we listen to and fight for the american people. that hasn't happened in a long time, but i am very hopeful that we are in the process of seeing it begin to happen now. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: i'm not sure if you have a fax machine at home, not many americans do anymore. neither do a lot of small businesses. so it seems a bit a odd to tell small businesses they need to fax in enrollment foamplet for be obamacare -- for obamacare. that is what the obama administration is now doing. i might paraphrase the president, the 1980's called and they want their health policy back. now, to be fair, snail mail is also an option and it looks like the president's people will try to have the issue fixed soon despite passing the law more than three years ago. but then again this is the same president who told us that obamacare is working the way it's supposed to, president obama said, and that those who already have health care won't see many changes under this law. the same guy who promised us his health care ideas would make american premiums lower and that they'd be able to keep the plans

they liked. so forgive me for being a little bit skeptical given how these other rosy scenarios have played out. now, i'm not the only skeptic out there. just ask the folks who have already gotten laid off or seen their hours cut. ask the graduate who can't find anything but part-time work. ask the 20-something who is going to lose her employer health plan and pay more over in the exchanges. the reality simply does not match up with the rhetoric. that includes the president's remarks yesterday over in maryland. he said there's no widespread evidence that obamacare is hurting jobs. that's actually what he said. no widespread evidence. now, we all know the president was hanging around with bill clinton the other day. what we didn't know is he was getting pointers on sin tax. it -- syntax. it makes you wonder what would

constitute widespread evidence of job loss in this president's mind. i mean just yesterday his press secretary dismissed reports of a company dropping health insurance for 55,000 employees as just -- quote -- "an anecdote" -- end quote. maybe that's how things look from the south lawn, it looks a lot difference if you just lost your health care plan that you liked and you wanted to keep. and to senator moynihan used to tell us data is the plural of anecdote. data is the plural of anecdote. just too many stories about the impact of obamacare, far too many to be discussed with -- discussed with the wave of a hand. ironically the same bay-day the president was painting rosy scenarios in maryland the administration anunezzed yet another delay in this law's implementation. that's about the time we found out about the fax machines and al follows the revelation of yet more exchange problems.

this time with an exchange here in the district of columbia. you might be able to take any one of these many obamacare problems in isolation and explain it away, say it doesn't matter, just call it an anecdote, but we're getting here is a constant drip, drip, paired with the effects of seeing what is -- what's happening to our jobs and our health care and the economy. it all adds up to just one thing: a law in trouble. a law that needs to be repealed. that's the goal of every member of the republican conference here in the senate, we're united on the need to repeal obamacare, we want to replace it with sensible, bipartisan reforms that will actually work, and in a few minutes each and every one of us will vote against funding obamacare. the american people want this law repealed. republicans want it repealed. i wouldn't be surprised if a

number of our democratic colleagues secretly want it repealed as well. the problem here is that we can't get that done unless some of our friends on the other side are prepared to step up and work with us on the issue because there are 54 of them and 46 of us. this doesn't mean we'll give up the fight if they don't. we won't. there are a lot of other things we can do in the meantime. for instance, we can follow the administration's lead in offering an obamacare delay for the american people. after all, the administration seems to think businesses deserve a break from obamacare, doesn't the middle class deserve the same treatment, the very same treatment? republicans think so. and i think we might be able to convince enough democrats to join us on that. to help us provide fairness, fairness to the middle class. yesterday one democratic senator already signaled his willingness to delay some of the worst aspects of the law as well. he called a delay for the

american people very reasonable and sensible. he posed a question, don't you think that would be fair? the answer is yeah, that would be fair. that's a question for our democratic colleagues to respond to. many of whom know how badly this law is hurting their constituents. isn't that just the fair thing to do? of course it is. so i'm calling on democratic senators to put the middle class ahead of the president's pride, calling for them to help us pass a delay for everyone. we've already filed legislation that would do just that. a bipartisan majority of the house already supports it. let's work together to actually do it. then once we get that done, let's keep working to get rid of this law and replace it with real reforms. not with ideas from the 1980's but with common sense, step-by-step reforms that will actually lower the cost for the american people and spare them from this terrible law. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:30 is reserved for the two leaders with the final ten minutes reserved for the majority leader. the majority leader. mr. reid: during my time in washington, i've had the opportunity to work with many reasonable, thoughtful republicans including those serving in this body today. those reasonable republicans value this institution, the united states senate, and they respect the government of which it's a part. but today, the republican party has been infected by a small did you destructive faction that would rather tear down the house our founders built than govern from it. these extremists are more interested in putting on a show as one republican colleague put it than in slating. that's why they prevented the senate to take action, to put

on a show today. despite pleas from the house of representatives for quick senate action, that same vocal minority was determined to waste the dwindling hours before a government shutdown. one day, basically they wasted. although every minute that passes puts this country one minute closer to a shutdown, a shutdown that would shatter our economy, let they continue to obstruct and to lay. budelay. but you see, mr. president, a bad day for government is a good day for the anarchists among us. those who believe in no -- i repeat -- no government -- that's their belief -- the modern day an car consists anars the tea party, they believe in no government. and they're backed by a very wealthy group of people who finance this effort to destroy our government. it's important to note these tea

party obstructionists don't represent mainstream republicans either in this body or mainstream republicans in our country. but unfortunately, their grip on the rudder of the republican party is very firm. for the last few years, these radicals in the house and the senate have driven america from crisis to crisis. we lurch from crisis to crisis, leaving a trail of economic destruction behind. and now they've taken the united states government hostage and demanded an impossible ransom: the democrats repeal the law of this land known as obamacare. the affordable care act has been the law of the land for four years. the united states supreme court has declared it constitutional. and soon it will help 25 million to 35 million people in america who are currently living without health insurance. it will allow them to get access to lifesaving care they need and

deserve. mr. president, i don't know if people really know what it means to not have health insurance. not have the ability to go to the doctor or hospital when you're sick or hurt. some of us do, mr. president. some of us understand how tens of millions of people in america today can't go to the hospital when they're sick or when they're hurt. mr. president, i was a boy -- i don't know how old i was, 10 or 11 years old -- i was so, so sick. i can still remember how sick i was. been sick for quite a long time. the little house we lived n. but yolived in.but you see, we didne doctors in searchlight. there wasn't a doctor for 50 miles.

and we had no car. i was really sick. we didn't go to doctors but it was obvious that i was really ill. and so one of my older brothers came to visit and they were with a friend. that friend of my brother, don, agreed to take them to the hospital. so i went to the hospital -- and i still have the scar, mr. president -- i had a prove of groove on my large intest ien -- i had a groove on my large intest ien. i would have died had i not been to the hospital. i know what it's like to not go to the hospital or doctor when you're sick.

mr. president, my wonderful mother who took in wash -- in searchlight we had a -- nothing much there but once i remember a tv wagon came through, which was a truck, that they would do x-rays of somebody's chest to find out if they had tuberculosis because it was still around. people in searchlight, i remember conn hodgens had tuberculosis and others. so this -- my dad wouldn't go. my mother went and had her chest x-rayed. mr. president, the results came back in a little card in the mail. she had tuberculosis. she was positive for tuberculosis. what did we do? what did she do? nothing. nothing. as a boy caring about my mother, i worried so much about that. i can't imagine even to this day

how she must have felt. well, in hindsight, mr. president, it looks like it was a false positive. but that didn't take away the concern that i had for a long time. and i can't imagine -- i repeat -- how my mother must have felt. so i have had some view of what it's like not to be able to go to the doctor or hospital when you're sick or hurt. mr. president, again, i don't know how old i was, but my little brother, 22 months younger than i was, coming on his bicycle and he slides and he was hurt. and he was crying. i guess he was 10 years old or something like that. and no one was home and i helped him get up to the house and laid down. he was so -- [inaudible]

my mother. my brother never, ever went to the doctor, had a broken leg. he still has a bent leg short today. he laid on that bed, he couldn't touch the bed, it hurt so much. he laid there until he could get up and walk, a week or 10 days later. so these people who just nonchalantly don't focus on the fact that millions of americans have no health insurance. we can't just walk away from this. the health care law that we have, mr. president, is important.

republicans fought long and hard in opposition to obamacare. mr. president, they lost. it was a fair fight. and they made their case against obama directly to the american people in november last and they lost again. obama won, not by a small margin, he won by 5 million votes. what was the main issue in that campaign? it was health care. the american people overwhelmingly reelected the president. one reason they did is because of health care. yesterday on this floor from over there a colleague of ours, the senior senator from arizona, john mccain, spoke with great eloquence about this law. it's a law he opposes. this is what he said.

"the people spoke. they spoke, much to my dismay, but they spoke and reelected the president of the united states. that doesn't mean that we give up our efforts to try to replace and repair obamacare, but elections have consequences. the majority of the american people supported the president of the united states and renewed his stewardship of this country. i don't like it," he said, "but i think all of us should respect outcome of elections which reflect the will of the people." who -- who said this, again? who said this? who is this john mccain? he's a proven fighter in war and in public service. this is a man who held the mantle of the republican party's nomination to be president of the united states, not some gabfly. but an american patriot. and history books will talk about that in generations to come.

the republicans heard his message for which the senate and the country should be grateful. so, mr. president, the challen challenge -- this fall, closing in on the end of the fiscal year, those of us who respect the fiscal government founded by america's founders, those of us who believe in the rule of law and the elections that reflect the will of the people will face a test. can we prevent an economically disastrous government shutdown and can we protect the full faith and credit of the united states? mr. president, one newspaper addition not lots of newspapers, one newspaper -- look at the headlines. "gop hard-liners block strategy to avoid shutdown." "government shutdown would

entail costs." "shutdown could carry pay risk even for employees kept on the job." one newspaper. "agencies prepare to furlough workers and face a partial government shutdown." "shutdown grows more likely as house digs in." governor christie -- quote -- "shutdown would be a failure, it would be irresponsible." "a government shutdown looms. america's brace for possible disruption, disappointment." another headline, "rounding jurisdictions develop shutdown game plans." "threat of shutdown delays some colorado flood relief." is it any wonder the stock market is going down? is it any wonder that people are concerned? is it any wonder that on someone who works for the park service came to me yesterday and said, i've been through this before; i'm not going to get paid for my work?

so the question is: can we overcome modern day anarchists? so in just a few minutes, mr. president, the senate will take the first step toward wresting control from these extremists. democrats will vote to avert a government shutdown. i'm confident many of my republican colleagues will vote wi us, to allow the government to perform its basic duties. together we'll send a message to radical republicans that we will not allow the law of the land to be used as a hostage, a law that's been in place for four years. i'm pleased that so many of my senate republican colleagues seem to understand the stakes of this debate. the economic health of a still struggling nation and the economic well-being of still struggling families. i urge sensible republicans in the house of representatives to follow our lead, to follow the lead of republicans over here. let the house democrats vote.

don't just make it a majority of a majority. let the 435 members who serve in the house of representatives, let them vote. pass a clean bill to avert a shutdown. defy the anarchists, respect the law and help the senate govern. mr. president, i ask that the time that's left for senator mcconnell and me be given back and that we begin the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bridge to a close the debate on h.j. res. 59, a joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators.

the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on h.j. res. 59, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any other senator wishing to vote?

a reminder that expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the senate. on this vote the yeas are 79, the nays are 19. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. cloture having been invoked, all time is yielded back. amendment number 1975 is withdrawn and the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974 i move to waive all applicable sections of the act and any other applicable budget points of order for purposes of the pending joint resolution and the amendments and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? appears to be. there is. mr. reid: i yield back all the time on the motion to waive. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to waive.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 68, the nays are 30, 3/5 of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. for the information of the senate, upon the invoking of cloture, the motion to commit

fell. minutes of debate equally divided. ms. mikulski: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. senators will take their conversations out of the chamber. the senate will come to order. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. ms. mikulski: i rise in support of the reid-mikulski amendment to the continuing resolution. our amendment makes two important changes in the house c.r. first, the amendment clears out the toxic political item in the house c.r. defunding the affordable care act. it also removes the debt limit provision that threatens the full faith and credit of the united states. it changes the date from -- of the c.r. from december 15 to november 15 to see if we can't get to an omnibus bill and

ending sequester. we're out of time. the fiscal year ends in three days. let's pass the mikulski-reid amendment, let's pass the c.r., let's keep america -- america's government working as hard as its taxpayers. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, this is a moment of truth. we need to be absolutely clear about what we are voting on here. a yes vote will be a vote to fund obamacare because it will take out of the underlying continuing resolution the house position that republicans have universally supported to defund obamacare. but i would ask my colleagues before they vote yes on this important amendment, do you really want to be responsible for killing more jobs? do you really want to be responsible for more people losing their health insurance and their own doctors? do you really want to be responsible for making full-time work part-time work?

if not, then vote no. this is a second chance, and in life you don't get many second chances. i hope our colleagues will take advantage of the opportunity. the presiding officer: the question occurs on amendment number 1974. the yeas and nays were previously ordered. the clerk will now call the roll. vote:

osenate

vote:

the presiding officer: once again a reminder that expressions of approval or disapproval are not allowed in the senate. are there any senators who are wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 54, the nays are 44. the amendment is agreed to. under the previous order, there are two minutes equally divided. the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. senators take their conversations out of the chamber. the senate will be in order. the senator from maryland is

recognized. ms. mikulski: mr. president, it is now time to vote on final passage. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this. it will prevent a government shutdown. it will lay the groundwork for us to get to a solution on the long-term fiscal needs of our country, to replace sequester, to come up with an approach to fund essential government services where we make investments in the -- that america desperately needs. the senate keeps this government open. it meets our critical services. it avoids a shutdown and it lays the groundwork for solving our problems. i urge the adoption and passage of this bill and we yield back our time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the clerk will read joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 195, house joint resolution 59,

making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of h.j. res. 59, as amended. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 54, the nays are 44. the bill as amend is passed. the senator from colorado. a senator: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 4:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and the leader be recognized at 4:00. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, i come to the floor to speak about the floods that were biblical

proportions, as the national weather service put it, in colorado just two weeks ago and the necessity of passing legislation as soon as possibl possible -- a senator: the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: senate come to order. senators will conversations, please take them out of the chamber. the senator from colorado. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. again, i come to the floor to speak once again to the floods of biblical proportions that afflicted our state just a couple of weeks ago and the necessity of passing a piece of legislation, as we've done in the past on the heels of such national disasters, that will allow my state to access existing emergency transportation funds more efficiently. and this is legislation my colleague and my friend and fellow coloradan, senator bennet, and i have introduced and it's critically important because it will allow us in colorado to begin rebuilding our battered roads and bridges and highways without having to wait

years for relief. mr. president, in colorado, hundreds of miles of roads and approximately 50 major bridges have been damaged or destroyed. and i want to put one photograph up that gives you a sense of what happened in colorado. and i note senator bennet's here. i think he and i would agree, this is moderate damage represented in this photograph. there are many, many other scenes in our state where the roads are completely gone. you don't even know there was a road in the canyon like this one here. but this gives you a sense of what we have to do to repair all of this infrastructure. many towns, as i'm implying, have seen their roads that provide access in and out of their communities severely limited. in fact, there are a couple of communities that have literally been cut off. but the good news is that there are emergency relief dollars for transportation projects that have already been exproapped they'rappropriatedand they're a.

why do i come to the floor then if that's the situation? well, there's an arbitrary statutory cap of $100 million per disaster that applies to these funds, and this could limit the flood relief that we receive and then unnecessarily delay repairs not just this year or next year but for decades. but historically -- and this is the good news -- this is the opportunity we all have as members of the united states of america and the united states senate is to lift this cap. and it's routinely been recognized by congresses as an unwise impediment to helping states recover, particularly when they're hit by the size of the disaster that we've been hit by. and we've made exceptions to this cap for nearly every natural disaster in recent years. we waived it for hurricanes gustaf, ike, irene and sandy as well as the missouri basin flooding in 2011. so in other words, mr. president, when states are devastated, as we have been, by

natural disasters, we as a congress have said that putting arbitrary impediments in the way of relief efforts just doesn't make sense. especially -- and this is really important to understand -- when no new funds need to be appropriated. so the good news is, as i've alluded to, that we're not asking congress to appropriate any new money for transportation projects, nor does our bill increase budget authority or increase spending by the federal government. we're simply making sure that colorado has fair access to the program that was created for the very purpose of helping states like colorado rebuild after a natural disaster. in fact, if we don't raise the cap, then we may be in a situation, not just senator bennet and myself, but the congress might be in the position to approve something that would cost more money, in other words, additional appropriations. so this is critically important and we've got to, we need to, we must provide colorado with

certainty and relief as soon as possible. and, mr. president, if you would indulge me just for a few more minutes, i want to again underline what happened in colorado and what we're facing. beginning on september 11, historic rains poured down. we'd had -- we'd had a heat wave, mr. president. we'd been in the 90's, a very warm spell of weather. and literally overnight, beginning on september 11, historic rains poured down on our state without cessation. and rivers overtopped their banks from rocky mountain national park, which is our crown jewel in the national park system in colorado, all the way out on the eastern plains. and it washed away highways. it drowned family homes and it transformed entire farms into lakes. creeks like south boulder creek, which runs right behind my home, swelled. my neighbors were evacuated. i couldn't get home for 24 hours. culverts like those near commerce city quickly filled

with rushing water and rivers like the big thompson near estes park turned into walls of water that devastated entire communities. let me give you another set of metrics. the affected area covers nearly 200 square miles and over 80% of our state's population. we count, senator bennet and i would agree, 5 million coloradans that we represent. so 80% of our state's population has been affected. for sense of scope, i didn't know that the senator would be in the chair, but the floodwaters covered an area the size of connecticut. nine counties are considered major disasters. at least nine coloradans have died. thank god it wasn't more. we've had a lot of missing people. we think we've identified where all of those people are. we lost nine coloradans. and nearly 20,000 homes are damaged or destroyed. nearly 2,500 people were evacuated by the colorado national garkd thnational guarde

hurricane katrina. some good news, the muddy waters have begun to recede but that's given us a better look at the vast extent of the damage. 200 miles of state highways and 50 bridges are damaged or destroyed and preliminary estimates are that the infrastructure repairs could cost up to $475 million. i come with a heavy heart when i think about all that, and then i have to also confess that this is a national disaster that's beyond our capacity, colorado and coloradans' ability to address alone wet. need help. we need support from our federal partners. i've always supported disaster aid, whether i was serving in the house, like the presiding officer has, and when i've been in the senate for hurricane sandy and katrina and all of the national disasters that have hit our country since i began serving in the house in 1999. and i just have to say that coloradans, we now need our

federal partners to come together as one to support our rebuilding and recovery efforts. mr. president, i begin to close, i just want to also say, though, in the face of this historic disaster, i've been so heartened to see our federal partners in the administration, led by fema, team up with our state leaders who've been tireless. the mayors and the council members and the county commissioners, our governor, local communities, nonprofit organizations, and the countless friends and neighbors who've begun the hard work of recovery. and our strong sense of community will allow us to recover and rebuild stronger and mores lieutenanmore resolute th. but we want to get going. we want to access these dollars right now. and those dollars are sitting in this account waiting to help states like colorado rebuild and repair in the wake of a disaster. and, in fact, the u.s. department of transportation -- i see our chairman of the e.p.w.

committee, senator boxer, who's such a leader on infrastructure and knows infrastructure policy backwards and forwards -- the u.s. department of transportation projects that colorado, new york and new jersey plus the 11 other states that have projects in the queue could receive every single dollar they need and there would still be $221 million in remaining funds in this account available for future emergencies across our country. so if that's right, ever everyoo has disaster needs and receives relief, there will still be significant funds to find other areas who need relief, like colorado, new york and new jersey. so, mr. president, i just want my colleagues to know that we -- we have real opportunity here. coloradans need these dollars. these are legitimate uses of these dollars, and senator bennet and i are going to be working every minute today, this weekend, next week to make sure that colorado can begin to

recover as quickly as possible. perhaps in light of the challenges we face right now in this congress of moving the it government forward and doing what's right for the american people, maybe this is an example of how we can work together and do the right thing, not just for colorado but for the united states as well. mrs. boxer: will the senator yield for a question? well, i just to want say to both my friends, coming from a state that has experienced just too many moments like the ones you're going through, although i would say i've never seen anything quite like this in terms of floods, but we have the most devastating fires and droughts and floods and mudslides and earthquakes and the rest. and i just want to be supportive of what you're -- what you're doing. we need to all come together and help each other here, and so i'll do whatever i can to make sure that happens. i also wanted to ask unanimous consent that when my friend, senator bennet, completes his time, that i get the floor at that time. the presiding officer: without

objection. mrs. boxer: and then so my question to my friend is: isn't it critical that we avert a government shutdown? because if we go into a shutdown phase, people who want to apply for help -- businesses, all the rest -- are going to be experiencing far more pain. this is a -- just a terrible time to even consider a government shutdown. we have so much we have to do. i wondered if my friend had thought about that when he voted to keep the government open. mr. udall: i certainly did, and i so appreciate the senator fros making. we have been assured that a shutdown would not affect colorado, but as we all know, there are unintended consequences, and just in the last 24 hours, senator bennet and i came to understand that the utah national guard, which was sending over a unit that has engineers and experts in flood recovery, probably can't come to colorado because their funds are going to be limited by the

government shutdown. so for all the assurances that this is emergency aid and emergency support, there are always situations where the full weight, if you will, and focus of all these good people who serve us, at the local and the county and the state and the federal government, will be affected by this shutdown. so it's all the more important. we feel it in colorado. the other thing i would add, and then i want to cede the floor to my good friend, senator bennet, but what's been remarkable in colorado is the partnership between the local, county, state and federal government. it's been seamless for the most part. then you mix in the red cross and the salvation army and the citizens who hear the call and come to work, muck out basements and cut up debris. the spirit of community in colorado has never been stronger. we ought to reflect that here. we were sent here to reflect that approach. that's america at its best.

