quorum call: mr. portman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, in the next couple days we're going to have a chance --. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent the senate come out of the quorum call and go into --. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: the next couple days we're going to have a chance to vote on obamacare and this will be an opportunity for us to allow our views to be

expressed on both sides of the aisle. i'm glad we're going to have that opportunity. we'll see bhaps but it's certainly an opportunity for us to have a good debate about where why -- about why we think it's important for us not to just to change obamacare but actually to start over and do this right. it's a time for us to undo the mistake that this senate made three years ago when that legislation was jammed through the process without a single republican vote, by the way. which is something that the american people are tired of. the partisanship in that particular vote i think has led to a bad result. obamacare was sold, by the way, to the nation under a false pretenses. we were promised that obamacare would bring premiums down. you remember those discussions, this is a way to get health care costs down and reduce premiums. what we're learning and there was a new report out this week, premiums are going up. we were promised that americans would be able to keep the

insurance they have and that was a specific commitment made. and yet millions of americans are losing the insurance that they have. and it's insurance that they like and they can't keep it. we were promised that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. everything will be fine when, in fact, again, many ohioans and many americans are losing their doctor. we were also told that obamacare would help grow the economy and create jobs. and, unfortunately, just the opposite has is happening. more americans are looking for work because many of the jobs that are available now are part-time and in part because of obamacare encouraging more part-time work. there are companies that aren't expanding because they don't want to reach that magic 50 employees. and as we talk today, we're learning there are even more problems with the implementation of obamacare. recall that one of the democrat colleagues here on the floor

said that he thought this implementation was going to be difficult, in fact, one democrat who was prominent in teenage said -- the legislation said it's likely to be a train wreck. unfortunately, that train wreck is occurring. we see the district of columbia this week making changes, we see today apparently the administration now saying that the small business part of the exchanges isn't going to go forward as planned. we also have seen a one-year delay in terms of the business mandate. and on and on. so that train wreck is already upon us. as we move toward october 1. let me give you one example of the impact of obamacare. in columbus, ohio, "the wall street journal" reported that premiums could increase by as much as 436%. some of my colleagues will take issue with that number. maybe it's not going to be 436% but the point is we know it's going to be more expensive. we just don't how much and that's part of the uncertainty that the law creates. in other words, sometimes

uncertainty is the worst thing. that's what we're seeing, not just in ohio but around the country. we don't know what the effect is going to be on our families, we don't know what the effect is going to be on small businesses, we don't know what the effect is going to be on our economy. throughout this debate over the continuing resolution, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about this uncertainty. they have talked about how a showdown of going up to the government shutdown creates uncertainty in the economy and i agree. i don't think we should shut down. i'm offering an amendment to say we should never be shutting down government, it's called no government shutdown amendment, it's bipartisan in the budget debate we actually had a few democrats support it, i'm sure against the urging of h.r. leadership and -- their leadership and i appreciate that. uncertainty is a problem but boy, talk about uncertainty. again, in implementation you have some things delayed, other

things not delayed, confusion about how the legislation is going to work, every day we seem to discover a new wrinkle that's going to cause more problems in terms of people understanding what their options are. and the effects of obamacare, by the way, don't stop at the hospital door and they aren't limited to our pocketbooks. if you ask americans what's the most important issue to them, they'll tell you it's the lack of good jobs. jobs and the economy. obamacare kills jobs. take the cleveland clinic. the cleveland clinic as some of you know is the largest employer in northeast ohio, it's been talked about on the floor by other members. they have about 40,000 employees. by the way, it's one of the few things that both president obama and governor romney agreed on in the campaign which is the cleveland clinic is providing cutting-edge health care. they do a terrific job there. a week ago the cleveland klink a-- clinic announced they are cutting $330 million from its

budget. that means a lot of my constituents are going to lose a job. why is the clinic having to cut 330 million bucks from their budget? according to their spokesperson to prepare for increased costs and decreased revenues because of obamacare. so look, it's something something i've heard about again and again when i visit with small business owners throughout ohio, i hear it from our employers who say they've got no choice but to freeze growth. i have a friend who runs a small company in the cleveland area, he's got 47 employees. and he has confided in me you know what, i'm not going to 50 even though i have additional business, he's seeing a little pickup in his sector, he said says i don't want to get to 50 because i don't want the costs associated with the new mandates and requirements that i would have to endure because of obamacare. so you have the 49ers.

employers who are sticking at 49 or less because they don't want the onerous requirements of obamacare when they cross that they are hoild of -- they are loild hoild of -- thresh hoil of 50 employees. others are reducing hours, well under 40 hours us that because they have to get under the 30 hour a week thresh hoild in -- threshold in obamacare. sad to say you got to come in at 28 hours because the health care that i'm going to have to offer under obamacare doesn't fit with our bottom line and this person is saying i got a car payment. i got a house payment. this is sad. and it is having an effect. i will tell you in my state and i know it from talking to people but i also know it just by looking at what these requirements are doing to small businesses. it's no surprise to me that this underemployment figure we see every month in the employment numbers is growing. that's the people who are not

working full time but working part time. unfortunately, if you look over the last few months beef we've seen a big increase in part-time jobs, not full-time jobs. madam president, in 2010 i don't think that many of my democratic friends thought they were voting for a bill that would kill jobs. i don't think they would have voted for it. i can't believe that they thought that obamacare other drive up premium costs and make health care harder to get as it has. but that is what's happening. and that's why i believe it needs to be repealed and replaced with more sensible reforms. the current health care system before obamacare far from perfect. cries out for reform. but, unfortunately, the prescription of obamacare is not making things better but worse. i know this is hard to believe but sometimes congress makes mistakes. and in this case, in my view, congress made a big mistake. but we can fix it and we can

replace it with real bipartisan health care reform that does foster the environment where jobs can be created, that does provide for health care to be available rather than harder and harder to get. we can get there but only if we start by in this vote today saying let's defund it, let's repeal it, replace it with something better. as we learn more about the effects of obamacare we're seeing some courage on the other side of the aisle. i know one might have colleagues on the democratic side said he could look to delaying obamacare individual mandate for a year for instance and that only makes sense. we've already told the businesses they're going to get a one-year delay, but a woman or a guy that works at that business is told you've got a mandate even though your business doesn't. and you've got to pay a fine if you don't get health care. so 22 house democrats voted in favor of delaying the individual mandate as well. so i think on both sides of the aisle you're beginning to see

some interest in at least having a delay to be able to try to improve the legislation. but the senate has the opportunity to speak this afternoon. we're going to vote on the amendment whether or not to defund obamacare. i've heard from my constituents, i'm sure you've heard from yours. overwhelmingly to my colleagues what i'm hearing is they don't want this law to continue. do they think the health care system is perfect? no. but, again, they think what obamacare is offering makes it worse, not better. republicans can't do it leap. we have 46 votes here. you need 60. but in an act of bipartisanship and real political courage, maybe we'll have a good result this afternoon and begin this process of moving toward a better system. i urge my colleagues to show that courage so we can turn to a better way, to lower health care costs, increase health care choices and ultimately to improve the quality of care for all the families that we represent. madam president, i yield back

my time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, i rise -- i want to take a moment to reflect a little bit on this impasse we find ourselves at. the senator from indiana is going to join me in a discussion here and i will have a unanimous consent request along the way here. first of all, as to where we are, as we all know, we are at an impasse here in how to fund the roughly 40% of the federal government that's funded through discretionary spending, the spending that congress controls that's supposed to happen through the ordinary appropriation process but doesn't around here. and as we address this, it's become obvious that every single republican in the house and the senate wants to defund obamacare as a step in the direction of completely repealing this completely unworkable bill, but

all the democrats support obamacare, and they want to implement it and they want to fund it and they want to move forward. the impasse arises obviously because the democrats can't have their way in the house where the republicans are in control, and we republicans can't have our way in the senate where the democrats are in control. so, madam president, i have a suggestion. my suggestion is maybe, maybe there's a third way. maybe this doesn't have to be completely binary, doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition in which one side completely wins and the other side completely loses. now, i would hope that even among my democratic friends who are big fans of obamacare, i would think that there's nobody who actually thinks that's a perfect bill. i can't imagine that when the american public has made it clear overwhelmingly their

opposition to this bill when you can't pick up a newspaper in america today without reading a front page story about the huge problems and costs and negative effects that obamacare is creating, i can't imagine that anyone thinks it's perfect. here's my suggestion: why not repeal a few of the more egregious flaws that have been acknowledged as flaws on both sides of the aisle, those things that are not working that are most problematic, just a few, couldn't we do that and at least make some progress? so the three items that i have animous consent request, one would be repeal of the medical device tax which is one of the most egregious flaws in that this badly flawed bill and i'm speak more about this tax in a little while. the second would be to delay for one year the individual mandate and i think senator coats from indiana is going to speak a little bit more how important it

would be to delay that individual mandate. and the third would be to protect the religious freedom of those who object based on deeply held religious views, they reject to the contraception mandate imposed on them including faith-based institutions. i'm going to request that we consider these amendments. that's all. just asking for an up-or-down vote on these amendments. i think that's a pretty reasonable request. every one of these has had bipartisan support. by the way, the repeal of the medical device tax, that was supported by 79 senators, two-thirds of the democratic senators voted in favor of an amendment to repeal the medical device tax, and every single republican. that's not even controversial anymore. to repeal the medical device tax. they all have some level of bipartisan support. taken together, they're about

budget neutral, repeal of the medical device tax would cost the government some revenue, but the delay of the individual mandate would save the government expenses so it's about revenue neutral. this could probably speed up the process if we allowed these amendments. frankly, they'd probably all pass and if they became part of the underlying bill and if senator reid as the votes to pass the amendment he wants to pass, what would go back to the house would probably pass the house. and it probably wouldn't have to get ping-ponged back here and risk a government shutdown. and finally, madam president, it would break this impasse and it would demonstrate that we're at least able to come together on the things where there's bipartisan agreement. so i think the most reasonable thing in the world is to have the vote, that's all i -- i don't know for sure how it will turn out. i think it will pass because these items have demonstrated bipartisan support before, but i think it's unreasonable not to be able to have the vote.

and so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and it be in order to call up the follow amendments which are at the desk: number 1971 to repeal the medical device tax; number 1972, to delay the individual mandate; number 1973, to protect the religious freed freedom. and i further ask consent that each amendment be limited to up to one hour for debate equally divided in the usual form. i further ask consent that following use or yielding back of time on each of the amendments, the senate proceed to a vote in relation to each amendment with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. testerer: i object. the presiding officer: objection's heard. the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, i thank my colleague from pennsylvania for his efforts here.

we very much share the sentiment and the same concerns that he has about going forward here. you know, we're going to vote sometime today, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps saturday -- i think it's still a little bit in limbo as to when it is -- we've had a weeklong effort here undertaking a very important issue, serious to the american people's health and to the american economy. i think it's pretty clear that there are a couple of hard truths that we have to recognize as we come to this vote. i'm still hopeful that when we come to this vote whether or not to defund obamacare that we will be able to see at least five of our colleagues from across the aisle come and join us on this. we've heard about and we are reading about every day -- and we have for months -- about the impact of the rollout of the

health care act and the mess that it has created, the confusion, the things that we are learning about this, the egregious taxes that are attached to this. my colleague has talked about the medical device tax. in i understand, it's one of our -- in indiana, it's one of our key industries, providing high wages, highly-skilled positions for people. it is a product that is exported around the world, helps our balance of trade. it has provided health relief and provided saving lives to millions of people. some of these innovations that come out of warsaw or bloomington or other parts of indiana from the companies that are in medical device business are truly extraordinary. and yet they got socked as a pay-for for the obamacare act by a 2.3% tax on their gross sales.

not on their profits. so a company, perhaps they're developing a new product and they come to a point where they know they're not going to make a profit for two or three years but they know they've got something here that's really going to work, really going to provide lifesaving or life enhancing benefits. and so they lose money. but they're selling the product. the sales haven't yet caught up with all the research costs and so they report a loss at the end of the year or maybe a break even. now, if that happened to any american individual or any other company, that loss, they would not be taxed. but these companies are being taxed 2.3% on the total amount of money that they take in, even though that money doesn't reach a profit. that's just an egregious, offensive, unbelievable -- i mean, who could think up stuff like this? and who could vote for stuff

like this? so that's one part of three parts of which my colleague from pennsylvania has offered here. i regret that it has been objected to so we won't even have a chance to debate it, we won't have a chance to vote on it, we won't have a chance to put our "yea" or our "nay" in terms of where we stand. and the real tragedy of this is that a majority of democrats voted on the budget to repeal this agreajous tax. i'd -- egregious tax. i would be happy to yield. a senator: the senator from indiana pointed out exactly correctly the nature of this tax. it's extremely unusual that we choose to punish a company based on its sales, irrespective of whether it's making any money at all. senator coats observes this is 2.3% tax on sales. i just want to just touch on some of the real-world consequences that are happening right now in pennsylvania because this tax went into effect on january 1. mr. coats: correct. mr. toomey: and it's happening now.

and here's -- here's what's happening in pennsylvania. fuj i rubio diagnostics, a world leader in diagnostics that detect cancer, they had to put on a hiring freeze. they been hiring, they were planning on more hiring. can't do it now. so there's a hiring freeze there. cook medical in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. they manufacture pacemakers. they shelved, they had plans to build five new plants over time in the united states. those plants are all on hold. everything's been put on the shelf. no new plants as long as they have to contend with this. boring labth i laboratory in phoenixville, pennsylvania. hiring freeze, at a time when so many people looking for work. bewrong, they make a wide range of medical equipment in the lehigh valley of pen, hiring of, immediate hiring freeze and

research. such a huge new chunk of their revenue is being taken. it is costing us jobs and innovation and in the quality of health care. and finally everybody gets that, as evidenced by 79 members of this body voting to repeal it. and we're denied the opportunity to just have a binding vote? it's -- it's shocking to me. mr. coats: well, i thank the senator from pennsylvania listing these companies. many of those same companies have facilities in indiana. in fact, cook international was founded by bill cook in bloomington, indiana, working out of his study in his home initially and now an international company providing thousands of jobs across the country, in pennsylvania, in indiana and other places. and unfortunately bill passed away this year. that company is going forward. but there were five new facilities hiring numerous people, advancing their products

that are saving lives and making lives better that are now put on hold as a result of this tax being imposed on their gross sales -- not on their profits but on their gross sales. so you can take in a million dollars but it cost you $2 million because you're developing a new product, and you lose a million and the government says, we're going to tax in every penny that you took in, regard was whether you made a profit or not. it's just unthinkability. and to think that a majority of democrats, thankfully, have joined us in this effort and we got 79 votes out of 100 to repeal this and yet we're not able to vote on it? why are we not able to vote on it? because the white house doesn't want to lose that money coming in that is so egregiously taxed to pay for, to try to pay for some of the unaffordable care act. obviously it's unaffordable or they wouldn't have had to add this. and so that's just one of many

things that we would like to debate, we would like to vote on that we think can -- can go at some of the egregious stuff that's in this obamacare. now, look, the reality, the hard truth is this. despite all of our best effort efforts -- and i want to make this point clear -- every one of 46 republicans, our total here in the united states senate, is fully, 100% committed to the repeal, the defunding of obamacare. unfortunately, it takes 51 in order to achieve our goal unless we get some help from the other side. there's no indication of that now. we've gone through several machinations this week. there will be some votes coming up. i want the vote to be clearly a "yea" and "nay." you know, people go home and they say, you know, don't hide behind this procedural process of cloture -- we don't even know what that means -- and this is a procedural move.

and over time, politicians have figured out ways to go back and say, well, no, no, no, that's -- i'm really not for that or i'm not really against that. we had a procedural move and, yeah, i was for this or i was gemagainst that procedural move because it denied us amendments or did this or did that. the real vote is when it comes down, as -- it's as old as the bible -- let your yea be "yea," and your nay be "nay." are you for obamacare or against obamacare? that's the vote we will have when the majority leader comes down here and offers a motion to strip the defunding of obamacare out of this bill. i don't support a shutdown. i might support a shutdown if it would achieve the goal. but the truth that has not been told to a lot of the american people by some outside groups promoting this is the fact that defunding obamacare doesn't begin to achieve a majority of the funding, because a majority

of the funding is mandatory, not discretionary, and our vote on this matter will not affect that mandatory. so all the taxes will go forward and much of the implementation of obamacare will go forward if -- no matter how we vote on this. and so that fact has to be recognized and it also has to be recognized that it does not appear that we have the votes. and certainly we don't have the votes to override a veto by the president, who is not going to say, "hand me a pen. i'm sorry, this was a terrible idea. i see what's happening here. yeah, we should just cancel this program." i haven't heard the white house give any indications that that's what's going to happen. so those who say the vote is on a procedural motion essentially want to shut down the government, number one. maybe that would be worth it if it accomplished the goal. but to do it by not accomplishing the goal takes us nowhere.

so what we're trying to do is basically say, yep, let's vote to defund it, let's vote to repeal t. but if that doesn't work, if that doesn't pass, then let's see if we can at least do something. i'm not ready to give up. i'm not ready to say that this vote, if we don't pass this vote on a cloture motion, that that's it, we'll never have a chance at this again. are you kidding me? i mean, people are just learning about this obamacare. the push is building. -- the public is building. i commend senator cruz for standing up and highlighting this issue. i couldn't have stood here for 21 hours. i wouldn't have made it. more power to him. i mean, he has brought this issue to us and he has focused the americans' attention on this particular issue. but given that attention, that certainly doesn't mean we're going to give up. senator toomey and i are going to go forward. we have some provisions here that we think will make a difference. i have offered and senator toomey has offered -- also

offered to delay the implementation of this. we delayed it for the employers, the big business, but what about the individuals? what about the people in north dakota, louisiana, laws alaska,t to make it a few, i know for sure, indiana, pennsylvania, why should we impose on individuals a mandate when we don't impose it on the businesses? the president has said, we can't get this act -- our act together here with the businesses so we'll give you a one-year waiver. well, let's give that fairness, let's give that to the individuals. and that is exactly what we're about here. and i, at this point, madam chairman, would like to ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and it be in order to call up my amendment numbered 1979. i further ask consent that the debate on the amendment be limited to up to one houry hour equally divided in the usual form. and i further ask consent that following use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to a

vote on that amendment with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. tester: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. test: object. the presiding officer: objection's heard. mr. coats coats: madam chairmani want to yield back to my colleague here. i -- i regret that we're not able to take this up. i regret that we're not able to have a debate or a vote on this matter. we're going to do all we can to continue to address and to work for and to fight for the repeal and the defunding, however we accomplish it, of a piece of legislation that was jammed through in the process without any bipartisan support, that is now unfolding before our very eyes and we see what a colossal mess that it's making. we are not giving up on this process. in fact, we're going forward. this is not -- this first vote on cloture, that's not the beginning and the end of this. that's the beginning. and as this unfolds before the american people, i think we're going to gain the support a

bipartisan basis to get rid of this, start over with more responsible, cos cost-effective, meaningful, worthwhile provisions that address our health care needs and not take this one-piece-fits-all and jam it down the throats of the american people. i'd like to yield back to my colleague. mr. toomey: thank you. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, i want to commend the senator from indiana. i agree entirely. i think this is really an outrageous process. let's consider where we are and why we're here. we've got this another -- a manufactured fiscal crisis, manufactured because the majority party that controls this body refuses to bring out appropriation bills. we had one appropriation reach the floor this entire year. if you don't do appropriation bills, you run into this cliff at the end of the process. so now where are we? we have got this giant c.r., this huge omnibus, whatever you

want to call it. it's going to be here on the floor for a vote. senator reid has decided he's used his power to make sure that he gets to have an amendment, actually gets to have a couple of amendments, gets to gut it of the language that would defund obamacare, which will be on a party-line vote, and when i asked for unanimous consent to bring up amendments that have broad bipartisan support, including one which has been supported by two-thirds of all the democrats and every republican, i'm not allowed to offer that amendment. so we have a completely dysfunctional senate. it is manifesting itself very clearly today. and frankly, given where this is leading and given the fact that one party here is not given an opportunity to weigh in and engage in this debate and offer amendments, i can't support cloture on the underlying bill. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: this hour of

majority time, i ask that the following senators have 20 minutes each -- senator baucus, senator franken and senator leahy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam president, on september 26, 1987, 26 years ago this very day, president reagan faced a congress playing politics with the nation's debt ceiling. knowing the catastrophic consequences default would have on america's economy, president reagan addressed the nation. speaking from the oval office, he said, and i quote -- "congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibilities." he continued, and i'm quoting him -- "this brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on social security and veterans' benefits. interest rates would skyrocket.

instability would occur in financial markets. the federal deficit would soar. the united states has a special responsibility to itself and to the world to meet its obligations." end quote. that was a pretty stern warning. while spoken more than a quarter century ago, president reagan's words sadly ring true today. i hope my colleagues listen to those words of reason. i hope my colleagues in the house of representatives heed the warning from president reagan about using the debt ceiling for brinkmanship. as we know, the federal government hits this debt limit on may 19. for the past 130 days, the treasury secretary have been using what are known as extraordinary measures to continue funding the government. we're running, therefore, on

borrowed time. but those extraordinary measures will be used up by october 17. at that point, we will have exhausted every measure. default, that is the u.s. not paying its debts, will occur unless congress acts to raise the debt limit. now, there will be much debate in the coming days on how to deal with the debt limit. the house c.r., the continuing resolution which we have before us today, contains a proposal that some claim would avoid default. what is it? what do they claim? what's the provision? well, it's a dangerous plan that gives the treasury secretary the unprecedented power to prioritize payments. that is, the treasury secretary himself decides what obligations should be paid and not paid, that is once the debt limit is surpassed. in short, the power to pick and choose which bills to pay. the house c.r. does, however, identify two specific payments

as priorities. that is, they have to be paid first. that's social security and interest to holders of u.s. bonds. they are all first in line. everybody else has to fight among themselves. we're all familiar with social security and its importance. it's a given. but the american people may not be as familiar with the principal and interest on u.s. bonds. this is the payment uncle sam makes to various persons in countries that hold our debt. it can be u.s. citizens who hold our debt or they can be countries like china, japan, russia, saudi arabia. i might add that the foreign countries that hold most of u.s. debt among those countries i listed are china and japan. they hold most foreign debt. the united states continuing resolution categorizes the interest to these foreign bondholders as a must-pay bill, you must pay those first.

that is, social security and interest. they leave all other obligations of the federal budget to be paid only by the revenue -- only by the revenue that the treasury has on hand on any given days. some days this revenue comes in. some days more revenue comes in more than other days. critical programs will be left fighting for the remaining scraps of funding. in effect, the house proposal to prioritize payments would result in interests of americans vets, the unemployed and students, among others, to be placed behind the interests of countries such as china, russia and saudi arabia, so it's pay china first. it's pay u.s. veterans second. if there's money left over to pay u.s. veterans. this proposal makes no sense. here are just a few of the programs that would compete for funding under the house plan. veterans' benefits, child

nutrition, military salaries, military operations and maintenance, medicare payments to doctors and hospitals, student loans, highway funding, dollars for air traffic controllers, unemployment insurance and tax refunds, just to name a few. they are all going to have to compete with each other for what's left after interest on the debt and social security payments are made under the house measure. so can you imagine the result? medicare beneficiaries will be pitted against disabled vets, each fighting each other. students receiving pell grants will be up against patients receiving medical care. doctors conducting cancer research pitted against agents patrolling our borders. the costs that would ensue would be unimaginable. we can't even begin to fathom the chaos, madam president. when the scheme was first proposed during the debt limit debate in january, it came to be

pretty obvious what this was really like, what it compared to. it compared to the movie "hunger games." "hunger games "where people were out scrapping, killing people, killing other people to save their own lives. the sequel to "hunger games" is not out until november, madam president, but we can now see the coming attractions with the house c.r. their plan for a debt prioritization would pit one program against another in a fight for survival. under this ill-conceived plan, the secretary of treasury would be given unprecedented power to decide which programs are funded and which eliminated. it's in the treasury secretary's hands. he decides. the president decides. do veterans get paid, do medicare beneficiaries get paid, the military get paid? that's up to the treasury secretary and the president. no such power should ever be placed in the hands of any

treasury secretary, regardless of party affiliation. and no member of congress that believes in our system of checks and balances can honestly advocate for this idea to stand. after all, under our constitution, article 1 is congress decides what payments are to be made, what appropriations are to be made, not the executive branch. finally, this house proposal is wrong for the country. why? because it ignores the progress we have made over the past two years to actually reduce america's deficits and debt. with the adoption of the budget control act in 2011 and the fiscal cliff agreement earlier this year, deficits are falling. debt has been stabilized. together with interest savings, these actions will cut the deficit by about $2.8 trillion over the next ten years. add in the savings from winding down operations in iraq and afghanistan and the total deficit reduction reaches almost 3.7 trillion over ten years.

these are real savings. all this progress must not be ignored. i agree with many of my colleagues that even more can be done to reduce the deficit and promote economic growth, but those actions should be separate from the debt limit debate. it's a different subject. we're in no position to play games with the economy. it is completely irresponsible to threaten default on the debt. since 1789, this country has always honored its obligations. we have paid our bills. we're known for that. americans know, people around the world know. america up to this date, anyway, has paid its bills. even when the white house and the capitol were burned to the ground in 1814, guess what? america still honored its debts. yet i heard a senator say just a week ago that failing to raise the debt limit is, and i quote him, no big deal. no big deal? i couldn't imagine it when i heard those words.

it's more than a big deal. it's more than a huge deal. it's a catastrophic deal. it's something that is just so bad it's unimaginable. now, have people forgotten the summer of 2011? remember august, 2011? have people forgotten what happened when congress failed to address the debt limit decisively? i remember. the dysfunctional debt ceiling debate led to the first-ever downgrade of america's credit rating. first-ever downgrade of america's credit rating. i remember the stock market plunged 635 points the day after the s&p downgrade. i remember that 14-day trading period in the summer of 2011 when the dow plummeted more than 2,000 points, about 20%. consumer confidence back then dropped even lower than it did in the heat of the 2008 financial crisis, and it took nearly a year to recover. worst of all was the impact on

jobs. during the months that congress was fighting over the debt limit, job creation fell by nearly 50%. remember, congress did still raise the debt ceiling without defaulting, but the political brinkmanship did all that damage to our economy. we did raise the debt. look at the damage the brinkmanship caused to our economy. we cannot let that happen again. we cannot let that happen again. time is running short. we need to stop playing games. this will to fight that is getting us nowhere. enough with the threat of default. enough with the schemes to prioritize payments. as president reagan said, and i quote him, the united states has a special responsibility to itself and to the world to meet its obligations. it's time we accept our responsibility. it's time for us to work together. it's time for us to get the job

done. madam president, thank you. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: madam president, i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you. madam president, i'd like to talk a little bit about health care reform. soon, over a million minnesotans will have the opportunity to buy their insurance on min 13 sure --,

minsure, minnesota's marketplace. minnesotans who do that, including frannie and me, will have to the opportunity to compare plans and choose the coverage that works best for their families. not only will minsure make the options clearer and more accessible but the health reform law is making sure that minnesotans feel secure in their health coverage. that's because insurers can no longer cap the amount of benefits that you can get over the course of your lifetime. they can't drop you if you get sick. and they cannot discriminate against you based on a preexisting condition. and there's a lot in the health

care reform law that a lot of americans don't even know about yet. for example, i championed a couple of key are provisions that are improving the quality and the value of health care coverage that we all rely on. i authored a provision requiring health insurers to provide a good value for your premium dollars and i helped to establish a national fund for health care prevention. now, why is this especially important right now? well, because the house of representatives passed a continuing resolution to fund the budget that also defunds the health care reform law. so before we decide on that measure, i want to make sure that we remember what is in this important law. first, we are requiring insurance companies to give

their customers good value for their premium dollars. one thing that many americans don't know is that millions of americans are getting rebates from their health insurance companies when those companies don't provide that value. i wrote the provision that does this. it has the catchy name the medical loss ratio, which is sometimes called the slightly more catchy 80-20 rule. because of my medical loss ratio provision, which is based on a minnesota state law, health insurance companies must spend at least 80% of their premiums on actual health care, not on administrative costs, not on marketing, not on profits and on c.e.o.'s salaries.

and if insurance companies don't meet the 80% for individual and small group markets or the 85% for large group policies, well, then the insurance company has to rebate the difference. and the fact is, my provision is working. last year nearly 13 million americans benefited from checks from their insurers, and this year about 8.5 million americans benefited from rebates that were sent out in july of this yeerp. that's -- year. that's a good thing, fewer people getting rebates, that's a good thing because that means that insurers were saving you money on the front end. instead of rebating you the money on the back end. and that is part of why health care costs have risen in the last three years at a slower

rate than in -- any time in the last 50 years. now, is that entirely due to the affordable care act? no. but in contrast with what's being put out -- being put out here, and being put out there, we are not seeing the cost of health care spike. in fact, just the opposite is true. i'll say it again. health care costs have gone up less, have risen at a slower rate in the last three years than at any other time in the last 50 years. the bottom line is that my provision is making insurance companies more efficient and

helping keep health care costs in check for people, and i'm very proud of that. people also don't know how much we did to improve access to preventive health care in health care reform. anyone who has ever gotten a flu shot knows that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. along with former republican senator dick lugar of indiana, i fought to get the national diabetes prevention program included in the health care law, the health reform law, and it exemplifies the benefit of this kind of reform to our health system. this program which was piloted in st. paul, minnesota by the centers for disease control and prevention, involves structured nutrition classes and exercise

at community-based organizations like the ymca. it has been shown to reduce the likelihood that someone with prediabetes will be diagnosed with full-blown type two diabetes by nearly 60%. that's pretty good. and the program doesn't just make people healthier. it also saves everyone money. the diabetes prevention program costs about $400 per participant, as compared to treating type 2 diabetes, which costs more than $7,000 every single year. that's why united health, the largest private insurer in the country that also happens to be

headquartered in minnesota, is already providing the program to its beneficiaries. in fact, the c.e.o. of united health told me that for every dollar they invest in the diabetes prevention program, they save $4 on health care costs later on. this homegrown program is funded out of the prevention and public health fund, which is another program in the health reform law that is designed to invest in evidence-based health care prevention in communities across the country. in minnesota, the prevention and public health fund has supported tobacco cessation programs. it has helped to prevent infectious diseases and it has expanded our desperately needed primary care work force.

preventing disease while saving money, preventing disease while saving money. that's smart reform. we did a lot of other things in the health care law, too. i worked with several my colleagues to develop a value index which will change the way medicare pays physicians to take account of the quality of the care that the doctor provides, reward quality instead of quantity. my home state of minnesota is the leader, the leader in developing -- in delivering high-value health care at a relatively low cost. and traditionally we've been woefully underreimbursed for it. for example, texas gets reimbursed almost 50% more on average per medicare patient

than minnesota. now, this isn't about pitting minnesota against texas or florida. it's about rewarding these states, those states to become more like minnesota. imagine if we brought medicare expenditures down by 30% around the country. it would bring enormous benefits, not just to minnesota but across the country because it will bring down the costs of health care delivery nationwide. i'm working very hard to make sure that health reform works for minnesota. the implementation of any major reform is going to be a challenge. but i don't think that minnesotans or americans want us to keep looking backwards. they want us to move forward and

to implement the law as best we can. they don't want the house of representatives to waste precious time and vote to repeal the law for the 42nd time. the fact is, if the law is repealed, a lot of things americans like will be taken away from them. americans don't want seniors' prescription drugs to go back up they don't want children with preexisting conditions to be kicked off their health plans. which are just a couple of things that would happen if the law were repealed. last year, more than 54,000 seniors in minnesota got a 50% discount on their covered brand-name prescription drugs when they hit the doughnut

hole, medicare part d. this discount resulted in an average savings of $644 per person. and total savings of more than $34 million in minnesota alone. and we're not done. by 2020, the doughnut hole will be closed completely, but that, the closing of the doughnut hole, would go away if we repealed the health reform law. and thanks to a provision that allows young adults up to the age of 26 to stay on their parents' health insurance, 35,000 young people in minnesota and more than three million young people nationally were able to keep their health coverage. those young people would be kicked off of their coverage if we repealed the health care law.

health reform also ended insurance companies setting lifetime limits on the amount of care that you can receive. so if you or a loved one gets sick, you can never be told by your health insurer, that's it, no more coverage for you, you know, go ahead, file for bankruptcy. and guess what -- if congress repealed the health reform law, that would go away, too. i'm not saying the law is perfect, but if there are problems, the american people want us to work together to fix them, not refight old fights. and that's what i hope to do, move forward by implementing the law and making any changes that we need to make along the way.

millions of americans across the country are already experiencing the benefits of this law. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the implementation of the important provisions that i have outlined here today. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is currently considering h.j. res. 59. the continuing budget resolution. mr. leahy: thank you. madam president, i lfd this week -- listened this week to the distinguished chairmanwoman

of the appropriations committee. senator mikulski made a compelling case for passing a clean, short-term continuing resoluough of this year so we can actually get on with the business of debating and passing appropriations bills. we have a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing to quote shakespeare, here, but we actually ought to vote up or down on something. we ought -- it's easier to give speeches or phony filibusters or whatever and say look at what we're accomplishing. it's not accomplishing anything. you can go home and say i never voted on this, but here's what i would do if i did vote. here's a way to vote. i agree with everything, particularly about the bipartisan way the committee has

written in reported bills this year. any one of those bills could be debated and voted on today. vote "yes." vote "no." but vote. not maybe, but yes or no. conference them with the house if they pass, send them to the president. actually there's some precedent for doing that, precedent of over 200 years of precedent doing it that way. we repeat this all-too-familiar drama where again the high stakes stale phaeult over simply -- stalemate from keeping the federal government functioning. what has once been the regular business of congress has been replaced by theater, another artificial made in congress crisis that threatens the economy, in ways large and small threatens every single family in america. don't come on this floor and say

something about family values when you're willing to destroy the plans for retirement of families, savings for children to go to college, their own economy and possibly their job, because once again grand standing prevails over common sense, comity and cooperation, three values vital to the effective functioning of representative government. and those who travel around our states -- and i do all the time -- and we listen to our constituents, we know the cost of a government shutdown, the devastating effects of sequestration. vermont is not unique in having fewer children in the head start program or medical researchers that are applying to institutions that can't obtain grants or seniors cut off from

meals or wheels or young veterans back from iraq or afghanistan who can't find jobs, or families sleeping in shelters or on the streets because there's no safety net housing assistance. but some members of the house and senate whose pay will continue will say how we've got to cut all of this out. what are we as a country? you know the decisions we make have real and serious consequences for our economy, for our children and our community ranging from saint john's mary, vermont to houston, texas. as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the department of state and foreign operations, let me speak briefly about the consequences of shutting down the government and have a full-year continuing resolution. let me talk about what that does for u.s. national security.

because it should make every single senator of either party think long and hard about the role they want the united states to play in an increasingly competitive and dangerous world. we hear over and over again on this floor the saying "freedom isn't free." well, it's not. and the corollary of that is neither are u.s. security and u.s. influence. by doing this continuing resolution and not having regular order, here's what's at stake. u.s. leadership in the middle east, at the united nations, in africa, in south and central asia and here in our own hemisphere. the government shuts down, the impact is going to be felt here at home. it's going to be if he felt by our allies. but more importantly it is going to be exploited by our adversaries. look at what's happened for the

last few days in kenya. we have adversaries, madam president. we have very serious ones. so it is the worst hypocrisy because those same senators who are toying with shutting down the government want the united states to respond when war breaks out in syria or famine in ethiopia or an outbreak of the ebola virus or earthquake in haiti or terrorist attack in kenya or the kidnapping of an american missionary in the philippines. they will come to the floor and give great speeches wanting the united states to solve the problem. but they're willing to do away with paying the salaries of our diplomats or our aid workers or our dues to the united nations or emergency food aid or support

for nato or the world health organization or the myriad of other programs and organizations that depend upon us and serve our interests around the world. they think somehow this is going to be paid for with pixie dust. you watched that movie as a child. we're grownups now and dealing with the real world. when we pull back and we don't lead, others are only too happy to fill the vacuum. let me tell you about this shutdown. it will mean the export-import bank which provides financing to united states companies would immediately stop processing new applications. it would lose $2 billion to $4 billion in monthly income for u.s. exporters. it would jeopardize approximately 30,000 american jobs. and it would reduce deposits to the u.s. treasury by $15 million to $20 million per month as a

result of fees that go uncollected by the bank. it oversees private investment corporations, a corporation that provides financing and insurance to american companies that invest overseas and loses its authority to function. it could make disbursements that bring to a screeching halt the activities of hundreds of u.s. businesses that rely on opec financing. the state foreign operations bill that senator lindsey graham and i wrote reported by the appropriations committee on july 25 by a lopsided bipartisan vote of 23-7, protects u.s. national security interests, but also responds to compelling humanitarian needs, because we americans do feel we have the

moral responsibility as the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. this speaks to the moral core of what we are as americans. senator graham's and my bill includes $8.5 billion for global health programs, a full year continuing resolution will mean $389 million less to combat h.i.v., aids and other preventable diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, pneumonia and malnutrition. none of us have children or grandchildren that have to worry about malaria, tuberculosis, pneumonia or malnutrition. with the amounts we spend we can help children in other countries. doesn't that speak to our moral center as a nation? because if we have this continuing resolution, it's going to mean tens of thousands

of additional deaths from these diseases. tens of thousands. visit some of these areas as i have and some of these other senators have and see these children and look at them and say i've just condemned to you death. i condemned you to death because you were born in the wrong place and you're poor. it means tens of thousands of additional children orphaned by aids. it means millions fewer lifesaving immunizations for children. so thousands of preventable deaths. immunization my grandchildren can get as a routine thing, for pennies we can provide, to thousands of children around the world we're saying, no, we're not going to do that because we have a political point to make. madam president, we're grownups. we're not sound bite

aficionados. welegislators. the senate bill contains programs for the poorest countries. these have republican and democratic support for basic and higher education, food security, energy and water and sanitation programs. and, madam president, if we're not interested from a moral point of view, if we're not interested because it hits our conscience, then let's just be pragmatic of our security. because if we don't do this, the alternative to develop an opportunity is poverty and religious extremism, transnational crime, violent

insurgencies is a growing reality across the globe. from somalia to mexico. and it threatens our economy and security and the security of our allies. we think it's a dollar and cents, but if one of our constituents is trapped in one of these areas where there are terrorist groups, terrorist groups that we could have undermined if we had been in there working with the governments of those countries, we would move heaven and earth to get them out. we don't have to move heaven and earth. we can just start doing basic work today. but, unfortunately, those who favor a continuing resolution would slash the funds that counter these threats i'm talking about from somalia to mexico. and the list goes on and on. a government shutdown is a

complete failure of our responsibility as legislators who were sent here to make decisions, not slogans, to make government work for the american people and for the good of the nation, including our national security and our interest around the globe. madam president, over and over again there are those who want to give speeches, but they don't want to vote on anything real. it allows them to go home to their supporters and take any position they want because they never voted. well, i would tell you right now, funding the government by continuing resolution, if we have to continue to do that, that's irresponsible and dangerous. it diminishes our standing in the world. it erodes our leadership. it's unworthy of the congress. it's a betrayal of the people who sent us here. let's have if not the courage, at least the honesty, at least the honesty to bring up these

appropriations bills and vote on them one by one. vote "yes," vote "no," but vote. and stand up and be counted. don't hide behind the baloney we've heard. madam president, i ask consent my whole statement be made part of the world. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: mr. leader. mr. reid: i'm reminded when i hear the distinguished president pro tempore of the senate talk why the people of vermont so love him. here's a man who has said all -- who has set all kinds of records in vermont. first democrat elected and on and on with all the many accolades he has. and so i have always admired and appreciated him, and each day that goes by i understand better than i did the last why people

of vermont revere this good man. madam president, i ask the chair to lay before the senate a message from the house with respect to h.r. 527. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: resolved that the house agree to the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 527 entitled an act to amend the helium act, and so forth and with other purposes with an amendment. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, a very important piece of legislation. i wish we could do a lot more stuff like this, but this is the helium stewardship act, something we've had in effect since world war ii; so very, very important. today around america 750,000 people will have m.r.i.'s conducted to find out how sick they are or if they are hurt or

sick. without this bill passing, the big magnets they have in these machines which are cooled only by one thing: helium. we would have people who depend on this, the high-tech industry would have to go out on the spot market and buy this stuff which would have increased the price of health care delivery and making computer chips and lots of other things. so it is a shame it was held up for sufficient a lon such a lono reason. i am very happy that everybody allowed this to happen. does th the senator from iowa wh to be recognized? do you have anybody else that can use this time? why don't we just go ahead while

he's here. madam president, what i'm trying to do is move all this stuff along as quickly as possible. i'm going to come here a little later and ask consent that we move forward very quickly. each day that we don't complete the c.r. is a day closer to the government shutting down. i want no excuses from anyone about time. i don't want anyone to say that we -- the majority controls the senate -- that we're doing anything to slow down this bill. i think we should move as quickly as we can. it is to fen' everyone's advant. the house wants to take a look at what we've done. let them do that. get back to us as quickly as possible. we have to avoid this shutdown. the american people are afraid of what could happen.

mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. my colleagues, i know that we've been involved in a very intense debate, long speeches, time consumed, an opportunity to bring up issues that are very important, particularly as we see that the executive branch of government has made decisions to delay so many aspects of health care reform. it's very appropriate at this time that we delve into the shortcomings of that great change in health care that the health care reform bill exemplifies. i was here yesterday hoping to enter into the colloquies that were going on at that time led

by senator cruz and time ran out. so i am a he her i'm here to sts that i wanted to make at that particular time. and i will start by quoting our second president, john adams. "facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinclinations or the dictatef our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." the rhetoric surrounding this vote and the underlying issue has become all too hysterical. so i would like us all to step back just a little bit from the hysteria and focus on the facts. we've all taken to calling this legislation "obamacare." sometimes even the president does. for some people, attaching the

president's name to this issue prevents people from paying attention to the facts. but personalizing this issue shouldn't deter us from looking at those facts. i'm not going to talk about shutting down the government. so much time and effort is being devoted to discussing a government shutdown that people are not paying attention to the facts that we ought to be looking at. so, instead, madam president, i'd like to set aside the hyperbolic rhetoric for a few minute us ans and focus on those facts. let's talk about the real-world effects of this affordable care act. i'll start with a few comments directly from my constituents? -- from my constituents in iowa, and my colleagues yesterday

referred to constituents in their respect i have states. and i'm only going to refer to three constituent letters. the first one -- quote -- "i just want to share with you another downside cause of the affordable care act. besides teaching for my school district, i also work as an adjunct instructor for various community colleges. currently i'm scheduled to teach four online classes at a community college in the summer. i just received notice that because of the affordable care act, i'm only allowed to teach two classes because more than that would put me over the 75% load of a full-time instructor. so because of obamacare, i will lose $4,200 of income this summer. it will also affect me at another school that i teach at during the regular school year. i know there is not much you can

do until the republicans can regain control of the senate, but i just wanted you to be aware of another example of our current administration's lack of foresight of the impact of this law on the average hardworking american." end of quote. the second letter -- quote -- "as superintendent of schools, i would like to express you to the impact of the affordable care act on our local schools. the increase in cost due directly to the affordable care act will be approximately $180,000 to offer a single health insurance to our noncertified staff. we are a combined school district of 750 students. the effec affected staff memberk part-time, 180 days per year. the only other option is to

reduce hours of employees working directly with our highest-need students. additionally, we're planning on being required to pay an additional $17,500 in additional fees and taxes associated with the affordable care act in the first year. schools in iowa can't pass that increased cost on to consumers like private industry. we are budget-restricted so that an increase in employee costs means an equal dollar amount reduction in staff, classroom material supplies, curriculum materials, field trips, all areas that strike pretty close to the child. this cost increase associated with the affordable care act will most definitely result in reduced educational opportunities and increase class size." end of quote. and one final letter, madam president -- quote -- "i am a

parent educator. i am writing in regard to president obama's health care initiative. i have been told by my employer that next year my hours will be cull from full-time to -- will be cut from full-time to 29 hours a week because if i work more than 30 hours a week they will be required by the new health care plan to provide me with insurance. this bothers me a great deal for a number of reasons. it causes stress, instability, disruption of the special-needs students i work with, i get a smaller paycheck and it is very unfair. in addition, i am bothered by the lack of foresight that went into making this law enforcement it seems grossly unfair to me. i do my job well. i'm committed and invested in it, and i want to work. but i am now being told that i can't work as much because of a

law i didn't ask for and that won't benefit me. i'm sure my employer is not the only one that is cutting hours because of the insurance requirement. it seems that the people that this law was intended to help are being hurt instead." that person ends by say, "please consider any actions you can to stop this law." end of quote. madam president, my constituents are feeling the impact of this law. this is real. it is not some paid-up political stunt. it is happening all over the country. let's start with the grocery store chain trader joe's. after extending health care cofnlg to mancoverage to many os part-time employees over the year, trader joe's has told workers who log fewer than 30

hours that they will need to find insurance on the exchanges next year. then there's the business called five guys, a national restaurant chain that started here in washington, d.c. the prices o of burgerrers and t dogs are going to rise to cover the president's mandated insurance coverage. earlier this year, smith and nephew announced that they were laying off 100 employees. they cited a new medical device tax, a provision in the affordable care act, as the primary cause. sea world is reducing hours for thousands of part-time workers, a move that would allow the theme park owner to avoid offering these employees medical insurance under the federal government's health care overhaul. the company operates 11 theme parks across the united states and has about 22,000 employees.

nearly 18,000 of the 22,000 are part-time or seasonable workers. it has more than 4,000 part-time and seasonable workers in central florida. under a new corporate policy, sea world would schedule part-time workers for no more than 28 hours a week, down from the previous 32 hours a week. this new cap is expected to go into effect in november. with the reduced hours, those employees would not be classified as full-time employees under the affordable care act. then there's so much you've heard on the floor from different members about the recent news of the cleveland clinic. that clinic said it would cut jobs and slash 5% to 6% of its $6 billion annual budget to prepare for health reform. the clinic is cleveland's

largest employer, second-largest in ohio after wal-mart. it is the largest provider in ohio of medicaid health coverage for the poor. the program that will expand to cover uninsured americans under the affordable care act. the cuts are necessitated by the lower reimbursement that they're anticipating. there is no doubt, the affordable care act is affecting the way businesses look at their employees. as one recent report notes, u.s. businesses are hiring at a robust rate. the only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-pay. low economic growth at home and abroad and concern that the costs will drive up business costs are behind the wariness of

taking on full-time staff. employers say part-timers often them flexibility. if the economy picks up, they can quickly offer full-time work. if orders dry up, they know costs are under control. it also helps them to curb costs that they might face under the affordable care act. and it's not just employers. let's look at the way major unions view the affordable care act. let me quote from a letter that i think other senators quoted from. the head of the teamsters food and commercial workers. this letter was addressed to representative pelosi and senator reid. quote -- "when you and the president sought our support for the affordable care act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we

could keep them. sadly, that promise is under threat. right now, unless you and the obama administration enact an equitable fix, the affordable care act will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that happens to be the backbone of the american middle class. like millions of other americans, our workers are frontline workers in the american economy. we have been strong supporters of the notion that all americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. we have also been strong supporters of you." that "you" means you, the president, and the congresswoman." i'll continue to quote. "in campaign after campaign, we have put boots on the ground, gone door to door to get out the

vote, run phone banks, raised money to secure this vision. now this vision has come back to haunt us." this letter continues, "time is running out. the copping wrote this law. -- the congress wrote this law. we voted for you. we have a problem. you need to fix it. the unintended consequences of the affordable care act are severe. perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios. on behalf of the millions of working men and women that we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the affordable care act that will destroy the very health and well-being of our members along

with millions of other hardworking americans. we continue to stand behind real health care reform but the law as it stands will hurt millions of americans, including the millions of our respective unions. we are looking to you to make sure that these changes are made. "end omade -- made." end of that letter to leader reid and pelosi about why things very definitely need to be done to this legislation. those are not people with known conservative credentials. they're known for their views of being progressives, liberals, people looking out for the middle class. and they find much fault with this affordable care act. and then you wonder why there's

so much concern being expressed by members of the senate of why this should be defunded. so all of this adds up to what's being said by the people and who's supporting the passage of the health care reform act. so that's constituents, employers and even unions. let's take this a step further. let's look at the work of the economic researchers. here's what the federal reserve had to say in march. federal reserve said that the 2010 health care law is being cited as a reason for layoffs and slowdown in hiring. quote -- "employers in several districts cited unknown effects of the affordable care act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff." here's another one. a recent national bureau of economic research study examined

the affordable care act's impacts on labor. basically if we want employment to go back to prerecession laps, we must get rid of the affordable care act f. we want to do away with the taxes in the affordable care act in a -- quote -- "massive 17% reduction in the reward to working, akin to erasing a decade of labor productivity growth without the wealth effect that would be expected to significantly depress the amounts of labor and consumer spending in the economy even if the wage elasticity of labor supply were small but not literally zero, the largest tax increases are the primary reason why it is unlucky that the labor market activity will return even

near to its prerecession levels as long as the affordable care act's disincentives remain in place." isn't it something to have a organization as respected as this organization to say, after all the work that went into the affordable care act, that its very existence is a disincentive to productivity and employment? madam president, with all of these concerns from constituents, employers, unions, even the federal reserve, you'd think that would cause people to pause. but it's also a legitimate reason for all the discussion we've had this week on what's wrong with the affordable care act and the defunding thereof. but on top of that, we keep hearing concerns yet about the

readiness to move forward with the law at all. in august, the government accountability office noted that testing of the government's data service hub to support new health insurance marketplaces was more than a month behind schedule. the report said -- quote -- "several critical tasks remain to be completed in a short period of time, such as final independent testing of the hub security controls, remediating security vulnerabilities, identifying -- identified during testing, and obtaining the security authorization decisions for 9 hub befor the hub before e exchanges." c.m.s.'s current schedule is to complete all those tasks by october 1, the expected open time for the exchanges." and it's unclear whether or not national insurance plans which were supposed to give consumers choice and help drive up costs will be available in all states next year.

the office of personnel management under the health care law is supposed to oversee the health rates and contracts for at least two national plans in every state. the white house, according to news reports, say that there will be a national health plan in at least 31 states. now, that's 31 states. that's not 50 states, madam president. perhaps the most telling sign that the affordable care act as enacted isn't working is how much the administration has rewritten the law on its own. a highly dubious proposition. the congressional research service recently noted that president obama has already signed 14 laws that amend, rescind or otherwise change part of his health care law and he's taken five independent steps to delay. and he's been able to do that on his own. so the congress has passed or the president has signed into law 14 changes.

i say that again for emphasis, and again the c.r.s. report noted that president obama, totally separate of congress, has delayed implementation of parts of the health care law five separate times. madam president, congress should be focusing our efforts on creating jobs, improving the economy, yet the affordable care act is having the opposite effect. our economy can't handle any more job-killing regulations from washington. it has been four years since the end of the recession. for a lot of americans, it's as if the recession never ended. while the unemployment rate now stands at 7.3%, which is bad enough, it only tells half the story. the fact is, this economy is so sluggish that only 63.2% of our working age americans remain in the work force. the labor force participation rate is at the lowest in 35 years.

the unemployment rate is dropping, primarily because people have simply given up finding work. what we should be doing is supporting policies that lead to economic growth and job creati creation. we should be supporting things like keystone x.l. pipeline, the initial permit for this job-creating energy project was submitted over five years ago. despite overwhelming support in the congress for the pipeline, the president has delayed the project for years to appease the extreme left. we have similar job-killing regulations coming out of the environmental protection agency. we should be working to create an efficient pro-growth tax code, one that rewards success rather than hinders t. we should be focusing -- hinders it. we should be focusing on our long-term fiscal process. we all know we're on an unsustainable path. yet the longer we delay and kick the can down the road, the harder the job will become. all of the tax, health care and fiscal uncertainty is acting like a headwind against our economy. so i will support funding our

government and avoiding a shutdown. i will support any effort to repeal the affordable care act. i will support any effort to defund the same act. i will support any effort to delay implementation of that same act. i will support the vitter amendment and any other amendment that puts 8,000 executive branch employees in the exchanges. as i have said again and again, the people responsible for this law should have the opportunity to experience it just as the american people will. perhaps then they, including this senator, will then finally pay attention to the facts surrounding the implementation of the affordable care afnlgt i. i do so not out of personal animus for the president. i do so not to tear down the so-called signature achievement of the administration. i do so because i'm looking at the fact and i do so because i'm looking at what is happening in health care and with our economy.

let's not thinking simply because someone uses the word "obamacare," let's not talk about shutting down government. let's turn the hysteria, look at what is really happening with the health care and its impact upon the economy a member of the senate just this week described our efforts to stop obamacare as insanity. i disagree. a vote to barrel ahead as though everything is just fine strikes me as far closer to the definition of insanity. a reasonable person can and should conclude that we should stop moving forward on obamacare and that's how i will be voting this week. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i -- i see senator sessions is on the floor now, so i believe that -- it's my understanding senator grassley used some democratic time that was yielded to him for

the beginning of his speech and i ask that the parliamentarian recapture that time for the democratic side. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: and i -- if senator sessions is prepared to speak now, then i'll wait. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank senator durbin and appreciate his leadership and courtesy. i want to speak for a few moments about the impact of the president' health care law, the affordable care act. although the law hasn't been fully implemented yet, this massive overhaul, federal takeover, really, of the health care system, has already proven to be anything but affordable. i'm speaking from the research we've done, as my team on the

budget committee, where i'm the ranking member of the budget committee, and we want to know what the real costs would be and how it will play out in the end. and so what i'll share with you now are some very important facts that all of us need to know. the president has repeatedly said that we have a health spending problem. but what he hasn't said is that this law will make that problem worse. last week actuaries from the center for medicare and medicaid services -- that's our top medicare people, c.m.s. -- issued a report, and its findings were unequivocal. this law will lead to higher health care costs. by 2022, the law is projected to increase cumulative health spending by $621 billion.

that's the report of c.m.s., who basically works for the president of the united states. next year, growth in the private health care insurance premiums, growth in our own private insurance premiums, is expected to increase by 6% from this year, 2013. so the increase in premiums that they project, c.m.s. does, will go up from 3.2% to 6%. the congressional budget office, c.b.o., also works for us and the majority of the congress, also released its annual long-term budget outlook last week. it concluded: one, federal health care spending will -- quote -- "grow considerably in 2014 because of changes made by

the affordable care act." the health care law, they say, is by far the single biggest factor in driving down the growth in federal -- driving the growth in federal health care spending over the next decade, accounting for 53% of projected growth. so they found, our own government agencies are finding, which is plain -- most americans knew it despite promises to the contrary repeatedly made -- when the bill passed on christmas eve, rammed through this senat senate -- that you couldn't do this bill without increased costs. and it's plain the government agencies are making that statement today. not my opinion. it's what our own agencies say. democrats have repeatedly complained that the law would

bend the cost curve. the president said it would slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. that's what he promised. it would slow the growth and costs for families, businesses, and government." democrats pushing the law against the wishes of the american people in 2009 claim that the law would not add to our deficit and would improve our federal balance sheet, our budget situation. the president promised he would not sign a plan that -- quote -- "adds one dime to our deficits now or any time in the future, period." close quote. that's an unequivocal promise. it sort of reminds me of the promise of read my lips, no more

taxes. surely a colossal misrepresentation of the debt impact of a gargantuan government takeover of health care is a serious matter. the nonpartisan actuaries at the center for medicare services, c.m.s., project that the law will increase health care spending as a share of our total economy. in other words, the law bends the cost curve in the wrong direction. it bends it all right, but the wrong direction. so we need to understand how the democrats were able to assert that their was financially sound, which they insisted on repeatedly, as we went through weeks of debate on this matter. well, this is how. this is very important, colleagues. senators do not understand this

fully, congressmen do not understand this, and i don't think the american people fully understand it. the democrat claim about the fiscal impact of the health care law, those claims were based on a monumental accounting maneuver and some multiple other gimmicks. before the law passed, the congressional budget office warned that the law would -- quote -- "maintain and put into effect a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time." close quote. now, that's careful language from our accountants at the congressional budget office, and i'm sure they were pressured not to say that. at that time both houses of congress were controlled by the democratic colleagues with 60 votes in the senate. they said and warned us that the

law would maintain and put into effect a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time." close quote. boy is that true. c.b.o. and the c.m.s. actuary also highlighted that hundreds of billions of dollars in medicare savings were double counted. now, we need to understand this. this is a key point that we need to understand. i made an inquiry to them. i made an inquiry to them late in december. i got the letter from them the night before the christmas eve vote to pass obamacare. d.c. 23. and i insisted that we get clear answer on the question involving approximately $500 billion, which i contended were really

double counted. they were claiming they were going to use this money to strengthen medicare, and they were claiming the money was available to fund obamacare. can you do both with the same money? if we are confused about that issue, if we can't understand that issue, now we can begin to understand why this country is in such disastrous financial shape. all right. so this is what they responded the night of december 23 -- quote -- "the key point is that savings to the h.i. trust fund -- that's medicare -- under the affordable care act would be received by the government only once, so that they cannot be set aside for future medicare spending and at the same time pay for the current spending on other parts of the legislation

or other programs. how simple is that? they go on. to describe the full amount of h.i. trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of medicare would essentially double count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvements in the government's fiscal position." close quote. right before the vote. they said in effect you're double counting this money, and you can't use the money simultaneously to benefit medicare, which is where the money really is, and also use the money to fund obamacare or a new health care plan or any other policy. this is so basic. so the next spring in march of

2010, c.b.o. estimated that without this doublecounting the health care law increases the deficit over the first ten years and the subsequent decade. under the conventions of accounting, as c.b.o. says, it would appear that you could have this health care plan at least for ten years, and it would appear it increases a surplus for you, but that's only -- that's because of the conventions of a unified budget accounting. the money that comes into medicare, money that is saved by cutting medicare providers and doctors and hospitals is medicare money. it's not the treasury's money to spend on a new health care program. it's medicare trustees' money. and so because it looks like in the short run you have got an

advantage, then they were able to count it and say money coming in is equal to the money going out, but they forget that all the people that are paying in to medicare off their checks each week are going to draw that out in the long run from this trust fund. everybody that's paying in is going to draw out all of that money and more because it's unsound actuarial. so if you want to see other gimmicks, look at the class act program which they counted on to produce $70 billion in more revenue over ten years than cost because it was money coming younger people who wouldn't be using so much health care. the program was so actuaryiarily

actuaryiarily -- actuarially unsound that the secretary of new hampshire had to notify congress, as she was required to do, that there was -- quote -- "no viable path forward" -- close quote -- to implement this act. with that decision and pressure from some of us in congress, nearly 60% of the democrats claim deficit reduction in the first ten years that disappeared, we had to eliminate that. so that amounted to 60% of the so-called surplus that would be produced by the bill. those savings in the class act were not real and should never have been counted in the first place. "the wall street journal" calls the class act program -- quote -- "a special act of fiscal corruption." one of my democratic members, actually the chairman of the budget committee, kent conrad, said it was a ponzi scheme, and the first ten years the numbers looked good, but over a period of time the money drawn out of it was going to be far greater

than the money that ever was put in. they claimed it produced $70 billion in assets for america when over the lifetime of the program it was a devastateing unsound program, that if private insurance company had offered it and tried to promote it in that fashion, i'm sure they would have gone to jail. absolutely unsound financially. eventually, congress had no choice but to repeal the class act. this bankrupt entitlement program is part of the bill at the end of last year, but the case of the class act program is but a sign of what is to come under the rest of the president's health care law. while the american people always knew that this health care bill would never pay for itself, they did not fully understand how a president and his supporters could insist otherwise. i wish i had been able to better explain it at the time. i tried, but i just don't -- i know i was not successful in

penetrating the media and the administration's view that the bill would create a surplus for america. maybe we could have stopped the legislation from being rammed through congress if we had been more effective on that point, but the facts are crystal clear now, a report issued by the government accountability office -- that's our independent g.a.o. -- in february of this year at my request revealed that under a realistic set of assumptions, the health care law is projected to increase the federal deficit by .7% of the entire g.d.p. over the next 75 years, an amount that is equivalent to $6.2 trillion in today's dollars. that it would add $6.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the united states of america over the lifetime of the program, over the next 75 years.

and this estimate excludes debt service or interest on the debt caused by the shortfall. this is an enormous sum, $6.2 trillion. let's put it into context. we all know the social security is financially unsound. we know and we are in a desperate effort now to figure out ways to find the money, make social security sound so people, retirees can know they are going to get their benefits. we all know that it must be fixed. at the time this health care law was enacted, the 75-year unfunded liability for social security was $7.7 trillion. this is almost as much in passing this bill, we had almost as much unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years, the united states government as

social security has. instead of putting social security on a sound path, this bill added another $6.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities to our debt. almost as large as social security. it's a monumental problem we've created for ourselves. we have dug the hole deeper financially. the worst thing we could be doing. the first thing you should do is stop digging. this finding seems to strike a nerve with some supporters of the law, so much so that they tried to attack me and argue with c.b.o., but attacking the messenger doesn't change the facts. the report is crucial. it clearly answered the question. it sank any validity to the president's claim that his plan would not -- quote -- "add one dime to our deficits now or any time in the future, period." health care economist

christopher conn over at duke university has explained that the government accountability office report did not cook the books or use wacky assumptions. according to professor conover, g.a.o.'s assumptions in this more plausible scenario are a carbon copy of those used by the congressional budget office, the medicare trustees, the treasury department and the medicare actuary on their own." close quote. independently derived, long-term budget projections are the techniques that were used in the g.a.o. report, and they found $6 trillion added to our debt. so despite what we were told by the proponents of this law, the truth is that the president's health care law will further increase the cost of health care, it will add to our already unsustainable deficits and debt, and it fully implemented -- and if fully implemented would

forever alter the relationships, not only between patients and their doctors, but between the american people and their government, period. it's been three and a half years since its passage, and every day we learn more about how the law is hammering americans. here are some of the important facts. jobs. part time is the new normal. 77% of the jobs that have been created over the last year have been part time. "investors business daily" has kept a running list of employers who are cutting hours and staff levels because of obamacare. currently, the i.b.d. tally of businesses, including large firms affected by obamacare, is 313. this list includes the university of alabama which announced that it was capping the number of hours students would work for the university

because of obamacare. remember, i just indicated 77% of the jobs created this year since january, and it hasn't been that large a number, are part-time jobs, and every economist tells us without any doubt that the president's health care bill, law, is driving those decisions by businesses. it's unprecedented, we've never seen this kind of increase. the united food and commercial workers union, joseph hansen, an original supporter of the law, recently said that obamacare would have -- quote -- "tremendous impact as workers have hours reduced and their incomes reduced" -- close quote. obamacare penalizes hard work, by casey mulligan at the university of chicago with the economics department, the

marginal tax rates included in obamacare are added -- add up to a 17% reduction in the reward for working -- reward for working for median income families. this penalty that the american workers will take essentially, he says, will erase all gains in labor productivity made over the last decade. this health care law has led to the loss of health insurance coverage. on wednesday, "the wall street journal" reported that the largest security guard provider in the united states, had stopped offering health insurance because of obamacare. we hear that over and over again. the report is in addition to other major companies that employ millions of americans.

these companies include darden restaurants, owner of the olive garden, home depot and trader joe's. small businesses and their workers will be peninsulaized. -- democratic colleagues have claimed most are not subject to this obamacare tax penalty, especially most of the firms because they have less than 50 workers, and are therefore not subject to employer mandate penalty but it's not an accurate statement. obamacare includes a nondeductible fee on insurance providers that c.b.o. has warned will get passed back to small business owners who pay for the health insurance for their employees. it's another tax on companies who provide health care to the employees. i recently received a letter from a small business owner in alabama, lisa wiggins of lee's auto repair to let me know she is being subjected to this tax

though her business only has 11 employees. she says she will be forced to reevaluate the offer of insurance to her small number of people at her repair company. costs are increasing. premiums are rising. and millions of americans will lose coverage that they have today. workers are having their hours and their paychecks reduced. it's countless regulations are adding uncertainty to the already fragile economy. the straight director of nfib, a small business group in alabama, says washington is doing a lousy job of keeping small businesses informed about the law, and that it will do real damage to them. so where will it end? when will we save ordinary americans and the american economy from this oncoming train wreck? the administration has taken

five steps already to delay the implementation of important parts of this law pertaining particularly to powerful interest groups who are pushing for delays and changes and relief. many of them are getting it, but not john q. citizen. big businesses unilaterally have been given a break from the law for at least one year. it's considering a carveout for big labor. well, we need to be considering the overall impact of the law on our economy, on jobs, on the length of hours that americans are working. we need to consider that. and the president's health care law will worsen, not improve our fiscal outlook. that's clear. it's hurting our economy right now, it's clear. it's harming millions of americans right now, and it's

growing the size and scope of government in a huge leap forward. congress must permanently repeal this unworkable law and start over with health care reform that will actually reduce costs and not hurt everyday americans in a way that is in the classical american tradition of responsibility and limited government. madam president, i wish that the effort through this budget and continuing resolution process, that we could have forced a real debate on this health care bill. it is absolutely clear that the leadership in this senate is stonewalling and refusing to even acknowledge these problems, will not allow amendments, legislation to be brought up and voted on that would fix this legislation and

make it better and help the american economy. so this has been an effort, senator cruz and others, and i think everybody on our side is committed to engage in and to force, because it will not be, it looks like, accepted voluntarily. there is no consensus we should even talk about it. indeed, it's the position of the majority that we will not allow a full and open debate about the way to fix this legislation. so the american people i hope they will continue to relay their views to the members of this body and that as time goes by, we're going to confront this legislation. we're going to be able to force the ability of the american people to hear their -- have their voices heard in this body. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: as i've indicated for

the entire week, each day that goes by, each hour that goes by, each minute that goes by we're that much closer to a government shutdown. i've been told that the house needs more time to work on this. they're saying maybe what we need is an extension of the c.r. madam president, the stock market, the financial community, the business round roundtable, the american chamber of commerce, all americans, 80% of the american people, including 75% of republicans, thinks what's going on here, not taking care of the finances of this country is absolutely wrong. there is no reason to stall this. so i ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m. today all ploich time -- postcloture time be yielded back with the exception of an hour, that the first 40 minutes of that hour divide between proponents and opponents

of the motion to invoke cloture and the last 20 minutes reserved for the two leaders with my having the final ten minutes and that senator mcconnell would speak before me if he so chooses. upon the use or yielding back of that time the senate proceed to vote on the motion to motion toe cloture, if cloture isvoked all time yielded back, the pending amendment be withdrawn, no other amendments be in order, that the majority leader be recognized to make a motion to waive applicable budget points of order, the motion to waive is agreed to, the senate proceed to vote on the reid amendment, 19 -- excuse me, 1974, that upon the disposition of that amendment the joint resolution be read a third time, the senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution as amended if amended, finally, all after the first vote in the sequence of votes be 10 minutes and there

be two minutes equally divided between the two votes. i would just alert everyone, if we got this agreement it means we would vote up to four times around 7:30 this evening, the house would get the bill probably tonight or in the morning as soon as it can be processed. cloture then would be a vote on cloture on h.j. res. 59, a motion to waive budget points of order, an amendment on the mikulski-reid amendment number 1974 and passage of h.j. res. 59 as amended if amended. that's my request. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: reserving the right to object, if we were to vote tomorrow, to have these votes tomorrow that would represent the product of waiving two sprootd spratt 30-hour periods, one in connection with the motion to proceed and the other in connection with cloture on the bill vote. the american people are paying attention to this, the american people are watching this, a lot

have expected this might occur friday or saturday. so i ask the question would the majority leader be willing to modify the request slightly with the same provisions in place but with the votes to occur during tomorrow's session of the senate? the presiding officer: does the majority leader so modify? mr. reid: i appreciate my friend's request to modify my unanimous consent request but, madam president, my response to that would be reserving the right to see if i would accept that, is this, no one -- everyone in america, everyone knows what the issues are before this body. the amendment, the mikulski-reid amendment that we're going to be required to vote on is pretty simple. it says that there will be nothing dealing with obamacare, we've changed the date from november 15 from december 15, and we've gotten rid of the pay

china first. that's it. the so-called anomalies, i've met with the republican leader, staffs have gone over that, no problems with that. so this is an effort to stall, and i don't know why, an effort to stall. it is absolutely unfortunate because i repeat, every minute that goes by is a minute closer to a government shutdown because when we finish this, we have to then have the american people focus on whether or not we're going to have a debt ceiling, whether or not we're going to again crash the economy as we did last time that threat came. so unless it's maybe someone thinks that they can come and with their great speaking ability tomorrow change everything, everybody in this body knows how the votes are going to go. this is going back to the house of representatives.

and the house of representatives has said publicly and they've said privately they're going to send something back to us. now, i want to make sure if they do that, we have time to process it. stalling until tomorrow means they're not going to get it until sunday. we would try our utmost to get it to them tonight, friday, rather than late saturday or even maybe -- we could get it to them sometime saturday. they need time and under our rules, is this this some kind of subterfuge to close the government? because that's what's going to happen. we are not the house of representatives. we have rules here. that take a while for us to get places. i understand my friend from utah says that we have two 30 hours and we're moving this more quickly than the rules require. madam president, what the american people see here in the

senate is -- this new senate is everything is a big, big stall. never do your work now. wait until tomorrow. maybe i'll give this great speech that will turn the world around. this is senseless. the american people -- how many times do you get the american people, 80% of them, agreeing with anything? they think what's going on this big stall is bad for the country, and it is. so i do not accept the modification. and if there is an objection to this, if there is an objection to my request, i'll work it out with the republican leader as to what time we're going to do this. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lee: madam president, reserve -- reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: we have been killing wilg to compromise. the offer made by my colleague, the junior senator from from texas from the floor represented a significant compromise.

i believe it was the senator from nevada, the majority leader who objected to a unanimous consent request made yesterday by the senator from texas to proceed with having these votes tomorrow. this still represents a significant compromise offer that consolidates, collapses two separate 30-hour periods required by the rules. this is not an unreasonable request. moreover, i'm not understanding what it is about having a vote tomorrow morning instead of tonight that would make a difference between being able to get something to them tomorrow if we pushed it out versus sunday. mr. reid: madam president,, i want to yield to the senator from tennessee but i do want to say this: it is as obvious to me and as obvious to me as it is to a kindergarten student, they didn't want a vote yesterday. the big speeches we heard about

how if you voted for cloture, you would vote to extend obamacare, they turned around and voted for it. this is a big, big charade that is not getting them where they need to go. they want to stop obamacare. they didn't even want to vote on cloture yesterday. of course they wanted to skip that and go a couple of days so they could talk longer. people are tired of talking. they want us to get something done here. the government is near the time that it will close. as i said here this morning, a woman who works for the united states park service came to an event i had. she lives in nevada. she and everybody that works there afraid they're going to lose their jobs. they know what happened last time. they were laid off for 29 days and didn't get pay for it. so i yield to my friend from tennessee. mr. corker: madam president, i

wonder -- the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: -- if it would be appropriate to ask the senator from utah a question if he will take the question. this would be an unusual time in the senate. i don't think ever we've had in the senate where we had a 21-hour filibuster and then the person carrying out the filibuster voted for the issue they were filibustering. i don't think that's happened in the history of our country. and i just want to make sure i understand. i was just over at the house and talked to members of leadership there, and they would like to get the piece of legislation from the senate over there as quickly as possible so they can respond. now, i think all of a sudden on this side would like to see some changes to the c.r., changes we believe to be good policy. and over on the house side we have a majority of republicans. i know they would like to send back to us some changes that i

think many of us would support. now in talking earlier with the senator from texas, it's my understanding that the reason you don't want to send a bill over to the house who could possibly put in place some very good policies for us here sthaupt the american people -- is that you want the american people and the outside groups that you've been in contact with to be able to watch us tomorrow. i'm just asking the question. is it more important to the senator from texas and the senator from utah that the people around the country watch this vote or is it more important to us that we have a good policy outcome standpoint and actually have a body that has a majority of republicans to be able to react and send back something of good policy? this is confusing to me because i know the leadership there wishes to be able to respond as

quickly as possible. but i'm understanding the reason we're waiting is that y'all have sent out releases and e-mails and you want everybody to be able to watch. and it just doesn't seem to me that that's in our nation's interest. nor is it, candidly, in the interest of those who want to see good policy on the conservative side come out of the c.r.. i just wondered if you might respond to that. mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: since the senator from tennessee made reference to me, i ask unanimous consent that i might make reference to the senator from nevada and the senator from utah. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: madam president, we need reasonable time. i want to make sure this is not going to be another performance here this afternoon. the presiding officer: for how long do the senators wish to engage in a colloquy? mr. cruz: i cannot imagine it would extend beyond ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request?

mr. reid: no. no. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: madam president, i appreciate the senator from tennessee's comments supporting the majority leader, and i know the senator from tennessee is learned on senate procedures, so that i know he must have made a misstatement when he moments ago suggested that those of us who participated in the filibuster the other day somehow changed our position in voting for the motion to proceed. and the reason i know the senator from tennessee is mistaken is because during the course of that filibuster, i explicitly stated i support the motion to proceed. i stated that a week before the filibuster repeatedly. i have always stated that the vote on the motion to proceed, the vote on cloture for the motion to proceed was going to be unanimous. indeed i would note i offered a unanimous consent during that filibuster that we vitiate the

cloture and all agree to proceed, because everyone in this chamber, i said i expect the vote will be unanimous. everyone in this chamber wants to proceed to this bill. now the senator from tennessee, being learned in senate procedure, knows that there's a big difference between that vote on wednesday, which i might note when the vote tally was down there for republicans, i put -- not only did i vote yes early but i put my recommendation for every republican to vote "yes." because of course we should get on the bill. the vote tomorrow on cloture on the bill is a very different bill. and i know the senator from tennessee is quite aware of that. the vote tomorrow is a vote to cut off debate on the bill. and so, as i said during the filibuster two days ago, as i said, have said for weeks, it is the vote tomorrow, cloture on the bill, that matters. because anyone voting tomorrow in favor of cloture is voting in favor of granting the majority leader the ability to fund

obamacare. and i know my friend from tennessee understands that, so i'm sure his statement suggesting that the vote on the motion to proceed meant anything other than what it obviously meant. i know that was a statement in error. mr. corker: well, actually i appreciate this opportunity. what we have before us is a bill that defunds obamacare. it's a bill that the house has sent over. so you're right, tomorrow's vote is a vote to end debate in support of exactly what the house of representatives has sent over. that is a confusing thing to a lot of folks, but you're exactly right. the house has put over here, sent over here policy that i actually support. and that is the funding the health care bill because of the damage that it's creating to our country, i wish the c.r. number was a little lower. i wish it was at 967 instead of

988. but that's exactly right. so we're going to be cutting off debate on a bill that the house republicans have sent over to us. so you're exactly right. and that's an important vote, and that is a vote in support of the house, something in addition, supporting the house would be getting whatever we're going to do back over to them so that they are not jammed. but it's my understanding again, relative to this vote tonight happening tomorrow instead, is that my two colleagues, who i respect, have sent out e-mails around the world and turned this into a show possibly, and, therefore, they want people around the world to watch maybe them and others on the senate floor. and that is taking priority over getting legislation back to the house so they can take action

before the country's government shuts down and, by the way, causing them possibly to put in place again some other good policies. i yield. mr. cruz: i appreciate my friend from tennessee's comments. i would note that he suggested that this is confusion -- confusing. and i guess i don't think it's all that confusing. the senator from tennessee says that a vote in favor of cloture is a vote in favor of the house bill and in favor of defunding obamacare. if that's the case, then the question i would pose to my friend from tennessee, why is majority leader harry reid going to vote the same way you're proposing to vote? why is every democrat in this chamber going to vote the way you're proposing to vote? if this is a vote in favor of defunding obamacare, is it the senator from tennessee's suggestion that the majority leader and the senate democrats are confused about this vote? mr. corker: well, i would respond that after a 21-hour filibuster yesterday, you voted in favor of the thing you're

filibustering, and senator harry reid joined you in that too. so it seems to me that they're very similar. mr. cruz: does the senator from tennessee dispute that the vote wednesday was a vote to take up the bill? whereas the vote tomorrow will be a vote that will do two things if there are 60 votes, if enough republicans cross the aisle, join senator harry reid and the democrats it will, number one, cut off all debate. and it will, number two, what makes the vote tomorrow so significant is the majority leader has already filed an amendment. that amendment guts the house continuing resolution and funds obamacare in its entirety. and given that that amendment is pending, and if cloture is invoked that amendment can be passed with 51 votes, does the senator from tennessee disagree that once cloture is invoked, harry reid, the majority leader, will be able to fund obamacare with 51 votes? mr. corker: i agree that the senate rule that's in place that

allows postcloture votes at a 51-vote majority has been there for decades and generations and is the same rule that we have operated under for decades. so let me just ask this question. so we have a bill before us that i support. i think the senator from texas supports; the senator from utah supports, i think. so my question is, we have a bill that we support. the rules of the senate have been here for decades, for generations and for centuries in many cases. so are you thinking the house of representatives would like for us to vote against cloture on their bill? mr. cruz: i thank my friend -- mr. corker: let me ask you this. if you think that's what they wish for us to do, why is it that they're already developing language and legislation to send back over?

it seems to me that they've already indicated that they view this strategy as a box canyon because they understand the senate rules. and it looks as if to me they're already developing language to send something back over, because even though we're in the senate -- i know all three of us are relatively new -- somehow or another they knew the senate rules before they sent it over. so i'm a little confused. and tell me what happens if the senate were not to invoke cloture on a bill that we support, what then happens. i'd like to understand. mr. cruz: i appreciate that question from my friend from tennessee, and there are several pieces of it. one he asked, would the house republicans like for us not to invoke cloture. i can tell you this morning i spoke to over a dozen house members who explicitly said it would be fantastic if senate republicans could show the same unity we did and vote against cloture, because majority leader reid has filed an amendment to

gut our language. i would note also the senator from tennessee keeps expressing confusion. i have to admit i don't think the american people are confused. and i would ask the senator from tennessee, you agreed a moment ago, if i understood you correctly, that if 60 senators vote in favor of cloture, majority leader harry reid will be able to fund obamacare in its entirety. let me ask the counterpart. if 41 republicans stood together and voted against cloture because we said we do not support the amendment that majority leader reid has filed to fund obamacare, when we told our constituents we oppose obamacare, we meant it. so we are not going to be complicit in giving harry reid the ability to fund obamacare, would majority leader harry reid be able to proceed and fund obamacare if 41 republicans stood together against cloture? mr. corker: well, but the thing is i think the senator

from texas may be confused. we're not going to be voting on the amendment. we have a chance to vote on the amendment after the vote on cloture. the vote on cloture tomorrow is a vote on -- ending debate on a bill we support. the thapld you're talking -- the amendment that you're talking about -- the presiding officer: the time for the colloquy has expired. is there objection to the unanimous consent request offered by the majority leader? mr. lee: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: reserving the right to request i request to modify the request made by the majority leader. he turned that down. in light of the fact that he turned that down, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, what we just witnessed was an effort by senator harry reid to move the votes, the critical votes on keeping the government open to this evening. what we've just heard from the republican side of the aisle is they want to stall and delay

this even more. it isn't just a matter of losing a legislative day in the senate -- the presiding officer: the time is still under the control of the republicans. mr. durbin: how much time -- i know there was time yielded by senator reid to the republican side to senator grassley. so how much time is remaining at this point on the republican side? the presiding officer: the alternating time occurs at 4:30 p.m.. mr. durbin: and at 4:30, then the democrats are recognized? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. durbin: and what time is it now? would the chair take notice. the presiding officer: 4:29. mr. corker: madam president, if i could? madam president? the presiding officer: senators are reminded to address each other each in the third person.

not by their first and last names. mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: if i could, i'd like to say in response to my good friend from illinois, it's not the republican side that's asking to stall. we only have two republicans senators that are wanting to push this off. and so i don't want that to be mischaracterized, if i could. and to say that it's my understanding that the reason that we're putting this off is because they would like for people around the country that they have notified to be able to watch. and so it's that process of making sure that everyone watches that i think is slowing this down. it's not the entire republican side. i think most republicans -- i know all republicans other than two would actually like to give the house the opportunity to respond in an appropriate way. with that, i yield the floor and i've enjoyed this very much.

mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the next hour is controlled by the majority. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, let me start by acknowledging what the senator from tennessee just said. i have worked with senator corker on so many bipartisan issues. i salute him on his efforts to try to find bipartisan solutions. what he said i think is indicative of the problem we face now. two senators -- and it is their right under the nationa senate a senator from utah and the junior senator from texas -- have decided that they want to delay this another day. they want to stall this another day. it isn't just losing a legislative day, it's more. look how long it took us to bring up the house continuing resolution. if i'm not mistaken, they voted on this last friday. we are thinking about voting on it tomorrow, seven days later. it tells you that the senate rules, even at their best, with one member objecting, can mean that measures take a long, long

time. ordinarily it just means we waste time. but this time it's critically more important, because the government will not be funded. come tuesday morning, all across america we will not fund the government because of the actions just taken on the floor of the senate by senator cruz of texas, senator lee of utah. they are trying to slow this down and to create a political crisis, a political crisis. they are playing high-stakes poker with other peoples' money, because the victims of this political crisis will not be the senators and house members. there will be a lot othey will t people, a lot of innocent workers who just want to get up and do their work for this government. some of them are risking their lives in uniform. they'll be paid, but their paychecks will be delayed. what it means is they have to contact their wives and spouses back home come tuesday, if this

cruz and lee delay continues. they'll have to contact them and say, honey, it may be a little difficult this pay period. it doesn't look like we're going to get a paycheck because congress has shut down the government. there are others, too, all them -- doing their washin workr this government. at the f.b.i. and intelligence agencies, it will go dark. why, why have we reached this point? why do these two senators -- two senators -- think this is in the best interest of the united states of america? we've heard reports from economists, this cannot help our nation. shutting down the government, failing to extend the debt ceiling, we're going to find ourselves in a position where this economy is going to start to stall. people are start searching their savings accounts and notice that their investments are going down in value. why? because two republican senators insisted that we couldn't speed up this vote and move this process forward to solve this

problem. the best explanation they can give us, they've notified their friends in the media and those on e-mail to stay tuned for friday. friday is going to be the big day, their big day in the sun. and so we're delaying our actions here for a full day so that they can get adequate publicity from what they're about to do. that's not in the best interests of the senate. it's sure not in the best interests of the united states of america. i listened to senator reid. he made an effort to come forward and expedite this process. there are people outside this door who have warned us not to do that. they say, you send this back over to the house, it gives them time to do something. senator reid has said from the start, we will not be party to delaying this critically important decision. there's too muc too much at sta. we're going to move this through as quick withly as wly as we ca. this is on the shoulders of those two senators, those two

tea party senators. that isn't in the best of dealing with the issues are that face america. my job on the senate appropriations committee is to be the chair of one of the most important subcommittees, the defense appropriations subcommittee. never dreamed i'd have this responsibility, but with the passing of a genuine american hero, dan inouye of hawaii, this mantle fell on my shoulders. almost 60% of the discretionary funds go through this one subcommittee. there is a lot of hard work involved in putting the appropriation tosmght but when - appropriation together. but when you consider what's involved. let me tell you what a government shutdown is going to mean to them. a government shutdown is going

to mean a lot of hardship. i mentioned earlier uniformed troops calling their spouses to say we're not going to get our paycheck on time this month. try to make do, if you need it. something totally unnecessary, something brought on by action on the floor of the united states senate just minutes ago by two republican senators. there are more than 700,000 civilian employees at the department of defense and half of them will be sent home immediately come tuesday morning -- sent home. men and women who work at military installations in the pentagon, sent home from work. over 80% of the department of defensivelyians work outside the pentagon. 12,000 of them work in my state. they will be a given -- they'll be given notice on tuesday morning: you have to go home. why? because there was a publicity stunt on friday. they will be furloughed --

already face if yo furlough becf a sequester. now if we allow this government to shut down, they'll have to figure out how to make ends meet. men and women who are trying to keep us safe, many of them risking their lives, are nowing about to be pawns in this political game. it is an unconscionable breach of faith. it is not confined to the military. it will cripple our intelligence community. these men and women serve as our country's first line of defense. we rely on their agencies to warn us of threats, to prevent terrorist attacks, and inform leaders making critical national security decisions. the intelligence community workforce overwhelmingly made up of civilians and the greatest portion of them will be furloughed because of the government shutdown, a government shutdown that is totally unnecessary brought on by the house republicans and two senate republicans. this shutdown will be quick and the principal agencies will largely go dark within four to eight hours of the shutdown

order. america, its intelligence agencies that keep us safe, are going to go dark because of this political strategy. if the government shuts down, all d.o.d. work will stop on weapons and equipment maintenance not directly related to war, bases will not be maintained, we shall see a degradation of facilities. you'll see massive disruptions all across this country. the rock island arsenal in my state, a critical arsenal that supports more than 54,000 active reserve and retired military. the arse mall is the largest -- the arsenal is the largest employer in the illinois region. the facility adds $1 billion to the local economy rs, supporting 14,000 jobs in the region a government shutdown will throw production schedules at rock island in chaos as ordered get cut back and civilians sit at home under furlough. i couldn't imagine going to

these men and women and say, the reason that you've had this furlough and can't come to work is because two senators decided they needed some publicity on friday. putting the arsenal's capabilities at risk degrades the defense industrial base. the it jeopardizes our national and local economy. the same thing is view it at scott air force base. in a shutdown, it's 5,000 civilian employees would experience the same loss of pay as everyone else. the active duty personnel and everybody else would have to get by while they wait for reimbursement with later paychecks. you think how totally unnecessary this is. senator reid has come to the floor repeatedly to tell you what the american people think. 80% think this is foolish and wasteful. 75% of republicans have given up on this strategy. and yet a handful of willful

members of the house and senate decide they're just going to keep going down this road. well, i hope that they'll have some revelations in the next few minutes or hours, maybe overnight. i hope that they'll reconsider what they've done here, the risk that they're putting this country at. it's just not appropriate. i.t. noit'snot fair. i listened to them try to explain how they can have a faux filibuster for 21 hours and then turn around and unanimously descroat fovotefor the next iten business. most americans don't understand what he was saying for 21 hours and then turning around and voting overwhelmingly to move forward on the bill. let me make one other thing clear. obamacare is already funded. it's already funded. senator harry reid is not going to be funding obamacare. it is already funded, and it will be.

it will be under appropriations bills that we pass and c.r.'s and this notion that he's somehow going do something sinister ... let me remind its critics. we have brought this to a vote in the senate, one of the most historic votes, painful votes. senator reid, you may remember when our colleague, senator ted kennedy, was brought here on the floor of the united states senate to vote for that affordable care act. the man was literally dying of cancer, but this meant so much to him, that he came down here for the vote at great personal risk and sacrifice. it was great to see his smiling face come through that door again, but we knew we'd never see him again, and we didn't cht that's the kind of sacrifice that was maivmentd the votes were teafnlgt then i taken. then in the next presidential election, there was a referendum made on obamacare. the american people were clear. they reelected president obama. they rejected governor romney's promise to repeal obamacare.

these two members can't accept the verdict of history. they to into want to fight this battle. they're fighting it at the expense of a lot of innocent people across america. at the expense of some of the best workers in the world, those in military uniform and those in the civilian capacity who do a great job for us every single day. picking on them, deciding to make them the object of this political exercise, is beneath us as a great institution. let me close by saying this: i will give credit to senator cruz. when he was doing his 21 hours i asked him point-blank, so you want to eliminate the protection in obamacare that says that health insurance companies can't discriminate against children and families that have preexisting conditions? yes, he said i do. i want to eliminate all of it. i said, you want to eliminate the provision that says you can't limit the coverage in health insurance policies so people who have enough money for a serious illness and cancer therapy and surgery?

i want to eliminate it all, he said. you want to eliminate that protection for families to keep their kids on their own health insurance policies up to age 26, young people look for jobs who may not have health insurance? you want to eliminate that, too? i want to eliminate every bit of it. he was consistent, consistently wrong, because he fails to understand what working families across america face every single day, what 50 million uninsured americans face with no protection, no peace of mind. god forbid he ever spends a moment as the parent of a sick child without health insurance. i've been there. you never want that experience in your life for yourself or anybody else. i asked senator cruz to tell us about his own personal health insurance, since he's decided he's going to be the arbiter on health insurance for the rest of america and for congress. he won't give me a straight answer on how he has his own health insurance for his family. i think he owes it to us.

he's told us a lot about his great family and there's some wonderful stories. when it comes in this issue, he ought to tell us, where does he get his health insurance? who pays pour it? what's the -- who pays for it? what's the employer's contribution? what's the tax deduction taken by your employer, if any? these are legitimate questions. he's raised these questions about millions of families across america, said they're just fine, we can do without obamacare. let's hear his explanation of how he protects his family when it comes to health insurance. i don't think that's on reasonable question. after all, he's the one who raised the issue. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? officethe presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i'm passionate about manufacturing, about the good-quality jobs manufacturing brings to our communities. what i am also passionate about is that this body needs to stop manufacturing crises. what we just heard in the last few minutes was an exchange between my friend, the senator

from tennessee, and two of his colleagues, the senators from texas and utah, that summarized that's what's happened in this chamber today is the extension of a manufactured crisis, a purely artificial extension that is continuing, as the senator from illinois said in great deal and with great insiect, to put at risk our recovering economy, our men and women at arms, our nation's standing in the world. this is a wholly manufactured crisis without purpose. it seems to me in the three years that i've been here, it feels an awful lot like groundhog day. i was sitting in that chair presiding over this body as we were closing in on a government shut down when i had only been here a few months and i've never forgotten getting a message from a constituent at home. her husband was at that very moment serving our nation flying medevac missions in sphang. and i got a simple note: is it possible that because you

all can't do your jobs that my husband and i won't be getting a paycheck next week while he does his job for our nation overseas? we have in the three years i've been here seen needless fights, a near default on our nation's debt, a near defunding of our federal government's operations. and today we see not a difference of meaning but a difference purely of substance and -- purely of superficial style. as the senator from tennessee pointed out, the objection to the majority leader's request that we proceed now to a vote was purely for the convenience of two senators who have sent out a lot of press releases and who want more attention. madam president, we can't continue to play chicken with the american people, the american economy, and continuing the service of the federal government. now, i know my colleague, the senator from louisiana, who is one of the leaders on the

appropriations committee, is here to offer some insight and comments about the value of appropriations, about the great work that our chair, senator mikulski, has led us in this year. there are so many other ways that this manufactured crisis is just the latest in a series of disappointing failures to lead by a few of our colleagues. the chair has allowed us to go through subcommittee markups and full committee markups on 11 appropriations subcommittee bills. and if those bills could be taken up and passed on this floor, we could fix a lot of the things that challenge our nation. and i'd like to yield the floor if i might to the senator from louisiana so she might inform this body about some of the important work that she and her subcommittee on the appropriations committee, on which i'm honored to serve, has been able to do this year. ms. landrieu landrieu: thank yo. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i thank the senator for yielding just for a question. and i really appreciate his leadership as an appropriator. senator mikulski was on the

floor earlier today, the leader of our committee. and the debate about how much to spend, what we should spend our money on, does the senator understand that that could be done and it is done in the appropriations process. and if we could just get past this manufactured crisis, we could actually accomplish what many senators want to, do which is to discuss the level of spending. we can't even get there because we're stuck in a manufactured crisis by the senator from texas. is that your sense of where we are? a senator: that's absolutely my understanding. and, madam president, one of the things that my friend, the senator from louisiana, knows better than any is that the role of the appropriations committee and its subcommittees is to perform oversight. mr. coons: is to weave through the programs in the government that are effective and to narrow or trim or close those that

aren't. and if we continue to lurch from crisis to crisis or continuing resolution to continuing resolution, we never get that good work done. so, madam president, i'd welcome any further comments that my colleague would like to make about what the homeland security subcommittee on appropriations has made possible and why that matters, what difference that makes to the people of louisiana and of our country. ms. landrieu: i thank the senator. and if i could, madam president, let me say a few words about the bill that i have the privilege and the responsibility of chairing, the homeland security bill. it's a $42 appropriation bill that i'm very proud to say i've worked with my republican colleagues, with the senator from indiana, senator coats, over the last six months to draft and fashion a bill in many public meetings, in public forums, at the appropriations subcommittee level, at the appropriations full committee level. our bill was negotiated in good faith, republicans and

democrats, compromising over important things like how many border security -- how many border agents should we have, security agents should we have on our border, how many detention beds can taxpayers afford, how many do the republicans want, how many do the democrats want, what are some of the important aspects of the immigration reform and how do we build a technologically superior border that allows trade and commerce but keeps out terrorists and people that are undocumented that do not have the proper certification to come into the contract. country. those are the kinds of thing that we that ran for public office wanted to get here to work on, not to sit in an empty chamber with people because they can't get their way or colleagues get their way 100% of the time, all the time, shutting down the process. so as chair of the homeland security committee, i most certainly can add my voice to

the appropriators and to the members that say, it's time move on and let's do so. but before i get into the specifics of that, i want to say just a word about an issue that is so critical to louisiana and to states like texas from senator cruz' home state. you would never know this because i don't think he said a word about this issue in the 22 hours that he was on the floor. but i know a little something about texas, my neighboring state, know a lot about mississippi and alabama and florida from the gulf coast. i've represented my state for now almost 18 years in the senate and grew up along the gulf coast. i just want to make sure everybody understands this, that in 14 days, there are going to be over a million people in the united states, many in texas, many in louisiana, many in florida, some in massachusetts, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

that are going to basically see the value of their home, the equity in their home go poof. poof. their equity would have been $200,000 this week or $400,000 or $600,000 or $2 million. this is an equal opportunity destroyer. because last year congress passed bigger waters, which was supposed to fix the flood insurance program, fix it, make it sustainable, make it budget -- you know, make it -- go from the red to the black, make it -- make the deficit go away, help the program to be more sustainable. i understand that. the problem is, the way the bill was passed, it is going to in a few days literally go "poof" to people who have thought they had equity in their home but because there is a provision in the bigger waters flood insurance bill that says basically this --

when you put your home up for sale, when you sell your home, the grandfathered rate that was attached to your home for flood insurance is immediately dispensed with. so anyone selling their home that happens to have a subsidized flood insurance rate, which is lower than the private market, for good reason -- which i'll explain in a minute -- their house becomes valueless. okay, let me repeat this. this is not about your flood insurance going up. this is not about losing your job. it's not about not being able to show up for work because the government shuts down, which is a big problem. this is a real big problem for a million families because the house that you've paid for, that you lived in, that you thought had some equity so you could retire on that equity or send your kids to college -- "poof," gone. now, i would like to focus on fixing that problem. and i know there are many people in texas that would like to fix it as well, because when i go

over there, i hear from them. and when i go to louisiana and mississippi and florida, i hear from people. we can't even get to a flood insurance bill because, senator, we're on the floor talking about an issue that's completely manufactured. this is not manufactured, ladies and gentlemen. the flood insurance issue is like real. the flood insurance issue is a bill that actually passed and we have only, like, 14 days to fix a part of it. at 5:00, in five minutes, i'm going to a meeting in a senator's office, senator merkley, who's the chair of the subcommittee, and we're going to try to work on this. but to do this, we need cooperation, senator. we need cooperation from all of our members to say, well, you know, that might not be a problem in my state but i can understand what senator landrieu's saying and i can understand what some of the republicans are saying. let's see what we can do to fix this so people's equity does not just vanish into thin air and cause lots of pain and suffering.

but we can't even talk about real issues because we have to talk about manufactured crisis. now, i see some of my colleagues on the floor and i know they understand that the chairman asked us to come and talk for just a few minutes about our appropriation bills so i'll just try to do this in, like, four minutes and then i'll submit what i have to do for the record. because when senator mikulski asks you to do something, you need to go ahead and do it. so i need to go ahead and put this in the record for my homeland security bill. but should this government shut down, which could happen because, as it's been explained, we have a two or three or four or five, not many, senators that have just decided to manufacture a crisis about the continuing resolution and paying our bills, which -- which we owe and every responsible non-deadbeat person in the world pays their bills. i don't know why we can't. but anyway, because of that, the homeland security bill that we've worked on, that's been

negotiated, may i say, without disagreement. i mean, this is kind of unheard of really, to have a bill -- let me just say. we had disagreements but we worked them out. i mean, there were different views but we worked them out. our bill is, you know -- and we had big things to work out, like this big new project that's being built in kansas. i was not very supportive of it, but i had to listen a lot, i had to think, i had to negotiate and i ended up putting a big project in this bill that i didn't 100% go along with but i was convinced by colleagues for different reasons, the white house weighed in and others and so it was a compromise. the bottom line, is i've got a $42 billion bill that supports our borders, that keeps commerce going, that keeps fema going. we have a terrible flood, senator, in your home state. i see the senators from colorado and the senator from minnesota, who absolutely knows what floods

are. fema is trying to operate there. what do we tell people on monday? "sorry, we can't come help you get back into your home, get your children in school, get this hospital built again"? so i'm going to support th submt of my statement for homeland security for the record. but we've got, you know, phones to answer, borders to secure, we have trade to move next week. shutting down the government is simply not what we should be doing. we should be fixing it, making it more efficient, saving money where we can and serving the 350 million people in this country and around the world that depend on the american government to function. in conclusion, let me say this. i had mar marriott corporation l me today -- marriott -- conservative, excellent company, but conservative leaning from their top. marriott told me today, "senator, would you please say when you can that the government is our biggest customer,"

because when people think of government, they think of only government jobs. marriott corporation, one of the largest corporations in the country, their largest customer is the federal government. we buy a lot of goods and services. when we shut down, when we hesitate, when we don't operate with confidence, it affects every business in the world. and if marriott is going to take a big hit, can you imagine the hits that smaller companies take that can't take that hit or that break? so behalf of marriott, on behalf of other companies that are going to get hit, please, if people would realize, the government has a lot of impact on the private sector and it's not fair to hurt our economy. any businesses -- large, small, conservative, liberal, or moderate. and i yield the floor. mr. coons: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i'd like to thank the senator from louisiana for her leadership of the homeland

security subcommittee of appropriations. you just heard in detail a description of how she has worked in a bipartisan, thoughtful and a detailed and decent way and a way that crafted a bill where there was compromise, where there was give-and-take, and where ultdly ultimately the bill that's moved through the subcommittee and full committee, should be ready for action on this floor. meets the real needs of our nation, of our homeland. and provides resources and support, whether for the state of colorado, the state of minnesota, the state of delaware -- all over this country. and shutting this government down over a needless, manufactured crisis between now and monday is the height of irresponsibility. so, madam president, if i might, i'd like to yield, if i could, to the senator from colorado. mr. we know et: madam president? the presiding officer: -- mr. bennet: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, madam president. i want to thank the senator from louisiana while she's here, not just for your words and not just for reminding us this is not about who can scream the loudest on national television, it's about the work that needs to get done in the united states senate

on behalf of the american people, but also for the work you've done over the years on fema. you know, it's made a big difference in my state already. they're working well with our -- with our local officials and our state officials and we've got a long, long way to go. and the last thing we need to worry about is whether the government's going to shut down or not. fortunately, because of work that you did and other did around here, the emergency part of this going to continue to carry through even if there is a shutdown. but there is a lot of uncertainty that's related to that. so while you were here, i just wanted to thank you for that. i'm sorry that the senator from delaware has left the floor for a moment, because he has been holding it down, and i wanted to ask him a question about his previous work because he was a county executive in delaware before he was here. i was a superintendent of schools, a mayor -- worked for the mayor. senator klobuchar who is here from minnesota was a district

attorney, and i think every one of us is completely perplexed by the hostage taking that's going on around this place. so i would ask the senator from delaware, you are the county executive -- you were the county executive of a county in delaware, weren't you? mr. coons: i was. mr. bennet: i say through the chair, do you think any county executive or mayor or local official in your state could go very far -- let me put it this way -- wouldn't be run out of town if they threatened the credit rating of their community for politics? mr. coons: absolutely not. i had direct experience with this. in the state of delaware, folks expect us to balance our budgets and pass them on time and deliver good services but also to defend our credit ratings. the city, county and state in which i lived and served all enjoyed aaa credit ratings. folks in my community understood what that meant, that that meant we could borrow money for building sewers, roads, schools

less expensively and sustain the quality of our community. and our business leaders and civic leaders understood that to put that at risk was reckless and irresponsible, and yet for a manufactured crisis by a few senators, we are facing the shutdown of this federal government a few days from now, and i'm afraid just a few weeks later the possible default on the sovereign debt of the united states. no one, no responsible elected official where i'm from would do that. mr. bennet: and that's my point. i think we're dealing with something that's so far out of the mainstream of what political actors, at least in my state that are elected that are republicans or democrats would support. i think it's important for us to call attention to that because that's what we're dealing with. and i see the senator from minnesota is here. my last observation on this is, i can tell you this -- if one of us represented a state government that opened and closed its doors or threatened to open and close its doors every single year, i can assure you that they would look to do business -- business would look to do business in some other state, not in the state of which

we work, and that's what we're doing to the united states of america right now. we've got so much going for us. the innovators throughout the economy, innovating. natural gas is cheaper than it's ever been. we can build this economy if only washington or a few actors in washington would get out of the way. with that, i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the gentlelady from -- the senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: i can go by both names. thank you. mr. president, i would first like to acknowledge senator coons of delaware for his leadership and certainly senator mikulski, the powerful head of the appropriations committee, who has put together a group this hour to talk about public safety and infrastructure and what a government shutdown would mean and what sequestration means when it comes to the progress of this country. you have heard from senators from different parts of the country. senator landrieu from the great

state of louisiana talking about the importance of fema. no one knows that better than she does after katrina. what would a government shutdown mean to louisiana? you look at colorado. senator bennet was here. where they are right now aftermat o floods. and then you look at the state of massachusetts, mr. president, senator markey, what happened there with the boston marathon. what happened there if we were in the middle of a government shutdown and we didn't have the resources that we need. that's what my focus is going to be about today. do we want the head of the f.b.i. worried about who he can lay off and who he doesn't? is that what we want them doing right now? or the head of the alcohol, tobacco and firearms that investigated that bombing in boston, do we want them looking at what are we going to do if we have a shutdown right in the middle of that bombing? no, that's not what we want happening. that's not how this country runs. mr. president, i sat and watched the last hour of this debate and i saw senator corker come to the floor and do a fine job of explaining that it's not every

republican in this chamber that is trying to slow this vote down so we don't even have it today. he focused on two republicans that were doing that, and i think it's very important for the american people to know that the senate has tended to work in a bipartisan way. we want to move forward. we want to get this bill voted on, and we want to give the chance to the house to come back. no more delay. we need to get this done. now, much of the focus has been oftentimes i want -- oftentimes what a shutdown would mean in washington, but my job today is to talk about what it means in states like yours and mine. as someone who spent eight years as the chief prosecutor for minnesota's largest county, i know the pain of this shutdown would be felt by state and local level officials, by state and local people right down the line, and not least of all by the first responders and law enforcement officers who rely on federal funding for everything from crime prevention to community corrections programs to drug courts and to simply keeping cops on the beats.

there are some who are willing to hold these first responders hostage. there are some who are willing to hold our country hostage just to score political points, mr. president. the fact of the matter is that a government shutdown would be painful and it would be expensive. these men and women go to work every day protecting the people. while most people may run away from disasters and calamities and tragedies, they bravely run toward them, and they do it selflessly, not because they are looking for fame or glory but because they are simply doing their jobs. well, we in washington have a responsibility to do our jobs. we have a responsibility to ensure that our cops and firefighters and e.m.t.'s have the tools to protect the public safely and effectively, and we have a responsibility to pass a resolution that prevents the government from shutting down. we simply can't afford another self-inflicted wound to our economy, as senator bennet was pointing out, especially not a time when things are finally

turning around. at 7.3%, our national unemployment rate is at its lowest point since december, 2008. in my state, mr. president, it's at 5.1%. the housing market is bouncing back, retail sales are up, and so far this year, we have added 1.5 million private sector jobs. we're not where we need to be, but we are headed in the right direction, and we need to keep moving forward and not move backwards. and yet here we are again facing another manufactured crisis that threatens to shut down the government. last week, house republicans sent us a continuing resolution they knew had zero chance of passing the senate. when house republicans passed a budget tied to defunding the affordable care act, they decided they were willing to risk shutting down the government just to relitigate a law that both the house and senate passed, the president signed and the supreme court upheld. will there be changes to that

law going forward? i'm sure there will. there always are with large bills. but the answer is not to defund it on a must-pass bill. even members of their own party agree that this is the wrong thing to do. senator mccain has called defunding the health care law as part of the c.r. the height of foolishness and not rational. even a poll conducted by the conservative crossroads g.p.s. headed by karl rove found that independents overwhelmingly oppose shutting the government down just to defund obamacare. it was a margin, mr. president, of 58% opposition to 30%. that is independent voters in a poll conducted by karl rove's group. in the short term, a government shutdown lasting more than a week would have an immediate effect on economic growth as the federal government would suspend all nonessential spending. shutting down the government for three or four weeks would reduce real g.d.p. by 1.4 percentage points in the fourth quarter.

and a shutdown longer than two months would likely precipitate another recession. my colleagues in the house like to talk a big game about reducing the deficit and doing what is fiscally responsible, and yet they are willing to mortgage our economy on a political gamble. pardon me, but that's not how we define fiscal responsibility in my state. here's something else minnesotans don't call fiscally responsible -- closing our national parks which generate billions of dollars in tourism revenues every year. if the government shuts down, so will all 368 national park service sites. and how about the visa processing centers? during the 1996 government shutdown, more than 500 visa applications and 200,000 passport applications were put on hold. you might say how will that affect me? well, it does. it affects jobs in the united states of america. in a state like minnesota where tourism is our fifth largest industry and the source of 11% of our private sector jobs, we

simply can't afford to let that happen. we simply can't afford for this critical industry to be hamstrung by political pos touring on the other side of the aisle in washington. in addition to the impact on our tourism sector, a government shutdown would also have serious repercussions for industries like medical technology, something that minnesota and massachusetts share. without funding to keep the lights on at the food and drug administration, the process for approving medical devices and other biotech products would grind to a standstill. these are just a few examples of the industries that would be hurt by a government shutdown. if we use the 1996 impasse as a guide, we can also expect to see delays in the small business administration financing, a suspension of federal housing administration insurance for people buying new homes, new patients denied access into clinical research trials at the national institute of health. you heard correctly.

if we can't reach a compromise, we will all feel these negative results. now, i want to get back to the focus of my earlier remarks, and that is law enforcement programs. we must be willing to do the right thing for the safety of our people. when it comes to homeland security, counterterrorism and federal law enforcement, rest assured those protections will continue, but in the event of a shutdown, the federal officers who continue going to work, protecting the public from violent crimes, gangs and terrorists won't be getting a paycheck. instead they will be getting an i.o.u. so basically what we will be saying to these people is thanks for putting your lives on the line, we can't pay you right now, and if you're lucky, maybe you will get back pay when congress sorts this all out. is that what we want to say to the people that showed up first at that boston marathon bombing? hey, we got an i.o.u. for you? i don't think so. the strain of a shutdown on law enforcement would come at a time

when agencies are already struggling to make ends meet in the wake of sequestration. the new head of the f.b.i. just talked about how sequestration would put him in the place of laying off 3,000 f.b.i. agents. i don't think that's where we want to be in this country. these are cuts to some of the most successful crime prevention and crime-fighting programs out there. even more frustrating is that chairman mikulski and the senate appropriations committee worked across party lines to draft spending bills for 2014 that would provide additional resources for grant programs important to law enforcement. under sequestration, the cops program has been reduced by 22 million compared to the funding level the senate approved. funding for drug courts has also been slashed despite the fact that drug courts actually save money to the tune of $6,000 per person. for every $1 spent on drug courts, more than $3 are saved on criminal justice costs alone,

and when you factor in the other things like cost to victims and health care, they can save up to $27 per person. local law enforcement also relies on byrne grants which have been cut by $20 million due to sequestration. as a former prosecutor, i have always believed that the number-one job of government is to protect people, it is to keep people safe, it is to have safe roads and bridges. if we continue to cut, to delay and to deny critical funding for programs like cops and byrne grants, we will be failing in this most basic duty, and i refuse to let that happen. instead of threatening critical services in our economy with poison pill partisanship, we need to focus on real solutions. this means agreeing to go to conference committee on the budget. for many, many months, senator patty murray, the head of the budget committee, has been asking permission to just simply bring our senate-passed budget to conference committee where it

can meet up with the house budget and where we can at least try to work out a long-term solution. senator mccain and senator collins have joined us in this call to be allowed to bring a long-term budget to a conference committee, but we have been met every step of the way with opposition from the other side. that is where we should be working these things out. instead, we are on the floor today to try to end the brinkmanship on simply keeping the government going. secondly, we have another problem, and that is that our country will hit its legal borrowing limit as soon as mid october, and when this happens, we will be asked to do what congress has routinely done 70 times over the past 50 years, and that is to pay our country's bills. let me be clear. this is about making good on commitments that we have already made. this is about doing what regular americans do every month when they pay their credit card bills. as vice chair of the joint economic committee and the chair on the senate side, last week i held a hearing and released a

report examining the economic impact of this brinkmanship. the results weren't pretty and they are based on history. let's remember what happened the last time when we had a showdown on the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011. the united states experienced the costs of protracted brinkmanship on the debt ceiling. as congress strudle with this issue thedown jones dropped more than 2,000 points and standard & poor's downgraded the u.s.'s credit rating and we were out over one billion dollars in borrowing costs. that is on the backs of the taxpayers of this country. that happened in 2011, mr. president, and if we face another impasse this year, there could be real ramifications for businesses and for people. interest rates could rise on everything from credit cards and home mortgages to borrowing costs for businesses, putting a real strain on families and small business owners and stalling the economy just as we're at a time when we can stand it, just as a time we're

starting to see that stability grow to real growth. mr. president, our country can't afford to deep lurching from crisis to crisis. it's time for both parties to come together and focus on real solutions. you know what i learned the last 24 hours, the last two days watching what was going on on this floor? that there are a few of my colleagues that see this place as a battleground. i see it as a place to look for common ground, and that's what we're supposed to be doing on behalf of the american people. the battleground has to give way. we need to do the work of the american people, find that common ground, come together. we are going to pass a good, clean bill so that we can continue the united states government and move on to work out the details of the the budg. that's what we need to do for our first responders, our police, our firefighters, the people who put their lives at

risk every day. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. johnson: mr. president, any discussion of the national security impacts of a long-term continuing resolution or potential government shutdown would be incomplete without including the potential impact on america's 22.3 million vets. the good news is that under any scenario, vets would still be able to receive health care thanks to advanced funding for 2014. the bad news is that most other v.a. programs would be shortchanged under a c.r. and

crippled by a government shutdown. the v.a. budget would be impacted by the funding shortfalls or stoppages, but america's vets would be the victims. the advanced funding does not extend to such important programs as sensibility claims processing, hospital and clinic construction or v.a. cemetery operations, to name but a few examples. given the gravity of the intag logs in the v.a. claims processing program, the senate c.r. includes a provision funding claims processing at the 2014 budget request level, but it does not include a package of reforms and initiatives in the 2014 bill intended to improve productivity, accuracy, and

accountability. for claims processing, a c.r. is less than optimal. a government shutdown could be catastrophic. the current backlog of v.a. claims stands at 435,000 and improvement over the high watermark of 632,000 just six months ago. but the strides v.a. has made in addressing the backlog problem will suffer a severe setback under a government shutdown. clearly, the v.a. processes 5,500 to 6,000 claims a day, a massive improvement in productivity that would be stopped in its tracks by government shutdown. the longer the shutdown, the more severe the impact. think of a fender bender in the

middle of a busy freeway. traffic behind the accident backs up quickly, and the backup extends farther and farther as cars pile up behind it. once the tars are towed away, the backup does not magically disappear. it takes time for traffic to return to normal. the same holds true for an interruption in v.a. claims processing. the v.a. estimates that for every week that claims processing would be halted under a government shutdown, it would lose a month of progress in processing claims. our nation, our vets, cannot afford this delay. claims processing would not be the only v.a. program imperilled by a government shutdown. if the government shuts down, funding for payment of mandatory v.a. compensation, pension,

and education benefits would run out by the end of october, denying a life line of support to thousands of vets. for anyone who cares about america's vets, the notion of forcing a government shutdown is unthinkable. mr. president, passage of a clean c.r. through november 15 is imperative to give congress time to negotiate a way forward to fund government operations, agency through 2014. my subcommittee also funds the defense department's military construction program. a government shutdown would have a serious consequence in this area. the furloughing of civilian personnel overseeing construction contracts could not only disrupt and delay ongoing

projects, but it could -- but could protect contract interruption and increase project costs. a c.r. prevents new starts so regardless of the level of funding, new milcon projects could be undertaken in 2014 under a c.r. a c.r. government shutdown would bring these mil -- the mil con programs a -- screeching halt. without any extraneous riders or political histrionics. there is a time and place for everything. the place for political statements is elsewhere. the time for keeping the government operating until a comprehensive appropriations bill can be crafted is here. i urge my colleagues to support the clean c.r. pending before

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

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm sorry that we're going to have to vote tomorrow and not today. the house is waiting for us to do something, finish this, but we have two senators who won't allow us to do that. we've established that an hour or two ago. that's unfortunate. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on friday, september 27, the time until 12:10 being equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the motion to invoke cloture on h.j. res. 59, that time from 12:10 until 12:30 be reserved for the leaders with the final 10 minutes under my control, at 12:30 the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on h.j. res. 59, if cloture is invoked, all time be yielded

back, the pending reid amendment be withdrawn, and the overnight be recognized to make a motion to waive applicable budget points of order, that if a motion to waive is agreed to the senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment number 1974, that on disposition of the reid amendment the joint resolution be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution as amended if amended. finally, that all after the first vote in the sequence of votes be ten minutes and two minutes equally divided between the votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without any objection, it is so ordered. mr. reid: this agreement means we'll have four votes tomorrow beginning about 1:30. cloture on h.j. res. 59, motion to waive budget points of order, amendment number 1974 on passage of h.j. res. 59 as amended if amended. i think we'll come in tomorrow about 9:30 and the time will be

allocated from that time until 12:10. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska is recognized. mrs. fischer: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today on behalf of the millions of middle-class families across america who feel

like they have been left behind. too many of these people are decent, hardworking folks who are unemployed or underemployed. too many have adult children stuck living at home because despite graduating from college, they're struggling to find work. and now because of obamacare, these same young adults, many of whom are older than 26, will be forced to pay more taxes or purchase costly government-defined health insurance. in spite of the administration's best salesmanship, the law remains extremely unpopular. a poll conducted by the omaha world herald last fall showed 55% of registered voters still favored the full repeal of obamacare. recent national polls indicate a similar disapproval rating for the law all across the country.

part of the reason for the public's continued opposition is the harm that obamacare is causing our economy. let me share a story of one woman, a small business owner named ilene marison. i had the pleasure of meeting ilene in august when i was traveling my state, and i visited with her in papillon, nebraska. the family owns and operates two men and a truck. those are franchises in omaha and lincoln, nebraska. they have 30 employees in lincoln. they have 76 in omaha. the marisons provide paychecks for local families and earned respect of the communities. ilene marison, the matriarch of the family, presently offers health insurance to full-time employees, 36 individuals

working 35 to 40 hours per week. and she foots more than half the cost of that coverage. since obamacare changes the definition of a full-time employee lowering the threshold from 30 hours per week from 40 hours, ilene now employs 76 full-time equivalents triggering the employer mandate. now she must offer affordable coverage as defined by obamacare. she has to offer that to all her employees working 30 hours or more. ilene has been taking care of her employees for years, and she wants to continue to do so. however, obamacare's mandate is now placing additional burdens on this family business, requiring ilene to make tough decisions or incur those harmful

costs. i received thousands of phone calls, e-mails and letters echoing ilene's concerns and urging me to repeal all or pieces of the law. another constituent, 61-year-old retired schoolteacher from beatrice, nebraska, recently wrote me to share that he had just received a letter from his insurance carrier. the news was that premiums were set to spike 60% to $939 a month. that is half of his monthly pension check. he says, "we are dismayed and disappointed." another nebraskan, roger from hardington, nebraska, wrote, "i just wanted to let you know i got my letter from blue cross of nebraska. my premium went up $160 per month, and my total

out-of-pocket risk increased from $5,000 to $12,700." roger continued, "on the positive side, my menopausal wife and i now have maternity, drug, alcohol, pediatric, dental and vision care. president obama promised our costs would go down and we could keep our insurance if we liked it. i liked my old plan. i want it back." you know, we no longer have to rely on these testamonials to prove that obamacare is driving up the price of insurance premiums. yesterday the federal department of health and human services released its long-awaited report on obamacare premium prices offered on the exchanges. the numbers for nebraska proved that premiums will rise dramatically.

in its analysis of the data, forbes magazine published an article noting there was a 279% increase when comparing the cheapest plans offered to nebraska men. for nebraska women, there was a 227% increase when comparing the cheapest plans. that's more than triple the current rate. those numbers, mr. president, are absolutely staggering. the average premium for a 27-year-old for the most basic plan, the bronze plan, is $159 before tax credits. currently that same 27-year-old, he can find a premium for $68 in nebraska. so we're looking at a significant increase in cost. based on a manhattan institute

analysis of the report -- quote -- "obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97% to 99%, and for younger women by an average of 55% to 62%." despite these high rates, the plans include fewer in-network doctors and hospitals than current plans. and many of those lowest-cost plans will likely carry high deductibles. one insurer found that -- quote -- "for the cheapest bronze plans, the average deductible was $5,000. now how is that possibly affordable? in august the administration announced another major delay, this time to the part of the health care law limiting patients out-of-pocket expenses. rather than capping costs for individuals and families as required by the law, the delay

of this key provision guarantees obamacare will be anything but affordable. of course there are many other problems with the law beyond the increases in premiums, which is why i have been promoting the complete repeal of the law, and i support defunding it. for example, there are serious concerns about possible identity theft for those participating in the new health exchanges. why? because the administration failed to independently test the security for its federal data services hub which will store huge amounts of people's private personal information. the report released by the department of health and human services inspectors general stated that -- quote -- "several critical tasks remain to be completed in such a short period

of time such as final independent testing of the hub security controls, remediating security vulnerabilities identified during testing and obtaining the security authorization decision for the hub before opening the exchanges. the administration has until this tuesday to complete these critical tasks. i for one remain skeptical that these tasks will be completed in time. opening up security risks for individuals who do participate in the exchanges. just today the administration tactically admitted once again that obamacare is not ready for prime time when it announced another delay. this time postponing online

enrollment in some of the small business exchanges scheduled to open on tuesday. the irony, of course, is that news of this latest delay broke as the president was delivering a speech criticizing republicans for their effort to defund or delay the law altogether. it seems reasonable to ask, where's the delay for the american people? where's the delay for middle-class citizens like the 61-year-old retired teacher from beatrice, nebraska? is that really an extreme position? i certainly don't think so. in short, this law remains fatally flawed. the american people deserve better than selective delays,

unfair treatment and broken promises. for me, the fight over obamacare is nothing to do with politics or with ideology. it has to do with standing up for small business owners like ilene marison. it's about standing up for middle-class families who aren't asking government for a hand up. they're just asking that government stop holding them down. we are a country that looks to build a brighter future for our people. we are a country who looks to help and lift up people. this is -- this is what america is all about.

it's about giving voice to millions of americans, those middle-class families who are feeling left behind, who would rather have the federal government focusing on ways to create jobs so that they can bring home a decent paycheck. let me be perfectly clear, i have no intention of standing down in this fight. it's why i was sent here. it's what nebraskans expect from me. and it's the only way -- it is the only way that we will ever be able to turn our economy around and build that brighter future for all americans. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. more than more -- mr. moran: i come here with no notes hopefully able to convey my feelings from the heart, from the brain about the task that we are about. and while we've been focused so much on the affordable care act -- obamacare -- and rightfully so -- i consider it one of the most damaging pieces of legislation ever to pass a congress and be signed by a president -- i want to start by at least pointing out something that's receiving, in my view, inadequate attention. we are back on the senate floor with a continuing resolution. it's almost as if passing a continuing resolution has

become -- it has become the norm. it's almost as if it's become a way of life. i have the privilege of serving on the appropriations committee. the task that we have, while i would consider a very basic task, is to pass a budget. this is the first time the senate in three, almost four years has passed a budget. the house has passed a budget, yet no reconciliation. no effort to conference -- i guess no success in the effort to conference that bill. so we have no budget framework to go by. and then the other requirement -- again, one that ought to be so basic to the ability of americans to be governed by an elected congress -- is then to pass aeption pros bills within that -- pass appropriations bills within that budgetary framework. we're here almost on september 30, and i would remind my colleagues that not one appropriation bill out of the 13

appropriation bills that should be passed by september 30 has passed the united states senate. and so it seems to me important to highlight the fact that this place, once again, is failing to do its job. not one appropriation bill out of 13 -- and why is that important? passing a continuing resolution, if we just do that at will, what it means is that the appropriations committee in the united states senate on behalf of the united states people are never required to prioritize our spending. we just -- does anyone not think that the priorities of this congress should have changed from last year to this year? have things not changed in our country in which, if we were doing our work, we would decide how much money each program should receive based upon its effectiveness, its efficiency, its -- whether or not it is a proper role for the federal government, the changing nature,

economy, and environment of our country? and yet, no, one more time we're here to pass a continuing resolution. and the the thing that troubles me perhaps the most about this topic, it is just a given. we're not complaining about the passage of a continuing resolution. we are focused on a very significant provision in that continuing resolution that very well may be removed tomorrow when the is that the acts. -- when the senate acts. the appropriations committee needs to work, just as if we always raise the debt ceiling every time the debt ceiling is met, if we always agree to raise the debt ceiling, what's the effect of a debt ceiling? if we always eve every yier yeaa continuing resolution, why have an aeptioan appropriations procw

the american taxpayers' money is spent? it is just happening as if it is of no consequence. i want the appropriations process to work. i want to eliminate funding for some programs that aren't our business. the federal government should have never been involved in in the first place. i want us to establish the amount of money that we ca we cn afford to spend within the federal agencies and departments. and it may be true that there may be som some things that we t to spend more money ofnl the primary responsibility of the federal government is to defend our country and what we do with regard to defense spending has a huge consequence upon our ability to fulfill that constitutional responsibility. we take on too many things here to deal with. i've always viewed -- i've always believed the stliew if the 10th amendment to the constitution had ever been enforced in the way that i or most kansans would consider its words to mean, that our federal

government and our lives lives e importantly, our lives would be so much different in the united states. the 10th amendment says all those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are hereby granted to the states and the people. and yet government continues to grow and we have an appropriations process that's failed to do anything about cushing that spending. -- about curbing that spending. now, the issue that is front and center is the president's health care reform measure that passed a few years ago. it is being implemented october 1. many of its provisions, they kick in, become viable, and the american people will begin to feel the consequences, even more so than they have to date. there is no question but what the affordable care act -- as i said earlier, it is the most damaging piece of legislation certainly passed in my time in congress. not a surprise, i voted against it. perhaps not a sprierks surprisi

offered the first legislation to repeal the affordable care act after it was passed. it's often -- the house is often criticized for time and time again passing legislation to repeal or defund the affordable care act. and yet if you believe that it's so damaging to the country, isn't that our responsibility, to do everything within our power to change the policies of washington, d.c.,? and so, we have before us tomorrow the opportunity to defund the affordable care act. the vote -- those who count votes around here say that's not going to happen, it is a lost cause. but it is important for us to do everything we can to make certain that the consequences that are so damaging to america and to americans are avoided. for most of my time in the house of representatives and now in the united states senate, i've chaired the rural health care coalition. i care about the access to

health care by citizens across our country who happen to live in rural or core centers of cities, the urban areas of our country, high medicaid populations, high medicare populations. yet i have no doubt that with the passage and implementation of the affordable care act, hospitals who serve rural communities will be greatly damaged and we will lose many hospitals. when you lose a hospital, you lose a doctor, you lose the farm circumstance you may lose the -- you lose the pharmacy, you may lose the assistive living center. people who paid all their lives to medicare and medicaid, and yet because they choose to live in a rural community, the chances of them being aiblg to access the health care that to a large degree they paid for disappears. it seems to me, that the stories that have been told on the senate floor -- and i listeninged to the senato -- and to the senator from nebraska

describing the problems created by the affordable care act. we all have those problems. i have no doubt that democrats hear the same stories that republicans hear. and yet we can't seem to be responsible enough to make the changes. we will have the opportunity to repeal, to defund, i guess it the better way of saying, the affordable care act. and we ought to do it. the focus today and yesterday and the day before has been on the strategy of how to do that. the reality -- that's pretty irrelevant, the over-the-all scheme of things of how we do it. we ought to get it done. we ought to be expecting my democratic colleagues to be just as helpful to try to change, defund, repeal, alter the affordable care act on behalf of our country. the focus ought not just be on how we do it among republicans; it ought to be questioning my colleagues about whether they're willing to step forward and

admit there are problems with legislation that they supported. it's not just a democrat problem. i remember dealings that i voted -- i remember legislation that i voted against that was supported by republicans. i was on the losing side, a very small minority. i spent my next few years trying to get it amended. no one likes to admit that when they vote for a bill that it's a problem. but who would be surprised? what american would not think -- americans have great common sense and judgment -- what american wouldn't think that a passage of a bill with thousands of pages late at night by the slimmest of margins with no bipartisan support wouldn't have some problems that need to be addressed? and i talked about how our process here is dysfunctional when it comes to the appropriations process. i heard colleagues earlier this afternoon saying that we ought to work together and that we come to the floor and offer

amendments. here's a problem: there will be no opportunity for any amendment to be offered other than the amendment offered by the majorit the majority lea. so we're saying that we could cooperate to maybe find some solutions to the problems that come from the affordable care act. but oh, by the way, the only amendment that's only going to be made in order is changing the date of the continuing resolution, its conclusion, and removing the provision that repeals -- or that provides for no funding for obamacare. this is one of the most important votes that i will ever face or one of the most important issues is probably a better wai way of saying it, asa member of the united states senate. how we deal with the health care of millions of americans has a huge consequence -- economic, their health, their well-being, their family, their ability to get a job. and yet we are going to dispense with this issue in a matter of

minutes tomorrow with one vote on an amendment to remove the defunding of the affordable care act. wouldn't the senate and wouldn't america be better-served if we were given the opportunity -- again, if there are senators on the democratic side who agree that there are problems, aren't there issues that we could raise that would allow us to have a debate and a vote and determine where we could find some way to get rid of the ominous, threatening nature of the affordable care act? the senator from nebraska talked about her examples. it just time and time again the amount of money that the affordable care act is going to cost, the premiums going up. we've seen the numbers that just have been released for my state of kansas. significant increases in the premiums for anyone who is participating in the exchange. i've talked to business folks

folksment, again, stories -- i'm slrn a rural kansan. i care a lot about rural america. where i come from, whether or not there is a grocery store in town determines in many ways the future of the economy. many of my urban colleagues, they have their issues and don't necessarily understand what happens in a rural community if you lose a grocery store. but the conversation with the grocer just within the last month or so was the neighboring town is losing its grocery store. they asked me to come in and buy it. i've looked it. i could make money. i could save the grocery store, but i'm not going do that because that would put me over 50 employees and the affordable care act would kick in. talked to a competitor across the street. they decided to quit competing in one assess of their business and share employees so that you now work part-time at one business and work for the competitor the other pave half o-- theother half of the day.

educators, our teachers, our schooschool superintendents -- d something very difficult in education across our country. state legislators struggle with their budgets and yet the amount of money necessary to comply with the affordable care act means there's going to be less professionals in classrooms assisting children with disabilities because they can no longer afford to have a full-time employee and provide their health care. this legislation is damaging to the country. it is damaging to our country's future. it is damaging to the american people. it reduces the opportunity that i believe americans have always had to get the best health care among countries in the world. the affordable care act, obamacare, needs to be defunded.

i would say to my republican colleagues, we then have a responsibility to have a conclusion, a plan. our health care system is not perfect. we have the opportunity to present better ideas, but that can't happen in a senate that doesn't allow an amendment to a bill that deals with health care because of the house amendment. we won't have the opportunity to present our ideas or amendments that will make a dips. now, you could say, well, this isn't the place. the continuing resolution is not the place to have a debate about health care and how to replace the affordable care act. okay. i ask my colleagues, the leaders of the senate, when is? when is the last time we've had a bill on the floor that would give us the opportunity t to ofr an amendment to have a debate, to offer ideas about how to fix health care? hasn't happened. and i would predict based upon the senate's schedule in the time that i've been here, we're not going to have that opportunities. -- that opportunity.

we ought to, as republicans -- we ought to as senators -- it doesn't have to be partisan. there ought to be commonsense solutions. there are. its not that it ought to be. there is. we all have ideas about thousand fix our health care system as it was before the passage of the affordable care act, and we need to defund the affordable care act to give us a chance to go back and do it right, do it better. and again i would encourage my colleagues, the next time we have the opportunity -- and perhaps that will -- i hope this is not true, but perhaps it is only true if we have senators who are different than the senators we have here. one would think, regardless of your party affiliation, a united states senator ought to be willing to deal with this most significant issue to the lives of americans. doesn't matter your party affiliation. you care about people. well, in this senate, parntsly y if the vote counters are right, and no democrat will vote to

defund obamacare, then there is no opportunity for us in future to put our ideas, their ideas, all of our ideas on the floor for consideration by senators and by the american people. common sense tells us that you would fix the health care system a piece at a time, and you'd do it with common sense and free market principles that would create a greater opportunity for more americans to be able to aforward health care. health care is expense -- expensive, health care insurance is expensive. it affects people and their lives, it affects them in their jobs on a daily basis. but, no, we're going to cast one vote that gives us no opportunity to solve, to address, to deal with piece by piece the broken system that now affordable health care act provides us. the implementation of this act has been a disaster. no one can objectively look at

what has transpired and think this is the way it should be done. no one can look at the consequences of the affordable care act and say, this is a great thing, it's perfect, we don't want to make any changes. every republican tomorrow will vote to fund, at least if the prognosticators are true -- i expect that to be the case -- every republican will vote to defund at fordable care act. we are united in that. we need colleagues from the other side of the aisle to join us in the effort to make sure that americans have the access to affordable health care and that the federal government operates within the limits of the constitution in providing the environment in which that occurs. these are serious issues. the affordable care act needs to be defunded and the senate needs to operate in a way that then allows all of us to come together with -- in that manner that allows us to help americans better afford health care for themselves and their families.

this system is broken. the senate doesn't function right. mostly what i know about the -- what i knew about the senate before i came here was what i read in history and this place does not work the way it has for centuries during americans' -- during the life of our country. mr. president, the issues that we face are serious. it's not about politics. it's not about posturing. it's about whether every american is going to have the ability with the affordable care act to take care of themselves and their families in the way that they want to. promise as that were made, easily forgotten, apparently, certainly not kept. you'll be able to keep your health care if you want it, your insurance. i've seen so much evidence to the contrary. your premiums won't go up. we know that's not true. time and time again the promise as that were made -- the promises that were made about at fordable care act are -- about

the affordable care act are broken and yet there's no will on the part of the united states senate to change the course that we're on. it's time to ad admit it was a mistake. it's time admit the bill is significantly flawed. it's time to admit the federal government is involved in issues that are not well-handled by the federal ghoft one broad sweep -- federal government in one broad sweep. time to add miss that not a one-size-solution fits all problems. that not everyone in the united states is the same. that my colleagues who come from other places are different and their constituents are different and their health care delivery system is different than in the my home state of kansas. i would make the appeal on behalf of most of kansans to give us the chance to set the record straight, to do it right, to begin again. i ask my colleagues tomorrow to vote to defund the affordable care act. it's time for obamacare to come to a conclusion. mr. president, i yield the

floor.. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. a senator: i rise to speak on an amendment i filed to house joint resolution 59, the continuing resolution. it's a pretty simple amendment. mr. johnson: it simply prohibits that funds be used for government contribution for the health insurance of members of congress and staffs under obamacare. now, you might ask, well, why -- why would i, as a former employer, want to prevent an employer from contributing to health plans for -- for members of congress and their staffs? well, it's the simple reason is because of -- because of the passage of obamacare, it expressly prohibited funds from being contributed by the federal government to members of congress and their staffs' health care plan. i do not believe the president has any legal authority and i certainly do not believe the office of personnel management has the authority to circumvent

the -- the affordable health care act. now, i am exactly onboard with senator moran in certainly wishing that we could repeal the health care law in its entirety, that we could defund it, that we could do anything we could to limit the damage, but the fact of the matter is it is the law of the land and we need to respect the law of the land. and as i have looked through the legislative history of the passage of the patient protection and affordable care act, it seems very clear of what the intent of congress was. back on september 29, 2009, as this was being debated in the senate finance committee, senator grassley offered an amendment that was adopted without objection that would require members of congress and their staffs to -- i quote -- "use their employer contribution to purchase coverage through a state-based exchange rather than using the traditional selection of plans offered through the federal employees' health benefit plan." again, that amendment was

adopted without objection. apparently, members of congress at that point in time thought that the state-based exchanges were going to offer such fabulous health care that they wanted to make sure that members of congress and their staff could avail themselves of that opportunity. so on october 19, 2009, that grassley provision was incorporated into the finance committee's americans healthy future act. but there was an addition to that -- that amendment made that basically provided for an employer contribution. it says, section bii says the employer contribution may be made directly to the exchange for the payment of an offeror. so at that point in time, it was the express will of congress that the employer, the federal government, could actually contribute to the health care plan purchased through the exchange. the problem arises, however, that when senator reid actually

offered the language for the patient protection and affordable care act on november 18, 2009, it specifically said that only health care plans that the federal government may make available to members of congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a member of congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are, one, created under this act or an amendment made by this act; or, two, offered through an exchange established under this act or an amendment made by this act. there was absolutely no provision made whatsoever for an -- for an employer contribution to those health care plans. on december 24, 2009, christmas eve, the senate passed that bill without any language, making no provision for an employer contribution to those plans purchased through an exchange. it was passed on purity party lines, 60- -- pure party lines, 60-40. on march 21, 2010, the house

passed the exact same legislation but then there was a debate in terms of reconciliation and senator grassley once again offered an amendment that would have provided an employer contribution to those plans purchased through the exchange. it was explicitly stated that that employer contribution could be made, but that amendment was voted down. it was vote down by a vote of 56-43. all but three democrat senators voted "no." and in the end, the health care law was passed, that reconciliation was passed on march 25, 2010. now, what happened recently, on july 31, 2013, president obama came over here to the hill and met with democratic senators, because as nancy pelosi stated that we have to pass this health care law before we can figure

out what's in it -- before we know what's in it, well, once senators found out what was in it, that they were going to have to purchase their health care through an exchange and that the federal government could not make any payment for those health care plans, they panicked and they asked president obama to, please, correct that. and so president obama heard their plea and directed his office of personnel management to propose a rule that would allow the federal government to pay or make a contribution to those state-based exchanges -- exchange plans. now, i would argue that the o.p.m., president obama has no legal authority whatsoever to make those contributions, which is the purpose of my amendment. there will be millions of americans that will lose their employer-sponsored care for various reasons but because of the passage of the healt healthe law. once they've lost that coverage, every other american will have

to purchase insurance either on the open market or through a state-based or federal exchange. their employers will be barred, they will not have the opportunity to make an employer contribution to help pay for those health care plans. the only way a normal american gets to have any subsidy in those exchanges is if their income qualifies them for a subsidy under the affordable health care act. the only americans that now, because of this o.p.m. ruling, that will actually have their employer be able to make a contribution are members of congress and their staff. that is simply wrong, that a special treatment -- that is special treatment. it really should not stand. so my amendment basically acknowledges that this is the law of the land, that president obama, the office of personnel management has no legal authority to make that contribution and so it simply prohibits funds to be used for a government contribution for the health insurance of members of congress and their staffs under

obamacare should be prohibited. with that, i yield the floor. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise today to stus the house-passed continuing resolution now pending before the senate? once again the senate is considering a last-minute continuing resolution rather than regular order appropriation bills. handling the annual appropriation bills process in this way is a bad deal for the american people and it's a deal that we have gone through for the last four years now without passing appropriation bills and having to deal with a continuing resolution or an omnibus, which is simply a terrible way to run this government. congress should be passing appropriation bills in regular order instead of waiting until the 11th hour. and i know the chairman of the

appropriations bill and the ranking member are very much in favor of doing that and are ready to come to the floor to do that, but yet once again we're seeing the majority leader not let them come to the floor with those bills. this only creates uncertainty in the financial market and hampers america's economic recovery. unless we come to an agreement, the government's going to shut down monday night because congress failed to pass a bill that would fund the government for only a few months. and to what end? we'll find ourselves back in this position in either november or december, when we will have to pass yet another continuing resolution. this is a foolish way to run the united states government. i was here in 1995 during the last government shutdown. it cast a pall on the american people, seeded distrust of government and unnecessarily harmed our economy. it was not a pretty sight from either a political standpoint on either side of the aisle or from

the standpoint of the american people or the government employees. no one wins when the government is shut down, least of all the american people. we're all aware of the issues that have thus far slowed down the progress of this bill. while there may be differences of opinion on our side of the aisle about tactics, let me tell you -- let there be no doubt that we are all unified in believing that obamacare should be stopped and should be defunded. i was here on this floor a few years back when we fought tooth and nail to stop passage of obamacare. i believed it to be the worst piece of legislation that i had seen in my now going on 19 years of serving in the united states congress, and it still is the worst piece of legislation and the most damaging piece of legislation to the american people that i've seen in those 19 years. as the october 1 enrollment date nears, president obama's signature law continues to face

several significant problems. employers are cutting jobs and slashing employees' hours. businesses and labor unions are unhappy and want to be exempted from the law. families are confused, and premiums, insurance premiums, to people who can't afford it in the first place are now skyrocketing. in my home state of georgia alone, our insurance commissioner has warned us that we could see premium increases as high as 198% on middle-income families. other states have reported similar increases. so it's no surprise that a majority of americans believe that obamacare should be repealed and should be replaced. i remain as committed as ever to dismantle and denumbered law before it has a -- demember this law before it has a chance to further damage our economy and replace it with a meaningful reform of our health care system. the continuing resolution

delivered by the house of representatives to the senate funds the government while defunding obamacare. it's what the american people want and it's a bill that i support. i will oppose any attempt by majority leader reid to strip defunding language from this bill. however, while i believe obamacare is a serious threat to the future of our nation's economy, allowing a prolonged government shutdown would be counterproductive. my priority has always been the well-being of georgians as well as the american people and i cannot support a strategy that could cause americans to suffer unnecessarily. further harm to our already fragile economy is not a course we should pursue, nor should it be a price that our friends on the other side of the aisle are willing to pay just to uphold the president's signature law. this fight is long from over. it's something that republicans have been fighting since 2009 since we first tried to stop

obamacare from becoming law. i am grateful that this debate has brought the problems with this law back into the spotlight and look forward to repealing and replacing this law at the end of the day. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. i encourage my colleagues to stick around. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, a lot has been said in the last few days. i guess the issue is not everybody said it. i'm not sure that two people have been closer to the progress

and the process of the affordable care act than dr. tom coburn and myself. we were in it in committee, along with other members. the fact that i'm not embracing a strategy to threaten to close down the government is real important. it's because at the end of the day, you open the government and the way that the statute is there, the affordable care act is still there. i didn't come to washington to embrace strategies that don't achieve solutions. i came here to find solutions to big issues so the next generation can benefit from it. now, don't misunderstand me. there is no bigger critic in washington, d.c., than the senator from north carolina. as a matter of fact, in the committee, i counted 58 votes on 58 times of amendments we voted to kill the health care bill.

i think my record stands for being opposed to this legislation. senator coburn and i have introduced more health care proposals than the rest of the congress combined. options, replacements. we've stood on this floor hour after hour here on the affordable care act and shared with the american people why this was a bad move. we've quoted individuals who have headed the centers for medicare and medicaid services. their chief actuary who told us before we passed that bill in this body that this will close community hospitals, it will increase premiums, it will deprive people of health care but the congress of the united states and the president of the united states signed this law into statute, and there is only one way, once there is a law in statute, and that's to pass a

bill, it's signed by a president, that reverses that. so to some degree, this is 101 civics. it's an understanding of the legislative process. it wasn't the first time i disagreed with something this body had done, and let me assure you, it won't be the last thing, but i also understand the way that we change this, and it's not the way we're attempting to do it right now. so what have we seen in the short period that we have gone through as we have moved up to october 1 and these new exchanges being rolled out? we have seen premiums go up. we have seen doctors retire. we have seen health care professionals move from rural america to urban. we have seen the health care infrastructure scared to death of what's around the corner. we have seen premiums rise. boy, if there is anything that's wrong, it's the title of this bill, the affordable care act. we have made health care less affordable for more americans. let me say it again.

this act has made health care less affordable for more americans. it's tripled at a minimum the cost of a health care premium for somebody 30 years or under. tripled at a minimum. a group that is targeted for enrollment in this, and they wouldn't enroll in the premium was a third of the cost it is today. now, we've heard people say that members of congress are trying to protect their own subsidy. members of congress aren't going to take the subsidy. we may pass legislation, but at the end of the day, the public pressure will be such that nobody will take the subsidy. but if we're going to treat federal workers one way, then treat all of them the same way. don't pick and choose who, the ones that work on the hill, the ones that work in our offices, not the ones that are in committees, not the ones that work at the f.d.a. or the e.p.a. or wherever. let's -- let's include

everybody. if you want an exchange to work, then you have got to enroll as many people and you have got to have robust competition. well, the way this is set up, we're going to have low enrollment, and the way that insurers have responded to the exchanges, in my state, we have got one insurer that has entered the exchange to insure the entire state and one insurer that is representing ten counties out of 100. that's not competition. it's almost a monopoly, and i don't blame the one that's in by themselves. i blame what we designed, where we didn't empower states to actually design things that fit their health care infrastructure in their state, where individuals couldn't buy insurance based upon their age and their income and their health condition. we said no, if you don't buy this plan, then you're going to pay a penalty. we have heard a lot of debate about the process, but we haven't heard as much debate

about the specifics of this legislation. it's bad for the american people. and regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's vote, this legislation is still going to be in statute. it's still going to be implemented on october 1. i hope all the thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who have responded to the request to call, and they haven't always known why, except they don't like this health care plan, when tomorrow's vote is over, don't go away. the pressure has got to be on this institution to make the changes. most americans don't know that we're going to start taxing our -- we're already taxing the manufacturers of medical devices 1.5%. they pay a surcharge to fund obamacare. we're going to charge in the

exchanges 2.3%, i believe, health insurance premium tax for every person that purchases health insurance. now, you have got to ask yourself, if we're going to tax devices and we're going to tax the insurance premiums, how in the world can the price of health care go down? it can't. this is common sense and math matched up. it has to force health care costs up. and that's, in fact, what every american's seeing. even your employer insurance, if you're lucky enough to still have an employer that's providing it, your health care premium is going up next year. if you're in an exchange, your premium cost is going up next year. who did it benefit? it benefited individuals that maybe had preexisting conditions and they couldn't purchase insurance. and you know what the first act of the affordable care act was? it was to create a national pool of individuals with preexisting conditions, and they would all be offered insurance, and what happened when about 20-some

percent of them gotten rolled. the fund ran out of money, and the one population that this bill was sold to protect, almost 80% of them were left out in the cold with no options. it has failed since the first step. and what i hope is that the american people won't leave this debate and say we've done our best. we haven't done our best. the nation is betting on us to continue on this. our children deserve whatever it takes for us to accomplish it. but as i started, let me say to the body our strategy to get there was flawed. i know it sounded good. but it doesn't work. the only way to eliminate the

bill is in statute, is to pass a bill and are have it signed by a president that reverses that statute. i'm glad we've had this debate. i'm glad the american people are now engaged in it. i don't think this will be the last discussion we'll have on the affordable care act and i will assure you like i have been before, i will be again on this floor debating my colleagues as aggressively and fairly as i can about what's wrong with this bill and why it should be reversed and why it should be replaced. i thank the president, i thank my colleague from alaska. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: thank you very much. to my colleague from north carolina, thank you very much and thank you for the part about explaining the process here. some people think by tomorrow if there is a vote on defunding, suddenly something happens so

thank you for pointing out the issue of the statute and we i agree on the total picture but i presented lots of ideas on how to fix the health care act. i'm willing to work on that as we pass by tomorrow. thank you for your comments on that. mr. president, i rise today as we are here today, i know the last 24, actually 48 hours or longer we've been talking about a lot of issues, predominantly about health care and i can read all kinds of stories, people have called me like the 50-year-old male who -- rural alaska, who is self-employed, had lung cancer. today because of the ability to get in the high-risk pool he now is living a good life, healthier, and running his business. i can go through all kinds of stories but i don't want us to forget the big issue that is facing us come monday, or

tuesday, really, and that's the risk of a government shutdown and what that means. we can talk about health care for a long time, we will for generations, they've done it for generations before i even got here. so we need to focus on the big issue that faces us and that's this shutdown that's potentially in front of us. the inability for congress to pass a budget, pass an annual appropriations bills address these harmful automatic budget cuts known as sequester because of truly political brinksmanship is honestly shameful, not what i came here for and when the budget passed here, i didn't vote for it, but it passed, the house has a budget, it passed, but now for some reason we can't get people from the minority to sit down and let us move to a conference committee to figure this out. to me it's preations. it's -- amazing. it's a simple thing.

i mean for the time i've been here for three years at minimum, we've been hearing that there's no budget passed. there is one passed, again, i didn't vote for the one that passed here, it had too much taxes, but it did pass. let's get on with the conference committee and figure it out. i know the presiding officer, my colleague from montana that's here also, we were on the appropriations committee, we passed our appropriations bills out of committee and most passed in some form of bipartisanship. not 100%, but in some form. now, bringing those forward would be helpful. it would help us do the job we're sent here to do on an annual basis and that's get our budgets moving forward. i came here to get the job done. i came here to represent alaska, i didn't come here to participate in this back and forth and showmanship that has to go on in order for someone to get some highlight on tv or be able to get some byline on tv or whatever it might be. these games that are being

played and played out here on the senate floor in front of the public is affecting our national security and homeland security. think about it. what is it like for a federal employee today, as they watch these shenanigans that go on? if you're one of the 5,000 dedicated department of defense employees in alaska you didn't get paid for six days already this year because of sequestration. now you're wondering if you're going to get a paycheck on time or face more furloughs because this institution may not be able to pass a clean continuing resolution. for those watching, a continuing resolution that says the budget we have we're going to continue for a short time while we get our appropriations bills to the floor so we can move those forward. it's not complicated. it keeps the government running and it's the way we move this system forward but it's not the right approach. we need to have regular order to get our appropriation bills and deal with the sequestration once and for all. and don't be confused here.

i know people like to rag on the federal government and they don't like this, we're the largest service company in the country. we provide services. we don't make widgets, we produce services, we build roads, we're out there taking care of forest fires when they're happening or we're taking care of our veterans. we're making sure we're protected in the homeland as well as across the world with our national defense. the list goes on and on. we're a service company. so as i sit here, i'm honestly stunned to think that we're on the verge again -- i don't know how many times we've been on this edge, hanging over the edge of what might happen, will we close down the government or not. i'm not here to do that. as painful as these days are and going through the process, we need to get forward. we cannot delay military members' paychecks, leaching them wondering if they get paid again or can pay their bills on time. knowing they will face the same situation again and again in a

few months. we need to finish this so we can move on to the annual department of defense bill so we can continue to fund this federal government. many of our military members are also wondering if they will be trained and ready for the missions we call them out to do. commanders can't plan training exercises right now like the red flag in alaska which is crirlg not only for our military but for our allies because they don't know how much 0 money they will have for the next fiscal year to plan for it. you can't just decide on a friday or a thursday next week we're doing a massive military mission. it takes months of planning, but you can't plan if you don't have the resources. military leaders are not only losing sleep over rogue nations like iran and north korea, they're losing sleep or not having the funds to pay their troops. we're asking the one organization that we rely on to be ready 24 hours a day, seven

days a week, 365 days a year to stay that way amidst uncertainty and potential shutdowns. we're asking its members to carry on without expecting pay or money to train. it's unrealistic, it's unreasonable and it's risky for our national security. our nation's veterans and we have 77,000 veterans in alaska, are wondering what shutdown means for their claims that they're waiting for, wondering if the process will create even lengthier delays and already unacceptably slow process. i know the presiding officer and i have worked to try to streamline this process, get these claims resolved after hundreds of delays of -- days of delay. our homeless veterans are wondering if they will be able to get the housing vouchers during the shutdown or lose them in budgets or cuts already. or if they will have to sleep on the streets after serving our country because we can't pass a continuing resolution and budget. in alaska, let me tell you what

that's like when you're in october, moving into november and december. sleeping on the streets is not a comfortable situation. sleeping on the streets, period, is not a comfortable situation but when you're in those cold situations, it's even worse. we're hurting local economies and survivalling potential job growth. $202 million of military construction will be delayed in alaska because we haven't passed an annual military construction and veterans' affairs bill. we've passed it in appropriations, and we're ready, we want to do it, but this back and forth of one week, one month, two month, continuing resolution, again delays the regular order so we can create certainty. certainty with our ability to provide services to this country but also certainly for the business community. these construction companies. in alaska you cannot just start a project in december and say we're going to start doing foundation work. it's a little cold. the ground is a little frozen.

you have to be doing this in the summer, planning for it in the spring and late winter. so for us to delay these projects, all we do is hurt the private sector. the private sector jobs that are related to it. the families that depend on this and the veterans that depend and the military that depends on these important construction projects. when it comes too late, the project is delayed, costs go up. it's not complicated. but this place here i've learned over time now it's almost like irrelevant some of these people care about it, they don't care what it costs. they don't even want to know because they know when they hear it it will be an unbelievable cost that we have to bear because of this delay and these tactics. i get it. we're not always going to agree on everything. but we have to get to compromise and solve these problems, as an appropriator, that's what we do in appropriations. not always easy, some things i want to have happen we can't

have happen. same thing on the other side. but at the end of the day we find common ground. sequestration also has hurt the coast guard. in alaska the coast guard is a lifeblood of our oceans. for our fishing industry, oil and gas industry, our recreational industry, our cruise ship industry, i go through the list. they've lost $200 million from their operating expenses because of sequestration and the inability for some people to come to the table to solve this problem. that means about 30% fewer cutters and aircraft doing things like enforcing fishing laws. and reduced presence in the arctic. they had to cut back on patrols to stop drugs coming from south america into this country. and when you think about it, that impact is significant. it spreads throughout this whole country. as the drugs come in and the job the countries go out, millions of americans are watching to see what congress does. we've created a situation where

not only are we unable to budget for this country but americans can't budget for their future. they can't even budget for the holiday season. it's unbelievable. we need to complete this work on this short-term continuing resolution and move right into our annual appropriation bills and address sequestration once and for all and finish the budget. we owe it to the american people. we owe it to them to ensure they have certainty and we owe it to our business community to make sure they know. look at last week on the market. it wasn't a slide deep but it was a slide. because -- and if you read "the wall street journal" today there is a commentary and articles in there, or last night because they weren't sure what the house was doing. because the house is playing these games back and forth. let's tie this to it, let's tie that to it. they're playing with an economy that has come back from the depths of a great recession.

now, is it a perfect economy? no. is it better? absolutely. do we have a fragile moment we need to continue to build on this? yes. i'm not sure if those folks on the other side care -- care about making sure our economy is strong. in 0 some ways i think they want it to default so we can go into an election, and say see those guys? they caused the economy to go bad so vote them out. one of my colleagues on the other side mentioned a story about alaska, i was appreciative that he recognized alaska and understood we have issues in alaska and then he mentioned three other senators and their states, all the ones to be very frank with you that are targeted by groups as the ones that most risk this election cycle. i get it. but that's not what people are here to do. if you want to have that conversation, let's go outside this building, run those ads, do whatever you want on the campaign trail, do whatever you need to do but to play these games and kind of pretend that you're doing the government's

business is really irresponsible. that's not what's going on. what's going on is picking people and trying to pigeonhole them so they can run commercial against them in campaigns. i get that but i think the american people are fed up with it. they're outraged by it. hair it every time i go back to alaska. i hear it when i talk to people around the country. we have to do the work we were sent here to do and the work here is to get our business done. now, we have set in policies -- setting policy is part of it, passing appropriation bills, we should be doing on an annual basis, doing a budget. again, we passed one out of here. i didn't support it because it had too many taxes but we passed it. the house passed it. let's get on with doing the work. every day we sit around -- and i know some sit around and say we have to do it this way, this is the only way it works, you don't understand the senate, it's complicated it. hey, life is complicated. get on with it.

the public expects us to do our job. quit using process, rules, and gobbledygook to try to get away from your responsibility here. it is time that we sit down and deal with it. ened you know what? there will be some in my party that there will be in their party that guess what, aren't going to get what they want. that's the way it works. you compromise, you find your balance, and you move forward. you don't sit around here and you try to get 100% -- i'd love 100% of everything. i will try every day. but that's not how it ends up all the time. you compromise, you try to find the middle ground. that's what we should be doing here. as an appropriator, that's what i want to do. that's what i try to do on appropriations committee, what we should be doing on this floor. i hope that -- and i get it, there's a couple on each side, it happens and we saw one that said -- for 21 hours or whatever the heck it was, i get it. he's passionate, it's important to him to make his point but i

also see what else is going on. focus on our job. we're u.s. senators. we're not candidates for some other office. we're u.s. senators. we're here to do the job. it's time to get busy, do it, the american people want it, alaskans tell me every day they want us to do this. let's figure this out and get on with the show. mr. president, i yield my time. mr. president, i notice an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i'd ask the conform be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as we inch closer and closer to potentially shutting down this government, i rise to remind my colleagues what a shutdown would mean for our constituents. i also want to remind my colleagues that it doesn't have to be this way. budget battles and debt ceiling debates are the norm in congress right now. but there was a time, there was a time when both parties worked

together and the american people benefited. now, it hasn't always been rosy. the budget battles of the mid-1990's shot our government down for -- shut our government down for nearly a month. personal insults near the world's greatest deliberative body used to be common. and back in the 1850's, a senator was beaten on the senate floor. but through it all, americans trusted their government to meet its constitutional responsibility and keep the lights on. after all, if we couldn't grant filling in, at least we could agree on keeping the lights o. todao. -- lights on. today, constant political brinksmanship and grandstanding replace actual governing. mr. president, it's taking a toll on all americans and montanans are no exception. with a government shutdown once again a real possibility, america's frustration is reaching new heights. for some folks, a shutdown is

another opportunity to shake their heads and bemoan the state of affairs right here in washington, d.c. they're the lucky ones, because for others, a shutdown will hurt their health, their wallets, their bottom lines. i'm talking about a veteran, a veteran who could be anywhere in this country, whose disability case appeal could and probably will be delayed if we have a government shutdown. the senior citizen waiting for a social security check. a small business owner waiting to get potentially a contract that could fix a decaying road infrastructure. hotels and other businesses around our national parks that would be closed if we have a government shutdown also holding their breath to see what we're doing here these days. and if the parks close because of a government shutdown, the money coming in and out of the wallets of those businesses and those folks who not only drove

to the park in anticipation to be able to utilize it, but the businesses around the park would be impacted very negatively. everybody knows about the bakken plate that's driving the economic growth in north dakota and eastern montana, but if the government shuts down, the bureau of land management's permitting office would be shut down too, and that means wells would be delayed and the jobs that come with them. and since the house republicans have been unwilling to begin negotiations on a new farm bill, farmers and ranchers are going to have a lot of questions come october 1, on a day that not only will the government shut down but the farm bill will expire as well. so not only could some folks lose critical nutrition assistance, farmers and ranchers would have no place to go to get their questions answered about the fact that there's no more farm bill for commodity -- or a commodity title. no more ability to get questions answered about conservation that

needs to be planned for far ahead of time. why? because their local farm service agency office would be closed. like the other government offices, nobody's going to be there to answer the phone. in montana, washington now is shorthand for uncertainty. congress is shorthand for dysfunction. and faith in government is being eroded because some folks around here are more concerned about raising money on c-span than the people of this country and the american economy. it needs to stop. mr. president, the american people expect members of congress to make smart, responsible decisions based on the best information that we have. that means advocating for issues that matter. compromising to get something done. that means giving a little and getting a whole lot in return. it's called governing. that's a lesson some folks around here need to learn. i would have thought that flirting with a government shutdown and costing taxpayers billions of dollars in 2011

would have been sufficient enough of a lesson, or maybe coming within a few hours of falling off the so-called fiscal cliff in 2012 would have been a sufficient lesson. i would have thought that causing an unprecedented credit downgrade two years ago by threatening not to raise the debt ceiling would have knocked some sense into some folks. and i would think that the american people overwhelming desire not to shut the government down come october 1 would cause my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to use common sense. but here we are playing politics once again as regular americans twist in the wind. there is a way forward, mr. president, and it doesn't have to start with political games at the 11th hour. it starts with working through the regular budgets and appropriations process and not proposing amendments just to slow the process down. funding the government is the easy part. in less than a month, we once again will be reaching a debt

ceiling, a much more serious issue. if we don't raise it before then, we won't be able to pay our bills, the economy will be devastated. crashing into the debt ceiling will cause our credit rating to drop, increase our interest rates not only on our government debt but for anybody who has debt. if you don't believe a farmer from big sandy, montana, maybe believe a guy by the name of mark zandi, an economist who's advised companies and presidents and fortune 500 companies. it will force businesses to stop hiring, he says, raise borrowing costs for average americans. he's far from alone. former republican senator judd gregg says failing to pay our bills would lead to job losses and more debt because failing to raise the debt ceiling, a terrible policy, would produce difficult times for people on main street. senator gregg, who i had opportunity to serve with, spent 18 years here in the senate. he knows that as long as

congress fails to provide the american people with political and economic certainty by funding the government, raising the debt limit, we won't be able to tackle other important issues, like replacing the scwetiosequester that the senatm alaska talked about. replacing them with smart budget cuts. or strengthening a long-term budget that will put this nation on solid economic foot. mr. president, a government shutdown would be irresponsible and it would be unnecessary. congress needs to do its job by finding a way to responsibly keep the government running. we cannot keep holding businesses, seniors, working families, students, our military men and women hostage to the political whims and aspirations of a select few. when i was a member of the montana senate, my colleagues and i knew what we had to get done every session. passing a budget was at the top of the list. even if we didn't agree where to cut or where to spend, we worked

together to figure it out. and just like my former colleague in montana did this spring, former colleagues in montana did this spring, we passed a budget, we kept the state government running. here in washington, there's a lot of pressures that we don't face at the state level. there are news channels that give any senator a chance to get on tv and every issue has an advocacy group fighting for its share of the pie. but real leaders make tough decisions. real leaders work together to find common ground and move our nation forward. real leaders put their constituents first. it's not too late. it's not too late for us to regain the trust of the american people but it's going to take some work. we won't be able to do it right away but we ought to start this week. and we can start by responsibly funding the government, providing our economy and our nation with the confidence that they need. that's what we did in montana and that's what we need to do here in washington. the american people are calling for an toned the brinksmanship and an end to the gridlock and

it's time we start to listen to them. mr. president, i also want to thank senator mikulski, the chair of the appropriations committee, for agreeing to end the special interest provision that was included by the house of representatives in last year's government funding bill a few months ago and the one that was sent over here recently. a few years ago, the committee voluntarily agreed to -- to match the house's earmark moratorium and i think it's interesting that our friends in the house make very serious statements about the need to get rid of earmarks and then stuff a few items in the spending bill last year that directly benefited a couple of the biggest multinational businesses in this country. i spoke to chairwoman mikulski about this issue this spring and she was very gracious, listened to my concerns and i'm pleased to see that she and senator reid have eliminated one of those corporate earmarks and i want to thank them for that. it will make this bill a lot cleaner. in closing, i just to want say this.

i know there's people in this body that want to work together to make this country tall can be -- country all it can be, and i also know there's people in this body that would love to see a government shutdown because they might be able to pad their own pac's or political coffers. and maybe it would take a government shutdown to make them understand how bad this would be for the american people, its businesses, its working families. but i certainly hope that doesn't happen. the american people don't deserve it. this country doesn't deserve it as it comes out of one of the worst economic times since the 1930's. and, quite frankly, being a businessman myself, i look at what goes on in washington, d.c. and all the challenges that businesses have in this country and the biggest challenge we have right now is washington, d.c.

let's start moving the country forward by working together. let's fund the government, let's not shut it down, and let's do what's right when the debt limit debate comes around. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 196, s. 1348. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 196, s. 1348, a bill to reauthorize the congressional award act. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent the carper amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 261, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 261, designating the week beginning september 23, 2013, as national historically black colleges and universities week. the presiding officer: without

objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table, it be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 262, submitted-year-old today by senators donnelly and isakson. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 262, supporting the goals and ideals of suicide prevention awareness. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. tester: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on friday, september 27, 2013. and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of the proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two

leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of h.j. res. 59, the continuing resolution, under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: and that the filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to the joint resolution be 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: there will be up to four roll call votes at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it be adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned until friday, 27th of until friday, 27th of

as we mentioned utah senator likely objective and ask all the books take place on friday. his objection was followed by remarks from senator corker cruz and durbin. >> the majority leader. >> as i've indicated the entire week, each day that goes by, each hour that goes by each minute that goes by we are that much closer to a government shutdown. i have been told that the house needs more time to work on this. they are saying that maybe what we need is an extension with the cr. madam president the stock market

the financial community and the business roundtable the american chamber of commerce, all americans congregate 80% of the american people including 75% of republicans thinks what is going on here, and not taking care the finances of this country is absolutely wrong. there is no reason to stall this so i ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m. today at all post-cloture time be yielded back with the exception of one hour that the first 40 minutes of that hour equally divided between motion to evoke cloture and it's 20 minutes reserve for the two leaders with my having the final 10 minutes and senator mcconnell will speak before me if he so chooses. upon reading back at that time the senate will proceed to vote on emotion to both cloture on the h.j. res. 59. if the cloture isn't voted the

post-cloture time will be yielded back and the reid amendment withdrawn with john and the other amendments in order the majority leaders recognize to make a wave of budget point of order. the senate proceed to vote on the reid amendment than 1974 and upon the disposition of that amendment the joint resolution be read a third time, the senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution as amended. finally, after the first vote in the sequence both of 10 minutes and in there be two minutes equally divided between the two votes. i would just alert everyone that if we got this agreement it means we would both after four times around 7:30 this evening. the house would get the bill probably tonight or in the morning as soon as it is processed. cloture -- there would be a vote on cloture on h.j. res. 59 a motion to

waive budget point of order the amendment on the pope mikulski reid amendments 1970 warren passage of h.j. res. 59 is amended if amended. that is my request. >> madam president? >> is there objection? the senator from utah. >> reserving the right to object if we work to vote tomorrow and we have these votes tomorrow that would represent a product of waving to separate. one in connection with the motion to proceed and another in connection with the cloture on the vote, cloture on the bill vote. the american people are paying attention to this and the american people are watching this. a lot of them expected this to occur friday or saturday so i asked the question with the majority leader be willing to modify the request slightly with the same provisionprovision s in place but with the votes to occur during tomorrow's session of the senate? >> does the majority leader so modify? >> i appreciate my friend's request to modify my amendment,

i'm sorry my unanimous consent request that madam president my response to that would be reserving the right to see if i would accept that is this. everyone in america come cut everyone knows what the issues are before this body. the amendment the mikulski reid amendment will require a vote is pretty simple. it says that there will be nothing dealing with obamacare. we have changed the date to november 15 from december 15 and we have gotten rid of the paid china first. that's it. the so-called anomalies, i have met with the republican leader. staffs have gone over that. no problems with that. so this is an effort to stall and i don't know why. an effort to stall. it is absolutely unfortunate because i repeat every minute that goes by is a minute closer

to a government shutdown because when we finish this we have to to -- have the american people focus on whether or not we are going going to have a debt ceiling whether we are owing to again crash the economy as we did last time that threat came. so unless it's maybe someone thinks that they can come up with their great speaking ability tomorrow to change everything everybody in this body knows how the votes are going to go. this is going back to the house of representatives and the house of representatives have said publicly and they have said privately they are going to send something back to us. now i want to make sure that if they do that we have time to process it. stalling until tomorrow means they are not going to get it until sunday. we would try our utmost to give to them tonight, friday rather than sometime next saturday or

even maybe we could give it to them sometime on saturday. they need time and under our rule is this some kind of a subterfuge to close the government because that is what is going to happen. we are not the house of representatives. we have rules here. it will take a while for us to get places. i understand my friend from utah who says that we have two, 30 hours and then we are moving this quickly and the rules require -- madam president with the american people see here in the senate this new senate, is everything is a big, big stall. wait until tomorrow. maybe i will give this great speech and it will turn the world around. this is senseless. the american people -- how many times have you gotten the 80% of the american people

agreeing with anything? they believe this big stall is bad for the country and it is so i do not accept the modification. >> madam president. >> if there is an objection to this. if there's an objection to my request i will work it out with a republican leader is what time we are going to do this. >> is there objection? >> madam president reserving the right to object? >> the senator from utah. >> we have been willing to compromise and the offer that was made by my colleague the junior senator from texas yesterday from the floor represented a significant compromise. i believe it was the senator from nevada the majority leader who objected to a unanimous consent request made yesterday by the senator from texas to proceed with having these votes tomorrow. it still represents a significasignifica significant compromise offer that consolidates two separate 30 hour periods required by the rules. this is not an unreasonable request and moreover not understanding what it is about

having a vote tomorrow morning instead of tonight that would make a difference between being able to get something to them tomorrow if we push it out versus sunday. >> madam president? >> the majority leader. >> i want to yield to the senator from tennessee but i do want to say this. it is as obvious to me and it's obvious to me as it is to a kindergarten student. they didn't want to vote yesterday. the big speeches we heard about how if you voted for cloture you would vote to extend obamacare they turned around and voted for it. this is a dig, big charade that is not getting them where they need to go. they want to stop obamacare. they want to do everything -- they didn't even want to vote on cloture yesterday. of course they want to skip that and just go a couple of days to

settle would take longer. people are tired of talking. they want us to get something done here. the government is near the time that it will close. as i sit here this morning a woman who works their lives in boulder city nevada she and everybody that works they're afraid they're going to lose their jobs. they know what happened last time. they were laid off for 29 days and didn't get paid for it. so i yield to my friend from tennessee. >> madam president i wonder -- >> the senator from tennessee. >> if it would be appropriate if i were to ask the senator from utah a question if he would take a question? >> without objection. >> this has been a rather confusing week i know. i don't think ever in the history of the senate have we had a 21 hour filibuster and then the persons carrying out the filibuster voted for the issue they were filibustering.

i don't think that has happened in the history of our country and i just want to make sure i understand. i was just over at the house and talked to members of leadership there and they would like to get the piece of legislation from the senate over there as quickly as possible so they could respond. now, i think all of us on this side would like to see some changes to the cr, changes that we believe to be good policy and over on the house side we have the majority of republicans and i know that they would like to send back to us some changes that i think many of us would support. now in talking earlier with the senator from texas, it's my understanding that the reason you don't want to send the bill over to the house you could possibly put in place some very good policies for us here is that you won't -- you want the american people and the outside groups that you have been in contact with to be able

to watch us tomorrow. so i'm just asking the question, is it more important to the senator from texas and the senator from utah that the people around the country watched this vote or is it more important to us that we have a good policy outcome from our standpoint and actually have a body that has a majority of republicans to be able to react and sent back something of good policy? this is confusing to me because i know the leadership there wishes to be able to respond as quickly as possible but i'm understanding the reason we are waiting is you all have sent out releases and e-mails and you want everybody to be able to watch. it just doesn't seem to me that is in our nation's interest nor is it candidly in the interest of those who want to see good policy on the conservative side come out of the cr. i just wondered if you might respond to that.

>> madam president. >> the senator from texas. >> the senator from tennessee has made reference to me and i would ask unanimous concern -- unanimous consent that i would engage in colloquy with the senator from tennessee and the senator from utah. >> if there is reasonable time afterward that we are not going going to have another performance. >> for how long do the senators wish to engage in it colloquy? >> i cannot imagine it would extend beyond 10 minutes. >> is there objection to the request? without objection. >> madam president i appreciate the senator from tennessee's comments supporting the majority leader and i know the senator -- i know the senator from tennessee is learned on senate procedures and i know he must mt have made a mistake meant when moments ago he suggested that

those of us who participated in the filibuster the other day somehow changed our position in voting for the motion to proceed. the reason i know the senator from tennessee is mistaken is because during the course of that filibuster i explicitly stated i support the motion to proceed. i stated that a week before the filibuster repeatedly. i have always stated that the vote on the motion to proceed the boat on cloture motion to -- during that filibuster if we vitiate the cloture and all agreed to proceed because everyone in this chamber -- i expect the vote will be unanimous. everyone in this chamber wants to proceed to this filth. the senator from tennessee knowing the procedure knows there's a big difference between that vote on wednesday which i might note when the vote tally was down there for republicans i've put -- not only did i vote yes early

but i put my recommendation for every republican to vote yes because of course we should get on the bill. the vote tomorrow on cloture on the bill is a very different bill and they know the senator from tennessee is quite aware of that. the vote tomorrow is a vote to cut off debate on the bill and so as i said during the filibuster two days ago, as i have said for weeks it is the vote tomorrow cloture on the bill that matters because anyone voting tomorrow in favor of cloture is voting in favor of granting the majority leader the ability to fund upon the care. i know my friend from tennessee understands that so i'm sure his statement suggesting the vote on the motion to proceed meant anything other than it obviously meant i know that was a statement error. >> well, actually i appreciate this opportunity. what we have before us is a bill that defund obamacare. it's a bill that the house has

sent over so you are right. tomorrow's vote is a vote to end debate in support of exactly what the house of representatives has sent over. that is a confusing thing to a lot of folks but you are exactly right. the house has been sent over here a policy that i actually support and that is the funding of the health care bill because of the damage is creating to our country. i wish the cr number was a little lower. i wish it was set 967 instead of 988 but that is exactly right. so, we are going to beat cutting off debate on a bill that the house republicans have sent over to us so you are exactly right. that is an important vote and that is a vote in support of the house. something in the edition supporting the house with be

getting whatever we are owing to send back over to them so that they are not -- but my understanding again relative to this vote tonight happening tomorrow instead is that my two colleagues who i respect have sent out e-mails around the world that turned this into a show possibly and therefore they want people around the world to watch maybe them and others on the senate floor and that is taking priority over getting legislation back to the house so they can take action before the country's government shuts down and by the way causing them possibly to put in in place again some other good policies. i healed. >> my friend from tennessee's comments and i would note that he suggested that this is confusion -- confusing and i guess i don't think it's all that confusing. the senator from tennessee says

that a vote in favor of cloture is a vote in favor of the house bill and in favor of funding obamacare. if that's the case then the question i would pose to my friend from tennessee, y. as majority leader harry reid going to vote the same way you are proposing to both? why is every democrat proposing to vote the way you were going to vote if this is a vote in favor to funding obamacare is that they senators -- that the senators are confused about this but? >> i would respond after 20 a 21 hour filibuster yesterday you voted in favor of the thing you were filibustering in senator reid joined you in that too so it seems to me very similar. >> does a senator from tennessee dispute that the vote wednesday was a vote to take up the bill whereas the vote tomorrow will be a vote that will do two things if they are 60 votes. it's enough republicans across the aisle joined majority harry reid and the democrats it will

number one cut off all debate and it will number two -- what makes the vote tomorrow so significant as the majority leader has already filed an amendment. that amendment guts the house continuing resolutioresolutio n and funds obamacare in its entirety and given that amendment is pending end of cloture is invoked that amendment can be passed with 51 votes does the senator from tennessee disagree that once cloture is invoked, harry reid in the majority leader will be able to fund upon the care with 51 votes. >> i agree that the senate rule that is in place that allows post-cloture votes at a 51 vote majority has been there for decades and generations and it's the same rule that we have operated under for decades. so let me just ask this question. so we have the bill before us that i support. i think the senator from texas

texas -- the senator from utah supports it i think. so my question is we have a bill that we support. the rules of the senate have been here for decades, for generations and for centuries in many cases. so, are you thinking the house of representatives would like for us to vote against cloture on the bill? >> i thank my friend. >> let me ask you this. if you think that is what they wish for us to do why is it that they are already developing language and legislation is sent back over? it seems to me that they have already indicated that they view this strategy as a box canon because they understand the senate rules and it looks as if timmy they are already developing language to send something back over because even though we are in the senate and all three of us are relatively new somehow or another they knew the senate rules before they send it over. so i'm a little confused and

tell me what happens if the senate were not to invoke cloture on a bill that we support? what then happens? i would like to understand. >> i appreciate that question from my friend from tennessee and there are several pieces of it. one is with the house republicans like for us not to invoke cloture i can tell you this morning i spoke to over a dozen house members who explicitly said it would need fantastic if senate republicans could show the same unity we did and voted against cloture because majority leader reid has filed an amendment to gut our language. i would note also the senator from tennessee keeps expressing confusion. i have to admit i don't think the american people are confused. i would ask the senator from tennessee -- you agreed a moment ago if i understood you correctly that if 60 senators vote in favor of

cloture the majority leader harry reid will be able to funds obamacare in its entirety. let me ask the counterpart. if 41 republicans stood together and voted against cloture because we said we do not support the amendment that the majority leader reid has filed to funds obamacare when we told her constituents we oppose obamacare we meant it so we are not going to be complicit in giving harry breathed the ability to fund upon the care. would majority leader harry reid be able to fund obamacare of 41 republicans stood together against this cloture? >> the thing is i think the senator from texas may be confused. we are not going to be voting on the amendment. we have a chance to vote on the amendment after the vote on cloture. the vote on cloture tomorrow is a vote on ending debate on a bill we support. the amendment you were talking about -- >> is time for the colloquy has expired. is there objection to the

unanimous consent request offered by the majority leader? >> madam president? >> the senator from virginia. >> he turned that down and in light of the fact that he has turned it down i checked. >> objection is heard. >> madam president? >> the assistant majority leader? >> madam president what we just witness was an effort by senator harry reid to move the votes the critical votes on keeping the government open. what we have just heard from the republican side of the aisle is they want to stall and delay this even more. it isn't just a matter of losing the legislative day in the senate. >> the time is still under the control of the republicans. >> how much time -- i know there was time yielded by senator reid to the republican side to senator grassley so how much time is remaining at this point? on the republican side?

>> alternating time occurs at 4: 30. >> and at 4:30 the democrats -- >> that is correct. >> what time is it now they the chair take notice? >> 4:29. >> madam president if i could -- madam president? >> senators are reminded to address each other each in the third person. not to buy their first and last names. >> madam president? >> the senator from tennessee. >> if i could i would just like to say in response to my good friend from illinois it's not the republican side that is asking to stall. we only have two republican senators that are wanting to push this off so i don't want that to be mischaracterized if i

could and to say it's my understanding that the reason that we are putting this off is because they would like for people around the country that they have notified to be able to watch. so it's that process of making sure that everyone who watches that i think is slowing this down. it's not the entire republican side. i think all republicans other than two would actually like to get the house the opportunity to respond in an appropriate way and with that i yield the floor. i have enjoyed this very much. >> madam president? >> the next hours controlled a majority. >> madam president? >> the assistant majority leader. >> madam president let me start by analogy with the senator from tennessee said. i have worked with senator corker on so many bipartisan issues and i salute his effort to try to find a bipartisan solution. what i've -- what he said is indicative of a

problem we face now. two senators and it is their right under the senate rules the senator from utah on the junior senator from texas have decided they want to delay this another day. they want to stall this another day. it isn't just losing the legislative day. it is more. look how long it took us to bring out the house continuing resolution. they voted on it last friday. we are thinking about voting on it tomorrow. seven days later. it tells you that the senate rules even at their best with one member objecting can mean death measures take a long long time. ordinarily it just means we wasted time but this time it's critically more important because the government will not be funded. come tuesday morning all across america we will not fund the government because of the actions just taken on the floor of the senate by senator cruz of texas and senator leahy of utah.

they are trying to slow this down and create a political crisis. a political crisis. they are playing high-stakes poker with other people's money access the victims of this political crisis will not be the senators and house members. there will be a lot of innocent people, a lot of workers across america who just want to get up and do their work for this government to make this the greatest nation on earth. some of them are risking their lives in uniform. they will be paid but their paychecks will be delayed. what it means is they have to contact their wives and spouses back home come tuesday if cruz and lead delay continues. they will have to contact them and say honey at maybe a little difficult this day. math. it doesn't look like we are going to get a paycheck because congress has shut down the government. there are others all across america thousands of them doing their work for the government the fbi and intelligence agencies will go dark.

why? why have we reached this point? why did these two senators, two senators think this is in the best interests of the united states of america? we have heard reports from economist this cannot help our nation. shutting down the government in failing to extend the debt ceiling they are going -- we are going to find yourselves in a position where the economy is going to start to stall. people will start searching their savings accounts and noticed their investments are going down in value. why? because two republican senators insist that we couldn't speed up this vote move the process forward to solve this problem. the best explanation they have given us? they have notified their friends in the media and e-mail to stay tuned for friday. friday is going to be their big day in the sun. so delaying our actions here for a full day so that they can get adequate publicity for what they are about to do. ..

that isn't in the best interest of dealing with the issues that face america. madam president, my job on the senate appropriations committee is to be the chair of one of the most important subcommittees. the derch appropriation subcommittee never dreamed i would have the responsibility, but with the passing of the genuine american hero, --

dan inouye of hawaii. almost 60% of the discretionary funds spent by the federal government go through the one subcommittee. there's a lot of hard work involved in putting the appropriation together, but, when you consider the responsibility we have, it's even more substantial. this appropriations supports our men and women in uniform, and the nation's intelligence agency that keep our country safe. let me tell you what the government shut down will mean to them. the government shut down is going to mean a lot of hardship. i messaged earlier uniform troops calling their spouses to say we're not going get our paycheck on time this month. try to make do if you need it. something totally unnecessary. ing? brought on by action of the floor on by two republican senators. more than 700,000 civilian employees will be sent home immediately come tuesday morning. sent home.

men and women who work at military installations in the pentagon, sent home from work. over 80% of the department of defense civilian work outside the pentagon. 12,000 work in my state. they'll be given notice on tuesday morning, you have to go home. why? there was a promise made for publicity on friday by a couple of senators. that's unacceptable. the substantial number of the hard working men and women are going to be furloughed because of already face furlough because of a sequester, and now if question we allow the government to shut down, once again they'll have to figure out how to make ends meet. men and women trying to keep us safe in it country, many risking their lives are is not is will cripple our intelligence community. the men and women serve as our country's first line of

defense. we rely on the agency to warn us of threats and inform leaders making critical national security decisions. the intelligence community work force overwhelmingly made up of civilians and the greatest portion will be furloughed because the government shut down. a government shut down totally unnecessary. brought on by the house republicans and two senate republicans. the shut down will be quick and the principle agencies will go dark within four to eight hours of the shut down order. america its intelligence agencies that keep us safe, are going to be dark because of this political strategy. if the government shuts down, all dod work -- not directorially related to war. bases will not maintained. you'll see the facilities. you'll see massive destructions across this country. the a critical arsenal that

supports more than 55,000 active reserve and retired military. it's the largest employer in the illinois/iowa region with more than 7,500 employees. the facility adds $1 billion to the local comu. supporting 14,000 job in the region. the government shut down will throw production schedule to the chaos. as order get cut back and civilians set it home under furlough. i couldn't imagine going to the men and women and saying the reason that you've had this furlough and can't come to work is because two senators decided they needed some publicity on friday. putting the arse them capable at risk degrades the defense industrial base and jeopardize our national and local economy. same thing is true at scott air force base. in a shut down it's 5,000 civilian employees experience the same loss of pay as everybody else.

5500 active duty military personnel and their families to have to get by on reserve while wait for reimbursement. when you go through the lists and the lists are long, you think how totally unnecessary this is. senator reid has come to the floor repeatedly to tell you what the american people think. 80% of the american people think it's foolish and wasteful. foolish and wasteful. 75% of republicans have given up on this strategy. and yet, a handful of willful members of the house and senate decide they're just going keep going down this road. well, i hope they'll have some revelations in the next few minutes or hours. maybe overnight. i hope they'll reconsider what they've done here. the risk they're putting this country in. it's just not appropriate. it's not fair. i listened to them try to explain how they can have a

fulfill buster for 21-hours and turn around and unanimously vote for the next item on business. it may be an arguement in that the senator from texas thinks he understands clearly. most americans don't understand what he was saying for 21-hours and turning around and voting overwhelmingly to move forward on the bill. let me make one thing clear before we go any phut. obamacare, as we know, is already funded. it's already funded. senator harry reid is not going to be gunning obamacare. it's already funded. it will be. it will be under appropriation bills that we pass in cr, and this notion he somehow going do something sinister. let me remind the credittics, we have brought it to a vote in the senate. one of the most historic votes. painful votes. senator reid, you may remember, our colleague, senator ted kennedy was brought on the floor of the united states senate to vote for that affordable care act, the man was literally dying of cancer. but this meant so much to him

that he came down here for the vote. a great personal risk and sacrifice. it was great to see a smiling face come through the door again. we knew we would never see him again. we didn't. that's the kind of sacrifice made. the votes were taken. there was a referendum on obamacare. and the american people were clear. they re-elected president obama. they rejected governor romney's promise to repeal obamacare. these members, at least, two of them, can't accept the verdict of history. they continue to want to fight this battle. as i said, they're fighting it at the expense of a lot of innocent people across america. at the expense of some of the best workers in the world. those in military uniform and those in the civilian capacity they do a great job for us every day. picking on them, deciding to make them the object of the political exercise is beneath us as a great institution. let me close by saying this: i

will give credit to senator cruz when he was doing his 21-hours. i scud him point-blank, you want to eliminate the protection in obamacare that says health insurance companies can't discriminate against children and families? -- that have preexisting condition. he said, i want to eliminate all of. i said you want to eliminate the coverage in health insurance policy so people have enough money for a serious illness and cancer therapy and surgery? i want to eliminate it all, he said. you want to eliminate the protection for families to keep their kids on their own health insurance policy up to age 26? young people looking for jobs who may not have health insurance. you want to eliminate that too? i want to eliminate every bit of it. he was consistent, scriptly -- consistently wrong. he fails to understand what working families across america face every single day. what 50 million uninsured

americans face with no protection, no peace of mind. god for bid he ever spends a moment, a parent of a sick child without health insurance. i've been there. i never want that your experience for you in your life, yourself, or anybody else. i asked senator cruz to tell us about his own personal health insurance since he's going the ash -- arbiter for health insurance and the rest of america. he won't give me a straight answer how he has a health insurance for his family. i think he's owed it to us. he's told us a lot about his families. there's a lot of great stories where does he get health insurance? who pays for it? what is the employer's contribution? what is the tax deduction taken by your employer, if any, taken. he's raised the questions they're just fine. we can do without obamacare. let's hear his explanation how he protects his family when it comes to health insurance. i don't think that's an

unreasonable question. after all, he's the one who raced -- raised the issue. series of votes tomorrow related to the funding bill to from continuing resolution. if the senate passes a spending measure it returns to the house where speaker john boehner said they will change the bill. they planned weekend session to work on the cr. current funding for the federal agencies ends on monday. senator barbara mccull ski spoke about what is happening on the senate floor. mr. president, i rise in support of the democratic amendment to the house continuing resolution. we have offered this amendment

because it's content. number two, to lay the groundwork for ending sequester. that -- hopefully the next two years. which means finding a way to reduce our public debt in each of those years by $100 million. and number three, to get rid of the though -- theatrical veto date provocative amendment that are in the house bill calling for the defunding of the president's affordable care act, and also for the way the structure public debt. we offered this amendment because we think it is the best way forward. the american people expect to do our job. now, it is thursday morning,

quarter of 11:00, and we're just getting on the amendment. why? because for the last several days, we had to put up with theatrical politics rather than "get the job done" senate deliberation. we have gone from being the greatest deliberative body in the world to the greatest delayed body in the world. the american people are fed up, so are many of us here. when all is said and done, more gets said than gets done. now, this is the time to act! we have an amendment on the floor. t open for full debate, and i'm absolutely for that. but we need to do the business of government to be able to do our job. now, we must replace the

sequester and allow a 2014 appropriations to move forward before the end of the year. sequester was an invention by to say that we will reduce public debt over a ten-year period by $1 10 billion a year. if we fail to do it in a balanced way, strategic cuts, a review of mandatory spending, and additional revenue. if we fail to do that,

it cuts good programs as well as programs that are dated, dysfunctional, or due politictive. i oppose that. i would rather make strategic cuts arrived by the committee i chair, the appropriations committee. and bring them to the floor for debate, amendment, and passage and to send to the president. what we want to do in this bill, and this in our amendment is to

change the date from the house bill from december 15th to november 15th. to keep the pressure on to be get the deal needed so congress can get to work and enact 12 fiscally responsible appropriations bills, lay the ground work for sequester for america's needs today and the needs of the future. this amendment is important for two reasons. it prevents a government shut down, the president is already said he will veto any bill that defunds obamacare. he will veto any bill that undermines the full faith and credit of the united states. you can huff and puff for 21-hours, but you like the magic dray gone that blows obamacare

away. our agency -- making wise use of taxpayers money being responsive to the american people. they're in to spending their energy in to planning for a shut down, which amounts to a slam down. the president can sign the continuing resolution, and keep the government opening if we pass the senate amendment, which will keep the government open until november 15th, which gives us one month to arrive pragmatic solutions, cancel the provocative element in it, the elimination of obamacare and the public debt, and also move --

lay the groundwork for moving forward. there will just be a few things that will happen if we can't enact a clean, continuing resolution. meaning keeping the government open by october 1st. there are consequences here. this isn't just about showbiz. government has to be open for business. an estimated 8900,000 -- 800,000 civil servants will be sent home or furloughed. what does it mean? if you're an fbi agent, you'll be on the job. you'll be at your duty station. when you're working, you won't get paid, you'll get an iou. what does that say to people who put themselves in the line of fire? we're going to shut down the government means that we will -- that we will affect crucial

research and life saving discover i ares will be put on hold. the nih clinical center won't be able to emit new patient for new clinical trials. weather forecasters, food safety inspectors, those involved in public safety will be at the duty station. they're going to be earning iou, looking to forward to across the board cuts. which means they could be furloughed. we told them there no cost of living increase for three years. we want to recruit the best and the brightest for the fbi? to oversee our drug approval process or to be border control agencies. work that is dirty and dangerous, out there. what are we doing here? we show a contempt for the people who work for the government, and by that also show the contempt for the people who pay for the government. our government should be working as hard as the people who pay

the taxes to support the government. the way they work hard is to put the money in there for the mission and purpose of these agencies, incest they do their -- insist their do their job. we insist we get rid of the dated, the duplicative, and the disfunction fall. we laid the groundwork for doing this. in fact, we've been doing it all yearlong. i chair the appropriations committee. it is made up of 12 subcommittees. you'll be hearing from my subcommittee chairman throughout the day. i'm so proud of that. for the last year, they've listened, thank you taken the president's budget, they've analyzed it, they've conducted hearings. they reviewed it, they scrubbed it, they analyzed it, they have squeezed it.

makes wise use of government of taxpayers dollars, has listened at every single hearing at inspector generals where we learn about the dated dysfunctional or duplicative. we're ready to move, but we can't move if we have the theatrical showdown politics. now, this has grave impact. with the shut down politics and eventually slow down through sequester. what we're facing here is it will have a negative impact on our economy. it will add to the uncertainty for businesses to be able to make wise decisions. it will also slow down in a way the impact through job, we fund infrastructure and other needed programs. it will impact public safety.

come up with the new idea of new jobs. later on today, i will be talking about the nih, which is in my state. yes, the nih, because of nih funding, thousands of people work in maryland thousand of people are working for the united states of america. and what is it? at the end of the day, they're trying to come up with cures, and cures that can be where we create so we're talking about saving lives, doing the basic research that then helps us on jobs and buy met call -- bimet bio-- and get the job done. so, mr. president,ly have more to say. but right now i want to turn to senator prier who is the chair

of the agricultural subcommittee. he is a new chairman, but he's not new to getting the job done. in fact, we referred to him as tight wad pryor. he looked at the programs, he's really analyzed how we're truly going get value for the dollar, and at the same time feed the hungry, care for the sick, feed the hungry? here and around the world. also make sure the important vibrant sector of our economy, the agricultural industry. on the next "washington journal."

next on c-span2.

scrolled damaging consequences on the u.s. economy. doug testifying before the house budget committee chaired by congressman paul ryan of wisconsin.

the hear will come to order. we have the caucuses going on. i understand some of the members will be here a little later. we want to get started to start as close to on time as we possibly can. i want to thank everybody and welcome. it's been awhile to get together as a committee to see the

things. we have a new report worthy of our attention. it's good to see our director, once again. i want to thank you, doug, and your staff for putting together this valuable report. dwrn what kind of work it takes and we appreciate that. we want to put it to good use, as i read it, your report makes one thick clear. we haven't solved the problem yet. we stimare -- still are spending too much money. look at the numbers, our total debt is bigger than our economy, and 0 according to your report, our publicly held debt is higher than any point in the u.s. history except for a brief period around world war ii. some seem to think just because the deficit is not $1 trillion we don't have to worry. the problem is solved. we know better. in 2008, our debt was 39% of gross domestic product. today, it's 73%. in other words, it is doubled in just five years. so today if we were to have an

emergency, we will have a lot less leeway. when you owe more than you make, your or creditors get an sincerity. sooner or later they cut you off. they could cut of as at exactly the wrong time. we've heard a lot of talk about how to pay our bills.

the sooper we get to work the before. the that's an important point. you look at the spending package that saved $4 trillion over ten years which is roughly what the house pass budget do. interest rates would be 1-% lower in 2038. our economy would be 7% bigger, and our publicly health debt would be just over 31 percent of gdp. but if we stayed on the current path interest rates would rise, our debt would grow, our economy would be 4% smaller in 2038. ..

every day we wait it gets harder to bridge that gap. washington's motto is never did today what you can put up tomorrow but tomorrow's a whole lot closer than you think and we know what the answer is. we know that with real reforms we cannot only pay down the debt that help grow the economy and put people back to work. it's not a matter of ability. it's a matter of will and without i would like to recognize the ranking member for his opening remarks. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to join the chairman and thinking your doctor elmendorf or this report whioo