and -- and afganistan to put them in a position of accruing their income because we've shut a government down. that's just not right. that's not right thing to. we ought to debate these things on the floor of the senate with the government functioning. so i hope all of my colleagues will recognize that we're about to -- to -- to take victory -- i mean take defeat from the jaws of victorywe've won the battle t the c.r. done and get to the kitchen table of the american people. we got to find a way to pay back over time $14 trillion. that's going to take a lot of work, commitment, time. so let's get to it. let's get this c.r. done. let's go -- come back next week and finish dotting the i's and crossing the t's and then commit ourselves that the rest of this

year is about america's future, about our children and grandchildren, it is about spending our money accountabl ay and predictable. mr. president, i yield back the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i thank the senator from georgia for his remarks. i would differ with him only in recognizing that that saying about digging the hole is not only a a southern saying but i think by now it is a national saying, thanks to my southern colleagues and others. let me just say about this debate, it has been very eloquent on both sides. but there is an unreality to it. in the real world, americans are struggling to find jobs or keep them, striving to stay in their

homes, working hard to keep their families together. in the real world, economic growth has to be a priority and we are on the verge of a failure of action that threatens the fragile economic recovery that right now is a priority for most americans. and it is unnecessary. we are truly in danger of distracting ourselves from what should be the a main task and the central reason that we should be seeking a budget here, which is to fund the federal government for the remainder of this year and assure that we continue economic growth and provide more jobs for the american people. there is agreement on the numbers, on the dollars, on the figures for spending in the erremainder of this year. my colleague from georgia has

just confirmed what others have said on this floor repeatedly, what the majority leader said this morning. there is agreement on the cuts and the savings. the distraction is on an ideological war on women's health, a small minority -- a very small minority is holding this budget and this nation hostage in this ideological war on women's health. and that is a disservice to the american people who want us to go back to basics -- jobs and the economy. get a budget done, avoid a shutdown that threatens that fragile recovery. again and again on this floor, my colleagues have made the point that uncertainty and unprediblghtability are an enemy to the small businesses and large in this country and

elsewhere in the globe who count on american leadership, count on our leadership. in achieving a budget. this war on women's health care cannot be allowed to succeed, and i have spoken about this along with other senators who have spoken again on this floor, most recently the senator from new hampshire, who has been a leader on this issue along with the senator from california, barbara boxer; senator gillibrand, senator franken, senator lautenberg, senator mikulski, others who have spoken out in favor of title 10 and planned parenthood funding. the unreality of that debate reflects a failure to appreciate what these dollars mean to the women who depend on these services. they are women who can't afford the kind of screening for cancer

and cholesterol and other problems that is so vital to preventing those problems that cost us all larger dollars if they go untreated. these services arevite aol to the testing for other kinds of problems that may be more expensive to treat, if they are not dealt with. and, of course, contraception that prevents exactly the kinds of problems or issues that many in this body have focused on. in connecticut alone, we're talking about more than 60,000 patients served by planned parenthood, including 30,000 title 10 patients, 18 health centers that are in peril by this rider or the conditions that would be attached; almost 100,000 preventive screenings and testings that are vitally

important to low-income women and men who need access -- the key is access -- to contraceptive services and preventive screenings, vital health care. there is a silver lining to this cloud. this moment is teaching us something. it is in reality a teaching moment. i think it will alert a lot of americans to the importance of preventive services, testing, screening, if it draws one more woman or man to seek these kinds of testing services, it will have accomplished something. but the debate over these social issues will not be resolved in this budget and should not be resolved in the remaining few hours that we have left.

there will be other occasions when we can debate and resolve these social issues, the id logical divides that have been with us for decades and will remain after this budget hopefully is resolved. in the next few hours. my hope is there will be other teaching moments. but most important, not only about health care but about the way the democratic process works. in the short months that i've been privileged -- and i deeply mean "privileged" -- to be part of this body and sometimes to preside in the very chair where the president is now, i've often looked around this chamber and seen the students and others who come to visit us and thought of the millions of americans who are watching us and who hope

that we will recognize that we have more in common than in conflict as americans, recognize that a shutdown of this government cannot happen consistent with our duties to seek what we have in common over what we have in conflict, that it would be devastating not only to american leadership around the globe, to the military men and women who are depending on our judgment and the leadership, to the veterans, to the folks out there searching for jobs, trying to stay in their homes, keep their families together, recognizing that the reason they sent us here is to do what's right for this economy now, and to reach agreement and to do those kinds of things that americans do in their homes over that kitchen table when they

disagree. they come together, they seek what they have in common. they don't walk out of the house. they don't shut off the lights. they stay together and they do what they think will best serve the common interest, which is to recognize we have an agreement on the budget numbers. we cannot be distracted by the id logical war on women's health, and we should stay true to our principles. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mrs. hutchison: mr. president, i rise because obviously we're talking a lot today and really the eyes of our nation are looking at what congress is doing because there is so much

negotiation going on, and i am one who wants to have a long-term continuing resolution until the end of our fiscal year that makes the responsible budget cuts, that funds our troops, and gets us on to the next item of business, which is the one that we really must address, and that is the huge debt that is facing our country. that's what we should be doing. but we are now in the throes and i'm told that there are serious negotiations going on that we hope still will have a result before the midnight deadline. but, mr. president, if everything breaks down, i have a bill that now has 74 cosponsors, 74 cosponsors in the united states senate out of 100. and that bill is very simple, and it says, if everything else

falls through, even though everyone that i'm talking to wants us to have that agreement that will not shut down government, that does fund our army, our navy, our air force, our marines, our coast guard, all of those in the transportation security administration, all of those personnel who are waiting to see if their financial lives are going to be disrupted, i want to make the deadline so it will not be. however, i do have a simple bill because there are some people who are not in the united states right now who are overseas protecting our freedom. they're serving in iraq, they're serving in afghanistan, their loved ones are mostly at home watching what's going on, and i've been looking at the comments of the wives of the personnel who are worried about

what affect this is going to have on them because they've actually gotten notices that their pay is going to be cut, that it is going to be less than their full pay on the 15th because they're accommodating for a potential government shutdown. mr. president, we cannot let that happen. we can't let it happen. i have introduced senate bill 724. we have 74 cosponsors -- senator ink who have, senator casey stepped up right from the beginning, and now we have 74 senators ready to assure that if things break down, that we will fix this problem. i have now -- i have to say i'm moved. i'm very moved by a web site that was crested by one individual today, early this morning, i think. and her name is hope gwen

bradley. i didn't know her name earlier today when i spoke. but she just said, i'm going to do something. i'm one person, and i'm going to do something. i don't know ms. braidl braid b. i don't foe if she has a connection to the military. but she opened a facebook with the name of my bill, ensuring pay for our military act of 2011. mr. president, as of when i left the office to come to the floor, there were 906,412 people on this web site who agreed with her that we must at all costs alleviate any fears of our military families when they are doing so much for our country and really fighting for what we are trying to do right here. so i want to commend hope gwen bradley and i surely hope i can meet her someday, for this kind

of grass-roots groundswell to support our gropes with a simple bill that says, if there is a government shutdown, our troops will be paid on time, full pay. that's what the bill does. 74 cosponsors. we now have support, and i will say that senator rockefeller is here on the floor, my h esteemed college, the chairman of the science, transportation, committee. and i am going to stop because i am sure you are here for your time in morning business. but we now have the support of the military officers' association, which is 377,000 members who sent me a letter supporting senate bill 724. we have the earlier national

association of uniformed services with 180,000 members and supporters letter signed by richard jones, their legislative director, in support of this bill. and we have just received the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america letter saying they strongly support senate bill 724. and what they say in the letter is that this bill ensures that all members of the armed forces will continue to receive the pay and allowances they have earned despite any lack of interim or full-year appropriation. our men and women in uniform protect our nation, continue to do so despite budget disagreements in washington. the members of our armed forces are essential to the defense of our nation and must be treated as such. many young service members and their families -- and remember so many of those over there are young.