so i thank the senator. if i might, i want to yield the floor and look forward very much to hearing the remarks of my friend and colleague, senator bennet. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to first say thanks with great appreciation to the senator from california for her words. this is a time when we need to pull together. we have been there for other places, in sandy and other things, and now it's time for the country to embrace colorado, as my senior senator so he will acquiescely said. i know he may have to leave the floor, but i just want to say before he does how much i appreciated his leadership in all of this. it's made a huge difference. you know, the work that's really being done is the work that's on the ground, as senator udall was saying. that's the most important work, the first responders, neighbors helping neighbors. but it also has been a time when our political leadership, i think, has come together in a way, at least for once not to get in the way, and actually to try to support the people that

are just trying to serve their friends and neighbors. so i want to say thank you to senator udall, my senior senator and my friend for his leadership. as he mentioned, our state is a long way from recovery from the floods that have inflicted so much damage over this month. the damage has been historic, mr. president. based on the latest estimates, over 16,000 homes have been seriously damaged. thousands have been destroyed. the floodwaters consume more than 2,000 square miles across colorado's front range, an area about twice the size of rhode island. just to give you some sense of the scale, it would be as if rhode island were completely under water twice, where as mark udall said, the senator udall said as if it covered a state the size of connecticut. and the floods have tragically killed at least nine coloradans. we hope that number won't go up,

but we don't know whether it will or it won't. over the weekend, i went to jamestown, a small community about 14 miles northwest of boulder, colorado, and tara sheddinger, the mayor of the town, showed me around. mr. president, the damage to that one town was simply unbelievable. it was as if a bomb had gone off in the middle of this community. the flooding destroyed over 1/5 of jamestown's homes, half of its roads, both of its bridges, a central fire hall and much, much more. the storm killed joe hallot, age 72, a beloved pillar of the jamestown community. the mayor's house was right next to joe's house, and the mayor's house is fine. joe hallot's house was destroyed by a mudslide that came down from the very top of the hillside, the very top of the mountain behind his house, killing somebody who has been

the glue of that community. i got a couple of quick photos from the visit i want to share just to give you a sense of the scale of this -- of this damage. mr. president, this used to be main street in jamestown. you can see it passes between these two utility poles on either side of what is now a raging river. main street is gone. it's not the asphalt that's gone. the whole street, the road bed is gone and all that remains is a torrential river that ran in a bank completely -- it ran in a -- in a completely different place than it does today. this photo shows the end of main street. in jamestown. my deputy chief of staff took that picture. this is what main street used to look like. this is what main street in jamestown, colorado, looks like

as we stand on the floor of the united states senate today. i will say, my senior senator is still here, it was amazing the resilience of the people in this community, the sense of humor that people had, the sense of community that they had. there were probably 30 people or so left out of the town of 300 people that had come back to see their belongings, they had come back to secure what was left of their homes, and what they were talking about was how they were going to rebuild this community together. and there were tears from time to time, as you naturally would expect there to be, but what really came through, as it always does, in the back ends of these disasters was the human spirit that we see in each one of our states, but we are particularly proud of the coloradans that are struggling together to get through this incredibly difficult time. in my mind, these are the most

heartbreaking pictures, people who have dedicated their lives to being able to secure a home for their families, who, by the way, had no expectation there and other parts of the state that they would ever be affected by a flood and to see everything -- everything lost. one woman came up to me while i was there and she -- she said this was our house, which was in reasonable -- reasonably -- some decent shape compared to some others that i had seen, but then she had a rental property down the road in which she had invested her life savings, she has no flood insurance, and she said i just don't know how we're not going to go -- we're not going to go broke as a result of this piece of bad luck. i also saw in evans, colorado, a rural community near greeley in the northeastern part of the state two trailer parks that have been entirely destroyed by floodwaters from a mile and a

quarter away. in the middle of one of these trailer parks, there was a cement pipe, mr. president, that was about this tall sitting underneath a carport. the thing must have weighed tons, a huge culvert pipe that had come from a mile and a half away through these raging waters to position itself in this trailer park. and these people who live there, who work in agriculture in our state, who clean hotels in our community, who are working on our oil fields in northeastern colorado, and i know that because there are a bunch of people when i went to the trailer park who again were assessing their damage, they have lost everything, and because they couldn't qualify for financing for those trailer homes, they bought them with cash. one person there said, you know, senator, it's awfully lucky this

happened during the day and not at night, because our kids were at school during the day, and if they had been there at night, he didn't know how many of them would have been killed by these floodwaters. but in addition to the human dimension of all of this, which is the most important dimension, the flooding also inflicted enormously costly damage to colorado's infrastructure. over 200 miles of roads in colorado have been affected by this flooding. the mountainous terrain in the state is going to make rare work exponentially more expensive and exponentially more difficult, and i salute our governor and everybody who is working to make sure that at least temporary roads are built to these communities in the next 90 days which would otherwise be completely cut off. i have here a letter, mr. president, from the colorado department of transportation that estimates that the total damage just to colorado's federally maintained roads and

highways -- these are not our local roads. these are our federally maintained roads and highways -- will exceed $400 million, and i would ask it to be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. earlier this year, congress passed funding for federal highway administration emergency relief. states like colorado that have been hit with a significant natural disaster are eligible for funding. our state will be in desperate need of these funds, just as new jersey was in desperate need and new york was in desperate need. the scale of the damage far exceeds what our state and local governments can cover. but as my senior senator said, there is a catch. there is a cap in the current law of $100 million per incident per state on the federal highway assistance. i have another letter, mr. president, that i will enter into the record from our governor urging congress to

raise the cap on emergency funding and explaining why this is something that colorado desperately needs to be done. and senator udall and i have a simple bill that would raise the $100 million cap for colorado for emergency funding for our highways, matching what congress has done, as senator udall has said, many times previously. in fact, as far as i know, every time an issue like this has arisen. we have already talked to the congressional budget office about this. they have looked at the bill that it will not cost the federal government one dime because the money was already there, it was already appropriated. it just needs to be used for the purpose that congress laid out, to help states with major disasters that inflicted cost damage on that state's highway system. colorado needs this congress to act and act now to get this done so that colorado can access the highway aid we will clearly need to recover in the coming months. by the way, mr. president, this

$100 million cap on emergency funding for the federal highway administration, as i mentioned earlier, has been lifted many, many many times before. it is done routinely and swiftly by this congress following other major disasters when it's obvious, as it is in our case, that federally maintained highway costs will exceed $100 million. we lifted it for the sandy states, as i have pointed out, earlier this year when we passed the sandy supplemental on january 29, 2013. we lifted it on november 18 for hurricane irene and the missouri river basin flooding. we lifted it on september 30, 2008, for hurricanes gustav and ike. we lifted it on may 25, 2007, for storms in the state of california. we lifted it on december 20, 2005, for hurricanes dennis, katrina, rita and wilma. all told, congress has waived

this $100 million cap 14 times in the past 25 years. it is routine, it is normal when there is a major disaster that causes major highway damage in excess of $100 million. and senator udall and i have been working with our colleagues in the senate. nearly all of them have indicated a readiness to work with us to pass this bill, and i am very grateful for that. i also want to thank my colleagues for working with us to get this done quickly for colorado, in recognition of how badly we need this cap lifted and this federal funding made available, and i would urge my colleagues to pull together and work with us to quickly clear this bill in the coming days so that we can get coloradans the help they need. if you will indulge me just a few more minutes and the senator from california would as well, i wanted to just take a quick moment to show you why this is so important. a picture tells you a thousand words. i want to show you -- especially when i'm the one that's speaking. i want to show you the damage to

colorado highways as a result of this historic funding. this photograph was taken during a helicopter tour by vice president biden and governor hickenlooper and fema officials of flood damage in greeley, colorado, earlier this week. a huge portion of the road has washed away and the water has breached a dam. by the way, i want to say that fema has just been doing a tremendous job with our -- with our local and state officials. this is a section of highway 72 that collapsed and washed away after a flash flood tore through coal creek near golden, colorado, which is outside of denver. this is what the road looks like there. a bridge to the south side of the town of lyon is gone. you can see these huge portion that is have broken off.

maybe that's the bridge that's missing, mr. president, right there. and this is another shot -- sorry. here's another shot of large portions of u.s. 34 washed away. i know the senator from california would like to speak, but -- is that all right? i've got a couple more that i wanted to show you. here is a very clear example of the way these mountains, these mountain roads work, and in this case, you know, when the prospectors first came to colorado what they would do is they would pan for gold the bottom of the rivers near the plains and they'd see whether there was gold leaf there and that would lead them to walk up these valleys, very steep valleys, and to see where the gold was coming from.

and they founded towns in these places. and, you know, that's the way the river came and then the road followed the river, and that allowed them to get to their town. s in this case this road has been completely washed out by the river. this is another -- just another instance of mountain roads where you can see the drop-off below what used to be road but no longer is. here's a roadway that is completely submerged in our state when this photo was taken, and with extensive damage. and then this ribbon of what used to be a ribbon of pavement just now fragments in the remaining water. in times of disaster in this country we've stood together

time and time again, and working on behalf of the people of colorado with senator udall that's what we're asking for again. we've pulled together with all of you and we're going to need all of you to pull together with us. the founding fathers had a lot of work to do and they're often quoted around this place but they were engaged in founding a country, not dismantling one and this is a remainder -- reminder why their vision was so important and why people, frankly, are counting on us to carry this on, for this generation of americans and for the generations that will follow us. mr. president, with that i say thank you for your indulgence and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: let me say to my friend from colorado, you're right about a picture being so powerful, having shown my share of those types of photos, but i think that you underscore why

it's important to have a national government. you and your colleague make the point as did the senators from new jersey make the point and new york and california, regardless of party, that many times these natural disasters are just too much for any one state, and that's why we need a national government that works well, not one that teeters on the brink of shutdown because of political parties get in these partisan disputes and seem to lose their way. and as one who feels we have a very clear path ahead, there is no reason for us to add to the uncertainty that your people face right now but because you t have your particular funding laid out clearly at this point. we don't need to add a layer of fear that this government is not going to function and i want to thank my friend. but i will say, mr. president, that we did vote 54-44 here in the senate to keep the

government open, and to make sure that we don't get involved in clashes about other matters, and added to the resolution that keeps this government going. listen, there's no shortage of arguments we could have, even within our own parties there are different views on many issues, how best to bring this economy back, how best to reform education, how best to have a very strong, lean military. we have arguments about all these things. how do deliver health care. all these things are worthy of debate, but they should remain separate and apart from our basic functions, one i which is to keep the government running, doing the things government does and the second is to pay our bills. which requires us to make sure that the debt limit is raised.

and when you see games being played on these areas, you know that we are in deep trouble. now, i see my leader, senator reid, on the floor. with his leadership we passed a bill to keep the government open, and all john boehner has to do as speaker of the house -- i know the house well, i served there for ten years -- is put our bill on the floor. and let the people vote. that is democracy. you don't have to have every republican support -- support it. you don't have to have every democrat support it. put the bill on the floor. when i was there i served with many different speakers. i have to say in my time, tip o'neill was the greatest. and why was tip o'neill great? and why can john boehner learn from tip o'neill? because tip o'neill knew what his function was. it was to keep this country

going, it was to give a sense of certainty and calm to the people that even though we could debate all kinds of things, including whether to go to war or not, or how to deal with many problems, we would keep the government going. we would pay our debt. do you know when tip o'neill was speaker, ronald reagan, republican ronald reagan asked tip o'neill to increase the debt ceiling many, many times. over the period that reagan was president, he asked to raise the debt ceiling 18 times. now, did all of us agree that the debt ceiling should be lifted? no, and a few voted no and that was fine. no one played games. and ronald reagan was very clear on the debt ceiling. he said even any talk about not raising it was a problem for this committee, and he said it

way more eloquently than i, as the great communicator. he said even the thought of a default was dangerous for our economy, and yet you have republicans in the house in particular marging -- marching down that path and also marching down the path right now to shut down this government. we are just a few short days away and i don't know about you, mr. president, but i know that i did have a meeting with my staff to explain what could happen. and people act as if a government shutdown doesn't mean pain. it's a dangerous game, and it has devastating consequences for our families. not only the people that rely on the work for their country, whether they are serving in the

military, on the military side or the civilian side, of the defense establishment, or in the social security administration or the medicare admistration, or the f.b.i. or the food inspectors or the highway inspectors. i got to say the republicans keep saying we don't want to shut down the government, believe me, we don't want to shut down the federal government. we just want to to stop the affordable care act. well, you tried 42 times. you had an election over it. give it up. this is a democracy. run candidates who want to repeal it. that's fine. that's fine. we had that in the last election. president obama won. i know people aren't happy about it. i understand that.

i wasn't happy when republicans beat my democratic candidates for president. i wasn't happy, but i didn't shut down the government. i didn't demand that their signature accomplishments be repealed. i lived with it, and i'm not, you know, the only one. we all did. we all accepted it. that's democracy. you have an election, there's winners, there's losers. suck it up. le stop stop complaining. go register your friends. tell them vote against barbara boxer. go tell them. vote against the democrats. go do it. it's fine. that's what elections are for. but once the election is over and in this last case, it was a central issue, work with us to

make it better. senator cardin and i were on the floor the other day pointing out that we voted against bau in met negotiate for lower drug prices so it was a giveaway for drug companies, they couldn't negotiate for lower drug prices. and lastly there was a great big doughnut hole so after you got a certain amount of drugs you had to get no benefit at all and seniors were risking their lives to get through that period of time. you know what we did? we didn't try to repeal the prescription drug benefit. we tried to fix it. and here's the great news: in the affordable care act, also known as obamacare, we fixed the doughnut hole, we're closing it, and now senior citizens are not going to have to cut their pills in little pieces while they wait for that

doughnut hole period of time to pass. so there are a lot of pathways forward for the republicans in the house. follow history twosic things wep this government open and pay the bills that we incurred. simple. it's not complicated. if anyone tells you it's complicated, laugh, because it isn't. if you're a family and you incur bills, you pay them or you're a deadbeat. in the old days people used to going to jail. we stopped that. now we is have bankruptcy filing. pay your bills, republicans, pay your bills. keep the government going. very simple path. take our bill we just passed, it's neutral, it has no policy

in it, it keeps the spending going, we haven't added any of our wonderful things we would like to see and do, we kept it clean, put it on the floor, it passed 54-44 and vote it. and people who want to shut down the government will vote no. that's their right. and people who want to keep the government open will vote yes. there will be republicans on either side, there will be democrats on either side, but what we hear is happening is they're going to bring it back and they're going to put more of their favorite things on it. the favorite things. who knows what they'll pick. they've got a lot. they want to shut down the environmental protection agency. they want to stop us from cleaning up the air and the water. they want to stop us from addressing the issue of coal ash piling up all over the country.

that's what they want to do from what i read in the paper. and then they want to delay this health care bill just as it's about ready to kick in. well, we've been down this road before. we know what happens when the government shuts down. and i asked my staff to go back and go to the press and look at the stories, because i am not speaking make-believe. i'm speaking history. when newt gingrich and the republicans shut down the government in the 1990's, we all know what happened. it hurt our country, it hurt our economy, it hurt our seniors, our veterans, our businesses, it hurt anyone that even had 100 shares of stock in the stock market. it hurt the american people. mark zandi, an economist who advised republican members of the senate predicts a shutdown lasting just a few days would reduce our gross domestic

product by .2%. how does that help us, when our economic growth is curtailed by a shutdown? how does it help our economy when more than 169,000 federal employees in my state and many more nationwide are furloughed without pay? it will be more than a million federal employees and 169,000 in california. these are real people with real families with real bills to pay. who get up and go to work for their nation. how does that help our economy? we know the last shutdown cost the federal government $1.4 billion if you factor in inflation, that's $2 billion and that was for two weeks -- am i right?

a two-week shutdown cost $2 billion. great. just what we need. throw money out the window because we can afford it; right? no. agencies are making their shutdown plans, mr. president. federal employees are preparing to be furloughed. and you know what happens when you get scared that you won't get a paycheck? you pull in. you don't go out to the movies. you don't go out for dinner. you are worried. and that has a trickle-down effect on small businesses. how does it help our seniors, mr. president, when the social security administration on a shutdown cannot process benefits for retirees? what happens if someone is widowed and she needs the help from her social security to get those burial benefits she's entitled to? is that making the republicans excited over there, to hurt our seniors with medicare, with

ci away, people who were waiting to turn 65 so they could get their medicare card, call up medicare, no one is there. sorry. oh, that's a lovely thing to do to your mothers and dads, i say to my colleagues over there. lovely. how does it help our veterans and their families when a new disability claim or a g.i. bill claim cannot be processed? i can tell you it hurts them. there's already a huge backlog. this is just what we don't need. a shutdown where the backlog of claims gets worse and worse. and we all say we love our veterans. and i believe that when we say that. don't shut down the government and hurt our veterans. how does it help our small businesses? republicans say they care about small businesses more than democrats. that's a lot of hokum. how does it help our small businesses when they can't bid

on government contracts or get small business loans through the s.b.a.? i tell you it hurts them. how is it going to help the more than 14,000 government contractors in california who may not get paid for their work on time? they will be hurt badly. able to pay them. if you ask the average working person how close they are to really seriously being homeless, not be able to pay their rent, it's only a few weeks for a lot of our people. and i would ask how does it help our health in this country when the e.p.a. cannot clean up toxic superfund sites? those sites harm our families. they harm our children. and they'll be shut down. how does it help our fight against cancer and alzheimer's when the n.i.h. cannot enroll

patients in drug trials? you know, if you ask people who the real enemies are, a lot of times they'll say we worry about someone in the family getting a heart attack, getting a stroke, getting alzheimer's, getting cancer. how does it help our families when the n.i.h. can't enroll patients in drug trials and the c.d.c. can no longer monitor new avian flu cases? and you tell me, republicans, who want to shut down this government, how does it help our businesses who, like our restaurateurs, our people who run hotels, when tourist visas cannot be processed? and people who are waiting to come to america, to stay at our hotels are turned away. that is bad for our economy. if my colleague wants to know how much longer i am going, it's going to be a good 20 minutes.

how does it help a family buy a house when the f.h.a. can't process the loan? the american dream of owning a home is postponed. but that's what's going to happen. and tell me how does it help a single mom when she can't get help from h.h.s. in collecting child support to feed her family? and how does it help the families in colorado, their homes and roads and bridges destroyed when the national guard, we just learned from senator udall, cannot start their work until the government reopens? it is down right dangerous. how does it help our schoolkids? how does it help our schoolkids who come to washington to learn about our great nation. they go to the mall, and they can't get in any museum. and you want to hear the ultimate outrage?

the ultimate outrage. these senate and house members who want to shut down the government will get paid during a government shutdown that they caused. let me say that again. these senate and house members who want to shut down the government, they personally will still get paid, their families will have the paycheck during a government shutdown. in march of 2011, the senate passed s*t 388 -- s. 388, the boxer-casey bill to prevent members of congress from getting paid in the event of a government shutdown or a default. it's a very simple bill. let me read it to you. members of congress and the president shall not receive basic pay for any period in which there's more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations for any federal agency or department as a failure to -- as

a result of a failure to enact a regular appropriations bill or a continuing resolution or if the federal government is unable to make payments or meet obligations because the debt limit has been reached. our bill, i'm proud to say, passed the senate. senator casey and i wrote a letter signed by 14 of our colleagues to speaker boehner and the republicans asking that they bring up and pass our bill. in that letter we said members who want to shut down the government should not continue to receive a paycheck while the rest of the nation suffers the consequences. members of congress and the president should be treated no differently than any other federal employee. we too should have to face the consequences of our actions. speaker boehner, oh, he had time to put lots of other things on the docket, but not our bill. not our bill. and so we introduced a new one. so i'm here to say we have a

bill. it's called s. 55. it says the same thing. we're not going to get paid if we don't do the two basic functions we have to do. keep this government running and raise the debt ceiling. so i really want to ask, how is it that republicans who are urging a shutdown of the government by virtue of their votes -- and we have them in the senate -- why are they not cosponsors of our bill? they don't care if the government is shut down. get on my bill. i mean, i invite senator cruz, i invite senator lee, i invite them. they spoke for 21 hours, i think it was. wow, that took a lotf my bill st get paid. because as of now, they will. they want to protect their pay. they want to protect their families.

