but if we were to see, as i said earlier, as much as a 1% increase in interest rates, that adds $140 billion every single year in interest costs to finance the debt. this is a serious situation which requires serious action. now, we have in front of us a continuing resolution to fund the government because we didn't get the work done last year. the democrat majorities here in the congress last year didn't pass a budget, didn't pass a single appropriations bill. we're doing the unfinished work of last year. we're now in the sixth continuing resolution, which, as i said, expires tonight at midnight. if nothing is done, the government would shut down. but there is an alternative, mr. president. of course, the best alternative would be to pass legislation that passed the house of representatives earlier this year, was voted on in the senate and defeated that would cut cut $61 billion from discretionary spending and take us back to 2008 levels.

and just to remind my colleagues, in the last two years, discretionary spending has increased 24%. that's if you don't include stimulus money. if you add stimulus money, it was 84%. we've seen discretionary spending increase in the last two years by 24% at a time when inflation in this country was 2%. so we were spending at a rate that was literally more than ten times the rate of inflation. i don't think the american people would think it's unreasonable when you're running running $1.5 trillion deficits every year, when you have a a $14 trillion debt to think that we ought to be able to go back to 2008 spending levels. that is what the house bill did that failed here in the senate, and so that triggered a negotiation which is ongoing. but my point, very simply, mr. president, is there is a solution in front of us now that would prevent at midnight tonight the government from shutting down, and it would also fund our troops through the end of this year which ends on september 30.

so all we have to do here in the senate is the majority leader, all he has to do is call up that house-passed bill, we move that. it would fund the government for another week until negotiators can come to a final conclusion on a longer term funding resolution that would take us through to the end of the fiscal year. it's very simple, there is a very simple answer to all of this. and so there is a big debate about that particular short-term funding resolution. they say well maybe it cuts too deeply. well, all the cuts that are in that short-term funding resolution are cuts that have been agreed upon largely by both sides, by both democrats and republicans, and it's to the tune of about $12 billion, which is significantly less than the number that both sides have agreed we ought to cut from the budget this year. it also, as i said, would fund the military -- really important that we fund our troops, that we not put our military when we're trying to fight two wars and perhaps three at risk of not having the funding that's necessary for them to conduct their very important duties.

and so it would fund the military through the end of this fiscal year. so why will it not be picked up and passed by the majority leader here in the united states senate? well, according to our colleagues on the other side, it is because of these ideological riders, this rigid partisanship, this insisting upon things that just absolutely don't have any support here in the united states congress. well, i want to point out something that in 2009, the other side was singing a very different tune, because at that time they were passing a big spending bill and at that time president obama and then-speaker pelosi loaded such riders onto a government funding bill similar to the one now being negotiated. and a senior democrat aide is saying, well, they're not comparable. many of the same provisions, in fact one of them, was an abortion provision that was included in that particular spending bill, and what is -- what goes on here to say -- and

this is quoting a -- a democrat aide later on. there is a difference between including riders on a bill when they are supported by a majority of the senate and just need a vehicle and including riders on a bill because the minority is trying to ram through something that would not have support on its own. well, just to point out, the rider that was added by the house republicans on the short-term spending bill is a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions here in washington, d.c. it would affect one city in the country. and interestingly enough, mr. president, it is a position that has been supported repeatedly by the leadership on the other side. the majority leader, senator reid, has voted for this very ban ten times since 1995. the majority whip, senator durbin, has voted for this very ban nine times since 1995. and believe it or not, the president of the united states, when he was a member of the united states senate, voted for

that ban twice, and he has as president signed legislation that includes that ban. and so to suggest that this is something that lacks majority support just doesn't pass the smell test. you cannot make an argument that it's about ideological riders that don't have majority support when you have people on both sides by large majorities voting for these particular riders, and i think you can't argue that this is an ideological battle because these are things that have been passed before right here in the united states senate. i think that most of these -- a lot of legislative things, a lot of things that get funded in government are an expression of someone's ideology. there are some of us who happen to believe that the taxpayers in this country should not be supporting abortion, that taxpayer funds that shouldn't be going to supporting abortions, and the broader debate about funding for planned parenthood is not just ideological, it is a funding issue because they have received somewhere on the order

of over $300 million a year in taxpayer funds. so when you're looking at ways to trim government, you're looking at every area of the government, you are by definition making decisions that in some cases may be based on someone's ideology. but with the -- but the fact of the matter is you cannot argue with a straight face here on the floor of the united states senate that this short-term funding resolution ought to be held up over a couple of riders that have broad support by members on both sides and have countless votes, previous votes in support of those. and so i would suggest to my colleagues here in the senate that a shutdown at midnight tonight can be avoided very simply. all it requires is for the majority leader to pick up the bill that passed the house of representatives yesterday, that as i said funds the government for another week until our negotiators can come to that final conclusion, that funds the military through the end of the fiscal year and that includes a couple of provisions that have

been supported numerous times by members on both sides here in the united states senate. a shutdown is totally unavoidable, but it's completely up to the majority to pick up that legislation and pass it. we can't afford to wait to deal with out-of-control spending and debt for the reasons that i just mentioned. over 40 cents of every dollar that we spend at the federal level is borrowed. as i have said before, we have seen discretionary spending increase by 24% over the past two years. what the house republicans propose in terms of spending reductions i think by any definition, i think the american people would find it to be very, very reasonable. it represents literally less than 2% of total federal spending. at a time when most americans are tightening their belts, most small businesses are tightening their belts, families are having to make hard budget decisions, at least here in washington, we ought to be making decisions that are in the best interests of getting this country back on track so that we aren't spending money that we don't have, so that we are living within our means and so that we aren't

saddling future generations with an enormous burden of debt, which isn't fair to them, and which by the way also has a profound impact on the economy. everybody makes the argument up here that somehow if we reduce federal spending that it's going to hurt the economy. well, i would argue the opposite. if we don't get federal spending under control, it's going to hurt the economy because you're going to see these kinds of impacts. you're going to see interest rates start going up. you're going to see inflation start going up, and you're going to have people not making decisions about hiring out there in our economy because they don't believe that washington, d.c., has gotten the message about getting spending and debt under control. and so i would argue to my colleagues, mr. president, that we have a solution, a very simple solution in front of us. it certainly doesn't necessitate at midnight tonight the government shutting down. i don't think that's in anybody's best interests. i don't know of anybody on this side of the aisle who wants to see that happen. all we're simply saying is it is high time that this government

started to live within its means, started to -- stop spending money that it doesn't have and starts putting us on a fiscal path that will ensure that this country is around for future generations of americans and that we don't have young people in the future carrying around an $88,000 debt, which is what their debt will be in a few short years if we don't take steps to get federal spending and federal debt under control. so i urge my colleagues -- and i would ask that the other -- the senator from new york got up and said please, republicans, don't shut the government down. i would say to my colleagues on the other side. it's very simple. the majority leader picks up the house-passed bill, passes it, and this crisis is averted and the negotiators can continue their discussions on a longer term solution, which it sounds like they're very close to coming to a conclusion on. that's all that it would require. it's a very simple solution, and i hope that my colleagues will do it and that we can make sure the government continues to function but that we start to

get spending and debt under control. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be added as a cosponsor to senate 724. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to proceed for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, reserving the right to object, and i don't intend to object, but i'm just wondering if the senator from massachusetts would be willing to amend his request to allow subsequent republican speakers to also have 15 minutes to make their remarks? so if the senator would agree to amend that, i will not object. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: this is a critically important issue. i think a lot of us all want to speak. i just want to make sure that -- i have been presiding and waiting for some time as well. i hope that we don't start rearranging all the rules here so we all get a fair chance to

speak. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request from the senator from massachusetts? mr. coats: mr. president, i continue to reserve the right to object. if the senator is willing to amend that, i will not object, but if he isn't, then i agree with the senator from virginia. there is a long list of republicans and democrats that would like to speak. mr. kerry: mr. president, i withdraw my request. the presiding officer: the request is withdrawn. mr. kerry: mr. president, that's sort of an indication of the kind of problem that we have around here, which is the seeming ability to accommodate simple requests that used to be accommodated around here all the time. let me just say very quickly, mr. president, that what the senator from south dakota just said is a really massive oversimplification of what is happening here. the president of the united states made it very clear we're not going to fund the government week to week to week to week to week. it costs more money. it's a completely incompetent way to be funding the government of the united states of america.

people need to make plans. people need to let contracts. people need to be able to know how much they're going to be spending. how much can they hire, who can they hire? that is an incompetent way to manage the government of the united states. and the president made it clear we've already done two short-term fundings of the government, and we said we're not going to do it again. reach an agreement, come to an agreement. show the maturity and the capacity to be able to do the business of our nation. and they're just asking for another delay, but they're not just asking for that. they have also put their ideological wish list for that particular moment into that particular request. mr. president, this is a dangerous moment for our economy and for our country, and frankly it's an embarrassing moment for the congress of the united states, an embarrassing moment for, i think, the american people to have to watch their congress struggling to do what

we were sent here to do, which is compromise and find a way to do the business of our country. and there is -- there is a reason we're standing on the precipice of this argument. i believe we can still get an agreement in these next hours. i believe we may well get that agreement in these next hours, but what a show to get there. how extraordinary it is if for the first time since the 1990's -- when incidentally the republicans ran the house. does it ring a bell? that's the last time we had a shutdown in the united states congress, and here we are back again with the same threats, the same need to do brinksmanship that puts an ideological wish list on the table that you can't pass any other way. so try to force it down the throats of americans at the last minute by threatening to shut down the government.

i've got to tell you, in china, they have got to be laughing at us right now. they have got to be clapping. how terrific that the united states of america can't make a decision. boy does that send a wonderful message to businesses all around the world. they can't make a decision. they can't decide an energy policy. they can't decide an infrastructure policy. they can't fix their schools. they can't do anything, and now they can't even get a budget. that's a hell of a message around the world. while we're running around the world preaching the virtues of democracy. people have got to be scratching their heads and saying that's what we're going to get? this is not because one side of the political aisle does not want to do what the other side of the aisle doesn't want to do in terms of cutting the deficit. this is not about the deficit. you only have to listen to speaker boehner and to the

president and the majority leader and others and add up the math. and it's beyond dispute that democrats have agreed to make the largest budget cuts in american history in discretionary funding. it's also beyond dispute that we have agreed to travel far more than halfway. worried about 73% of what they requested in terms of reduction in terms of reductions. and last night, the senator of the united states sat with speaker boehner and said, i agree to the number. this is not about the number. we agree with the number. providing we can also look beyond discretionary spending and look to the larger budget, which is the way you ought to be doing budgeting for the united states. we've compromised, mr. president. we've agreed to well more than what is reasonable with respect to some of these reductions.

so this is not about making cuts to the deficit. that's not what it's about, and america needs to understand that. in a negotiation, there's always a back and forth, there's a give and a take. but we're at this extraordinary moment in american history where a small group of people seem to be intimidating their own leadership. i mean, i keep hearing about what a tough position the speaker is in. he's not in a tough position. he's the speaker of the house of the united states of america. it's a job he always wanted. it's a job he wants to have. he asked for it. and his position is no tougher than anybody else here who has to make a cut on these kinds of issues. what are you for? but he's allowing a small group, a minority within a group, maybe a minority of a minority, i don't know, but they're dictating and they're saying, oh, we've got to do this, we've got to take america right up to the bring, right up to the edge

and show to the world that we're not able to do our business in a quiet and responsible and thoughtful way. rigid ideology is threatening to shut down the federal government of the united states. and let's not play games and pretend that some short-term stop-gap measure, when the president has said we're not going to do that anymore. it's no way to run the o government and it costs more money. and they're doing this with impunity because all the voices of moderation and commonsense, all the voices on the other side of the aisle who say we don't want to shut down the government -- and they really don't. i know some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. they get it. they don't want to do this. but either they're not being listened to or something's happened over there where there's a level of anarchy within the institutional process of the congress that is dictating where we are. so, mr. president, why is it that 100%, 100% of the cuts that

we are being asked to make are coming from only 12% of the budget? i mean, there isn't an american who will sit there and say, what do you mean? you mean only 12% of the budget is up for grabs and they're taking 100% of their cuts from the 12% of the budget? that doesn't make a lot of sense. and it doesn't make a lot of sense. defense spending, the pentagon. are you telling me that every system that we're buying over there, that the procurement process of the pentagon is so perfect that we can't make some cuts? but they're not trying. that's not on the table. everybody knows the big items of our budget deficit are medicare, medicaid, social security. those aren't on the table. they're not being considered. how can you say this is not ideological when the only things that are being cut are the very

things that some people have been trying to cut for 40 years, that they oppose as a matter of principle in their entire political life and they can't get them any other way so now they're trying to jam them down the american throat by saying we're threatening to shut down the government of the united states. mr. president, this isn't about the budget deficit. we -- we -- if it were, we would have made the largest cuts in american history because we've agreed to those cuts. because every single one of us understands why we're in the predicament we're in. yes, we have a huge budget deficit and a huge debt and i can't get over how quick my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are to forget about how we got here. because when president george bush became president, we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. we had balanced the budget. we did what we needed to do. and then they came in and passed two huge tax cuts for the

wealthiest people in the country that they didn't ask for and didn't need and all of a sudden we had a deficit. of course, because they gave tax cuts on the credit card. and then we had two wars, one of which was a war we never had to have, the war in iraq. trillion dollars. that's your deficit. and then they had all their cronies guarding the -- you know, the foxes guarding the coops and the result was wall street ran away with american economic interests and we had the housing crisis and the wall street crash, the greatest loss of wealth in modern times and the result was the deficit and the debt went up and president obama came in and we were losing 750,000 jobs a month the day he came into office. they forget that. they forget their complicity in that. so we are where we are now,

mr. president. the fact is that, you know, this fight, you know what they've been trying to do? they've been trying to shut down the government if we don't get environmental protection agency restraints into their -- which they were unable to win otherwise. they want -- they have about 65 different ideological wish-list items now being reduced but that's what the fight has been about for these last weeks. how much time do i have? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. kerry: all right. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the remainder of my comments be placed in the record as if read in full. but i just hope we're going to be responsible here. and i'm sorry that we're not able to have the normal kind of debate the senate has on this. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i join the senator from massachusetts in saying i'm sorry also we don't have more time. each of us would like to spend more time on this important issue, but we want to also give everyone a chance to speak and

that's why we have the limitation. mr. president, i think it's important that we put this whole issue in perspective. people are saying, well, the clock is ticking and we're 12 hours or less away from having to shut the government down. well, yes, the clock is ticking but the clock that has been ticking for year after year after year after year is a mounting debt and fiscal crisis that is going to take this country into bankruptcy if we don't do something about it. now, that clock is ticking a lot faster than the clock is ticking on this debate. and let's put this debate in perspective to the larger picture. we have added in the last four years -- excuse me, the last three years over $4 trillion to our debt. $4 trillion-plus in the last three years. this country is on an unsustainable spending binge. and people throughout the year in 2010 expressed their views about the egregious, reckless

spending of this congress and they sent a new congress here to do something about it. now, because the other party that was in control in 2010 didn't pass a budget, didn't do anything about it when the time ran out on september 30 at the end of the fiscal year, we are at this point today because we've had to have these continuing extensions, which we're trying to do something about and i happy to we can resolve this. i don't want t to shut down any more than anybody else does, but people have to nut in perspective -- have to nut in -- have to put this in perspective. what we're dealing with here is a request put out by the republicans, because there's been no request from the president of the united states, there's been in request from the other party about what the package should be to deal with this, and that request, is requires -- it asks for a reduction of 1.6% of the total amount of spending that's going to take place in 2011. 1.6%.

now, if you're a head of a family or an individual making $50,000 a year and you find out that you are running yourself into bankruptcy, that amount that you would have to come up with to save to start the process of getting your financial situation back in order is $800. if you're making $100,000 a ye year, what we're asking for is a $1,00 equivalent cut -- a $1,600 equivalent cut in the spending. if you're a business making a million dollars a year and the boss comes and says, we are spending way more than we take in in our rev news and this company is going to go bust and everybody's going to get released from employment as a result of that unless we take a start in moving forward in dealing with our fiscal crisis and we're going to start by cutting $16,000 out of the $1 million that. is the equivalent of what we're doing here. and yet we're talking as if this is doomsday,,s this, this is

cataclysmic, these are the greatest cuts in the history of the united states senate. we have got a time bomb, a debt bomb ticking away out there that is going to take the country down into second tier or third-tier status at best or we're going to have the bond markets do it for us if we don't start with this. and this isn't just a republican plea. democrats, the president's own commission, headed by erskine bowles, who was the president's chief of staff, has said there has been no more predictable collapse facing america than this one and we need to do something about it now. and what we're trying to do now is simply do something about what wasn't done in 2011, for the 2011 budget in a modest 1.6% cut. so that we can move to what we really need to do and what we really need to do is address the whole picture. as the senator from massachusetts said, we have to deal more than with just this 12% of the discretionary spending for 2011. we have to put mandatory spending on the table, defense spending on the table.

we have to look at tax reform in a way to grow our economy. there's a whole range of things that we have to do. we have one plan in place that has been put there for us to at least begin starting the debate on, which we need to do to get this thing out of the way so that we can start that debate and that is the republican plan put forward by the house member, paul ryan, head of the house budget committee. now, that is the comprehensive plan that we ought to be working on and we can't get to that plan because we're dealing with this 1.6% fix to the problem that exists for 2011. it is 2012 and the next ten years beyond that needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed now. this country is facing a serious -- as serious a debt crisis as we've ever had. leading economists, republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, those from harvard and those from stanford and every college inbetween and every institution and entity that's studying this problem says you've got to do something and you've got to do it now or it's going to be done for you

and the results that have will be a lot worse than if you start to address it now. now, governors and heads of businesses and heads of families all across america know exactly what we're talking about because they've already had to make these -- these tough decisions. they are already implementing what is necessary to do to get their fiscal house back in in order. and it's not just republican governors, it's republican and democrat governors. why aren't we listening to andrew cuomo? why aren't we listening to jerry brown? why aren't we listening to mitch daniels and other governors, governor walker from wisconsin, govern kasich from ohio, looking at what they're doing, at least they're stepping up to the place and doing it? and here -- up to the plate and doing it? and here we're arguing over the extreme nature of a 1.6% reduction out of a $3.7 trillion budget. revenues are coming in at $2.2 billion for a $1.5 trillion deficit and we're talking about a 1.6% cut out of all that, as

if this is doomsday if we don't raise -- even come halfway or a little more than halfway to this. so putting this in perspective i think is necessary for us. we have all the focus on this little, small grass fire happening over here when there's a five-alarmer across the street and that is the fiscal house of america. now, are we doing this because we're green eyeshade people and we don't like the way government functions and we want to take things away from people? no. we are doing this to save this country, to save the benefits available to those under medicare, to save the benefits that those that are available under medicaid and other provisions. we are trying to keep these programs from collapsing and we're trying to keep this country's fiscal house from collapsing or burning up. and so we're fighting the little grass fire, we've got a five-alarmer over here and we've got a little truck with a little hose trying to put out that grass fire. let us pass this -- reconcile

this and pass this now so that we can get to the issue that we have to get to. this whole thing about riders and about the most -- the largest tax cut in american history is a pebble in a pond of what is necessary for us to go forward and deal with the crisis that is before us. it's going to rest on all of our shoulders. it's going to reflect on all of us, republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives. if we stand here and fiddle while our fiscal house burns to the ground or collapses -- now, as i said, one way or another, this is going to happen and it may happen sooner or later, if you're listening to erskine bowles and -- and our foreman colleague, -- and our former colleague, senator simpson. if you listen to the president's own commission, if you listen to any analyst that has looked at this, said it is totally unsustainable. and if you don't do it and if you don't start the process, the bond market and the interest rates are going to do it for you and it's going to fall on all of

us for not stepping up to the plate and getting it done. we've got 11 hours to get this done. i'm urging that we finish this now, not extend it another week. the last thing i want to do is put this off so that we're here next friday with the same speeches, the same threat of shutdown. let's get this thing, pass this now, let's make the decisions now to go forward. let's let it -- our yeas and our nays be recorded and let the american people decide which side they want to be on on this particular issue. i think given the results of the last election and given the awareness of the american people, that clearly what they have come to the conclusion is that government is too big, it's growing too fast, it's spending too much money, it's spending money that it doesn't have, it is borrowing money at a rate that is putting us in severe jeopardy in terms of our creditors and what their demands are going to be in the future. when 40 cents of every dollar is borrowed, you can't continue on that course without dire

consequences. so the challenge before us today, i believe, is to wrap-up this negotiation and wrap-up the issue that deals with the -- the remaining months of 2011 so that we can immediately begin -- whether it means canceling the recess or whatever, i'm more than happy to participate in that -- immediately we can begin on the necessary decisions and changes and debate that has to take place regarding our long-term future. if we fail to do that, we're going to reap the negative consequences. and, mr. president, i know my time is about to expire. i just simply plead with my colleagues, let's get past this little nothing of a skirmish here and keep this government functioning and get to work on what we absolutely have to do and we're hoping that we have competing plans, but if not, let's go forward with the ryan plan and let's get a yea or nay on it and we'll let the american people decide if this is the right way to go.