they are in their 20's. so they're not in the high level of compensation. this is what they say. and this is the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. they know what they're talking about. they have been there. many young service members and their families are dealing with multiple deployments and often live paycheck to paycheck. military families should not be asked to bear further financial stress in addition to fighting the war on terrorism. this legislation protects the men and women who protect us. signed paul weekoff, the executive director of iraq and afghan veterans of america. they are the ones who have come back and they have come forward and say we must do this. mr. president, i'm for the bills that would come through. i think the house bill is a good

bill, the continuing resolution does tame care of the military. but the chances of it passing here are probably nil. i think the other body having a clean continuing resolution, i support that too, but i don't think it's going to have a chance either. so the only thing that's going to have a chance is if we get a real agreement between senator reid, speaker boehner and the white house that we can do a long-term continuing resolution that will truly fund our troops, that will have the necessary cuts to show that we're serious about this budget deficit and that we're going to correct the course of our country financially. and that's what we all really hope for. if we don't get it, my bill, 724, with my 73 cosponsors, our members are speaking in large

numbers and saying this is the right thing to do. and, mr. president, i hope that we can pass this bill as soon as it is clear that we're not going to have a real agreement. we can do no less. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? mrs. hutchison: mr. president? could i just ask my distinguished friend and colleague to add senator feinstein to our bill as a cosponsor? the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from west virginia is recognized. mr. rockefeller: it's quite an honor to speak with this presiding officer. i think i've not seen you there before, so i'll have to give a good speech. i'll probably have to give a little bit longer speech simply by virtue of your presence.

mr. president, i think most people who choose a career in public life do so because they have a genuine huge feeling in their heart they want to help people. it's kind of simple. i know i've spent the better part of my career in west virginia and in congress looking for any way that i possibly could, succeeding in some, failing in some cases, but always trying to make life better for west virginians, for the american people as a whole. perhaps it is a simple idea, but i can say with some pride that over the years we've made a lot of strides. it is popular these days, i know, to beat up on the government. it always has been. that goes back to george washington's time. but the truth is the government does an incredible amount to help people in their lives every single day. the benefits of government are not always visible. they don't usually make the

evening news, but they are enormously important and they make specific and large differences. this government looks after veterans. otherwise they wouldn't be looked after. the private sector wouldn't do it, and the private sector is sometimes very reluctant actually to participate in the helping of them. but when they come home from battle, the government is there with an expanded veterans administration system, superb medical health care to take care of them. it takes care of seniors with our medicare and our social security programs. we have a medicaid and we have children's health insurance program; vastly important in a state like my own, or anybody's. because they provide comprehensive health coverage to our most vulnerable public

options, including -- most vulnerable populations, including children. we do this, we pass this because it's morally right. it's the right thing to do. and in the best interest of our nation to make sure children get a decent start in life in health care, maybe even before education because the health care part starts really, really early with early tests. we help in the government build the roads, the bridges and other infrastructure that connects small towns and communities and help make us a larger community. it's the fabric that links families and businesses all across this country. federal agencies make sure that the food we eat is safe and that the water that we drink is clean, and they help communities pay for public safety and all kinds of law enforcement to help keep our streets safe.

people don't generally know where money comes from, and that's pretty understandable. they just need to know that they're sitting out in an evening in the summer's night that the streets that they live on are being patrolled or being watched, et cetera. and i could go on and on. there are literally thousands of things that government has done over the years to improve the quality of life for every single man, woman and child in this country. it is indisputable and it is a glorious tale in all of that. but in recent weeks we've seen the discussion about the role and the purpose of government to take what seems to me to be a very nasty turn. some of my colleagues on the other side have lately taken up the call to arms to do whatever it takes to slash to, close, shut down the government.

we're faced with that. we may get that. they want to hold the american people hostage with a ransom note that keeps getting higher and higher every time negotiations go on. there's no question that we must get our growing deficit under control, and democrats have taken responsible steps to do just that. in fact, we have made in the larger scheme of things that we've gone 75% to 80% towards the republican position. but at every turn republicans have blocked reasonable attempts to rein in government spending. they make unreasonable demands and they change the goal posts on a repeated basis. last december democrats produced an omnibus appropriations bill

to fund the government for 2011 that would have reduced spending by $20 billion. a level endorsed by a bipartisan group of senators. incoming speaker john boehner, however launched a campaign to oppose that bill. republicans ramped up their opposition in the bill and instead all we were able to pass was an extension of if you could for -- extension of funding for 2011 which was very frustrating. tea party republicans who are in control rejected $32 billion and instead insisted on deeper cuts of $61 billion that republicans knew and openly admitted were both dangerous to the economy and totally unlikely to pass the

senate. in the meantime democrats have fought to keep our government operating. we have passed $10 billion in cuts since march. it's harder for democrats to make cuts because we believe in doing things to help people directly and keep them safe and the consumer product safety commission, who knows about that? well, senator boxer does. i do. they make sure that our toys and other things that people use are safe. somebody has to watch, always watching over what goes on. we passed $10 billion in cuts since march and offered another $20 billion in cuts to the republicans so that we can end the standoff and not shut down government. and just when we thought we finally reached an agreement on $33 billion in additional cuts,

below 2010 enacted levels, which is $73 billion below the president's 2011 budget proposal -- not interesting all these statistics but profoundly important in the functioning and the possibilities of government. so this was at the end of march. republicans then changed the rules again. they demanded $40 billion in cuts to appease the far right, the tea partiers plus the far right. some of my colleagues on the other side have lately taken up a call to arms to do whatever it takes to close the government. now, despite a previous commitment from the speaker, middle-ground funding cuts of $33 billion are no longer good enough. then as the final bomb, they passed the seventh short-term spending measure that is loaded

with $12 billion in spending cuts which, by the way, is six times more than the agreed-upon rate of $2 billion a week, which includes the department of defense appropriations bill and all of those 66 riders that have absolutely no place on any appropriations bill. what is required here is less concern about the tea party messaging and total attention to the well-being of the american people and the health of our nation. the tea party cry delivered really in gleeful shouts and rants on the floor of the house and the senate, frequently in rallies without these -- inside of these buildings is nothing like i've ever seen before. i've been here 25 years, something like that; i've never seen anything like it. but they want to close the government down, and they love