some of them even suggest taking away the employer contribution from our staff, that is treated like almost every other employee in a big -- with a big employer, an employer contribution to health care. they want to take it away, but they want to get paid during a shutdown. so pick up the phone, senator cruz, and call me. i'll be delighted to hear from you, and let's -- let me put you on my bill, because that will be very helpful. and then we can e-mail all of your friends and tell them to get everybody else on the bill, and maybe -- just maybe -- we can make a little sacrifice if things go wrong. by the way, there's no reason for things to go wrong. we just passed a good bill, a clean bill. what we know is we're going to have arguments over health care. we're going to have arguments

over social security. we're going to have arguments over the best way to move forward with sequester. that's fine. there's a time and a place. you don't put those issues on a continuing resolution to fund the government. you don't put those issues on a debt ceiling. and as ronald reagan said, put our economy in a very dangerous, dangerous and precarious situation. now, if you listen to the speeches of my colleagues, the 21-hour speech, if you take away the time that was devoted to dr. seuss, most of it was about the affordable care act. so i think we ought to take a look at the affordable care act. this is the terrible piece of legislation that certain colleagues of the republican side say is so terrible, they're

willing to shut the government down. right now because of affordable care act, three million young adults are on their parents' plan. oh, isn't that terrible. three million of them can stay on their parents' plan. i want to know why they would shut down the government and kick those youngsters off their parents' plan? because that's what they will do. they don't tell you that, but we won't be able to enforce this law. we won't have the funds. they would kick these kids off their parents' plan because, frankly, the law would be in effect suspended. and if an insurance company said, well, you know, we're just not going to do this anymore, those youngsters are out of luck. so that's the first question i ask them. why do you want to kick three million youngsters off their

parents' plan? now, 71 million americans are getting free preventive care like checkups, birth control and immunizations. 71 million americans. so now when you don't fund this bill, delay it or fool around with it, forget this. so now 71 million people who could have gotten immunized don't get immunized, a good bunch of them because maybe they can't afford it. under the affordable care act, it's free, and they get sick and then you catch what they get. and tell me how that makes america a better place. i'm waiting to hear. no one has told me how it makes america a better place when we kick children off their parents' plan or we take away immunization or birth control or checkups from our people. you know, i mentioned this

before. senator king was talking about how as a result when he was a youngster, he worked here and he had health insurance. and the health insurance allowed him to get free medical checkup, and he got a free checkup. and he found out that he had a melanoma, a mole that had gone cancerous. it was very serious. he was a youngster. this is a long time ago for him, and he said as a result of that he is with us today living and well. and here to fight for health care. that's a story we should think about, because he went to the doctor. the doctor looked at him and found this mole. he got that mole removed, and he is alive. tell me why republicans want to take away free preventive care from 71 million americans. that's what the affordable care

act does. they call it obamacare because they pulled it, and when they say obamacare -- they polled it and when they say obamacare it's less popular. so i'll call it obamacare. i thought the president was really funny when he said after this law's out there a few years and people like it, the republicans will stop calling it obamacare. i thought that was a moment of levity that had a lot of truth to it. now, listen to this. this is another benefit the republicans would delay, stop and put in jeopardy. they'll even shut the government down. they don't like the fact, i guess, that 17 million children with preexisting conditions like asthma and diabetes can no longer be denied coverage. so i have to ask them, what's it you got against kids? in the past -- and i've met the parents -- if a child had

diabetes, in a child had asthma the insurance company said sorry, you're out of luck. because of the affordable care act, obamacare, children can no longer be denied coverage. and i met little kids -- and i don't know if you've done this yet, madam president. i've met these little kids who have benefited, who have gotten the care, who are doing well because the moms and tkapbdz don't have to wait -- and dads don't have to wait until they're gasping for air and have an absolute breakdown and then they have to rush them to the emergency room where they're patched up and don't get the kind of care that they need. now here's another thing that i don't understand. why the republicans feel it's a good thing for insurance companies to be able to cancel your health insurance when you get sick. that's what used to happen before obamacare, before the affordable care act.

remember, this law has been in effect for three years. so all these benefits have gotten into place. no more lifetime limits. i remember once looking at our insurance policy many years ago, madam president -- m, my husbant through his employ aner, and we thought it was a great plan. then we look the at the lilt print and it said, when you reach a cap of $50,000, no more health insurance. now, anyone can tell you who has the misfortune to get a serious condition, a disease, that you can bump up against that cap real fast, and no more insurance until you pray to god that you're 65 and you can get medicare. so we immediately said, we have to look for a different policy that has no caps and, of course, it costs more. under obamacare or the affordable care act, no more lifetime limits, no more annual

limits. and the republicans are so descraw-- areso distraught at t, they're willing to shut down the government, they're willing to delay obamacare, they are a he willing to repeal obamacare. this is a pattern. i'm going to show you what happened when a democratic president in the 1960's came up with the idea for medicare. i'm going to tell you what the republicans said then. this isn't something that just happened to the republican party. they have been fighting these kinds ofenefits since, i think, decades and decades and decades. they fought social security in the 1930's. but i'll just go to medicare. dick armey said, in 1995 -- he was the republican house majority leader. he had eric cantor's job.

medicare is -- quote -- "a program i would have no part of in a free world." earth to senior citizens: wake up. the republican leader of the house in 1995 said, medicare iss "a program i would have no part of in a free world." that same year, after leading an effort to raise premiums and costs for senior citizens, newt gingrich predicted that medicare was -- quote -- "going to wither on the vine." so when you hear these republicans rail against obamacare, they railed against medicare, they railed against social security. this is history. this is history. this is why there's a difference in the parties.

and listen to this. in 1965, this is what senate majority leader bob dole said on the floor. now, remember, he bragged about this in 1996 during this medicare fight. he said, "i was there, fighting the fight, voting against medicare ... because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965." really? the republicans knew that medicare wouldn't work in 1965. here it is 2013 and people are saying, don't you mess with my medicare. don't you touch it. whether they're tea partiers or right-wing republicans, moderate republicans, liberal republicans, democrats from left to right, they all say, don't mess with my medicare. but look at where the republicans were, and, look, don't forget paul ryan's budget destroys medicar -- destroys

it. and it would never look the same if he had his way. now, i will even go back further in history and show you some of the things that the republicans said about medicare when it was brought us to by the democrats. -- brought to us by the democrats. 60% of republicans of the senate vietnavoted against it and one representative, durward hall of missouri said, "we cawe cannot d idly by now, as the nation is urged to embark on an ill-conceived adventure in government medicine, the end of which no one can see, and from which the patient is certain to be the ultimate sufferer." this man had it wrong. people love their medicare.

people tell me, they're down on their hands and knees, praying to get the medicare card, hoping they can hold out. republicans have had it wrong. why should we trust them and believe them when they say the affordable care act is no good, when we already see how many people it's helping? then there's senator simpson -- milward simpson, and he said -- and this was way back when in the 1960's -- "i am disturbed about the effect this legislation would have on our economy and upon our private insurance system ..." well, he didn't have to be concerned. medicare has worked beautifully. in the affordable care act we make it better, we fix the prescription drug benefit, we make sure that our people on medicare can have free checkups and immunizations. we've strengthened it. so let's look at medicare's success. before medicare became the law, a majority of seniors had no health insurance.

today nearly all seniors -- 50 million -- are receiving guaranteed health care through medicare. and 80% of those on medicare feel the program is working. and if you look over history, over the years medicare has been more successful than private insurers at holding down health care costs. so let me sum up. what we saw here today is some good news. working with our republicans we managed to be able to bring up a bill and modify it and make it clean, strip it of any kind of debate, and fund the government just till the middle of november. that will give senator murray time to sit down with her counterparts and try to get a really long-term solution. you know, you want a long-term

solution to our deficit and de debt. you have to have a budget, and yet republicans over here have stopped us from going to conference. so once this is done, we can have a conference move forward, a debate go forward. let's keep these arguments where they belong, which is separate and apart from keeping the government going. let's keep these separate and apart from paying the bills we've already if you listen to the republicans, you'd that i this deficit has gone up under president obama. president obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit. it is now down -- it's been cut in half. it's been cut in half. but you listen to them, you'd think that, oh, my god, everything is awful. i just took a look at the chartschartsi.

i took a look at deficits under democratic and republican presidents. i am so proud to be a democrat. under democratic presidents, we've had surpluses. the under bilox bill clinton, wa surplus. under george w. bush, he said i'm going to have a party. i'm going to put two cards on the credit card, i'm going to give the biggest tax cut to millionaires and billionaires. and you know what? we had a crisis, a crisis. not only the worst recession since the great depression, but the deficits skyrocketed. you know, all those supply-side economists were proven wrong. oh, give tax cuts to the mightiest among us, and oh, the deficit will go down. that's voodoo economics, was it was once called bay really good republican -- by a really good republican president. that's voodoo economics. so you're going to hear all kinds of things today in these

speeches. but history is history. bill clinton had the surplus. george bush turned it into the worst deficits in history. barack obama cut that in half. he rescued us with the democrats and some brave republicans who voted for economic stimulus. thank the lord. and we're getting out of this mess. but now we have republicans in the far right of the house who are holding our country hostage because they don't like the affordable care act otherwise known as obamacare. they voted 42 times to repeal it and they are ignoring the fact that we had an election about t and they're ignoring the fact that they don't running the senate or the white house. they run one-third of the

government. fine. god bless them. but they have to work with us, not against us. we need to work together. i served ten proud years over there. i have never seen a situation where you're stopped from making any progress because 20 people belong to the tea and are -- toa party and are threatening the speaker. the speaker has to act like the speaker of the house. he is not the speaker of the republicans. he is the speaker of the house. take our tbhail just passed, put it on the -- take our bill that just passed, put it on the floor -- some sl vot will vote aye, sl vote nay -- and see what happens. there are people that are worried that this government will shut down. they're worried that when they call for their social security check, no unwith will be there.

they're worried when they want to sign up for medicare, no one will be there. they're concerned that their f.b.i. antiquities are furloughed. they're concerned. you know, maybe this concern which may not sound like a big deal. but they sa saved for two yearso take their kids to the capitol and they want to take them to all the national parks and they are closed. why is this happening? self-inflicted wound. self-inflicted wound. do your job. and, for god's sakes, don't get paid if you can't keep the government open. sign on in this body to s. 55 and say, i won't get paid if the government shuts down. and tell speaker boehner to do that. they did it over there for the budget. they said, if we didn't pass a budget, we shouldn't get paid. well, we did pass a budget. now they won't let us go to conference and finish the work. what a mess we're in. self-inflicted because people

are in denial around here that there was an election, it was about health care, it was about being moderate, it was about working together, it was about compromise, it wasn't about who was the presidential candidate that could lead us into the darkness and despair of complete warfare. so let's end that warfare. we showed we could do it today. i want to thank my republican colleagues who voted to allow us to offer our amendment. i appreciate it so much, and i know they're getting yelled at. and they should be praised. but it shows right here in this senate that we can come together. we may not like our options or our choices. believe me, i don't like the amount of money we're spending to run the government. it's really hurting my people back home. but i'm not going to shut the government down about it.

so, madam president, you are such a great, new addition to the united states senate. and i'll disappointed that you're not able to unleash your legislative prowess and move us forward. but we'll get past this. we'll get past it if we can work together. thank you very much, and i yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i wanted to share some remarks about the comment comments and o say that senator boxer is a great advocate and does a good job as chair of our committee on environment and public works, and pretty much we've had unanimous votes on bills that come out, republicans and democrats voting unanimously on the bills that have been coming out. and so sometimes we all have differences and we fight over them, but a lot of times things are getting done around here that we can work on.

but i would just say, it's not actually fully correct to say the republicans opposed the president's health care bill, the affordable care act, obamacare. the american people opposed it by huge numbers, and they, through a remarkable election and some very close wins, found themselves with 60 votes in the senate of the united states. they had a majority in the house. and they decided to move this bill, and they got -- they shut out. republicans got it through even when scott brown, if you remember, was running for the senate in massachusetts to fill the late-senator kennedy's seat, and he promised he would be the vote that would deny the 60 votes and stop this bill, and he won in massachusetts. but he couldn't get here quick enough. they were able to get the bill passed before he got here to

kill it. so this has never been a popular bill. and the -- and the polling numbers show it's even less popular today than it was when they rammed it through. and thank -- is not a little bitty matter and it threatens the republic, i think, in a lot of different ways, and i talked about that earlier. but i would just say, to understand the dynamics on the floor of the senate, you have to understand that the majority leader, having got his bill passed on christmas eve 2009, after all kinds of maneuvers to get that accomplished, has protected it from any further debate and discussion. he has blocked any ability to bring up the legislation and be able to amend it and fix some of the obvious flaws in it. and one of the top drafters, the chairman of the -- democratic chairman of the finance

committee, has called it a train wreck and it needs at least reform. it really can't succeed in its present form. so senator reid has blocked any effort to bring up a bill and fix it. so american people might find that hard to believe but i would repeat, since that time, there's been numerous efforts on behalf of members of this side to call up amendments and call up legislation to alter, amend and replace the obamacare legislation and he has utilized parliamentary maneuvers, filling the tree, to block that. and so it can't continue. this thing is about to become a law. it's going to hammer the american economy. it's already hammering the economy. the american people don't want it. and we're not going to go silently in this. so this is the beginning of the fight. senator cruz, maybe people can disagree with his tactics, but

he drove the issue, he raised the issue, and we need to keep talking about it. we just do. and time for this congress to listen to the voice of the american people. now, you know, senator boxer sees a good partisan when she wants to be and she said president bush had trillion-dollar deficits and president obama has reduced them in half. the highest deficit president bush ever had in the eight years he served as president was $4 $487 billion, which is a lot of money. too much. the year before it was $16 $168 billion. president obama took office, what was the first thing that was passed within weeks? a trillion-dollar stimulus bill supposedly to stimulate the economy, but really it was money that went out to government

agencies and departments and had no stimulus impact really. at all. but it was $1 trillion, every penny was which was borrowed. that year the deficit went up well over a trillion dollars. the next year, well over a trillion dollars. the next year, well over a trillion dollars. the next year, well over a trillion dollars. the first four years of president obama's leadership, we had the highest deficits ever recorded in america. it's a stunning event. and he fought every day and there were fights on the floor to spend more and borrow more. and some of his advisors would say, well, the reason this economy isn't growing so well, we didn't borrow and spend enough. didn't spend enough. we should have created more debt and spend more. but it's resulted to this date in the lowest rebound economically from a recession

since world war ii. and we're not doing well in that regard. it's just absolutely not so that president obama bears no responsibility for the unprecedented debt that he has run up during this time. and he still is advocating for a trillion dollars more in spending above the budget control act levels that he agreed to in 2011, in the summer of 2011, the budget control act. he wants to spend a trillion dollars more than what he signed as an agreement to raise the debt ceiling he agreed -- i know he didn't want to but congress said we're going to cut back on your credit card. we're going to raise the debt ceiling $2 trillion, as you say you need. we're going to demand that you reduce the growth of spending over 10 years by $2 trillion. we were projected to have

spending growth $2 trillion over the current rate of spending, which is about $3.6 trillion a year. we were going to increase it total of $10 trillion. we would have increased it under b.c.a., if we adhere to it, by $8 trillion. not $10 trillion. that is not going to bankrupt america. there's no reason we can't run this government by growing the spending by $8 trillion in send it of $10 trillion. so it's unbelievable that we make that point. and i know the budget balanced in the last of 1990's and president clinton proudly claims credit for that and he was a part of it. but i haven't forgotten that the republican house was in a constant battle over the democratic president clinton spending levels and there was actually a fairly long shutdown of the government containing the

growth of spending. and it resulted in a balanced bd budget. that's how it happened. there was credit enough to go on both sides of that. so, well, the -- we need health care reform. it needs to be smartly, effectively done. we can improve a lot of conditions in our country but it does not have to tank the american economy. and that's what's been happening in recent days. and really was going to talk with that. and without much reference to the obamacare which is really a negative factor on the economy.

but following my friend, senator boxer, i wanted to share those points. last thursday i delivered the first in a series of speeches looking at the state of our economy. i directed my staff on the budget committee -- i'm the ranking republican there -- to specifically analyze conditions facing working americans so that i could share those findings directly with the members of the senate. both parties need to focus on efforts on defending working americans from policies, washington policies too often, that damage their financial well-being. it's happening. last week i discussed the incomes and social challenges eroding the security of the middle class. today i'll focus on the jobless recovery and the general problem of unemployment. few things matter more to a working family than the pace of the economy.

especially after a hard recession. on the one hand, if it's a rapid, strong recovery, jobs will return quickly, people will work to the work force and a great deal of social suffering will be averted. if, on the other hand, it's a slow recovery, then businesses don't create many new jobs, wages stagnate or fall, as they've been doing, and families continue to borrow from their savings to pay their bills. life is spent wondering and worrying about the future. we live today in the slowest economic recovery -- they called it an economic recovery -- since the recession but it's the slowest once since the end of world war ii. no recovery from a recession since the ends of world war ii -- since the end of world war ii has been as low as this one. not counting the great recession, we've had 11 recessions since 1945 -- 11 recessions since 1945. all had faster, stronger recoveries than this one. all of them we bounced back

quicker. just how slow it this economic economic? roar? recovery? well, it's been six years. we still have not returned to the number of jobs we had six years ago. we haven't come back to the number of people working that we had six years ago. we are 1,988,000 -- almost 2 million -- short of the 146,273 -- excuse me, 146,273,000 jobs we had when the recession began. this is not good. let's compare that with the other two really bad post-war recessions, the contractions of 1973-1975 and 1981 and 1982. serious recessions. the recession of 1972 lasted 16

months. the recession of 1981, after that collapse, lasted 16 months. and the recession of 2007 lasted until june of 2009, or 18 months. working people were hit hard by these two recessions. these earlier recessions, the unemployment rate rose to 9% in 1975 and 10.8% in 1982. the highest monthly unemployment rate for the great recession of 2007-2009 was 10%. our unemployment rate didn't hit as high as 1982. not much difference in the severity and length of these recessions. they're pretty similar. even so, total jobs had recovered by 26 months after the start of the 1973 recession and by 28 months after the start -- after the recovery from the 1981

recession. it has been 70 months, however, since the start of the 19 -- 2007 recession and unemployment has not yet recovered. lost hours of work is another and even better way to gauge the failure of a -- an economy and a recovery. it's not simply the number of jobs that -- in the economy but the number of hours worked that strongly influences the pace of economic activity. in the fourth quarter of 2007, just as the recession was starting, americans worked about 236 billion hours -- that's a lot of hours -- 236 billion hours. we still have not returned to that level. in the third quarter of 2013, just last quarter, the labor department estimated americans still only worked 232 billion hours.

that's a shortfall of 3.5 billion hours, and the decline is greater per worker since the population of available workers has increased by 9 million. so we've got 9 million more workers and a decline in number of hours worked still well below what the number was in 2007. this is not the kind of recovery we need to be looking for. still another way to show the slowness of this recovery is to measure how much higher g.d.p., the economy, is today compared to the start of the recession. it owrnz out that economic output is 4.4% higher. compare this with the 1973 and 1981 recessions. by this time now in the 1973 recession, g.d.p. was 17.9%

higher. and g.d.p. after the 1981 recession by this time was 70 -- or 20% higher. that is, the economy was 20% bigger by this time after the 1981 recovery. our current is only 4.4% larger. the 1981 economic gains were five times as great as this. these are the top-line numbers. what do they mean to real people. below this surface, we find extensive economic suffering throughout our nation. there are 25% more discouraged workers today -- 988,000 versus 793,000 -- than there were in june of 2009, when the recession inned. we had 366,000 discouraged workers when the recession started in 2007, which -- which

means we've had an increase of 172% in this sad number in six years. one of the most stunning developments of this recovery has been a decline in the labor force participation rate. this is the fun -- a fundamental indicator of the breadth and depth of a recovery and in economic growth. today, 58.7% of noninstitutionalized population 16 years of age and older are working. 58.7% today. in 2007, that number stood at 62.7%. the current rate of labor force participation is the lowest this nation has seen since 1975.

the -- the number, percentage of the population working today in the age group of workers is the lowest since it's been since 1975. and it's -- it's not getting better. this decline is due to two factors -- increased unemployment and labor force dropouts. discouraged people who are no longer even looking for work. how many people are we talking about? if the same percentage of population were working today as was working in 2007, we would have 154,000, 089 workers. since we only have 144 million people working, it appears that 9,804,000 people are out of the labor force. nine million that we would normally expect to be working are out of the labor force.

and when they are out of the labor force, it does not show up in the unemployment rate. it's only people who are actually applying for jobs that show up in the unemployment rate. and so the unemployment rate we see today has the real depth of the unemployment problem we have in america. one of the 5.7 million -- of the 5.7 million who totally dropped out, more retirements and more disability than in 2007 explains about two-thirds of those dropouts. people went on disability, went on retirement. many of them went on retirement at 62 when they really would have been better if they could have had a decent job opportunity. and work to 65, 66, 70. they have dropped out because they are older workers, perhaps, and just not able to find decent work. but it cannot be good for america for millions of people

who take their social security at 62 rather than later too often because no work is available. more than four million unemployed americans have been out of work for more than 27 weeks, four million. more than half the year they have been unemployed. all told, 11.5 million americans want work but cannot find jobs. the unemployment rate for those between the ages of 16 and 19 who are not in school or in the military or in prison stands at 24%. so teenagers have a very l number, and the number is much higher for minority teenagersan. this is the highest teenaged employment rate that has ever been this far in a recovery. it's very dangerous for our society to have so many young people, especially young men whose rates are even higher,

unemployment rates are even higher than females out of work. this is not good for america. we need to be having a growing economy that creates jobs, and we don't need to be bringing in under the immigration bill that passed this senate, we don't need to be bringing in twice the number of low-skilled workers that we have been doing and we have a generous immigration policy. this bill would double the number of guest workers coming into america. they take jobs that our children need to be doing. they need to be working. we don't need teenagers and young people 19, 20, 22, 23 with nothing to do month after month, year after year. with 13% unemployment among african-americans is about twice the national average of 7.4%. unemployment among hispanics stands at 9.4%.

unemployment among those with less than a high school education is 11%. we want to bring in really millions of people without high school education to compete for the few jobs that are out there. again, these statistics, as bad as they are, mask the real-life implications of the slow economy. these are young careers that have failed to launch when they should, marriages perhaps put off until the economy improves, families not started until couples can afford generation, which our children then arrive out of wedlock. retirements taken too early. loss of homes perhaps. older children at home who should be out on their own, and we would normally expect them to be working. lots of part-time extra jobs at lower pay just to make ends meet. indeed, one of the most devastating streaks is the growth in part-time work instead of full-time work. it's a stunning number.

we have 5,188,000 fewer full-time jobs today than in december of 2007. five million fewer. that equals a decrease in full-time employment of 4.3%, even though our population is growing. at the same time, part-time employment has grown by three million over the same time period. that's an increase in part-time jobs up 13%. so make no mistake. the total number of jobs since 2007 is down, and for the people who are finding work, the work they find too often can only be part time. 77% of the people that got a job since january of this year got a part-time job, not a full-time job, and when you see colleagues, the reports that we

added 190,000 jobs, 170,000, 200,000 jobs. remember, 77% of those are part-time jobs. those numbers hide the reality of the danger in our work force. nearly 90% of the increase in part-time work represents people who, according to the labor department, -- quote -- could only find part-time work, close quote. in other words, they would like full-time work but could only find part-time work. at the end of 2007, this number stood at 1.1 -- 1.2 million. however, the most recent data shows that this population has grown by 127% to 2,714,000. 127% increase in this number. job growth in the economy since

2007 has been principally in part-time work. we are becoming a part-time economy. and the president's health care law, without any doubt -- i don't believe any economist, even if you tried to sugarcoat it as best they could, would deny that the president's health care law is playing a major factor in the shift from full-time work to part-time work. and as we all know, part-time workers don't enjoy the same health retirement, vacation and other benefits as full-time workers do. it's exceedingly hard indeed to succeed in this economy and in a career with only a part-time job. so we must recognize one of the biggest contributors to the decline in full-time jobs is the health care bill we have been debating. as others have observed, it is destroying a 40-hour workweek. that's what a union leader said.

it's destroying the 40-hour workweek. it is even an assault on workers. let me tell you about one constituent who wrote my office, linda askew, from sheffield, alabama, wrote in july, asking congress to do something to help. she has a small neighborhood business. she employs less than 10 people. according to miss askew -- quote -- "we have been here for almost 50 years. we have tried to help our employees have health care for over ten years now. the new premiums are $590 per month for single coverage and $120 for family coverage -- coverage -- $1,520 for family coverage. these costs are becoming unbearable for our economy. more troubling than that is the letter -- she got a letter from her insurance company that said part of the reason for this increase was blamed on a new health care law, reform fees and

taxes that health insurers must pay on behalf of all their groups. so to reduce the cost of health care in america, the health care bill raised taxes on the people, the insurance companies who provide it. it just gets passed along. small businesses cannot keep up with these increases, she said. so in the coming days, as i document the conditions facing american workers, i will also address the many causes of this economic deterioration, and there are many, many causes of the deterioration in the economy. republicans and democrats need to heed these problems i have stated, and a decline in wages began in 1999 through different administrations. the decline in work force participation goes back to 1975. so the question is what are we going to do about it, republicans and democrats?

we need to consider these issues and deal with them. what we have seen is immensely troubling. as washington grows larger, washington grows wealthier and more powerful, american workers are being impoverished, sidelined and marginalized. did you see the numbers that the only area of america that has been showing wage growth is washington? washington from the government class is being enriched at the expense of the middle class. from deficit spending to federal regulation to the immigration bill, washington is pursuing policies that benefits lobbyists to well-connected government employees, regulators and bureaucrats, but that are reducing the wages and job

opportunities for everyday american workers. the numbers are clear. both parties need to shout out to special interests, work to develop policies that will restore our history of dynamic economic growth, and we can do so, growth that benefits all the people of our nation. so what is the response we get from the governing class? what do they tell us? the problem is on the deficit, what do they say the problem is? you haven't sent enough money. it's your problem, american people. just send us more money, we won't have deficits anymore. trust us, send us more money. the president proposed a $1 trillion tax increase in his budget. it was rejected, but that's what he proposed, that's what he advocates for. so they want to spend more.

they believe they can invest -- you give the government more money and it's going to invest in the economy and everybody is going to be better off, but we have seen that movie. it's been going on for five years. to a degree unprecedented in the history of america. they say don't worry, borrow and spend. don't worry about the debt. we can just borrow more and spend money, and that will stimulate the economy. they say we need to regulate more. we need to block more american energy and import more, i suppose, from venezuela and saudi arabia. that's going to improve our economy? we're going to drive up the cost of energy and coal? that's going to improve jobs in america? that's going to make a working person who now has to pay $200 a month for his gas bill to

commute, $250? so that's supposed to be good for us? so all we've heard is more taxes, more regulations, more government, more debt. and that's the policy we have been seeing here. i haven't seen anything that really has the power to produce growth and prosperity that we need. and so i say, madam president, we have got to get over this, we have tried this. it's not working. these policies have made it worse. so we have to get back to classical american policies that validate individual responsibility, that allow people to progress and make more, that don't drive us to import more oil, that don't put regulations by massive numbers all over the economy, driving down productivity and driving up cost. that's the kind of thing we need to be doing. if we will do that and if we will allow the vitality of the

american spirit to flourish and flower and get this burden off their back, i think we'll be surprised how much better things can be. but it's a serious crisis. the trend has been going on far too long. we can't ignore it. we can't say it is just the recession. we have been going a long time since 2007. we have not seen the growth that we need. the tax and spend and borrow policies haven't worked. so it is time for us to confront that. i hope my colleagues will. i will continue to examine the data that we have seen out there and share it with us all, and maybe we can surprise ourselves how much good we can do in the long run. thank you, madam president. i would yield the floor.

quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i thank the president for recognizing me and allowing me to follow remarks that i agree with that senator sessions just made. i mean, i'm disappointed at what happened this week. those of us on the minority learned another lesson, the minority is to get to a bill we wanted to get to the majority has the votes to amend that bill unless some of the majority would decide with us and they did amend the bill in ways i didn't agree with, taking the provisions out that would have defunded the move toward the health care plan that i think we're going to see more and more the country isn't ready for,

but the bill did go back to the house. the bill was changed from the house -- the bill that the house sent over and so the bill went back to the house, they have a chance to see what else they might be able to do and hopefully in the next few days between now and the end of the fiscal year, which is monday, by the way, madam president, hopefully we'll find a way to do some things that will make the system work better, will do what we should have done in the debate process, as i said on the floor a day or two ago, the great disappointment is that over and over again we failed to let the process work. over and over again we failed to bring the bills to the floor, offer amendments, set the priorities for the country and so here it is, the last friday of the spending year, the last friday of our budget year, the

last friday of the fiscal year, and the senate has not passed one single appropriations bill. except the six-week c.r. that says we can't decide how to do anything new so let's do for another six weeks what we did last year. surely that's not good enough and we need to get beyond that. the vote today taken on the senate floor didn't send a bill to the president to be signed. sent it back across the capitol building to see what the house of representatives may want to do next and i look forward to working with them and with my colleagues here in the senate to see what that might be. i want to talk for a few minutes, madam president, about the debt ceiling itself. the white house announced just in the laws few days that -- the last few days we'd reach that debt ceiling in about three

weeks. that number always seems to me to be pretty much a number that can be worked with, it's not like the end of the fiscal year, but it is a date that the secretary of treasury said we need to look at, and the president said he would not negotiate on the debt ceiling. that's really a very interesting position to take, and it's wots wrong -- it's what's wrong with the government now and i suppose the congress might say we don't negotiate on the debt ceiling either. maybe that means we don't have a debt ceiling because nobody wants to negotiate. then the president said at a group in washington this week, i think he said nonbudget items have never been attached to the debt ceiling before, and so i'm going to include at -- ask at the end of my remarks an article from "the washington post" of just a few days ago by glen

kessler, who actually looks at that, is that really accurate, is what the president said accurate, we've never done this before, that this is totally new, this is a new demand that no congress has ever made before except, by the way, the budget control act two and a half years ago that the president signed and a few other things that have happened, but it has happened before. i want to talk about that a little bit. this is not a new moment for us. when members of the congress have been concerned about spending since -- certainly since the 1970's budget act, but even before that, when the debt ceiling had to be increased, members of congress wanted to talk about spending and other things that they couldn't get attention to any other way. in 1953, during the eisenhower administration, fiscal fiscal

conservatives in the congress led by a democrat from virginia, harry byrd, didn't believe we'd be able to fund the interstate highway system. so they used the debt limit vote, the debt limit debate as a place to try to find out what they could do about the highway system and how it was going to be funded. 1953, this is a long time ago, lom longer now than the lifetime of most members of the senate. but that's how it was used then. in 1973 when richard nicks not n was president --, richard nixon was president, democrats in the senate sought to attach a campaign finance bill to the debt ceiling. this was during watergate and, of course, i guess that would certainly meet the definition of a nonbudget item, a campaign finance bill that there was a great effort to do in 1993 and add to the debt ceiling --,

1973, rather. in 1993, a study of the politics of the debt limit for the public administrative review said that during the past period the genesis of a pattern developed that would actually become full-blown in the 1970's and 1980's using the debt ceiling vote as a vehicle for other legislative matters. so certainly that's something we can talk about. some would have economic consequence, others wouldn't. one thought is let's not move forward with the individual mandate in health care. if you don't move forward with the mandate, there may be significant advantages in the pressure that takes off the spending in the exchange but whether it's an economic issue or not, it's a fairness issue. the president who now has suspended the requirement that

businesses offer insurance in 2015 -- seems to me the only fair thing to do is if you take the obligation off businesses to offer insurance is to take the obligation off individuals who the law would have -- would require to have insurance if they didn't get it at work. you've taken away -- surely you can't justify saying businesses don't have to pay the penalty, but individuals do. i think that that's a fair debate to have. it's a fair debate to have either over the weekend as part of how we move forward with funding the government or a fair debate to have if we're going to increase the federal government's ability to borrow money. we ought to talk about things that are going to result in spending lots of money. remember, the requirement for the individual mandate that the president also waived was the requirement to be able to prove income.

now, why does that matter? on the exchange, if your income -- depending on how high your income is, you get taxpayer subsidy for the insurance you buy. but the president said the requirement to verify income won't be there in the way the law envisioned for this first year. so, again, how is that fair to the taxpayers? that the taxpayers are subsidizing somebody's estimate of income. we just got through with today taxpayers subsidizing a lot of mortgages that couldn't be paid because that structure allowed people to estimate what their income would be on their mortgage application without submitting anything but their estimate of what their income could be. as it turned out, when people are trying to buy a house and prove they can make a mortgage payment, a significant number of people estimated they would make more money than they made. it's going to be equally true

when it's time to qualify for taxpayer assistance, a significant number of people may estimate -- maybe in some level of good faith, it could work out that way, that i'm going to make less money than i made last year or less money than i'm likely to make this year but i'm going to have a level of income that allows me to have a higher subsidy. i think it's certainly a possibility that we in one of these two things are happening right now. we need to look at the equity and fairness of having an individual penalty, and the president saying we don't have a penalty for businesses that don't provide insurance. let me get back to a few more examples. in -- one of the debt limit debates, major changes in social security were attached. an amendment in one of the debates was to end the bombing

in cambodia. 25 amendments that were nongermane to spending were in this discussion between 1978 and 1987. the president maybe is proving here more than anything else that you better be very careful when you say something has never happened, particularly if it's happened over and over again, and particularly if you think that somehow as president you can decide that the future of the country is nondebatable, that you can decide how high the debt limit is, is nondebatable. whatever the secretary of the treasury says, that's what we need what would the president say about that? he'd say it's because we've already obligated this money, the fact that this money may already be obligated doesn't mean we shouldn't look at every other with way we spend money or control spending and what we need to do about that.

1982 the majority leader at that time howard baker said we'll have a free-for-all on the debt limit ceiling, the debt ceiling, and 1,400 nongermane amendments became part of that debate. and they included limiting federal jurisdiction over school prayer and other things. in 1980, the house and senate rejected a central part of president carter's energy policy, the oil import fee, as part of the debt ceiling discussion. no bigger stretch than not going forward with the individual mandate as part of the debt ceiling discussion. less than 10% of the debt bills passed between 1978 and 2002 contained amendments not limited to the debt or budget, but they all -- many of them contained

an amendment that was limited to how we spend our money. when you're spending too much money, when you already owe $17 trillion, it's time to talk about how are we spending this money and what can we do to do something about it before we further extend the line of credit. if any of us went to a banker and said we spent all the money we've already borrowed, still got a lot of bills coming in, we need to borrow a lot more money, frankly, under any of the rules this congress has passed in the last several years the banker couldn't loan you money and if they could loan you money they wouldn't loan you money without saying tell us again, what are you trying to do to get your spending under control, so you're not back here had in a few days or a few months asking for more credit? now, the thing we know is that under almost any imaginable circumstance, this is not the last debt ceiling increase we'll ever make.

so if we're going to be back in a few weeks, a few months, a year, however long this debt ceiling extends to, asking for more money, we ought to be talking about how we're spending the money we have. october 17 won't be as far away as it might seem. it's very close to us now. the secretary of the treasury says that the country will have only approximately $30 billion to meet our country's commitments, but on october 17 money doesn't stop coming in. on october 18, you might be able to arrange the books in a way you don't have quite enough money to pay all the bills going out, but this is not a government shutdown scenario. we need to solve the problem of this weekend and early next week, and then get to the debt

ceiling, and whether the president wants to great debate it or not, it's going to be debated. and i think it's going to be negotiated, and the idea that this is going to be a so-called clean debt limit increase that won't be negotiated because it impacts the full faith and credit of the united states senate the united states senate, we're going to pay our bills, madam president. i think we all know that. we've paid our bills since the founding of this government but we're not going to pay our bills, we're not going to get another advance on our allowance without somebody saying exactly how are you spending this money as fast as you're spending it and why are you back again saying you need more of it? the american people overwhelmingly rejected the idea that this shouldn't be negotiated. a new bloomberg poll out this week americans by a two to one ratio disagreed with the president's contention that the

congress should raise the debt ceiling without conditions. instead, 61% said that it's the right thing to do to require spending cuts when the debt ceiling is raised, and they said even if it risks default. the american people want us to fight as we have this week to try to, and will continue to to try to defund a health care system that won't work, but they also want us to fight to be sure that the money we're spending, that we get from taxpayers, the money that we obligate future generations to, the bills that we are building up for somebody else to pay have the kind of debate, the kind of negotiation, the kind of important view of the future that they deserve to have. and i would urge the president and the majority leader of the senate to sit down with the house and others and try to work

this out as soon as we can. and just understand, frankly, that whether you want to negotiate or not doesn't really matter. there is nowhere in the constitution that says when we owe more money than we pay the president can decide whether there's going to be a discussion or not. that is not how this system works. it's not how it's going to work over the next two weeks or the next month or whatever it takes to resolve the debt limit. and hopefully we'll all be working hard over the next two days to do whatever it takes to keep the government of the united states of america working on october 1. just because we have failed for the entire year to do the work that the senate is supposed to do doesn't mean we can continue to fail in a way that punishes the american people by not having a government that's functioning on the first day of the spending year. and with that, madam president, i'd notice the absence of a

quorum. provide the clerk will call the roll. -- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes eachment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader with the concurrence of the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nominations calendar number 204 and 205, that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form. upon the use or yielding back of that tiernlg the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed. ththe motion to reconsider be ld on the table, with no intervening action or debate, no further motions be in order, any related statements be printed in the record and president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from

further consideration of s. res. 214. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 214, designating the week of october 13, 2013, through october 19, 2013, as national case management week and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. and the senate will proceed with the measure. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that from friday, september 27, through monday, september 30, the majority leader and senator boxer be authorized to sign duly enrolled business or resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid:, madam president, i want to thank all my republican colleagues and of course democrat colleagues who acted responsibly today to prevent a

government shutdown. now house republicans should follow the example set by republicans here in the senate. i want everyone to listen and to hear: the united states senate has acted. this is the only legislation that can avert a government shutdown, and that time is ticking as we speak. the senate will be back in session on monday. in the meantime, if speaker boehner wants to avoid a government shutdown, he will pass our resolution. otherwise, it's a government shutdown. the president just spoke on national tv out lining how bad that would be and we've said it here on the floor. but it doesn't have the power of the president telling everyone how bad it would be, and it would be very, very negative for our economy and for the american people generally. house republicans should think long and hard, madam president, about what's at stake and who would be hurt bay government shutdown. -- by a government shutdown. each of us, all 535 members of

congress, were elected by the american people to serve the american people, and the american people deserve better than a government that lurches from crisis to crisis caused by a handful of people. american families deserve a government that works for them, not against them. i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completees its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, september 30, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, following any leader remarks, the sna proceed to morning business until 5:00 p.m. with senators prime ministered to speak up to ten minutes each, and the majority leader be recognized at 5:00 p.m. senators will be notified when the next votes are scheduled. if floss further business to come before the senate, i ask that it be adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

>> this 20 minute portion took

place just before the final vote. >> i'm not sure if you have a fax machine at home. not many americans do anymore. neither do a lot of small businesses. so it seems a bit odd to tell small businesses they need to fax and, that is thaksin for obamacare. that's just what the obama administration is now doing. i might paraphrase the president. the 80s called and they want their health policy back. now to be fair, spam mail is also an option and it looks like the presidents people will try to have the issue fixed soon, despite passing a law more than three years ago. but then again this is the same president who told us that obamacare is working the way it's supposed to, president obama's said, that those who already have health care won't see any changes under this law. the same guy who promised us his health care ideas would make

american premiums lower, and that they would be able to keep the plans they like. so forgive me for being a little bit skeptical, given how these other rosy scenarios have played out. now, i'm not the only skeptic out there you're just ask the folks have already gotten laid off or seen their hours cut. ask the graduate to can't find anything but part-time work. ask the twentysomething who's going to lose her employer health plan and pay more over in the exchanges. the reality simply does not match up with the rhetoric. that includes the president's remarks yesterday over in maryland. he said there's no widespread evidence that obamacare is hurting jobs. that's actually what he said. no widespread evidence. we all know the president was hanging around with bill clinton the other day. what we did know was he was getting pointers. it makes you wonder what would

constitute widespread evidence of job loss in this presidents mind? i mean, just yesterday his press secretary dismissed reports of a company dropping health insurance for 55,000 employees as just quote an anecdote. maybe that's how things look from the south lawn. it looks a lot different if you just lost your health care plan that you like and you wanted to keep. and to senator moynihan used to tell us, data is the plural of anecdote. data is the plural of anecdote. there are just too me stories about the impact of obamacare, fortunate to be discussed with the wave of a hand. ironically the same day the president was painting a rosy scenarios in maryland, the administration announced yet another delay in this law's implementation. that's about the time we found out about the fax machines.

