are on an unsustainable course. so what did the president do, what kind of budget did he propose? his budget increases spending every year. it increases discretionary spending every year. it increases taxes by

$1.7 trillion. it doubles the debt in five years, triples it in ten years. and is unsustainable. it is in the light of the circumstances we face today unacceptable. he provides no suggestion whatsoever to save social security, which is moving into an unsustainable course, nothing whatsoever to fix or strengthen medicare or medicaid, all of which every expert in the country agrees are on dangerous paths that cannot be sustained. it's stunning. interest last year on our debt was $200 billion. we borrow the money we don't

have. the interest last year was $200 billion. this year we're going to spend $3.8 trillion and we're going to take in $2.2 trillion. think about it. 40 cents out of every dollar that we're spending is borrowed. this is the third straight year with a trillion-dollar-plus deficit. we're averaging about these last three years $1.4 trillion in deficits per year. the highest deficit we'd ever had before that was $450 billi $450 billion. these are unsustainable. the lowest budget deficit projected by the president's own budget, scored by the congressional budget office, the lowest annual deficit in ten years would be $740 billion. worse, it's going up in the outer years. the 10th year under president obama's budget, the deficit

would be $1.2 trillion. and the reason the numbers dropped, were always there based on the projection that our economy will continue to rebound. nothing that the president has done -- his spending levels increased under the budget. so, therefore, i believe and i honestly think that the president's budget, in light of the warnings and the danger that this debt is posing to america, is the most irresponsible budget ever presented by a president of the united states. it's stunningly damaging. it's unacceptable. it accelerates the unsustainable path we're on. as congressman ryan, the chairman of the house budget said, it makes it worse than the unsustainable baits line number-

baseline numbers we've been -- we're operating under now. makes it worse. and so we've got a good -- the republican house has produced a good budget and the president has produced a budget that is unacceptable and our democratic colleagues in the senate have produced nothing. they just want to complain. anybody that sticks their heads up, they want to make these kind of attacks. "punishing working families." "another brick in the wall between the haves and the have-notes." deny women the right to have breast exams, cancer screening, extreme social agenda, extreme, extreme, extreme, extreme. be sure to use that word "extreme." i don't believe the american people are going to buy this. i don't believe that -- that they're going to be taken in by the big spenders. they weren't last fall when 64 house members were elected, new

ones, committed to restraining spending. and i don't believe they will in the future. but some think that, well, you know that republicans will get blamed for shutting down the government if they don't have an agreement. well, let's talk about that a little bit. the house has sent over their bill that reduced spending by $61 billion, but as a matter of compromise, they've sent over another bill that would extend for another week and allow negotiations to continue for another week that would reduce spending by an additional $12 billion and would permanently fund or fund the defense department throughout end of this fiscal year. so they're not hung out there c.r. after c.r., that the defense department, the people who defend our country, can have

confidence in what their funding level will be the rest of the year. so it's over here. they've passed it. they've passed that legislation. so the senate can pass a permanent fix for the rest of the fiscal year or it can do one more week and we can continue to talk. but i -- but it's hard for me to imagine how the republican house, which has sent two good pieces of legislation over here, ought to be blamed when the senate has passed nothing. they've brought up nothing. and it's a bit odd to me also now that the president said, well, i'm going to veto it. you know, he's been acting in the role -- i saw one of the commentators this morning say the president wants to act like the good daddy and try to get the house together and the senate together and -- and put his arm around them and or the of be the person who brings them all together. well, maybe that would be good

if it will happen, but it looks like he's taken that hat off and now threatening to veto even a one-week extension of spending that funds the defense department. why? one experienced senator told me, he said, i'll tell you why, that senator reid may not have the votes. he may not want to vote on the one-week c.r. but a lot of his members are getting tired of this. they know we've got to reduce spending. they know we need to fund the defense department f. it came up on the floor, it may -- floor, maybe a lot of democratic senators would vote for it and it would pass and we'd have another week and maybe they can work out some of these agreements. i'm just saying all of this, you know, is sound and fury and politics. people -- some people think. and i guess there is some politics in it. that's hard to deny. but this is not the normal political squabble between republicans and democrats.

we really do face a debt crisis. we really have a responsibility, as president obama's own debt commission told us, pleaded with us to do something about the systemic threat that we face from surging debt that could knock down the growth that we're just beginning to feel a little bit here and -- and make some progress. it could kick us back. and nothing could be more devastating to the country than if we had a debt crisis, as alan greenspan said, former chairman of the federal reserve, as erskine boald bowles said, chaif the debt commission, president clinton's former chief of staff. these people are not unserious. they're warning us to do something and do it now, not just the short-term spending

levelelevels for the rest of ths fiscal year but the budget for the next year. and they tell us we've got to deal with the entitlements, the long-term dangers that they present, as well as the short-term spending levels. i believe congress knows that. some say the american people don't believe in cuts. they talk about cuts but they don't believe in them. i don't think so. i believe mr. christy is hanging in there in new jersey. governor cuomo in new york is proposing very serious reductions in spending. his popularity is strong. in alabama, my home state, dr. bentley, our new governor, just announced that the discretionary spending levels would be cut by 15% the rest of this fiscal year. nothing we're proposing is close to that kind of spending reductions in alabama that they'r, thatthey're talking abon

alabama. we're not close to that. but we're going to have to do some spending reductions, and it's going to be meaningful, it's going to be significant. it will be difficult to deal with and we should do it in a careful way. but if we bring down this level of spending, it will have a transformative impact. for example, if you take the $61 billion and you did what the house said, reduced the spending level $61 billion, that reduces the baseline of federal spending by $61 billion and over ten years would save $860 billion. pushing a trillion dollars. that's real money, just from reducing the baseline spending by $61 billion. and we've got to think in terms of 10 and 20 and 30-year budget, because as it gets in the outer

years, the dangers are even worse. i believe we can do this. i believe the american people are ready to face up to these challenges. i salute my colleagues in the house for presenting a budget that's honest. you want to know what kind of challenges we face, look at that house budget because it deals with them. the budget that the president submitted is filled with gimmicks. when the congressional budget office analyzed the president's budget, it found over a trillion dollars in gimmicks. it found that his debt projections were off by over a trillion dollars because of the gimmicks in the bill. i think congressman ryan's budget is honest. and not only that, it deals with the long-term threats to our economy and our finances. it's something we ought to

consider. if my colleagues have different ways to achieve some of the things he achieved in his plan, let's hear them, let's talk about them. let's make sure that seniors aren't going to get hammered and unfairly treated in any way and we can -- we can do that. we ought to have an open and fair debate but only -- the only people who stepped up and showed leadership so far has been the house budget committee. the president's budget is irresponsible and the senate has done nothing. it's time for us to get together, get our act together, finish the funding for this fiscal year, reducing spending, every dollar that we can and do a budget for next year that puts us on a path to a sound economy where growth can occur and jobs be created. i thank the chair and would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized.

mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. hatch well, thank you, madam president. earlier today the house of representatives passed h.r. 1363. now this is a one-week continuing resolution that will pay our troops and keep the government running. it is a pretty sad commentary on the willingness of the white house and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to get serious about spending that we have even arrived at this point. we need to be clear about a few things in this debate. first, we are here because democrats did not do their job last year. among the most basic responsibilities in congress is to take up and pass a budget and fund the core functions of the government for the year. last year democrats had a supermajority in the house of representatives. they had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. and of course they had the white house. but they were so tied up with pressing matters like passing a $2.6 trillion health care bill

that the american people did not want that they never got around to passing a budget. and then in the fall as the bottom fell out of the public support for the democrats, they were too interested in salvaging their majority and trying to spin obamacare that they never funded the government. that's why we're here. we're debating a spending bill for fiscal year 2011 and it is april of 2011. fiscal year 2011 started in october last year. it is very seufrp. -- it is very simple. democrats did not do their job and so they left it to the new republican majority in the house to fund for fiscal year 2011. the republican-led house got to work. they passed h.r. 1. i know that is in the democratic talking points to call this bill extreme. but what exactly did it do? when you strip away the ideology and the rhetoric about the so-called dangerous and extreme bill, what exactly did it do?

here's what it did. it reduced nondispense, discretionary spending by $61 billion. that is a big number but let's put it in perspective. this year we're scheduled to spend $207 billion on interest on the debt. this year we have a projected budget deficit of $1.6 billion. and this year the federal government is on pace to spend $3.8 billion. so, h.r. 1 was proposing $61 billion in reduced spending by a federal government on pace to spend $380,000,000,000. you all have heard the old joke, if someone is asked if they got a haircut, they respond i got them all cut. in this case what republicans are proposing is like going to the barber and getting one of

the hairs on your head trimmed. the democrats call this bill draconian but as one person put it the spending cuts in this bill are the equivalent of ordering the big mac, large fries and eating some. that is hardly a crash diet. to hear democrats talk, americans would starve if h.r. 1 passed. that is not an exaggeration. former speaker pelosi suggested yesterday. to hear democrats talk this is armageddon. to hear them talk this $61 billion in spending reductions is so onerous that america will never be the same. americans aren't buying it, the people of utah and people around the country understand that if the senate were to accept the full $61 billion in spending reductions, life tpwhot only go on -- life would not only go on;

no one would notice any difference at all. let's look at this in a little bit different way. nondiscretionary -- or non-defense discretionary appropriations have been hyped up by 24% in the last three years. and 84% if you count the stimulus bill. but to hear democrats talk, even beginning to roll back this explosion in government spending is akin to shredding the declaration of independence. give me a break. the bottom line is that the cuts in h.r. 1 are more than reasonable. people who are remotely serious about reducing the size of government should accept them in full. but the white house and their capitol hill allies do not seem to have gotten the message that americans want to roll back spending. instead they're playing politics as usual. they have calculated that if the government shuts down, if senate democrats refuse to pass and the white house refuses to sign a bill to reduce spending, the republicans will be left holding

the bag. they think that history will repeat itself. and just as in 1995, the public will blame republicans for the government shutdown. even "the new york times" might not be able to carry that much water for the president and his democratic allies. the american people get this. and they are saying enough is enough. if the white house and its capitol hill allies think they can force a government shutdown and blame republicans, they must have zero respect for their constituents. the last week of negotiations has proven yet again that big spending is in the democrats' d.n.a. not all of them. i think we might find one or two here on capitol hill that have better d.n.a. than that. they are congenitally by and large incapable of reducing government spending, so much so that they're willing to shut down the government over $68 billion over a $3.8 trillion

budget. in the words of john plutarski, when the going gets tough, the tough gets going. when the going got tough on these negotiations, democrats are missing in action. the president jetted off to a couple of fund-raisers and his capitol hill allies turned to the rankest of political smears. the incoming chairwoman of the democratic national committee who until five minutes ago was scolding republicans for their lack of civility, hit the ground running and claimed the budget proposed by house republicans for next year is a death trap for seniors and a tornado through nursing homes. so much for adult conversation. the democratic congressional campaign committee was quick to fund raise. in fact, while we're talking about their shutting down the government, they're sending out fund-raising letters to raise money on the problem. the democratic congressional campaign committee was quick to

fund raise off these spending fights. in an e-mail to their, dare i say, extreme base -- and i use that term advisedly -- they claim that republican negotiators are engaged in blackmail and blame tea party citizens for the shutdown rather than the democratic leadership that refuses to pass the fiscal year 2011 spending bill and move on. i'll tell you what, they might have an easy time raising money by smearing conservative republicans and pwhraeupblg them for their -- and blaming them for their mess. but this fool's gold -- this is fool's gold because they're going to have a heck of a time explaining to our men and women in uniform why it is that they refuse to pass a bill that would make sure that our men and women in service are paid. because the democrats in this chamber will not accept the modest spending reductions in h.r. 1, the house took up h.r. 1363 today.

now, this is a continuing resolution that will fund the government for a week, prevent a shutdown, and fund the department of defense through the end of the year, making sure that our service men and women receive their paychecks and that our national security is not compromised. the ball is in the court of this body's leadership. the president has not made it clear that he is willing to shut down the government rather than pass the c.r. they have issued a statement of administration policy suggesting they will veto this c.r. if passed, this continuing resolution if passed. you know, if the president wants to go off the cliff, i can't stop him. but i would encourage my democratic colleagues here that they don't need to follow him off the cliff. their leadership is saying that it will oppose h.r. 1363 because it eliminates taxpayer funding off abortions in the district of columbia. you know, in the end i cannot

believe that they would shut down the entire federal government in order to appease the most radical proabortion members of their left-wing base. we will see what happens, and especially since the president and majority leader and a whole raft of other democrats voted for other language that shut off abortions. well, let's see what happens -- in the past, that is. maybe the senate will do the prudent thing and pass h.r. 1363, but i am not holding my breath. the $61 billion in spending reductions passed by the house months ago is equivalent to 1.6% of total projected federal spending. americans tighten their belts much more than this every day. the democrats are acting like these cuts are the end of the world. i would say that the leadership on display from the white house on this issue is pathetic, if there was any on display at all.

because the white house has showed zero leadership on the issue of spending and government bloat, because it has refused to make the decisions that would force the federal government to live within its means, we are in this unacceptable situation of a potential government shutdown. our nation is broke. we have to stop spending money we don't have, but on this most critical of issues, the president himself has been missing in action. his advisors seem to be treating this exercise like it is a no-stakes harvard law seminar and multiparty dispute resolution, but the stakes could not be higher. this situation calls for leadership, but we are getting nothing from the white house. in some ways, i -- i empathize with the president because i don't think the people are yud to do anything about those things. it's time for real leadership that keeps the government running while cutting spending. i urge the senate to adopt h.r.

1. we know that's not the only cutting that's going to have to be done around here for the next number of years, but it's the best we can do apparently at the present time. in the alternative, we should adopt the house-passed short-term c.r. and keep our soldiers paid. there's no need for a government shutdown. democrats who think that clever strategists and professional politicos can spin the american people into thinking this is the republicans' fault, even though it was the democrats who walked away from -- from the table, should remember last year's experience with obamacare. reluctant democrats in the house and senate were told by the same strategists and professional spinners that obamacare could be messaged in a way so that it would benefit them. today there are many former house and senate members who wished they had not bought into that snake oil. if the government shuts down, no

amount of spending is going to convince americans this was the fault of anyone other than the president and democratic congressional leadership who have refused to make any meaningful reductions in federal spending. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida is recognized. mr. nelson: madam president, have you ever noticed when someone points their finger and says it's all your fault, it's all your fault, did you notice that there are three fingers pointing back at them? here we have the blame game going on. what we have is politics at its worst. and in trying to govern a country that is large and diverse and complicated like our country is, you have to have

people of goodwill that will come together to build consensus, that will respect each other's opinion, that will respect each other, and realize that their opinion may not be the only opinion. and that's what we have that is leading us to this point, we have folks that are saying that it's going to be my way or no way, and because of the structure, of the vote structure, 60 votes required here in order to pass anything out of 100 senators, we are coming to the precipice and we are about to fall off. now, it's in the supposed to work this way. you can have people who sharply

disagree about a particular issue, but when it's time to build the consensus and get it done, you've got to have that capability of coming together. some people use the word "compromise," but compromise has a dirty connotation. it shouldn't. it's the glue of solution making. and that's what this world's most deliberative body in over two centuries has done so well, is come together to build consensus to govern the country. now, notice something else. you don't govern from the political extremes. if the political extreme says it's my way or the highway, you can't build that consensus in the middle, and thus that's the

situation that we have gotten to. it radical in this case -- we have had it on the left end of the political spectrum in the past, but that's not what this is. this is a radical right-wing agenda that's saying from the house of representatives that it's going to be their way or no way or they're going to shut down the government. now, that's a sad state of affairs. that's saying that we can't come together and agree and reach a solution. so what's going to be the consequence? well, do you realize when the government is shut down and people are out of work, this doesn't just affect federal employees?

what about those employees in the private sector whose business depends on being frequented by federal employees? for example, someone whose business suddenly goes down, are they going to be able to pay their rent? what about the poor person who is suddenly not going to have a paycheck, and they're not going to be able to pay their mortgage? do you think that their bank is going to work with them in order for them not to be in default? wait, let's back up. look at the experience of my state, florida. how many banks have worked with people who have been unemployed who haven't been able to pay their mortgage, and the bank's

not working with them? so if we go out of the government being functioning and all the activities of government , what about the airlines? certain essential employees will have to operate the air control towers and t.s.a. for security, but do you think that the people that are not going to be able to work in the federal government in the sphere of aviation, don't you think that's going to ripple through the economy in this example of airlines? and what happens if there is that laps of safety and this time an airliner doesn't land safely like we've had where

people have fallen asleep in the tower? well, let's talk about our military. now, at the end of the day, the other side is saying that, oh, isn't it awful that we of us on this side are not going to pay the military? we're going to vote over and over and over to pay our military. our leadership is going to make consent requests over and over and over to pay our military if we're going to be shut down. well, what about our intelligence apparatus? the very apparatus that in far distant lands gets a snippet of information that is passed through the governmental centers that allows us to avert the terrorists ever doing the attack

in the first place, is that going to be affected? oh, essential personnel will be there, but what about some of those extended personnel that we rely on for our intelligence apparatus? ladies and gentlemen, we're not only playing with fire, we're playing with superheated fire. what about debbie gifford's husband, -- gabby gifford's husband, the commander of the latest space shuttle mission? they are supposed to launch on april 29. are all those workers at the kennedy space center that are preparing the next to the last space shuttle flight, are they

going to continue that preparation? are they going to lay off the astronaut crew because they are not essential, as they are training in split-second, very precise training? is captain mark kelly, united states navy, going to be able to command that mission to take the final components up to low earth orbit to connect those final components of the international space station? and what kind of effect is that going to have felt throughout the nasa centers all over the country? what about the securities and exchange commission? what about the banking regulators? what about the internal revenue

service going after the people that are trying to defraud us? do you know that we have prisoners in the state prison system in florida more than any other state that have been putting in fake income tax returns and getting refunds? and we finally got the i.r.s. working with the state prison system, and they're going to shut that off in the next week. are we going to be able to stop that fraud upon the taxpayer? what about the fellow who just received a $250,000 i.r.s. federal refund check and he hasn't even filed his income tax return because somebody has stolen his

identity and put in a fake return, and fortunately the check got to him, not to the shyster. where are we going to have those i.r.s. personnel to continue to go after that? and you can go on and on. what -- what about our court system? what about the administration of justice? this is what we're facing, because rigid ideology in some cases placed on top of excessive partisanship is now bringing us almost to our knees. now, if we shut down at midnight

tomorrow night and if we go through the weekend, guess what's going to happen to the asian financial markets come sunday afternoon, sunday evening here when it's monday morning there and those asian markets open up. and oh, by the way, haven't the people of japan suffered enough? and the 20 or so ships that we have over there trying to assist the people of japan, are they going to have to go on furlough, too? ladies and gentlemen, this is the time, as the good book says, for people to come, let us reason together. this is the time for people of

goodwill -- and there are plenty of those people that are members of the united states senate, this is the time for people of goodwill on this side of the capitol and on the other side of the capitol to come together, come, let us reason together. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: would the chair be kind enough to announce what the -- are we in a period of morning business? the presiding officer: we are in morning business until 5:00. mr. reid: i have cleared this with my friend, the republican leader. i now ask unanimous consent the senate extend the period of morning business until 9:30 p.m. tonight with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each during that period of time. the presiding officer: without objectiowithoutobjection, so or. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i, like the majority leader, i was here the last time there was a government shutdown. i never believed it would reach that point and i certainly

didn't believe it would be a long shutdown but it turned out to be. over two weeks before it was over. and it was a period of profound embarrassment for all of us who served in congress of both political parties that it had reached a point -- reached a point where our efforts to find common ground had failed and we had basically failed by closing down the government and calling an end to basic government services. the senator from florida went through a partial list. the list can go on and on. what about the federal bureau of prisons? men and women who risk their lives every day guarding the most dangerous people in our nation, what's to happen to them as we shut down our government? you've raised questions about our efforts to monitor terrorist activities. those efforts are not just exclusively among the military. you mentioned the intelligence gathering operations of the united states of america. i don't think -- i'd say to the senator from florida i don't think most people outside our

walk of life have any idea how many men and women get up every single morning monitoring transmissions of information, monitoring activity all around the world, looking for that one shred of evidence that there's something dangerous about to occur. these are federal government employees subject in many respects, many of them to a government shutdown. in the department of treasury, in the department of treasury is a foreign assets desk that monitors every single day the movement of money, looking for evidence of drug cartels and terrorist activities and criminal activity in the united states and around the world. they share that information with law enforcement at every level, state, local, and international, to keep us safe. these are federal employees. affected by the government shutdown. we just learned that our secretary of state, hillary

clinton, is canceling a major conference on tuesday, bringing in leaders from around washington and around the world to talk about critical issues because of her fear that the department of state will be shut down on tuesday. we also know that in embassies all around the world, men and women literally risk their lives to be there representing the united states and offer their services for americans and others in terrible circumstances and they are going to be subject to a shutdown, skeleton crews. and you say to yourself, senator, is this really necessary? have we reached a point where there is no alternative? the answer is, there is an alternative. the alternative is for people of goodwill to come together and find common ground. now, i am closer to the position of senator reid because i know, i have followed his conversations and his reports on the negotiations, and i will

tell you this, because i am certain of what i say, when it comes to the dollar amount for budget deficit reduction, we are virtually in agreement. the differences are minuscule. we have agreed on the amount of spending to be cut. that's no longer a matter of debate. what happened in the last 24 hours is a dramatic shift away from the budget deficit discussion and now speaker john boehner of ohio -- who's my friend -- speaker john bane other be-- john boehner, on behalf of his caucus, is arguing it's no longer about the budget, it's no longer about the deficit, it's no longer about cutting spending, it's about some social agenda, some issues. number one, speaker boehner insists we have to accept language from the house which says the environmental protection agency of the united states of america will basically shut down its operations when it comes to certain environmental

hafdz, like -- hazards, like greenhouse gas emission. some of us think that is a disastrous decision. the house republican caucus voted for it. the republican majority. and now they are saying to us, accept it. yesterday we debated that issue. we debated it on the floor of the senate for many hours. the senator from florida was there. we had four separate votes on that issue, on taking the power away from the environmental protection agency. the first amendment that was offered got seven votes in the affirmative. the second one received seven votes in the affirmative. the third one, 12 votes in the affirmative. and the fourth one failed with a 50-50 roll call offered by the republican leader. has the senate spoken on this issue? it has. and if i remember correctly, under the constitution that both house and members are sworn to uphold, there are two chambers. we disagree, profoundly disagr disagree, with the house

republican position. and for speaker boehner to now insist that despite all this debate and all this activity, it's a take-it-or-leave-it on taking away the powers of the environmental protection agency? it's not only unreasonable, it's unfair and totally unrelated to the issue of budget deficit reduction. but there's a second issue. the second issue, which i find hard to believe, they are now making the fulcrum of the decision to whether we shut down the government is whether or not we should shut down the access of people across america, particularly poor women and children, to primary health care in clinics. they have an amendment under title 10 which would basically stop the funding for access to private health clinics -- pardon me, to health clinics funded by that program. what kind of services do these clinics offer? they offer cancer screening for

women. they offer breast cancer screening as well. screening for infectious diseases. the basic care that we provide to women and families across this country would be shut down by the provision that the republicans in the house insist that we agree on if we want the government to stay soap and do do -- to stay open and do business. is that what the last election was about? i missed that part. i missed that part where the tea party stood up and said, "we are for fiscal sanity and we want to close down the access of women across america to basic health services." i don't remember that at all. and i welcome that debate. and in the next hour or two or perhaps tomorrow morning, we're going to offer to the republicans if they want to debate on the floor that rider that's in the house approach, let's have the debate, let's have the vote. it isn't as if we're ignoring it. we're prepared to face it and vote on it. i think i know what the outcome

will be and i think speaker boehner knows as well. he's going to lose. so why in the world are we allowing this ship of state to flounder over two social issues: closing down the e.p.a.'s functions and closing down women's access to health care? mr. durbin: that's where they are. it's no longer about the deficit. all the deficit hawks and all the speeches you've heard, that's over. and i find it hard to believe that there are actually some people who think a government shutdown is a good thing politically. there was a statement in the -- printed i in "the washington po" this week on april 5. the republicans "gave the speaker an ovation when he informed them to begin preparing for a possible shutdown." an ovation. so some people apparently believe in that caucus that a government shutdown is a good thing. some of them, congressmen pence of indiana, has been very

forthright and direct. "let's shut it down," he says. how do you answer the basic question that's been posed so many times: what does that do to the reputation of the united states of america around the world, that our government is going to shut down? what does it do in terms of the state of our economy, which is coming out of a recession, trying to put people back to work? we know what the predictions a are. any government shutdown will reduce economic growth at a time when we desperately need more economic growth and more jobs. and the longer the shutdown goes on, the worse it is in terms of unemployment and economic growth. we also know that even though some republicans in their caucus were cheering on the idea of a government shutdown, basic services essential to the operation of this government and the safety of our nation will be in peril and danger. people who literally give their lives in service to this country will be wondering from day to

day and hour to hour whether or not we are going to continue to finance this government. mr. durbin: the clock runs out at midnight tomorrow night. between now and then, i hope that speaker boehner comes to his senses and appeals to his republican caucus and tells them, you can't have everything. take what we have here, this cut in spending, this reduction in spending as a step in the right direction. i hope he will say to even those who were cheering the idea of a government shutdown, it's not the right thing for america. it is time for men and women of both political parties to stand up and to represent the best in this country, to make the concessions that keep us moving forward. we have plenty of work to do beyond this. i'm leaving here to go to a meeting to discuss a bipartisan approach to dealing with our budget problems way beyond the next six months. if we are going to create an

atmosphere and an environment for bipartisan cooperation, it doesn't start with a government shutdown. if there are any republicans who believe that this is a sound strategy, that somehow this will endear them to the american people, i think they are making a mistake. a shutdown could cost the government dearly and it could certainly cost the united states and its reputation around the world. i don't want to see that occur. and i yield the floor. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: madam president, sometimes when my constituents come to washington, d.c., i tell them, welcome to the district of columbia, 68 square miles of logic-free environment where perception is reality. i can't think of anything more surreal than the situation we find ourselves in with the house of representatives having passed an appropriation bill that would keep the government open while

negotiations continue and would fund our men and women fighting now three wars around the world to make sure that they get paid. i've also had occasion to tell my colleagues or my constituents who come to washington that washington, d.c. is a lot like disneyland. it's a fun place to visit but it's not real, and when you really get in trouble, when members of congress get in trouble is when they think washington is real, because it's not; what's real is what's in -- what's back home, where people have common sense, where people try to solve problems working together rather than play endless political games. i find it outrageous that senator reid, the majority leader of the united states senate, and the president of the united states would refuse to

fund pay to the men and women in uniform by threatening a veto to the house bill that's been sent over here. we know that unless senator reid and the president of the united states agree to keep the government open, that they will be responsible for the shutdown of the federal government and all of the disruption that goes along with it. and you know what? after the government shuts down, we're still going to have to pass an appropriation bill at some level to keep the government functioning. a shutdown doesn't solve anything except cause a lot of disruption, a lot of concern, a lot of heartburn among a lot of good people about whether they're going to get paid. and first and foremost among those are our men and women in uniform. the president has threatened to veto the troop funding bill, which is h.r. 1263, by saying -- quote -- "this bill