the theater of it. just recently we watched as an extremist crowd standing on the lawn outside waved flags with snakes on them and shouted "shut it down! shut it down! shut it down!" kind as if this was a sporting event at the roman coliseum. let the gladiators compete. the heck with the people. let the romans take care of that. even the leadership on the other side has joined in with one republican member telling the crowds and everywhere therefore because it was televised that he wants to see the government shut down. just flat-out said that. i believe they want that. i believe they want that. so really? so you have such disdain for our constitutional government and you so disrespect our fellow citizens, the people who sent us here and count on us to help and protect them that you want a

government shutdown? that's the deal, i guess. has anyone else noticed that in many parts of the world today there are protests in the streets about basic freedoms. here where we are privileged already to enjoy these freedoms, yet we're stuck in the middle of a political debate with extreme positions and members of congress who seem not to care what happens here so long as they win or score points for the next election. a cynical thing to say. it happens to be true. frankly, the cynical posturing from the other side has not only brought us to the brink of a government shutdown only a few hours from now perhaps -- hope not -- it's taken us to a point where we are forgetting what it is that we are arguing about in the first place.

what should be a serious, thoughtful debate about finding reasonable ways to cut the budget and scale back our deficit, has for some instead turned into a game. i say that because what we are hearing from the other side is that they want mostly to move an extreme agenda. they care about that. they have their markers. they have to meet those markers. no matter the effect on the people, they have to meet the markers. they ran, some of them without any intention, many of them without any intention of running again so they can't be held accountable, so they can just sort of work on shutting down government which they don't like for various reasons. so it's no longer about agreeing on a dollar figure to cut from the budget. it's about trying to turn the government into the boogeyman and close its doors. let me tell you why i think that's unacceptable. it's because this is not a game at all.

this is real life, and the decisions we make here have real-world implications for the people of west virginia and every other state and all over the world. let's consider what would happen if the extremist wing of the republican party gets its way and the government does, in fact, shut down. soldiers would not get their paychecks if there is a shutdown we can't pass something. that's right. the servicemen and servicewomen who risk their lives so that we may live in freedom might not get paid. and you can talk, well, maybe someday they will be repaid, but in the meantime, they are living week to week and the families are and they don't get paid. that doesn't sound like a sane policy. in my state of west virginia, there are more than 6.5000 people serving in the national guard. nationally, about half of the young men and women in the military are 25 years or

younger, and about 40% of them have children. many of the families are on one income and some are living paycheck to paycheck. now, they don't know what they're going to do. it's one more thing that they should not be thinking about. they should be thinking about surviving and carrying out their mission. the chair has indicated that i have gone on a little bit too long, so i'm going to beg for just one and a half more pages. that being granted, i will proceed. there is so much more on the chopping block if the extremists in congress get their way. the federal housing administration wouldn't be able to process mortgage loans. social security claims would freeze. i'm not sure that medicare could take in any new members. several thousand people every day qualify for medicare. i'm not sure they could be taken in.

we remember that during the four days of the 1995 shutdown, 112,000 claims for social security, retirement and disability benefits were not taken, they were not received, they were not processed, they were not dealt with, and 800,000 callers were denied service on the social security administration's phone. mr. president, i'm going to sort of stop with that. i think you get my feeling and the way i feel. but i don't consider it a game if the i.r.s. could, would stop refunding checks, more than 235,000 west virginians will file their taxes using paper forms this year. computers are not all the rage in all parts of west virginia. and so they will wait longer for their returns to be completed.

and then i could go on with small business and the national institute of health and all the rest of it. federal mine safety inspection will shut down. the mines will continue to run, but there will be no federal inspectors. i have respect for state inspectors, but i have a lot more respect for federal inspectors. mines operating with nobody inspecting, it's a horrifying thought. so i just hope that somehow this will come out to be a good result. there are reasons why it could be, and there are reasons both to be pessimistic and to be a little bit optimistic. i can't at this time call it either way, and i will cease my oration here, mr. president, and ask that the balance of my statement be put in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection, the balance of the senator's statement will be put in the record as if read. mr. rockefeller: i thank the presiding officer.

i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise to speak on the important issue of the day. sometimes complex challenges present clear and compelling choices. mr. president, that's the case with the fiscal challenge before us today. we have a choice between delay and disruption or progress and accord, and the nation's eyes are upon us. we need to vote to keep our government running, to pay our military and at the same time take essential steps to tame our uncontrolled spending and deficit. most importantly, we need to ensure that our men and women in uniform continue to receive their well-earned pay while we undertake the work of balancing america's books and they undertake the vital work of

defending our nation both here at home and abroad. in that regard, i'm proud to be one of the sponsors of a bill introduced by senator kay bailey hutchison that will make sure that that happens even after the work of the 111th congress is finished. i'm also pleased to report that we are now up to 74 cosponsors. but in the final analysis, we need to reduce our overall spending which americans recognize is necessary, necessary because every day we delay, we are spending ourselves ourselves $4 billion deeper into debt. right now, this fiscal year, we are on a path to spend spend $3.7 trillion, but we're taking in only $2.2 trillion in revenue, leaving a deficit of more than $1.5 trillion.

to make up for that shortfall, the federal government is borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend, with a national debt of more than than $14 trillion. our largest lender is china which now holds more than than $1 trillion in american bonds. no american family would practice that kind of fiscal management, and neither should our country. reducing our debt and deficit is something the american people understand and support because the american people are the ones suffering the impasse. nearly 14 million of our countrymen and women are out of work, and another eight million are underemployed because they have had their hours come back because they can't afford or they can't find a full-time job. sadly, a million more have just stopped looking. as private investment has plummeted, unemployment has climbed sharply to levels that we haven't seen in decades, and

for those who are fortunate enough to be working, the american dream is getting more and more difficult to achieve. in response to growing inflationary pressure, the federal reserve bank now says that interest rates are likely to rise at the end of the year to tighten our money supply. every percent increase in interest rates adds $140 billion to our debt. higher interest rates will erode the income of every american and make it harder to buy a home, a car or a college education. spending more won't help them. in fact, spending more will just prolong the problem. in the 1990's, when government spending as a share of g.d.p. shrank, employment grew, and despite the surge in government spending over the past two years, unemployment still hovers stubbornly at about 9%.

we don't need more public spending. what we need is more private investment. when private investment grows, unemployment shrinks. the american people understand all of this, and that's why they want us to arrive at a plan that keeps our government running, that respects the sacrifices of our military in real terms and puts us back on the road to fiscal health. we owe it to these hard-working men and women to bring the 2011 budget to a reasonable and realistic conclusion and then move on to the important matters that still lie before us, including the 2012 budget. that's where we can address all of the substantive and urgent issues that we must resolve to get america's financial house in order, issues like making sure that we have a prudent level of spending, reforming our tax code

and making entitlement programs like social security and medicare solvent and more secure for our seniors, both now and long into the future. mr. president, we owe that not just to our current constituents but to future generations of americans. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you so much, mr. president. i -- i came over here at this very precarious moment of hours away from a possible shutdown to basically say there's absolutely no reason to shut this government down. absolutely no reason. why? because both sides agree that we need to cut the budget. both sides agree that we need to reduce the deficit.