and all that follows the revelation of yet more exchange problems. this time with an exchange or in the district of columbia. you might be will to take any one of these many obamacare problems in isolation and explain it away, to say it doesn't matter, just call it an anecdote, but what we're getting here is a constant drift paired with the effects of seeing what is happening, what's happening to our jobs i and our health ca, and the economy. it all adds up to just one thing. a law in trouble. a law that needs to be repealed. that's the goal of every member of the republican conference here in the senate where it's a united on the need to repeal obamacare. we want to replace it with sensible bipartisan reform that will actually work and the and w minutes each and every one of us will vote again -- against funding obamacare. the american people want this law repealed the republicans

want it repealed. i wouldn't be surprised if the number of our democratic colleagues secretly wanted it repealed as well. the problem here is we can't get that done unless some of our friends on the other side are prepared to step up and work with us on issue because there are 54 of them and 46 of us. this doesn't mean will give up the fight if they don't. we won't. there are a lot of other things we can do in the meantime. for instance, we can follow the administration's lead in offering an obamacare delay for the american people. after all, the administration seems to think businesses deserve a break from obamacare. doesn't the middle class deserve the same treatment, the very same treatment? republicans think so, and i think we might be able to convince enough democrats to join us on that. to help us provide fairness, fairness to the middle-class. yesterday one democratic senator already signaled his willingness to delay some of the worst aspects of law as well.

he called a delay for the american people very reasonable and sensible. he posed the question, don't you think that would be fair? the answer is yes, that would be there. that's a question from our democratic colleagues respond to, many of whom know how badly this law is hurting their constituents. isn't that just the fair thing to do? of course it is. so i'm calling on democratic senators did with the middle-class ahead of the presidents pride, calling for them to help us pass a delay for everyone. we've already filed legislation that would do just that. a bipartisan majority of the house already supports it. let's work together to actually do it. then once we get that done, let's keep working to get rid of this law and replace it with real reform. not with ideas from 1980s but with commonsense step-by-step reform that will actually lower the cost for the american people, and spare them from this terrible law.

i yield the floor. >> under the previous order, a time until 1230 time is reserved for the two leaders with the final 10 minutes reserved for the majority leader. >> mr. president? >> majority leader. >> since my time in washington i've had the opportunity to work with many reasonable, thoughtful republicans, including those serving in the spot today to those reasonable republicans value this institution, the united states senate, and they respect the government of which is a part. but today, republican party has been infected by a small destructive factions that would rather split down the house than govern from the. i'm -- they're more interested in putting on a show as one republican colleague put it. that's what they prevented the

senate from taking action to avert a government shutdown last night, to put on a show today. they are quick senate action -- determined a way of the dwindling hour before a government shutdown. one day basically. they wasted. although every minute that passes put this country one closer to shut up, shut down or shatter our economy, yet they continue to obstruct and delay. but you see, mr. president, a bad day for government is a good day for the anarchists among us. those who believe who know, i repeat, no better, that's a belief. the modern-day anarchist, the tea party, they believe in no government. they are backed by very wealthy group of people who financed this effort to destroy our

government. it's important to note these tea party obstructionists don't represent mainstream republicans, either in this body or mainstream republicans in our country. but, unfortunately, their grip on the republican party is very firm. the last few years, these radicals in the house and senate have driven america from crisis to crisis. we lurch from crisis to crisis leaving a trail of economic destruction behind us. and now they've taken the train the government hostage and demanded an impossible landing. democrats repeal the law of this land known as obamacare. the affordable care act is the law of the land for four years. the united states supreme court has declared it constitutional. and the senate will help 25-35 million people in america who are currently living without

health insurance, and allow them to get access to life-giving care they need and deserve. mr. president, i don't know of people really know what it means not to have health insurance. not have the ability to go to the doctor and the hospital when you're sick or hurt. some of us do, mr. president. some of us understand how tens of millions of people in america today can't go to the hospital when they are sick or when they are hurt. mr. president, i was a boy, i don't old i was, 10 or 11 years old, i was so so sick. i can still remember how sick i was. had been sick for quite a long time. in the little house we lived in. but you see, we didn't have doctors. there wasn't a doctor for

50 miles. we had no car. i was really sick. we didn't go to doctors, but it was obvious that i was really ill. and so, one my older brothers came to visit and was with a friend. that friend of my brother, don, agreed to take me to a hospital. so i went to the hospital. i still have the scar, mr. president, and had a growth on my large intestine. i would have died if i had not gone to the hospital. i know what it's like not to go to hospital and go to the doctor when you're sick.

my mother took a -- took in wash. it seemed like, nothing much there, but once i remember a tv wagon cancer, which was a truck that they would get x-rays of somebody's just to find out if you had tuberculosis, because it was still around, searchlight, some had tuberculosis. so this, my dad wouldn't go. my mother went and had her chest x-ray. mr. president, the results came back in a little card in the mail. she had tuberculosis. it was positive tuberculosis. what did we do? what did she do? nothing. nothing. as a boy caring about my mother, i worried so much about that.

i can't imagine even to this day how she must've felt. well, in hindsight, mr. president, it looks like it was a false positive, but that didn't take away the concern that i had for a long time. and i can't imagine, i repeat, how my mother must have felt. so i have had some view of what it's like not to be able to go to the doctor, hospital when you're sick or hurt. mr. president, again, i don't know how old i was but my little brother, coming on and bicycling, slide, he was hurt. i mean, he was crying. i guess he was 10 or something like that your no one was home. i helped him get up to the house, laid down.

i went and found my mother. my brother never ever went to the doctor, had a broken leg. he still has a bent leg, short today. ..

the health care lot that we have, mr. president, is important. republicans fought long and hard in opposition to obamacare. mr. president, they lost. it was a fair fight. and they made their case against obama direct plea to the american people in november and they lost again. obama won, not by a slim margin. he won by 5 million posts. it was the main issue in that campaign? with health care. the american people overwhelmingly reelect the president. one reason they did it is because of health care. yesterday on this floor, a colleague of ours, the senior senator from arizona, john mccain spoke about this law. a law he opposes.

this is what he said. the people spoke. they spoke much to my dismay, but they spoke and reelected the president of the united states. that doesn't mean that we give up our efforts to try to replace and repeal obamacare, that elections have consequences. the majority of the american people supported the president of the united states and renew at the stewardship of this country. i don't like it, he said. i think all of you should respect the outcome of elections, which reflect the will of the people, close quote. who said this again? is that this? who is this john mccain? he is a proven fighter, and war and in public service. this is a man who held the republican party's nomination to president of united states. an american pastry at, and history books will talk about

that and generations to come. the republicans heard his message. for which the senate and the country should be grateful. mr. president, the challenge -- this fall, closing into the fiscal year, those of us who expect the government devised by america's founders, those of us who believe in the rule of law in the elections reflect the will of the people will face the task. can we prevent an economically disastrous government shutdown and can we protect the full faith and credit of the united states? mr. president, one newspaper -- not lots of newspapers. one newspaper.

the government shutdown would entail costs. shutdown could kerry pay risk even for employees on the job. one newspaper, agencies prepare to furlough workers and face a partial government shutdown. shut down crisper likely have house digs in. governor christie, quote, shutdown would be a failure. it would be irresponsible. a government shutdown glints america's craze for proper destruction, disappointment. another headline, surrounding jurisdictions develop shutdown game plans. breaded shutdown delay some colorado flood relief. is it any wonder the stock market is going down? is it any wonder that people are concerned? is it any wonder that someone like the woman who works at the park came to sydney yesterday, i ran through this before. i am not going to get paid for my work.

so the question is, can we overcome modern-day anarchists? seven just a few minutes, mr. president, the senate will take the first step towards control for these extremists. democrats will vote to avert a government shutdown. i am confident many of my republican colleagues will vote with us, to allow the government to perform its basic duties. together we will send a message to ratify republicans will not allow the law of the land to be used as a hostage. a lot that has been in place for four years. i am pleased so many of my republican colleagues understand this debate. the economic health of a still struggling nation and the economic well-being of still struggling families. i urge sensible republicans in the house of representatives to follow our lead, to follow the lead of republicans over here.

let the house democrats vote. don't just make it a majority majority. but the 435 members who serve in the house of republicans. let them vote. pass a clean bill to avert a shutdown. the fight in our case. respect the rule of law and help the senate govern. mr. president, i asked at the time that is left for me be given back and we continue to develop. >> the senate today passed a temporary government funding bill along straight party line vote, 54 to 44. it will fund the government through november 15th and remove the language that would've defended the affordable care act. the measure now goes on to the house in the house is meeting

tomorrow and on saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern and though began legislative business at noon. earlier today, we heard from former vice president, al gore. he talked about the house gop in a standoff in congress on funding the federal government. he was some of what he had to say. >> now, i am going to talk about the potential for a shutdown in just a moment. but i think the only praise that describes it is political terrorism. nice global economies got there. it would be a shame if we had to destroy it. we have a list of demands. you don't meet them all, our deadline will blow up the global economy. really? where are the american people in this? whitest partisanship have anything to do with such a

despicable and dishonorable threat to the integrity of the united states of america? it cannot be allowed, but it can only be stopped if people in both parties and independents as well say look, i might not agree with everything that is in the affordable care act, but it did pass. it was upheld by the supreme court. it is the law of the land. you didn't succeed in the constitutional process by which this was considered and now you want to threaten to not only shutdown our government, but to blow up the world economy unless we go back and undo what we did according to the processes of our democracy. how dare you. how dare you.

but it doesn't matter what i feel. or what many of you feel unless the american people not only feel it, but express it. >> you can watch all of the former vice presidents remarks later tonight at 6:45 p.m. eastern over on our companion network, c-span. or watch any time online, c-span.org. tonight here in c-span 2, live coverage of the u.n. security council meeting that is going to be looking at this area chemical resolution after its five permanent members agreed on the terms of the resolution, requiring serious government to surrender its chemical weapons. again, live coverage tonight, 8:00 p.m. eastern time right here in c-span 2. >> who is to say what the cleveland clinic is doing has anything to do with obamacare? not a president, the answer to

that is who is to say the cleveland clinic is to say. a spokeswoman for the cleveland clinic said quote, to prepare for health care reform, cleveland clinic is transforming the way care is delivered to patients. she added the $330 million would be cut from the clinic's annual budget. >> now we know there are things that would be happening right now that we are getting paid less by private and public cares. insurance companies are paying us less. medicare is paying us less. sequestration had an effect on hospitals. the nih funding, decreasing has had an effect on our research. and so, we had to decrease their cost still further. and all of this goes into change how health care comes together.

it is not one single thing they did it. it's not one program that stunner. it's a whole series of things that we were doing, starting back five, six, seven years ago and culminating when we decided the changes are so significant in terms of what we are going to get paid, that we now have to be even more stringent. >> next, a look at synthetic drugs. after several young adults a concert in boston, new york city and washington d.c. were hospitalized or died after using the synthetic club drug known as molly. earlier this week on a hearing was held on the dangers of using his turn someone is being done to educate the public. this is an hour and a half.

>> senator feinstein just gave me permission to go ahead. she is on her way here. won't be far away, so i will give my opening statement and i think she will be here before that's done. i will look to staff for direction after that. it's been over two years since this caucus held its first hearing on editor of the abuse. at that hearing, we held testimony from a constituent of mine named michael roscoe. mr. vazquez and david committed suicide shortly after smoking k2. k2 is a synthetic marijuana that is very different from the naturally occurring products. david had legally purchased the synthetic drug at a local shopping mall. he then had a very rapid and negative reaction. i said then that david may have been the first person in the united states to die from using

this kind of synthetic drug, but surely he wouldn't be the last. sadly, my concerns were validated as the abuse of synthetic drugs continue to escalate. from 2010 to 2011, a number of calls received by poison control centers related to synthetic marijuana increased from 2906 to 6959. a similar cause about synthetic drugs known as bath salts increased from 304 to 6138. emergency room visits associated with synthetic drugs rose sharply as well. in 2012, congress responded to this crisis. i worked with the chairman, chairman feinstein, as well as senator schumer, klobuchar and many others to pass the synthetic drug abuse prevention act of 2012. that legislation raised many of

the synthetic drugs on schedule one, making them illegal. that was an important step to protect, to help protect our young people from the effects of these drugs. there is some evidence that that legislation had a positive effect because in 2012, poison control centers later to synthetic marijuana dropped from 6959 down to 5200, still a very high figure. similar calls related to bath salts drop from 6138 to 260157. new drugs have emerged since we pass that legislation. traffickers need only to alter the chemical structure of their drugs to effectively circumvent the law. these drugs continue to run lives and communities across the country. in the past, in just the past

few weeks, news reports have linked the synthetic form of ecstasy called molly to the deaths of at least four young people in boston, new york and here in washington d.c. what seems especially concerning is that authorities may not yet have a clear understanding of precisely what substances are contained in that drug referred to as molly. regardless of its precise chemical makeup, there appears little doubt that that drug is a clear and present threat to the health and safety of our young people. my home state of iowa also continues to be affected by synthetic drugs. on a single week and last may, three teenagers in the des moines area were sent to the emergency rooms after smoking synthetic marijuana. one of them reported suffering cardiac address. there is some good news however because in communities across the country, citizens are hoping

to sound the alarm about the dangers of synthetic drugs. the roscoe family come to think iowa family i referred to before, continues to share david's story. they have also started a website, k2 drug facts.com, which provides a forum for folks who survived encounters with synthetic drugs to share their stories. the community group called i.e. wins against synthetics has successfully poised to have this week declared synthetic drug awareness week in johnson county, iowa. the iowa governor's office of drug control policy has taken steps to raise awareness about emerging drug trends such as synthetics. beginning this month, the offices making a monthly newsletter, the titleist connection. the newsletter will publish the latest news about new drugs in iowa and trends among young

people. despite these positive actions, synthetic drug manufacturers still have the ability to circumvent the law a slightly altering their chemical compound. the change of a molecule or two to a drug is sometimes enough to make a new and legal alternative. this is a difficult problem without any of the solution. but i look forward to hearing from the witnesses and working with our chairman, dianne feinstein, to explore how we can continue to be effective in combating the abuses of these dangerous synthetic drugs and at this point i can thank you for holding this hearing. >> thank you very much, senator. i apologize for being late. the judiciary committee had a classified briefing on the nsa. so i was there and i was the last one to have an opportunity to ask questions, so i thank you for going ahead with this.

i want to welcome our witnesses. and i just want to say that in my view, synthetic drugs are diabolical. they are designed by scientists to mimic the effects of controlled substances. they are; chemical structure to schedule one controlled substances. they are sold at gas stations, convenience stores, head shops and on the internet. the individuals who manufacture these products market them as harmless items such as potpourri, bath salts and believe it or not, plant food. the packages state that they are quote, not intended for human consumption, and quote. as you can see in the pictures to my left, they are packaged in a manner intended to appeal to our nation's youth. scooby snacks potpourri, joker herbal sachet, for example. these package laborers are

intended to deceive users into thinking the products are harmless. as you can see in the pictures of a synthetic drug lab to my right, these products are not manufactured and clean and sterile facilities. instead, they are clandestinely produced in storage facilities and warehouses, using construction equipment like cement mixers and handheld pump style pesticide sprayers. make a mistake about it, these products are not saved and the consequences of people using these drugs is sobering. in 2010, poison centers nationwide responded to approximately 3200 calls related to synthetic marijuana and bath salts. in 2011, that number jumped

12,834. that's a quadrupling in one year and the majority, 65% involve patients 25 years and younger. and the vice chairman indicated this, that we have to look further than close by to see the ultimate consequence of synthetic drug abuse. earlier this month and a string of separate incidents, four individuals attending concerts in new york, boston and washington d.c. died after taking a party drug referred to as molly. this drug is generally recognized as the name given to party drugs containing ecstasy, a schedule one controlled substance. however, some now believe the synthetic drug mice allowed and perhaps some other synthetic drugs may have been involved in the steps.

other party drugs, like tcp and crazy clowns are also bringing havoc on our communities. when congress outlawed several of the synthetic drugs last year, traffickers didn't stop producing them. instead, they slightly altered the chemical structure of illegal drugs to skirt the law. i'm making these alterations, the drug traffickers produced what we call controlled substance analogue, which mimic the effects of drugs like ecstasy,, pcp and lsd. as i know we will hear today, determining whether a substance meets the vague legal criteria of a controlled substance analogue, really results in a battle of experts inside the courtroom and prosecutors putting up experts in the fields of chemistry and pharmacology to

prove a substance meets the legal criteria while the defense puts up experts were the exact opposite. the jury decides the issue meaning that prosecutors and defense attorneys alike, dependent on who's experts were better address the pressing to the jury. there is no preceding meeting in one case that he substances and analog does not mean it is an analogue in the second case. they are used from dangerous synthetic drug act in july to give law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute individuals who produce and distribute controlled substance analogues. specifically, this bill will establish an interagency committee of scientists, which will be responsible for establishing and maintaining an

administrative list of controlled substance analogues. the committee is structured so that it can respond quickly and robustly to the threat. law enforcement officials had informed by staff that virtually all of these controlled substance analogues arrived in bulk from outside our borders. therefore, this bill will also make it illegal to import a controlled substance analogue on the list unless the importation is intended for nonhuman use. this bill sends a strong message to traffickers who try continually to circumvent our nation's laws. congress recognizes that no matter how you alter the chemical structure of synthetic drugs to get around the law, they remain dangerous and should not be available for human consumption. so i look forward to our

witnesses today. i will introduce them in a moment, but i want to recognize the presence of the distinguished senator from minnesota, who has had a great time to telling interest in the subject for many years now. i hope that you will become a cosponsor of my bill and i look forward to her giving testimony here today. so if you would like to make a statement, senator, please go ahead. >> thank you very much. would like to thank you and senator grassley for connecting this important hearing. i want to thank you for being a partner on these issues. senator feinstein is chairman of the drug caucus, you are leader in the senate and drug issues. you've been so for many years am glad we were able to work together this summer on this important new legislation. in july, introduced the bill along with senator feinstein and graham to close the loophole in the analog drug law that allows synthetic drug makers to strap a label say not intended for human consumption and then try to get

away with it. i am pleased to also cosponsor your bill, yes, to create an analog committee headed by the dea. so convincing that this minute. what should be alert to establish and maintain a list of controlled substance analogues can quickly add to the list of a new synthetics are developed. together these bills are an important step in putting an end to this gorge of synthetic drugs. until 2006 i would see a county attorney in hennepin county, minnesota, population over a million people. during my tenure, synthetic drugs is not something that we thought we were talking about that, talking about coke, talking about crack. we were talking about synthetic drugs, so it shows how quickly this has developed. in 2011, poison control centers across america received more than 13,000 calls about synthetic drugs compared to 322010. that is a one-year difference from 3200 calls to 13,000 calls.

in minnesota there was a total of 392 calls to poison control related to synthetic drugs in 2011 compared to 107 and 2010. according to a recent survey of drug use trends, one in nine u.s. high school seniors surveyed minutes using synthetic marijuana during the year. according to a 2013 report in 2011, 28,000 emergency room visits involve some kind of a synthetic rather and 22,000 emergency department visits involved bath salts. the issue of synthetic drugs today cannot be more dire. missile hit home to me when a young man who was 19 years old, trevor robinson of blaine, minnesota, died. he overdosed on a synthetic hallucinogen known as two cd. another manufacturer shot himself in minnesota and a year later while under the influence of synthetic drugs.

this is a life-and-death issue. i have held hearings on this about my state and with the north dakota law enforcement contingent and especially difficult in the rural parts of our state. there's been some good work done by the gaa, a major takedown of synthetic drug manufacturers in july 2012, operation logjam. but i've heard time and time again from prosecutors, especially in a more rural areas where they don't have many resources that this is difficult. the drug manufacturers and they make a minor change. they change the molecular compound that struck this label this is not for human consumption on the drug. then they flood the market place is dangerous and potent synthetic drugs that are very similar to the drugs that are marked illegal. but they in fact advertise them to be legal. more and more new synthetics are hitting the streets. for example, synthetic drugs referred to as molly had been in the news recently for causing illnesses and deaths up and down

the east coast. one of the saddest stories i remember showing up at an event in morehead, minnesota and people sit in the front row. i'll be honest, i thought they were there to advocate against her were doing. i asked the sheriff that's why they were there and he said i think so. they stood up and started to cry, this woman. she said her brother had taken drugs before, but he had never taken by the drugs before. he thought they were the same thing as the regular drugs and he got hooked on synthetic city got a really bad dope and a cot in his car and went over and kill themselves. those are the stories we've heard from regular people. it's our job as u.s. senators to bring this problem out in the light of day and fix it. it may be complicated to fix it, but we don't shirk from that duty. i want to thank you both and look forward to hearing the witnesses. >> thanks very much, senator klobuchar. i was very helpful testimony. i would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses.

i would like to introduce all four of you at one time and then ask if you could combine your remarks to five minutes. we have written copies of much of them and then we can have an interesting back-and-forth. first we have the deputy director of the office of national drug control, michael botticelli. he has more than two decades of experience supporting americans who have been infected by substance use disorders. prior to joining a one dcp, he served as director of the bureau substance abuse at massachusetts department of public health. next we have nora volkow. she is the director of the national institute of drug abuse at the national institute of health. dr. volkow's work has been instrumental in demonstrating that drug addiction is a disease of the human brain. among her many accomplishments, dr. volkow pioneered the use of

brain imaging to investigate the toxic effects benedict as properties of abusable drugs. she was recently named one of time magazine top 100 people who shape our world. congratulations. next, we are pleased to have chose to rannazzisi -- rannazzisi return to the drug caucus. he is the deputy assistant administrator of the office of diversion control at the drug enforcement administration, known as the dea. as deputy assistant administrator, mr. rannazzisi is responsible for overseeing and court meeting the investigation on major pharmaceuticals, of major pharmaceuticals, forerunner chemicals, clandestine laboratories and synthetic drugs. ..

we will begin with you. >> chairman feinstein, co-chairman grassley, ms. klobuchar thank you for this opportunity on cassette of the cousin that it drug use. i was on the year when

massachusetts and saw the ravages that synthetic drug use had on its citizens as a commonwealth. as you know the office of national drug control policy was established in 1988 with the principal purpose of reducing illicit drug use manufacturing and trafficking, drug related crime and violence and drug related health consequences. we produce the national drug control strategy, the administration's blueprint for drug policy. the strategy is a 21st century plan that treats the nation's drug problem as a public health issue not just a criminal health issue. during this time we have seen significant progress in reductions in the misuse of prescription drugs, cocaine and methamphetamine. in 2013, however, also highlights the challenges that communities across the country are facing related to the u.s. and threat of synthetic drugs. the contents and affect of synthetic drugs are unpredictable deutsch of the constantly changing variety of chemicals used in manufacturing

process that are the way of quality controls and government oversight. use of these substances can cause of health consequences and putting death to but i know the caucus has long address the emerging issues. chairman feinstein you have to address issues throughout your career both as the mayor and in congress addressing the emergence of methamphetamine by championing the first major piece of legislation. >> thank you for knowing that. >> i am much older than i appear. [laughter] >> what does that say about me? [laughter] >> audience saying no more. >> what you're saying is that senator feinstein is much younger. >> the best way to not make a whole is to stop digging. chairman grassley, see if i can do better this time, we know in

the last congress you introduced a bill to specifically address synthetic can adelaide's named in the member of your constituent david, and i know that we have really appreciated the advocacy and leadership of acknowledgement as advocates in the national drug control strategy to the we also appreciate the caucus's support for the ondcp activities since we have seen time and time again the best way to address drug use is to stop it before it starts. across the country the use of synthetic cannabinol aids is especially high especially among young people. there is an s expanding array of synthetic drugs in the u.s. market are the results of the attempt to circumvent federal and state law. as you know president obama signed into law the synthetic drug abuse prevention act which placed five structural causes of canavanoids and schedule one of the controlled substance act. a double the maximum period the

drug enforcement administration can schedule the substances under its emergency authority from 18 to 36 months. states are also taking measures both legislatively and otherwise to address the expanding assortment of synthetic compound. as these compounds are man, some players need adjustments to their chemical compositions and attempt to circumvent the law. the recent is the legislature, law enforcement, public health are seen deutsch of the changing chemical composition of the product supply. although federal law enforcement can potentially treat the new compound as controlled substances under the control substance analog enforcement act, proving their similarity through an existing control substance is often a courtroom battle scientists. moreover, proving in one case that a particular substance is an analog does not carry over to subsequent cases. we look forward to working with congress to address the scientific and legal challenges posed by synthetic drugs.

synthetic compounds raise challenges with drug testing. synthetic drugs are not a regular part of most tests, some individuals use them as a way to avoid the workplace or law enforcement of drug testing. today, we release the results of a ondcp pilot study that suggests current drug-testing screens can have significant cannabinoids use. for example 39% of men and a sample from the washington, d.c. parole and probation system tested positive for synthetic cannabinoids but past the traditional drug screen. in addition, state and local laboratories have been inundated with requests to identify new synthetic compounds. the availability over the internet is another challenge. ondcp is working with the dea and credit card companies to explore ways to halt the sales of these synthetics pitted ondcp is taking steps to prevent the use of synthetic drugs by educating the public particularly young people and

parents. ondcp manages the drug free community support program which provides grants to nearly 700 community coalitions to prevent and reduce. many questions have identified synthetic drugs as a growing problem in their community and have taken action to be a in addition the above the influence campaign part of the national anti-drug media campaign on the facebook page address to the emergence synthetic drugs and radio and television outreach and provided information on its website. the new home of the above in florence at drugfree.org also addressed the synthetic drugs working with families to develop new ways to educate parents about the dangers. synthetic drugs are not simply a domestic problem. they are major drugs of abuse in europe and asia and are emerging elsewhere to get many of the synthetic compounds found in the united states are made abroad particularly in china and india.

ondcp director led a delegation to beijing this past year where illicit movement of synthetic drugs was a top priority in discussions with chinese officials. the director also traveled in june to mark the release of the 2013 for the job report from the u.n. office on drugs and crime which focused on the international prevalence of synthetic drugs. in conclusion we continue to work with the parents, educators, federal, state, local, tribal and international partners to reduce synthetic drug use in america and welcome the opportunity to explore new approaches to address this problem. thank you very much putative >> thank you. ms. volkow. >> good afternoon. senator chairwoman feinstein, senator grassley and senator klobuchar thank you for inviting the national institute of drug abuse as a part of the nih to provide a perspective on the science of synthetic drugs.

synthetic drugs are structured -- affect the nervous system and can have a stimulant depressant on the effects. such class of problems often referred to as spies consist of plant material laced with cannabinoids similar to but often more potent than thc which is the active ingredient in marijuana. they have become increasingly popular, likely thanks to their easy access and the misperception that they are therefore harmless. what makes the product is particularly dangerous is the problem to the kaput either the among young people whose brains are still developing. for example, 11.3% of high school seniors report the use of spices and 2012. the rate that is second only to one itself among but illicit

substances. furthermore, over 60% of people in the department in 2011 for the reported spy use or between 20 to 20 years of age, 12 and 20 years of age. very little was known about the short and long term effect of spies. we have reason to think the potential health risk might be quite grave. the cannabinoids have haven't been tested in a few months so we don't know how long they stay in the body, how big are broken down. however, we do know that some of the cannabinoids found in the products are find the we've got much more strongly in the brain and thc itself, which could lead of course to powerful effect. indeed, some of the actual sometimes are seen as agitation, vomiting fishers and heart attacks are rarely seen probably

reflecting the rate of the synthetic cannabinoids and the combination with other drugs. and just like my one use of spices may have an addiction and withdraw. another class of synthetic substances on its own all the above facts worse. the active ingredients most commonly found in the products are synthetic cannabinoids which can produce stimulants and other cycle active defects. this compounds cocaine, methamphetamine and ecstasy and seems to be most popular with people in their 20s. reported physical manifestations range from cardiovascular problems, elevated body temperature, paranoia, stroke, heart attacks sometimes resulting in death. they can also experience addiction and with all the

compound is extremely powerful. for example, nddp of the most common ingredients is similar to kokanee and methamphetamine but it is ten times more powerful and takes at least five times longer. it doesn't just affect dopamine which makes them pluggable but also serotonin which is a chemical in our brain that models our mood and perception. therefore, they have the potential to be because of their dopamine affect also have the effects on mood and perception leading to hallucinatory behavior and with ecstasy. those effects of methamphetamines have one single compound. so what is to address this problem? neither has a robust problem is

for the effect of synthetic drugs. it will be funding research in the mechanism and potencies developing reliable tests for detecting them, exploring the many unknowns with the success of the start of drugs and developing strategies to help prevent abuse of these compounds. neither also evaluates the effectiveness of emerging drugs identified reform under the drugs reform effort. we are facing a new challenge. technological advances, market globalization and the internet have created a perfect storm as it relates to synthetic drugs that helps with an unprecedented speed which is likely to spawn a continuing flow of diverse synthetic drugs for years to come. thus it is critical to support more research designed to better understand not only the scope

and the consequences of drug use but also the cultural landscape lighting at. science remains the best approach to the prevention policies and for developing the intervention. thanks very much. >> thanks very much for your timely remarks. mr. rannazzisi, welcome. co-chairman grassley, senator klobuchar on behalf of the men and women of the drug enforcement administration, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the increase of the synthetic drug threat across the united states. >> can use to track the into the microphone so that we do not miss it? >> there is no doubt that they are becoming the go to drugs for the legal. information coming from the poison control centers, scientific lab, emergency rooms and medical examiners support this pity we constantly hear the news reports and brunswick georgia eight hospitalized today

in new york city, two fatalities and for hospitalizations. in denver, three overdose deaths and approximately 60 presenting to the image as a department relating to black mamba. with me today in the audience is mr. rabin. he can speak to the devastating consequences of these drugs. her son has spent the last three years preceding treatment in rehab for the consequences of taking these substances because he made a poor decision. thank you for seeking. parents and communities -- >> can i interrupt you? can you tell us what the consequences or of taking the drug in this one case? >> fer attended the suicide, the visits in and out of the hospital and on medication for three years, all different medications coming anti-depressant and antisaccadic

medications. it truly is a tragic case. ms. smith is out there talking to community groups and talking to parents attempting to save lives, trying to stop the kids from getting these drugs and trying to alert parents to the dangers of these drugs. she is a one-woman show and she is doing a phenomenal job. >> we salute you. thank you so much for that pity and for being here today as well. >> in 2009 there were two different cannabinoids with four different ones on the retail market. by 2012 there were more than 56 different synthetic 78 and 30 different. we've identified approximately 200 different synthetic drugs taking their toll on america mumbai brand names like eightballs, crazy clown and black mamba and labeled as

jewelry, glass cleaner, bath salts and my favorite, badger repellent. disclaimers like not for human consumption but they are just some drugs and comparable effect on the brain and on the body as lsd, methamphetamine for marijuana. in this new era of drug-trafficking bath salts contain analogs not meant for baiting and herbal and sense do not have a pleasant odor when burned. the drug packaging is designed to get on controled selected substances into retail outlets for sale. the packaging hides the intended use of the product a pretense for unlawful like to the. after all with internet sellers need to discreetly package and ship legitimate products and why would a half gram of bath salts cost $30. the question is why do they take these when they are so dangerous? the answer is they are being touted as a legal high. why? because they are unless and

until the dea controls them or a prosecutor proves it is an analog. since 2008, 30 designer drugs are in the regulatory action yet since 2008 we have identified 250 designer drugs and currently on the market domestically and abroad and we anticipate seeing them in this marketplace pity on me 16th of this year the dea scheduled three synthetic cannabinoids putative was approximately 15 months from the time they were encountered at the time there was enough data to control them. we cannot stand by and watch the communities suffer while we gather enough data to support the administrative control of in endless variety of substances. the reality is the drugs are proliferating faster than they can control them. they are constantly behind the clandestine traffickers to continue to quickly and easily replace new control substances with newlin on kunkel drugs. in fact after they took action, to temper the rescheduled the

synthetic cannabinoids in march of 2011 the retailers almost immediately began selling new versions of the product didn't control the cannabinoids but new versions of the compound. the openly admit they will use a different drug when it is controlled. in addition to controlling the drugs that dea has a substantial one for swibel permission to get them off the street. operation culminated a nationwide take down on july 25th, 2012 to lead the operation targeted manufacturers, distributors and retail distributors of the designer drugs to in the operation. law enforcement seized 45 million in the currency and bank accounts and additional assets valued at 5.7 million but more importantly 4.8 million packages to the synthetic cannabinoids received. if the 4.8 million packets of the cannabinoids made their way to the retail sales. the teens and young adults could have been subjected with hospitalization, overdose or even death on the effect of the

drugs. the project synergy was completed june of 2013 and 45 states. one distributor in one state show the enormous financial incentive to be gained from selling designer drugs. a full enforcement seized enough synthetic cannabinoids products to gross approximately $21 million in revenue at the retail level from one single haul steel distributor. the weight to gather the data sanctions the structure of the communities and making millions. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. we look forward to working together with the caucus as well as our federal counterparts to protect the public against the dangers of these ever-changing synthetic designer drugs. >> thank you. mr. heaphy perhaps you would tell your experience on the cases. >> i will, thank you, co-chairman grassley in the klobuchar. on behalf of attorney general

and my colleagues at the department of justice we appreciate the invitation to talk about this important issue. we also very much appreciate the work that you and others on the drug caucus have done on this issue. as prosecutors we are only as effective as the tools so we are given and we look forward to working with you to strengthening what we have on this issue to divide in the united states attorney in 2001 and yet at that time i didn't know anything about synthetic drugs much like senator klobuchar it was on known to me. since then i've become a reluctant expert on the topic because the obscene and explosion, a huge increase in the use and abuse of the substances in my district in virginia to that i believe the surge in popularity is because they have a veneer of legitimacy they are sold in slick package as commercially manufactured. you can buy them at a convenience store. that creates a false impression among the users that they are

somehow safe and legal in contrast to drug is sold in dark alleys and small plastic bags. in reality they are dangerous and potentially illegal. attorneys have responded to the increased use buy aggressively using the analog act to prosecute those the traffic the dangerous substances. in order to prosecute a synthetic drug that isn't scheduled we have to prove that is similar to the scheduled drug as the same or intended pharmacological effect on the user and is marketed for human consumption. >> you prosecute the sellers were the users? >> we prosecute the seller but that can be very difficult. we have to us -- first through expert testimony that the substance is chemically similar to reschedule the drug. we have to prove it has the same effect on the user which is often the subject of expert testimony called by the defense

disagreeing called by us. that's time intensive increase was intensive and then the jurors have to make a decision whether they have been satisfied. even if we are successful in one case that has no effect on the subsequent cases. we start over again in a separate case pitting it we also have to prove that it was marketed for human consumption committed this is the subject of senator klobuchar's bill and that can be difficult. the seller at the counter of the convenience store may have had a conversation with the user about how much to use or be careful with the upstream distributor, the policy of our and the manufacturer we may not have such evidence that person knew that the drug would be intended for human consumption particularly when it is emblazoned with not for human consumption which setup a lack of knowledge defense. those practical impediments are difficult for us and we very much look forward to strengthening to make these cases easier for us to bring bigot now in addition, there are

time initiatives where a police officer finds a stash of cocaine or heroin, he or she can immediately determinism illegal drug and take action. with an analog substance that isn't specifically scheduled we don't have that probable cause to make an arrest to get a search warrant to do those kind of time sensitive enforcement efforts the course of important. what happens is they take the substance and go back and do some testing during the intervening time. defendant's fleets and change the chemical substance evidence disappears and again that time lost handicaps' our efforts. in order for us to be successful, senator, we need a strong analog act but we need additional schedules. these drugs going on the schedule much like and we need to continue the prevention efforts. we have been very aggressive in many areas throughout the department attorney general's direction to a couple of our enforcement efforts with

vigorous support for prevention. not only have we built the prosecutions under but we have tried very hard to warn users of the dangers to inform the sellers of the substances of the dangerous effects and of the potential in virginia in my district we delivered 40 letters to the convenience stores that were selling the substance informing them that it is under the analog statute. the vast majority of them relinquish the substance is so at times of the learnings matter and work and we need to continue to get the word out about the dangers and the legality of the substances. we also need to partner with health care professionals and use providers so that we are augmenting our enforcement with effective prevention. we have to get the word out to the young people like her son who fell victim to this spigot

it's imperative that we continue our efforts on the prevention and education. we very much look forward to the department working with you on the synthetic drug substance and appreciate your leadership on this report. >> thank you. the three of us are also on the judiciary committee and devotee the committee the would hear any such bills. this is a caucus rather than a full-fledged senate committee fifth. it seems to me that in terms of drafting legislation which is going to be effective it's very difficult for and we have to describe analog. i think we have to say intended for human consumption and we have to say cannot be falsely labeled and packaged in some way.

what else would the law enforcement people here recommend? how do we approach this? >> the simplest way to make something illegal was to put on the schedule. >> what would we put on the schedule? >> i believe we have a long list. >> but then they just change one chemical and it's no longer on the schedule. >> we have to continually look at the emerging trends and schedule them going forward but immediately now there are 30, 40, 50 chemicals we've already identified despite the fact it doesn't have presidential -- >> but you are saying to put those schedules -- chemicals on the schedule. suppose something is made from the chemicals. >> of the chemicals that we are looking at now have no legitimate use. they are not even considered -- they are sold as research chemicals but they don't have a legitimate use this dak can you give a list of those?

>> yes. in fact, we have not analog so we need to make them controlled to analog that they do have far more logical and some structural similarity yet not enough to move them over to an analog. if we move them to an analog then we can prosecute the other drugs that are strictly similar to them. there is such a wide range of drugs out there and some that we haven't seen better destined for this market. >> this is the problem because let's say that there's three chemicals used in a given job. let's say the kids know they can use this and get a high. so, you put the three chemicals on the schedule and they see this and they change one of the chemicals and that is all they have to do to avoid to use the

matured absolutely right. >> and it seems to me that that is an unrelenting number. it just goes on and on and on. and then you don't know what is the deadly part of that combination of chemicals. >> we have no idea which of these are going to be the drug to put hundreds in the hospital and killed many. we just need to catch up. we could be close to the end of this year and close to two compounds behind and we just don't have the ability to keep scheduling these drugs. >> there is a full city. the falsity is in the packaging. and the selling in a drugstore or some other innocent thing and

the so-called learning quickly you can buy this and will go to the party and we will use it. so the intention is not that it would be used but the intention is that if they used internally as a drug, so it seems to me that if something is packaged like that to be used internally as a drug you want to prohibit that. you cannot make something for the purpose of like that that it's not intended. >> you are absolutely correct. >> the same thing is false labeling on the package, the second thing. and if we can tackle that, in other words you would see the legal to sell something which is intended for the human consumption as a commodity for

another purpose. maybe i am whistling. what do you think? >> i don't think so at all. there will always be -- because of the motive here, the continuing revolution of the substance. we can schedule every six months and the folks making this will always stay a step ahead. we can however further modify the statute to define more specifically how to prove not for human consumption. we could put on the face for example that if the label product is ineffective -- if it isn't something that actually creates an older -- that would be evidence that it does not, that it is intended for human consumption if it doesn't have efficacy for the purpose of labeled. there are ways in the statute and the bill does this to define more specifically how we can

make a showing that this is intended for no legitimate use but rather as a drug that would prove as prosecutors in the courtroom with more of that ammunition. >> so you think we have it in that bill. >> the bill is a step forward that helps improve that element of the statute. >> senator grassley? >> i want to start with a couple questions related to drugs but not synthetic drugs. i want to start with the three of you on the left the question about colorado, washington and recreational marijuana and a the memorandum suggested that the doj will force damming marijuana in those states except for certain priority areas so long as they implement the effective regulatory regimes. so, my question of each one of you is where each of your

organizations consulted by the deputy attorney general's office as they developed this new policy on the marijuana enforcement to be able to answer whether or not you were contacted maybe it would be of little more difficult to see what your advice to them was. but i do ask you were you in favor or against the policy that was adopted? >> our office was consulted during that process in terms of what the attorney general's decision was going to make. i think that they have clearly articulated the priorities as it relates to the criteria that they released in terms of looking at the ramifications of the legalization of marijuana in both colorado and washington and they have laid out and reserved the right to revamp until all given with the anticipate or expect as a state regulatory framework to make sure that for instance they are not diverting

marijuana to use and seeing criminal that the attached. >> you gave more advice according to how they describe the policies. >> our focus is on the understanding and articulating what we are concerned with in terms of the public health implications and i think that is reflected in the department of justice criteria as it relates to the particular at version of marijuana in both colorado and washington. >> dr. volkow? >> we were consulted as a part of the ondcp since we provide a scientific assessment. and our mission on science we are not for sound policy. our concern has to do with first of all speaking about synthetic drugs and i was listening how do you try to regulate the use of the synthetic drugs on the one side of the country and on the

other one, we are basically getting a drug that we know is addictive. so what our concern is when you are speaking about marijuana with and it is for recreational purposes you are speaking of a different class of drugs. for example, the active ingredient can vary enormously from one cigarette to the other. when someone smokes marijuana there is a multiplicity of cannabinoids they are in jesting. there is one that antagonizes thc so the effects are likely to be different depending on the type of marijuana that you are getting. when one speaks about the notion of legalization of a substance where we actually don't even know what exactly ingredients make up the properties is basically going backwards on the way the we try to regulate substances that are going to be for human consumption. our main concern among all of

these issues is young people -- >> you are telling me that your advice to the department of justice, is that right? >> i am telling you our concerns they did consult you? >> we provided information with respect to the danger. >> i was not personally consulted. however, i believe that the department did consult the administrator's office if you are asking me my views. >> i don't need your views. mr. rannazzisi, there is something you are involved in that concerned me very much putative as you know according to the government accountability office, the dea is refusing to comply with the obligation to provide access to the records. senator whitehouse word you

always a democrat and i always a republican have a request for the report on drug shortages that is being held up because of their refusal. i tried to help resolve that dispute, the justice department told me not to even meet and the gao to discuss it. of course that is unacceptable. i raised the issue personally with the deputy attorney general and by a understand the department of attorney general conceded that the dea has a legal obligation to comply over the justice department still withholding records from the gao. the standoff risk wasting time. all i am asking you we need you to work with congress to resolve the dispute and get the gao the information it needs to do the work. the gao first made the request on october 2012.

a year has come and gone with no resolution and that is far too long for this to go unresolved. what do you think is a reasonable amount of time to get back on resolving these issues? >> senator, i wasn't prepared to talk about the gao today. however, we have been in discussions. we had a discussion with the gao over different requests and that was one of the requests we brought up. we are attempting to reach a position where we can provide information. they are requesting proprietary data related to the drug industry. we do not want to wholesale release that data and that is what we are discussing right now. what they need and how to give it to them in the best possible format and i believe that we are

close. the last negotiations between the agency went very well. and i believe that we are close. >> i have an e-mail that says that you are the main impediment to getting that result. i hope you will get it resolved. i have used my time to it i will go to her and ask questions in a second round. >> thank you to both of you. i want to start if you would by talking about the legislation to that sometimes we can get a solution that makes a huge difference pivoted thinking back to those sitting next to best labs and getting some of the ingredients behind the counter at drugstores seems so small but that certainly made a difference in our state. we literally had kids coming up from iowa the we got in a complete a set to the cops they came from minnesota because we didn't have it behind the counter and we were able to pass it in our legislature and in a huge difference in the reduction of the best labs blowing up the

other things. this is a good idea what we are trying to do here. senator feinstein's bill and the bill i have for the intended for human consumption id on specifying the factors a judge would consider whether in determining whether it was in fact this product that whatever it is before them was intended for human consumption. and then also saying that a defendant couldn't use this label and say well that means it's okay. that's important and it came out of the hearing about what you needed. i'm not going to ask a lot of questions on that other than are their of the things we should be giving? i know we grapple with what we could do to make it easier to prove up an analog. i know that mr. rannazzisi talked about making it easier to get these substance it schedule the three of us already worked on bills. we were blocked by the senator and it took about a year to do

it. we can't have that happen again. i wanted to see some other ideas in addition to my bill, senator feinstein's bill is their anything we are missing about how we can make it easier to prove up an analog? >> it's a good question you should continue to talk about. when we see things in the field because of our prosecutorial work they sometimes lead to suggested changes. we had an issue one of the bath salts trials the defense lawyer made the case the same substances needed to be the one to which the analog was chemically similar pharmacologically and we argued it didn't have to be the same substance it could be any substance and so a slight tweak in the statutory language to make any controlled substance would make that absolutely clear. there are changes to the statute that i believe folks would like to talk about. >> i want to make sure if we are moving something from the

judiciary committee that we include these other things. there were constitutional use and there are others we can do. i don't know if others want to answer. okay. one question i have again is the link to the ticker list organizations. a lot of these drugs are sold internationally. mr. rannazzisi, did any of the enforcement actions involve terrorist organizations or dealers connected to the terrorist organizations? >> i don't believe that there were direct connections to any terrorist organizations. however, i will go back and review the cases. >> have you seen any of these? >> not specifically. but the fact that so many of the substances are manufactured overseas without a lot of clarity on the devotee for us to determine where the money goes there is a substantial risk,

senator, that they could be funding all kind of nefarious activities. >> a lot of these are made internationally particularly in china -- is the correct? >> correct. even more important that we are able to prove the local cases. >> this has been a significant focus. quite honestly the state department and working with both the chinese delegation directly as well as through the u.n. office and drugs and crime. i think the compliance we have been dealing with in china have been responsive to our issues and concerns and we are cautiously optimistic in terms of the response of the chinese government. we have been working closely with the dea and the state department to make sure that we do get better cooperation from the chinese government. >> one last question, mr. rannazzisi. i keep saying your name wrong.

how do you say it? rannazzisi. it is on a different topic that is on the drug disposal as you know nearly two years by the president put into law the prescription drug bill that i passed with senator cornyn that attracted them to write laws to facilitate easier disposal of prescription drugs that is the chart over there that shows why a number of things folks get upon. what we are trying to do is find a way for people who are at home rather than telling you the kind of your leftover drugs with coffee lines which isn't very practical in today's le or flush them down khator lit which doesn't seem like a good deal for water supply. we are trying to make things easier one rather than the once a month sheriff drop-off. it would be very difficult for people to get those drugs off the shelf.

they literally don't know what to do and they are just keeping them in their shelf where teenagers can find them. that is why we are so intense about trying to get the regulation done. we think two years has been too long. when you think we are going to be able to get those regulations fun? >> senator, i share your concerns. we are working diligently to get them done. we had approximately 200 comments on proposed rule. when the final stages were addressed and the rule has been drafted going through the last bit of inter agency -- internal agency vetting before it goes out to the government agency for review. we are hoping by the end of this year we have a rule. at the mean time we have a national take back october 26th working with our federal, state and local -- >> what if you have a soccer game that day? i love these but i think there should be a more routine way to get rid of -- >> and there will be.

there will be and will be safe and efficient and just bear with us a longer. there was a lot of competing interest and a lot of things we needed to get done to help the other agencies comply. >> i just think we know how many left over drugs when people have a dental surgery they use only one because they are okay and then they have ten left sitting in their cabinet and they don't mark when is the next take back day on the calendar and circle but with a red star i don't think that happens. that's why if we had a routine thing and get some of the drug stores to start taking them and feel comfortable under the rule we would be in better shape so i would urge you to keep going and working on the agency review. thank you. >> i would like to take advantage of your present issue

that is particularly important to the central valley of california to bate as you know, california is the largest domestic producer of marijuana in america with over 1,800 marijuana farms growth sites in the central valley so far this year it is a serious concern of the 81,000 farms in the area koppel. i wrote a director asking him to provide 750,000 in 2013 discretionary funding which could support marijuana investigative teams in fresno and sacramento. this is a real problem regarded by our problems.

i can't possibly used for medical marijuana. there is a huge dismay within the central valley. i would like to ask that you would bring this request to the director's attention and hopefully we can get some help this terrific and appeared before the committee. so people just can't meet the problem in any way. >> we are tremendously supportive of the work in the valley and i had the opportunity to travel there last month and talk with our height of directors as well as other federal, state and local colleagues and we saw firsthand it did fly over the counties that you mentioned in looking at not only the proliferation of marijuana growth on public land but increasing the as you well articulated on the increasing

them on price of land and heard from the many county administrators, sheriff's in terms of the issues that they are running into. so we are committed to supporting that. br going to be announcing discretionary grants in the next couple weeks. unfortunately due to the sequestration, the dollar down but we had available for discretionary funding was cut in half. so we only have 3 million now but we clearly understand the pressures that are under and i heard treacly from both local law enforcement and property owners in terms of the magnitude of the issue. as you articulate it's pretty astounding. we also share the publicly and groups so we will be working with our colleagues in the usda in terms of providing information particularly to the local farmers that are renting their farm and very unsuspecting in terms of what is happening on their public land to find out

once they know that it's happening they are left with little recourse because the weight of lease is structured so we will be working with them to try to help develop guidance for local farmers to make sure that the agreements or airtight and have the ability. >> do you have a mechanism for doing this? >> weech chair the committee and work closely with the service. >> can i make a suggestion? the of 15,000 farmers to work through the water district would be one way. the california farm bureau would be another way. the big farm organizations i can give you and i think with respect to the contract in particular. it's a growing problem and what bothers me is the growers are

armed and there's going to be an incident i'm sure that one day. >> both of the public land and the national park we would be happy to work with you. >> thank you. senator? >> i would like to talk about what you just talked about and i don't know anything about agriculture in california but in iowa you've got these maps, satellite maps and everything to tell you. aren't those maps available in california so you can find out where they are growing marijuana? >> i believe they do have access to some resources in terms of looking at, you know, i believe some of the folks to have access to some kind of aerial

photographs around where they are seeing their growth. i think that the resources and abilities have been growing during the satellite imagery as well as the aerial and a tree in terms of looking at where they have particular hot spots. >> i don't want that to take away from the time. whether or not they agree or disagree with of the marijuana policy to forgo that federal preemption and the local prosecution in those states. >> i don't believe that we agreed to forgo the prosecution. first of all when we are talking about marijuana it is a schedule one controlled substance.

we don't generally go after the users of marijuana and we never have to read so all of these prosecutions just don't exist. on what i discussed you said something about getting very close. it just so i want you to know i was born at night but not last night and the the dea has told us for a long period of time that both the gao and my office they were close to reaching an agreement was over the whole as long as one year ago. and then additionally you say that the dea is concerned they will release the confidential information of the public. yet when asked by my staff if they were ever violated

confidential information, your answer has always been no. i have to ask why the delay but i want you to know we are going to get to the bottom of this and there will be other ways we can do it if we cannot get your commitment here. in recent weeks and news reports have linked a drug with a street name moly to the deaths of four young people addressing the concert and night clubs in boston, new york and washington, d.c. the suddenness and the legality of these substances appear to be truly alarming so to you folks what do we know at this point? is an analog of ecstasy or is it a recreational drug that has been contaminated and that would be to the both of you. and i have some other questions

on this subject. >> moly' 100% pure ecstasy. the purity has been going down. when it came around, you can buy in principle that it would be pure ecstasy and the consequences are likely to be much more adverse. one of the problems why people die with ecstasy is that it has an increasing serotonin that regulates the production in the brain and when they are in, the purity goes up and it's very difficult to control the debt. what has been reported is that when you buy any of these drugs you cannot guarantee that you are getting what you are supposed to get. they are going to contaminate things that are less expensive to read since your faced with a situation depending on the randomness of the consideration

to end up with something that is particularly toxic. this is maybe then harder because the patient gets very agitated and takes to the emergency room hospital and the doctors don't know what to treat because we don't know what that particular person has on board which makes it much more difficult than to address an emergency. so, it is ecstasy and principal and it is clearly contaminated though ecstasy by itself in its purity can be very dangerous and some other synthetic compounds. >> you might have something to add or you might disagree with her. >> i just want to add what we have seen over and over again as you have a new substance and you know the term has accepted is a bias because it is supposedly so we will just purchase believing that it's in the it can be a totally different substance. it's just another marketing tool that they are using to get these

drugs to our kids. >> do you -- what specifically are they doing to protect the public? >> we are conducting investigations in cooperation with the different state and local agencies that are working these particular cases to find out where the drug is coming from. once we find out what it is we will be able to better handle the situation. but we are conducting state and local federal cooperative investigations to determine where that is coming from and what the source of the drug is. >> i'm understand from your testimony that the prosecutions under the control substance analog enforcement act are difficult and you're written testimony informs us from 86 to 2011 there were approximately 62

individuals prosecuted for distributing the analogs under the act and from 2011 to the present 280 individuals have been similarly charged. do you know how many of those prosecutions resulted in the plea bargains or convictions as opposed to acquittals and even if you don't know the specific number is it fair to say that you would expect the overwhelming majority of those charged pled guilty or were convicted? >> i don't know the exact numbers but i am quite certain that the percentage of the cases must be resolved as much higher than every other category of the drug prosecution. that's because of these difficulties that we have in establishing the elements. a good defense lawyer knows that he or she has a chance to demonstrate one juror there is an efficient similarity and his

client did not know that this was going to be marketed for human consumption and that leads to fewer plea-bargain. >> as i understand everything is contested in a court. so every time you go and, you have to prove that the individual drugs used contributed to the death. is that right? there is no set rules. each must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury and that is why we have the defense expert who will say it isn't chemically similar to the scheduled substance and the government would say it is. >> doesn't it say that there is something wrong with the statute? >> unless we schedule that substance and make that illegal we have no choice but to go through. >> then they change one of the chemicals.

>> there will always be tweaks in the formula of the require the use of some kind of analog statute. we can strengthen the statute as we discussed the marketing but we will always have the need for it and we will never be able to get ahead of the considerable talent and entrepreneurship that is on the other side. ..

>> you go on. buy me to go ahead? go ahead. >> thank you. let's see. my next question is for the two people there in the middle. please note that synthetic drug manufacturers are able to slightly modify their chemicals to make synthetic drugs. how many types or classes of ugsdo we know are in existence? what percentage of these are analog of currently scheduled drugs? in other words, to what extent is a synthetic chart problem and analog drug problem? let me start with you, mr. rannazzisi. >> the synthetic drug class is pretty much right now are pretty much in months. i'm looking at a designer drug chart right now with over 20 different classes and sub classes of drugs.

i couldn't even give you a number of classes because the classes change pretty much on a weekly basis of what we are seeing both of the literature, on the internet and actually in our labs. i can tell you there's a lot of them. over 200 thus far we've identified. 200 individual substances of potentially analogues or standalone non-analog, not controlled drugs from the white speck of classes. to get a number, i would go back. i can give you a number we have now. >> it would be impossible to state it because it changes so fast tiered >> absolutely. >> i think we will have that answer. i suppose you agree with? or do you have another point of view, dr. botticelli. >> the only thing i would say is i would divide them to emulate the different classes of drugs so you have cannabinoids, spice,

k., stimulants and you have not salts. you have by now also opiates. so you will start to generate analogues of these compounds that are out there for purposes of diversion and you can do with chemistry in a multiplicity of directions, which is why it's so extraordinarily difficult. >> that said, senator, that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and never get ahead of it. these 50 compounds have very been seized, are already identified as no legitimate use, extremely volatile and harmful. and while we may not get ahead of the manufacturer, we can do our best to stay as close to current as possible by scheduling these drugs. >> senator grassley, let me give you something. i just wanted down. chemicals that are packaged and labeled as not intended for human consumption, but the

intent is that the product be used for human consumption should be illegal if it contains chemicals that either alone or combined can be injurious to human health. something like that that is very -- because you can list chemicals you know and then all the stuff you don't know. the point that's diabolical to me is how these things are packaged. [inaudible conversations] okay. and i really think we need to grapple with this. and it's very hard because it's not at all clear cut. and i don't know how you keep making, in many cases, if the chemicals keep changing. but the intent of the producer is what i would go for because clearly the intent of the

producer is for human consumption and date guys that this way and with not intended for human consumption and by name, you know bath spaces or candy or whatever it may be. and i think this is what makes it so diabolical. >> i agree 100%, senator. we tried a case in charlottesville, virginia where we were fortunate we had a cooperating witness who was making phone calls to her out-of-town supplier in which there was discussion of how users will react them. we had actual evidence. we don't always have that particularly as you move up the chain of distribution, just like any business in the manufacturing distribution of the hierarchy. the higher you go in the distance from the point-of-sale, the more difficult it is. >> what happened in the case? >> it was a conviction.

>> not a manufacturer, but someone who is a wholesaler, who was shipping through the mail into our community. >> so what law was he convicted of violating quite >> it was an analog act conviction. we had to go to the difficult challenge we talked about earlier. we had evidence of his statements evidence knowledge of human consumption. that's not always available. we were fortunate we have that direct evidence. if we can add elements to the statue, which would provide investor fact is to be considered, like the product itself does not work for the purpose on the label. that could be a circumstantial factor considered by a judge or jury that would help us in the absence of statements establish that the defendant intended for human consumption. >> let me ask you this. would you all be willing to take a look at senator klobuchar's bill, at my bill? we could easily put them together, that there is something more here do we have to get at.

we have to provide a methodology for the future in a kind of arena that's going going to be constantly changing, where what is really harmful and illegal and how we can do that and judy judy do that? and would you be willing to let us know what you think of what your recommendations would be? >> on behalf of the department of justice, absolutely. we be happy to work with your staff, senator. >> can you get back to us after you do that? my stats look at each one of you copies of both bills and would like to produce something that could go before the judiciary committee and have a chance of making a difference here. i was asking about molly. i don't know, i gather molly is a pill and it is sold at big

rock festivals in that kind of thing. does anybody warn people not to purchase this? or tell people what it does? to the individual? >> i think there's significant opportunity to ramp up efforts to make sure people understand kind of what they are taking and to make sure they understand that they are not taking. stacy. i heard an interesting story from one gentleman who watched his friends overdose. and he said, while if my friends. they don't know how to take it when he himself had no idea what's in store. the other opportunities that we work with concert promoter said they have some culpability here in terms of making sure they are providing education since we know that pat meehan and make sure they are policing events and providing opportunity. so i do think there's increased opportunities for us utterly and at the state level to work with concert promoters and providing

information. >> i want to highlight that because vesica one discussions about whether it's a problem of synthetics, it's always good to learn what has worked in the past. 10 years ago there was a lot of concern in our country for the increases of the associated negative effects on there were some very aggressive campaign to educate in an objective way, not exaggerating the adverse consequences. i'm not very abruptly changed the trajectory. i think we cannot lose respect for how important prevention intervention and education of young people about the effects of these drives. many of them don't know and they take it with lack of knowledge and that is something that we know how to teach. we have very, very good campaigns but convention in the past and i would urge to do something tumbler for synthetics. >> senator, when we announce the results of that charlottesville case i mentioned, we had an

event where we not only announce the medical professionals they are to simultaneously talk to parents, talk to young people about how volatile, how dangerous these drugs are. i agree completely that we have to get the message out aggressively as we do these cases about the dangers of substances by reducing demand. >> do we know that the drug for sure, i was just reading an article that killed those four youngsters. was molly? >> we know it was a drug that was sold as molly. i'm sure people who took the drug believed they were taking and mdma product because traditionally molly is mdma. they have no idea what they are taking. it's relying on the name molly.

>> to me now a senator, combination? >> i don't believe we have -- we don't have the reports back. >> i think the article i was reading acerbic sold. >> the problem is if we haven't identified the drug yet, we have to create standards for purchase standards for lab so they can match the drug. >> when you do now, could you let us know? and we know that this is going to be a pursuit. we are going to continue on and try to see if we can't do a multidimensional program. i think ms. volkow, what you mentioned about having some prevention is really important. maybe there is a way of getting press that are inclined, you know, to talk to people like ms. mcteer, what happened to her son and others who are professionals in the field about what is going on. change of chemicals. i wonder, because so many of

these users are very young, how much is unsuspecting and kind of the result of peer group pressure. you can go when the store and you could likea, b., c. and d. do it. it is great stuff. it's a mistake. in any event, thank you very much for being here. thank you or what you're doing. it is very much appreciated in our caucus looks forward to working with you and we hope we will have a good bill that comes out of it. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and also on capitol hill today, the senate passed a bill that would fund the government through november 15th along party lines to vote came down 54 to 44. two republican senators were absent. orrin hatch and jeff flake of arizona. the senate moved language to defend the affordable care at before spending measure back to the house. the housemates roger n. at 10:00 a.m. eastern and middle straight legislative business that man. maryland, steny hoyer talked about government funding on the house floor earlier. >> ladies and gentlemen of this house, there are 435 of us that have been asked by our fellow citizens to come to washington d.c., to have the extraordinary privilege of sitting on this lawyer and making the hope

responsible decisions for their country. i regret that the house is not full at this point in time. i have a reputation for working across the aisle. i cherish that reputation because i believe that all of us have been given an honor and each of us not to respect that. the house will come to order. ladies and gentlemen of this house, we are days away from shutting down the government. we are a few more days from defaulting on the credit of the united states of america. i believe there are a small number of this house who are holding us cap to and rendering

apparently this house unable to reach compromise. the american people sure will not reward anyone was. there is in my opinion, mr. speaker, a working majority for responsibility in this house. i choose to believe that. i do believe it and i pray that it is the case. and i ask my colleagues to come together on behalf of the american people and our great country to act responsibly. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> some lawmakers are tweaking. senator harry reid says the senate has acted in a bipartisan way to overtly shut down get a speaker wants to pass a resolution. republican congressman jeff duncan said the negative impacts

of obamacare represent a far greater threat to the country than any impact to be shut down. new york democratic senator cummock kirsten gillibrand says enough with the tea party tincher and peered house should do their job and avoid a government shutdown. tonight we will bring a new live coverage from the hugh lane here on c-span 2, taking you live to new york city come or the u.n. security council is meeting unserious chemical weapons resolution after its five permanent members agreed on the terms of that resolution, requiring syria to cement his chemical weapons. we will have that tonight live from the u.n. in new york city at 8:00 p.m. eastern right here on c-span 2. earlier this week, president obama and former president bill clinton talked about republican efforts to defend the health care lot and the government shutdown. they talk during the clinton family foundation's annual convention also held in new york city. it's close to an hour. >> hilary rodham clinton.

[applause] ♪ >> at afternoon, everyone. wow, thank you, thank you. thank you very match. i have -- i had the great pleasure to introduce our next two speakers who are about to have a conversation concerning health care. and i thought hard about how to introduce these two men. and the more i thought about it, the more i realized how much they have in common. they are both left-handed. they both love golf, a game that does not often reciprocate the laws they put into it. they both are fanatic sports

fans and go to great length to be in front of the tv or on the side of the court or the field. they both are master politicians. each of them has only lost one election. they are both democrats. they have fabulous daughters. they each married firebug themselves. [laughter] [applause] and they each love our country. and so, please join me in welcoming number 42 and number 44, bill clinton and president barack obama. [applause]

♪ ♪ >> mr. president. >> are you interviewing me? that was a good thing you did. thank you for coming. >> well, it is wonderful to be back. let me start just by saying to other people who have for years now supported by credible after its a cgi, thank you because wherever we travel, all across the globe, we see the impact that is making every single day and we are very proud of what you all do.

let me say that we still miss former secretary of state. i should add that there is nothing she said that was not true, particularly the part about us marrying up. >> well, that brings me to my first health care comment. this is going to be a conversation about domestic and international health and america's role in it. i want to begin by telling you that i think the first lady has done a great job in this fight against held and obesity. we have been honored in our foundation to be able to represent her effort and 18,000 schools, where we've lowered the calories in drinks served in schools by 90%. she's been great on that. the other thing is i was a little upset.

carl, some of your administration members, when you got to africa, when i got an article that said he didn't have a big initiative in africa. i said i can't say exactly what i said -- [laughter] i said that is inaccurate. because when the president took office, our programs began under president bush was given anti-retroviral matters into 1.79 people. because of an agreement that i made with president bush to use generic drugs that were approved by the fda, about half our drugs are being purchased in that way. under president obama, we've gone to 99%. we are treating more than 5.1 million people, three times as many, for less money. that is a stunning legacy that more money has been put into malaria medicine, bed nets.

and save more lives while doing it. i am very proud of that and i want to thank you for it. it's important. [applause] may be the conversation we can get back to your current global health initiatives. let's talk about the health care lot because we are about to begin on october the first, open enrollment for six months. i would take to give you a chance, first of all, to tell them why when he took office we were teetering on the brink of a depression. you had to have started the recovery again. why in the midst of all this great as you take on this issue. many people were saying by the new focus on the economy and leave this alone. tell us why you did it.

>> first of all, i think it is important to remember that health care is the economy, a massive part of our economy. so the idea that somehow we can separate the two is a fallacy. second of all, the effort for us to deal with a multifaceted health care crisis has been going on for decades. the person who just introduced as, as well as you early in your presidency, had as much to do with helping to shape the conversation as anybody. the fact is that we have been, up until recently, the only advanced industrialized nation

on earth that permits large numbers of its people to languish without health insurance. not only is there the cruelty of people who are unable to get health insurance, haven't used the emergency room as their doctor or further health service, but they are also more efficient than anybody else. someone would talk about, for example, our deficit, you know this better than anybody. the reason we have battled the current deficits, but also projected long-term deficits come the structural deficit we have is primarily based on the fact that we have a hugely inefficient, wildly to help your system that does not produce better outcomes. and if we spend the same amount

of money on health care that canada or france or great britain did for japan, or any other industrialized country, with the same outcomes are better outcomes, that eventually would remove our structural deficit, which would then free up dollars for us to invest in early childhood education and infrastructure and medical research and all the other things that can make sure we are competitive and growing rapidly over the long-term. some ip when i came into office was we've got an immediate crisis. we've got to get the economy rolling. but what we also have to do is start tackling some of the structural problems that have been building up for years. one of the biggest structural problems with health care. it's what accounts for a deficit. it's what accounts for debt. it causes pain and misery to millions of people all across

the country. it is a huge burden on our businesses and i was out at the ford plant out in missouri and making the f. series out there, a big stamping plant. ford is now the biggest seller in the united states. we took at the back from the japanese automakers. but we are still burdened by the fact that every u.s. automobile that is manufactured requires a couple thousand dollars and added health care costs that our foreign competitors don't have to pay. so this has everything to do with the economy, in addition to what i considered to be the moral imperative that a mom should not have to go bankrupt if her son or daughter gets sick. that, you know, a family whose dealing with a layoff and his

art is struggling to pay the bills shouldn't also be wondering whether they are one illness away from losing their home. and i think most americans agree with that. [applause] >> first of all, folks, for those of you who are from the united states, that's about as good an overview as you are ever going to hear about this economic issue is. but you remember the president sent our structural deficit would disappear if you had a comparable health care system in terms of cost to the french and germans are consistently rated the highest. it's about a trillion dollars a year and somewhere around 44% of that money is government funded money. so you just run the numbers. think of over half of our deficits are they disappeared

because of economic growth and the revenues you based on the spending to cut. he pretty much get rid of the rest of it for just had to comparably expensive system to any other in the country. before he took office, we lost a car company that wanted to locate in michigan, and that went to canada. and they announced, they said look, we are a car company that provides health benefits to our employees. we are not a health care company that sells cars to cover our bills. we have to go to canada. so i think it was one of the few companies willing to go on record and say this. thank you for doing it. let's talk about this. what does this open involvement name? how are people going to get involved? when you have universal enrollment, you can manage your cost better and cut inflation. i'll give the president a chance to talk about all the good stuff

that's happened. i want to let you know once been. and last three years since he started doing this, inflation in health care costs has dropped 4% for three years in a row for the first time in three years. before that, the costs are going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade. so now what? what are you going to do on october 1st? >> let me give folks a little bit of background about what's in place and what happens on the server first. when we passed the affordable care act, there were a number of components to it. a big part of it was essentially providing a patient's bill of rights than that americans are not the case had been fighting for decades. so what we wanted to do is make sure if you already have health

insurance, but you get a fair deal, that you are being treated well by your insurance. so we eliminated, prohibiting insurance companies from lifetime limits if a family member really got sick they thought they were covered until they had that limit. now they are at hundreds of thousands of dollars. we set to insurance companies, you've got to use at least 80% of your premium you are receiving an actual health care, not on it mistreated cause and ceo bonuses. if you don't, you've got a rebate anything you spent back to the consumer. ..

and obviously providing a lot of to relief to a lot of parent out there. a lot of young people have been entering to the job market at the time when jobs are tough to get, an oftentimes benefits are slim. this is providing an enormous security until they get, you know, more firmly established in the labor market. we provided additional discounts for prescription drug for seniors under the medicare program, and so seniors have saved billions of dollars when it comes to their prescription drugs. so there have been over the last

three years, a whole array of consumer protections, and savings for consumers that result directly from the law that we passed, and for those who say they want to repeal it, typically when you ask them about the various benefits they say that one is good. that one is pretty good. we would keep that. you pretty much go down to the list. there's not too much people will object to. you recall, also, at the time, part of the way we paid for it we said medicare wasted a lot of money without making seniors healthier. there was a lot of cry how we were taking money out of medicare. it turn out we were right. that we could change how doctors and hospitals and providers were operating, rewarding them for outcomes as opposed to simply

how many procedures they did. you started seeing practices change among l -- millions of providers across the country. medicare rates have actually slowed in term of inflation, seniors have saved money, folks are healthier, and some of those savings we've been able to use to make sure that people who don't have health insurance get health insurance. now, this brings me to october 1st. the one part of the affordable care act that required several years to set up but a critical part was how do we provide health insurance for individuals who adopt get health insurance through a job. it's a historical accident in this country health care is attached to employers, and part of the problem is if you're out

there shopping for health insurance on your own, you're not part of a big pool. let's say you are 50 years old, you have high blood pressure, we looked at the actuarial table, we figured you're going to get sick, we're going to charge you $16 00 a month for health insurance. the average person has no way of affording, there's no pool of risk. we need to set up a mechanism to pool the people who don't have health insurance. they have the same leverage or negotiating power that big companies do. essentially what we've done is created marketplaces in every state around the -- across the country where consumers are now able to.

what we have now set up are the marketplaces that provide high quality health care at affordable prices, giving people choices so they can get the health insurance they need and they want, and the premiums are significantly lower than what they were able to previously get. i'll take the example of new york state. the insurers put in their bids to participate in these marketplaces, it turns out that their rates are up to 50% lower than what was available previously if you went on the open market and try to get health insurance. [applause] 50% lower in this state. [applause] california, it's about 33% lower. in my home state of illinois, they announced about 25% lower.

so just by pooling and creating competition so insurers have to go after people's business the way they go after a group plan we have drastically reduced premiums and costs. on top of that, what we're now doing is saying if the better deal you got and you can't afford it, we're going give you tax credits. essentially sub diaz your purchase of health insurance. i can can tell you right now in many states across the if you're a 27-year-old young woman, don't have health insurance, you get on that exchange, you're going to be able to purchase high quality health insurance for less than the cost of your cell phone bill. because all of the insurers who

participate, for example, required to provide free preventive care and contraception care. that young woman may make up what she's sending -- spending on premium on the monthly use of health care. it's going to be a good deal for those who don't have health insurance, those who already have health insurance get better health insurance, and the best part of the whole thing because of the -- health care costs have [applause] [applause] >> i should point out that so far in most states, one of the good things that who had more

than 80 percent of the market. so there was, in effect, no price competition. so what i was terrified of was, you know, we open them and there would be one company show up and bid. we would be having an academic conversation. it lead to the establishment of doing more bidding. i think part is they have greater confidence they can deliver health care at the more modest cost. so i think it's important for you to tell the people why we're doing all of this outreach, because this only works, for example, if young people show up and even if they buy the

cheapest plan and claim the tax credit so it won't cost much, $100 or so. we have to have them in the pool, because all the projected low costs cannot be held if older people with preexisting conditions are disproportionately represented in any given state. you have to have everybody lined up. so explain all the work you have been doing on the gasp rete -- outreach for the opening on october. >> i think president clinton makes an important point. the way pool work, any pool, essentially those of us who are healthy, subsidize somebody who is sick at any given time. we do that because we anticipate, at some point, we'll get sick. we'll hope the healthy person is

in the pool. the costs in the risk get spread. that's what insurance is all about, and what happens is if you don't have pools that are cross section of society, then people who are already sick or more likely to get sick, they'll rush out to buy health insurance. people who are healthy say i won't bother. you get what is called adverse selection. essentially what happens is that the premiums start going higher and higher because the risks aren't spread broadly enough as cro the population. you want to get good cross section in every pool. that's why big companies have a easier time getting better rates than small companies. if you only have five employees, one person is stricken with breast cancer, let's say, your rates shoot up potentially. if it's 1,000 employees it gets

spread out. on october 1st, open-enrollment begins. all the folks can start signing up for the marketplace, what we want to make sure is that everybody in every category, every age group understands why health insurance is important, understands why they should sign up, understands the choices that are going to be available to them. they'll be able to go to a computer, tap on the web page, and they're going to be shop just like you shop for an airline ticket or a flat screen tv and see what is the best price for you. what is the plan best suited for you? go ahead and sign up right there and then, and that open enrollment period will last from october 1st until the end of march. so there will be six months for folks to sign up. normally this would be pretty

straightforward. a lot of people don't have 00. a lot of people realize they should get health insurance, but let's face it, it's been a little political the whole obamacare thing. so what you've had is an unprecedented effort you have seen ramp up over the last month or so, in which those who have opposed the idea of universal health care in the first place, and have fought it tooth and nail through congress and the courts and so forth, have been trying to scare and discourage people from getting a good deal. some of you may have seen some of the commercials out there that are a little whacky. the main message we have, and we're using social media, we're talking to church, we're talking to various civic groups.

what we're saying is go to the website yourself. go to healthcare.gov. take a look whether it's a good deal or not. make your own decision whether it's got for you. what we are confident about, when people look and see they can get high-quality, affordable health care for less than their cell phone bill, they're going sign up. they are going to sign up, and part of what i think the resistance we have seen ramp up particularly over the last couple of months is the opponents of health care reform know they're going sign up. in fact, one of the major opponents when asked why isn't it you potentially shut down the government at this point just to bog obamacare, he basically fessed up. he said, you know, once consumers get hooked on having health insurance, and subsidizes, then they won't want to give it up!

[laughter] you can look at the transcript. this is one of the major opponents of health care reform. [laughter] it's an odd logic. essentially they're saying, people will like this thing too much then it will be hard to roll back. so it is very important that people just know what is out there. what is available to them. let people make their own mind as to whether it makesceps or not. one last thing i want to say, i think sometimes people come up to me and they say, well, if it was a good deal, how come the polls show that it's not popular? one of the things we both know, when you come to health care, there's know more personal and intimate decision for people. it's something that people really care about. frankly, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

and that's what harry and louise was about back in the '90s. it was scaring people with the prospect of change, and so part of our goal here is just to make sure people have good information, and there's been billions of dollars spent making people scared and worried about this stuff, and rather than try to disabuse people of every single bit of information out there, we're saying look for yourself. take a look at it, and you will discover that this is a good deal for you. >> first of all, i completely agree with that. i think we have got to drive people to the websites, the states that are participating -- the supreme court decision upheld the health care law said that states didn't have to set

up these marketplaces if they didn't want to. if they didn't want to, the federal government would set it up. they also said that states didn't have to expand medicaid coverage to help people whose incomes are up to 138% of the federal poverty level on health insurance. there are some states, believe it or not, that want the marketplace but don't want the medicaid, and that is going lead to a cruel result. there's nothing the president can do. t not his fault. that's what the supreme court said. we can have the by disaster -- bizarre situation, an individual going to the individual market will get the benefit of tax credits for everybody with incomes of 138% of the federal poverty level or above. they won't get it for people between 138%. lower income people who

desperately need the health insurance would have the cruelest of all situations in those states. there's nothing the president can do about it because of the supreme court decision. we have to persuade the states to come on. more and more states with republican governors are doing it. >> and -- >> tell them about arkansas, we're doing well know. >> a little hometown bias, there's nothing wrong with that. [laughter] a couple of things that are happening i think are very interesting. first of all, i'm sympathetic to some of the republican governors who are around lot of -- under a lot of pressure because the whole issue of whether you're for obamacare or not has become a litmus test in the other party. it's been politically tough. sometimes state legislature that refuse to allow governor to go ahead and implement, but as you have indicated, what we have

seen is that when republican governors take a look at the deal they're getting, in addition to the exchanges, we're also providing a much more significant match, much more federal money to provide health insurance from the state's perspective -- they're not paying. the federal government is picking up the tab, and this is helping them because people are no longer going to the emergency room. they have good health care. they're getting preventive care. you are seeing some republican governor step up and saying, i may not like obamacare, but i'm going go ahead and make sure that my people are benefiting from this plan. so that's one good thing that is happening. the second thing that is happening is, there are a couple of states, arkansas is a good example, kentucky is another good example, idaho -- interesting example. these are states where i just got beaten.

i, you know, -- i do not have a big constituency in these states -- [laughter] well, i take that back. you know 40% is a lot of people. i'm losing by 20% in these states. , but the governor's are still able to say we're going to set up our own state exchanges their own marketplaces, and each state is just, you know, using their own name for it. so i had a conference, video conference, with the state directors of the marketplaces, and i'm talking to the director of kentucky, idaho, and, you know, kentucky it's called, like, kentucky connect, and idaho it's called the idaho health care exchange. there's a story that came out of kentucky where some folks were signing people up at a county

fair somewhere, and some guy goes up and starts looking at the rates and decides he's going sign up. he turns to his friend and said it's a great deal. it's a lot better than obamacare. [laughter] which is fine. because we, you know, i don't have pride of authorship on it. i want to take it to work -- i want it to work. arkansas came out with its rates, as has been true in virtually every single state, not only are premiums lower than they were, they're a lot lower than even the most optimistic predictions were about how low they would be, and, you know, once these marketplaces are up and running, it turns out that what has traditionally been a conservative principle, competition and joyce.

well, in the national hurricane national hurricane insurance market competition and choice work. people are going get the health care they have never been able to get before. states are going benefit from it, because they're going save money. one thing that all of you -- there are probably few people who don't have health insurance. if you don't, you should sign upstarting on october 1st. [laughter] one of the things that many people don't realize is that the subsidize that all of you provide for the uninsured is about $1,000 per family. you pay a thousand dollars -- everybody here who has health insurance pays about a thousand dollar more for your families and insurance than you otherwise would have because hospitals are

mandated, they are required to provide service to anybody who shows up. what happens is when you've got 15% of the population without health insurance, they end up showing up at the emergency room. typically at the point when they are sicker than getting ready to do checkup and preventive care. you pay for the most expensive care there is because hospitals have to recruit the money some way. and the way they do is to charge higher prices, and people who have health insurance end up picking it up. so part of what will help reduce the increase of health care costs is making sure the hidden subsidizes no longer exist. >> let's talk about business. we're out of time, but i think it's fairly important point. as you pointed out, most people who have insurance work for a living or somebody in their family does. they get their insurance through

their workplace, the law says that all employers have participated if they have 50 employees or more. many employers with fewer than 50 employees already voluntarily provide some health insurance. both the companies with 50 or more and the companies with fewer than 50 are somewhat concerned, and the employees that have to be insured work 30 hours a week or more. there are many people speculated when the law came in to place that it would add to the cost, and there would be a lot more part-time workers instead of full-time. save the president's time and energy on this. so far, that's not true. the overwhelming number of people who have been hired coming out of the recession have been -- they have been hired at lower wages, but they have been full-time employees. there is not been an increase in

the percentage of our employment in part-time work. there has been an increase in relatively lower wage new jobs, but that means they need health insurance even more. so explain very briefly to them how this is going work. how the -- how the private employers are buying the insurance requirements. >> first of all, if you're a large employer or an employer with more than 50 employees, you're already providing health insurance. you don't have to do anything other than just make sure that you can show you are providing health insurance, and there was a lot of news recently how we delayed so-called employer mandate for a year because under the law, what it says if you have more than 50 employee, you are not providing health insurance to your employee, you have to pay a penalty to help

subsidize -- to help pay for the fact that, we, the taxpayers have to provide your employees with health insurance. which, by the way, is only fair. , you know, a lot of controversy around the affordable care act had to go with the so-called mandates. both an employer mandate and an individual mandate. the employer mandate says if you don't meet your responsibilities by your employees, and they end up getting medicaid or ending up to be in the emergency room. you are basically dumping the cost ton society. that's not fair. we are going charge you a couple of thousand dollars to help pay for health care for those employees. to the individuals, what we said, was we're going make the health insurance so affordable, so cheap for you, so heavily subsidized if you're not making a lot of money, that if you're

not getting health insurance, that is because you decided you don't want to. you don't need to. and in that circumstance, what happens when you get hit by a bus? heaven forbid, or somebody in your family gets sick, and you haven't had them covered. we're going to have to end up paying for you anyway. we're not going to somebody bleed in front of the emergency room. what we've said is, you have to take responsibility, and so there is a small penalty if you don't get health insurance. this is where a lot of the controversy and unpopularity came in. people don't generally like to be told you have to get health insurance. employers don't like to be told you have to give your employees health insurance. as a society what we cannot do is to say you have no

responsibilities whatsoever, but you've got guaranteed coverage, and this raises the whole issue of preexisting conditions, which we haven't talked a lot about. but is really important. one of the central exoabts -- component of this law, one of the main perversity of the health care system before the law passed was there were millions of people around the country who -- if you had gotten sick before, if you had a heart attack, if you had had cancer, if you had diabetes, let's say when it first happened you had a job. you got cured, then you lose your job. your trying to change jobs, start a business, you try to get health insurance. the health insurance company not only could deny you but had every incentive to deny you. basically they would rather have healthy people who are paying

premium and never asking for a payout. they don't somebody, act warily, they anticipate can get sick. keep in mind a huge percentage of our society has some sort of preexisting condition, and they can be locked out. you can do everything right. work hard, build a strong middle-class life. if you have been isic and you lose your job or something happens, you may suddenly be locked out of the insurance market or the premium may be so high that only somebody fabulously rich could afford it. what we said is, all right, you know what? insurance companies, you can no longer bar somebody from getting health insurance just because they have a preexisting condition. but the only way that works is if everybody has a requirement

to get health insurance. because think about what happens if you continue -- don't have that rule. not all of us, but a lot of us who are trying to figure out how to save some money would say, i'm not going worry about it until i get sick. when i'm diagnosed with something that is expensive, i'll go to the insurance company and say you can't prevent me from getting health insurance because i have a preexisting condition. so they could potentially game the system, and it wouldn't work. now what we have done is said you've got provide health insurance to anybody. it all covers. everybody has some responsibility and we'll help you pay for it to get health insurance. that's where a lot of the misunderstandings, the frustration about health care reform came in. i should add, by the way, that this was the same proposition that was set up in massachusetts