mr. president, if i have any time left, i'm happy to yield it. mr. warner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i wish i could say i was rising today just to have a debate about one of the normal issues we talk about, but like probably most of my colleagues, i rise today a bit embarrassed -- not a bit embarrassed, really embarrassed that we're here with this circumstance. people across virginia cannot understand why we can't get this done. i had the honor as serving as governor. i had a 2-1 legislature. we got things. we compromised. we found that common ground that seems to be now viewed as a bad place to be. mr. president, i agree with the senator from indiana that whatever number we agree on

today that that doesn't take us very far when you have a $1.6 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion debt. and, if anything that this debate is showing, there's not going to be a way to get unless we can frame this in a bipartisan way. i agree with the senator from indiana, we ought to take the framework of the simp-bowles -- simpson bowles plan, and there are a group of us, democrats an republicans trying to do that and i know there are others who would like to be part of that as well. we ought to take one lesson from this debate we're not going to solve the bigger problem unless we solve the bipartisan basis. i'm not in the negotiating room. i wish i was. i don't know what's holding up. i do know this, as somebody who's followed this debate pretty close, that for the weeks

of this discussion it seems to have been focused on can we at least take some small step towards attacking that deficit and cutting spending? and it seems to me from every bit of the reports that i've read and i would love to say that i've got the insider view, many of us senators who are not in negotiations are asking what's going on, from all the press rereports, it -- reports, it seems like it's about cuts and there's actually agreement on the number and size of the first steps of cuts, but now we've got these other issues. and i think, as some of my colleagues have said, there will be time to debate those issues. but why in the heck would we roll the dyes with not -- dice with not just 800,000 federal

employees, but millions of americans who rely on some level of continuity to have these extra social issue divisions right now? i heard some of my colleagues say earlier, well, you know, if we have to shut it down for a weekend, that won't be too much problem. i guess i'd say you don't have to worry about the federal employees. and lord knows anything that puts a red herring -- i appreciate senator hutchison and senator casey to make sure that our troops will be paid. if we can't do our job, i think that senators and congressmen shouldn't be paid either if we should shut down. i promise not to take any salary if we are shut down. but just even for a weekend what do you tell the motel owners, the restaurant workers, the private-sector folks who are relying this weekend on people coming to washington to see the cherry blossoms?

you say that's small ball, but that's people's lives. not federal workers. private-sector workers. what do you say to the defense contractor in northern virginia who says, you know, we shut this down, he's going to lay off 70 folks starting next week. what do you say to the ship builder in norfolk who's living paycheck to paycheck and says, they don't know whether they're going to see private-sector dollars from their private-sector employment whether they're going to get paid or not. and what do you say to our soldiers who are fighting in iraq and afganistan to try to spread democratic government if the greatest democracy in the world is going to shut down not over trillions of dollars worth of difference but over some issue that may or may not have been introduced at the 11th

hour. i don't -- i don't get it. and the notion somehow that this will send a good signal of fiscal discipline -- i'm proud -- like my friend from tennessee, we actually spent more time in business careers than we have in political life. but business -- what business hates the most is uncertainty. what the markets hate the most is uncertainty. we have portugal yesterday or the day before say they need a bailout from the european central bank. the notion that we're out of the woods in terms of a macrofinancial crisis is not true. the situation in europe is very uncertain. the situation in the middle east is obviously very uncertain. it would be the height of irresponsibility if we were to kind of once again rock the bond markets with the fact that the american government would shut

down over not trillions or billions, but some other extraneous issue. i just don't get it. economists that we've talked to have said that you could see up to .2% decline in economic growth if we even shut down for a few hours. and, frankly, we'd end up costing ourselves more than we'd save because shutting down operations and starting up operations, as any business leader, as any government person who actually runs something knows, costs more money. so people might say.% of growth -- .2% of growth, all these policies that we try to promote, that's billions and billions -- hundreds of billions of dollars to our economy. so just as we start to see a little bit of good news with the job numbers last month, just as we start to see the beginnings

of an economic recovery, we're going to show that we can't even continue to operate government for the next six months? and we're going to shut it down about -- at least based on press reports, not based on anything -- but on press reports, extraneous issues that a don't have to do with the deficit reduction are going to shut us down? if we can't get through this challenge, what happens if we get and we move from small ball to the issue that senator coats and i know my colleague and friend, senator carper, senator corker, we all want to be part of. the presiding officer as well. how are we going to take on th the $14 trillion debt which we add to every day if we can't solve this problem in a way that focuses on make the cuts, let government continue to operate not simply for the sake of the 800,000 federal workers, but for the countless millions in the

private sector who depend upon that certainty and move on to the question of how we find, i believe, again, the bipartisan solution, and i hope and pray that it's at least around the framework of the simpson-bowles approach which puts everything on the table, revenues and cuts. and recognize we put our country back on the path toward long-term economic growth and prosperity. so i'm hoping and operating for the negotiate -- praying for the negotiators that they realize -- it is bigger than the 78 or whatever number they finally determine, we will send the signal by our action today whether we're willing to move forward to take on the much bigger swish where we have to -- issue where we have to start -- i will close with this. if there's anything that we've got to learn from this if we start with guns ablazing at each other, we're not going to be able to take on the real issue that confronts us, the national

security crisis that chairman mullen has said that is based upon the rising debt and deficit. with that, i will yield the floor and hope and pray that we come to a solution today. mr. corker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: if you would let me know when a minute is left, i'd greatly appreciate it. i rise to speak about our current issue and i'm always glad to speak after my friend from virginia who i enjoyed working on with so many issues and i appreciate the work that he's doing right now to try to deal with the bigger issues that we have to deal with. i'm not going to waste a lot of emotion or say things that -- that might -- look, we're involved in powder puff right now. i mean, we're dealing with a small amount of dollars. we've got -- we've go got $4.1 billion a day in deficit that we're spending. $4.1 billion a day and so

probably the negotiations that we're involved in today are maybe -- maybe we're separated by one day of deficit spending. so, mr. president, i know there's been a lot of talk about what might happen when the government shutdown. i don't believe that's going to happen. i absolutely believe when we come in on monday morning an agreement will have been reached so i'm not going to waste time on the senate floor talking about all the bad things that might happen in this country because i cannot believe over the small ball we're dealing with right now that we're going to have a government shutdown. i think we're going to get this resolved over the next few hours or sometime over the weekend maybe there's a minor disruption this weekend, but i have faith in the fact that this is going to get worked out. what i'd like to spend time talking about is the fact that we have a -- we do have a crisis that's looming. i don't think it's this weekend

and i don't think it's over a -- a continuing resolution that goes for the rest of this year. i hope that we're actually able to move beyond majoring in the minors, which is what's happening at present and major in the major and that is that we need to be talking about trillions of dollars and less expenditures, not billions of dollars. again, each day that goes by with a $1.5 trillion deficit that we have right now, each day that goes by, we're spendin spending $1.04 wl billion that be -- $1.4 billion that we don't have. i'm fully convinced that negotiators on both sides of the aisle very soon will work out their differences and that when monday morning rolls along, the government's going to be operating. to me the big picture is this: we have a debt ceiling vote that will be coming up sometime between memorial weekend and the july fourth recess, and to me, mr. president, that is the

opportunity that we have to really do something that is great for our country. i know that senator -- senator warner alluded to the gang of six, and i know there's a number of people on both sides of the aisle working towards a long-term solution. claire mccaskill and i have offered a bill called the cap act that is gaining momentum and has a number of republican cosponsors. we picked up another democratic cosponsor yesterday. mr. president, it's very simple. it would keep us from doing the kind of thing that's happening right now. you know, one of the things that's most fascinating is today -- and i know you just came from state government, mr. president, today we're dealing with last year's business and i think the thing that's most frustrating from those of us who have come from the business world or who have come from state government or who have been a mayor, this body, we he never know where we're going. i mean we're always debating things that should have been resolved a long time ago.

and what we need to do in this body and what we need to do for this country is to figure out where we're going over the longer haul and then we need to sit down together, both sides of the aisle, an figure out how we -- and figure out how we get there. we need to create a fiscal straitjacket so we know we're at all-time highs today spending relative to our economic output. we had the same thing back in 1945 and candidly even in the 1980's we got up to levels that were dolt dot -- but the cap ajt act is a 10-page bill and it says we will go from where we are today in spending over a ten-year period to our 40-year historical average of 20.6% of our g.d.p. now, there are a lot of people in this body -- and i'm not

going to point fingers -- that use the word "extreme." there's nothing extreme about that. that's sort of common sense, okay? and it puts everything on the table. what's fascinating to me is today we're debating some minor amount of cuts in discretionary spending. and everybody in this body knows if we cut all discretionary spending, discretionary spending by the way includes defense. but if we cut all discretionary spending, including defense, we still could not balance our budget. and so what we need to do as a body is to look at everything, all the entitlements, all the mandatory spndzing, and we need to cap -- spending, and we need to cap federal spending relative to our economy and take it over to a 450-year average over -- to a 40-year average over the next ten years. that would save our country per $7.6 trillion. that would -- by the way, i think it would force us -- i think it would force us as a body to have the discipline to

take up many of the things that the gang of six is working on. we've already had paul ryan from the house show us that it can be done, and there are people who criticize that and that's fine. there are multiple ways of solving this problem. but, mr. president, the problem we have is politicians here in washington do everything they can to avoid making a tough decision. right? i mean, back home, what we need to to do is get the pain out of the way. let's make the tough decisions so this we can have blue scry in front of -- blue sky in front of us. here, everybody wants to wait until the next election and hopefully move beyond their own election to deal with the tough issues that we have to deal with. that's the way this body s it is amazing that here we are in april dealing with last year's business. again, both sides -- both sides are involved in that. i'm not pointing fingers. but if we had a plan that we adopted, a statutory bill where

we agree that we were going to go from where we are to where we need to be -- our 40-year average, not extreme -- over a ten-year period it would force us to sit down and in a bipartisan way look at the big picture. everybody knows cutting discretionary spending is small ball. let me say that -- it's powder puff. it's powder puff. we've got our nation at stake and we're signature here, you know, yelling at each other, saying things we shouldn't be saying to each other, that take us nowhere poser powder puff. it takes us no place. i feel like here our nation is getting ready to have a fiscal crisis at some point, a year or two, and we're a all here trying to score points with each other over something that at the end of the day in the scope of things -- look, this is important, certainly. but there's no question that today we're majoring in the minors. i hope we can get by this,

mr. president, move beyond this without creating even further divides between the two sides and people saying silly things about wh whose to blame and whoe not to blame. the american people have to be watching us here with embarrassment. i'm embarrassed. this is the most dysfunctional place i've ever been a part of in my life because, again, we never know where we're going. it is a privilege to serve. don't get me wrong. a i feel privilege to represent and to be -- a privilege to represent and to be involved. but it is disfinancialal because we -- but it is dysfunctional because we major in the minors. we've got to deal with mandatory spending. we've got is to deal with entitlements. we want those programs to exist for seniors down the road. we want them to exist for these pages and we know today that cannot happen. we know without dealing with them being we cannot solve our

country's fiscal issues. so let's move beyond this little episode that's beneath us, is silly, is small ball, is powder puff. let's move beyond this over this weekend and reach an agreement. the cuts we're making are the biggest cuts that have been made, and i applaud people on both sides of the aisle that are trying to get you there. and no doubt it'll pass through the budget for a decade. it could be $300 billion or $400 billion in savings. that's great but we all know that we need to be $7 trillion or $8 trillion over that decade. and if we don't do that we know that our country's fiscal future is in great jeopardy and we lose in that the ability that we have to display american exceptionalism that all of us want to see us do. so i hope we'll stop talking about republicans and democrats. i -- candidly, i hope we'll talk about the future or something

else because this debate -- this debate is almost beneath us. mr. president, i see that my time is up. i yield the floor to my great friend from delaware, who has been a sensible advocate on so many issues issues. i yield the floor. mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: let me say a special thanks to senator corker, not just for what he said on the issues here, but for the nice words he said about his friend from delaware. it is a pleasure to serve with you. thank you for interrupting me to the concept of town hall meetings, too. i learned that from you. mr. president, the president has been likening the squabble that's going on here to a like a family squabble, and -- between a husband hand a wife, and he says what husbands and wives usually do is they figure out what their differences are and find some middle ground, some compromise and they work them out. one of the things i love to do

is when i go up and down my state, i talk to people that have been married a long time, 50 years, 60 years, 70 years. i always like to ask them, what is the key to being married that long. and i get some really funny answers, some great answers as we will. one of my favorite ains answers is the two c's. communicate and compromise. that's really s communicate and compromise. there is a theme going on here with the former governor of virginia, senator warner, former mayor of chattanooga, and i want to continue with that theme. i go home at night, usually take the train, come back the next morning. this morning i was walking on the platform to catch my train, one person said to me, y'all are acting like a state legislature down there in the snavment i said, no, that's not the way we

act in dover, delaware. when i was governor for those eight years, would had a democratic senate, we had a republican house like we have here. we had a democratic governor for those eight years. yet we managed to communicate and to compromise and to be able to balance our budget eight years in a row, cut taxes seven out of the eight years, created tens of thousands of jobs in the state and to get ourselves a triple-a credit rating for the first time in the history of the state. that's what you can do when you communicated and compromise in good faith. this is -- at the end of these negotiations, i think largely taken in good faith by good partisans. they have a lot of respect for our own leader and a healthy respect for the speaker over in the house with whom i served very briefly. i think he is an honorable person and a guy that tries to do what's right. but this is -- the press said last -- the president said to the speaker of the house, we'll

take your number. we'll agree on the spending cuts. we may think it is a little too much focus on domestic discretionary spending, not enough on defense, not really anything on the entitlements and as i understand, nothing on the revenue side, but we'll take your number. this ended up notseech debate or discussion over hoimp we're going to further reduce spending in this fiscal year. the discussion is things that i think we address already here in this body this week on whether or not the environmental protection agency should be allowed to comply with the clean air act, as ordered by supreme court to reduce pollution. or are we going to tie their hands in some kind of special rider? we already had four bites off the of the apple here in week and none of the amendments to tie the hand of e.p.a. and their ability to enforce the clean air act, none of those amendments passed. now what we're trying to do with our friends in the other body is

to somehow put in the legislationer rider, language that would fly in the face of what we already decided here. the second thing aisht is the former governor -- i was real active in the national governors' association, one of the things i worked on hard and george voinovich when he was a governor from ohio, we worked real hard on legislation that said we don't like federal mandates. state don't like to have federal mandates that say you have to spend money on something or you can't spend money on something or you got to raise your revenues in this way or that way. we did not like that. bill clinton signed legislation on unfunded mandates that said you really can't do that. we don't do it nearly as much as we used to. but to tell the district of columbia what they can or cannot do with their money, not with federal money but what they can and cannot do with their money. it is a violation of the unfunded mangeds law that

exists. the other thing is one of the issues that we appear to be divided on is to what extent federal money should be used for family planning. i think we all agree here that we ought to work toward having fewer abortions. i think everybody agrees that we'd like to have fewer abogses. one of the ways to make sure wes to actually set aside the amount of money for family planning. we will, cut funding for family planning. that makes no stones meevment i hope that we'll walk away from making that bad decision. again to echo the comments of our friends from virginia and tennessee just preceded me, this is a speed bump ahead of us. we're talking about how to come up with like $4 billion, $are 5 billion, $6 billion for the rest of this fiscal year. how about when we're looking for $4 trillion of savings over the next ten years? that's the tough negotiation.

and it all has to be on the table. it can't just be discretionary spending on the domestic side. we can eliminate it entirely. we'd still have a big budget deficit. defense has to be on the table. some smart ways -- last year we spent $402 billion for major weapon systems. that's up from ten years ago. defense has to be on the taifnl the entitlements have to be on the taifnl it is a big part of our spending. we've been given a very good road map for t but a perfect road map but a good road map with the work by the deficit commission cochaired by bowles and simpson. the last thing i want to say, mr. president, is coming down on the train today i read the business section of the new york tiesms there's actually some encourage stuff in there. one of the things they reported in there the retail sales for last month. most people -- most analysts thought they would be down. they're up. i was at an auto dealership in

milford, delaware. car sales is up by a good deevment not just that the dealership but throughout the nation. go back about two years ago, we sold 9 million cars and vans per year. things are moving in the right direction. every thursday, as the leader knows, we got a number from the department of labor. it is new unemployment filings. how many people have filed a claim for -- a new claim for unemployment. we get it every thursday. if you go back to the end of 2008 i think the top number was one week 660,000. for yesterday we're down to about 380,000 to 390,000. we see new jobs being created. we saw a jobs number for march, new jobs -- 220,000

private-sector jobs being created. we're going in the right way. finally the economy -- the economic recovery is beginning and we need to strengthen it. one of the worst ways to one mine it -- one of the worst things we could do is add to unpredictability. i am not sure who said this but one of our colleagues before -- maybe it was john ensign -- but one of the things that businesses need and want markets need and want, certainty, predictability. one of the reasons big companies are sitting on the side lines still and not hiring people is because of unpredictability. what are we going to do on the budget, not just short-term run-up but for the ten-year plan, the $3 trillion, $4 trillion, $5 trillion in savings. what is the supreme court going to do with respect to health care? are they going to be able to philadelphia it and make it even better? what are we going to do about energy policy? what are we going to do about tax policy, transportation

policy? awful those unserntsz. we need to resolve them. we can begin to resolve at least the budgetary uncertainty by agreeing on a reasonable spending reduction plan for thes feerlt. that is how to take $4 trillion out of our debt in the years to come. last thing i want to say -- a couple has been working on this in the homeland security-government affairs committee. what we're doing is beginning to use our jurisdiction to look into every nook and cranny of the federal government to ask, how do we get better results for less money in domestic spending, for defense spending, how do we get better results for less money in entitlement programs and frankly tax expenditures as well. i call it getting rid with a culture of spend this rift. we need to do that as well. everything i do i know i can do better.

i think the same is true of all of us. everything we can do we can do better. the same is true of federal programs. every nook and canny of the federal -- can yif the -- canny of the federal government can we get better results without a lot of money. yes, we can. and for us the challenge is to do that. with that having been said, i yield back my time. i see my friend from nevada is here. he's anxious to agree with everything i said and i welcome that. thank you. mr. ensign: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. the presiding officer: the president from nevada. mr. ensign: i want to say hello to my good friend from delaware. he made some very good comments. i want to followup and talk about this debate that we're having. the senator from tennessee, senator corker, talked about the need to forget about whether uf a republican or -- you're a republican or democrat and think about what's best for the country and that's what we should be doing right now. people around the country understand that we have a

serious debt problem. spending has been run up under republicans and democrats. you know, people can blame whichever party they want. but the reality is now we have a $13 trillion national debt. this year alone $1.6 trillion is how much more we're going to spend than we take in. that's 40 cents -- a little over 40 cents out of every dollar that we take in -- or that we're spending this year, we're borrowing from countries like china. that's such a dangerous thing to do because you're now dependent on other countries and your economy is on very, very shaky grounds. everyone in this body understands that this is completely unsustainable. let's just look at the path that the president has set us on as far as his budget is concerned. if we took up his budget, this year alone we'll spend abou about $250 billion in interest on our national debt.

it's kind of like having a credit card, you're spendin spending $250 billion in interest on that credit card, well, if we follow the president's plan over the next 10 years, that $250 billion will go to almost $900 billion a year. that's more than social security, that's more than medicare, that's more than national defense. that's why this is completely unsustainable. so now we're in a -- a debate over a few billion dollars compared to trillions of dollars. it's really a drop in the bucket. that's why i believe it's really important for both sides to get this behind us so that we can focus on the much larger issues. i have 100% pro-life voting record. i believe very strongly that life is precious. that god created each of us in his image and that life should be protected. but we have to face reality. the democrats are in control of

the senate, in control of the white house, and there's no way that they're going to allow planned parenthood, which is the largest abortion provider in the united states, i disagree with what they do, but the democrats will never allows to defund planned parenthood while they're in charge. so we have to just look at what we can do, what is achievable. and right now i think one of the biggest moral issues that we face in this country is the debt. because what we're doing to our children and our grandchildren is we're handing them a country that they cannot afford. the taxes will have to be too high. that we could default on our debt and we could end up with a depression that's worse than the great depression simply because this body, the body on the other side of the capitol and the white house have spent too much money for too long. we spent money that we do not have. well, next year's budget and the debt ceiling are much bigger issues than what we're dealing with here. so we don't need to shut down the government.

we just need to sit down, make the compromises that are necessary so that we can move this process forward so we can get to the much larger issues on spending and debt. you've seen in the news that portugal, greece, ireland, they've had serious problems. they actually have had their debt downgraded to almost junk status. one of the countries is actually considered junk bond status. the others are now had their -- their bonds seriously downgraded. what does that mean? that means that they're paying higher interest rates. well, yesterday the e.u. just raised their interest rates. the european union raised their interest rates because of fierce of inflation. here in the united states our federal reserve is keeping interest rates low, but we know inflation is coming and eventually they're going to have to raise interest rates because of inflation and overspending by the united states.

well, what does is rise in interest rates mean it the average american? it means that that home mortgage is going to go up. and, remember, a lot of americans have these adjustable rate mortgages, so the next time they refinance the mortgages, their payments will be higher. they already have trouble meeting these payments. the small business owner who wants to get a loan is going to have to pay higher interest rates and that affects the cost of capital and whether they may be able to get into starting a business in the first place so it's going to hurt job creation right in the middle of this job recovery that we're having in the united states. so this spending is not some esoteric argument and it isn't something that we can put off for another three, four, five years. we must deal with it now. we know that entitlements are the biggest part of the budget.

yes, discretionary's important. you have to deal with discretionary. you have to deal with defense. we overspend in defense and so many wasteful programs. but the big issue is really going to be entitlement spending. congressman ryan put out a very bold budget the other day. the first person really to come forward with a bold proposal to deal with entitlement spending in the country. the president's debt commission put out a proposal, the president, unfortunately, ignored his own debt commission and didn't put any of the recommendations in his budget, but both republicans and democrats are going to have to deal with this spending problem, this spending gaining we've been on other -- binge we've been on otherwise we're not going to have the united states of america we have been enjoying our entire lives. we're going to become an economy that cannot exist the way we exist today because we cannot afford it. our debt will literally collapse the economy of the united

states. there was a recent study that just came out by two incredible economists, rogoff and rien hart, a respected study by both sides of the aisle and what they did was study sovereign debt over the last 200 years of about 64 countries. and what they found is any time your debt reaches 90% of your economy or 90% of your g.d.p., when that happens it will cause a net decrease of about 30% of your economic growth going forward. well, those are numbers. what does it mean? it means a loss of jobs. in the united states over a million jobs will be lost that would otherwise be created. this is real stuff. well, where are we in the united states? currently we're 94% of g.d.p. so we're already there. and it's going to get worse and worse. and that's why this debate in we're having over spending is so critical that we get it under

control and we forget about which party's going to have political advantage. i'm one of those senators -- there's quite quite a few of us who are not running for reelection. well, everybody in this body needs to forget about whether they're going to get reelected and do what's right for our country. it's so critical that we put our country first. the house republicans have sent over a proposal that would do a couple of things much one, it would fund the troops. let's don't let our military come to work and not get paid. that would be ridiculous. so let's at least fund the troops, pass this one-week spending proposal that would fund the government. it does cut $12 billion out. the only rider in there that's significant is the d.c. abortion rider that says d.c. can have funds to provide abortions. this is something that was in law that president obama signed into law in a bill that many democrats on the other side have signed, so is it should not be that controversial.

in the mean time, since we have agreed on the spending number, we can work out some of these other things that are controversial in the next week. i believe that that's the right thing to do so we can keep the government open, so people can continue to get their paychecks, so people can continue to visit national parks and on and on and on. we all know the problems if the government shuts down. so, mr. president, i think it's critical that we -- let's start doing what's right for the country instead of just what's right for somebody's reelection. let's sit down and make this serious -- the serious, tough choices so we can put the country on the right path. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands in recess until 2:00 p.m.

>> president obama and gop lawmakers say they're still trying to prevent a government shutdown. as the associated press reports, house speaker john boehner says the biggest issue still standing in the way is the issue of spending cuts. let's see what he had to say earlier this morning. >> good morning, everyone. there's only one reason that we do not have an agreement as yet and that issue is spending. we're close to a resolution on the policy issues. but i think the american people deserve to know, when will the white house and when will senate democrats get serious about cutting

spending? a bill that fails to include real spending cuts will hurt job growth and signal that washington's not serious about dealing with its spending addiction. i think the senate should follow the house lead and pass the troop funding bill and do it today. i also believe the president should sign the troop funding bill into law. this is the responsible thing to do to support our troops and to keep our federal government open. thank you. >> [inaudible]. >> house speaker boehner says he will return his pay to the treasury if there's a government shutdown and is telling other lawmakers how they can follow his example. in a letter to house members he said the 27th amendment to the constitution bars the house from changing member

pay without an election but that does not stop lawmakers from refusing to accept their compensation. speaker boehner receives an annual salary of $223,500. rank-and-file members of congress receive $174,000. over in the senate, majority leader harry reid said it is a idealogical battle that has nothing to do with the fiscal integrity of this country. he says gop demands on social issues including federal dollars for planned parenthood are at the heart of the deadlock. we'll have comments here now from senate majority leader harry reid.onhe >> mr. president, i've beenen married for a long time,im more than 50 years. we have one daughter, nine d grandchildren. i love these women very,e very much. v one day though, i may not be able to help them and one ofm, them may need a cancer

screening.sc it is not a pleasant thought t but that is the reality of thought and i may not beot around to help them when they need something. over their lives they will be in need of other things like cholesterol check, maybe their blood pressuree screening, tests that arets less serious but just as important to a woman's health. they should be able to get the tests that could save their lives. so should every single woman in america. iul believe that, and frankly that is not so controversial. it is not so controversial of a belief. some women of course have doctors.en others including many of thect poorest among us don't. so where do they go to get blood pressure, cholesterol, cancer screening? where do they go? thankfully there is a a little-known part of a little-known law that saves many lives. it is called title 10. 1

it is part of a public health law. and it means that women and girls can go to their local community clinic and get theseni tests. five million women use these centers for title 10 coverage every year. five million. five million. one of them could be my granddaughter, or my m daughter. mr. president, some watching us today, and we know the w whole world's watching us today, may be asking why i'm talking about women's health? when the question before us is the budget of the biggest t economy in the planet earth. some ask why we're talking about the smallest corner of s planet earth? with a government shutdown not looming weeks aways not w days away but hours away why are we talking about whether women can keep gettinger something as simple and noncounty verseal as a cancer screening? the answersc

is, mr. president, that republicans want to shut down our nation's governmentat because they want to make it harder for women to get the health services they need.d. and by the way, title 10 does not include abortion. it's illegal to use federalit funds for abortion services. so anyone who says thisse debate is over abortion isn't being truthful. it is about simple and important i health services. rerepublicans want to shute down the government because they think there is nothing more than that keeping women from getting cancer screenings? everyone should be outraged. men and women should be outraged. the republican house leadership have only a few hours left to look in the mirror, snap out of it and realize how positively shameful it would be, mr. president. for months this conversation has been about billions and trillions of dollars.

it's been about weighty issues and difficult decisions. this debate is about saving money. that's what we thought it was about. but no longer. we have an agreement on the cuts and savings. i was there in the white house last night. and that agreement includes an historic level of cuts. we've always recognized we had to make cuts. that's why we agreed in the that's why we agreed in the the white house last week to make significant cuts, hard but but n important.ow others, but they are the biggest push, is trying to move its extreme social agenda, issues that have nothing to do with funding the government. they're willing, it appears clearly, to throw women under the bus even if it means it will shut down the government. because that is where we are. that is the one issue that was remaining last night.

that agenda is an extreme agenda. i don't agree with their ideas on social policy, but in our democracy those ideas, however radical or however you may disagree with them, deserve a debate if they want one. that's fair. but that debate doesn't belong in an urgent bill to keep the government running, and especially doesn't belong here at this late hour. the consequences of letting our country's funding expire would be devastating. almost a million federal employees, mr. president, people who work for the bureau of land management -- not a big presence in the presiding officer's state but a huge presence in the state of nevada which is 87% owned by the federal government. forest service employees, f.b.i. employees, internal revenue service employees, people who work in this great government

complex; almost a million of them are waiting on pins and needles. federal employees are like everybody else. they're working from paycheck to paycheck. they're wondering if they're going to be able to get that new car they've needed for three or four years. they're wondering with summer coming, are they going to be able to take that vacation that they've wanted to for a long time. federal employees are like everybody else. the consequences of letting our country's funding expire would be devastating. people, individuals. it would be devastating to our troops, small businesses and to americans' everyday lives. people who want to get a home loan, to get their tax refund or, i repeat, their paycheck. it would damage our image and credibility around the world. republicans are asking me to sacrifice my wife's health, my daughter's health and my nine

granddaughters' health. they are asking me to sacrifice the health of women in nevada and all around this country. mr. president, i'm not going to be part of that. i won't do it. as a legislator, i'm very frustrated. as an american, i'm appalled. as a husband, a father and grandfather, i'm personally offended. would the chair announce mornro ld back.e chair announce mornro >> minority whip steny hoyer.ck. >> thank you, mr. speaker. isn't it a shame i tell my friend who just spoke, that his colleagues objected friend who just spoke, that his colleagues objected to unanimous consent request yesterday which would have taken care of the problem he raises today? there's not a person on this floor that doesn't want to make

sure that our men and women in harm's way and in uniform ready to be put in harm's way are paid on time, but we're playing highway.f trying to make laws for ourover country that require compromise. henry clay one of the first speakers of this house from the state of kentucky said that ifte f yoan't compromise, you cannot govern. that's why we are on the brink of shutting down government. we asked for unanimous consent. i'm going to take we'll asked a. for another unanimous consent. that will accomplish u exactly e gentlemen wanted to accomplish.e i hope that none of you object.e i hope that all of you will say yes, enough of these games. youl do what republicans and democrats have historically dona when they reached an impasse at this time. well, we will keepan impas at

things in place and create a bridge across which we can all pass to get to compromise, to get to agreement. that's what the american people expect us to do. mr. speaker, i understand that some in this chamber shutting down the government is an shutnw ideological game, or a way ofmat making a point.ed that's why they have included if this bill to fund the troops some of their social agenda. that's why they want to shutbec down the government because they want to force the president to r do something he has told the american people he would not doe now ladies and gentlemen, with the democrats were in charge of the house and senate and we disagree with george bush, wenoh did not shut down together. we said we understand. you disagree with us, so we w can't do it. not that because you won't do it, mr. president, that's what'. happening here. t's not about dollarspp and cet and very frankly it's not about funding the military.

that's the image that is being created because we are all sympathetic and committed to woi funding our men and women in thg harm's way. that's the right thing to do.oo. it's the moral thing to do.. it's what we are to be doing ant i hope when i asked for unanimous consent to do thathat today, that unlike yesterday th republicans will not object. eve i want every member to be awares of the consequences for millions of americans of shutting downsh government. my i shut down put our economicing recovery, our housing market an. paychecks at risk. and yes, every person listening to me will be affected in oneafd hin or another. thinghe wrong thing to do. who said it was the wrong thing to do?it would speaker john boehner who said i would cost more to shut down the government than to keep it running. he is absolutely right. goldman sachs has as a bat and a

coat if a shutdown lasted moreto than a few days it should shave to tens of a percent off the growth of the most -- the gross mea tic product. it means jobs. we have been here for 90 days. we are in our third, fourthlati. month with no jobs legislation. goldman sach when the government shut down l for 20 days in late 1995, said james sullivan, chief economist, said that the nation's economica growth was slowed by as much as a percentage point. that means jobs. a this is a very inefficient political tactic and pride to play on the american people. a "cq" reports business leaders also understand that averting a shutdown is crucial to our economic recovery. hope that is why again i hope youani ree to my unanimous consent to keep the government open while

we continue to negotiate, why w tentinue to get to an agreementr "congressional quarterly" also point out that qualcomm in the m event of a shutdown small business administration woulde not guarantee loans for businese working capital, real estate investment or job creation it activities. it makes no sense to shut downmf the government. and my friends, when they say, the democrats in the senate, lem meoc tell you whether democrats innocent can't do things for because they can't get 60 votesu why can't they get 60 votes? the repllublican leader of the will not let any of his republicans joined the 53 democrats in the senate to get to 60.ladiesnd gem >> ladies and gentlemen,. n' >> the gentleman's time has i ug expired. >> i approve i unanimous consent that i will make. >> the chair recognizes -- >> less than 12 hours until the government shuts down. will have live coverage of the senate here on c-span2.

the house on c-span as they try ko reach in and and continue onk with other legislative businessk earlier from the senate galleryk today female democratic senatork talk about the budget impasse and its potential impact onkkkkk women's health issues.kkkkkkkk >> good afternoon.kkkkkkk the democratic women of thekkkkk kenate are here this afternoonkk to express our anger andkkkkkkkk disappointmkent. that after weeks of being toldkk that the continuation of funding for thisk government was aboutkk

budget cuts and deficits andkkkk spending.kkkkkkkk well, now we find out at thekkkk 11th hour, hours before thekkkk government shuts down thatkkkk khat's not what it is about.kkkk it is about funding for women'sk healthk care.kkkkkkkk khe one open kitem left is abouk women's health care.kkkkkk that's what this is now about.kk we are here to say that we're not going going to be allowed,kk allow them to use women as pawnk at the eknd of a critical debate wink this country is waiting tok move on.kkkkkkkk across the country, thousands ok families are worried about thekk economy, there woukld about thek jobs, worried about the budgetkk deficit.k they're worrkkied about their future. what they are not worried about is whetherkk or not their youngk daughters or the woman next dook can gket access to preventive health care when she needs it.kk we arek not going to a allow thk to be tkaken away.kkkkkkk ke will stand strong and wekkkkk

believe strongly that women'skkk health care shouldn't be a pawnk ink this debate.kkkkkkkk this is extremely important.kkkk 5 million american women dependk onkk these health care services. you'll hear from my women'skkkkk kolleagues themselves about howk this money is used in ankkkkkkk important way.kkkk but what is so offensive is thak after weeks of debates aboutkkkk budget cuts,k and these are touk cuts that we are going to bekkkk asking, that's not what it's about. it's about cutting women's health care.kkkkkkk that game is extremelykk offensive.k k'm going to turnk kitk over fik kf all your senior democratickkk women center, barbara mikulskikk i'm so proud of, have stood upkk for women time and time again.kk she's been a beacon of light over many of us. she's you just stand strong with all of us today. >> you can find the rest of this online at c-span.org. now a live conversation on newsmakers with rnc chairman.

>> newsmakers as please welcome the chairman of poker national committee to our studios. he's a wisconsinite and took over the gavel in january nice to have you here. >> guest: first time with you. thank you for having me. >> host: we have to start with the obvious which is friday afternoon and they get line for the c.r. expiration is hours away. no deal. the public knows no inside. are you confident there will be want and what are the political ramifications of a government shutdown for the party? >> guest: i'm not sure it'll be a do or not. i do know that the republicans and our speaker i very concerned about spending in this country. i think it's the number one issue after in america right now. i believe that voters are passionate around the country i very concerned about the trajectory of our spending and a debt in this country and the deficits that i think are crushing our economy. i think that's front and center

right now with the speaker. i think that's the most important piece of this debate. is to get spending under control. i think the american people are demanding it. so i think a deal depends on how much the president is willing to move on those spending numbers. if they're willing to move and i think there will not be shut down. and if they're not going to move that i think there will be a shutdown. >> host: let me introduce our two questions. jeff of "the new york times" and jonathan martin. jumping. >> speaking of the present are you worried he will emerge from this as the political winner as someone who as a strong leadership sort of the grown up in the room going four to 2012? >> guest: i'm not worried you'll come across as a political winner. i really do think that it spinning issues are not put under tight reins, and if we don't get some real sandy, i think on that issue, i think we're all going to be losers but

i think everyone will be a loser to the american people. so to me that's the number one priority. i'm not worried about whether the president will be seen as a win or lose. in my mind i think he always comes across as a loser in this debate in that he has just result engaged after being, doing his ncaa brackets on espn, jonas brothers, golfing. he's not engaged. i think we all know that the president has not been engaged in the budget debate until recently. i think that's an issue he will have to deal with. >> mr. chairman, you are all very much engaged talk about spending and debt. is the rnc debt. >> thank you, jonathan. >> your party was facing a $21 million in red ink. when can you tell donors to the rnc and grass republicans run the country that the rnc will be free and clear of debt.

>> guest: i think my goal that by the end of the year that we will have 5 million or less of debt by the end of the year. that's my goal. i can tell you when we first came into the building, if you don't mind, feel free to cut me off, but i will tell you that we are in about 24 million in debt when we came into the building. a lot of the folks are reporting -- in january. a lot of folks are boarding 23. usually 24. we had to add more bills to the overall as we went forward with a report to our cash on hand was very low. we owed more in payroll when i first came in january than what our cash on hand was in the building. so what i have had to do, i've talked a lot about this is rebuild trust, rebuild credibility with our committee. and you all know that when you have to rebuild trust and credibility, in any organization, that's a tough place to start.

>> but you'll still be five money goes in the red going into a presidential year when you're also trying to take the senate, hold onto the house. how is that going to work where you're still that far in debt? debtquick do you expect the eventual nominee of your party to help close that gap? >> guest: know. here's what i said. baby i was a clear. i said 5 million or less in debt by the end of the year. i would rather under promise and over deliver. my cash on hand number i'm hoping is going to be tens of millions of dollars by the end of the year. my obligation is that the republican national committee, i mean, i know that i need to be operational. i need to be functional. we are the only committee in america just like the dnc, the only committee in america back in courtney our dollars, the money we raise, directly with the republican nominee. with that in mind, i have to balance the benefit of being debt-free to the necessity of having a lot of money and cash

on hand to coordinate with the presidential campaign. i get what you're saying. i don't want debt. i hope it is zero but i also know that no cash on hand doesn't help us get over the finish line even. i'm trying to balance those two objectives with getting our party down to business, functional, operational in defeating this president that i think is taking this country completely off the financial rails. >> why do you believe the rnc is even necessary in the 20 a presidential campaign in terms of funding voter turnout efforts and things? why not lead to outside groups? >> guest: outside groups, jeff, they can't i law coordinate arm in arm, we couldn't come if i was a 57 or a c-4, i couldn't sit down with a presidential nominee or their campaign and literally cornet what we're doing with our money, where we're putting our money. what municipalities in ohio she

would put our money? how much absentee balloting works we do in wisconsin? the ability to coordinate our dollars is a center for a presidential campaign to win. look at what barack obama is done. he escorted with the dnc and those are the same things we need to do at the republican national committee. >> so without those hard dollars you're at a disadvantage with president obama and dnc? >> guest: people as we all the time what was different about wisconsin ask why was wisconsin doing a little bit better than the rest of the country? and the reason is that during the last month of the campaign that was not a state in the entire country that knock on more doors, did more voter to voter phone calls through an internet system. the numbers, they are real numbers. absentee ballot calls. not a single state in the country did more than the state of wisconsin. you cannot win a campaign with an air force olympic you have to have an army. that's a we do at the republican

national committee. we are the army. we are the boots on the ground. we left a few races on the table. >> you can't talk to member of your party nowadays because you're in washington or across the country. without hearing somewhat of opine for more kids to get into presidential race, that's constantly referring to do what to see more candidates running in a presidential race as and if not you think you can win the presidency back with the current candidates you have? >> guest: i'm all in favor of having a big field of candidates. no problem at all. the more the merrier. i think we'll have plenty of candidates running against the president who as i said before, i think financially when you're running close or running up to spending 42 cents on every dollar made in america, we are in a battle for freedom in this country. and i think that is a battle that many people from many different walks of life are going to want to engage in, and defeat this president.

now, your second part of your question was whether -- what was it again? >> you think with the current candidates that we are pretty short, that you can be this president? >> guest: absolute. i think first of all their credible. intelligent. they can speak to the issues that i think are really important to the american peop people. >> to why his hunger more options in your party? >> guest: i don't know what the statistics show but if that's the case i think of people have a lot of different views would be a good challenger to this president. there's many factions and divisions within any organization, and people have to pick and a choice but i think and in people will unify against a democratic president who is taking this country off the financial rails. so i think we will be fine. i think we'll have a great candidate. i think we will defeat this president. am i satisfied? yes, i'm satisfied because i

think if you harken back to bush 41 days, and what was his approval rating? maybe 90%. in 1991. i think it was saturday night live that used to have skits and they would show all of these democratic potential presidential candidates, it was a joke and they were talking about how each person deserved the opportunity to run against bush 41 and get killed. and lo and behold, what happened? bush 41 at 90 some% approval was beaten by bill clinton who served for eight years as a president. so i think that it's important to keep in perspective, that i think polling changes rapidly. as president just a week ago, the poll showed his approval rating at 42%. i think it's very beautiful and i think we will beat him. >> you said that all of the republican candidates are credible.

is donald trump a credible republican presidential candidate? >> i don't know if he's in the field or not but if he decides to run. you know, i think all these guys are credible. and i think that they've all had a different angle and different viewpoints that they will articulate. i think it's going to be up to the voter to i don't get to choose who the candidate is going to be but i have to make sure that we do what we can do in our party to get them across. >> is a good for the party or the debate to have a candidate like him talking so much about is this present an american citizen? is the further debate good for the party? >> guest: i think it's up for the primary voters to decide the. if people are going to different opinions, he of a lot of different groups, or different candidates that are running, they will talk but different things at different times. i think it's up to the primary voters. i think having a diversity of opinion is fine. but ultimately, i think that voters usually get it right and will have a candidate and it's

up to me to turn our party into a functional operational committee that can get that candidate across. >> you have any questions if this present is an american citizen? >> i don't have any questions about the. i think he is an american citizen. here is the thing. i think that he is not doing a very good job of keeping our economy on track. it's up to me as chairman of this party to see to it that he is defeated. >> isn't that a distraction? if they are just focus on questions over his citizenship and his birth certificate. there are so me questions about the economy, his leadership in the world. and isn't all that a distraction from what you believe are the central issues facing them right now, facing this country right now speak what you might call it a distraction. the listen, my view is that this president speech is a distraction? >> i don't know if it's a distraction.

i need to do with defeating this president who is taking this country i think financially in the wrong direction, who is not the point of promises when it comes to debt, not debt reduction from a novel that has promises when it comes to crushing deficits that he has promised the american people. he did that in the last budget. so my view is this is an america that is not an america i want to pass onto my kids. i think it's an america where financially we are on, off the rail. i need to do whatever i can deal to build up a committee to make a presidential candidate competitive defeat barack obama. that's what i care about. >> doesn't that suggest -- >> i think that's true. i don't disagree with you. i think at this point the road

to success to the american people is absolutely focusing in on the economic issues of debt, the deficit, the crushing trajectory of our internal programs in this country. absolute. that's the driver. those other things the american people are concerned with right now. >> the voters in wisconsin are some the most interesting in the country in terms of independent voters. in sort of how they go will give an indication of how the 2012 presidential goes. the independent voters in wisconsin, how do they view types of discussions like this? the birther issue, et cetera. this is a president who won wisconsin by 14%. >> guest: independent voters in wisconsin i think they may be the same everywhere around the country, it's not like a broken record, i don't want to sound like it but i think people are most concerned about out of control spending, a country that's about to spend 42 cents on every dollar made to run the federal government, a government

and elected representatives that don't seem to care enough about the deficits in this country, and debt. we have a president that has achaemenid more debt than every single president before him combined. we have a president who has promised to get deficit under control and deliver a budget of $1.7 trillion deficit this year. i think those are the things that independent voters are concerned about. they are concerned about the future of this country financially, and they get it. >> if that's the case could you not advise some republican elder advice on candidates to focus on these issues? >> guest: they are focused on this issue. if you listen to them they are talking of paul bryant's budget, to talk about spending, talking about debt and deficit. that is what they're talking about. now, occasionally another subject, of course to what you think the focus is on a comic.

>> whether candidates are what are potential candidates i should say, governor haley barbour was in florida this past week and he said that he is going to be competing in florida if he gets in the race. regardless of what happens with the primary calendar. when you hear that kind of language, what does that say to you about what's going to happen with florida and with the primary calendar? how can you threaten it some of your top candidates are investing about messing they don't care basically? >> guest: i mean, you have to understand that, and i think you do, that i in here at rose other republican national committee as chairman. it's my obligation as chairman of this committee to enforce the rules of the committee. it would seem that any fuel or any had any organization, one of their top obligations either enforce their constitutions or bylaws or articles of incorporation, my bylaws and my

rules say that there are four states that go in the february primary window, and than any other state outside of those four states can compete after the first tuesday in march. now, what the rules also they say is that any states that violates the basic rules lose half of the delegates but that's not my decision to decide whether not a state loses their delegates but it's not my decision to decide who can go in what place on the calendar. it's already been set. it's automatic. it's automatic. it's not something that is decided, there's no button to press like she would do it or not, press green if you think we should. press read if you think we should. >> is there any chance, mr. chairman, that you would move the gop convention next year from tampa to a different state? >> guest: know. the convention has been set. the convention is going to be in tampa. we are doing a good job of

getting that convention in place. the host committee is doing a great job of raising money. i think there are two different issues. primary calendar is another issue spent schedule force how this thing gets resolved, florida. >> guest: we were just as you may know, our chief of staff was just in tampa on tuesday and they started, and good conversation. i've been talking to folks are talking to the governor. so i think the first thing is you have to community with each other. i think there's a little misconception about easy it is to simply change the rules other republican national committee. one piece of this, and sorry for -- i won't stand in which that user you can understand, the rules other republican national committee cannot even be amended or change and tell a national convention. so think about this. even if i had complete unanimity of the 168 voters, you know how

hard that is, but even if i had that, those rules cannot be amended until the national convention. >> so outside that window. >> i think ultimately florida will be outside the window. i would hope so. i think we have rules for a reason. and the florida delegates support it. the primary calendar as it is currently adopted by the republican national committee. >> any other states on the horizon that were you as well like michigan or other states that have long complained about the over influence of iowa, new hampshire? >> i don't have any other states right now that i'm overly concerned about. i think everyone is working hard to get into the march and april window. and so far so good. >> twelve minutes left spread what are you telling, if one last fast moment here, what are

you telling the speaker and the state senate president down there, what is your message speakers are not going to get into all of the confidential communication, other than similar things that we're talking about. i get their position. i understand where they're coming from. i think they've got a lot of great points to make. it's not an argument. it's a good cooperative discussion, taking in my necessity i think to really educate folks as far as what our limitations are as far as the republican national committee on a calendar issue. and in the listening to their issues as well which i think are very good, but, unfortunately, there's not a whole lot the chairman of the party can do about changing a calendar a rule that has been made prior to me being here. >> host: would you comment on debbie wasserman schultz? >> guest: i don't are very well so i look forward to getting to know her. urge views are impressive and smart and articulate. i just don't know her very well

other than what i hear, which is good things. >> obviously the primaries and the caucus will be somewhat in flux. the rnc has tried to bring our some rnc mbs have tried to bring some order to the debates with the limited success. what should the role of the rnc -- have you heard any positive reaction from campaigns? >> guest: lots of positive reaction from campaign to i'm not going to get into the details because there's a degree of confidentiality. it's been very positive as far as having -- the idea is pretty simple. and i think it's been work in a different angle. at the idea is that the republican national committee would put our stamp of approval, or sanction, or whatever word you want to call it over one, maybe two debates a month, at the most, tried to do one a

month. starting in august, through sunday, say, in february or march here and it we would try to work with other organizations, other state parties in putting these debates on. and that would mean that you could try to limit some of the debates so you don't have candidates going to 70 debates in the next eight months and parading around like they did in 2008, which i don't think gets us anywhere in defeating this president. so the idea is simply to try to limit the amount of debate, the frequency of the debates, to some reasonable amount. i'm not saying two debates. but i'm not saying 50 debates. that's all we're talking about. >> what should the fundraising component of this be? what would you like the campaigns due to raise money? aspect that peace is a piece that i think is misinterpreted.

fundraising is simply something that we're going to do where ever we go. so if there's going to be people at debate or if there's an opportunity to create a fundraiser outside of the debates, where ever they are happening, we might do that. but certainly the fundraising peace isn't going to be a deal or something that we even do. >> it sounds like you are walking back away from what the chairman of the debate committed to you appointed, james bopp for indiana proposed last week in which was at each one of the rnc sanctioned debates you would have a fundraiser at the debate with the candidates agreed to raise money for the rnc. but you're saying you guys are not committed to that. >> guest: i think what he was in was simply putting that option on the table, not necessarily saying this is how we're going to do it at every single debate. i think that it's possible that at some debates the republican national committee does have

fund raisers at some debates. but again, this situation is as sponsoring or sanctioning or putting our stamp of approval on a debate that might be happen. like, for example, the iowa party, they'll be doing a debate at the straw poll. we're not talking of adding another debate. we're talking about the republican national committee coming in, persisting the state of iowa in that particular debate. and it in ames iowa we might do a fundraiser, maybe we do, did we don't. >> so that proposal last weekend was not a take it or leave document but was more a suggestion of a just. >> guest: that's why. of course, it's not a take it or leave it because we will do and we'll try to act in the best interests of our candidates. so we need to indicate with them as to what their ideas are and what are ways that we can be helpful. the same thing the dnc did by the way in '07 and away. they did exactly this and more.

[inaudible] >> guest: i think that can be something the campaign decides. >> host: six minutes left. >> what do you believe right now that president obama's biggest strengths are and will make the most difficult perhaps, what you believe his strongest suit is right now? and what i think he's good at giving a speech and good at raising money. other than that i think he is terrible at following through on promises. i think it's been awful for our economy. and i think that those issues are going to trump his ability to raise money. >> deeply his segway to the midterm election and cutting the deal on a stinky bush tax cuts with senate republicans, et cetera, that his tapping into the center is reminiscent of bill clinton's in the 1995 and end result could be the same? >> guest: i don't think so.

i think what it was as the stainless and spending over $850 billion -- i think i was a transit but if you look at where americans are on obamacare, a government run health care, if you look at the strong opinions about average voters in this country they don't like the spinning. they don't like the stimulus. they don't like government run health care. whether he attacked slightly to the right on the particular issue, i don't think you will get much out of the. i think the real legacy of barack obama is out of control spending, out of control debt, unemployment, and a lot of broken promises. and the president quite frankly, some who have talked enough about, a disengaged president of the united states. weatherby domestically or foreign policy, he is coming across as aloof, disengaged because he is. >> do you believe health care needs to essential part of the argument against president obama? >> guest: i think it has to be a major part of the are you

against president obama. i think it's something that most americans right now don't think is working. i don't think it's working. i think having government get between you and your doctor, wherever you're from, is something most americans don't believe them. but i think more importantly, health care, spending and unfulfilled promises on debt and deficit spent is it harder for someone like governor romney to make that argument? >> guest: i believe that up to governor romney. i don't think so. i think he can go to make the ugly. i think he is articulate reasons and i will let him do that. but i don't think so. i think it's a given situation, different program altogether. >> mr. chairman, let me ask you about a state your very familiar with. wisconsin. what is your take away from the apparent result of which has republicans winning? >> guest: the particularly is either way, these democrats and

unions are so charged up and get up in predicting enormous victories in wisconsin, whether the 7000 votes whether or not, i will tell you they fell flat. and we proved once again in wisconsin that we have had a political shift in wisconsin. we have shifted to the right. wisconsin is a red state, and now it looks like prosser is even outside the margin of our weekend. we verified that governor walker is for real, that these are new times in wisconsin. i think there are new times in this country. and again, it's a battle of whether we want a country of more makers or more takers, and i think that we are proving that in wisconsin spent wisconsin is a red state. will you guarantee that your nominee next year will carry wisconsin? >> guest: will i guarantee? i think we will win wisconsin. i think we will do very well there. it will be a battleground state, and i think -- it's a red state.

i will give you your guarantee. >> isn't a purple state more accurate? >> guest: i think a purple state can go read. as long as people are focused in on economic issues in wisconsin which they are, people are fiscal conservatives in wisconsin like i think they are in most places around the country and i think we went on those issues and those of issues governor walker is talking about. >> talk about the senate bill does. will your party take back the senate and if so what are the key races they need to win? >> guest: listen, i'm not going to say it's a key race but i think you ought to watch how i think the site in nevada and the typical race as we talk about, i think you should watch wisconsin. >> who will challenge? >> guest: i do want to get into that right now, jonathan. but i just think you'll see a replay of the feingold race in wisconsin. i know they seem very different types of candidates. but i think it's the same

message. its fiscal message. it's an out of control deficit. out of control debt ratio to our economy. herb kohl has been complicit. my guess is purple isn't going to run and i think you will see a couple strong candidates, and i think -- i haven't talked to paul about that. >> final question. >> in midterm elections a republican primaries were very combustible if you will because of the tea party movement. the main senate race, show the republican establishment support senator olympia snowe? >> guest: i think we have to leave that up to the voters expect you won't endorse the incumbent senator? >> guest: i had to support whoever wins the primaries. part of my job is to support the republican nominee. so for me to improve myself into a primary debate whether the in indiana, whether it be in maine, whether it be whatever we're talking about, i can get

involved in and i won't. >> in terms of retaking the senate the bill if it happened to be the one seat that democrats wouldn't pick upan faq party candidate would win, would that be worth the? >> guest: i'm going to support whoever wins. >> could you clarify, is rnc policy do not get behind and come it says but to stay out of primaries? >> guest: it is never for the rnc to be involved in primaries. >> just for incumbents? >> that's right. there are certain rules that would have to follow in order to get engaged in a republican primary. i'll let john cornyn answer that one. >> that's it. if you could get a message to speaker boehner at this point? >> guest: keep up the good work. >> host: thank you for being with us this we can. >> guest: thank you. >> we will be taking you live to the floor of the u.s. senate

shortly as soon as they gaveling back in. they took a recess this morning. they will be doing general speeches in till 4 p.m. eastern. they are dealing with the latest on the budget impasse and possible government shutdown as the associate press reports, democrats and republicans can't agree on what's holding up the deal. house speaker john boehner wants the white house and senate democrats to pass a one week stopgap bill. it would keep the government operating after midnight tonight, and it would fund the pentagon for six months. but the senate's top democrats is the only thing standing in a way of a spending plan for the rest of the fiscal year is a republican effort to cut federal money for planned parenthood. senate majority leader harry reid says that there's an agreement on a $38 billion worth of spending cuts. he said he is cautiously optimistic after late-night talks at the white house last night but the budget dispute has become a moving target. the gop contends it has not reached an agreement on spending

cuts. you are watching live coverage of the u.s. senate as they gaveling back in here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: new jersey.

mr. lautenberg: i ask unanimous consent that further calling of the roll be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, it's minding that we are now in morning business, and can i ask if there is a time constraint when making speeches. the presiding officer: senators are limited under morning business to ten minutes each. mr. lautenberg: thank you, mr. president. we are facing a moment and the

issue that all americans are looking at wondering what's happening here, what's going to come about, what are we going to do, but i want to remind everybody, in 1773, a tea party was held in boston harbor. it was to protest the yoke of oppression that hobbled the start of freedom in our new nation and that new americans wanted removed. those here then wanted the liberty to choose their own customs and their way of life. while that was 238 years ago, we again struggle to keep a fringe group from taking away the rights of a majority of american citizens who treasure the choices they're free make in our democracy. and all these attempts are

marked in the cloak of fiscal responsibility, it's very clear that this group, unlike our forebearers, is determined to restrict the freedoms most americans choose to protect. so while we aren't latter day paul reveres, we sound the alarm for the american people to beware. i come to the floor to warn every parent and grandparent to beware for the well-being of your loved ones. if you want your children and your grandchildren to have the best health care that american research can produce, beware. if your chest swells with pride when your two-year-old repeats numbers or words learned at federal head start schoolhouses, beware. if your child suffers when toxic air overwhelms them and they're gasping for a breath of fresh air, beware. look at your family, and if you

have a son and a daughter or a daughter anxious ready and abl able -- anxious, ready and able to go to college and you can't afford to help, beware. and if you're a woman dependent on planned parenthood, where every year women receive tests for breast or cervical cancer that could endanger their health and maybe your life, beware. and if you're a retiree who believes that medicare is freely available to help you live longer or function better, beware. watch out. tea party republicans have seized control of the u.s. house of representatives and will use their power to eliminate current services to children, adults and retirees from the government as promised. they are continuing to brew a toxic tea, a slight-of-hand trick to push pain on america's

most vulnerable citizens. and we look at this placard, "house g.o.p. brewing a toxic tea for america." across our country, millions are worried sick about losing jobs, losing homes and losing an established way of life for their children's futures. no wondeand what do the tea pars propose -- cut their programs to protect the wealth of the richest among us. but the tea party republicans don't want to solve problems. instead, they're trying to use the budget process to put an extreme ideology that they believe is the only way others should live their lives. do it their way or no way. they're willing to shut the government down to prove a poi point, to change the condition that we operated so well under and for many years.

they're willing to sacrifice americans' financial standing to impose their extreme views on millions who don't agree with these radical extremists. they refuse to step up, compromise and move ahead so america can continue leading the world as it has been. the president and the senate democrats have come to the negotiating table with a responsible plan that protects our country's fragile economy, economic recovery and invests in our future. but the toxic tea republicans in the house would recklessly rather shut down the government than budge off of their foul schemes. last week they stood outside the capitol and chanted, "shut it down, shut it down." that was their government mantra, "shut government down." and when speaker boehner asked -- told them to prepare for a shutdown, they gave him an

ovation. that's where they stand. cut it off. cut off the help that america needs to maintain some financial leadership. these are elected lawmakers. they're supposed to guard our government, not kill it. they want to deceive our people talking about arithmetic and accounting, but that's not the real aim. their same to have the government decide what is right or wrong on people's homes and families so they can govern other's behavior. and make no mistake, they don't care if their cuts hurt children. they've shown that all along the way. they want chase more than 200,000 children out of head start, where children learn how to learn and modest-income families have no other way to provide that education. and we see it here in this -- on this placard, "house republicans, they want to hold back 218,000 head start kids."

that's not going to help our country in the future. tea party republicans ignore the fact that children who attend head start have higher test scores and are more likely to graduate from high school and go on to college. and they should visit head start classrooms, see those little ones. maybe their tough hearts will mellow instead of "just say no, sorry" with america's wealth, we can't help you. but head start is only a beginning. look what the tea party republicans want to do to higher education. they want to reduce pell grants which helps millions of americans go to college. don't they understand that they aren't just saying no to hard-working young students. they're also saying no to american employers, telling th them, too bad our country doesn't have the skilled workers, ship those jobs overseas or bring foreigners here. they'll work for much less

anyway. and they're saying no to the millions of hard-working parents who dream of seeing their kids living better than their parents because they received a college education. and this chart tells the tragic story about the opportunities for smart kids who depend on pell grants to afford college. look at what it says -- college costs rise. house g.o.p. slashes the pell grants. and we can see them here. rising tuition and less health is the way they'd like to see america go. well, do we really want to force students to take on more debt in order to attend college or kick them off our country's campuses altogether? i learned the value of a government investment in colle college -- in college education firsthand. i attended columbia university on the g.i. bill after serving in the army during 1944 and 19 1945. and later, i cofounded a.d.p. that's one of america's most successful companies, now

employing 45,000 people. america built the greatest generation by enabling 8 million veterans to attend college free for their service in wartime. and even as we currently continue losing lives in wars that have also injured thousan thousands, they're willing to shut down government no matter what it takes away the payday for soldiers on the battlefield. and the assault on our children's future doesn't end there. the tea party republicans want to cripple our ability to provide clean air, provide the clean air our people need breathe without fear by eliminating the clean air act. putting polluters' profits ahead of our children's health. and it's an outrageous assault on a landmark law that the supreme court ruled on in 2007 that it's the government's responsibility to protect

children from toxic chemicals in the air and illnesses like asthma, lung cancer, among other life-threatening diseases. and i would wish that our g.o.p. colleagues would be straight with the millions of parents who are concerned about their children's health and explain why tea partiers are asking families to be patient and maybe their children will outgrow asthma. one of my grandsons suffers from this disease. he's an athletic child, and every time he goes to a soccer game, my daughter first dhoax see where -- first checks to see where the closest emergency room is. and no parent should have to worry about their children playing outside. look at this picture. soot is ugly when it's pouring from a smokestack but it's even uglier inside a children's lung. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the

full -- my full statement be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, thank you. i rise today as the federal government is on the vench a government shutdown -- verge of a government shutdown in the hope that both sides will come together and pass a resolution which not only keeps the government functioning but also fully funds our troops the remainder of this fiscal year and enables our troops to be able to have the support that they deserve it's not sensible. it's not practical and it's not morally defensible to send our troops to fight for us in afganistan and iraq and now libya without giving them the resources they deserve. they shouldn't have to worry about their loved ones back home, whether they're going to be able to meet their rent payments, make their mortgage payments, put food on the table while they're fighting for our country. i find it extraordinary that our

president, our commander in chief, has issued a veto threat on the troop funding bill that was passed in the house yesterday and is on the calendar here in the senate today. looking at the statement of administration policy, which i have here, the president doesn't talk about concerns over the legislation. doesn't talk about concerns over the spending or the riders. he simply says this bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise. so i'm not quite sure what that means except by not stating any objections to the legislation other than saying it's a distraction, i think it's not responsible for our troops and our military. to be honest, i'm far less concerned that passing this bill will be a distraction to the united states congress and to the president than i am concerned that not passing the bill will be a distraction to those troops putting their lives on the line for us overseas every day. we shouldn't be having this discussion. we're talking about the funding for this fiscal year only

because the united states senate and the united states house of representatives last year didn't get their work done. in fact, for the first time since 1974, when the budget act was made law, the congress did not pass a budget in either house. and that's why we're here and that's why the continues resolutions are necessary, these so-called short-term measures. it's too bad because congress not getting their work done last year means we have to clean up the mess this year when we should be focused on a much bigger issue. my colleague just talked about some of his concerns about the spending reductions that he talked in h.r. 1. i would just remind us that not having gotten our work done last year, we are also facing the biggest deficit in the history of our country and deat that is unprecedented. over $14 trillion. if we're truly worried about our

kids and our grandkids and the next generation, we have to focus on that. but for today, mr. president, what we're talking about is something very simple. it's just to pass a short-term measure to be able to keep government in operation and, again, to provide the funding for the troops. i would hope that we could do that today. we're talking about actually a relatively small part of tbhaiger problem i talked about -- part of that problem that i talked about. adding up the reductions in h.r. 1, the most ambitious of any of the proposals out there, it's less than 2% of our federal budget. at a time, by the way, when our federal budget deficit is over 40%. so we're debating today in the senate and what is being negotiated behind closed doors here in the congress and at the white house is such a small part of the issue. but here we are. so what do we do? what do we do to make things better not to make the mess

worse? the short-term measure that the house has already passed yesterday is unfortunately the only thing that we can agree on today. because given the process of this place, the house and the senate, it's the only option we have to move things forward. when you send it to the president, we're working on this longer-term legislation and, again, it does provide for our troops which is incredibly important to us at this time with three wars and so much concern and anxiety out there among our military. this measure would reduce so-called non-defense budget authority by about $13 billion again while funding the military fully for the rest of the year. many of these reductions were included in the president's budget. these were not controversial changes. in terms of outlays, in other words, how much would be spent this year, it reduces spending by $3.9 billion. now, in the context of our overall federal budget, that's .1%. so what we're talking about here today is .1% spending adjustment for the rest of this fiscal year

and, yet, we still can't seem to be able to get together and fund our troops and keep the government open. some call that .1% extreme. we just heard some of that. i don't think it's extreme. i think it's only a a first very small step we have to take, again, if we're truly concerned about the future for the next generation and concerned about our economy. because if we don't get this record deficit and this debt that's growing out of control under control, it will continue to harm our economy today and our prospects for getting this economy back on track into the future. so i say let's allow these negotiations ton. -- to continue. in the mean time let's fund our troops and avoid the disruption and the unnecessary disruption of a government shutdown. we can do that, mr. president, and do that right now as a body by passion the legislation the house passed yesterday, send it to the president for his signature and be able to take care of our fighting men and women for the rest of this year

and keep the government from shutting down. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i have long believed that we have to get serious about the deficit and i was one of 14 senators who held back their votes on the debt ceiling last year to make sure we created the fiscal commission, which did very good work this year. we just now being that -- that work is being taken by a small group of democratic and republican senators to come up with some long-term solutions for our debtism strongly -- debt. i strongly believe that's what we have to do. i also believe we have a responsibility to govern. and allowing a shutdown, when we are this close in negotiations, when really the number has been agreed upon, it all comes down to is really a disagreement on politics here is just wrong. and what makes this situation so troubling is that we have reached this stand still not only dollars at its essence, but

over politics that i don't believe have a place in this debate. with a bipartisan deal within reach, it would be irresponsible to shut down the government and punish our constituents solely to score political points. this impending shutdown, as you know, mr. president, has broad consequences. while we have now seen 13 straight months of private-sector job growth adding 1.8 million jobs in that time, the united states economy is still fragile. too many americans continue to struggle. according to an analysis from goldman sachs a government shutdown will cost the economy around $8 billion per year or nearly .2% of g.d.p. for each week of a shutdown. all because of a disagreement over social issues, right? not over dollars. because last night, according to all who were at that meeting, there was actually an agreement on the dollars.

economists and business leaders agree that a government shutdown at this time will hurt our economy, hurt businesses an slow economic growth. even speaker boehner has admitted it will worst more than it -- it will cost more than it saves. if a shutdown were to occur application for business loans, curtailing lending to small businesses already squeezed by the tight credit markets. last year the small business administration supported more than $22 billion in lending to small businesses through its two largest loan programs. at these levels we would see over $400 million a week in small business lending put on hold because of a shutdown. our government also provides vital support for businesses seeking to export their products and services and conducting business abroad. the u.s. commercial service, a part of the department of commerce international trade administration has offices and embassies and consulates in over 80 countries worldwide and

utilizes its network to connect u.s. companies with the international buyers. every year they help thousands of united states companies export goods and services worth billions of dollars. if the federal government shuts down, these services will end and sales and contracts will be lost. if you don't believe me, look at shutdown in 1995. we can see the evidence of how damaging a disruption of services like these can b be. during that shutdown approximately $2.2 billion in u.s. exports couldn't leave the country because the department of state and the bureau of export administration were unable to issue export licenses. finally, i'd like to make a point about visas such -- includes tourism. during the last shutdown approximately 20,000 to 30,000 applications by foreigners for foreign tourist visas were unprocessed each day and the

u.s. tourist industries and airlines reportedly sustained millions of dollars in losses. with the average foreign visitor spending over $4,000 per visit, it easy to see how fast these losses add up for businesses across america. these are just a few examples. but the sum total will be much greater. i am hon the bill with senator -- i am on the bill with senator casey and senator hutchison to continue funding our troops. of course we will do that. of course they should get their paychecks. let's look at what the shutdown will do on a days-to-day basis. to provide perspective, in northwestern minnesota, volunteers are taking time off from their jobs and from school to build sandbags as we watch the north river rise to its eventual crest. it takes all hands on deck in north dakota and minnesota with local state and federal government working together to protect these communities. earlier this week to help in

this fight governor dayton declared a state of emergency for 46 minnesota counties, north dakota has been declared a state of emergency. fema said it will have all the resources it will need and main its capability during a shutdown. however, if the federal government closes its doors, fema will not be able to process in a timely manner paperwork and applications that minnesotans will be submitting for assistance once the waters recede. i have been through these flood fights before, mr. president. the whole community comes together. the whole community fights that flood. they take days and days and days. some of them have lost their houses and still out there helping their fellow citizens. i see that and wonder to myself, and we, in this body, and in this congress can't come together when we are this close, when there was an agreement on a number last night, we can't come together while these volunteers in minnesota and north dakota

are coming together on a flood fight. that is absurd. i urge my colleagues that are holding this up reconsider their all or nothing stance so we can move forward with the real work that must be done. a setback would prevent the growth needed for our country's long-term fiscal imbalances. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to add four additional minutes to my 10-minute time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: i thank you, mr. president. i'm aware that most of my colleagues are take the floor today to speak about the potential shutdown of our government and very appropriately so and i am opposed strongly to a a government shutdown -- to a government shutdown. i want to note its adverse effects on our men and women in uniform. i join my colleagues in cosponsoring our enduring pay for military act in 2011. the lass thing our fighting men

and women -- the last thing our fighting men and women need and their families is how to make ends meet while their taking up arms. i want to talk about the deteriorating situation in libya would could have more profound effects than the crisis that we are in. it's a very serious, very deteriorating situation and one which is fraught with severe implications for america's national security interests. i remain a strong supporter of the president's decision to take military action in libya. it averted what was an imminent slaughter in benghazi and has given us a chance to achieve the goal of u.s. policy as stated correctly by the president to force qadhafi to leave power. i'm grateful we have capable friends, our arab partners, nato allies making critical contributions, but that is not a substitute for the united states

leadership. and right now that's the main missing agreement in our coalition's efforts in libya. the willingness of the administration to take decisive actions together with our partners so that we can accomplish our goal as quickly as possible rather than look to our allies to do it all themselves which i fear the evidence is mounting that they cannot do. so the administration has chosen to stop flying strike missionings against qadhafi's forces even though they continue to threaten libyan civilians and even though our nato allies can't meet the unique capabilities in this regard. the administration has declared forcing qadhafi from power is a goal of u.s. policy. but our military mission is not working toward that goal by actively seeking to degrade qadhafi's forces thereby increasing the pressure on him to leave power at a time when

qadhafi's forces are adapting to nato's tactics and capabilities and concealing themselves in populated civilian areas, the administration has grounded our most effective aircraft, the a-10 and ac-130, which are the only planes -- the own planes that are capable of conducting the kinds of precise air-to-ground operations now required to protect civilians under the current 6s. qadhafi's forces are now regaining momentum on the ground. we cannot succeed with half-measures. right now our actions are not adding up to a strategy that appears capable of achieving our goals. to the contrary, we seem to be failing to prevent the situation on the ground in libya from sliding into a stalemate. just yesterday general carter hamm, who led operation odyssey dawn in libya, told the armed

services committee that a stalemate in libya where qadhafi remains in power to pose an even greater threat to the world and the libyan world is not in america's interest or in anyone's interest. but in the same hearing yesterday general hamm also conceded that the situation on the ground in libya is -- quote -- "more likely of becoming a stalemate now than when this intervention began." i'm afraid i agree with the general, and i'd like to highlight some of the in us that my colleagues may have missed. yesterday there was an airstrike that unfortunately -- "washington post," "nato's credibility takes a hit in libya. forces loyal to libyan leader moammar qadhafi went back on the offensive as questions continued to mount about the credibility and effectiveness of nato's no-fly zone and campaign airstrikes. a senior u.s. general described

the situation in libya as a stalemate while turkey said it was talking to beth sides, working on a road map for a cease-fire. in the meantime, qadhafi is seeking whatever military advantage he can get and probing for gaps in nato's resome of the the day also ignited new confusion and outrage among the rebels in adibiya after killing people, including two doctors. rebels first accused neigh to of targeting them but by thursday night it was still inclear. if nato ha tacked their tanks, it was a mistake and if qadhafi's airplanes had been athrowed strike them, it was an even bigger mistake. the current air war is especially sensitive to the criticism that came from the leader of the libyan opposition force, general be a you don't fahda lunas. he said, "nato blesses us every now and then with a bombardment

here and there and is letting the people of miserata die every day." so we relieved a humanitarian -- let's get this straight, my friends. we relieved a humanitarian disaster in benghazi and now twos of either ineptitude or lack of resolve or lack of capability or all of the above, we are now watching a massacre, certainly human suffering of enormous proportions, in miserata. another article from "the guardian." "nato strik lacking strike air t for libyan campaign." "new york times" editorial interestingly, "the new york times" says, and i quote, "there is a much better option. the american a-10 and a130-c aircraft. president obama should authorize

these planes to fly again under nato command. unlike the high-flying supersonic french and british jets now carrying the main burden of the air war, these american planes can fly slow enough and low enough to let them see and target colonel qadhafi's weapons without unduly endangering nearby populations." the facts are stubborn things. the fact is that now the situation is deteriorating. suffering goes on, and america and our allies appear to be showing that we are incapable or unwilling to address a third-rate military power ruled by a man who has the blood of 190 americans on his hands, who has been involved in terrorist activities throughout the world, who when outside of benghazi said, 'we will go house to house

and kill every one of you.' and the situation is deteriorating into stalemate. first we need to get u.s. armed forces, especially our a-10's and ac-130's back into the business of flying strike missions against qadhafi's forces, not just to protect civilians but to work toward the goalt of our actual policy which is to impose enough pressure on the regime to compel qadhafi and his family to leave power. second, the united states should work with our friends and allies to help the opposition government in ben gas disirks the transnational council to gain access to some of the tens of billions of dollars worth of funds that have been frozen from the qadhafi regime. third, we need to help the opposition to qadhafi communicate more effectively while shutting down qadhafi's ability to broadcast his prop began davment he has cut off land lines, mobile networks and the internet.

we have both humanitarian and strategic interests in restoring the ability of people in liberated parts much libya to communicate with each other and the rest of the world. we should take steps to get qadhafi's satellite, television and radiobroadcasts off the air. u.s. diplomacy is urgently needed to get those countries that have sat lie providers broadcasting qadhafi's propaganda to drop those communications immediately. fourth, the united states should follow france, qatar, and italy in recognizing the opposition government, a transitional national council as the sole legitimate government of libya. you know, i hear again and again, we don't know who these people are. well, i'll tell you who they are. they are people who rose up against an oppressive and brutal dictator and to assert their rights for freedom and democracy. that's who they are. and any allegation that they're dominated by al qaeda is patently false. we didn't know who was going to

come off hitler but we wanted him gone. so this continuous stream that there's -- somehow this is al qaeda. it is not al qaeda. it's people who want freedom and democracy. they rose up peacefully, as the tunisians did and egyptians did. there's others across the middle east and north africa are now doing for economic opportunity and justice. that's why this regional awakening which some are calling the arab spring, rather than helping al qaeda is in fact the greatest repudiation of al qaeda that the world has ever seen. fifth, we need to facilitate the provision of weapons to the libyan opposition. as we will as command and control technology, training battlefield intelligence and other capabilities that can strengthen their ability to increase the pressure on qadhafi to leave power. and i want to reiterate, i do not support nor do i believe it is necessary american ground

troops under any circumstances. we should be able to, with a combination of the robust implementation of these five measures, drive qadhafi from power and give the libyan people their god-given rights. i just want to say again that i see on cable time after time about we don't know who these people are and they may be al qaeda. i will tell you who they are. they're people who don't want to live under oppressive, repressive, brutal regimes. and the more of a stalemate, the more likely that al qaeda forces will infiltrate and gain power. the quicker that qadhafi leaves power, the more likely it is we will see a dramatic transition. we cannot say -- we cannot say that we intervened in libya to prevent a slaughter in benghazi

only to oversee one in israta or some other city. if we stay our present course, that's what will likely happen. we need decisive actions, not half measures. we need to be leading. america must lead. nato is america. we need to be leading in a strong and sustained way, not sitting on the sidelines or playing a supporting role. we have the right goal in libya. the president was right to intervene in the first place. now we need to take the necessary steps to finish the job. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i ask unanimous consent that the articles i referred to be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hagan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mrs. hagan: mr. president, i rise again today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the capitol to move beyond the unnecessary and distracting

partisan bickering and come together to fund our government for the remainder of the current fiscal year, including our military, our early childhood programs, and our essential health services for our seniors and children. six months into the 2011 fiscal year, a less than 12 hours before a government shutdown would close many of the important services to millions of americans. congress has yet to fulfill its most basic responsibility and pass a budget. i know that the people of north carolina or any state did not send us to washington to point fingers or blame other people for the challenges our country faces. they sent us here to work with our colleagues on commonsense solutions. during my time as budget cochair in the north carolina state senate, i learned two things. first, it's never easy to craft a budget. there are always tough choices to make.

and, second, our fiscal challenges can only be met if republicans and democrats have that compliment to work together. despite the impression the american people may have based on what they've seen in recent weeks, i know we can work this out. we have to work together, because after we come to an agreement on this year's budget, we must buckle down and chart out a comprehensive bipartisan path to rein in our nearly $10 trillion national debt. i believe we all share the common goal of reducing this year's deficit, but the national debt will not disappear with one bill or in one year alone. it will take a comprehensive and long-term approach that moves beyond a singular focus on domestic discretionary spending. that's why i remain concerned by some of the cuts passed by the house and especially by the dozens of divisive policy riders

that are disrupting our ability to chart a pragmatic and responsible fiscal course for our country. and it's why i remain concerned that we are holding up government funding with threats to take away fight vital hetion electric to millions of american women who could otherwise not afford them. these health services include pap tests, breast cancer screenings, birth control, s.t.d. testing and treatment. and these services, which are funded through title 10, were signed into law by president nixon and supported by george h.w. bush. and according to independent, nonpartisan studies, every $1 spent on these family-planning services saves $4. and is that not what we are supposed to be working on, reducing the amount of our government spending? these proposals are the only thing standing between a

reasonable bipartisan compromise and an irresponsible government shutdown. if such a shutdown does occur, we risk delivering a crippling blow now to our already fragile economic recovery. more than 1,000 american small business owners who were already facing difficulties securing the borrowing they need to expand and add jobs could see their s.b.a.-backed loans delayed. you know, we have 368 national parks in our country. millions of dollars will be lost to the businesses surrounding those parks if we shut down the government. in april of 2010 alone, in north carolina, more than 1.3 million people visited the national parks and spent millions of dollars. these parks include the great smoky mountains, the blue ridge parkway, cape hatter ras national seashore and others.

tourism in north carolina someone of our state's largest industries, and in 2010 tourists spent $17 billion across our state and the tourism industry supports 185,000 jobs for northh carolinians. more than 40,000 businesses in north carolina provide direct services to travelers and if we close our national parks, these small businesses are at risk of losing customers, losing money, which will make it much more difficult for my state to recover from this tough economy. and we risk putting even more pressure on our already shaky mortgage market by preventing thousands of homeowners from receiving a loan to buy a new house. and as a senator from north carolina, i am particularly alarmed about the impact a government shutdown would have on our courageous military personnel and their families who have dedicated their lives to this country.

just two weeks ago, marines from north carolina rescued with amazing speed and skill the american f-15 pilot that went down east of benghazi in libya. last week i spoke with marine corps commandant general amos on the amazing work of these north carolina marines, and he told me it took only 90 minutes from start to finish to rescue the f-15 pilot. these warriors are heroes as are the 12,000 active-duty troops in north carolina and approximately 400,000 american troops who are deployed overseas, including 90,000 troops in afghanistan and 45,000 troops in iraq. these heroes and their families do not deserve to have partisan bickering jeopardize their financial stability. more than a third of the people in my state are either in the military, a veteran, or have an immediate family member who is

in the military or a veteran. so if the government shuts down and we delay paychecks to our military personnel, it's not just our courageous service men and women whose livelihoods are affected, but those of their spouses and their children. and i know that nobody in this body wants to see that happen, whether you represent a state with a large military population or not, we are all incredibly grateful for the sacrifices our military personnel and their families give this country every day. earlier this week i cosponsored the bipartisan ensuring pay for our military, sponsored by my republican colleague from texas, senator hutchison, which would prevent an interruption in pay for members of the military if there is a government shutdown. this is an important bill, a must-do bill. but i sincerely hope it is an unnecessary bill. the american people want members of congress to work across party lines, avoid an irresponsible

government shutdown and move forward on a sound, comprehensive and bipartisan plan to put our fiscal house in order. the american people don't care if it's a republican plan or a democratic plan. they just want it to be a good plan for our country. and that's why this week i signed on to the bienyell -- biannual budget bill being led by senator isakson and senator shaheen. this bill which will move the federal budget process is a commonsense bipartisan approach which will hopefully remove the partisan political bickering. i urge my colleagues to come together now and fund our service men and women, our v.a. doctors, our head start programs and our women's health care so we can move on to the nation's number-one priority, which is tackling our unsustainable national debt. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes. the presiding officer:. the presiding officer: is there objection? no objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rose yesterday to talk about the consequences of a budget shutdown, and i rise again today hours away from facing that reality. and what i cannot understand for the life of me, mr. president, is having agreed to $78 billion in cuts, more than almost 80% of the way of where our republican colleagues originally stated they wanted to be.

last time i checked on an negotiation, when someone comes 80% of the way to where you are, you've done rather well. and yet, even in the face of having made those very deep cuts, some which will clearly affect major services delivered to individuals in this country, but coming together for the understanding of what is necessary to both get this budget year done and being able to begin to significantly reduce the deficit, it's still not enough. why? why? because of a driving force in the house of representatives on the republican side that insists on social issues that have nothing to do with the budget and keeping the nation's business open and making sure this economy stays on track and growing jobs and putting families back to work. now, i'll talk about what that

issue is in just a minute, but again toeuft revisit that -- again i want to revisit that this isn't about some museums closing on the mall, even though that in and itself have a tourism effect and a dollar effect on our economy to all those places throughout the country that would be closed down. this is about businesses here in america. today "the new york times" gave examples of that. it talked about the manufacturing executive whose company supplies goods to federal agencies, the bank loan officers who make mortgages guaranteed by the f.h.a., which is one of the single block, greatest block drivers of mortgages to be done by middle-class working families. the wall street analyst who depends on a steady flow of government data. the federal government is in and itself a major driver of the economy and a ripple effect to

businesses across the spectrum in our country. and pulling the plug pulls the plug on the other businesses in america that at the end of the day means jobs and at the end of the day means a consequence to this fragile economic recovery. that's why the chamber of commerce has come out against a shutdown. that's why the business round table has talked about it. these are voices of those entities that clearly speak with a one-vision business sense, and they say a shutdown does not make good business sense for america. all, however, risk or some social issues. when the government shut down in 1995 -- the last time that the republicans shut down the united states government. let's not forget that. i was there in the house of representatives when that happened. the last time republicans shut the government down for their

ideological views, the nation's economic growth was slowed by as much as 1% in that quarter, a full percent. mr. president, in an economy that is in recovery -- and recovery, i would remind people, you know, from pw-r we were to -- from where we were to where we are, there's a little history that we need to remember. i remember in the clinton years when democrats balanced the budget for the first time in a generation, created record surpluses, low unemployment, low interest rates and the greatest peacetime economy in over a generation, we had surplus. the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, said we're looking at a ten-year outlook that's bright. we were actually years away from not only balancing the budget, but from ending debt. and here we are. what happened in between?

tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country under president bush, two wars unpaid for, a medicare prescription drug benefit unpaid for, wall street allowed to go run wild, and we went from a surplus with projections of $5.6 trillion surpluses from 2011 to the challenges that we have today. i know that people want to forget the past, but the past is in part the reality of our present challenges. and so at a time in this fragile economic recovery where we are ultimately meeting the challenges of global events that also affect us here at home, the unrest in the middle east, the driving up of oil prices which drive up gasoline prices, which drive up commodity prices, which drive up food prices and, therefore, has a consequence not

only to every american at the pump but also at the supermarket and in their lives and has a collective consequence to our economy, what's happened in japan and whether they will be able to send supplies and some of the most critical elements of our economy here, in the technology field, with millions of americans still looking for work, and we're going to give it a domestic body blow all because of social issues. all because of social issues. mr. president, that doesn't make sense, and it's not necessary. and it is not necessary. you know, we could have consequences to the markets. the asian markets, if we closed down this government, don't open up, the asian markets on sunday will begin, and that begins setting a trend throughout the globe. this has real consequences to

our economy here at home. it's amazing to me that we'd have those who wear the uniform of the united states fighting halfway around the globe, and they'll continue to fight for their country but they would not be paid. they'll your honor the pay and eventually they'll get it. but while they're in the field they wouldn't get the pay. how about their families here back at home who already suffer not having them with them? all because we are driven by the republican voices in the house of representatives over a program called title 10. what is title 10? title 10 is a law signed by president nixon and ultimately had as one of its strongest supporters when he was in the house of representatives, former

president bush to provide life saving health care services for women. now some of those voices continue to falsely say that this is about abortion. the federal law is very clear, no federal dollars can go for abortion services. no federal dollars can go for abortion services. this is about an array of confidential preventive health services from pregnancy testing to screening for cervical and breast cancer, screening for high blood pressure, anemia, diabetes, screening for s.t.d.'s, including h.i.v., basic infertility services, health education. this is about the very essence of ao woman's ability to get health care if she does not have the wherewithal on her own

financial condition to be able to go to a doctor. and so there are many institutions -- by the way, including catholic and religious institutions that receive title 10 money. and i am sure, i am sure no one would claim that they are producing abortion services. now why when we are looking at the very essence of whether it be my daughter or anyone else's daughter in america or anybody's wife or mother, why is it that we must drive an ideologically driven issue in the midst of a budget debate? a budget debate's about numbers and it is about making sure services are continued. and it is making sure that the

economy continues to prosper. and it is about getting people back to work. but it isn't about certainly using an ideological view that somehow this program that ultimately helps women have preventive health care services is somehow an abortion issue when the law clearly says it cannot be under any circumstances. why would we deny women in this country the ability to have the health care that they need so that they can be healthy, so that they continue to prosper, so that their families can continue to have that mother, that breadwinner, the person who holds that family together be healthy? i cannot imagine for the life of me that we will shut the government down based on those issues. but that is in fact where we're at, mr. president. now when i look at that and i look at the other elements of

what has recently been discussed as a prelude. this is just the opening salvo of a debate that will continue on. hopefully we will have a vote, mr. president. i am ready to vote to keep this government open. i am ready to vote to make sure that those who wear the uniform of the united states are paid when they are committing the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of their country. but more importantly, i would like to be able to vote to have $78 billion worth of cuts and at the same time make sure that this economy continues to move forward, continues to grow, continues to put people back to work. so as we are ready -- and i hope that cooler minds can prevail in the house, that the ideological views can be told it's not for a budget debate. have that debate some other

time. have those votes, if you want, some other time; that's fine. but do not hold us hostage, do not hold the nation hostage to that issue. but i see that as only the beginning of what is a broader plan, and that broader plan is another reason why we need tpo get this budget done so we can move to that other plan in the next fiscal year. mr. president, could i find out how much time i have? and i would commend to my colleagues as we look at that plan the column written by paul krugman today, a nobel prize recipient, entitled "ludicrous and cruel." basically, he talks about the ryan plan that privatizes medicare, that has large tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, that ultimately doesn't do either one of the

things that they suggest in this column, which i commend to my colleagues. he says -- quote -- "in the past, mr. ryan has talked a good game about taking care of those in need," like medicare for seniors and medicare for children, ""but of the the $4 trillion in spending cuts that he proposes over the next decade, two-thirds involve cutting programs that mainly serve low-income americans." and then he goes on to say that it is a continuation of the voodoo economics of the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country that supposedly are going to create prosperity, and we saw that simply wasn't the case. what it did do is do a big part of unraveling the clinton surpluses that democrats helped to create and drive an enormous amount of the debt that we are realizing and debating on today.

so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that that column be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: and, mr. president, this is a time to make sure that there is a vote on this senate floor on a budget that ends the fiscal year that encapsulates the $78 billion in cuts, that strips out social riders that have nothing to do with the budget, that preserves a woman's preventative health care services and that moves the country forward in terms of its economic advancement, creating jobs and making sure that we don't get thrust back into a recession. that's what this debate is all about, that's what the vote should be about today. mr. president, i and i know members of the democratic caucus stand ready to do exactly that. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president, i can only imagine that the american people who are watching this drama unfold here in washington,

d.c., are scratching their head, are confuseed and are wondering why it is that congress can't perform one of its most basic functions. mr. cornyn: that is, make sure that the government continues to operate. but i'm also reminded of an -- of an adage from the days that i practiced law and then presided as a judge in the courtroom. if you can't convince them, confuse them. and whether it's inadvertently or intentionally or just by mistake, i think there is a lot of confusion being -- being encouraged and propagated here on the floor. the fact of the matter is there are three things that we're talking about. one is there is the continuing resolution that the house of representatives passed and sent over here some time ago which would fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year. that's one thing. there is a second thing which is

a bill that was sent over yesterday that would fund the government for one more week and the department of defense for the remainder of the fiscal year that the majority leader has the power to bring to the floor today and to have us vote on this afternoon or tonight. but the president of the united states has sent out a veto message saying he would veto it. and then the third thing that's being discussed and maybe the most confusing of all is when speaker boehner says it's all about the money, and majority leader reid says no, it's about the policy riders. well, i would submit that it is about the money and it's not about objections to policy which 49 of our democratic friends have voted for in the past which has been signed into law by president clinton and been signed into law by president obama himself.

but the real casualties of this dysfunction here and the inability of congress to get its work done unfortunately falls to our men and women in uniform. in my state, a large army installation, as the presiding officer knows, is located in colleen, texas, at fort hood. on november 5, 2009, tragedy hit fort hood when major hassan killed 13 people in what could only be described as a domestic act of terrorism. shortly after that, a number of our military were deployed to iraq and afghanistan and are now in the process of returning. the soldiers are finally returning from iraq, and individuals like specialist kevin gallagher of tiger squadron third army who is a purple heart recipient is just

coming back from iraq. soldiers of the 25th engineering battalion are returning to fort hood from afghanistan, and i wonder what they are thinking now along with their families when as a result of the federal government dealing with its most basic responsibilities, they are not going to get paid, starting tomorrow. unless the majority takes up the temporary bill that was passed yesterday in the house and sent over here and we vote on it today to make sure that our troops and their families continue to get funded and get the way that they so richly have earned and which they deserve. we have heard as i said a lot of talk about riders, but the only thing that's contained in this bill that could be called a policy rider about which there appears to be some confusion is one that 49 senate democrats have voted on in the past, a

spending bill with regard to abortion funding in the district of columbia. president obama has signed it into law, president clinton has signed that into law, and 49 of our senate democrats have voted for it in the past, yet this becomes somehow the obstacle to paying our troops what they have earned. i would say the argument really sounds like we will not fund our troops because we can't fund abortions in the district of columbia. i think the -- i think it's a terrible shame, and really i think galvanizes public opinion about everyone in washington. i think president is wrong and his political advisors are wrong if they think a government shutdown is going to help democrats and help them get re-elected and hurt republicans. i think they are saying a pox on all your houses. you need to work together to

solve problems. you need to work together to cut spending, to cut the deficit, deal with the unsustainable debt, and you need to get on with it now. the fact of the matter is we continue to spend 40 cents out of every dollar here in washington as borrowed money. we know that the debt being held by the public, this is under the president's own budget proposal, would go up to -- in 2019, it would double in five years, it would triple in ten years, because the president himself, obligated as he is under the budget act to send over his requested budget does nothing to deal with the debt crisis that is threatening our -- our nation. threatening our prosperity and threatening our freedom. and as china continues to loan us money, we are subject to the tender mercies of a country that i submit we do not want to be subject to the tender mercies

of. we need to deal with this. i think unfortunately the president and some of my friends across the aisle have been very critical of the proposed budget of congressman paul ryan in the house, but at least he tries to deal with reality with the hand we have been dealt, or the hand which some of us have created, and the president himself ignores his own fiscal commission report that came out in december of 2010. here's what the wall of debt looks like unless we deal with this problem, according to the president's own budget, it gets worse and worse and worse. in 1997, it was roughly roughly $5 trillion. now we're looking at about a a $14 trillion debt. and if we don't do anything about it, if we continue business as usual here in washington and don't cut spending and deal with the structural and systemic problems

facing us and our debt crisis, it's going to continue to get worse and worse and worse. well, this is -- this is another sobering chart. this shows when we borrow the money, we have to pay interest to the people who -- who buy that debt, and this chart shows that the interest paid by 2021 -- this is the last year of the president's proposed budget -- that the amount of money paid in interest -- and this is at assumed rates which are now very low -- are are $931 billion, more than transportation, more than defense and more than medicare. and we have been told by the experts that if interest rates were to go up, if, for example, we incur a period of inflation, that this number could explode

into multiples of this figure, putting us into a death spiral, economically speaking, and we could end up like greece or portugal. the only problem is there's nobody out there to bail out the united states of america. the only one that can stop this is us. secretary geithner said that the debt limit ceiling has to be raised sometime in the period between middle may and july. that is the big event. what we're talking about now is a preliminary scurm issue, albeit -- skirmish, all be it very important. i tell you this, mr. president, i do not intend to vote to increase the debt limit of the federal government unless we can get systemic reform that will deal with this very problem.

i would say one of the ways to do that would be to pass a balanced budget amendment. all 47 senators on our side have now agreed to a constitutional amendment provision that would require a balanced budget, and we hope that our friends across the aisle will join us in passing it. last time this was considered, we came within one vote in 1997 of passing a balanced budget amendment, and the deficit was was $107 billion. now it's $1.5 trillion. the debt was around $5 trillion, and now it's $14 trillion. so if it was compelling enough that it came that close to passage in 1997, how much more compelling is the evidence that we need to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution? so i hope, mr. president, in closing that cooler heads will prevail tonight, that those who seek political advantage by the game of gotcha, which is a world-class sport here in washington, d.c., will forebear

and allow us to get on with the really big fights which are dealing with this unsustainable debt, these huge deficits and not threaten the paycheck of the men and women who wear the uniform of the united states who are fighting three wars around the world and whose families are calling my office. and, mr. president, i would guess they are calling your office, the senator from michigan, the senator from new york and saying what are you doing and why can't you get this taken care of so we don't have to add this to the list of burdens that we must bear while our loved ones are away fighting america's wars. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that at 4:00 p.m., the majority leader be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. stabenow: thank you,

mr. president. and i would agree with my colleague, my friend from texas, about the fact that people are scratching their heads. i know the people in michigan are wondering what in the world is going on right now when we are still trying to recover from a discretion and we have a long ways to go for most americans, even though the unemployment rate has come down substantially in michigan. we were at one point 15.7%, and that's just what you count in terms of unemployment. now it's 10.7% and going down, but still way, way, way too high, and families are under water, their houses are under water. they are trying to recover in terms of their incomes and hold it together and look for new work or job training. what about the kids in college and all that comes with that. in the middle class, maybe struggling to stay in the middle class, get into the middle class. small businesses wondering what

the heck is going on around here when they're trying to -- hopefully folks have held on through the recession, trying to come back, trying to invest, trying to keep the doors open, hire more people, and they are wondering what in the world is going on here. we're in a situation where these negotiations have now just become so political and the discussion so unrelated to what the budget's about and, most importantly, to what people care about. because the political piece of this now, about pulling in issues around women's health care, are descrabtin are distram getting a six-month budget done, which distracting from what we really ought to be talking about which is jobs and the economy and putting people back to work and supporting small businesses to get the capital they need to be able to grow. so we're in a situation now

where the whole process has been politicized to the point where it's extremely disappointing to me and extremely concerning. and what the bottom line ends up being is that middle-class families, veterans concerned about their disability claims or seniors concerned about their social security or medicare claims or small businesses who are putting together loan applications or somebody trying to close on their house with f.h.a. is being held hostage -- being held hostage to politics that have nothing to do with the budget. nothing to do with the budget. this latest distraction, which is over breast cancer screenings and cervical cancer screenings for women and girls, is just

another in a long list of distractions from the budget crisis and, most importantly, from the focus that we need to have on creating jobs. you know, we have all agreed that washington, just like every family's, got to change the way it does business, has got to focus on cutting the things that aren't important, to focus on the things that are. every dollar's that's being paid, every taxpayer dlif givina dollar as that found that it's a lot harder to earn that dollar and to give that dollar and we'd better be taking good care of that and stretching it as far as possible and focusing it on the things that are most important because those dollars are hard to come by these days. and that's the reality. and so we have come together. it's been a long time in coming but we have come together, we've agreed on significant spending cuts, changes while keeping a

focus on education, innovation to grow for the future. and now at the 11th hour, all of a sudden what was agreed to in terms of significant spending cuts to allow us to balance -- to bring the budget together and focus on deficit reduction, somehow that's gone and we're now talking about whether or not women's health care will be funded in this country, whether or not women are going to be able to receive blood pressure checks, cancer screenings and other preventive care efforts. is that really what this is about? are we really going to hold small businesses and middle-class families and veterans hostage over blood pressure checks for women?

cancer screenings for women? really? is that what this is about? stunning. this is absolutely stunning. you know, in the great state of michigan, we will's health clinics that are -- that are at this point proposed for elimination provided 55,000 cancer screenings last year and there were 38,800 abnormal results, women who found out those results early, were able to detect their cancers early and get the lifesaving treatment that they needed to save their lives. could be your mom, your grandmother, your daughter, your friend, your neighbor, somebody at church. so is this really about telling women in communities across michigan in marquette, muskegon, burton, alosso, three rivers,

that they can't get their breast cancer screenings? telling women in flint and grand rapids and ipsalanti and sturgess that they can't get their cervical cancer screenings? telling women in warren and brighton and grand rapids and battle creek they can't get their blood pressure checked or their cholesterol tested? are republicans really planning to shut down the government and hold middle-class families and veterans hostage in order to stop breast cancer screenings and cholesterol checks? unbelievable. i think it's shameful. you know, it is time to come together and get this budget done. as i understand it, there was an agreement last night on the level of spending cuts. we need to get this done and

move on, move on to the real focus and debate that we need to be having about how we grow the economy and compete in a global economy. you know, mr. president, i know there could be a lesson learned from what people in my state have gone through and done in the last couple of years. you know, we -- we did not give up on the american automobile industry, with the support and help of our president and members here, despite some incredibly tough times and -- and difficulties in terms of cutting back that had to take place, we did not give up. workers sacrificed, cutting starting pay in half. retirees, the business -- the companies, the shareholders, communities. everybody got together and said, you know what? we know there's a big problem

here and we're going to get this fixed and we're going to sacrifice together. and then we did a really important thing with the support of people here and the president, and i'm very grateful for it. we then said, you know what? we're going to invest like crazy in innovation. and because we did that, that combination of resetting the budget and the finances for the auto industry and then investing in innovation, with the great help of our wonderful engineers and skilled labor force and a whole lot of smart people that came together with battery investments and retooling loans that are bringing jobs back from mexico now and investments in new advanced manufacturing. we're not only growing and for the first time since 1999 the american company is making a

profit but we're winning awards. we're winning all the awards for top quality, the great vehicles of the future. i would suggest that that would be a good model for us. come together on what we need to do, to push the reset button, to be able to come together, to be able to get our arms around spending and -- and balance the budget and tackle the deficit and then invest like crazy in the future. in innovation and education and building, rebuilding america. so, mr. president, i would just say that this is extremely concerning to me today, where we are, because instead of talking about how we compete in a global economy, instead of talking about the united states versus china, which is what we should be talking about, or germany or india or korea, we're at a place

where we're talking about whether or not the federal budget and middle-class families will be held hostage in order to stop -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. mccaskill: in order to stop cancer research for women in this country. i would urge that we come together. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, thank you. i rise today to speak of course on the budget issues we're facing, the continuing resolution, all of the issues that have been talked about over the last week or so. mr. president, oftentimes when i speak on the senate floor, i talk about what it's like back home in nebraska. i do so because i'm enormously proud of my state and it just seems that -- that our state does so many things right. so again today i'm going to take

a moment or two to get started here and talk a little bit about that and my experience in dealing with budget issues. i had the great honor at one point to serve a couple of terms as mayor of a really great city, the community of lincoln, nebraska. and it was a strong mayor form of government and so each year i would have the responsibility of preparing a budget and submitting it to a seven-person city council who would take it apart and put it back together and i would work with them to get a budget done. it never occurred to me, mr. president, that as mayor of that city, i had the ability not to do a budget. i can't imagine walking into a state of the city address and

saying to the good people of lincoln that after giving it some thought, i had decided that it was going to be a situation where i would not be submitting a budget for consideration of the city council. this never occurred to me. you know, i look at that community today, led by a mayor who is very capable, happens to be of the other political party than i am, and that community has the lowest unemployment rate of any community in the united states. why? because people take a pretty conservative view of things. in fact, in preparing that budget, we would literally go item by item, police cars, police salaries, fire engines, whatever, and literally list them item by item and then the amount. and at some point, there would be a line drawn through the page

where we had spent all of the money that we had, all of the money available that year was spent. and so everything below that line wasn't funded. and if i looked below that line or a council member did and we said, well, look, we want more done here, we want to fund that item, then we had to go above the line and find the money in another program or we had to raise taxes. and those were really the choices we got. after that, i had the great honor of serving the state of nebraska as its governor for two terms, and actually the budget process didn't differ that much. each year as governor i would submit at the start of the year a -- a budget to our nebraska unicameral and i would deliver a state of the state address where i would talk about priorities or

budget issues, whatever i chose to talk about as governor. there were three things i could guarantee the citizens each ye year. number one, that a budget would be submitted and it would be approved. number two, we would not borrow any money, any money to balance that budget. because, you see, our constitution essentially prohibits elected officials at the state level from borrowing money. and the third thing was that the budget would, in fact, be balanced. you see, we didn't have the option of going out to the bond market and issuing debt to mask the lack of discipline to get the spending cutsin spending sp.

we again just really had only a few choices. choice number one was we could cut spending. thoichoice number two was we cod raise taxes. and choice number three was we could do both. i also favored the spending piece because if revenues were down, it told me people were earning less and were spending less and because of that, less money was coming into the state treasury and why should i, as governor, go out and beat them up some more by raising their taxes. well, i, as you know, spent a three-year period of time as secretary of agriculture and i was given a budget by the congress. it never occurred to me that i should spend more than what was allocated to me. i would always tell my subcabinet and my cabinet when i was governor, look, this isn't

magic, it's math. and if the math doesn't work, then we have to come to grips with this. in all due respect to my colleagues who have come to the floor throughout the day and they've talked about what this process is or isn't and whether funding is going to be done for this program or what rider is there, all i want to say is th this. what we're finally focused on in this great nation is what we should have been focused on decades ago and that is we are spending more than is coming in and every dollar overspent is put on a credit card. and it doesn't go away. it won't be canceled. i've been going across our state with charts an graphs to try to -- and graphs to try to illustrate this point. i turn 60 this year.

when i was a 20-year-old man, our government owe owed $380 billion. i'm sure at that point in time many argue that that was way too much debt. the projections are, under the obama plan, president obama's plan, that by the end of this decade on my 65th birthday, we will owe $20 trillion. so in the span of one lifetime -- one lifetime we have gone from $380 billion t to $20 trillion. and, mr. president, that has consequences. now, maybe that doesn't have consequence for a man who is 06 years old. neighbor does. i believe it does. but beyond a shadow of a doubt, no matter which side of this you

want to be on, it has consequences for our children and grandchildren. and so it isn't about an individual rider or individual program. it is about the fact that we are spending this great nation into an absolutely hopeless abyss. and if we don't come to grips with that, if we don't come to tbrips with this, this won't turn out and it won't turn out for anybody. now, when i came here two years ago, i was stunned. every conversation was, how do we spend more? i thought there would be a stimulus package when i was elected to the senate. i thought it would even be a package i would support. and then somebody said it had to be a $50 billion pack - pack -- $500 billion package all borrowed money and i started

getting really squeamish about that. and somebody outbid them and said i think it's got to be a $750 billion package, and then i really got squeamish and couldn't support that. by the time this was all done we borrowed by china and other places a trillion dollars. and i thought, my goodness, we'll take a breather here at some point. there was no breather. there was a health care bill with no gimmicks and scoring than you could possibly imagine. and here we are today fighting over whether this continuing resolution should be $30 billion in cuts, $60 billion in cuts. eye honestly -- quite honestly in the grand scheme of what our nation is facing that is pitiful. it's almost tragic because if we

don't come to grips with this soon, the big picture this absolutely is going to destroy any future that our kids and grandkids might have hoped for in the united states of america. hope springs eternal. i look at the glass half full all the time. i think we're going to get through this. i think we'll deal with the issues before us. maybe in ways that some like, some dislike. but if we don't come together somehow, some way and deal with what the real issue is, and that is we're spending a great nation into the stone age, we are going to be a lesser nation than any of us could have ever imagined. and that affects every priority. that affects medicaid, social security, education, national defense, homeland security.

you name your priority, it affects it all. so today i count myself one who wants to come down here to the floor at some point before the day is out and vote to solve this problem, but then i want to do all i can to work with my colleagues to deal with what is really facing us, which is debt that is out of control, spending that is out of control with a situation where no budget was submitted, not a single appropriations bill, and that's where we find ourselves today, trying to patch this together because we didn't come to grips with the budget process last year. and, mr. president, that doesn't seem right to me. with that, mr. president, i conclude my remarks and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise today to really to just ask a simple question: what are

we doing here? what are we doing jeopardizing our economic recovery to just score political points? i have to agree with my friend and colleague from nebraska. i am optimistic also and that we have agreed on a $78 billion reduction to the 2011 budget. the glass isn't half full. it is more than three-quarters full. we're grandstanding over the federal budget when we should make sure that american families can make their monthly budgets and get back to work. i'm not here to downplay the need to cut the federal deficit. i agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we need to make real cuts now. we have already committed to the deepest cuts to discretionary spending since world war ii that we are already halfway through the fiscal -- fiscal year these cuts are good -- are a good

downpayment on even more on our fiscal 2012 budget and beyond. i'm putting forward concrete recommendations for the future. such as the eliminating orphan earmark saving upwards to $1 billion. cutting subsidies for millionaire farmers saving billions of dollars. cutting tax loopholes saving tens of billions of dollars. shutting down the government is not going to get us any closer to the real goal of reducing the deficit. we didn't save a single dime during the last shutdown. in fact, it cost american taxpayers $1.4 billion. and the economic costs were even more. dozens of military construction projects are stalled right now putting at risk hundreds of jobs this summer that need improvements to alaska's

military base. i've talked to these contractors, these individuals waiting for us to get their work done to give them certainty to their ability. over a quarter of a billion dollars pending. military families caught in the middle. the military will get paid, but the uncertainty of when they will get paid because this will be a waiting -- waiting on us to pass a bill is unfair. we should push harder to work out a compromise for them. at the same time civilian construction projects and the jobs created by them for docks, housing, facilities are also at risk. critical contracts to move forward on the land i transferso state of alaska and alaska native corporations will not get done in time for the summer work. alaska businesses looking to start new operations won't be able to get the s.b.a. loans, families won't get the f.h.a. or usda home loans and the tax

refunds won't be processed. and key permits to onshore oil and gas development, which have been painfully slow to move forward will be stalled further. when i was home this last week i heard directly from some of more than 17,000 federal workers in alaska about their concerns. it might be easy for some to criticize public employees, but in alaska these members are -- they are members to our community. they contribute to the economy, pay taxes and provide critical services to my state, all across my state. many are getting by paycheck to paycheck. a shutdown could mean that rent doesn't get paid, their mortgage is put at risk, their bank accounts won't balance. we cannot and should not play politics with their jobs just because we're not doing our job. americans, alaskans, are frustrated. they're wondering what the heck

we're doing here. and i agree with them. it's only been three months since the new congress convened and not much to report back home to the alaskans that are working every day making progress in our state. in the past tame -- it's past time to get back to work, roll up our sleeves, finish this budget and put the 2012 budget on the table and focus on the economy and creating jobs. our economy is starting to turn the corner. frankly, the many steps congress took over the last two years too rebuild this economy are working much unemployment dipped to 8.8%. 216,000 jobs created last month. the largest increase since last payment and tarp, which -- may. and tarp, which we all had mixed feelings on, it is not only being returned back, but it is returning a -- these are good

data points but we're far from getting the job done. the economy is still fragile. rising gas prices will make it harder. we need to show voters and the folks back home we can work together on deficit reduction, but also tackle energy legislation, tax reform, small business support and education investment. i know it won't be easy to get all this done, but this is what folks in my state sent me back here to do, to get the work done, balance the budget, reduce spending and continue to invest in growing our economy. i will always tell alaskans when i get back home, that all the easy issues are done. only the hard ones are left, but that's why we're here. mr. president, it's time for us to get back to work. thank you. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business for debate only be he is extended until -- be extended until 6:00 p.m. with the majority leader to be recognized at 6:00 p.m. the presiding officer: is there

objection? hearing no objection, so ordered. mr. begich: i yield the floor, mr. president. the presiding officer: thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today as so many of my colleagues have to discuss the situation that we find ourselves in and many ask what has happened? why are we here? why is there so much coverage and concern about a potential shutdown of the united states government. and i was on a radio station report from washington by phone to wyoming earlier this morning with a friend of mine and he was asking, how did we get into this situation and what can we do about it? well, there are two different situations that we're in. one is that we're in a situation because of a budget that should have been passed seven months ago when the democrats were in charge of house, in charge of the senate and in the white house, that budget, a budget, a

responsible budget was never passed. and that is what we are dealing with today in one part. the bigger part of how we got into this situation is that we are a nation in significant debt. we owe a remarkably large amount of money, $14 trillion is the number that -- is consistently discussed. very few people have a concept of exactly how much money that is. but, yet, we owe that money and people say, who do we owe it to? i visited with a group of high school students from douglas, wyoming, and i asked them who to we owe the money to? and they said, yeah, we owe a lot of it to china. mr. president, that's a great concern to the people of america, people concerned about our national security our financial security. how we, as a nation, are viewed in the world and how we view ourselves. and as families across this country, we live within our means. we balance our budgets every year. i'm from wyoming where according to our constitution we must

balance our budget every year. and we do. and that's why we have money available for scholarships and other opportunities for young people so invest the money that we have saved from year to year in our people, in our future, in our communities, in our land. and, yet, washington doesn't seem to learn that lesson even today. so here we are with this situation where we're looking at a potential of a shutdown of the government because this government has maxed out its credit card. others may decide to no longer extend credit to us and it has come down to the final hour. every day this government spen spends $4 billion more than it takes in. last month washington spent eight times as much money as it took in.

every american child is now born owing $45,000. this is a travesty, mr. president. so when i take a look at this and say we know now how we got into this situation. we have overspent. our problem isn't that we're taxed too little, it's that we spend too much. the american people understand that. so what we need to do is get the spending under control. we need to spend less. now, we are in a situation where you say, what can we do about it right now, today? well, for those same high school students who are here from douglas, wyoming, they know that a bill starts in the house and then goes to the senate, is passed by one body, passed by another body, goes to the president for his signature. so here we are. we do have a bill that has been passed by the house of representatives to keep the government open, to keep the government functioning, and i am

ready right now to vote for that bill. well, what is the president of the -- what has the president of the united states said about that? the president has threatened to veto that bill. he said he would veto a bill that would temporarily extend and keep the government open for one week. so apparently the president isn't interested in keeping this government open for the next week, through tonight at midnight. i would wish he would take a different tact and say, let's continue to work on the overall problem but keep the government functioning. you know, families all around this country -- and i talk to people every weekend in wyoming -- they're worried about the cost and the quality of their own lives. and when they look at this incredible debt coming out of washington, they say, how is this going to continue to impact the families in wyoming and all around the country and the states are finding that they're going to pay about $700 more for

fuel this year because of pain at the pump. i believe that's been made worse by the policies of this administration. but for families with kids and with bills and with a mortgage, $700 increase in gasoline prices impacts some of the money they have available for other things. so it is a direct impact on the quawflt their lives. and they're looking back hear to washington saying, what are these people doing? i had a call yesterday in my office from a man in the military saying, why aren't they going to continue to fund the military? well, that's part of the bill n.a.s.ed the house. that will -- that's passed the house that will continue to keep the military funded, functioning. and he said, you know, i'm not worried about me. i'm worried about these new guys, the younger ones in the military, the ones that might have a wife and family. i want to make sure they're taken caver.

think of each and every one of those young men and women who are in uniform defending our country. why would the president say, if you pass what the house has passed, which does cut some spending and keeps the military functioning, i will veto it? sew that's what the president of the united states said -- that's what the president of the united states said. he will veto it. rather than keep everything functioning and fund the military, the president has chosen -- has said he would veto it because it was only a one-week extension, so that all of the other issues could be worked out. now remember, mr. president, all we're talking about is this year's budget. we're now at seven months into the fiscal year. this is something that should have been done last year. but the democrats have absolutely failed to li live up to their obligations of passing a budget. certainly failed the obligation of living within the budget. but there is a proposal today to keep the government open to fund the troops and yet i hear the president of the united states

say "no." now, there's been discussion on this floor about things that are called "policy riders," and it was interesting because today in ""politico"" there's a headline "dems embraced policy riders in the past." and what sort of policy rider. here on the floor, no, no. policy ride remembers all bad. travel to cuba, that was a policy rider the democrats nut in the past and it mentions a project, a pet project of the majority leader, and it says, "delaying the development of yucca mountain as a nuclear waste storage site." so this is something that to me is not new to this body is not new. what is new is that the president of the united states has threatened to veto and to shut down the government of this country because he will not deal

with a bill that will fund our troops and will make cuts in spending, because it is for a time-limited issue at a time when we ought to say, let's keep the government open and let us fund the military. so who in fact would be wanting for there to be a shutdown? i'm not looking for that sort of thing, mr. president. and then i see there is someone who has actually been rooting for a shutdown: the former chairman of the national democratic committee, hour dean. these are things he said about a shutdown. he said, "if i was head of the democratic national committee, i would be quietly rooting for it." went on to say, "from a partisan point of view, i think it would be in the best thing -- it would be the best thing in the world," the former chairman of the democratic national committee said, "to have a shutdown." is that what we need,

mr. president, a partisan point of view? what we need are solutions for america, mr. president. and now i see that there are colleagues on the floor ready to speak, so with that, mr. president, i ask that we come to a solution, deal with the issues of the incredible amount of debt, keep the government going, pass what has passed the house, fund the troops, cut the spending and get this to the president to siefnlt thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i wanted to take a floor for a few minutes to talk about where i was supposed to be today, which is denver, colorado, not on this floor, because we were host ago town hall meeting in denver, mark udall and i were, to discuss our long-term deficit and debt problems. and we had invited senator simpson from wyoming, my colleague from wyoming just spoke, a great republican

senator, the cochair of the president's deficit and debt commission, to denver for this session, and he disagreed to covment the former head of office of management and budget. they agreed to come. and some others. more important than that, we put this out to the public and it was almost immediately oversubscribed so many people wanted to get in to have a real conversation, a an authentic conversation about what we're going to do finally to dig out from underneath this incredible deficit and debt that we face. i inconvenienced a lot of people inviting them to denver, but they are happy to do it anyway because they're so committed to this set of issues and they think having a conversation in the center of our country, in our reasonable carey mountain west, about these issues -- in our rocky mountain west, about these issues may cause some

common sense to prevail. but that inconvenience is nothing compared to the inconvenience, to say the least, that the american people are going to suffer if this government shuts down. and it's not just 850,000 federal employees. the fact that we've got troops deployed all across the globe, small businesses trying to get loans from the s.b.a., homeowners or people that hope to become homeowners, trying to get a mortgage through the f.h.a., all of that will shut down if this government shuts down, not to mention the fact that we've been told that a shutdown will cost this -- cost our economy, mr. president, at least $8 billion a week. that this government is shut down. .2% of g.d.p. growth for every week this government is shut down, just at a tight time when our economy starting to show some sign of light. i've said on the floor over the last couple of days that no

local government official in my state, none, zero, republican or democrat, would ever say, we're going to close the government. we decided that we can't get along, we can't agree, we can't figure it out, so the city and county of vendor will cloarks the city of grand junction will close, or the school district will close. no one in colorado would think to say that to their constituents and we shouldn't think about it either. some people say, wow, there must be some incredibly significant disagreement that's keeping the house and the senate from working together to get this done, republicans and democrats from working together to get this dong. last night i brought a slide to show just what that disagreement looks lirks mr. president. and this was yesterday. i heard some people say that there is agreement on the number of cuts that we're going to make

today and last night. wwell, yesterday, the parties were several billion dollars apart. that's what was said. made a chart that showed the american people what that meant. $7 billion is what i assigned to the difference. that's probably more than the difference was and it's certainly more than the difference today. that's a lot of money, by the way. but we have a $3.5 trillion operating budget and ads 1.6 trillion -- and a $1.6 trillion deficit. so i wanted to show, mr. president, what the dispute looked like compared to our deficit and compared to our operating budget. and, sorry, but i couldn't fit it on one chart. it actually is on two charts. and i couldn't get enough charts or hold them together because this is the operating budget over here, mr. president. i would need two more of these posters on top of this to be

able to show you the relationship between the so-called dispute and our operating budget. i've spent half my life in business and half my life working in local government, and i can tell you that this is a meaningless dispute, utterly meaningless. look at it. and it has nothing to do with our long-term deficit and debt problem. it has nothing to do with the good people in colorado who are talking about it today at the forum that i'm not going to be aiblg to attend. -- going to be able to attend. so in view of that, it seems to me that taking the rick of causing our government down, charge our economy an $8 billion note every week and concerning our troops who should not be worried about whether they're going to get a paycheck with that, makes no sense at all.

so, my hope is this, as the other colleagues on the floor: is that the leadership of both parties in the senate and the house and our president in the next several hours will seal a deal to make sure that our government stays open. but beyond that, to all of my colleagues in this body loorking forward to the negotiation -- looking forward to the negotiation we're going to have on the debt ceiling, looking forward to the negotiation we're going to have on our deficit and our debt, i hope we can come together and agree on a process and a structure that actually leads us to agreement rather than one that lead us to the direction we've been in the last two or three weefntle our country simply can't afford for us not to get our job done and be distracted by disagreements that are meaningless to people in their daily lives ment lives. i know we can do better as democrats and republicans.

once we get through this, i want to say, mr. president, i will do everything i can to build bipartisan support for a solution to our fiscal problems. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, if the differences are meaningless, maybe our democratic colleagues would agree and we'd have an agreeme agreement, if it's so insignificant. but it's really not totally insignificant. if you take $61 billion in spending down from the baseline, as the house budget -- excuse me, the house legislation that they have passed and sent here does -- it reduces spending by $61 billion -- if do you that it reduces the baseline $61b my staff on the budget committee -- i'm ranking republican -- has calculated that and cliewted that wil--and concluded that wie

860 billion over ten years. those numbers have not been disputed. we've used them repeatedliment in fact -- so it does make a difference. we are on the wrong trajectory. we need to get on the right trajectory. our democratic colleagues, it seems, have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of denial and into the reality that we are spending too much. we are running up too much debt. i'm pleased to see that they have agreed to consider these proposals and passed a couple of continuing resolutions to fund the government at a slightly lower level. that's progress, but -- and we've avoided shutdowns to this date. hopefully we can avoid another one. but if we have another short-term agreement today, it is nowhere close to what is needed to put our country on a sound financial course.

that is true. to avoid another recession, as we have been warned, we are facing if we do not change -- to ensure future prosperity for all americans. that's what we've got to do. this spasm has come about because our democratic colleagues last year failed to pass, even to bring to the floor -- didn't even tbroi th bring te floor a budget. they passed not a single appropriations bill last year on the floor of the senate and still have not brought to the floor any legislation to even begin to form a budget for this year, and to propose any funding for the last six months of this fiscal year. we haven't seen legislation about that. so they want to meet in secret and talk and negotiate. the house has passed legislation that funds the government, that funds the military through the

end of the year, reduces $61 billion. they have also sent another bill. they sent legislation over that says okay, we'll do one more week with a small reduction of $12 billion, and we'll fund the military, and let's do that if you don't want to agree to the full agreement for the rest of the year. so the lack of action is only in one chamber. that's this chamber. has the senate proposed any new legislation? no. but what our colleagues -- i hate to say it. i'm saying this really not quite as critical as it probably sounds. they just haven't comprehended the plain fact that business as usual is over. they think this country can continue to spend like we've been doing. they think these huge deficits can be funded, it seems, out of thin air without consequence,

that we can borrow unlimited amounts, $1.6 trillion to fund the government this year. borrow that without consequence. they think the american people will not support and they'll defeat members of congress who stand up and tell the truth about the condition we're in and who have the gumption to take real steps to reduce spending. they think it is inconceivable that our government's spending levels can actually be reduced. they think if they plan a 3% increase in spending and it gets increased only 1%, the government has suffered a 2% cut. that's the way they talk about it. that's why we're broke, that kind of accounting. they think the government can create money, create wealth out

of nothing. we can just pass a law and it becomes so. they ignore the fact that debts must be paid, and interest on our debt has to be paid. expert after expert has told the congress, who have written papers and articles and op-eds, that we are on an unsustainable path. there is not one expert that i know of who will deny that the budget submitted to the congress just a few weeks ago by the president of the united states -- president obama -- is sound. indeed, president obama's choice to head the debt commission, erskine bowles, when the budget was first announced said it's nowhere close to what is needed to avoid a fiscal nightmare. this is a man he appointed to head the debt commission who

spent weeks and months taking testimony about the condition of america. he then he was asked to sum up the kaoeufpbd problem that we have -- kind of problem that we have and how to get out of it. now, the american people, i think they understand it. they have been shocked by the irresponsibility shown by congress. they have been shocked by what we have been doing. this is -- four years ago our deficit was $162 billion. it jumped to $450 billion. then the next year was $1.3 trillion. the next year, $1.2 trillion, the next year -- this year -- september 30 it is projected to be $1.5 trillion, $1.6 trillion. we're on a completely unsustainable course. president obama's pw-pbl, as scored by the -- president obama's budget, as scored by the

congressional budget office, shows in the tenth year the projected deficit would be $1.2 trillion. this year we take in $2.2 trillion. we spend $3.7 trillion. 40% of what we're spending this year is borrowed. that's why this is an unsustainable course. there is no other alternative than to acknowledge that. the american people have sent letters, e-mails, telegrams, phone calls, attended town meetings, had conferences to try to save this country we love from the fiscal nightmare chairman bowles said awaits fuss we don't take real -- chairman bowles said awaits fuss we don't take real action. should we not be upset with congress, going down a path without any attempt to get off this path, with the most reckless debts we've ever seen in the history of america and with no end in sight to it?

these concern americans, many of whom have not been active politically before, they did one more thing. they went to the polls and they voted. they voted for new candidates they felt would take the action necessary to protect america from financial disaster and to defend the bedrock of our legal system, the constitution of the united states of america. the result was a colossal and historic shellacking of the big spenders. those who said things are fine, we in washington will take care of you, don't question us, we'll pass a federal takeover of health care. i know you don't want it, but we know better. isn't that what they said? we are progressives.

we're smart. we're educated. more than you. we know deficits don't really matter. countries have deficits all the time. while you don't understand, we know that we have to bail out these bankers and these financiers, these wall street big shots, because principles of responsibility and accountability don't really apply because we know better. we're smarter. your old principles are fuddy-duddy. following the rules is not important. words don't have fixed meanings. the constitution doesn't really apply. you know it's old. it's out of date. just leave us alone with your money and the power to borrow, and we'll take care of you. trust us. well, that didn't sit well with the american people this last election, and they sent a message, in my opinion, that was crystal clear.

so should anybody be surprised? should there be any surprise that when the 64 new members of congress who had run and won elections on promising to do something about reckless spending didn't rubber stamp the senate and president's proposal to increase funding through the rest of the fiscal year, that they insisted that reductions occur, and they soefrpbt a $-- and they sent over a $61 billion which out of a $3.7 billion is not much, about 1%. states are reducing spending far more than that. and so we have a choice, don't we? what is a choice? business as usual or taking the tough steps like governors,

mayors, county commissioners, families are making this very moment. our governor in alabama announced a 15% reduction in spending in the general -- the presiding officer: the senator from alabama's time has expired. mr. sessions: i thank the chair -- a 15% reduction. and i would note this $61 billion doesn't come close to that. 1% or 2% of total government spending has been reduced. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. enzi: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the decisions we need to make about cutting spending, decisions we need to make now. the congress and the white house haven't agreed on how much spending needs to be cut or where the cuts need to come from. but at least we can all agree

that spending does need to be cut. republican and democratic administrations and congresses for decades have continually increased federal spending. change is hard and it can be painful. that's because we have lots of ideas for great programs that would really help people out. but it's absolutely essential that our spending habits take a 180-degree turn starting right now. tonight at midnight the government will shut down if congress doesn't pass a continuing resolution. the situation can be avoided if decisions are made in the next several hours. the house approved a temporary plan yesterday to fund the government for another week, while a longer-term deal was worked out. that plan also funds our military through september. it includes language the democrats have approved in the past and the president has signed. but the full senate -- all

senators, democrats and republicans alike -- have not been allowed a chance to vote on it. in the senate, we don't always agree on every line included in a given bill and we don't get a chance to vote on every line included in a given bill, but i will venture to say that most of us can agree on some of them. i think we can all agree that a government shutdown is not an outcome that anyone wants. the bottom line is that talk's cheap and it's time to stop talking about passing a continuing resolution and take action. actually, it's action that should have happened last september. then we could be working on the next year instead of the last year. the house-passed bill gives us such an opportunity. it's the only bill that provides funding for the troops, funds the government and continues the practice of cutting spending. we're in this position because we do not have a budget from

last year and we do not have completed funding bills for the current fiscal year. the current fiscal year started last october 1. not january 1. last october 1. and we're supposed to get that finished up in september so that agencies know what they're going to be spending for the next year beginning october 1. now, short of that, what they get to spend is 1/12th of what they spent the previous year. this year we haven't had nearly that pressure to get a budget done that we had in previous years, but it's easy to know why. the previous year the spending increased by 18%. so they get to continue that 8% this year until we do something about it. it's far too late to do what we should have done last september. we've already had six months of

additional spending, which makes it a little tougher at this time of year because any spending cuts have to be taken out of their total year's revenue beginning now. so a 50% decrease in a budget for something eliminates their funding because it has to make up for the rest of the year. i'm an accountant so i shouldn't try and explain things like that. i should stick on message here, i guess, and say i'm especially concerned about our men and women in uniform who are putting their lives on the line for this country. they'll be paid despite the shutdown, but their compensation shouldn't have to be delayed. they don't hesitate to defend this country, and we shouldn't hesitate to return that loyalty. i strongly support efforts to make sure military personnel and their families are paid without delay if the government shuts down. i'm hearing from service members and their families in wyoming.

they're worried about paying their rent, paying their bills, feeding their children. some have recently been transferred and they're dealing with the expense of moving their families across country, or in some cases back to the united states. they don't know where the back pay will come from and aren't sure what to tell their landlords or their banks. they want and deserve answers. now, for some time we've been talking about reining in spending and making sure that our grandchildren aren't saddled with the enormous debt this country is facing. what we need to do in washington is live within our means. we haven't been doing that, and it shows. we have a $14 trillion deficit, and it's growing daily. does anybody know what a trillion is? i'll tell you a good start. write the 14 out there and put

12 zeros after it. it is a whole different number than 1 thousand or 1 million or 1 billion. i'll get a t-shirt that says please don't them what comes after a trillion. they are worried about it and they should be. this year we're tpw-g to take in -- going to take in $2.2 trillion. that's a lot of money. imagine if you're a person that makes about $67,000 a year and you spend $100,000 a year each and every year, where are you going to get the money? well, for a while, you could probably borrow it. that's what we have been doing. we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend. that's the only way we can stay afloat. 40 cents of every dollar. let's see, just the interest on what we owe is $616 million a

day, a day. we're haggling over $61 billion in cuts. that would fund the government's interest, the government's interest for 100 days. a drop in the bucket. but we have got to start sometime, and the best time to start is now. you know, yesterday, britain raised their interest rates a quarter of a percent. that's not much. you know what happens if our bonds go up a quarter of a percent? we're spending $240 billion, with a b, dollars a year on interest. if it goes up by 1%, we're going to spend another $140 billion a year on interest. doesn't buy military, it doesn't buy schools, it doesn't buy anything but interest. and it goes to other parts of

the world. some of it is not 0 our friends. that would be $35 billion that if it just goes up a quarter of a percent, $35 billion just in increased interest. if it goes up a whole percent, it's $140 billion. so what we have been talking about is going back to 2008 levels of spending plus inflation. you know, i have been talking to the wyoming folks that have come out here. march is a big year -- a big month for people to come to washington because they all come out for their special programs to make sure that we know how important they are. of course, one disappointment that i always have is they think that each one of those programs gets a vote. they don't. by the time it gets here, what we get to do is vote for a package that cuts spending or sometimes a package that increases spending. we don't even get to vote on one that keeps spending neutral. and the condition we're in, we

have got to be voting for this one that cuts spending, whatever one it is that happens to get to us, and yes that is going to inflict some pain on some programs that each of us feel is extremely important. it will affect families, it will affect people, but that's what happens when you get so delayed in -- in outlining what you're going to pay that you're six months late on outlining it. if you were paying your own bills and you were six months late paying them, what would your creditors say? you would be a little upset. that's where we are. we're that far behind. it is a dilemma, how to fund the government so that it pays within its means. but we're going to have to do that. now, when i explained where we are and what we have to do and talk about going back to 2008 levels, i have been real pleased that the wyoming people have said well, we -- we can live with that.

hopefully we don't have to go below the 2008 levels. if we were really being serious about it, we would, but that's where we're talking about going, the 2008 levels. so that's -- that's what we're facing today. the budget forecast for the future is troubling if we make changes now and dire if we do not, and with americans across the country tightening their belts, it's time for the federal government to do the same. folks in wyoming do understand this concept. the state, our state is required and many states are, are required to operate under a balanced budget, and that doesn't mean borrowed money in order to balance the budget. that means spending less than the revenues that you get in any given year, and wyoming is one of the few -- the few states that are still operating in the black. now, we noticed that there was a problem, and i really want to congratulate senator conrad and senator gregg for getting together a deficit commission

bill, and we got a lot of cosponsors on it and we had a vote on it and we didn't have the 60 votes here that were necessary to do it, but i applaud the president for picking that up and appointing a deficit commission, and i think he had two great cochairs. he had alan simpson, former senator, and erskine bowles, who was the chief of staff for president clinton, and they joined with 16 other people to figure out how to get out of this morass, and they came up with a plan, a good plan. now, their 18-member commission had to have 14 members in favor of it before they could actually put it into a forced vote for us, and they didn't get that. they came close. they didn't get that. of course, i -- i would have liked them to have broken that down, promised that they would do all six parts, but break it down into six different parts because different people objected to different parts.

there have been plenty to pass each part, and we may have to do that in order to get the same thing done here on the senate floor, and i hope we will pursue that, we need to pursue that. it's an absolute must. now, the president did the right thing appointing the commission, but we had the state of the union speech this year, and i really thought he would take what the commission said and make it clear to the united states. the president is very good at making things clear. they gave him a blueprint to make it clear. i think everybody in the united states would have understood. in fact, i think a lot of people in the united states understand even without the explanation, they know that if you spend more than you take in, you're going broke. and we have been doing it so long that we're $14.6 trillion broke. so yet another opportunity which was the budget, and -- he had another opportunity which was the budget, and i really hope

his budget would reflect what the deficit commission said. one of the things i found was he took some of the savings and tack expenditures that could have resulted in some lower tack rates to increase the -- our international competitiveness, and he spent it on new programs. as i mentioned before, everybody's got ideas for new programs, and a lot of them are really good ideas and they really would have an impact, but we're not even able to afford the programs that we already have. now, i want to laud senator coburn for joining me and asking for a review of duplicative programs. in one department, we found found $10 billion worth of duplicative programs. that's not fraud, waste and abuse. that's people doing the same things as everybody else. i know from working on education that in preschool we have 69 different preschool programs

that receive almost as much money as all of kindergarten through high school from the federal government. there's a review on which ones are effective and which ones aren't, but we don't ever do anything with the ones that aren't. we're going to have to start doing that. but what several of my colleagues and i have suggested is this going back to funding levels enacted in 2008 before the economic stimulus bill became the base line for government spending, so it's time to start making the tough choices. if we don't make cuts now, all the scenarios down the road are worse than what we're facing today. let's stop the partisan banter and concentrate on the job we're here to do. the current discussions between the congress and the white house are the beginning of america's journey back from the brink of financial ruin. this is the first of any

budget -- of many budget engagements. democrats and republicans are playing chicken and neither is swerving. there may be a collision tonight, but in the end amongst the wreckage, smoke and scattered debris, i know that america has to be the one left standing. we can make it easy or we can make it hard. we do need to focus on getting a long-term funding bill passed for the remainder of the fiscal year, not just the next five days, the remainder of the fiscal year. time is running out in that year. now, if we can get this done, we can start doing the real work. that's focusing on the nation's solvency for future generations. senator conrad, who is the chairman of the budget committee, has said he is not going to start on the next year's budget until we finish this year's appropriations. i think that probably makes sense so you know how much money there is left over, but wait a minute, there isn't any money left over. we're overspending.

oh, well. as a grandpa, i do want to get this done so my grandchildren and children across the state of wyoming and across the nation aren't stuck with the consequences of our inaction. i hope that everyone here hopes that they never have to ask -- answer to any of their grandchildren why they had a chance to fix it, and they didn't. i don't think that will happen. i think we'll reach an agreement. i hope it's soon tonight. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would share a few thoughts, and if any of my colleagues come to the floor, i would be pleased to yield to them.

mr. president, i indicated earlier pretty firmly that i thought our democrat colleagues didn't recognize the severity of the crisis we're facing and were unwilling to confront the reality that we have got to change what we're doing, we don't have the money. when you're spending spending $3.7 trillion and taking in $2.2 trillion and there is no real prospect of any alteration of that trajectory, something's got to change. just like everybody is doing and the states are doing. one of the things that are galling to me, frankly, is that not only are they resisting taking any action to change the trajectory in any significant way, they are going about the -- to savage, criticize good and

decent people who are calling for change, people who have paid their salaries. they are labeling the millions of americans who took to the streets during the last election, went door to door or at town meetings or rallies or protests who wrote letters to congress, wrote letters to the newspaper, called in to radio programs and said we don't like what's going on in washington, they're labeling those people who participated, many of them, in politics for the first time in their lives because they were worried about america, as extremists, radicals, blind ideologues basically with no common sense. i don't think that's accurate. i don't think that's fair. i think every expert that we have had testified before the budget committee has said the same thing, you're spending this

country into oblivion, congress. mr. president, you need to submit a budget that gets us off this path. it needs short-term spending reductions and long-term plans to deal with the surging instability in our large entitlement programs. and you need to get busy now, and if you don't get busy now, things will be worse and you will make -- you know what chairman bernanke of the federal reserve said to the budget committee not long ago? he said that these -- the congressional budget office has projected the debts out over ten years and how it's going to happen, but he said basically, don't worry, it's not going to get there because you don't have a debt crisis -- because you're going to have a debt crisis before you yet in and you're going to have to make changes in the midst of a financial crisis,

the worst possible time to make those choices. so these men and women, whether in the tea party or not, who expressed their concerns about america are good people. they have been using the phrase that i thought interesting that pete domenici, former senator from new mexico, former chairman of the budget committee you now participating with alice rivlin in a plan to deal with our damaging, dangerous deficit, pete said, i've never been more afraid for my country, never been more afraid for my country. and that's the heart and soul of the people who stood up in this last election, who are concerned about their country, and it's the establishment that go along, the no-change, the people in denial that we can't cut spending, somehow it will never work, no matter what we do,

won't make any difference. so, mr. president, i thank the chair. i see my colleagues here, and i will be pleased to yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. a senator: i ask we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president, i rise today to add my voice to those who've spoken on this chamber floor this afternoon to express frustration and concern about where we are as our federal government seems to be moving inexorably towards a shutdown this evening. mr. coons coons: as i've workedd with my staff here in washington

and at home to help them prepare for and explain to the people who i represent what's going on here and why, i have struggled. i have genuinely struggled to understand why this impasse is leading i think now inevitably towards a government shutdown. i still remain hopeful that we will be able to find some resolution in these last few hours but i think it's critical that the people of the united states understand the consequences of a government shutdown. this isn't just about sending home federal employees. this is going to have a significant impact on our economy, on our recovery, on working families all over this country and i think on our reputation around the world. at a time when many of us are standing up and saying the united states, our system of democratic capitalism, is a model that other nations should follow, our inability as a body, the house and senate working together, to reach a responsible consensus on what we all agree is one of our top priorities, is profoundly frustrating to me.

i was elected by the people of delaware and sent here to deal with three things: to try and get our private sector going again, creating high-quality, good jobs for the people of delaware and our country; to deal with our significant deficit and our dramatic national debt and the very real change to our future posed by them; and to try and do it in a responsible and balanced and bipartisan way. mr. coons: and in my view, at this point, in this budget fig fight, from everything i've been able to hear from the president and from the leadership of my party here in this body, it has stopped being about cutting the deficit and has instead turned into a fight about ideology. if i understand correctly, as of last night at the end of the negotiations, they had moved from having 60 riders, so-called, on the bill that would fund the federal government for the rest of the year, being down to just one or two. now, i thought one of the good things that came out of the 2010 election was a broad-based foc focus, particularly by some in the tea party but lots of folks

in our country, who were upset with how washington works, a broad-based focus to stop having bills that were loaded up with lots of riders and lots of extraneous things and to try and have commonsense legislation that's easy to understand and that does what it's meant to do. well, this, as i understand it, is no longer about the deficit and about the budget. we are not being asked to consider whether or not we should cut $70 billion or $72 billion or $78 billion. we are instead being asked to agree to defunding title 10. title 10, a program that goes back to 1970, mr. president, it was enacted into law, signed into law by president nixon and provides a remarkable range of health services to women all across this country. and in my state of delaware, there are 26 community health centers that are funded by title 10. just five of them are affiliated in some way with planned parenthood. and i just wanted to come to the floor and take a moment and focus on what title 10 funds. preventive health services, contraceptive services,

pregnancy testing but also screening for cervical and breast cancer, screening for blood pressure, anemia, diabetes, basic infertility services, health education, and referrals out to social services. i know and have visited several of these community health centers in my state. they provide tremendous services to folks who otherwise have no access to high-quality modern health care. and if i really understand correctly, that what's happened in this body is that we've come down to being willing to shut down the entire federal government over this one issue of ideology, i am embarrassed and ashamed on some level that we can't get this resolved. as i understand it, the folks who came to washington seeking aggressive deficit reduction and spending cuts in this fiscal year have achieved virtually all of their objectives. i think the initial goal was $100 billion. and my understanding, as you heard as well, mr. president, today in our caucus lunch was we've agreed to up to $78 billion in spending cuts in this fiscal year. across the board from lots of

different sources, from domestic discretionary as well as other programs that can be cut in this year. and that's a hard -- that's a hard concession for folks who support government action in our community, in our society to accept. but i think one of our challenges is for the folks who may be on the other side of this debate to hear "yes," to accept that we've come almost 80% of the way to meeting their initial goal and to instead recognize that i think this has long since turned into a fight over ideology, over the narrow issue of women's health. let me give you one last example, if i can, of what this really means in my hometown. my senate office in delaware and i have been working hard for several months to follow on the example of my predecessor in this seat, senator ted kaufman of delaware, and host a job fair. monday from 9:00 to 4:00 at the single biggest public space in delaware, the riverfront arts center, we're going to host a job fair and we've got more than 50 employers lined up and ready to interview people.

we expect more than a thousand out-of-work delawareans to show up, resumes in hand, ready to be interviewed, hopefully and to be hired. but if i understand the rules right, if the federal government shuts down tonight, my staff can't carry out this job fair on monday. job one for me -- and i think job one for all of us in this chamber -- is helping our private sector, helping small businesses, helping our communities connect good jobs with the tbhoax are out of work and -- folks who are out of work and seeking employment. fortunately in our case, we've scrambled and worked hard the last few days, the governor of delaware, our department of lairlabor, the delaware departmt of employment, and others have stepped up to make sure this job fair comes off monday just fine without interruption. but we need to be focused on reining in the deficit and the debt, dealing with our long-term budget and getting folks back to work. it is my hope, mr. president, in conclusion that as a body that we can come together in a commonsense way f. we need to have a vote on the floor, if we

need to have a fight about access to health care for women in title 10, let's have that debate. but this should be a discussion today about the deficit and about funding the operation of the federal government for the year ahead. i look forward and hope we can turn back to that very real work and not instead have a fight about ideology and access to women's health. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma is recognized. mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all, i want to compliment my good friend, senator coons from delaware, for something he has done just recently along with senator isakson as the chairman and the ranking member of the african subcommittee of the senate armed -- senate foreign relations committee. they have responded to my request to have a hearing on the tragedy, things that are taking place right now in -- in cote d'ivoire. but let me mention -- there's

only one thing i take issue with, a letter that's gone out to make a request. one sentence -- i'm going to read it. it says, "mr. bag bo, "mr. gbage targeted innocent civilians, including women as well as united nations missions." i only want to get into the record, i've already done this, i've given three very lengthy speeches about what's happening over there. i've been there i'm sure more than any other member of the united states senate. and i would just say that if you read "the guardian," the british "guardian," in there, i'm quoting now, they say the u.n. -- two big splawrt slaughte taken place. one in a small western town called d duquewe. and dozo phone alongside wa -- r

alongside --quarrera forces. and the person who ran against him and then this time, who was declared to be winning the election, is al-assain e e ouattara. they say the forces took part in killing 330 people in the western town known as duquewe. then the red cross came in with a new count. they said they were responsible for 800 who had been killed. and just recently -- and i certainly want my -- my friend from delaware to know this, i have talked to close friends of mine who are in abidjan now. abdijan is where the really bad things are happening. i would hope -- i would happy to anyone who questions the fact that it is the ouatarra forces that are creating the problems

in abidjan, access my web site and pull up the youtube that was taken on what i call black monday, monday night when they went out with helicopters and they mowed down thousands of people. we don't have a death count of just how many people have been murdered in the last five days. now, this could not have been the former president or maybe he is still the president. in fact, he is since he has not been replaced, president gbagbo. it is factual that he had no one in the field. so as of an hour ago, i've had reports that these forces are going around knocking on doors and murdering people, stealing everything in the houses then burning them down and yet no one can go out and even move bodies out of the streets because they'll get shot by snipers. those of president g -- are they president gbagbo's people? no, he's hunkered down in the basement trying to save the lives of himself and i think 15

of his relatives along with his wife simone that are down there. i only want to say i'm very happy we're going to have the hearings. there will be witnesses. i have one witness whom name is mel tiador. mel is actually the head of the opposing party to gbagbo. he ran for him actually for president one time and lost. is he one who is currently a parliament member, and yet he is defending him, saying that he is the one who is right in this case and they stole the election. so all this stuff needs to come out and it will come out and i appreciate it. let me just make one comment in the short time that we have here. i'm equally troubled. you know, i tried to explain to people back in my state of oklahoma how all these billions or trillions of dollars we talk about really affects people who pay the taxes. and back during the time that we spent on the floor trying to defeat the -- the efforts of the e.p.a. and their cap-and-trade

efforts, the cost that was put on there, somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion. what i do, and what i recommend particularly to some of new senators that works very well back home, count the number of tax returns that families file in your state and -- and then do the math. in that case, that would have cost, if we had -- if they had been able to continue -- and right now they're trying to continue, or if any of the legislation that had passed capcapand trade, that would havt each family in my state of oklahoma, $3,100 a year. now, you start equating that now to some of the numbers that are been floating around, it's just -- i remember so well coming down here, standing at this podium in 1995 when bill clinton was president of the united states. he came out with his bug for fiscal year 199-- his budget for fiscal year 1996, i think it was, and it was a $1.5 trillion budget. and i was outraged and i said we can't do that, it's not sustainable. $1.5 trillion. and yet

this last budget from the obama administration has deficits higher than $1.5 trillion. in other words, the deficits are higher than the amount it took to run the entire country of the united states of america in 1996. and it's something that everybody knows is not sustainable. we look at these large numbs and -- numbers and we know it's going to be difficult. my major concern as the second ranking member of the senate armed services committee is our troops. we have something to keep them funded. this offer that's come over from the house, i think it's good. i oppose the last three that came over. this one i'm supporting. why? because not only does it have cuts, but also, only seven days, i understand that, but it takes the innocent defense and all of our troops over there in harm's way out from under all this foolishness that's going on the floor of the senate an funds it through the rest of the fiscal year. it funds them at a low level. with all the high spending

that's come out of the obama administration, d.o.d. funding has remained level the whole time while the rest of the funding averages an increase of 25%. so they've already taken the hits. let's at least make sure that we can make the payroll and support our troops and to that we can take up the house bill and -- and pass it. it's only for seven days. somebody doesn't like it, they can try something else. but at least it takes care of our military. so i hope that we'll do it. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: i don't think there is a single senator in this chamber that doesn't recognize that we have to deal with the debt and the deficit that this country's facing. but the reality is that we're not going to deal with that on the 12% of the budget that's non-defense discretionary spending. we've got to look at tax reform

and we've got to do it in a thoughtful way that recognizes that we need to invest in our future and make the cuts where we can do it without harming the future of this country. and, mr. president, i'm really sad that we're here at the 11th hour on the floor of the senate looking at a probable government shutdown at midnight tonight. you know, it didn't have to be this way. i was really disappointed to read accounts of some of our colleagues in the other chamber on the other side of the capitol who are literally applauding when they were told that a government shutdown was coming. well, the people of my home state of new hampshire aren't applauding. they don't want a shutdown because they know that a shutdown of the federal government is bad for the country, it's bad for the

economy, it's bad for the people of new hampshire. let me begin by going over some of the things that are going to happen in new hampshire if the government shuts down. you know, i've spoken before, mr. president, about companies in my home state of new hampshire who are affected by our inability to get a budget done. companies like velcro u.s.a. now, i think we all know what velcro is. i'm proud to say that it is produced in new hampshire. it was invented in new hampshire and the united states military is a major customer for velcro. it's a major customer of the company velcro u.s.a. because velcro is used in soldiers' uniforms and equipment. normally the government is a steady customer of velcro u.s.a., but now they've been waiting for months for the

government, for us in congress to pass a full-year funding bill for government. a shutdown will mean increased uncertainty for the company and for the hundreds of employees who work there. we heard from another company in my home state, a small innovative high-tech company that has said even the smallest shutdown is going to have dire effects. they said that they will lose 95% of their revenue if we have a shutdown. now, this is a small business. they've got about 45 employees. but it's a business that has a lot of growth potential. it's exactly the kind of innovative company that will keep america's economy competitive. they were planning to hire 16 people this year so increasing their workforce by about a third, but that's going to be put on hold if we have a government shutdown.

and then there's the housing market. in new hampshire and across the country it's still very fragile. it's probably the slowest to recover sector of our economy. in new hampshire foreclosure rates are down 12% from a year ago but still at historic highs. f.h.a. home loan guarantees have been critical to the recovery in the housing market. but, again, all of that is going to stop in a shutdown. no new f.h.a. loans could be approved. if you have a closing scheduled, if you're trying to buy a foreclosured home or any home with f.h.a. help, the deal is off or at least it's going to be on hold. with all of the problems that have been caused bit housing crisis, we should not be hamstringing one of the most effective programs we have for assisting homeowners and that's what we're going to do if there's a government shutdown.

a shutdown would also close the small business administration's lending programs. and we all know how important working capital is for small businesses and that that's still a problem. and then, of course, there are the 7,400 federal workers in new hampshire. that makes the federal government one of our state's largest employers and they don't know when paychecks are going to start again. they don't know if they're going to get any of their back pay. their salary isn't just important for them and for their families, but these 7,400 hard-working new hampshire citizens are critical to their local economies. when their pay stops, they stop make their mortgage patriots, they stop paying their utility bills, they stop shopping at their local stores. and these are just some of the effects of a shutdown on the economy in my state of new hampshire. new hampshire's a small state but if we multiply these

economic impacts across our entire country, this shutdown carries the real risk of undermining our fragile economic recovery. and why is this happening? we have an agreement, pretty much, on how much we're going to cut in spending and, in fact, the senate has gone more than 50% towards meeting the house and the cuts they want to make in the budget. this is not about how much money we're going to cut from the budget. this is happening because we have a small minority in congress who wants to use the federal budget to prevent women from having access to family planning and other reproductive health care services. my colleague, senator coons, talked very eloquently about what title 10 does. title 10 funding provides reproductive health services to

women who otherwise couldn't access those services. that includes contraceptives, screenings for sexually transmitted diseases, screening for breast an cervical cancer. it provides preventive care for women who in so many cases in new hampshire and across this country would not be able to get access to that health care. in new hampshire we have 28 clinics who receive title 10 funds. that includes community health centers, health department clinics and hospital out-patient clinics as well as planned parenthood. this fight is not about reducing our debt. it is time now to put ideology aside, to work together in a bipartisan way, to get this budget back on track and passed so that the people of this country can be confident that we are going to continue the economic recovery that has

started and make sure we can put people back to work and support the small businesses and the people of this country who depend on the work we do here in washington. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia's recognized. mr. isakson: mr. president, before the distinguished senator from new hampshire leaves the floor, i'd like to commend her on a number of things, but most importantly her hard with me and many others on the biannual budget bill we hope will come to the floor of the senate in the not too distant future. i want to make a comment because this potential shutdown which i hope does not happen and i will talk about that in a second. with this potential shutdown we have been asking the agencies to speculate on what that means. if you read yesterday's "washington post" you saw the only agency of the government that will work seamlessly through the shutdown without any shortcoming or any deficiency is veterans health care. that's because we appropriate

for veterans health care. the one thing that will be open during this shutdown is the one thing we do in a two-year process rather than a hit and miss process like the current appropriations act. so the distinguished senator who was governor of a state who has a biannual budget knows what i know, if you plan and make things predictable, you save money, improve the quality of your service and hopefully we can get this country to where we spend one of every two years doing oversight to find ways an find new ways we can do things better and hopefully less expensive. so i just wanted -- i'll yield -- mrs. shaheen: will my colleague yield for a question? mr. isakson: certainly. mrs. shaheen: i appreciate your kind remarks. don't you think if we had that biannual budget process in place right now that we would not be here on the floor of the senate debating whether we're going to have a shutdown? that we would have a budget process that was going forward. and, as you point out, we'd have next year to provide oversight

and accountability on that budget and we'd have the dependability and certainty that the businesses and the people of this country are looking for? mr. isakson: there's no question that the senator is correct. and what we need -- we are predictably unpredictable as a body right now. today is a good example. we need to be predictably predictable on how we can spend our money. we need to do what the american people do. they sit around their kitchen table, they prioritize what goes in and what goes out and they balance their budget because they have to. we need to have the same discipline the american people have. i again thank the distinguished senator. mrs. shaheen: i thank the senator from georgia for your leadership on this issue. mr. isakson: in the south we have an old saying, if you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging. well, we're at that poifnt we have accomplished some -- point. we have clished some amazing --

accomplished some amazing things and i compliment the house. there's only so much you can cut when 50% after fiscal year is gone. people are talking about how we're cutting out of small areas because that's about all there is to cut from and i think the cuts have been good and i think they demonstrate to the american people we can get our house in order. the big one is the 2012 budget and that's what we ought to get to as fast as we can. you know, mr. president, i did a little research on what eve been doing in the last three or four years and in the last three years, we spent all of our money on omnibus appropriations except for one appropriations act. we spent four years of debate on those four bills over the last three years and spent $10 trillion. we now have the small business bill which has been on the floor of the senate for 12 days and we haven't finished it yet. we spent four days on the small business bill and in three years spent four days on spending

over $10 trillion. it is time that we got the current agreement and i understand there is one on how much we cut done. if we have some differences on policy, reserve those on the debate for the 2012 budget appropriations act and let's get moving chg everybody here -- get moving. everybody knows that we have a debt ceiling vote in sometime in may or june and the other is the fy 2012 appropriation. the world markets are not going to forgive us and give us another year to just spend our money in a helter-skelter manner. we have the ability and brain power and we need the commitment in this body to spend money like the american people have to spend theirs. that's all they ask of us. we don't need to be extravagant and frivolous and wasteful. another thing on the current pending looming possible shutdown is, it is absolutely crazy when you've committed your sons and daughters to harm's