now, when the debate got started, the republicans put out a number, and guess what? we came to their number. we came all the way to their number. then they said whoops, no, we don't like that number. we're going to go to a bigger number, and we said well, we're worried because, as my friend from north dakota said, we care about job creation and mark zandi, the key economic advisor to john mccain's campaign, said if you do what the republicans want to do -- that is, the republicans of the house on h.r. 1 -- that will cost 700,000 jobs. can you believe that? after we're finally coming out of this recession. thoing thank the lord god we had a quarter of a million new jobs last month, and here they are going to take a meat ax to this budget and according to outside

experts going to destroy the economic recovery and set us right back into a recession. so we said well, hold off here. we really feel we need to be wise about this. we went to the number that you originally put out there. why do you keep moving the goal posts? they said well, that's just the way it is. we move the goal post, take it or leave it. we said all right, we're going to go back and we're going to go as far in your direction as we possibly can do and not jeopardize jobs. went back and here's where we are. we went 78% of the way, mr. president, to the republicans' new number. now, here's the deal. i want the american people to be the judge on this. there was an election in 2010. the republicans won big in the house and they took it over, so they run the house. the democrats retain control of

the united states senate. i know very much about it because i was one of those seats that was being watched, and we kept control of the united states senate, and of course the president is a democrat and he is there for a couple of years and of course some of us hope for a lot longer. but here's the deal. out of the three parties to the negotiation, republicans control one-third of the government and democrats two-thirds. we didn't look at our republican friends and say well, we control much more than you do so we'll only go a third of the way to you. we were willing to give and give and give and to look at expenditures that we believe are key, and we said we're willing to give some of this up and we marched over to their side 78% of the way. so if i stop someone in the street, just a person who maybe

didn't have much experience about beltway politics, and i said if you were negotiating with two of your friends and they saw something their way and you saw it your way and they came 78% of the way to what you wanted, what would you do, and i think the average person would say hurray, let's get this done. well, that's what i say tonight. let's get this done. there is no reason to shut down the federal government when we have come, the democrats have come by way of cuts 78% of the way to our republican friends. but let me tell you the bad news. it turns out this isn't what the fight's about at all. at the 11th hour, our republican friends are holding this country hostage to an agenda which is about cutting

women's health care. now, you may say could you say that again, senator boxer? what? yes. this debate over the budget where we've come 78% of the way and made painful cuts is not about budget cutting. it's about women's health. and let me tell you specifically what it's about. it's about a women's health care program known as title 10. and i'm sure people are saying what is that? very simple. in 1970, a republican president named richard nixon signed this bill. and you know who voted for it in the house? president george herbert walker bush. we are talking about a bipartisan bill to give women the health care they need. and the republicans today have moved so far away from their own

legacy, from their own history that they're off the charts on extremeland somewhere. now, let me say, i want to hear one reason why a woman who uses these title 10 clinics as their first line of health -- and, by the way, millions of women do, and men, because they get help for high blood pressure, diabetes checks, they get help for breast cancer screenings, they get help for pelvic exams, they get help for sexually transmitted diseases, hiv-aids testing, referral for additional medical screening and diagnostic testing, blood pressure screening, smoking cessation, cholesterol screening,

infertility counseling and, if asked for, birth control. which, when it's counseled in the right way, birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, bring down the number of abortions. somebody explain to me how our country is better off when our american families are shut out of health care, health care that is so cost-effective that for every dollar, mr. president, that is spent through the title 10 health care program, which goes to local clinics, 75% of the funding does not go to planned parenthood. could we be clear here? planned parenthood gets 25% and does a fabulous job. but the fact of the matter is, not one penny can ever be used for abortion or people could go to jail. there's no money in here for

abortion. period, end of quote. it's the hyde amendment. i know this because i was in the house of representatives when we said about the hyde amendment, there ought to be an exception for rape, incest. okay? so i personally know the hyde amendment is the law of the land. so if anyone tells you they're closing down because of aborti abortion, it has nothing to do with abortion. it has to do with mainstream health care for women and their families. so here we are. we've come 78% of the way to them on cuts and, by the way, they announced last night that was it. we agreed that was fine. but now we don't have an agreement. mr. president, i'm going to ask unanimous consent that i pause here to make a request and then go back and not be interrupted in my words.

and i ask if i could have an additional five minutes beyond the ten. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator shall have an additional five minutes and the matter that she now insert in the record will not interrupt her statement. mrs. boxer: mr. president, you are really very helpful. i ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business for debate only be extended until 8:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the majority leader to be recognized at 8:00 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection, it will be so. mrs. boxer: thank you. now, mr. president, i have my fingers crossed that at 8:00, the majority leader will say that we have overcome our problems, that he will say that we go back to agreeing on the number that was agreed to last night, it's well above $70 billion. remember, cutting that out in

just the next five months or so. it's a big bite but we all know we have to reduce the deficit, but i hope our republican friends have backed off of this, backed off of them completely shutting down, eliminating a women's health care program used by their families and them, 5 million of them, cost-effective, $4 of benefit for every $1 invested, 4,500 clinics, 75% of them non-planned parenthood, 25% of them planned parenthood, none used for abortion, all used for health care. and i hope they will back off and say, you know what, we've reelectricity on this. we've read this. we know the health care our people are getting at home. we checked it out. we called our district. we called our state. and we decided to come off of this crazy idea and we will stand with richard nixon and we will stand with george herbert

walker bush who supported title 10. to me, i can't imagine how our republican friends would rather shut down the government than to continue this health care program. i can't imagine why they would rather take away paychecks from our hard-working men and women in uniform and others who are cleanly up superfund sites, who are working to deliver veterans' benefits, who are working to keep our parks open, why they would take away paychecks from those people because they don't want to continue breast cancer screenings to women. and speaking of paychecks, you have to know that the senate passed unanimously a bill that said if we fail to keep the government open, we don't get paid. because guess, what mr. president? members of congress get paid by

a special statute. where everybody else doesn't get their paycheck, we get our paycheck. we sent this over to boehner, speaker boehner. you know what happened to it? i don't know what happened to it. i don't know what happened to it. it would take him two minutes right now. so if he's watching this -- i guess he's not but if he would be, i would say, just take five minutes and go to your rules committee and bring this bill up and just let america know that you, mr. boehner, and your colleagues who are ready to shut this government down will not get a paycheck. i am so tired of the hypocrisy i see around this place. i really am. one of the congressmen over there was complaining about, he

said, i don't make enough. $174,000. he doesn't make enough. i cry for him. but i have to say this, where are his tears for his staffers, where are his tears for the military who aren't going to get paid, where are his tears for the people cleaning up superfund sites, where are his tears for the guy out here on the mall? this is the biggest, biggest day for our national parks, the biggest week, the biggest month, in april. 800,000 people come from all over the world to america to go to our national parks, many for this cherry blossom festival. some people already may be here for that. kids, families. the hotels are booked. the restaurants are booked. where is this congressman's tears for the people whose families vacation were destroyed, maybe they can't get back their airfare, maybe the

restaurants here lose money that week? the hotels? in my state, yosemite. yosemite national park. if you go there, you'll be transformed into another world and another place. i tell you, the first time i ever stepped out there in that valley, my heart almost stopped from the beauty, what god has given us. and that experience could be shut down in this shutdown. and i'm not making a choice between yosemite and the 46 clinics in the central valley who get title 10 funding. 46 clinics, mr. president, that see hundreds and hundreds of patients in need of health care. i am not going to choose. i am going to say, keep this government open. why do you -- what's your problem with women?

