president's own statement of administration policy, issued by the white house earlier today. "a distraction." an attempt by the united states house of representatives to make sure that our men and women in uniform are being paid while they're fighting three wars around the world is a distraction to the president of the united states. that's outrageous. that's irresponsible. that is an abdication of presidential leadership and i hope the president will reconsider because funding our troops is not a distraction. it's a responsibility. and a veto threat is not what they deserve nor what they should be hearing from the commander in chief. about one in 10 of the people who wear the uniform of the united states military call texas home.

those texans are among the roughly 100,000 u.s. troops currently deployed in afganistan. many of whom are serving multiple deployments away from home and away from their families. some of them are, for example, members of the texas national army guard's 176th engineer brigade headquarters that is currently handling engineering projects for about one half of the country. other texans are among the roughly 40,000 troops still deployed in iraq. some of them are members of the texas national army guard's 36th infantry headquarters that is currently providing command and control for about a third of that country. texans are also supporting the mission in libya. although many are perhaps unclear about what the mission is. and texans are on board more than a dozen navy vessels

providing humanitarian assistance off the coast of yeah the president's threat to veto funding for these troops is irresponsible and shows his willingness to risk a shutdown of the government and deny them the pay they are entitled to rather than accept responsibility and to face the fiscal facts. for nearly 200 days our federal government has operated without a budget because of a a irresponsible approach to one of the most basic functions of the federal government, to keep the lights on, to keep the government operating, and to accept responsibility for those decisions. we know that democrats, while they control the white house and both branches of the legislature, the house and the senate, they failed to pass even a budget last year. even a budget. every family in america, every small business, everyone other

than the federal government and congress has to operate on a budget. but only washington can continue to spend money that it doesn't have. about 40 cents on every dollar. yet, i would say the president remains either oblivious to that fact i think probably more accurately in denial about the fiscal crisis that is impending and is ace apparently unwilling to -- and is apparently unwilling to try to work across the aisle to try to address it. i think it's imperative that the majority leader a allow the senate to vote on the house-passed measure, which we could do by unanimous consent, if not tonight, tomorrow before the looming shutdown tomorrow night. it is clearly in majority leader reid's hands and it is in the hands of the president of the united states if he would withhold his veto, allow

negotiation to continue, and to make sure that our troops were funded as they should be. the troop funding bill would fund the department of defense through the end of the fiscal year and it represents a bicameral, bipartisan agreement that was reached last december on funding of the department of defense. it is past time for this legislation to be enacted particularly given that the months that have pass -- in the months that have passed since december, america now finds itself engaged in a third war entered into without congressional authorization, without any clear mission as -- and, frankly, 21%, according to a poll -- only 21% according to a recent poll actually believe the mission is clear. well, i'm -- i'm with the other 79%. i don't know what the mission is. the president said it was a humanitarian mission although when he obligated the united

states military to go in, he immediately outsourced the responsibility for it to nato, which did not have the assets and the resources in order to protect the rebel forces who continue to be killed by qadhafi's troops. the president said qadhafi must go, yet, is doing nothing from a military perspective to accomplish that goal. what does that do to america's stature and representation in the world community? what other tyrants are watching this president, said that qadhafi must go, and, yet, have this president do what is necessary to remove him from his office? well, i think it not only damages american prestige, it emboldens other tyrants like qadhafi and it does not solve the humanitarian crisis in -- in -- in libya. well, some have said, and the

majority whip was talking about so-called riders that accompany the -- that i company -- that accompany this piece of legislation. let me say this troop bill also cuts $12 billion in additional spending. when 40 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends is borrowed money and we're spending money that we don't have, doesn't it make sense to cut federal spending? well, i think it does. anybody who thinks that we can continue business as usual is just delooting themselves, -- diluting themselves, living in a la-la land. this bill would keep the government operating for another week. this would avoid the shutdown that would occur tomorrow night and it would allow for more time for bipartisan negotiations to occur. so far as the so-called policy riders go, prohibiting taxpayer funding for abortion in the

district of columbia, well, that's been supported by both republicans and democrats in the past. president clinton signed legislation -- similar legislation six times. vice president joe biden and then senator harry reid voted for it many times. president obama, himself, signed this same provision into law in 2009. this troop funding bill also prevents guantanamo bay detainees from being transferred to the continental united states. i think if there's -- if there ought to be a consensus about thinking, is that we don't want dangerous terrorists detained in guantanamo bay cuba transferred to the united states, and this bill prevents that. this language is virtually identical to existing law included in the national defense authorization act. this bill also includes full funding for our commitment to the u.s.-israel memorandum of

understanding for fiscal year 2011 and was passed thursday afternoon. this bill, by a vote of 247 to 181 in the house of representatives. i don't know what could be any clearer than if president obama were to veto this legislation and after it was passed by the senate that closing the government would be on their hands. mr. president, may i ask how much time i have remaining? the presiding officer: the senator has used 10 minutes. mr. cornyn: i would ask additional consent -- consent for an additional three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: so this bill has passed by a substantial majority in the house of representatives and for senator reid to say that he will refuse to take up or president obama to say if it were passed in the senate that he would veto it is irresponsible and the shutdown of the government would clearly be on their hands. but i would say, mr. president,

that what this demonstrates is a very disconcerting trend that we're seeing of a failure of leadership at the highest office in -- in the land and that is the president of the united states, a president when -- who goes to brazil and talks about, i'm for free trade, but has been sitting on the colombian free trade agreement, an ma free trade agreement -- panama free trade agreement since he entered office. a president who says he's for bringing down the price of gasoline to make america less dependent on imported energy from abroad and goes to, believe it or not, brazil and says, great that you're going to be drilling for more oil off of your -- off of your offshore in brazil, and you know what? we're going to be one of your best customers. in other words, saying one thing in america and doing another thing abroad. this is the same president who appointed a fiscal commission that reported in december of

2010 which documents the sobering reality of the debt crisis that we are facing in this country and what we must do responsibly to deal with it on a bipartisan basis. but in his state of the union message in his budget that he's presented does not even -- does not -- has not -- it's not even mentioned. we know that we have important issues to deal with. this is the most immediate one ahead of us, but this is small compared to the bigger issues we're going to have to deal with in just a month or two which is the debt ceiling. america's maxed out its credit card and the president is -- the treasury secretary is asking us to raise the credit limits to allow us to continue to borrow more money. we know that's an unsustainable path. we know that the american people are sick and tired of the typical gamesmanship and the gotcha politics in washington, d.c. what they want, i truly believe, is for us to work together on a

bipartisan basis to solve the problems in front of us and not to kick the can down the road, not to play a game of gotcha setting up our political adversaries for the next election in 2012. that's what this smells like. that's what this looks like. this is irresponsible on the part of the president. this is irresponsible on the part of the majority leader to fail to take up this bill and to allow us to vote on it tomorrow to prevent the shutdown of the government. and it is irresponsible to threaten our men and women in uniform fighting three wars across the globe with being deprived of their paycheck by our failure to act by the president's commitment to veto any legislation that were to be passed on a temporary basis to stop this government shutdown. i hope the american people will call, write, e-mail. i hope they will let their representatives know that this

is unacceptable and that congress must act tomorrow in advance of the deadline and that if the senate does pass the bill, that the president, that they communicate to the white house by every means necessary that, mr. president, you shall not veto pay to our troops while we're fighting three wars. to do so not only is an abdication of your responsibility as commander in chief, but it's an abdication of the leadership that people expect from the president of the united states. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i know that we're rotating back and forth. right only one on the floor -- i'm the only one on the floor requesting time. i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for let's say 15 minutes. i probably won't use that much time. but i ask to use that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, let me -- first of all in response to what the senator from texas talked about, this is very

significant. i happen to be maybe one of the few who voted against the last three extensions that were requested. these one-week extensions, that's no way to run government, i understand that. this one is different. i rejoiced when i saw that we had an opportunity to pass a one-week extension that would do three things, number one, substantial cuts, not these imaginary things that we've been talking about. and, number two, continue the funding for what we must do in israel for the end of this fiscal year. and most importantly, and i say this as the second-ranking member of the senate armed services committee, this would be a huge help to our military so there would be certainty, they would know what we are going to be doing between now and the end of this fiscal year. that absolutely has to be done. it's unimaginable to me that in the middle of what i call two, maybe three conflicts right now, that we're not lining up and make sure that we have the funding that's necessary for the -- what's going on in -- in

afganistan and other places where we have our troops in harm's way and something -- it's something inexcusable and i believe. i can't believe we're going to be -- that there's going to be a veto in spite of the veto threat. this is the opportunity to be fiscally responsible and hope we are. that's not why i'm here, however. i just want to be sure that something i've been talking about the last four days has now come to a peak where we must do something. i've been concerned about what's happening in coat coat divoir. know the president is there, the current president and his wife laurent gbagbo. i know -- i was familiar with the election that came around. so i've been on the floor talking about what i really believe should happen there. that we should call for a new

election. unfortunately the united states and our state department, i've been very critical with them, they have joined the united nations and with france and taking the side of the north, who was the challenger, who has been challenging this administration now for the 10 years i know of. and i got a scathing reply from the ambassador to the united states from france and i'm not going to read it. i'm not going to enter into it the -- it into the record. it doesn't make any sense. i want to respond to a couple of things that were in that letter. first of all, they talk about the fact that this was a legitimate election and that it was certified properly and in accordance with the constitution. i respond to that by saying the independent electoral commission did not fulfill its constitutional mandate to announce the final provision vote tallies within three days. that's what the constitution says in the country of cote

d'ivoire. it announced them almost 16 hours after it was constitutionally mandated to report them to the constitutional council. it is my understanding that it is the constitutional council, not the electoral commission, which certifies and declares the winner of presidential elections. on three occasions i've talked about how the election was the -- the abuses that were taking place. in one case we had information that was given to me by members of the opposing party to president gbagbo, where they submitted that in one of the five regions in the north -- let's keep in mind the challenger, quattara, is from the north, they had in one of these five regions, 149,598, and i showed how it was calculated -- i showed the actual results that were there from the electoral process, and this was just one of five northern

cities. but when the total was officially reported and in the total column, quattara receives 244,000 votes, a difference of almost 95,000 votes. now, if you do your math and you say that this happened in all five of these areas in northern cote d'ivoire, that would be more than enough to declare -- enough mistakes that would take the election away from the duly elected, reelected president, president gbagbo. they stated that -- and i think it's -- if you don't want to get into the weeds that far, all you have to do, mr. president, is look at the results that they had. in that election they came out with the results that said that gbagbo in those northern precincts -- we call them precincts, they call them something else -- that he actually had thousands and thousands of votes and wha n. what we would call the primary. but when the primary runoff came

up, he got zero votes. that is a statistical improbaby. i've given them all to the state department and haven't gotten any positive respofnls the accusations and the french say that he refused to accept -- he being gbagbo -- fried to accept proposals by the -- refused to accept proposals by the high-level group while these proposals were widely accepted by with a tear row. just not true. the african union sent the foreign minister jose burrito to mediate between with a tear row and gbagbo. gbagbo accepted the mediation. with a tear row didn't. i have a whole list of things -- the accusations that were made in my repons to these a. could youizations and i am going to be submitting them in this portion of my presentation in lieu of reading them at this time. i ask unanimous consent that that be included in the record at this point.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i come to the conclusion that on wednesday, april 6, marked the 17th anniversary of a terrible thing that happened in rwanda, the genocide that came. and we have information that actually secretary-general kofi annan had knowledge of that. it wasn't shared. we didn't have warning. we all know the 800,000-plus people that were brutally murdered in rwanda during that genocide. what i want to do now is make sure that we are on record in warning the united states, france, and the united nations that -- what is going on right now. first of all, if you look -- they say it's all been decided. everyone has made up their minds. and yet the president of the he equatorial quinn knee, he is currently the president of the african union, or the chief of the african union.

he is on record saying that africa must be allowed to manage its own affairs. this is a quote "africa does not need any external influence. africa must manage its own affairs." this is the president who is the head right now of the african union. president sarco disee, he had said -- so there's no doubt about whether or not he's authorized his troops to go in there and participate in these raids that have taken place, two of them that i'll describe in just a minute. french president -- this is reported on bbc news. he said, nicolas sarcozy said in a statement he had authorized 1600 strong french lacoran forces in the country. we will well, that shows -- i don't think anyone is questioning that. here is another one. one source said soldiers from 1,000-strong french lycor -- a very strong force -- in the ivory coast has been deployed in zone 4 in the south of the city. i think also it is important to

see that france has authorized its military and i am reading now from the same roiter report -- authorized its military to participate in a united nations operation in the ivory coast to protect civilians against escalating violence there. the el lysee palace said it was aimed to neutralize the heavy weapons belonging to troops loyal to the -- to president gbagbo. so he is talking about sending them in. of course i think most of us -- i'll go ahead an read one more thing that i think is significant. "french helicopters open fire on military camp in abidjan monday night." if anyone wants to see what was happening with helicopters and rockets firing on all kind of targets near the palace in -- in the residence in abidjan in cote d'ivoire, go to my web site. you can pull it up. i have pictures of of that.

i have pictures of that right now that i will be entering into the record at the end of my remarks. the french earlier french president sarcozy said he had authorized france's military to join the operation against the forces loyal to the ivory coast, gbagbo. clearly they are the ones that had -- i want to say this. there are two major assaults on coate did he voimplet i mistakenly thought the french were involved in the one in the city called deque. they weren't of course. they were supporting the forces that were there. they did not have a direct participation in it. a man -- guillan geffa, the head of the united nations mission in cote d'ivoire, he had the forces had carried out the killings in

duquai. we have pictures, we have evidence. this is retail yaismghts that's what the deputy head of the mission in cote d'ivoire, the united nations mission, said. "we have credible reports of serious abuses being committed by quattara's side. that came from a human rights researchers based in senegal. it is raisingious concerns. forted quotes -- it goes on and on and i will enter all of these in the record. the bottom line here is that the quattara forces were the ones involved in dduekoue. a spokesman coming from the agency saying an agency on a routine aid mission nowndz a lot of dead bodies. we estimate between 800 and 1,000 dead.

they said in a telephone interview from rome, they were killed by gunshot though some were made by machetes. i don't think they were killed in a cross fire. it is interesting because the forces of the president, gbagbo, had left that area of duekoue a week before that happened. so that had to have happened with those forces that were of quattara's. his forces -- i'm still quoting from that -- have also been aciewsdz of carrying out killings and executions of prisoners during their march to the capital. gbagbo's forces had vacated a week asmg i think further -- and we have pictures that we will enter into the record showing the major massacre that took plashings the one that took place on monday night. so i've already said all of this on the floor. we've talked about this and the

problems. one thing i haven't mentioned is one of the first things that quattara did when he marched on cote d'ivoire in the south and an abidjan is to release all the prisoners in one of the major prisons some 5,000 prisoners and a military source loyal to the incumbent leader gbagbo said the doors of the maca prison -- a big prison this that area -- were opened by forces loyal to the president, presidential claimant alassane quattara. when they go into detail about hearing gunfire and all of that. releasing prisoners to fight against the sitting president. residents near the jail said thousands of youths streamed out of the prison and -- which had the capacity of 3,000 prisoners but with you believed to be holding over 5,000 into the

neighborhood in abidjan. "we heard gunfire early this morning and afterwards the doors were opened and prisoners were left shouting for joy." so that is -- that is something i had not had in the record before. one of the things that i have to repeat that i've stated before -- let me ask the chair how much time i have remaining. the presiding officer: one minute. mr. inhofe: i ask -- i request an additional ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you very much. as was one of the f.p.l.ials in duekoue, i spotted pigs. a u.n. soldier is choking with raging grief. i ask him if any of the dead were our children. he nods and begins to sob quiet fly his face mask." we talked about this before and i don't want to abuse the time we have. but i just a few minutes ago got

a notice from somebody i happened to know and he says, "i must admit that this was very difficult. this day, too, we're talking about in the last few harks has been very confusing with the rebels parading in the streets, stealing and disposing people for their goods. this is what makes it very dangerous because it's no -- a no-law zone. hundreds of people have started to leave the town to avoid the danger in abidjan." that's whapping what's happening right nowsm reports we have recently is that the quattara rebel army is deploying death squads. i would read from this because i think it is important we get this down right because i'm going to make some accusations here that maybe have never been made on this floor. i have just received devastating news about the situation in cote d'ivoire. i am told there are death squads

roaming around the streets. they killed the supporters of president gbagbo? probably soavment but they use the word "disappearing" because there is no accounting of them. these death squads are led by soldiers of quattara's rebel army and have already killed 400 people in the last few hours. right now. if we do nothing, this soon will include the murder of president gbagbo and his wife simone. quattara's armed rebels are supported militarily by the united nations and the french government. so i call upon the united nations secretary-general ban ki-moon and french president sarcozy to condemn and halt immediately these squads. if they don't do it, i would charge that they are complicit in allowing these squads to operate fully in streets of abidjan. that also calls for immediate -- immediate cease-fire. i'll conclude and just say that i remember well because i was around when this happened, and

when we knew -- some people knew -- we didn't know in advance what was going to happen in rwanda. president kigami didn't know. but cove fee annan apparently did know what was going to happen. and elected nothing to say anything about it. so that they weren't warned and 800,000 mutilations later we know what the genocide was all b but we know now, we know the death squads are there. the death squads have already killed, according to these reports, some 400 people in the last few hours. and if we don't do anything about it, i have in my own mind -- i feel very certain that those death squads that are run by quattara tion rebel army will reach the hiding place of gbagbo and his wife and their family and they will be murdered. so if we don't do anything, we have been warned that that can happen. an easy way to stop it is to intervene and stop the death

squads that are roaming around in the country of cote d'ivoire. with that, i will yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorumcall:

mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in process be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask that i be recognized in morning business until such time as somebody else comes in and wants the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: all right. i didn't get a chance to elaborate on the subject that was covered by the senator from texas, senator cornyn. but i think it's very important because when we are faced with the shutdown of government -- i happened to be here in 1995. i remember it. frankly, it wasn't as bad as everybody said it was going to be. nonetheless, this is somebody that is toeltsly un -- totally

unavoidable right now. we have an opportunity to do a seven-day extension that would take care of the military needs we have and i think it's extremely important we do so. i want to also mention the vote that took place yesterday. we had four votes having to do with the overregulation that i would have to call it of the environmental protection agency. the first three amendments, before they came to my amendment, were offered by democrats. democrats i have a great deal of respect for. but in each one of these amendments they made it very clear that the author of these amendments, all democrats, thought it was not the place for the environmental protection agency to do what congress is supposed to be doing in terms of regulation of greenhouse gases. the votes were overwhelming in terms of the fact that they didn't have the democrats supporting them because they were temporarily fixes.

the only real vote that took place was mine. i introduced legislation several weeks ago in concert with my colleague over in the house of representatives, fred upton, to take out from the environmental protection agency the jurisdiction of regulating greenhouse gases. we all know how it happened. we all know that since 2003, members of this senate have introduced legislation to call for cap and trade under the assumption that catastrophic global warming is taking place from anthropogenic anthropogenic anthropogenic -- anthropogenic gases and we have been able to defeat all of those. while there has been a real effort from this administration to regulate greenhouse gases, when they finally realized they were not going to be able to garner the sufficient votes to pass a bill that would allow for

a cap-and-trade system -- by the way, the cap-and-trade system would have amounted to somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion a year as a tax increase, which would have been the largest tax increase in the history of this country. and when the president, president obama, decided that we were not going to -- in the wisdom, i have to say, of both the house and senate -- pass anything that was going to be a cap-and-trade bill, he said that's fine, we'll do it through regulation. that's how this whole thing started. and so the effort was for the environmental protection agency to come up with a, an endangerment finding. an endangerment finding would say that greenhouse gases, anthropogenic gases, methane were dangerous to the health. this is something that has to be based on science. i can remember asking the director of the environmental protection agency, lisa jackson -- i have a great deal of respect for -- i said if you

have an endangerment finding, it's going to have to be based on science. what will the science be? the answer was the science would be the ipcc which for the edification of anyone not aware of it, that's the united nations. they are the the ones who started this whole thing. they are the ones who would be in a position to try to force the regulation. anyway, the time has gone by now. since that time, we have almost unanimity in this body and in the other body also that we don't think that the environmental protection agency has the ability or the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and to do administratively what we refuse to do through our own bills that we would pass. so that's where we are today, and i just think one of the things that i am very thankful for is that my amendment actually got 50 votes. the vote was 50-50, pretty much

down party lines. the people who were voting against my amendment were saying we want to have the environmental protection agency to have this authority, the authority that would be an overregulation of not just the oil and gas industry, but all the other industries also. the primary target for them would be fossil fuels. the fact that we have oil, gas and coal -- we, by the way, i have to say, a fairly recent finding by the congressional research that we in the united states have the largest reserves, recoverable reserves of oil, gas and coal of any country in the bolder. now this is something -- country in the world. this is something you hear, you hear president obama say several times we only produce 3% of the oil, and yet we use some 25% or whatever it is. those are proven reserves. the difference is a proven reserve means you have to drill and prove that it's there, but government won't let us drill. i'm talking about the east

coast, the west coast, the gulf, the northern slope. 83% of our public lands, we have off limits. and if we were to open that up, we could be completely independent of the middle east for our ability to run this machine called america. that's why this issue is very important. and i think that i've already served notice, but i wanted to do it one more time to make sure it's clear. that while we needed 60 votes, we only had 50 votes, i'm going to be putting that amendment on as many bills that come up so we have an opportunity for people to know the seriousness of this problem. i suggest to you -- aeupbd won't name names -- and i won't name names, but i think people prior to this vote would have called different individuals, the staff would have responded we don't know how our senator is going to vote but he'll certainly take into consideration your comments. now we know. now we know because we have the votes now, so that we can say which ones did vote -- anyone who didn't vote for mine is

saying we believe the environmental protection agency should have that total control that we refuse to give through legislation. so, anyway, it's not over yet. in fact, i think that was a major milestone. that was a major victory. we now know who is for it, who is against it. i know there will be another ten members who will see the light and realize it's fine. i'm for all the above, i'm for the renewables, i'm for wind, i'm for sun, i'm for thermal as well as the fossil fuels. we need all of the above to become totally independent and be able to run this machine called america. that's what's coming up, and i'm happy that we've taken that next step, and i look forward to making the next step after this. with that, i will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: reckless

budget plan tt 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 gis it to the wealthiest but it does not even limit subsidies for special corporate interests like big oil. an 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 pe of one of the papers and it said, with a tea party banner, it said, "shutsenator from colorad. mr. udall: mr. president, i believe we're in a quorum call. the presiding officer: yes. mr. udall: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i rise at this late hour in the afternoon here to join many of my colleagues who have come to the floor today to express growing frustration with the politics as usual here in the united states capitol, and i say politics, not policies, because we ought to be focusing on policies that will get our country back on track.