what's your problem with giving women the help they deserve? what happened in your life that you don't understand that a woman who gets an early breast cancer screening can have her life saved? what's wrong with you over there? a pap smear? i'm sure if it's your daughter, if it's your wife, oh, my god, you would do anything to get them to the doctor to make sure that they were healthy. where is your voice for 5 million women? i've got to say, i'm baffled at this one. this isn't about abortion. i already said, not one dollar goes to it. i got to say, the republicans would rather close all of our national parks, they'd rather suspend tax refunds for hard-working americans than give cervical cancer screenings to women and provide h.i.v. and

s.t.d. testing to men and women. you know, they're going to close the small business administration and that hurts our small businesses and that hurts jobs. they're going to close down the mortgage, the f.h.a. that backs 80% of the mortgages. so if you're finally coming out of this mess and you've bought a house, 80% of mortgages are backed by them, you are stuck in your tracks. examine if you're trying to sell a -- and if you're trying to sell a house and you thought you had it done, you could put it off. i have to say, to do this at any time is ridiculous but to do this because you don't want women to get health care is a sin. to do this at the time of three wars makes no sense at all.

food and drug inspections. food and drug inspections. we know what happens when particularly our kids get sick because there's some kind of foodborne illness. no more inspections. closed down. so i -- i am saying once again, to sum it up in the best way i can, yes, no question, we had an election and the republicans won the house and there are three parties to this agreement. senate, controlled by democrats; the white house controlled by a democrat; and a republican hou house. so the republicans control a third of the government that's making this decision. we have come 78% their way

because we know we have to make painful cuts. we're mindful of that. we are not standing in our corner with our blankie and our teddy bear with our finger in our mout mouth, saying "please,e us alone." we're willing. we're willing to go their way. and they have not -- well, they have moved the other way. in other words, we met their number and then they made a new number. we met that number, then they made a new number. and now we're 78% to the new number. please. we don't have to shut down this government. what a waste. what a ridiculous waste. mrs. boxer: in my state, i would urge my republican friends who want to shut down the title 10 women's health program, call st. john's well-child and family center in los angeles.

find out about their work. find out about the good work that they do for the people there. call our savior center in el monte, california. they receive title 10 funds too. find out about the work that they do. call the good samaritan family resources center in san francisco. find out about the good work they do with title 10 funding. think about your legacy as a republican. richard nixon signing this proudly. george h.w. bush voting for it in the house. this is a bipartisan women's health care program. there is no need to shut down the government because you want to stop funding a program that helps our people, that is cost-effective, that stops the spread of disease.

how they could do this is beyond me. and i ask the people of america who may be watching this debate and hearing about these issues, it's time now. there's a few hours./ let's flood speaker boehner's phones. let's e-mail all the leadership, democratic and republican, and say, okay, it's time to end this standoff. the last thing i want to bring up is this, i've been in politics a long time. i love public service. it's in my bones. and i watch sometimes what i call an overreach. and it sometimes happens by republicans and it sometimes happens by democrats. and what i am seeing across this

country is an overreach by the far right of the republican party, which is driving the republican party agenda. we saw it in wisconsin. there you had a governor who came to the microphone with tremendous support, newly i newy elected and he said, we have a budget problem and we're going to have to make some tough, tough decisions and everyone nodded and said yes. and he said that these unions that represent the workers here, they better come to the table because if they don't, i'm going to have to just take some steps to reduce their salaries and all the rest. and the union said, okay. we'll come to the table. the unions came to the table. and guess what they said, we'll

give up on every dollar that you've asked us to do. and the governor said, really? really? and then he said, fine. i'll make those cuts and i'm taking away all of your bargaining rights forever. that was an overreach. what we are doing here, we are responding to the republicans who said, we've got a deficit problem and we need your help. and we said, yes. and we came to the table and we met them at their number and then he increased their number. when we said, okay, we'll come a little more. as of last night, we came 78% of

the way. they agreed last night and now it turns out, just like in wisconsin, it wasn't about the numbers. it was about some kind of vendetta that would throw women under the bus. and i am here to say on this floor that that isn't going to happen. there isn't one democrat in our democratic caucus, male or female, from one side of our party to the other -- and believe me we have a big range of philosophies -- not one of them is willing to say that this program ought to go. because they know it's saving women's lives. and as harry reid, our leader said today in a press conference, he said, some day i may not be around to help my kids and my grandkids. i'm not going to be here forever to help them and what if things

go wrong and they have to go to a clinic and they have to get that mammogram? there's only one clinic that does it, though, that's the one in texas, but they have screenings. what if you have to go have that pap smear? what if you need that referral for furd further testing. what you need to get help because you have diabetes and you don't have health insurance and you go to that clinic and they help you? and harry reid said, we're here today. not only about today, but about tomorrow. an here's a program that -- and here's a program that's lasted since 1970. count the decades, folks. and we are not going to end a program that has its roots in bipartisanship, that its roots in caring about our fellow human beings because it isn't necessary. a budget is about a budget is about a budget. it isn't about somebody's

political vendetta. and i thank you very, very much, mr. president, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to proceed for 12 minutes as if we are in morning business. mr. roberts: i thank you, mr. president. well, still at this late, late, late date i want to remain optimistic that we'll reach a final deal on federal spending and the government shutdown.

at least the dueling press conferences are continuing as i speak. the speeches, although not many now, have been made. i hope that the negotiations are continuing by someone somewhere. hope springs eternal under the banner of hope and change i would hope that the majority would change his mind and at the very least bring the house-passed measure to the floor for a vote if we can't find some agreement at least we can vote on that. that would fund the military through the end of the fiscal year and avert a shutdown in terms of 2008 spending levels and make a reduction -- a significant reduction to spending. kansakansans are now calling my office. i just left my office. our staff is working there full time. they have been all day, all

week, all year. the message from their fellow cansianses is clear, it's time to stop spending money that we don't have. the house-passed measure is but a small step in this direction and would keep the government from shutting down. a goal that i think everybody would like to see happen. let's clarify the facts. the national debt is over $14 trillion and is growing daily. some now say $14.6 trillion. we are fast approaching the debt ceiling and another very serious decision. i know the majority leadership remembers the last time that the debt ceiling was raised. it was four times in the last two years, and, by the way, we spent -- the editorial, we, the

majority spent twice as much in the last two years than was spent in the previous four years of the previous administration. if this continues, then by the year 2014, interest payments on the debt alone will be greater than all discretionary spending outside of the military or defense. the debate or fuss about which programs must not be cut will not be debated on the floor of this distinguished body because it all be cut. there won't be any money. the money will go to pay interest on the debt. what an unusual situation. during march madness, we will not see groups come in time and time and time again saying we know we have to cut spending, but their program is different and many types it is and they certainly merit our attention.

because they will know then, perhaps, that all the money will go simply to pay the interest on the debt. they won't have any money in the discretionary account. the house of representatives is doing what its majority pledged to do, what it was elected to do, what they think it was elected to do, reduce washington spending. as a logical consequence, no surprise, shouldn't be any surprise to any member of the majority in this body or the minority in the other, the house passed a bill to bring government spending back down to 2008 levels, that's what they said they would do and that's what they're doing. in march the majority in this chamber rejected these modest cuts in spending and we've been operating under a series of short-term continuing resolutions ever since. i think all of us on either side of the aisle know that government by c.r., that's the

acronym for continuing resolution, that's -- that's no way to govern. the leadership of the piece congress failed to pass a -- of the previous congress failed to pass a budget last year, failed to pass even a single appropriations bill. we are still dealing with that abdication of responsibility. but we are where we are. the house passed another measure to keep the federal government open for another week, fund our military men and women and their families for the next six months and cut our government spending by $12 billion while we negotiate a long-term solution. hopefully, well, we could continue to negotiate a long-term solution. i know tempers are frayed. and i think perhaps a weekend off would be a good thing, but hopefully that would occur. now, the thing that is bothersome is that the leadership refuses to bring this measure to a vote. they have the votes to -- to defeat it. but they also refuse to put

forth an alternative proposal to cut spending. it's one thing to blame the majority in the other body and say that their proposal is simply -- that they just can't support it. if that's the case, bring it to the floor. let's vote on it and let's see what kind of an alternative that the leadership here would offer. well, the media is referring to this impasse as a shutdown of the federal government, but we need to be careful before we call this a government shutdown. the people of kansas and all of america are rightly outraged that funding for our troops and their families is at risk. that funding for most customer service support at the v.a. is at risk, and that funding for a wide range of economic development, agricultural programs, other programs are at risk. but that is not true with regard to one segment of our

government. just as the army saying, as they caissons keep rolling along does to the motion machine of federal regulations. the federal regulation machine is such that even a government shutdown can't stop it. earlier this week i came to the floor to talk about the concerns i'm hearing from our -- our community bankers in kansas. according to a summary of the dodd-frank act by davis pope, the act mandates that 11 different agencies created at least 243 more regulations, issued 67 more one-time reports or studies and 22 new periodic reports. financial regulators have already issued more than 1,400 pages of regulator proposals, 5,000 pages of regulations are expected. these actions will create additional and significant

compliance costs that will impact the ability of every bank to serve its community. and they come on top of the existing regulations including 1,700, 1,700 pages of consumer regulations and hundreds of pages of regulations regarding lending practices and operations that banks are already required to comply with -- to comply with, and they do, in good faith. now, some folks might think, and naturally so, that if the government is shut down, regulators won't be on the job either. i had one very interested gentleman who spoke to me in short, jerky sentences indicating that if the government was shut down, maybe some of the regulations wouldn't be issue that he had to put up. wrong. apparently nothing, absolutely nothing can or will stop regulators from regulating. in the case of some financial regulators, agencies not funded by taxpayer dollars, they'll be

oon the job and we can anticipae the burdensome regulations will continue. what implementing the costly and controversial health care reform bill? what the government shutdown slow this program chock-full of regulations? the answer is, of course, no. and the secretary's contingency plans under h.h.s. under a list of what will remain open during the shutdown, she believes that operations for the center of consumer information and insurance oversight, it's a mouthful, the center for consumer information and insurance oversight, the regulating agency under which the department of health and human services works to issue regulations to implement health care reform would continue, could continue as funding was provided through the affordable care act. well, this is just another

example of full steam ahead of obamacare like the health care reform debate. the regulatey overreach that has become a hallmark of this administration and is not stopped by even a shutdown of the federal government. for example, regulations like the one issued just recently days ago by the department of health and human services on something called "accountable care organizations" also known as a.c.o.'s. a.c. os's used to be h.m.o.'s. didn't like h.m.o.'s too much, so we have something like h.m.o.'s, but now we call them a.c.o.'s. a.c. os turn six pages of obama care into 429 pains of regulations. 429 pages in just one regulation. use in new regulations empower dr. berwick, the man in charges and c.m.s., the center for medicaid and medicare services, to make decisions about how medical care will be delivered

in this country. so, a government shutdown or not, under a cowering business community, the incredible federal regulation machine goes on like a giant dpreech a video game belching fire, smoke, fines, and regulations. nothing, not even a shutdown of the federal government, can slay the regulating dragon. mr. president, this debate should not be about party politics. shouldn't even about regulation, except i discovered the regulation is going on, despite the government shut jowrntion which i think is most unusual, to say the least. this is really about reducing spending. and finally, trying to tighten our federal belt. we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend. i said about 2014 all discretionary if if i understad funds will be paid off to the interest of the national debt. the house has now passed a bill to keep our military families

whole and the government running, 2008 levels, while we try to work out a long-term solution. a federal shutdown does not benefit anyone who under a shutdown will continue to regulate. now unchecked. i urge the majority leader to at least bring the house-passed bill to the floor for a vote. i thank all the people who worked so terribly hard on these negotiation. i hope they're successful, even though time is running out. thank you, mr. president. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. well, we're less than six hours away from a potential government shutdown, and i take this time to sort of bring people up to date from maryland as to where we are on this. and i say that because in maryland we have about 150,000

civilian active federal employees. and obviously they're directly affected if we have a government shutdown. they will not get a paycheck, whether they work or not. they will not be getting their paychecks. and i just want torch think about what that means. you got a car payment that's due and you don't have a pay choker a full paycheck, you still have to make that car payment. you not have the money to do t you have certain responsibilities on a student loan, you may not be able to come up with the money to deal with t so it's going to cause real problems for those federal workers who had nothing at all to do with the problems that we're confronting in passing a budget. they're not at fault. but yet they will be the first ones who will be suffering as a result of a government shutdown. but it doesn't end with the federal workforce because the federal workforce, with theiral salaries, they buy goods and

services. literally thousands of small business -- small businesses in maryland are going to be adversely affected, many around the country, because of the impact of the federal workforce being on if yo furlough, not geg their checks, the impact that's going to have on our businesses and on our economy. well, mr. president, it doesn't end there. federal crsers who depend upon the federal contracts, whether to help us for national security or homeland security or deal with health care issues, they're going to be affected also, because these contracts aren't going to go forward. so, mr. president, i just really wanted to continue to underscore that a government shutdown will have a major negative impact, not just on our federal workforce, not just on this -- the businesses that are going to be hurt as a result of it, but on our entire economy and all of