i have to say that the people that are watching the debate here are witnessing potentially an impending government shutdown that is, i think, needlessly being forced on the american people, and that's after all who were here to preserve. i know the presiding officer feels that very, very strongly. i have to say i'm the first one to highlight how disturbing our long-term fiscal picture has become, but what's equally frustrating is the disservice being done to the american public by this current debate on our budget. a budget, by the way, for the second half of 2011. it isn't a budget debate we need to have on 2012 or the longer term challenge that the simpson-bowles commission has laid out for us. but we ought to be single mindedly focused here on economic development and job growth, but while we're doing that, i believe the united states senate, i have to say some members of the other body, the united states house of representatives, continues to

seek sustained confrontation and seem to me to be interested in shutting down the government as a misguided statement that they are serious about debt reduction. it seems they just want to pick a fight for a fight's sake while our people, united states citizens, will be left to pick up the pieces from a shutdown. and the latest demands have not been about funding the government at all. i think we have got some common ground on what the number ought to be, but the fight now seems to be on controversial abortion and climate change issues. i -- i just don't understand it. we have this tentative agreement to cut billions from current spending levels, but the speaker of the house seems to continue to demand that we ought to focus on controversial abortion and climate change issues. these are hot button issues. why you would insert them in an unrelated budget debate when there is so much at stake is beyond me. now, i understand we want to

show the american people that we're serious about deficit reduction. i am. i know the presiding officer is, but i think colorado people see straight through this latest ploy. what do abortion and climate change have to do with finding a compromise on keeping our government running? nothing. they have nothing to do with that. and it strikes me the debate has become increasingly ideological and increasingly about sending a partisan political message, one that leaves the american people paying the price. we have had 13 straight months of private sector job growth. we have added 1.8 million jobs in that time, but our economy is still really fragile and way too many americans, way too many minnesotans, way too many coloradans are struggling. and i have no doubt that a government shutdown at this time would create a counterproductive effect on our economic recovery,

but don't just take my word for it. i'm a senator from colorado, but listen to what top business leaders of all political persuasions are saying. business roundtable president john engler, former republican governor of michigan, said that businesses would face the dangerous -- quote -- "unintended consequences" -- unquote, where interest rates rise because of a shutdown. forecasters at goldman sachs have warned that a shutdown could shave off growth in our g.d.p. every single week. and c.e.o.'s of all stripes have warned about a shutdown's effect on confidence in the u.s. economic recovery. we know, the presiding officer and i do, and senators from across the country that confidence is what we need to build. that's what's lacking in many respects. so a setback of this nature, a shutdown, would actually prevent the growth we need to tangiblely

address our long-term growth and fiscal balance. we will have more tax revenues. we'll see that gap between what we're spending and what we're bringing in narrow. i can't help but think in the context of this recent debate about my uncle stewart, stewart udall, the father of senator udall from new mexico. he wrote a book called "the forgotten founders" that focused on the settling of the west. i should add he focused on the people who were there at the time the europeans arrived as well. the theme of the book was really on how the rest -- west was settled, how it was build. it made the strong case that people coming out to the west, i think the presiding officer's home state, which is in the near west, fits this characterization. people coming to the west, they weren't looking to get in gunfights or range wars. they were actually looking to start their lives over to pursue

the american dream. and stewart pointed out that in reality -- particularly when you watch the hollywood movies, that people that were standing on the board sidewalks watching the gunfights, those were really the people that built the west, and they built the west by working together, solving problems, looking out for one another. it didn't really matter what your political party was. and it feels to me like today the american people are standing on one of those board sidewalks watching the same senseless gunfights and range wars right here in washington, d.c. i've got to say i know i was sent here to work together and solve shared problems, and i'd like to suggest that this spirit i just described is in stark contrast to this new kind of divisive politics that's brewing away here in america. it's the kind of politics that furthers disagreement, it draws ideological lines in the sand

and it sows disrespect at the shared interest and prosperity. the american people are seeing a disappointing example of that this week. while a vocal minority seems to favor acrimony and combativeness which in the end will just further slow our economy, many of us here are doing what we can to do the people's business and try in good faith to prevent a government shutdown. and i have to say, mr. president, as the american people look on in amazement at this spectacle, i stand with them wondering if members of congress will finally settle down, act like adults and work collaboratively towards a real budget solution. and yes, we -- we have to reduce our government deficit and debt. you would be hard pressed to find a senator more commited to that cause than i am. so let's reach that goal, but let's reach it in a way that protects our senior citizens, our students, our veterans, our

border security. i could go on with a very long list. let's do it in a way that slashes spending but doesn't harm our fragile economic recovery or divert our attention on the divisive social issues. we can't afford a government shutdown, and i will be disappointed to say the least if the bipartisan deal that's before us is undercut by contentious, unrelated issues like abortion and climate change. i wrote a letter two days ago to the speaker of the house, mr. boehner, who i know well, in which a large number of my fellow senators joined me to suggest to him and urge him to work with us to avoid a federal government shutdown. i'll stay here all day, all night, whatever it takes, so i'm here to urge my colleagues in both chambers -- i served in the house, i now have the great privilege of serving in the senate. let's sit down together, let's

reason together, let's be common sensical together, let's find a compromise. that's the american way. i know that's what propelled me to the united states senate, was my willingness to work across party lines. i think the senate of the united states could set an example. there are colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked together, who know the stakes are high. that's the reason i came to the floor today to urge senators of both parties to work together to find a commonsense compromise, to keep this federal government moving forward and to make sure our economy is focused upon and that we produce as many jobs as possible. that is job one. mr. president, i thank you for your attention, for your commitment, for your interest. i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: r 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. th'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 hasaid a shutdown will -- quo -- "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 shutdn, 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 shutwn. 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 w enter the height of the spring season homebuying in my state of new jersey.

with prices low and so many houses on the market, thiss 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 lve 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 econo and help the recovery keep going. it's not the time to shut down 368 national park serviceites, 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, weould 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 pd, 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 tals 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 t 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 bng 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 e tryingo 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 constituts. 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. dending 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 sid 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 ound 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 yearsy 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 frome quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i take this time because we're now only literally hours away from a potential shutdown of governme government. i must tell you, i -- my

constituents are angry about this and i join them in saying that this should never happen. there's no reason why we should have a government shutdown. we know the financial issues and there's been good-faith negotiations, and it's my understanding that we have pretty much resolved the financial issues. and remember, we're dealing with 12% of the federal budget. we need to get on to the 2012 budget. we need to get a credible plan to deal with the deficit. we all understand that. we're talking about the 2011 budget, the budget that started on october 1 of last year and will end on september 30 of this year. we're over halfway through tha that -- that budget year. and the differences between where the democrats were and where the republicans were, understood they couldn't be what the democrats wanted or the republicans wanted, we needed to have good-faith negotiations. those negotiations have taken place. it's my understanding we pretty much have agreed on the dollar amounts and we're prepared to

move forward on that. but let me just talk a little bit about what will happen at midnight tomorrow night. i have the honor of representing the people of the state of maryland. mr. president, there's almost 150,000 civilian -- civilian active federal employees that live in the state of maryland. i happened to bump into one of those federal employees today who asked me a question. she asked me: what am i supposed to do if we have a government shutdown and i don't get a paycheck? i don't have savings. how am i going to pay for my mortgage? mr. war din cardin: we already o many people whose mortgages are in jeopardy because of the weakness of our economy, and now 150,000 marylanders are in jeopardy of losing their paycheck as a result of the inability to resolve this year's budget. now, i must tell you, i also

happened to talk to people who run our metro system here and they told me that if we have a government shutdown, it will mean a million dollars less in fare box policy every day because of the number of people who won't be taking the metro because they're not going to be going to work. a lot of federal workers, they're not going to be going to work. and guess what? they're not going to be stopping at that coffee shop to buy coffee, they're not going to be buying that lunch, they won't be patronizing the shops, and it's going to hurt the small business owners who depend upon that business, depend upon the people who use their paychecks to -- to do their -- too their cleaning or do their -- or go to their -- the different shops. it's going to hurt, it's going to hurt our economy. it's going to hurt innocent small business owners. just at a time that our economy is starting to recover. now, we know, i can give you

another example. a person contacted me today, one of my constituents in maryland, who happens to have an issue concerning the need for a passport to be issued. it needs to be issued rather quickly. and we're going to try to accommodate that person and get it done by tomorrow. but suppose that call would have come in next week after there's a government shutdown and that person has travel plans that now may be disrupted because we can't issue that passport and the list goes on and on of people who will be hurt as a result of a government shutdown. we know that a government shutdown will actually cost the taxpayers more money. a shutdown costs taxpayers money. more money than the differences in our negotiations in the last couple of days will be lost.

so don't tell the taxpayers of this country that we're having a government shutdown to save money. it won't save taxpayer money. it will cost them additional moneys and will jeopardize our recovery. and individual people are going to get hurt as a result of the government shutdown. so, mr. president, what's the issue here? i've already said that the money -- the money issue, this is a budget debate, we pretty well resolved the money issues. so it's not the dollars. not the differences you've heard and the differences, quite frankly, were rather small compared to the size of our national -- of our budget deficit and -- and the gap between spending and -- and revenues. the issue that is now being raised by the republicans has nothing to do with dollars, but has to do with their social policies -- their social policies. it has to do with family planning. it has to be with the enviromental protection agency being able to enforce our

environmental lawsms the clean air act -- laws. the clean air act. does that sound familiar? it should. we debated those issues on the floor yesterday and we took votes on those environmental issues yesterday on the floor of the senate as we should do on debating these issues on their own individual merit. it shouldn't be included in the budget resolution for the remainder of this year. that's not the appropriate place for it. we're not here to debate the social agenda. those issues should be done on the bills, the substantive bills that come forward. so you sort of get a little suspicious here as these issues are being raised as to whether, in fact, those who were negotiating on the republican side are sincere in trying to reach an agreement to prevent a government shutdown or whether they continue -- continually

change the goalposts and the rules in order to bring about a government shutdown. now, i must tell you i was really disappointed as i heard republican after republican in the last couple weeks talk about, well, you know, a shutdown might be good for the country. so, you know, we have a shutdown, so be it. let's do it. even some republicans calling for a shutdown. i understand there's a problem that the speaker of the house has in dealing with the members of the republican caucus who belong to the tea party and they're insisting that he don't -- he doesn't want to see any compromise. i understand that, but those members don't control the process. we have a majority of the members of the house, the majority of the members of the senate that are prepared to move forward with this compromise that will not only keep government functioning, but will allow us to get on to the real

issues of -- of dealing with the deficit of this country by looking at the 2012 budget where we will be considering more than just the discretionary domestic spending cuts where we also can take a look at the other programs including military mandatory spending an revenues and get a credible plan to deal with the deficit. we have enough votes among the democrats and republicans to pass this compromise. we don't have to yield to the extremists on the republican side in the house that don't want to see any compromise whatsoever. what really worries me is that perhaps the design here is really to close the government. that's what the republicans want. i know that speaker boehner got a standing ovation when he informed his caucus to begin preparing for a possible shutdown.

so, mr. president, these are serious issues. like that marylander who i talked to today who may, in fact, lose her home if there's a government shutdown. or that constituent who had plan and a trip and found out -- plan and a trip and found out because their passport expires shortly, they need to get it renewed before they're permitted to enter a foreign country and will need to get that passport tended to or lose the opportunity to travel perhaps for a family event or perhaps for business or the taxpayers of this country who scratching their heads saying, what are you doing adding to the cost of government when i thought this was a debate about reducing the cost of government? it's not about the dollars. if we have a -- it's not about the dollars if we have a shut down of government and i hope

that we don't have a shutdown of government. but if we have a shutdown of government, it's not the dollar difference, it's the social agenda that the republicans are trying to push through this document that shouldn't be on this document that they're now using as a reason to deny a compromise for moving forward and it's the extreme elements within the republican caucus that are saying let's have a government shutdown that would be getting their way. mr. president, there's still time remaining. i hope that common sense will prevail. i hope peelle understand -- i people understand how serious a a government shutdown is to our country, to our ably to conduct international business as well as provide the services to the people of this nation who expect those services. we still have time. this is a democracy. the majority rules. i think that we have the majority of democrats and republicans alike that want to bring this issue to conclusion,

know that we have a good compromise done right now. the compromise is the difference between what the democrats would want and what the republicans would want, that's how the process should work. so, yes, i'm here representing the people of married, including -- of maryland, including a large number that work for the federal government and a large number that depend upon those who work for the federal government and a large number who depend upon the services of the federal government to say, let's get this done, not yield to the few on the republican side in the house. let's get this job done for the people of maryland and for the people of this nation. and, with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president,

tomorrow night at midnight, unless steps are taken, we will be facing a government shutdown. and when i say steps are taken, the steps are taken to avoid that. and that can happen one of two ways. that can be an agreement that funds the government through the end of the fiscal year which would be september 30th of this year and there are negotiations that continue on dealing with that issue or there could be a short-term continuing resolution that would take us through the next week that would enable those who are negotiating a longer-term agreement to continue that -- their discussions and hopefully to conclude a successful outcome to those discussions. but i want to remind my colleagues, and i -- i say this -- and i -- i feel sometimes i've been up here on the floor a number of times speaking to this issue, but i think it bears repeating why we are here, why we are now in the milled of yet a sixth continuing resolution. this is the sixth short-term

funding resolution that we have had to live with, you know, since the end of the fiscal year which was september 30th of last year. so the reason that we are here is because last year the democrat majority here in congress failed to pass a budget and failed to pass a single appropriation bill. didn't do the most fundamental responsibility that we have to the american taxpayers and that is to put together a budget that funds their government. and so we have funded the government through these successive continuing resolutions, which, as i said before, we are now in the middle of the sixth short o short-termg resolution which expires tomorrow night at midnight. so my colleagues have been coming to the floor and attacking the republicans for wanting to shut the government down. and i would say to my colleagues, mr. president, that nothing could be further from the truth. i think everybody here recognizes that no one benefits from a government shutdown.

frankly, the -- the effort has been made in the house of representatives to pass a long-term funding resolution that would take us through the end of the fiscal year, through september 30th of this year, but that failed here in the senate. we had a vote on that, it failed. and there hasn't been since that time any meaningful effort made on the part of the democrats here in the senate to put forward a proposal that might pass the senate and might ultimately pass in the howvment and so we -- house of representatives. and so we triggered these discussions between the white house and the house of representatives and the leaders in the senate. my understanding is those discussions have continued. i hope that they will reach a successful conclusion. but until that time happens, we need to do something to make sure that the government stays open beyond tomorrow night at midnight. and so we will receive from the house of representatives a piece of legislation that they passed earlier today, a continuing resolution, that actually

reduces government spending by about $13 billion, discretionary spending, all cuts that have been agreed to by both parties. and also extends funding for the military through the end of the fiscal year. there's been a lot of discussion about we need to provide some certainty for our military so that they can plan. i absolutely agree with that. i met with members of our military, our military leadership, it is really important, mr. president, that we take care of the funding needs that they have through the end of this fiscal year. what did the house of representatives do? they took a -- a series of spending reductions which have been agreed upon, as said, by both parties. they funded the military through the end of the fiscal year, through september 30th, and they added a couple of provisions to that legislation that had been widely supported by both parties here in the congress. there is a ban on abortion funding in the district of columbia which has been supported by the democrat

leader, the democrat whip on countless occasions. they included a provision that would prevent funding being used to bring detainees and try them here in the united states instead of guantanamo bay, that has been widely supported. the last time it was supported was when the defense authorization passed late last year in december. it passed by unanimous consent. so many of my democrat colleagues are on record supporting all of the things, all the elements that are in this continuing resolution that was sent to us -- will be coming over to us from the house of representatives. and so the question then becomes, who is it that is trying to trigger a government shutdown? now i'm not here this evening to -- to play the blame game. i don't think that serves anybody's interest nor do i believe a government shutdown serves anybody's interest very well. i think that the -- the american people expect us to find solutions. they expect us to work out our differences, but eventually to agree. and i think that that -- that has certainly happened in the

form of this continuing resolution that's coming over from the house of representatives. and, in fact, it passed the house today with 247 votes, including a number of democrats. there were a number of democrats who voted with the republicans in the house to pass a continuing resolution that takes on the issue of out of control washington spending, which has been very clearly documented. we need to get spending under control. we are adding to the federal debt at a rate of $4 billion every single day, which means by tomorrow night at 6:30, at 6:30 on friday, we will have added another $4 billion to the debt. that's the debt meter that we're running. every single day, we add add $4 billion to the federal debt that we pass on to future generations. we are borrowing over 40 cents out of every single dollar that the federal government spends. we cannot continue to do that, mr. president. we'll take in $2.2 trillion this

year, spend $3.7 trillion. that's $1.5 trillion in deficits in a single year. you add that up, year after year after year, and you end up with a $14 trillion debt which is where we are today. it's growing at a trillion, a trillion and a half every single year. and so we have got to get spending under control. now, i understand there isn't a lot of appetite on the other side of the aisle for taking on federal spending. in fact, many of my colleagues on the other side thought it was an ambitious proposal when they put forward an alternative to the republican-passed bill that cut discretionary spending by by $61 billion, they put forward an alternative that cut cut $4.7 billion. that's the equivalent of what the federal debt will add during the next 24 hours. that was their, i guess, idea about a serious effort to meaningfully address deficit spending and debts. the fact of the matter is,

mr. president, we have got to deal with the issue of out-of-control spending. now, clearly, the continuing resolution, the short-term continuing resolution that passed the house, is coming to the senate, takes on that issue but does it in a way that cuts spending, spending cuts that, as i said, both sides have agreed to. it is a mystery to me as to why our colleagues on the other side would reject a proposal that includes spending cuts that have been agreed upon on both sides. and frankly, if, in fact, it's true, the reports that i read that democrats would accept somewhere on the order of of $33 billion in cuts for the balance of the fiscal year, this represents about $12 billion or or $13 billion. so we're still considerably under what they have agreed to in terms of a total number, but with regard to the actual cuts that are suggested here by the house-passed legislation, they are by and large cuts that the democrats have agreed with. and so you have agreement on

these reductions in spending, you have a general agreement that we ought to fund the troops through the end of the year, and you have an agreement on the so-called riders -- at least there has been agreement in the past. broad partisan support. and i would argue that the two particular provisions on this bill are provisions that are supported by probably 70% of people across this country. and so you have a -- a piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan support that's come over to us from the house of representatives and that would prevent a government shutdown at midnight tomorrow night. and so it's a great mystery as to why our democrat colleagues would not accept that and -- and do what i think is in the best interests of the american people, and that is at least get us into next week where a final negotiation on the longer term continuing resolution can be concluded. we have got a problem in this country, mr. president. we have got a government that is spending way beyond its means. we have got to start living

within our means. we cannot continue to spend money that we do not have, and the efforts that are being made to reduce spending here are long overdue. and i think it's -- i hope that they can conclude a successful agreement on a longer term resolution that would get us through the end of this fiscal year. but i think it's important to point out right here, right now that we have an opportunity to prevent a government shutdown, to fund our troops through the end of the fiscal year, and to reduce in a meaningful way spending with spending cuts that have been agreed to by both sides in the form of this continuing resolution that was passed in the house this afternoon with a large number -- not a large number but a significant number of democrats supporting it. and so i would suggest to my colleagues on the other side, and i hope that they will work with us to make sure that we avoid a government shutdown, that we fund our troops, and that would make a meaningful

debt in out-- dent in out-of-control washington spending. so, mr. president, i would -- again, as we approach that time tomorrow night at midnight, hope that the leadership on the other side will take up that legislation that was passed by the house of representatives, give us an opportunity to vote on it. i would submit that there will be a large bipartisan vote here in the united states senate. if we don't have a large bipartisan vote, it will suggest that there are a lot of people who have changed their positions on the issues that are included in this piece of legislation because they are all things that many of us on both sides have supported, and i suspect continue to support. that will avoid that witching hour tomorrow night at midnight where the government shuts down. they have given us an opportunity to vote on legislation that will do that, and i hope we will take them up on that. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri.

mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i think there are times around here that we lose sight about what real people are -- are doing in our home states. i think we lose sight of the struggles, their daily struggles, how they live their life with integrity and honor every day and go to work, and yesterday we got a call in my office from a young lady, and she was on her cell phone. she is a nurse, a nurse's aide at the v.a. hospital in st. louis. she was on her break, she was on her cell phone, and she talked to the young lady who answers our phone and said i want you to tell the senator that i've got kids and i bring home the paycheck, and the way i feed my kids is with my paycheck i get working here at the v.a.

hospital, and i'm scared. i'm scared. about what's going to happen if all of a sudden i quit getting my paycheck. i've got really no place to turn i'm a single mom, and i am very worried. and then she said would you hold on a minute? and then she handed her cell phone to someone else in the break room at john cochran v.a. hospital, and then that woman handed the cell phone to another woman. and by the time this conversation was over, the young lady that answers the phone in my office had talked to a half a dozen women who don't make a lot of money, who go to work every day caring for our veterans in a veterans' hospital. and you know what they all said? why is this happening? why is this happening?

and if latonya and her friends were here right now, i would say, you know, that's a darned good question why this is happening. this is not a game. this is not a game of ping-pong where we're hitting the ball up and down this hall from the house to the senate, fighting over divisive social issues that, frankly, our country has struggled with for decades and will continue to struggle with. this is about running our government and about the money it takes to run our government, and that's all it should be about. it shouldn't be a time for us to argue about gitmo, it shouldn't be a time for us to argue about women's reproductive health. it should be about funding our government. we have many other occasions we can debate those issues and disagree, and reasonable people do disagree. but now is not the time to

debate those issues, at the 11th hour when latonya is not going to get a paycheck to feed her kids. i'm for cuts. i have been the odd man out many times in my caucus fighting for cuts. i have worked on spending cuts last year for -- with senator sessions from alabama. i continue to work with senator corker about cuts. i am somebody who said the original proposals that my caucus made were way too little, but you know what i'm beginning to feel like? i'm beginning to feel like i have been duped, mr. president, because i thought that's what this was about. i thought it was about cuts. now, let's review the facts here. the chairman of the house republican budget committee and the speaker of the republican house said we need to cut cut $32 billion out of the remaining budget this year. i've got to tell you the truth, i didn't think that was

unreasonable. now, i am -- you know, i will admit, i'm to the right of much of my caucus on some of this cutting stuff, but i didn't think that was unreasonable, so i was glad when we went to the republicans and said you know what? we'll cut, we'll cut what you wanted to cut. in fact, we'll cut more than what the house speaker and the chairman of the house budget committee wanted to cut, and that's where we are today. we have put more cuts on the table than they initially recommended. i'm beginning to realize this isn't about cuts. this is about a much more extreme agenda that has to do with social policy, not about money. they keep moving the goal post. what is the number? they keep moving the goal post. we have gone more than halfway, and in my neck of the woods, that's called a compromise.

we have got republicans controlling the house, the democrats control the senate. that's why compromise is so important. what is wrong with a compromise? let's do the compromise, fund the government and get on with it so latonya can get her paycheck and the other women that work with her at the v.a. hospital can get their paycheck. they will not take yes for an answer on cuts at this point. they want to make it about something else. was the c.r. today just about military pay? no. no, it was not. i did notice one thing they didn't put in the c.r. today -- why won't the house republicans pass the bill that we've asked them to pass to cut our pay if the government shuts down? i will certainly not take a paycheck and no one should take a paycheck. why is that not being passed by the republican house of representatives? why wasn't that put on the c.r. today? they want to once again pass something about moving people

out of gitmo, which has nothing to do with the budget through the rest of the year. when they were doing the gitmo thing, why didn't they put the pay for members in there? why didn't that occur? and i know the talking point is that this is -- this is one of the talking points we're hearing from the other side, well, you should have gotten this done last year. well, we can get it done today, we could get it done today. we have gone more than halfway on a compromise, and this is no longer about the cuts, this isn't about the money. this is about an extreme agenda, and latonya's paycheck hangs in the balance, and her friends in the break room at the v.a. hospital. let's review what happened last year on the budget. the republican party participated in every appropriations committee in the senate and every appropriations committee passed a bill, and at the end of the year, that bill was brought to the floor because the appropriators believed that the republican appropriators were supporting the bills they

helped write. in fact, those republican appropriators stuffed that bill full of earmarks for republicans. hundreds of earmarks for republicans were stuffed in that bill, and it was brought to the floor, and i remember the night it was brought to the floor. it was in the lame duck. and then the republicans decided they didn't want to support it anymore. and by the way, it wasn't as if passing anything around here was easy last year. if anybody was paying attention, it was about let's drag this out, let's be stubborn, let's make sure they have got to get to 60 on everything. and is there blame to go around that the budget didn't get done last year? sure, there is blame that can go on both sides of this aisle. i'm not here to say that it was the republicans' fault or the democrats' fault, but there certainly -- it is really, really -- it really, really takes a lot of nerve to say the only reason we don't have a budget is because the democrats were not willing to pass a budget last year. it was a little more complicated than that, if people will remember the facts as they

occurred at the time. so it appears to me now that there are certainly a lot of people down the hall that want the shutdown. i was really interested when i saw in the paper that when speaker boehner announced to his caucus they were preparing for a shutdown, he got a standing ovation. well, i can assure you there are no standing ovations in our caucus. there are no standing ovations. and i'll tell you what. when i go to sleep tonight, i'm going to be thinking about latonya. i'm going to be thinking about her kids and what she is telling them tonight and what not getting one paycheck means to that family. just one paycheck can make the difference, can send a family down a path of getting behind on their mortgage, getting behind on their bills, and then not having a way to catch up. and that's what we should be thinking about right now.

not about those social issues that we disagree on and we can debate and disagree on for many, many years, as we have for the last 40 in this country, but really can we get a number, can we make the goal post quit moving, can we agree on the cuts, and then get on to the hard work. i mean, how embarrassing is it that we are fighting over literally a few billion dollars in differences, and if this is so much about cutting the debt, for another day i want to talk about this, but really the republican budget was released this week, and guess what it adds to the deficit over the next decade. the ryan road map. $8.2 trillion it adds to the deficit over the next decade. that's how serious they're getting about the deficit. cuts taxes for a lot of wealthy people, doesn't do much on the deficit. so i'm all for cuts.

i've stood for cussments i will continue to -- i've stood for cuts. i will continue to stand for cuts. this federal government has to shrink. but what's going on right now is a political game and it's shameful and it should stop. and we should make an agreement on the numbers, move on and make sure latanya gets paid. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i come to the floor today as someone who lives in a state, wyoming, where we balance our budget every year, where the citizens of our great state, families all across wyoming live within their means, balance their budgets, know what it means to have to live within a budget. that's why our state, wyoming, is one that currently today does not have a deficit, does not have a debt, a state where every year by constitutional mandate we balance our budget. it's time for washington to take a lesson from wyoming and balance its budget.

this irresponsible spending must stop. here we are a day from when it looks like we may be dealing with a government shutdown and i'm ready to vote. i'm ready to vote for a bill that already passed the house of representatives early today. i'm ready to vote to keep the government open, to keep the government functioning, to make sure services are there. the bill's passed the house. you know bs people who studied civic in school realize -- you know, people who studied civics in school realize that that's how we make a bill in this country, pass the house, pass the senate, goes to the president, signs it into law. the bill's already passed the house coming to the senate. i'm ready to vote. i don't know where the other senators are. i'm ready to vote. now, i just heard my colleague from the other side of the aisle talk about a shutdown and who is rooting for a shutdown. i think it's no surprise to people who may be watching at home that it is former

democratic national committee chairman, howard dean, who is rooting for a shutdown. former chairman of the democratic national committee says -- quote -- "i think it would be the best thing in the world to have a shutdown." he's the spokesman for the party, of the other side of the aisle. well, that may be what he wants. i don't want to do that. i want to vote for the bill that passed the house. it's the only proposal that's out there. i haven't seen the democrats offer anything. even "the new york times" said of the president, they said he was silent for too long. we've heard our previous speaker talk about the social issues. well, let's -- let's remember that it is convenient amnesia for the democrats to talk about that specific issue because the president, president obama voted for and signed into law spending bills that included similar --

the exact same identical social issue in the past, the one that he is opposing today. so did 49 current senate democrats voted for a spending bill that dealt with that social issue. so why all of a sudden today it's different? well, i believe it has to do with what the former chairman of the democratic national committee chairman said is that, hey, i think it would be the best thing, he said, in the world. former governor dean said, to have a shutdown. republicans are proposing solutions. and what do we see from the other side of the aisle? we see one of the senators, the senior senator from new york, saying i always use the word "extreme." it doesn't matter what's proposed, he says -- quote -- "i always use the word 'extreme.'." they have tape recordings of him saying this. he then said, "this is what" -- "that is what the caucus instructed me to use this week." regardless of how reasonable a proposal may be, regardless of

the solutions that may be proposed -- quote -- "i always use the word 'extreme,' that is what the caucus instructed me to use this week." mr. president, i travel back and forth to wyoming every weekend, visit with people and sit around at different locations. sometimes it's a morning breakfast group. sometimes it's people at lunch, dinner, community meetings, and i ask them, how many of you believe you have a life that's better than your parents had? and, mr. president, every hand goes up. and then i say, and how many of you believe that your children will have a better life than you have right now? and very few hands go up. that's the problem, mr. president. i ask them, what is the concern, why do you believe that you have a better life than your parents did but your children will not have as good a life as you do? and the answer they give is, the debt.

the reckless spending through washington, reckless, irresponsible, unsustainable. and yet, when we want to go ahead today, do cuts in spendi spending, keep the military going, deal with the issue at hand, keep the government functioning so we can come back and continue to work on the debt and the spending, this body is not ready to vote. i'm ready to vote. i'm ready to vote for the only proposal that's on the table, the one that the republican and the house of representatives passed today. that's real leadership. it is a plan, and it will work. it's what the american people are asking for. now, i have people from wyoming all the time who come to washington, and they will say, you know, we realize that things are tough this year. they come and explain a program that is good for people in the community, good for children,

good for seniors. met with six or seven groups like that today. good for students and school. and they say, we know that all of us are going to have to deal with the realities of the facts that we can't continue with this unsustainable spending, where 40 cents out of every dollar we spend is borrowed. significant amounts from overseas. our number-one -- number-one lender being the folks in china. they say, is that your concern? that is absolutely the concern that i hear around the state of wyoming. they see that the president of china comes over and tell those in america a few weeks ago that he wants the chinese currency to be the currency of the future and the dollar to be the currency of the past. that's because he knows we have an addiction to spending and it must stop. that's what i hear from people from wyoming who come here as well.

they say, we need to make sure that we get the spending under control. it seems reasonable to get back to the levels of 2008 spending, mr. president. you know, that's the -- that's the level that many american families are living under. they balance their budgets. it's time for washington to do it as well. so i know the people in wyomin wyoming -- and i visited with a number through the week, in many communities last weekend, in warland, in caspar, in laramie -- what they're suing is get the spending -- what they're saying is get the spending under control, do it in a reasonable manner. and for someone to come from the other side of the aisle to come and say i think the best thing in the world is to have a shutdown and for another person to say, "i always use the word 'extreme," that is what the caucus instructed notic instruce this week." that doesn't find a solution. but there is a solution on the

table and it is a solution that has been proposed and this senate ought to be voting on tonight. for the froz the president to sm going to veto it, shows that the president is truly not engaged in this process. he has been silent too long, according to "the new york times." his budget that he has proposed, the economist, world-renowned, represented publication called his budget dishonest. that's not the kind of leadership we need. we need someone in the white house fully engaged, taking an active role and making sure we get back on to a course that is responsible, that allows us as a country to live within our means as families know because we have to stop spending money we do not have. stop spending money we don't have. that's the way for washington to behave in a responsible way. to make the difficult decisions

that are necessary for the future of the country. to focus on the issues that affect families and that affect their needs. and for families that are trying to deal with kids and bills and a mortgage, they know what it means to have to live within their means. when we see policies coming out of this administration that are ones making the pain at the pump even worse as families are noticing they're paying $700 on average more for gasoline this year than they did last year. that's money that's not available for other bills or for a mortgage or to -- or to help with their kids. those are the issues they're facing. for people trying to pay for their own health insurance realizing the increased costs of the insurance because of the obama health care law that passed way over the objections of the american people, crammed down the throats of the american people by the other side of the aisle. the american people are saying, this is absolutely wrong.

that's why i think we saw last november the election results that we did across the country. that's why we see people continuing to stand up and speak out across the country. that's why people continue to go to town hall meetings and share their views about the problems that are happening in this country. you know, it's -- it's interesting, mr. president. you know, i think of the great presidents through the history of this country and we all have our favorites and i think of ronald reagan. and, you know, he said, you can't be for big government and big spending and big taxes and still be for the little guy. and, mr. president, we have on the other side of the aisle people who are for big government, big spending, big taxes. they're not for the little guy. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i have been listening to the

remarks of my friend from wyoming and i noticed that he repeatedly indicated that what we needed to do here in this building was to keep the military funded, to deal with the deficit, and to cut spendi spending. and it is my firm belief that if we were sent a bill that kept the military funded, that dealt with the deficit and that cut spending, it would pass in the senate very readily. indeed, we've already agreed to $73 billion in spending cuts. as senator mccaskill said earlier, the problem is that the republicans won't take "yes" for an answer. the issue that is dividing us at this point is not the need to

keep the military funded. we completely agree on that. it is not the need to deal with the deficit. we completely agree on that. indeed, the last time we successfully dealt with the deficit, it was under democrats. and clearly we have gone way more than halfway by agreeing to cut $73 billion in spending. so as to those three points, i think the answers are yes, yes and yes. so what is the problem? the problem is two riders that are being insisted on in the negotiations, one of which would eliminate funding for planned parenthood and the second of which would gut the clean air act. planned parenthood and the clean air act.

now, i thought this was about the deficit. i thought this was about solving our fiscal situation. the facts are a little differe different. here we are mere hours away from the first government shutdown since newt gingrich forced one during president clinton's first term. we are facing some 800,000 federal workers being furlough furloughed, millions more, including men and women in uniform, who will begin working without pay, projects will grind to a halt, people working under government contracts will stop, and there will be a real danger to our fragile economic recovery that is just starting to gain steam. why take that risk? well, in front of cameras all week, republicans have been saying that despite these dangers, they will threaten a

government shutdown because we need to tackle the deficit. the story behind the scenes is quite different. even though the tea party has focused 100% of its cost-cutting fury on only 12% of federal spending. only the non-security so-called discretionary spending we agreed to a level of cuts that the republicans wanted. nothing on the revenue side. everything on the spending side and only from 12% of the budget, yet, we were still able to come far more than halfway where the republicans are, virtually within single-digit billions of dollars of agreement. we find ourselves without funding for the government

beyond tomorrow night. we heard today that it has to do with the fact that we didn't pass a budget last year. well, we didn't pass a budget last year, but we tried. as senator mccaskill pointed out, she and i were on the floor when the omnibus spending bill came to the floor. it had been negotiated in a bipartisan fashion. it had come through all of the different appropriating committees. it would have funded the government through september 309sdz. we thought -- 30th. we thought we had an agreement and at the last minute all of the republicans who had agreed to it, changed their minds literally while we were on the floor. the bill went down and one republican senator took to the floor to gloat about the end of that bill so it's a little bit of crocodile tears to blame the democrats for not having a appropriations and budget bill at this point from the side of

the chamber here that took that bill down, that pulled their individuals, who had participated in that bipartisan bill out of the deal, that filibustered it and that shut it down, that's why we're here today. the minority party used its filibuster power, walked away from a deal it already signed off on and took down the spending bill. so here we are. it's important to stay somewhat close to the facts. so now the republicans are using the deficit concerns, which i think senator barrasso said very clearly. keep the military funded, deal with the deficit and cut spending. that's what we're prepared to agree to do. but the bill that we're being asked to agree to right now is a trojan horse. it is trojan horse that looks like a deficit bill, but inside it is filled with tea party ideology. it is filled with an extremist right wing political agenda to

do things like eliminate planned parenthood and give america's polluters free rein in violation of the clean air act as it has been determined by the united states supreme court to apply. this is no longer about the deficit. this is about trying to force a very radical agenda down america's throats in a trojan horse that looks like it's about the deficit. what's it really about? well, you don't have to go very far from this building just a few days ago outside you had the tea party ralliers. and what were they chanting outside of the capitol? they were chanting, "shut it down. shut it down. shut it down." that is what the tea party wants. that is why we are here.

and, sure enough, when the speaker went to his caucus on the republican side and announced to them, to the people who are actually here making decisions in this congress that he was notifying the administrative staff on the house side to prepare for a shutdown, what was the reaction? it was standing ovation supporting the speaker in that. so on the outside of the building, you have the tea partiers chanting, shut it down, shut it down, shut it down, you have the extreme members of the house republican caucus out there with the tea partiers egging them on, shut it down, shut it down, shut it down. they come back into the building, the speaker says, we have to get ready to shut it down. they give a standing ovation.

they could not be happier with this. they load the bill up with things nothing to do with the military, nothing to do with cutting the deficit, nothing to do with bringing down spending, but to accomplish idealogical missions that the republican party has been on for years. i yield for a question. mr. schumer: i thank him for his outstanding remarks. my question is this: isn't it true we have had many, many republicans in the house, sarah pal inn and some of potential presidential candidates as well as some of our even -- even some of our colleagues here, republican, saying they want to shut down government, and at least if -- my question to the gentleman is, i can't recall a single democratic elected official saying they want to shut the government down. and my second question is, doesn't that show something about who is itching for a shutdown or at least thinks they

can use the shutdown to accomplish an agenda? mr. whitehouse: i cannot -- i agree with the senator from new york. i cannot recall a single senator expressing any desire for a shutdown. i've been present in our caucus meetings. not one person has once said there is anything good about a shutdown. we are all gravely concerned about what a shutdown would do to our fragile economic recovery. this is still about jobs ultimately. we still have to grow an economy in this country. and when we shut down every government contract and put those people out of work, when we shut down every government project and put those people out of work, we take paychecks away from government workers and furlough government workers, what does that do to the economy? any economist will tell you, it strikes a terrible blow and we recognize that, and that is why no elected democratic official has said one good word about a shutdown and that is very

different from what we're seeing from the other side who are -- there were standing ovations. chanting mobs egged on by sitting members of congress. where public statements which candidates for president and by members of congress have all said -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. whitehouse: my time has expired. i thank the senator from new york for his question. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i thank the chair and would share a few things. if my democratic colleagues would prefer not to shut the government down, then don't do it. the house -- the republican house has passed a bill to fund the government, to fund the defense department and the senate -- the democratic senate has passed nothing. indeed the democratic leadership proposed a bill that they said was worthwhile that would reduce

spending by $4.6 billion. 10 democratic senators defectd from the -- defected from the leadership position, pretty gutsy thing to do on an issue as important as this -- mr. whitehouse: would the senator yield for a question? mr. sessions: i'll be glad to yield for a question although my time is limited on -- mr. whitehouse: i thank the senator for his courtesy in yielding for the question. mr. sessions: all right. go ahead. mr. whitehouse: if, in fact, this is really about the deficit and, in fact, really about reducing the spend and if, in fact, it is really about assuring that the military remains funded, why is it necessary to have it to be a nonnoashable position that planned parent out be zeroed out? i don't see there is any connection between those two requirements and the deficit and i think if the party -- mr. sessions: all right -- mr. whitehouse: if the

republican party were willing to give up those two demands, we could solve this very quickly. it is those two demands fouling things up and forcing a shutdown. mr. sessions: i appreciate the senator's comment and i'd like to respond to that. the house has sent over a bill that does not have those provisions in it. a one-week extension and that funds the military. and it's available to be passed also and would allow further discussions and negotiations on how to complete the last of the year without affecting the military. and i just have to tell you i have no desire to fund planned parenthood, the largest abortion provider in america. maybe that's what you think the federal taxpayers ought to spend their money on, but i don't. but that's not the critical issue. the critical issue is, how much we spend. i certainly agree with that. and i -- the house has sent over

legislation both for the whole year -- fiscal year -- and for a short term to continue it. and if this government is shut down, it will be because the democratic senate and the threat of president obama to veto any -- this legislation if it were passed. why don't they bring it up for a vote? perhaps it's because a number of democrats who are uneasy about this reckless spending might feel that a -- a voting for this would be a good way to continue the negotiations and -- and work through it. and it might pass so the president's now jumped into the milled of -- middle of it and proposed to shut the government down. and i don't appreciate my colleague. we serve on the judiciary committee together talking about this all extremist right wingers. give me a break.

he said, they really have this secret agenda. they pretend it's all about the deficit. it's not about the deficit. it's about some extremist right-wing agenda that -- then launches into a full-fledged attack, as has senator schumer, on the tea party. some of the best people in our country who got terribly afraid for our nation and went out and marched and -- all over america, millions, tens of millions, never before done anything like that. i talk to them all the time. are these bad people? and let me tell you, erskine bowles, former chief of staff to the -- president obama -- president clinton, chosen by president obama to head his debt commission, came before the budget committee just two weeks ago, and he and alan simpson, his co-chairman, issued a written statement, we are facing the most predictable economic crisis in our nation's history.

predictable crisis means we could be thrown back into another recession or a depression. when asked by chairman conrad, our democratic chairman, when this might happen, what did president obama's chairman say? two years, maybe a little before, maybe a little later, allealan simpson piepped up, i k one year. -- piepped up, i think one year. hopefully we're not going to have a debt crisis in a year or two years. but these people who took testimony for weeks and months and provided their opinion on how to fix our debt say we're facing a debt crisis that could put us into a recession and surge unemployment, even though it's just beginning to come down a little bit. this is not a republican-democratic squabble. these are democrats, leaders, that warned us.

alice ribling with pete domenici, now retired from the senate, said, i've never been more afraid for my country. one of the most eloquent orators i've ever heard in the senate. never been more afraid for my country. when you have deficits that this year, we take in $3.07 - in $3.07 -- $3.8 trillion -- excuse me. we take in $2.2 trillion and spend $3.7 trillion, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, we are creating a nation at risk. that's what we're talking about. so this past election, it was a big issue. all over america candidates ran for office and the ones who were the big spenders who are in denial about the danger the nation faces got is shalacked.

there was the biggest republican victory in 80 years, over one issue, spending, really. i mean that's what it was. when we come into the senate and they had only passed when they had this supermajority in the house and in the senate and they passed a -- what -- five-year -- five-month continuing resolution, the democrats didn't pass a budget nor did they pass a single appropriations bill. everybody knew that after this election that the funding level was going to be reduced. the american people had spoken. so we -- he walks in and our majority leader, harry reid, says we'll cut spendin spending $4.6 billion out o of $3,700,000,000,000 that we

spent. give me a break. $4.6 billion out o of $3,700,000,000,000 that we spend, this is somehow significant? the house only recommende recommended $61 billion in the last seven months, but that makes a difference. $61 billion, when you reduce the baseline $61 billion and the interest you save every year year, $61 billion plus interest, it adds up to $860 billion saved over a 10-year period. that's all coming close to a trillion dollars saved just by that one act. but when you spend on the upswing, likewise you end up raising the baseline and surging spending and debt. that's why we've got to get responsible. and when we do, we can make a bigger impact than a lot of people think. but i remain really unhappy and stunned that my democratic colleagues are in full-fledged

attack on the good and decent people who stood up and complained about what was happening in washington and now don't hesitate to attack the tea party as extremists. i object to that. i think it's wrong. so we are in a serious problem. i think many of my colleagues -- i know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed to me that we need to do better, that we've got to change the trajectory we are on. i think there's a real possibility for bipartisan action, but it's only a possibility. i actually have been fairly hopeful but -- and we've had a lot of talk on the other side of the aisle, but i haven't seen

anything move in the senate. nothing except the president's budget, which i -- the senator from wyoming said the "economist" magazine called it dishonest. it is. and what they said about it was -- has been found false by five different fact checks. they say it calls on us to live within our means. the budget director said it allows to pay down our debt. when the lowest single deficit that we are projected to have under the budget the president submitted to us is $740 billion -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sessions: i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the senator from rhodthe preside senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. president. we are on the verge, unfortunately, of a possible

government shutdown which is extraordinarily regrettable. controlling the deficit and paying down the deficit is a critical priority for this country. it must be done. it is a difficult challenge but not insurmountable. we've done it before in the 1990's. i was a member of the house of representatives when president clinton was able to push through an economic program that did not focus exclusively and entirely as the republican proposal did on simply discretionary spendi spending, domestic discretionary spending. it looked across the board at spending. not only domestic spending but defense spending. it looked on the revenue side. it also looked at some of our entitlement programs. the result was from the 1993-1994 action of a democratic congress by 2000, when president bush was sworn in with the republican congress, there was a

projected multitrillion-dollar surplus. we were looking at robust employment. and so it is, indeed, i think sometimes difficult to listen to some of my colleagues talk about the deficit. and president obama, when recognizing under their leadership, president bush and a republican congress, a surplus was turned into a huge deficit. in fact, president bush doubled the national debt in eight years and had taken almost -- well more than 200 years to accumulate a debt, he doubled it. so we're here and prepared to make those reasonable and responsible decisions that will lead us forward to a hopefully balanced budget and hopefully will be accomplished under democratic leadership -- what we accomplished under democratic leadership, president clinton in

the 1990's, some surpluses going forward. but it won't take and can't be done in two weeks. we can't undo what has taken place since 2000 in two weeks or two months. it's going to take concerted, collaborative effort. and one of the problems we've had, frankly, is that the goal posts have been continuously shifting in terms of republican proposals. the republicans appropriations committee initially insisted on levels last year roughly a $20 billion cut, my recollection. then this year, the house appropriations committee under republican leadership proposed initially cuts of $33 billion from the fiscal year 2010 level. days later, the republican leadership decided that was not enough so then it became $60 billion with cuts in everything from e.p.a. water and sewer grants to low-income energy assistance programs, that are absolutely critical to working families. and also critical at a time when

our economy is just beginning to regain some of the economic traction it had before. we're seeing some encouraging employment numbers. we're seeing some increase in consumer demand. this approach, this draconian approach to cuts could very seriously undermine the emergi emerging, not yet complete but emerging recovery. and in addition to the -- the numbers that keep moving around, the proposal of the republican house is studded with special interest riders, social policy not fiscal policy. and, in fact, there is the impression sometimes that the deficit reduction claims are really just an excuse to try to advance not through the legislative process but through the appropriation process, through the threat of a shutdown very curve active social policies. these policies should be debated, they should be voted

on, but to try to present them as nonnegotiable demands with the penalty for failure, to heed to their demands the shut down of the entire u.s. government is i think inappropriate. the president and leader reid have been meeting continuously. there was a sense that a -- a proposal of about $33 billion of cuts from the appropriate baseline would be appropriate, but then that seems to keep moving again. and this is unlike 1995, when we saw the last shutdown of this government by a republican congress. again this is becoming almost ritualistic. a republican house is elected and then within months, there's a shutdown of the government. that shutdown lasted about 26 days, cost about $1.4 billion in essentially dead weight lost to the economy and to the

government. we're on the verge of repeating that i think mistake. but back in 1994, we weren't engagengaged in two conflicts wh american servicemen and women engaged in iraq and afghanistan. we were not participating in a very volatile nato operation involving libya. we had yet to see the threat of international terrorism unleashed so dramatically on our shores as it was on 9/11. and, again, if this government is shut down, there are thousands of civilians and civilian contractors who are part of our intelligence services that are at least in limbo as to whether they can continue to provide us the information and the insights we need to protect ourselves against a still existing and now clearly obvious threat. these are much more challenging times.

indeed, for months now, in terms of a response to why the economy isn't growing, many of my colleagues on this side say well, it's just the uncertainty of the obama policies. that was the argument last year for the extension of the income tax cuts, not only to middle-income americans but to the wealthiest americans. that uncertainty would breed a lack of investment, a lack of focus on job recovery. what could be more uncertain than shutting down the government of the united states without any plan to bring it back and, indeed, without any clue as to what is the critical issue that must be addressed? at one point, it's deficit. at another point it's social policy. that uncertainty i think will -- could lead -- i hope it does n not -- to a lack of confidence in our capacity to govern which will ripple through economic markets worldwide, which could,

and which also i think could challenge perception of the united states as a coherent world leader. whether there are some things that would be, unfortunately, resulting from such a shutdown. we know military and federal pay will be delayed. in fact, uniformed military will be required to come to work as they do so dedicated to the service of this nation, but their pay will cease the moment we shut this government down. literally there will be soldiers on the ground sailors, marines, airmen in afghanistan and iraq will be fighting and not be paid, and their family at home will not receive those benefits. the federal housing administration will not be able to endorse any single family mortgage loan. so if you're ready to close on your loan next week, you have the down payment, you're ready go to have go, it can't be done because the f.h.a. is out of

business. s.b.a. guaranteed loans for businesses, working capital for real estate investments, those things that are trying to move the economy stopped dead in their tracks. so you're a small businessman or woman, you're ready to expand your company, you're ready to hire more people? sorry, the s.b.a. closed until further nothing. i.r.s. cannot process tax refunds for those who are filing their returns and are depending upon their tax refund, as so many working families do, just to get through the next several months. we didn't get here overnight. in 1993, democrats saw these same problems, a deficit that was prolonged and gnawing at the economic fabric of this country. we took deliberate action. it took several years but within those several years, we saw by the end of president clinton's administration a sur mrs. -- a surplus, a robust employment

situation, and the future looked very, very good to working families. 2001, as i indicated, president bush came into office with a surplus, but after tax cuts that were unpaid for, two costly wars that were unpaid for, an unpaid-for extension of our entitlement program in terms of part-d medicare, the largest, by the way, expansion of government entitlements in many, many decades, we are now looking at a huge deficit. now president obama came into office at a time when unemployment was in my state reaching beyond 12%, almost to 14%. he was i think required to take appropriate action. with the recovery act, we were able to begin to restore some of

the jobs. we've seen over the last year growth in civilian jobs, in the private-sector work force that we didn't see under president bush. in fact, the recent reports suggest over 200,000 jobs. those are the kind of numbers that have to be sustained, not undercut. and you don't sustain them by shutting down the government and shutting down programs like s.b.a., like the federal housing administration. we are and have to work diligently and i think and i hear my colleagues talking about reaching out collaborating and i hope that's the spirit we embrace in the last several hours. but we've heard many other statements coming particularly from across the capitol, from the other chamber, about how we've got to shut this government down, thousand we

have to go ahead and make a -- how we have to go ahead and make a point, not make sound policy. that is not going to lead us to a better future for american families. and so, mr. president, you know, i believe we have to be responsible. we have to recognize that the problems before us will take months if not years to fully resolve because they took years, not days or weeks to accumulate. we have spob responsible to -- responsible to the troops in the field, not only to order them into battle but to support their families at home. we have to be responsible to families all across this country to give them a chance to use their talents to contribute. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. reed: and i would urge responsibility at this moment not the shutdown of the u.s. government. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask unanimous consent that i -- that the ten minutes i believe that's allotted on this side, that i be

allowed to have three and senator moran seven of that ten. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, on the question of funding the defense department, it's a very serious matter. we do need to handle that i would just recall for my colleagues that the house has sent legislation to us that would fund the government for an additional week, with the reduction in spending of $12 billion, but that would fund the defense department for the rest of the fiscal year and take that matter off the table, guarantee there will be in disruption of the defense department. we really should do that. we should have already done that. senator mcconnell, our leader on the republican side, has said he won't support any of these -- any more c. r.'s unless we do defenfund the defense departmen. i would have to corks however, that it appears to me -- it

would have to suggest, however, that it appears to me that our colleagues are using the defense department as hostage and as leverage, the threat of shutting down or partially shutting down the defense department, the threat of that sue is used to st of say that we're not going to cut spending anymore. so that's the fight we're on p. you've heard the discussion about riders. but the new c.r. the house sent to us today doesn't have those riders on it, and it is not a problem in that regard. so i just want to say that i do think it's irresponsible for the president of the united states, the commander in chief to threaten to shut down the government. the house -- the republican house has cent bill over that funds the government and funds the department. the threat to shut down the government is coming from the defense side. and i don't think the people are going to be fooled by this, and

i do believe that the american people's voices will be heard and the amount of reduction in spending is not -- it makes a difference in how much is saved over a decade. but the nobel prize laureate garry becker, a superb economist john taylor, secretary of state george schultz did a "wall street journal" article recently noting that under our spending, the spending now is 24.1% of g.d.p. if the house bill that cuts spending by $61 billion were passed, we would be spending 20.0%, one-tenth of one percent reduction in spending from that calculation. i thank the chair and would yield the floor to my colleague. and i am delighted to have him in the senate. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from -- a senator: thank you very much. i thank the gentleman for yielding and come here tonight one more time. i am a very short-term member of the united states, only about three months, but every time i have spoken on the senate floor i have talked about the importance of reining in spending, the crippling nature of our national debt and the bef that if we don't take care of these issues, the future of our nation is at stake. mr. moran: one of the reasons i have for serving in this senate is to turn this country around for our children and grand chin. i think kansans would say that it is time for all members of congress to come together and to fund the government. a shutdown demonstrates once again how -- how we lack the ability or the desire to just use some common sense and to reach a common goal. a primary dpungs after congress is to see that we come up with

the funds to provide for government. and to me it seems to me that we have come to the point in which this issue needs to be rapidly resolved. we are down to just a few billion dollars, and certainly billion dollars is a lot of money. it is a lot of money to kansans and to me. but we need to resolve this issue so that we can move on to the more dramatic and important issue that we face as members of the senate, as we mace as -- ase face as american citizens -- that being next year's budget and the future of additional spending down the road. but tonight in addition to saying let's resolve this issue, let's continue to fund the government, let's not pursue the strategy of a shutdown, i am here to express my genuine concern about the tactics that seem to be ongoing today in which we, as the senator from alabama suggests, are holding hostage our servicemen and women and their pay. we've had a lot of discussion here in washington, d.c., about who's an essential government

employee. i would tell you there can be no question but what our servicemen and women are essential government employees and they will be working, rarms of the -- regardless of the consequences, regardless of the decisions that are made here about the so-called shut down. and from my view, it makes absolutely no sense. in fact it is immoral to ask our servicemen and women to serve and to serve in harm's way and to have to worry about whether or not the pay dhak feeds their families -- the paycheck that needs their families, and as a matter of fact, most of our servicemen and women live month to month, live paycheck to paycheck. and the idea that while they're serving and sacrificing away from family that they would have the additional concern about whether or not the paycheck is going to arrive and be deposited in their account seems to me to be something beyond the pale, something that we could never expect from a congress of the united states of america. and so i'm here one more time to say, yes, absolutely let's get

spending under control. the idea that we cannot go back to 2008 spending levels plus inflation, we can do that. no one should believe that we cannot accomplish that goal. and no one should be using the servicemen and women, their paycheck, their service to our country as hostage for the idea of whether or not this government is shut down. resolve in issue now and make certain we resolve it in a way that no member of our armed services or their family is harmed by the decisions that will be made. this is an important decision. it is about the future of our country. but the immediate concern is whether or not our servicemen and women understand that we value their service and we will take every step to make certain that they are not harmed by the political inaction, the inability of us in washington, d.c., to resolve the issue of the continuing resolution. i yield back.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i rise to share my deep concern that we are careening towards a shutdown of the u.s. government. just a little more than 24 hours from now, tomorrow night, our government will shut down if this chamber and the house chamber cannot come together and put a simple continuing resolution on the president's defnlgpresident'sdesk. you know, ther there are a lot f things that we should be and should be proud of. one is to be a nation that has

been a light for the world, presenting the ideals of democracy in action and advocating for and defending human rights. we should be deeply pleased that we have fought for fair working conditions and economic opportunity for americans across this great land. we should be proud of a tradition of public education that gives children an opportunity to fulfill their full potential. we should be deeply pleased of our history advocating for freedom of leave, and freedom of association, and freedom of liberty. all of these things are part of a legacy for our nation, a part

of what this chamber has been about. but we should not be pleased and we should not accept that this chamber is now engaged not in those great and lofty ideals but in a very small argument over an extension of the budget for six months and that we are so dysfunctional that we are risking shutting the american government down for one of the few times in its history. that is not the model we wish to show to the world. and i'll tell you, i am deeply, deeply frustrated by what has transpired since the year 2000. the first 11 years of this century, indeed, the first 11 years of this millennium, have not been kind ones for the united states of america. in the year 2000, we were

running huge surpluses. i was back in oregon, part of the legislature, and very excited by the fact that we were paying down our national debt. and economists were starting to debate, well, should we fay down in three years -- pay it down no three years or five years? do we need to keep a substantial debt for some strange economic reason? or should we pay the whole thing off? and i'm thinking, isn't that great debate to have, because we're going to have a debt-free nation to our children. yes, mr. majority leader? mr. reid: could i ask my friend to withhold for a -- mr. merkley: i yield to our esteemed leader. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i appreciate that. i'm headed to the white house. there will be no more votes tonight. we hope that we're able to have some good fortune at white house, work our way through these issues. as i indicated outside the door here, i'm not as confident as i was. the last 24 hours have not been

kind to the american people. this is not a debate, mr. president, between democrats and republicans. it is a debate between republicans and republicans. they cannot determine how many social issues that they want. funding is pretty well taken care of but that's not where we are. we're here trying to fund a government until the end of this fiscal year, based not on money but on social issues, some of which have been in this country for 40 years. we haven't settled the issues in 40 years. we're not going to settle them in a few hours. so aim not really optimistic. i hope things are better when i get to the white house and we can work something out, but the a really, really too bad for the american people what's going on. i would ask consent that my friend, the distinguished senator from oregon's statement not appear interrupted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. majority leader. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: and i think we all share the thought that there

be good karma tonight in the discussions and that we not shut in government down. that's what this debate is about on the floor right now. and it goes back to this point in 2000 when we had a new president come in who decided that paying off the debt wasn't that important. no, president bush said, bonus breaks, big giveaways to the wettiest americans, that's important and did so without paying for them in any other manner. and then would had the war launched in afghanistan instead of a president coming forward and saying, we, the american people, must sack fishings we must pray for this war, it's that important to our national security, instead we had a president that came forward and said, american citizens, please keep spending a althoug lot of n the retail stories. so debt was greatly increased to pay thor that war. then we had a president that launch add war in iraq. and by the way it is the same president, president bush. proceeded to give away the treasury to the wealthiest americans. president bush decided not to

pay for a war in afghanistan. president bush decided to launch a war in iraq, on completely false premises, and to do so not paying for it. and then we have medicare part-d, that happened in that same eight-year period, a huge additional expansion of a government program, a program that will indeed -- has helped many americans, will help many americans, but was not paid for. and those decisions, those four decisions, doubled the debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. but doubling was not enough. indeed, the bush administration did something else, and that is they created a house of cards out of the most important financial document for every american family, and that's the home mortgage. by deregulating retail mortgages, they allowed liar loans, those undocumented loans. they allowed teeser rates, those two-year really low rates that mart agents used -- mortgages agents used to talk people into

subprime loans. they allowed steering payments, undisclosed payments to the mortgage originators that rewarded them for steering people into subprime loans. then they took all of those faulty subprime mortgages and passaged them into securities and allowed-- --and packaged them into securities. those were called swaps or derivatives. ads 50 trillion unregulated industry came upon the american scene and those securities ended up in every financial institution around this nation and this great house of cards, which corrupted the fundamental value of primary wealth for most americans, the humble, fully amortizing prime loan -- subprime mortgage, was turned into an instrument of mass financial destruction. and that financial destruction that was brought down on our house in 2008-2009 added another $4 trillion to the debt. 10 we went from $5 trillion to $14 trillion. and that process continued just this last december with a compromise that added another

$500 billion to the debt. a compromise i could not support because it added $500 billion additional to the debt. i had a lot of hope just january, three months ago, that we had a new group come in and we had a new congress, 112th congress, and now we were going to be able to proceed to create jobs and to do so by ending some of those really frivolous giveways, those massive oil and gas give aways that line the bottom line of some of the deepest pockets in our nation. those rules that prevent russ from negotiating over drug prices were result in our seniors and medicare paying higher prices for drugs than any other seniors anywhere else in the world even those drugs were here, potential savings of $6 billion per year. those bonus breaks for billionaires, on top of $100,000 per taxpayer, up to a million more for many taxpayers. those bonus breaks, taking them

away, savings of $50 billion a year. ending duplicative pentagon programs identified by the secretary of defense, savings of $75 billion, all of these opportunities and so many more bring our financial house into order. but those hopes were soon dashed because a new team in the other house of the u.s. congress didn't decide to fight for jobs, didn't decide to fight to get rid of frivolous programs. instead they decided to lay out a plan that attacks the very communities that have been most hurt by the previous disasters because that meltdown that mortgage meltdown that's haunted us in 2008, 2009, it destroyed the wealth of basic americans, their homes, homes have lost enormous value it proceeded to destroy jobs that those families counted on, huge job losses. it proceeded to wipe out the

retirement savings. and no wonder that so many families today don't have confidence that their lives, the lives of their children will be better than their lives. and so for so many families -- in fact, their current life is not better than their parents' life was because of these kinds of devastating decisions. but the new arrival said, no, we're going to increase the harm. we're going to attack the community development grants that build community organizations. we're going to attack the heating programs that keep people from freezing. we're going to diminish the food programs that keep people from starving. we're going to attack women's health programs. programs that have nothing to do, by the way, with abortion. but preventive programs, screenings, pap screenings, breast exams. we're going to attack and wipe those out. -- out because of misguided ideological opinions. and now we find a bill that says it's going to dismantle medicare. we find an attack on housing for

veterans. these are not the things that will bring jobs to america. these are not the things that will rebuild america. now, on top of all of these attacks on specific programs, my colleagues in the house decided to create a whole long list of ideological riders to add to the budget debate. so i have a copy here, four pages, policy riders in house resolution one. it goes on and on and on on everything that you can imagine from -- from job corps centers to training for our unemployed americans. it's a -- it's a huge list, it defunds the consumer protection bureau that will guard against corporation of mortgages, it attacks the e.p.a.'s ability to enforce the clean air act and so on and so forth. an unbelievable list that every american should see to see what the true agenda is on the other side of capitol hill.

now is the time to set aside these games, these ideological riders. now is the time to set aside these attacks on the core programs that strengthen our communities. we are pass the -- past the time to have the ability to do a six-month extension of our programs here in the united states of america so we can go on to debate fy fiscal year 2012. not everybody isied for that serious debate. we've been hearing a lot of chanting at rallies that folks, they do want to shut down the government over these ideological riders. indeed, april 5th, "the washington post" reported, "republicans gave the speaker an ovation when he informed them to begin preparing for a possible shutdown." they want the shutdown because they want this ideological

fight. so after having proceeded through devastating mistake after devastating mistake that increased our national debt from $5 trillion in the year 2000 -- and remember it was headed down toward zero -- to nearly $15 trillion, we still can't have a serious conversation. we have folks who want to shut down this government or these ideological riders. so i must say we must return to understanding our role here in the senate and in the house in terms of the broad and challenging and important issues facing america. the issue of providing fundamental services, the issue of creating jobs and the lofty goals of advancing democracy and human rights and civil rights around this planet. now is the time to set aside

those shallow, ideological games, focus on rebuilding our economy and putting america back on track. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum call, mr. president? the presiding officer: no, we are not. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. i want to salute my colleague from oregon for his eloquent words and his passion. i know he is dead -- he has dedicated his life to make the lives of people better, and

that's why he feels so strongly about how badly a government shutdown would affect average folks. now, i agree with him. simply put, mr. president, there is no reason for a government shutdown. absolutely no reason at all. a genuine bipartisan compromise with significant and responsible cuts in government spending is in hand, but it's being vetoed by an extreme minority of the republican party. the tail is wagging the dog. the most extreme, the people least likely to compromise, the people in general with less experience in government and at least from their statements little respect for views not their own are dominating the house of representatives. speaker boehner is somebody we all have a great deal of affection for and sympathy for, but, you know, mr. president,

the -- the hour is -- and leadership is called for and to allow this small group -- relatively small group when you look at the expanse of our government to dominate everything that is happening and hurt millions of innocent people is not leadership. when the speaker says there is no agreement on the numbers or the cuts, he just means he isn't ready to say so publicly. it is true i have not been inside the negotiating room, but i've heard all the details from my friend and colleague and leader, harry reid. i have heard the details from those who have been negotiating. and the bottom line is, the number and what composes that number of cuts is virtually agreed to the only reason there is not a handmake is speaker boehner and his representatives don't want it to appear that the

numbers are signed off on for two reasons, in my opinion. one, they're afraid what these hard-right colleagues would say. and, number two, then it will focus everything on their true causes which is the riders. so, mr. president, this is no longer about spending. the hard right in the house of representatives wants to make this about ideology. injecting last-minute ideological addons like limiting preventive health for women. mr. president, we have a fiscal crisis not a social crisis. let's not gloss over what's going on here. republicans don't really care about reducing the deficit. otherwise they wouldn't have paraded out a budget that ends medicare for our seniors but protects trillions for tax breaks for millionaires and corporations.

you would want to make sure that millionaires pay their fair share of taxes because every dollar from the millionaires goes just as much to reducing the deficit as a dollaror medicare cuts. so when you do one and not the other, you don't care about deficit reduction. you may care about shrinking the government. you may wish there were no government at all. that's a perspective of some. but you don't care about deficit reduction. and one of the things that has not been made apparent is cutting government programs to many on the other side of the aisle is not in sync with reducing the deficit. and those two are too often confused. so why are we here? why are we on the eve of a shutdown of government which will hurt millions? it's because this hard right in the house of representatives, some of the members of the tea party other than allies of the tea party, want to satisfy the

agenda of the extreme right wing. and if they don't get everything they want, mr. president, they have made their desire clear. and we tonight have to make this up, mr. president. they say it. here's mike pence, one of the leading republicans in the house of representatives, one of the leaders of the tea party caucus. what does he say? "shut it down." that's what he wants. either he thinks he's going to get his way by shutting it down. you know, i group on streets in brooklyn, and there were people who thought just by bullying they could get their way. shut it down if you don't do it all my way. well, bullying doesn't work and we will not be bullied. we will not hurt millions of people.

we will not abandon our principles because the other side believes that we will do whatever they want, falsely believes that we will do whatever they want because otherwise they will shut the government down. we don't want to shut the government down. i have not heard a single democrat say what mike pence has said, but i've heard lots of republicans -- i've heard sarah palin talk about the shutdown be a good thing, i heard about newt gingrich talk about the shut down be a good thing. i heard some of mr. pence's colleagues, probably a dozen or so in the house of representatives saying shut it down is a good thing. you have heard a single democratic elected official say it? no. that alone should tell you who wants to shut the government down or who is willing to shut the government down and who is fighting strongly against it. they want to shut government

down if they don't get their way. as i said, i've seen people do things like that growing up on the streets of brooklyn. and you know what you learn? if you keep giving in and giving in and giving in, they ask for more and more and more. and the way to deal with someone who is attempting to bully you is to stand up to them. we have gone so far in their direction. president obama said to speaker boehner, it's reported, you've gotten three-quarters of what you want, why don't you declare victory and go home? we know why speaker boehner can't do that, mr. president. it's very simple. because then there would be a rebellion among a key part of his constituency. the hard right, many of them, but not all of them freshmen in the house of representatives, most of them have very little experience in government.

i dare say most of them don't know the consequences of a government shutdown or of the kinds of cuts they're suggesting, but they come in with an idealogical narrowness. and, mr. president, when either party let's the extremes dominate, they lose. when republicans let the hard right dominate, they lose, and, frankly, we've learned our lesson as democrats when we let the hard left dominate, we will lose too. because most americans are somewhere in the middle. and so, mr. president, this idea of shutting the government down or of applauding a standing ovation when the speaker nervous them to begin preparing to shut the government down, i guarantee it will backfire on its perpetrators just as it did on newt gingrich