us will sumple sumplet but i wag people up to date on the negotiations because i heard many colleagues on the other side say, gee, if we only could balance the budget, if we only could bring up a short-term c.r. that's not the profnlt that's not the problem we're confrontings right now because quite frankly, the negotiators have agreed on the dollar amount of a budget from now until the end of the year. that number has been agreed to. so this isn't about the federal deficit any longer. it is about whether we can reach an agreement on a budget for the remainder of this year -- not the dollar amount. we're now tied up on what we call the policy riders. we're not even talking about all the policy riders. we're talking about one policy rider, which my colleague from california, senator boxer, i think, outlined very clearly. and i want to take this time on behalf of my wife, on behalf of

my daughter, on behalf of my two little gran granddaughters, bece it is about wims health care issues. that's what we're talking about. and we're talking about whether we're going to be able to allow those programs to move forward during the next six months. doesn't affect the dollars, the type of programs that we allow. so to make it clear, we are talking about women's health care issues that deal principally with preventive health care, the cancer screenings to keep women healthy. mr. president, not one dollar of those funds can be used for abortions. so let's knack clear from the beginning. -- so let's make that clear from the beginning. this is talking about whether we should allow this type of policy rider on this bill. it is not appropriate. i think all of us understand it is not appropriate. i'd even go further than that. i'm not even sure it's about

that. it just appears to many of us that you have an element in the house of representatives on the republican side that really want to see a government shutdown. they have said that. they applauded the speaker when the speaker said let's get prepared for a government shutdown. they gave him a standing ovation. they said over and over again, maybe a government shutdown would be good. well, a government shutdown would not be good. this is about the budget, it is a should be. the government shutdown costs more money. then i hear a lot of my colleagues come to the floor and say, look, we've got to get rid of all of this red ink and all the deficits. we can go back to the fact that we did balance the budget in the 1990's. we did it without a single republican vote. and we took the deficit and we balanced the budget, and when george w. bush became president, he had a large surplus, only to

see the policies of that administration which went to war and didn't pay for it ended up with large deficits and an economy that was losing 700,000 jobs a month. when barack obama became president. we could go back and start talking about how we got here. the question is how are we going to get the budget back in balance? there i agree with my colleagues on the other side. we need to do that. but remember, the debate tonight on preventing the government from shutting down has nothing to do with that. the dollar amounts are in agreement. it's the policy issues concerning wims health care -- women's health care or whether in fact there's a group on the other side that represent the at thtea party that don't want to enter into an agreement. they said, don't compromise at all. no compromise was their position, whether they controlled the day.

i must till, mr. president, we've got to come together and deal with the deficit. we've signing add letter saying we're prepared to consider all the issues in balancing the federal budget, whether domestic, military, mandatory, or revenues. that's what we're going to have to do. we're going to have to get together and put the nation's interest first. i believe we can do that. i believe we can get this budget into balance. but it starts with a little good-faith effort here tonight, good-faith effort when we've already reached the agreement on the dollar amount. let's not let a minority in the house of representatives prevent us from keeping government operating. that's what it comes down to. so that the federal worker in maryland or that person who happens to be in rhode island tonight and tomorrow recognizes

that he needs his passport renewed in order to take a trip will find the passport -- won't find the passport office open, or whether it is that potential homeowner that's going to need an f.h.a. loan, is told if there is a government shutdown, that loan can't go forward, or whether that is family that was planning to come to the nation's capital and enjoy the smithsonian is going to be told that the smithsonians are now being pleased -- let us not use those individuals as a target for the extreme actions in the other body. mr. president, i'm convinced that we still have time to get this done. we know that offers have been made in good faith. we know that we have the dollar amounts. so i hope that within the next couple hours we can prevent a government shutdown because it absolutely makes no sense. my constituents are angry about this and so am i.

and i hope that we'll see reason prevail and then we can move on and deal with the real budget problems of this country. can't deal with only 12% of the budget and that's all we're talking about here in this budget for the rest of this year. hopefully we'll be able to get together and figure out how we can move forward, but it starts with keeping government functioning. it starts with honoring the type of commitments that we've all talked about here, to negotiator in good faith. i have said this many fipples. it is not gb to -- i have said this many tiesms it won't a budget that the democrats want. it won't be a budget that the republicans want. when we have some on the other side who say it's going to be our way or no way, that's now how the process works. hope that the majority in the house of representatives are listening to this debate and listening to the american people and will act in the best interest of the american people allow the process to move forward so we can keep government functioning. with that, mr. president, i

would yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i might request that the pending quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. we have come to the end of a long process that has had some signal moments to it, clearly one signal moment was a few days

ago when the tea party activists came to the capital, came to this building, gathered outside and were led by republican house members in chanting about the united states government, "shut it down, shut it down, shut it down." shortly after that, there was a discussion between the republican speaker and the members of the republican caucus in which the speaker indicated that they were to prepare for a government shutdown, and the response was a standing ovation,

reported by "the washington post." as the distinguished senator from maryland knows, we've salt through our caucus -- sat through our caucus meetings. there's never been anything like an ovation on our side for the concept of a government shutdown. there's silence, maybe an occasional groan of disappointment when we've heard about how the goal posts have been moved yet again to keep an agreement from being reached. recent polling shows that there's a reason for this difference between the parties here for the different attitudes and desires with respect to a government shutdown. democratic voters prefer compromise to a shutdown by better than three to one. by better than three to one,

democratic voters would prefer us to work this out than to shut down the united states government. on the other side, republican voters actually favor shutting down the government. so it should come as no surprise that these public demonstrations demanding shut it down take place, that the republican caucus on the house side give standing ovations to the notion of shutting down the united states government and that we are now at the brink of a united states government shutdown as a result. there was a time when this appeared to be about the deficit, and clearly we've had to make progress on the deficit, and we've made significant progress on the deficit, as was announceed from last night's

meeting between the senate leaders, the president of the united states, and the house leaders that they had agreed on a $78 billion number out of the $100 billion number that had been the republican goal. it is hard to say that we have not gone the extra mile when we are settling at a point of $78 billion out of the $100 billion that was requested. now, as we have looked at the actual cuts that the other side has pushed for, there has appeared to be a pretty strong overlay between the cuts themselves and the political agenda of the other party. things like focusing 100% of their cost-cutting energy on only the spending side of the budget and only 12% of the pie,

a slice of the pie that is only 12% was where they focused 100% of their attention. attacks on programs like head start that help poor children get a head start in life and prove exceptional outcomes to the point where, mr. president, the mayor of our capital city, providence, rhode island, is a child who got his start in life in a head start program. and from there, he went through the public school system. he ended up at harvard university. he became a lawyer and he's now the mayor of rhode island's capital city. that's the kind of story that head start starts. yet, it was the focus of terrible cuts. city year and teach for america, programs that take bright young americans and put them into our schools to help younger kids

learn, be better students and have more productive futures. catastrophic wipeout cuts were driven at those programs. national public radio, catastrophic wipeout cuts. the environmental protection agency was singled out for the worst treatment of all, reflecting the long relationship that has existed between the other party and corporate interests that do considerable damage to our air and waters. so if you look at what they were going for, there were a number of people who became suspicious and concerned that the republican cost-cutting agenda was a trojan horse. you'll remember the trojan horse. troy was in its walls. the greeks were outside. they couldn't get through the walls of troy. they built a horse. the trojans thought it was a

gift, and they allowed it in. but the trojan horse contained within it greek soldiers who came out in the night and were able to open the gates, and the attack came on troy. that's the legend of the trojan horse. and so there's a pretty good case that i think some of us could make that a lot of what these cuts were was a trojan thors bring in through the -- horse to bring in through the deficit agenda we all agreed on a different ideological agenda that has long been associated with the republican party and that is not very party. indeed, at this stage the tea party has less than one-third public support. so the notion of driving their agenda through really isn't fair play. but if you know you're that unpopular, you want to attach yourself to something really essential. you want to try to put a gun to the head of the process to force

your ideological agenda. and i think that's right where we are right now, and it's really been made clear by what has happened because once a number has been agreed to in a budget, clearly the fight is no longer about the budget. and a number has been agreed to. $78 billion. and yet the fight persists and the fight persists over women's health care. and i just want to share a few stories from rhode island. first about the title 10 family planning program which is the target here. it was signed into law in 1970 by president richard milhous nixon, a republican. he said at the time that no american woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition. representative george h.w. bush strongly supported the enactment

of the program. title 10 clinics now provide reproductive health services to low-income women and young adults. it is an essential element to reduce unintended pregnancies. notably, federal law prohibits any title 10 funds under the hyde amendment from being used for abortion purposes. none. zero. not permitted. so the effort to zero out funding for title 10 is not about federal funding being used to support abortion services. it just isn't. instead it's really about denying access to health care programs that serve over five million women every year. and it's available to them because no one can be refused service based on the fact that they don't have the ability to pay. we have a medical student wrote in from rhode island who works

at a community health center. he said that he's been able to perform cervical cancer screenings and prescribe birth control for hundreds of women who would otherwise not have had access to these services, all thanks to title 10. he described his patients. most of my patients worked hard at low-wage jobs that did not provide adequate health coverage. indeed, may not have provided any benefits at all. he concluded, these women would not have been able to afford such vital health care without the support of title 10. now in rhode island, title 10 goes to 17 different community health centers and clinics, from the northwest community health center up in pass grove, rhode island, to the chafee health center in providence, to the tritown community health center in the johnston area.

it's across the state. one of those recipients a planned parenthood and planned parenthood would appear to be the reason. although they take the whole program out, it's probably because planned parenthood is in it. they've just thrown out the baby -- they've overtargetted here. so, this would prohibit planned parenthood from receiving any federal funding. it's remarkable because planned parenthood provides primary and preventive health care to three million americans each year, and in rural or medically underserved areas, planned parenthood health care providers are often the only source of health care in the community. often the only source of health care for women in the community. 90% of the care that is provided at planned parenthood health centers is primary and

preventive health care. cancer screenings, pap tests to identify women at risk of developing cervical cancer, mammograms to help detect breast cancer, routine gynecological exams, immunizations and tests and treatments for s.t.d.'s. they are cost effective and accessible. let me read some of the things tha*pl that have come in from -- that have come in from rhode island. here's rebecca from cans ton, rhode island, telling her story. after i graduated college, i found myself without health insurance for the first time in my life. while uninsured and job hunting, i had no doctor or gynecologist and i turned to planned parenthood for my basic health care needs. this lasted for almost four years because i couldn't get a job with health insurance. if planned parenthood had not been there while i was getting

on my feet, i would not have received cancer screening, breast exams or have had a health care professional to answer my questions. my mother had breast cancer twice, and planned parenthood providers gave me peace of mind. if the federal funding is cut from planned parenthood, other young women will find themselves with nowhere to go and put off lifesaving tests. i plan on doing everything i can for this amazing, caring facility that stood by me when i needed them. this is nora who wrote to me from warwick, rhode island. "please do not let the loss of funding happen to planned parenthood. this health care agency has been a boon to myself and my two daughters for decades. if not for the availabilities of low-cost health care screenings

through planned parenthood, we would not be able to afford regular checkups for things like cervical cancer and h.p.v. because we cannot afford health insurance. plant parenthood provides us the opportunity to have these tests done at a price we can afford. i hope you will take my message to heart and vote to keep the funding in place for this wonderful organization." yes, nora, i will take your message to heart. sarin from coffin try, rhode island -- from coventry wrote in to tell her story, in 2004, i went to planned parenthood for a pap smear test. i didn't have a regular gynecologist or even a primary care doctor. further testing revealed i had the beginnings of cervical

cancer. i was stunned. never in a million years did i ever expect to be told i had cancer, especially at the age of 24. the doctors at planned parenthood told me that the cancer was found early and formulated a course of action, but i was always worried that my chances of having children were low because of the surgery to remove the cancer. seven years later i am happy to say i have not had an abnormal pap smear and i have two beautiful, healthy children. i can only wonder where i'd be had i not gone to planned parenthood and had that pap

smear. those doctors saved my life and gave me the chance to become a mother." now, it's getting rid of that that is what is motivating our republican colleagues to push this country into a government shutdown, and the price of that government shutdown is going to be high. we are just in the beginnings of our recovery. we are still deep in unemployment. in my home state of rhode island, we're at 12% in the providence metropolitan aerokwrarbgs over 11 -- area, over 11% statewide. we are just beginning to recover. and into this a government

shutdown would cut off the funding for federal employees, would stop their paychecks, would shut down government projects as their funding ran out and they ground to a halt, would shut down the private businesses, the corporations, the consultants that are working on government contracts as that funding ran out and their work ground to a halt. around the country, 800,000 people off the payroll. that is not good for america. if we passed h.r. 1, the folks at goldman sachs -- we can say a lot of things about the folks at goldman sachs, but i don't think there is anybody in this room who will say they are not good with numbers about the

economy -- have said that it will drastically knock down our recovery. two full percentage points out of the three percentage growth we're projecting would be knocked out. that's about the same number of jobs. add that to the 800,000 jobs that would have their payrolls stopped during a federal government shutdown, and our recovery is basically gone at that point. we're back to where we started when president obama took office and turned around the700,000 job a month crash that we were in. losing 700,000 jobs every month. so it's been a slow and painful way back. we don't want to knock that down with h.r. 1, the extreme house bill, and we certainly don't want to knock that down with a government shutdown that takes all that money out of the economy, and even more we don't want to do it over a dispute

that is now no longer about the budget, no longer about the deficit, but only about trying to punish the program that allowed sara from coventry to discover her cervical cancer in time to get it treated so that she could survive that dangerous illness and have her dream of becoming a mother come true through two beautiful children. so i urge us to get through this moment. i hope that my colleagues will, frankly, declare victory, gloat a little. we wanted $100 billion and we got $78 billion. we got way more than halfway. but don't knock this country down. don't knock our government into a shutdown in order to score a political point about an organization that is so important to women's health

care. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: