senate decided not to work yesterday. well, my goodness, if there's such an emergency, where are they? it's time for the senate to listen to the american people just like the house is has listened to the american people and pass a one-year delay of obamacare and a permanent repeal of the medical device tax. >> that was the house speaker from this morning. some more congressional reaction to the impending government shutdown. he wind, thereby >> next we'll get a look at how the senate will proceed as the chamber gavelsth in with life coverage from the senate floor

right here on c-span2. catastrophic consequences is for good people to do nothing. lord, lead them away from the unfortunate dialectic of us versus them, as they strive to unite for the common good of this land we love. let them not be content to wait and see what will happen, but give them the determination to make the right things happen. bless them with the courage to stand for something, lest they fall for anything. we pray in your merciful name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., september 30, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable richard j. durbin, a senator from the state of illinois, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask the chair lay before the senate a message from the house with respect to h.j. res. 59. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the to following message from the

house. the clerk: the house gr agree to the making continuing aprongses for fiscal year 2014 and for other purposes, with amendmentsed to the senate amendment of. mr. reid: i move to table the house amendments and ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? a sufficient second is noted. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: on this question, the ayes are 54. the stphaeus are 46 -- the nays are 46. the motion to table the house amendments to the senate amendment to the house joint resolution 59 prevails. the majority leader. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until

4:00 p.m. today. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each and that further the time until 4:00 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees with i being recognized at 4:00 p.m.. the first speaker i ask consent would be the chairman of the appropriations committee, senator mikulski. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, if the senate would be in order so we can have one conversation at a time. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will be in order. all senators having considers, please take them out of the chamber. the senate will be in order. the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: well, mr. president, we're at the brink. hello? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. senators having conversations, please take them out of the chamber. ms. mikulski: well, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland.

ms. mikulski: thank you. well, we're at the brink. we're just hours away from a possible government shutdown. all over my state and all over the nation there are very devoted government employees who are wondering if they are going to be called nonessential, nonessential to performing important government services. should they come in tomorrow? people who have applied for small business loans, are those loans going to be processed? people have applied for student loans. are they going to be processed? what's going to happen to the weather service? what's going to happen at n.i.h.? what's going to happen at the food and drug administration where people stand sentry over the safety of our food supply and our drug supply? we don't know because we have just tabled the radical bill

that the house sent over to us. it was deliberately designed to be politically provocative. continuing resolutions were always about disputes over money. they were not about political, ideological viewpoints over past legislation. so i'm so glad that what we did just now was to table it and send it back to the house. the senate acted very responsibly last week on a short-term continuing funding resolution. get rid of politically motivated riders, keep the government working for the american people until november 15 to work out our differences on funding bills. the house sent us back yet one more bill that says if you don't delay the affordable care act

for one year, we will shut down the government. if you don't eliminate the benefits affecting prevention and particularly women's health, we will shut down government. if the government shuts down tomorrow, it will be because of the house's viewpoint: my way or the highway. a government shutdown is a serious matter. if we don't come together across the aisle and across the dome and across the town to pass a clean short-term continuing resolution. let me take a minute to highlight how damaging a government shutdown is to the day-to-day lives of our american people and our economy. shutting down the federal government will have immediate and harmful consequences on our economy. small business administration approval loans will be put on

hold. 28 million american small businesses will no longer have access to federally assisted loans or technical assistance. in the rural areas, the usda rural development housing and farm loan and grant program will stop. let's go to the safety of our waterways. the army corps of engineers will stop work on all flood control and navigation projects. this is what helps ensure that our ships can travel through america's waterways. whether they're coming up the chesapeake bay into the port of baltimore or they're traveling down to mississippi or the missouri or coming in to the gulf. the department of commerce will stop economic development, minority business, our international trade and assistance program. now, i know that the house passed a separate amendment funding active duty military.

well, i would hope so. i would hope so. i mean, these are men and women who put themselves in the line of duty, but i also want to remind people that there are other people every day who are doing the job to protect the health, safety and law enforcement of the american people. mr. president, i represent all of the men and women who work at the food and drug administration. it is headquartered in my state. 55%, or 2,000 people, will be fload at midnight -- furloughed at midnight. f.d.a. will stop monitoring imports at our borders. and what does that mean? for those men and women who we're going to tell they are nonessential, that if your job is to stand sentry over the food supply of the united states of

america, you are not essential. if you stand sentry over the safety of our drugs and our medical devices, we're telling you you are not essential. i don't think the american people support that. they might be cranky a little bit about the federal government here or there, but i think they want their food to be safe, their drugs to be safe, and they want us to move ahead with these devices to make sure they are in clinical practice. over at the national institutes of health, which is located in bethesda, maryland, the national institutes of health and their subsidiaries that receive extramural funding throughout the united states of america, 70% of the staff at n.i.h. will be furloughed. 70% of the 10,000 men and women who work at n.i.h. will be

furloughed at midnight. these are the people working on the cure for alzheimer's. they are working on the cure for autism. they are working on a cure for arthritis. i'm just going through the a words. we could go on to the b words. how about breast cancer? how about cancer itself? last year when the n.i.h. announced that cancer rates in america had been reduced by 15%, instead of pinning medals on the people at n.i.h. and the private sector who worked with us on important drugs and biological products, we announced a sequester. what kind of government would destroy the very people -- the very agency that set up to -- that is set up to come up with cures or in the case of alzheimer's cognitive stretchout. 70%. and who are they? they are the lab technician people. they help one the administrative work that now enables those

talented researchers to be able to do it. the n.i.h. clinical center won't be able to admit new patients or start new clinical trials. the n.i.h. clinical center is a hospital at n.i.h. you don't come in there unless you are really sick and unless you're really desperate and unless you really have no place to go. you come in with no hope. that's what they have nicknamed n.i.h. around america. not the national institutes of health but the national institutes of hope, that somewhere what they're doing today is going to lead to solving your problem tomorrow. why are we furloughing 70%? and not only are we furloughing. we're saying bye-bye for now, you're not essential. i think they are crucial. i think they are not only essential, but i think they are crucial. so i don't worry about really what our priorities are. then you go into the weather forecasters. oh, they will be on their job.

they are located in my state, too. you might say well, do you have any people who work in the private sector? people in maryland work in the private sector because of the public sector. our law enforcement, our f.b.i. they will be on the job. they're in the line of fire, too. but they will be getting paid an i.o.u. instead of i.o.u., we should say to the f.b.i. and to our border control and to our marshals chasing sexual predators and human traffickers, not that i o.u. but we owe you a debt of gratitude. we owe you your pay on time. we're sorry you haven't gotten a cost of living for three years. we shouldn't be dancing around with ideological motivated shutdowns. social security checks will go out, but 18,000 people who visit a social security office will find that they are understaffed. on the average, a half a million

people call social security every day. they are going to get either no answer or a busy signal. mr. president, i could go on and on about what the consequences of a shutdown are. we really cannot do that. so i say to my colleagues on the other side of the dome please, let's pass a clean c.r., let's pass it until november 15, let's negotiate on a middle ground number. they have a budget at $988 billion, and they accept sequester as the new normal. let's find a way to cancel sequester, at least for two years. i marked up the appropriation bills at a trillion -- that's the number that the senate passed on its budget committee in april. there is a $70 billion difference. i'm ready to negotiate, but we

can't capitulate. let's find a middle ground. there was a great american general and a great statesman and a real american icon, colin powell. over and over and over again, he would say during the reagan administration let's find that sensible center, let's find that sensible center, let's avoid a shutdown, let's stop playing slamdown politics. let's come together and find a way to solve the problem of keeping the government open now but our long-term fiscal solution of paying down our government debt, i understand that, but also making sure we have a pro-growth budget that lowers the unemployment rate, raises the educational achievement, find those cures for those diseases affecting the american people. have an f.d.a. that can get them

approved, ensuring the safety and advocacy, in the hands of our doctors here and doctors all over the world. let's make sure when we talk about american exceptionalism, we know where it comes from. mr. president, i know i have other colleagues that wish to speak. i now yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president rchtion: -- i find the position we're in now very frustrating. it's very hard from a distance to figure out who has lost their minds. mrs. mccaskill: one party, the other party, all of us, the president, but i really want to try to boil down what has occurred because it's stunning when you boil it down. the house sent us a piece of

legislation where they wanted to defund health care reforms, obamacare, in order -- and that was the price they were demanding in order for the government to stay open. the ticket to admission for an open government was us getting rid of the health care bill. well, we took that up, and we defeated it. by a ten-vote margin 54-44. we defeated that bill. and we sent it back to them just the ticket to keep the government open without an extra price of admission. now, this is where it gets interesting, because what happened when we sent that back? did they take it up and defeat it? no. no. they didn't vote.

i want to make sure the american people understand this. all the members of congress that were elected to serve the people of this country, they didn't get a chance to vote because the speaker decided there wouldn't be a vote of the house of representatives on the senate-passed measure. now, i have -- and somebody says well, it's the hastert rule. well, i've searched the constitution. i can't find the hastert rule. it's not there. and so the question we have to ask right now is why won't they let the house vote? maybe this will' defeat a clean attempt just to keep the government open. and by the way, nobody here is against negotiating or compromise. we have compromised on the number in this continuing resolution, and we are perfectly willing, we have been desperately trying to negotiate and compromise on the budget for months. senator cruz has blocked our

attempts to go to conference on the budget. so it's not that none of us are willing to compromise. maybe some of us aren't, but there's a good, healthy bipartisan margin of senators that want to compromise on issues surrounding federal spending, but not on keeping the government open and not on paying our bills. let's get those done. let's get those done. that's basic. let's get it done. and so my plea today to speaker boehner is quit making decisions on behalf of all your members, a small group of you huddled in a back room, because that's what's happening. there is two or three men in a back room down the hall, and they're deciding whether or not they are going to allow the elected representatives of this country to vote. let the house vote. i think the american people may be surprised that there would be a healthy bipartisan margin to, in fact, keep the government

open when the clock strikes midnight tonight. elections matter. and elections are what dictate what happens around here. we had an election last november. i remember it very well. i stood for election last november. there were two candidates for president of the united states, and every american citizen had a chance to decide what they wanted to lead this country, and the contrast was very clear. one candidate said he was going to repeal obamacare on the very first day he was president. he was going to by executive order wipe out obamacare on day one. the other president said i'm going to implement obamacare. that president won. and it wasn't even close. every single democratic senator who ran for re-election and

voted for obamacare was re-elected. red state, purple state, blue state, all of us were re-elected that voted for obamacare. and, in fact, a couple more were elected in states where republicans had represented those states. we didn't lose seats. we picked up seats. and even in the house of representatives, the raw votes, there were more democratic votes cast in the house of representatives than republican votes. they have a majority because of the way the districts are drawn. but i understand they control that house, but should they control whether or not people get to vote? let the house vote. well, they say but obamacare is so unpopular. the american people don't want it. now, i -- i get that the polling is not good for this reform, and i am perfectly willing as we implement it if we need to make tweaks and changes to make it

better, i hope my friends across the aisle will quit using this as a political two-by-four and help us make it as good as we can possibly make it, because this isn't about any plot. this is about accessible and affordable health care for all americans with a free market solution. these are all private insurance companies. there is not a government program in this. people are going to be able to choose between various private policies and various options. and they're never going to have to pay more than 9.5% of their income for their insurance, and the insurance companies aren't going to be able to swallow fat profits just for golden parachutes for big c.e.o.'s anymore. they are going to have to spend 80 cents of every dollar on your health care. but it's all free market. this was a republican solution in the beginning. the candidate for president forget that, former governor romney, that this was his solution in massachusetts when he was governor. but i will give the republicans this -- it is unpopular in the polls right now.

but let's take this proposition. guess what background checks for guns polls right now. i know that the presiding officer painfully knows what those numbers are because of the 2r5e7b8gd in his state. -- tragedy in his state. it's much higher, frankly, than those who think obamacare should be repealed, the americans who support background checks on weapon purchases. so what would everyone think on the other side of the aisle if we just decided, well, you know, we're going to shut down the government if you don't pass background checks on guns. it's what the american people want. we'll just shut down the government if you don't pass it. that's not the way we legislate. that's not the constitutional framework our founding fathers put together. there would be outrage that we would try to shut down the government over background

checks on guns. but yet the very same premise would apply to what they're doing. there was an election. the president won. the majority of the senate is, in fact, individuals who support this valiant attempt to try to do something with the health care system that was headed off the rails, becoming more and more unaffordable every day. and, by the way, everything that's bad now is obamacare. i laughingly made a joke in my state our university's team didn't do well on offense in the first half, i said it must be obamacare. because no matter what is out there, that people are upset about, somehow they imagine to paint wit the obamacare brush. i think people are going to be pleasantly surprised. it's not going to be as intrusive as some of the talking heads have warned, it's going to provide a marketplace where

people can pool risk and get a better deal. it's going to provide a lot more nights where parents can rest easy because they're not rolling the dice every day and depending on the emergency room for their day-to-day health needs. so my message today is very simple. all of this is premised on a notion that you should be able to shut down our government because you don't get your way in an election. i don't think that's the role model we want to serve to other governments in the world, much less to our kids. and i think we can compromise on a lot of things. we can even work on making this bill better. but let's keep the government open, let's pay our bills, and then lets sit down and have some

meaningful negotiation and compromise about federal spending. i'm somebody in my caucus who always is open to other ways that we can cut spending. some in my caucus don't feel as strongly as i do about that. but i'm willing to listen to all sides and negotiate around a budget, but let's don't hold our economy hostage in the process. real people are going to be hurt here. this isn't just about who's on the sunday morning shows, who's your primary opponent, what are they saying on cable news. this is about real folks. and we need to be focused on them. and so i implore you, speaker boehner, let your members vote. just let them vote. put it on the floor. you can do it in an hour. put it on the floor and let them vote and if it's defeated, then let's talk. but i'll bet you a cup of coffee

it won't be. thank you. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, i believe that the deficit neutral disaster relief act that senator bennet and i have drafted is at the desk and it is my understanding that both sides have cleared the bill. i would have to add after a lot of pushing from senator bennet and me and many other coloradans , along with the governor and the colorado department of transportation. i therefore ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate bill 1560 introduced earlier today by senators udall of colorado and bennet, that the bill be read three times and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. so ordered. mr. udall: mr. president, if i might, i'd like to make a few

minutes' remarks to thank my colleagues and once again outline what this important act that we just passed will do. it is critically important. i was on the floor friday, i know the presiding officer was here friday and was patient and listened to the case that senator bennet and i made at that time. this is critically important because it will allow colorado to begin rebuilding our battered roads and bridges and highways without having to wait years for relief. we're really close now to getting the this legislation toe president's desk and i look forward to working with my colleagues in the house and senator bennet to get this law -- this bill, i should say, it will be a law soon, we hope, this bill signed into law as soon as possible. senator bennet and i have been to the floor on a number of occasions in recent days to highlight how devastated certain parts of our beautiful state are as a result of these biblical

floods we suffered just a few weeks ago. many communities are just now beginning to comprehend 0 how serious the damage is and to see first hand how many hundreds of miles of highways and roads, bridges and other parts of our infrastructure are ruined or in some cases even washed away entirely. i've had occasion to see this damage firsthand on many occasions in the last few weeks starting in my own neighborhood which was evacuated, but all over the northern front range. i was? jamestown as was -- on saturday, senator bennet was there a few days earlier, it's one of the worst-hit communities in boulder canyon. it's almost beyond description when i come to the floor to explain what i saw and what happened. homes were literally washed off their foundations, cars were embedded in the ground, buried, completely buried, families were left with in some cases two to three feet of mud

and silt and river cobles literally inside their homes. i was in wrun one home in jamestown and standing on the mud and silt, i think senator bennet may have been there as well, my head was touching the ceiling because of the three feet of debris inside that house. we've seen entire roads and highways completely decimated, and without this help it's a fact that communities will not be able to rebuild. so by passing the deficit- neutral disaster relief act we've lifted the statutory cap of $100 million to a limit of $450 million and that money applies to highway relief. so it will be enough to help us rebuild swiftly. now, i want to make it clear, as i've done it before, make it clear again this isn't new money. it doesn't increase budget authority or increase net outlays. it simply allows us to access an

already existing appropriated fund of money. now, historically this $100 million cap on relief has routinely been recognized by congress as an unwise impediment to helping states recover, and it's been raised for nearly every natural disaster in recent years. examples would be familiar to anybody listening, we raised the cap on transportation disaster relief for hurricanes giews of a, ike, irene, sandy as well as during the missouri river basin flooding in 2011. so i'm appreciative and truly grateful that all of our colleagues have come together to recognize that the floods in colonel colorado are no exception. we're all in this together when it comes to responding to natural disasters and i'm glad we can say to coloradans members of congress from all across the united states of america have

stood with us in our recovery efforts. we will stand with them in their recovery efforts as we have done in the past and when we experience future natural disasters. i want to thank the senate for clearing this crucial, crucial legislation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and look forward to the remarks of my colleague and friend, senator bennet. mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. blent: thank you, mr. president. i will be brief because i think senator udall has covered it very well but i also wanted to rise today on this floor to thank all of our colleagues. mr. bennet: thank you. i we have to move this along to the president's desk. there are a lot of times when people wonder whether anybody in this place is listening to them at home and whether we're doing something other than just playing politics with each other. this is a clear case where people here have listened to the people in colorado who have generously from time to time helped people in other states

that were confronting disasters, now it's our turn to ask for help and that help has been granded. so i want to thank senator udall for his leadership in particular but also all the members of the senate that made this possible. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that all quorum calls during the period of morning business be equal -- charge equally to both sides and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. thank you very much, mr. president. i wanted to come to the floor today and make just a few comments about the crisis that is unfolding before us. right now some colleagues here in the senate and others on the house side are holding the entire american economy hostage to make their favorite point on

policy. now, i must say that this blackmail against ordinary working-class americans threatening to steal whatever momentum our economy has rather than build greater momentum and greater jobs is deeply misguid misguided. and that's really as polite a way as i can possibly put it. because when you think about what families have been through, working families have been through over the last few years, the deregulation of wall street leading to predatory mortgages that hurt millions of families. and then securities those were based on proceeded to derail our entire economy, hurting millions more. families lost their savings. they lost their jobs. they lost their equity in their house. but now all that our working families are asking for is a little bit of common sense. don't do further damage to the

economy that is struggling to recover.and yet certain colleagues over i here in the se and over in the house feel that the little people don't matter, the working people don't matter. the stability for the foundation for families, a living-wage job, doesn't matter. because they can play whatever political games they want and the only people hurt are ones that they just don't see in their life. maybe they live in a aggregatedd community. maybe they live in the bubble. i see them every day. they are the salt of the earth. they are the shop, the workshop that takes america forward. they are the small businesses across this nation. and all they're asking for is a little reasonableness and common sense. now, some of my colleagues have said this crisis comes because the majority party in the senate has refused to negotiate.

nothing could be further from the truthmen truth. negotiation in the process starts with each side passing a budget resolution and holding a conference committee. but it is members of the minority of this chamber that have come to this floor at least 18 times to block the start of a conference committee in order to work out the budgetmen the budg. now, i can't imagine in my wildest dreams why they are terrified there being a conversation between leadership in the house and leadership in the senate meeting with the television camera to work out the details of budget compromise. but they seem terrified, petrified, scared to death of there being a conversation between the house and the senate that would lead to a compromise. so, indeed, there has been obstruction on compromise and we know exactly where it is. it's the same individuals who are trying to drive the cliff -- the economy over the cliff right now. so moreover, members of this

party said, let's go further. the senate has a number. the house has a number. the budget conference committee is being blocked. let's simply accept the house number. not split it down the middle, not insist on our number -- let's take the house number. well, that's going far beyond the middle path, if you will. that's a major compromise. so if you're looking for a compromise it's happening, it's happening with the leadership of the senate putting forward a compromise that takes the house number for the budget. it just appears that certain individuals in this body just don't want to take "yes" for an answer. i'm going to conclude my remar remarks -- i see my colleague, the eggs steamed senator fro --m i will has arrived.

i want to close with just this notion. this is not the first crisis that has been artificially manufactured that has damaged the american economy. let's not for get we faced this in april with a continuing resolution. we faced a manufactured crisis with the debt ceiling in july of 2011. we faced the december 2012 fiscal cliff that did substantial damage. march of this year, continuing resolution, thing brings us up to right now. and this is not all. the same individuals who are threatening at this moment to drive our economy over a cliff are saying "and we'll do it again in a couple of weeks over another debt ceiling issue." and when this continuing resolution expires in a couple weeks, if this passes, we'll do it again. three crises in just a couple of weeks. if you want to destroy the economy for working americans, this is how it's done. and it's unacceptable. an

wand we need a bipartisan caucus to come together and simile say "no" to those who are trying to use this blackmail using american families in the process. thank you very much, mr. president. mr. markey: i ask unanimous consent to speak for five fin ms -- for five minutes in mon morng hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mark: i think republicans saw "breaking bad" last night and thought they could put on an even better finale and create more drama, they could cook up even more toxic sides, they could break this government in

every bad way possible. these tea party antics are the stuff of fairy tales, the way the g.o.p. is writing this story at the stroke of midnight as we turn the calendar to october, our government and potentially our economic recovery turn into a pumpkin. but it's the tea party g.o.p. who are in fantasy land, thinking we will actually allow them to cut off obamacare, shut down the government, and melt down our economy. democrats are not going to allow them to do this. what do the american people want? americans want our military to get paid on time. mernts wanamericans want our set go the benefits they have earned and depend on. americans wan don't want the government to shut down. americans want a business plan that completes this recovery,

creates jobs, and gets our economy back on track. they want us to work together to accomplish this goal. what are the effects of the tea party republican tactics? well, by forcing congress to govern by going from crisis to crisis, tea party republicans hope to chip away at the bedrock programs that run our country and help our people. first, theea party did this with sequestration, which is really a fcy word for cuts, mindless cuts, in programs that help ordinary families in our country. now they're going after the obamacare law. what's next? social security, medicare, the safety net programs that millions of americans depend on. these are the privatize social security. they want to turn medicare into

a voucher program. now they want to reverse the progress achieved by the legendary ted kennedy who made it clear that in the united states of america health care is a right and not a privilege. the tea party republicans are playing high-wire politics with our economy so they can take away the social safety net for millions of american families. this bill is just a preview of coming attractions. two weeks from now we'll be careening to the next crisis. this time over whether america will pay its debts. if we do not raise the debt ceiling, we won't be able to pay our bills starting on october 17. and what is the harm of defaulting own oudefaulting on ? our nation's stock and bond markets quo go into a freefall. that will danl the full fanal and credit of our country, the bedrock of the entire american economy, and what does that mean? the full faith and credit of the united states is in question.

if you took out a mortgage, had a car loan, bought some furniture and when the bill came due and said, i'm just not going to pay these bills, what do you think would happen? juryour credit score would cred. no one would lend you money or, at a minimum, you would be hit with sky-high interest payments because of the risk you wouldn't pay the next time either. americans ran up these bills. we promised these payments. we should pay what we promised. and then we need to stop lurching from one crisis to know, scrambling to stitch together last-minute deals with only last until the very next crisis. it's time to end these games. it's time to end the uncertainty. it's time do what we were sent here to do -- to get to work creating jobs for american families so that they can have a mortgage, so that they can put their kids through school.

that is what we should be talking about here, the prosperity of all americans. this shutdown today is a preview of a debate over a meltdown of the american economy, if in fact we go to a debt ceiling and we haven't found a way of working together out here on the senate floor, democrats and republicans together, with democrats and republicans from the house of representatives. otherwise, those who are in most jeopardy are those who are watching us with their mouths open, agape, huangdering how their system of government can operate this way. so, i thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor back the balance of my time. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority. mr. durbin: mr. president, in less than nine hours, unless there is an intervening effort this athat's successful, the government will shut down. and i know people across america are scratching their heads headd

saying, why? how did it ever reach this point? i went through o'hare this morning on my way back ute to work. and it was interesting. the reaction of people just walking up to me, people i didn't know saying, hang in there, good luck. we hope you can do it. and i realized some people across america are listening to understand that they're trying to figure out who's right or who's wrong or what difference does it make? just a little while ago, about an hour ago i was presiding as we took the vote on the latest house amendments. and in the middle of the vote, my staffer came up and handed me an e-mail. and the e-mail said that there was a house e-mail circulating. "after the senate tables the house amendments to the c.r. later this afternoon and the papers come back to the house, we will send it back to the senate with another amendment delaying the individual mandate in obamacare for a year and effect the members' health subsidy as well.

"quags unfortunately that message kind of imee betrays what's going on here. we've made it clear on the senate side that we are sending a clean c.r., no political strings attached to it, to just extend the government services and allow them to continue for six weeks -- at least six weeks -- while we try to work things out on a bipartisan basis. what we keep getting back from the house of representatives are all sorts of political strings -- medical device tax, obamacare, conscience clause when it comes to family planni planning. all of these things are being thrown back to us as conditions for us if we're going to fund our government. if we wanted to over on the democratic side, we have the votes to put our own conditions on this. i can think of a couple. the house tanks the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that we passed months ago here and they've never even addressed in the house? that would be a good one, wouldn't it? at least from my point of view. how about the bipartisan farm

bill that we passed twice in the united states senate. they failed to pass it in the house of representatives for years. why wouldn't we make that one of the conditions? and i can think of a few more. but we didn't do it. we sent them a clean c.r., a clean spending bill and said to them, let's just extend the functions of government. you know, john kennedy's book "profiles in courage" talks about men and women who serverd our nation and showed extraordinary courage. some of us like to think at least once or twice in our public careers we get close it standard there's no political courage in what the house republicans will doing. they aren't standing up at any risk to themselves. they are threatening to shut down the government to affect the jobs of hundreds of thousands of innocent federal employees, people who get up and go to work every single day for this country because they love their jobs and love this country and they do a great job every day. they're viewed with disdain by

so many critics of government, but were it not for those men and women and the contribution they make, we would not be the great nation we are at this moment in time. at midnight tonight, in less than nine hours, our government shuts down. many -- hundreds of thousands of people -- will be told don't come to work, and we'll be lesser for it, not just in fact that we can't produce the services which our government needs to produce to help our people, and not just in the fact that innocent federal employees are going to lose their paychecks -- they won't get paid, many of them, for the time that we're losing. but equally important, what it says about us what it says about america. you know, we stand up and we say we're different and we're proud of being different. oldest democracy on the face of th--on the face of the earth. we are different than some other nation and we're proud of that difference. sadly, at midnight tornts the

difference is not something we can be proud of. it is the failure of political leaders in congress to fund the government of the united states of america, the failure of political leaders in congress to fund our government. i just want to say what this comes down to is very basic. this is a reason why we have elections. there is a reason why ultimately the decision on this issue and all the others will be given to the american people. what i ask them to do is to watch carefully what's happened in washington and whether they want to continue it. senator merkley of oregon came to the floor and talked about the beginning of this tea party effort, the first threat to shut down the government. you know, this is not altogether new, but it is unusual that we face this. now it's becoming more frequent, more regular, business as usual that we're going tn government. that is the tea party approach

to things. that's how they get their attention. 21 hours speaking on the floor threatening to shut down the government. i don't think that's the answer to america's future. i think it's a problem. if you listen to senator merkley from oregon, he talked about the enact we passed a budget resolution in the senate. i thought it was a good effort to try to figure out what our spending will be in the next fiscal year. we came up with a number. the house came up with a different number. the founding fathers and constitution anticipated that and created an opportunity for the house and senate to sit down and work out their differences. calleit is called a conference committee. senator murray brought this to the floor and asked for unanimous consent to take this to a conference committee so we could agree. she brought that request to the floor six months ago. the tea party republicans stood up, some of the same republicans we're seeing now, and objected to this meeting.

no way, they said. we won't allow you to have this meeting between the democrats and republicans. senator murray and their backers on the one hand the committee and -- on the committee and off renewed that request over and over and over again and every time the tea party republicans objected. they did not want us to do the orderly, constitutional thing of sitting down and work out our differences. they wanted a confrontation, and now they have it. we were unable to reach a budget number, unable to pass appropriations bills because of their objection and now we face a government shutdown. if this is what you want as the ordinary course of business in washington, if this is what you want for america, for our federal government and the good people who work for it, then keep on voting for tea party folks. this is their attitude. this is their idea. this is their idea of the new normal. well, it shouldn't be the new normal. america is better than this. you know what's encouraging, mr. president? there are a handful of

republicans who are finally standing up and saying, i've had enough of it. senator john mccain -- he and i disagree on so many things and agree on a new things and we're different politically, but i really admire him, not just for his service in the senate but for what he's given to the country. he tap gave in ten minutes, he e more sense than in the 21 hours that preceded. he said, i don't like obamacare. i voted against it. i want to change it. but get real. it's the law. it was found constitutional by the court. and then the president who authored it was reelected by 5 million votes in america. that is how a democrats works. those who won't accept obamacare and want to stop it will not accept this verdict of democracy and that we need to go forward with it. that was senator mccain's speech to us. i look back and upstair senator

schumer talked about what we could have done in the past. what if we said, unless you repeal all the bush tax cuts, we're not going to let you fund the government? we didn't do that. it's not responsible p. mr. president, i hope this doesn't come to pass. i hope at midnight we don't shut down this government. there will be a lot of unhappy people in the federal service and they don't deserve it. these are innocent people who just want to do a good job for this nation. there will be a lot of people hurt on the outside because they can't have access to government services. and there will be things that we will miss doing that will have an impact, and we may never know it. what impact will it have if at the national institutes of health they suspend medical research until this is over? just put it off a couple of days, maybe a couple of weeks if it gets really awful. and then what happens? a delay in finding a cure, a drug, a medical device.

all these things make a difference in the lives of a lot of innocent people. so it's not an act of courage to play politics with the lives of other people and with the future of america and with the future of our economy. yes, this is why we have elections, so that the american people can say enough. we're not going to put up with this anymore. we need to have responsible republicans and democrats working together to solve our problems. i think that's why we were sent here. not to lurch from one confrontation to the next. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i ask to speak as if in morning business for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. after five years of being a parent, i've gotten used to temper tantrums. it's just an unavoidable part of

having kids. they demand something. they want a second dessert. they want another ten minutes before bedtime. if they don't get it, they storm out of the room. that aspect of early human nature, the inability to deal with defeat and the unwillingness to compromise, luckily that goes away over time as we get older and wiser and more thoughtful. everywhere except for washington, d.c.. by now everybody gets what's going on, as senator durbin said, we are only a handful of hours away from a government shutdown, another manufactured, made-up, totally avoidable crisis. this one is just because we can't pass a six-month continuing resolution. we're having a problem just keeping the government open on the exact same rules that it has been open, because a small set of tea party senators and congressmen are basically throwing a temper tantrum because they haven't gotten

their way. it's not news to anybody that republicans opposed the health care law. they opposed it back when it was passed by both chambers, signed by the president. they opposed it when the supreme court upheld the legislation. their presidential candidate opposed it when he got roundly defeated in the 2012 election. my opponent and the opponent of every single senator who stood for election that voted for the law opposed it as well. and every single time they lost. over and over again republicans have made it clear they don't like the affordable care act. they voted 40 times to repeal it, defund it or postpone it in the house of representatives. this is despite the fact that today the affordable care act is saving millions of seniors millions of dollars because they don't have to pay for drugs in the doughnut hole. this is despite the fact that starting in january it's going to save millions of people across the country from having to go into bankruptcy because they can't afford health care.

the republicans are refusing to vote for a budget that will keep the government operating unless this health care bill is stopped. now for too many of those urging a government shutdown, government has become a distraction. they sold themselves on the idea that government is so twisted, it wouldn't do anything. after all, if your goal is to starve the beast, what better than to put the beast into a coma for a couple of days or for a week. but that is not how this work. government does real things for real people. it pays paychecks for 9,000 people in connecticut. it pays social security benefits and processes claims for disabled veterans. it inspects our food. at the n.i.h. it comes up with cures for new diseases. the markets watch whether the government operates, because they actually know that the private sector works better when the public sector is working better. that's why today the market once again has been

falling through the floor, as it will if we move forward with this madness. just like we don't give in to our kids when they threaten us if we don't give them what they want, america cannot reward this "my way or the highway" approach from the tea party. i have strong beliefs just like my tea party republican friends do, but i also get that i'm part of a majoritarian deliberative body. senator mccaskill and senator durbin made the point as did you, mr. president. we would love to attach things to this continuing resolution. there are 20 grieving families in newtown, connecticut whorbgs do not -- who do not understand when 90% of the american public wants background checks on weapons and we can't pass that in the united states senate. i bet you some of them would think that it might make sense for us to condition our support of the continuing resolution

until we get background checks on gun purchases. 90% of the american public supports that. but we're not doing that because that's not how you govern. hold the entire federal government hostage to get what you want. ultimately, though, mr. president, this just can't be how this place works. this is a six-week continuing resolution. as you said, it's going to just happen six weeks from now and six weeks after that. i heard that a long time ago this place used to actually be involved in the business of running the country. it just doesn't feel like that anymore. as i sat there on the dais, mr. president, a week or so now watching mr. cruz give his long, long speech, it didn't feel any different than it felt watching

the tea party. i felt like i was theater going, the latest example of a long trend line of play-acting only prompted by deadlines and cliffs and fake crises. we don't do anything here any longer. we make trenches, make arguments, we pass fake bills, play-act. occasionally when the stacks of all the things around are are about to come teetering down around us, we stop and push them back up again instead of thinking for a couple of seconds that if we stopped, sat back and actually restacked those sets of things so they didn't come crashing down around us, we would probably be better off. we just play parts. there is nobody better than playing their part than the tea party republicans. their character is recalcitrant, uncompromising, obstructing. we've seen all of that on display this week. and if we get through this crisis, we'll see it once again. there is no curtain call here in

congress after which we can pull back our masks and share a good laugh. we're still going to be left on stage tasked with picking up the pieces. i think i'm past believing these folks are going to start playing a tkroeufrpbl. it's time for -- a different role. it is time for the american people to ask questions before they send them here. are you willing to compromise? are you interested in actually running the government? are you going to score your term based on whether you deliver for the american people rather than how many twitter followers you have or how many times you showed up on the tv news that week? if this government shuts down tonight, it is just because of a temper tantrum. or put another way, a really, really bad play whose third act has gone on way, way too long. mr. president, i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, today is not a time for me to stand and speak about the loss of a staff member that i think feels so strongly about but i've worked personally on this speech. i ask unanimous consent that it appear in the record as if given live. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the man i'm talking about is darrell thompson. been with me for ten years. campaign manager and he was a wonderful man. but i'm sorry it is not appropriate for me to take the senate time right now. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to h.r. 3210, which was received from the house in the last 24 hours. i ask consent that the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i have a number of colleagues here on the floor -- mr. reid: i haven't given up the floor yet. mr. mcconnell: i'm sorry. mr. reid: that's okay. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the order now before this body is that we have morning business until 4:00 today. and i would ask consent that we extend that until 6:00 p.m. under the provisions of the previous order and that i be recognized after that time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the consent the majority leader just asked was one a number of my colleagues were about to ask. it dealt with the military pay issue, and a number of them are here on the floor.

and i'd like to ask consent that we be able to engage in a colloquy on the issue of protecting military pay. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i know that as the republican leader noted, there's a number of senators here on the floor who have come en masse from a meeting that we just held following the tabling of the latest house proposal that would keep the federal government operating and make sure that all of our uniformed military would continue to get paid, together with the other operations of the federal government. and it was clear that it was under the pressure of the knowledge that we were coming to the floor to ask unanimous consent and the knowledge of

how, frankly, untenable it would be to object to that that the majority leader has quite skillfully come to the floor to try to preempt this issue. but the truth is none of us should be under own illusion that the majority leader has done anything other than make it more likely that we will have a shutdown of the federal government tonight. the house has sent over several reasonable appropriation that would keep the federal government operating, which would also make sure our troops would be paid, but not just uniform military but other government personnel performing important jobs, and the majority leader, rather than call us in yesterday after the house acted, we know that perhaps the majority leader and other members enjoyed watching a little bit of professional

football yesterday, but waited until this afternoon to cut the legs out from under the house proposal and make it much more likely that the government will shut down. the house worked late into the night last night -- or this weekend to draft a compromise proposal that would fund the government and avert a shutdown. house members sent the proposal over to the senate, and the majority leader did nothing until today. no emergency session, no bipartisan negotiations. there is a report in "politico" that president obama suggested calling the leadership of both of the houses, republicans and democrats alike, to the white house to have a meeting to say what can we do to solve this impasse, and if the story is to be believed, it was harry reid who shot that down, just as he is going to be responsible for shutting down the federal government by the actions that

he took earlier today. so the question is who is really being unreasonable here? who is really being stubborn? who is really seeking to gain partisan advantage over the best interests of the country? of course, we know the president has been eager to negotiate with the president of iran about a very serious issue, iran's nuclear aspirations, but he won't talk to the speaker of the house of representatives or the republican leader of the u.s. senate, he won't talk to them, but he will negotiate with the iranian president. he seems absolutely allergic to doing his job. he can give a heck of a speech. he is a skillful orator. but when it comes to actually doing his job, he's missing in action. he won't negotiate over a government shutdown, and he won't negotiate over raising the

debt limit. in the past, president obama's urge republicans to offer just a little bit of compromise. when he likes to be the voice of reason. but now he himself refuses to engage in any sort of negotiation and refuses to offer any kind of compromise whatsoever. is it possible that the president of the united states thinks that his own health care law is perfect in every way? 79 members of this body voted to -- against the medical device tax, and the house could pass that piece of legislation and send it over here and attach it to the continuing resolution, and the president himself has repeatedly delayed different provisions of the health care bill, including the employer mandate. what we'd like to do is get the same break for the rest of the american people as he gave businesses. well, the bill that was passed

by the house of representatives would have delayed obamacare for one year, and it would also have repealed the medical device tax which is already killing jobs and hampering medical innovation. well, now we're being told that those sort of very same proposals which mirror the same proposals the president has unilaterally taken or which are supported by a bipartisan majority of the united states senate, they are called an act of extremism. what's more extreme -- trying to negotiate through an impasse and resolve this issue of the federal government functioning or to refuse to negotiate, to stone wall against any reasonable proposal by the house, and to make it even more likely that the federal government will shut down tonight? i ask who is being more unreasonable and more stubborn? we know the clock is ticking,

mr. president. the american people are absolutely disgusted. i share their frustration. i can only hope that cooler heads will prevail among our friends on the other side of the aisle. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i appreciate being part of the colloquy with the senator from texas. i was listening to his comments. i remember being asked by senator mcconnell and house speaker john boehner to speak on behalf of republicans at the president's health care summit three years ago about the new health care law, and i was the first speaker there. since that time, i have done my best to try to avoid its passage and then to replace and repeal it. but i'm not in the shutdown the government crowd. i'm in the let's take over the government crowd and elect a number of more republicans and

even a republican president who agree with us and who -- who want a different kind of health care law, one that introduces choice and competition and that actually reduces health care costs for most americans. what bothers me so much about this impasse today is the effect it might have on our military men and women around the world. i'm trying to imagine what it must be like for someone fighting in afghanistan whose check might be late, whose spouse is at fort campbell and whose mortgage is due today or tomorrow or the next day, or what if the department of defense school closes there and that spouse has a job and no childcare. these are very practical problems that we need to be thinking about. we need to not be thinking about shutting down the government. we need to be thinking about a way to fund the government and change the health care law at the same time. now, the house of representatives has tried once

and they will try it again to make a reasonable offer. their reasonable suggestion -- these discussions are all about compromise, about taking suggestions that come from one body to the other body and taking what you can, so if they had come back and said well, the united states senate had 79 senators, including many democrats, who voted to repeal the medical device tax, here is an opportunity to do that, and they said let's delay the individual mandate for a year. i'm surprised the president himself hasn't done that. the president himself has delayed seven provisions, major provisions in the health care law, including the employer mandate. the regulations aren't ready. the program is supposed to start tomorrow. it would seem to me that it would actually be to the president's benefit as well as the country's benefit to say instead of just delaying parts and exempting these people, let's get it right.

let's delay it for a year. that's what the house of representatives, the republican house, has said to the senate. they have said let's repeal the medical device tax, a particularly onerous 2.3% tax on top of revenues that increases the cost of medical devices for millions of americans. we all agree we ought to get rid of it. 79 of us do anyway, including about as many democrats as republicans. and then the president himself has acknowledged that this law isn't ready. the chairman of the democratic committee that wrote it says it is a coming train wreck. so it seems to me this is a reasonable suggestion from the house of representatives to say let's work on getting rid of obamacare, that's what we would like to do, or changing it, that's what they would like to do to make it work, but let's fund the government. let's not run the risk that one single soldier fighting in afghanistan has a paycheck

that's one day late because his spouse is home in fort campbell and the mortgage can't be paid or the department of defense school is closed and there is no childcare for the spouse who has a job while her husband or her her -- or his wife is fighting overseas. now, that's something we should not allow happen, whether it's republicans or democrats. it majority the majority leader has agreed with that, and he has brought that up and we have brought that up, but we should do more than bring up political points. people expect us to act like adults, work together, come to a result. so we can change the health care law and we can keep the government going. i've said for three years that instead of the historic mistake we passed, expanding health care delivery systems that already cost too much, we should go step by step to have a health care law that actually reduces health care costs. make medicare solvent instead of

taking a half trillion dollars out of it for other programs. give medicaid more flexibility so governors can serve more people. repeal the medical device tax. these are steps we can take. make it easier for employees who want to help employees have a healthier lifestyle so they can have cheaper insurance. allow people to bring insurance across state lines. allow small businesses to pool their resources and offer insurance. i have listed a half dozen already, steps we could agree on that would reduce health care costs to the country. that's what we should get. i'm not in the shut down the government crowd, and neither are most everybody i know around here. we are in the take over the government crowd, and let's elect enough republicans and a republican president to change the health care law. but in the meantime, in the meantime, we should make absolutely sure that men and women, whether on active duty or in the national guard not on

active duty at this time, we should make sure they are paid on the day they are supposed to be paid, and their spouses aren't waiting for the check. and i thank the senator from texas for engaging in this colloquy, and i want to join him in this effort. mr. graham: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. the idea that obamacare, the affordable care act over time will be seen in history as having been a good thing for the american people, i guess that's a bit in doubt. the president keeps saying there will come a day when you will look back and claim to have voted for this. maybe he's right. maybe that day around the bend, down the road, over the hill is there. all i can say is that don't we know enough about the affordable care act, obamacare, to slow down, take a time-out and see if we can make it better? because the problems associated with the act are real. we don't need any more information. we don't need any more time. we just need to fix it in a

bipartisan fashion. we passed it in a partisan fashion. can we begin to look at the law anew in a bipartisan fashion? america would be better off. what do we know? we know a lot of people are working 29 hours when they had 40-hour work. if you don't believe me, ask the unions. i never thought i would live to say this. just listen to the unions on this thing. i don't say that a lot about their positions, but they are telling the president, anybody that will listen, that the obamacare, the affordable care act, is destroying the 40-hour workweek. why can't we do something about that? the medical device manufacturers, the people who do all the really neat things to make life better, particularly people who have been devastated in iraq and afghanistan, coming up with ways to make people's lives better who have had catastrophic injury, 34 of our democratic friends have said this tax is not good for the economy. so the jury is in on enough for us to slow down and start over

and get this thing right. the good news forted is that we're not going to agree to blame each other. they're not going to accept blame, we're not going to accept blame about where we're at, but the one thing is today, i think, we've solved the problem at least partially for the military. now, the people on the civilian side who aren't military, i don't know if they are covered or not. but i want america to understand that the congress did something appropriate just a few minutes ago, and that's to tell the men and women of the military don't worry about this debacle up here in washington when it comes to your paycheck, you're going to get paid. now, i'll talk later on down the road about what kind of military we're handing to the next generation, what kind of funding we have for the military and how smart sequestration is, but i just want to say to my colleagues don't we know enough already about the affordable health care act to stop and work together before we plunge on,

because it starts tomorrow, and i don't know why our democratic friends are so insistent that we can't take a time-out, start over and see if we can find some bipartisan consensus. until we do that, this problem only gets worse, and i would conclude with this thought -- the democratic party came up with the affordable health care act, they passed it on a party-line vote, but this thing is just not helping democrats or hurting republicans. it's hurting the economy as a whole. so the one thing i can tell you about big ideas, when one party pushes it through and nobody else on the other side signs up, you need to be wary about that product. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i see

my colleague from texas on the floor who gave a very high-profile speech for about 21 hours the other night on the subject of obamacare. i know he feels passionately about it, and his efforts have captured the imagination of the american people and reminded them of the various failures of this piece of legislation, some of which we've talked about, perhaps, fixing in the course of this ping-pong back of the continuing resolution. but i might ask him to -- if he -- through the chair, there have been so many failures, so many promises that have been made about obamacare that are obviously not going to be kept, things like if you like what you have, you can keep it. i think that's one of the complaints as the senator from south carolina mentioned earlier that organized labor, mr. trumka among others that went to the white house to get a special carveout for. we were told, the president

said the average family of four would see a reduction of $2,500 in the cost of their health care. and that hasn't proven to be true. so many promises that have not been kept, so many broken promises, reasons we ought to be working together through the course of this to fix it. so i would ask my colleague through the chair, perhaps he can list a few more reasons why he believes that we need to be dealing with obamacare. i know his preferred method was defunding obamacare, i know he's not giving up on that, i'm a cosponsor of his legislation that would accomplish that. but i would is my colleague through the chair if he might comment on that. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the majority leader is to be recognized at 4:00. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i was happy to ask consent to pass the bill we passed to ensure the troops are

paid. but i do disagree with the remarks of my republican colleagues about much of what they said the last few minutes. they talk about what was in this amendment that they sent us, this message they sent to us. among other things, mr. president, here's what it had in it: a provision -- it's hard to comprehend but listen to this: will allow any employer, insurance plan or individual to refuse to cover any of the women's health preventive services that were included by senator mikulski in her women's health amendment, things like contra eption seption, for virtually any reason during the one-year delay. that was in their amendment and it was spoken of so clearly. i'll talk about it in a little later, with a cancer survivor in the house of representatives, debbie wasser man shuttles. -- debbie was shuttles shuttles

wasser man-schultz. there has been a lot of talk about the medical device revenue issue. mr. president, this is something we'll take a look at. we need to do that. but remember this magnanimous, get rid of this by the republicans in the house and in the senate now would run up the debt by $30 billion. how do you like that? $30 billion, no offsets, no pay-go, just what does it matter, because they are fixated on obamacare. i mean fixated on it. and my friend from texas referred to it as a bill. it's not a bill. it's the law. has been for four years. my friend from tennessee said he

thinks how this should be resolved, by having a republican president. mr. president, less than a year ago, the american people took a look at that. the number-one issue in the campaign, obamacare. that was the number-one issue. and overwhelmingly the american people said we want it, we reject the republicans' efforts to get rid of it. now, mr. president, republicans always oppose big things. they opposed social security, they owe soadz medicare. mr. president -- opposed medicare. mr. president, i've carried with me for 25 years, i have it in my wallet, it's getting old and frayed. but here's what it says: i was there fighting the fight, one

of 12 voting against medicare because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965. senator dole. now we didn't get rid of it round one because don't want think it's politically smart but we believe medicare is going to wither on the vine. newt gingrich. medicare has no place in a free world. social security is a rotten trick. i think we're going to have to bite the bullet on social security and phase it out over time. former leader in this house, dick armey. mr. president, they opposed social security, they opposed medicare, but, you know, now, madam president, even though they opposed it, social security is popular. democrats, republicans, independents. medicare is popular. why is it popular? madam president, my first elective job was on a big hospital district in nevada.

and it was an indigent hospital in some frame of reference, but 40% of the people that were senior citizens that were admitted at that hospital had no health insurance. and we made sure that somebody vouched for their hospital bill. father, mother, son, brother, neighbor and if they didn't pay, we want after them. we had a big collection agent at the hospital. the reason people like medicare is because today virtually 100% of seniors who come into a hospital have medicare, that's why they like it. obamacare. tomorrow in nevada 600,000 people will have the opportunity to sign up on the exchanges -- by the way, the exchanges were established by a republican governor, brian sandoval, and, madam president, people there can buy -- some people can buy

health insurance tomorrow for a hundred dollars. people who have nothing. just give this obamacare a little time and it will be looked back at social security and medicare. right now people love what they're able to get off this and i'll go through some of that stuff. let's renew where we are, madam president. this weekend republicans in the house of representatives did what we all feared they would do, they voted to shut down the government. republicans knew their empty political stunt would fall on its face in the senate and it did. yet they voted to hold the government the gentlewoman until democrats agree to return to the days when insurance companies put profits before patient care. that's the way it was. their vote was strikingly irresponsible and stunningly callous. republicans don't seem to understand that stripping health insurance from millions of americans would literally cost

lives. maybe none of those republicans have gotten a doctor's bill that they couldn't pay. maybe none of those republicans spent a night awake woirgs about whether heart attack or car accident would drive them into bankruptcy or what are you going to do with your mom or your dad or your brother or your sister. who has no health insurance and they're sick. millions of americans have experienced the fears that i just described. for a glimpse of just how little regard republicans have for struggling american families, look no further than the chief senate rabble rouser, senator ted cruz. listen to this, madam president. he told david gregory on "meet the press" how easy it is for the average american to get health insurance even during these difficult times. here's exactly what he said. -- quote -- "i qoitd if you want people to get health insurance the guest best way to get health insurance is to get a job." that's be a he said. i'm not making this up.

his comment comes at a time when more than 11 million americans are still struggling to find work and when millions more who already have jobs still lack health insurance. that's why we passed obamacare in the first place, to ensure access to quality, affordable health insurance for all americans. to republicans, obamacare is a punchline to rile up their base. but for american families obamacare isn't a punchline, it's a life line. for millions of americans, the affordable care act is the only option to access quality health care at an affordable price. for i've indicated 600,000 uninsured nevadans who are eligible to purchase insurance through nevada's health link beginning tomorrow, obamacare means access to affordable doctor visits, hospital stays, prescription drugs and more. uninsured nevadans will have access to good insurance plans that cost as little as a hundred

dollars a month. in fact, many nevadans will get quality coverage for less than they pay for their monthly cell phone bill. republicans would rip that life line away. republicans want to return to the days when insurance companies could discriminate against women, why? because they're women. madam president, i'm not making that up. that's the way it was. that's how it was before obamacare. republicans want to return to the days when insurance companies could deny care because of preexisting conditions like diabetes, epilepsy, breast cancer. madam president, even acne was a preexisting condition. again, i'm not making this up. that's the way it was before obamacare. congresswoman debbie

wasserman-shultz is bra a breast cancer survivor and sunday i saw her on the house floor and i quote, "make sure every single day, that's what they're trying to do, she said, make sure every single day each of us who survive cancer or another life-threatening illness stay living in fear for an insurance company to boot you off your insurance" -- end of quote. again, that's what it would do. that's the way it was before obamacare. they want to return to the days when even children could be denied lifesaving coverage because they were born with a heart murmur or some other disability. again, madam president, i'm not making this up. that's the way it was before boib. they want to return to days when insurance companies could overcharge you when you were well and drop you when you were sick. that's the way it was. not making it up. that's the way it was before obamacare. because of the affordable care act millions of seniors are saving money on prescription drugs. no one can dispute that.

the doughnut hole is being filled all because of the affordable care act. millions of seniors are saving money on prescription drugs and many other things. seniors today at no cost can go get a wellness check. they could never do that before. millions of young people are staying on their parents' insurance. madam president, do you know how important that is? i will tell how important. the little town of searchlight where i'm from, a woman who is assistant postmist res, she retired, they have a son jeff and he's going to school, he was going to school at a community college. he had to go off his parents' insurance when he turned 23. madam president, within a few weeks of his turning 23, he was sick, didn't know what was wrong, went to the doctor, he

had test particular collar -- testic rather cancer. he had to interrupt his education, his parents struggled to pay for that. they're not people of means. one doctor, a friend of mine gave one of the surgeries for nothing. but, madam president, other people didn't have that benefit of my being able to help them or parents like his who struggled to take care of their son. that's why any more that won't happen. and, again, the jeff hill story, i'm not making up, making up. it wases -- that's the way it was before obamacare. because of the affordable care act millions of seniors are saving money. that's the way it is. i've said that. millions of young people are staying on their parents' insurance. hundreds of thousands of

businesses that already offer their employees insurance are getting tax doctors for doing the right thing. republicans want to turn back the clock on all these benefits and more. they want to force more than 25 million families to rely on crowded expensive million rooms or go out the care they need and many of them go without that care. that's how it was before obamacare. unless democrats agree to all of their demands, unless we agree to strip tens of millions of americans off their health insurance and force tens of millions more to live in fear they'll thut shut down the government. that's where we're headed, madam president. why do you think the republicans came over here thinking by some reason that we wouldn't agree to fund the troops? they know that boehner is going to shut down the government. the house of representatives

could have voted yesterday, they could vote today to keep the government running but they're going to vote, i'm sure, to shut it down. many house republicans have admitted that speaker boehner has the votes to pass a clean bill to keep the government open and functioning. here's what republican paul be a adore -- paul abador said on "meet the press." i'm not willing to vote for a clean continuing resolution but i think there's enough votes in the republican party willing to do that. i think that's what you're going to see" -- end of quote. charlie depressant from pennsylvania, here's what he said, -- quote -- "i'm prepared to vote for a clean resolution tomorrow -- that's today, he said it yesterday -- it's time to govern. i don't intend to support a fool's errand and that's what he called it and that's what it is. these reasonable republicans are correct. the house easily could and clearly should pass a clean

continuing resolution today. all speaker boehner has to do is let every member of the house of representatives, testimonies and republicans, all 435 of them vote on a clean c.r. and it would pass big-time. the speaker has another the country to do the right thing. this afternoon the senate voted to strip the hollow political ransom notes from the house. we rejected the house amendments. the house has what we passed, they've had it since last friday. the house republicans will face the same choice toint or this afternoon or this evening whenever they choose they did this weekend, pass the senate's clean bill to keep the government functioning or force a government shutdown. testimonies democrats have already met republicans in the middle and agreed to to a lower funding level even though republicans have refused to negotiate a responsible budget for six months. let's talk about what a lot of my republican friends have

talked about this afternoon, madam president. they need more time to negotiate. democrats, madam president, have already met republicans in the middle. senator murray, it is chairperson of our budget committee, because the republicans said the said they , it was the right thing today -- and we acknowledged it -- we passed a budget six months ago. and where are the republicans in this six months, a half a year? why couldn't we go to conference? because they wouldn't let us. they wouldn't let us. now, what has happened? and why they can't take "yes" for an answer is hard for me to comprehend. our -- excuse me -- our number was a lot higher than theirs. we took their lower 3 numberme r

lower number. senator murray doesn't like that. senator mikulski doesn't like it. we took their higher -- their lower number, 988. why can't they take "yes" for an answer? but in addition to that, all these people who whine we haven't done any negotiating -- how many times has the president taken republican senators to dinner? at the white house, this restaurant, that last rant? restaurant -- that last rant? anthat restaurant? and what did do? he put in righting what he was willing to do. and many of us were concerned he had given far too much. we didn't like it but that's what the president did because he wants a deal. he wants something big to help the government. so all these meals that he paid for, have we gotten anything from the republicans? not a single sentence.

not a single sentence. they trophy put anythinthey refn writing. so let's not talk about not negotiating. we have negotiated and negotiated and negotiated. the last two weeks, we've had enough. and we're not going to negotiate. that's where we are. now, for sure, republicans in the house are doing more time to negotiate is simply ludicrous. i looked up today what "ludicrous" means. here's what it means? "comically ridiculous" -- and that is a good definition. when i put in this "ludicrous," i wasn't sure what it meant. i wanted to make sure i got the right word. i got it. "comically ridiculous." the president met with republicans at the white house, dinners, other places. he's given them the difficult cuts he's willing to make to reduce the deficit but republicans haven't reciprocated. they've never put in writing once what they're willing to concede. want once. so democrats are through negotiating with ourselves. that's what it amounts to.

the fate of our country and our economy now rests with john boehner. tonight we'll see whether the speaker is really willing to shut down the government, risking our economic recovery to extract callous political concessions. i hope he makes the responsible decision. i doubt that he will. but i hope he does. and help avert a government shutdown. mr. cruz cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, it's no secret that majority leader harry reid and i disagree on a great many topics, and yet i rise today in praise of senator reid. in particular, i wish to praise senator reid for agreeing to pass the bill tha that the housf resolutions -- that the house of representatives passed 12:30 in the morning yesterday that would fund our military.

for weeks president obama and senate democrats have been threatening to hold in jeopardy the paychecks of the men and women of our military if there's a government shutdown, and i commend the majority leader for agreeing to pass it, for not objecting, for not standing in the way. and for everyone who thinks that compromise is impossible in washington, that working together is impossible in washington, i would point to this as an example. that bill passed the house of representatives unanimously. it came over to the senate and just a few minutes ago we all saw it pass the senate unanimously. it should be able to be on president obama's desk for signature by tonight. and, madam president, that's exactly as it should be. the soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines who risk their lives defending our nation should not have their paychecks held hostage to any potential government shutdown in

washington. so i salute the majority leader for doing the right thing. i salute the senate democrats for not block the paychecks of the men and women of the military, of taking them off the table and saying, regardless of what happens, we're going to pay our troops. that was the rye thing to do. -- that was the right thing to do. now, i would also note for those who would like to see a resolution of this impasse, i, for one, don't want to see a government shutdown. and i think it is unfortunate that the majority leader seems bound and determined to force a government shutdown. in the course of the past several weeks, we have seen the house of representatives repeatedly attempt to compromi compromise. my view and the view of a great many republicans is that obamacare is a disaster, a train wreck, a nightmare. those last two terms, the term "train wreck" comes from the democratic senator who was the lead author of obamacare,

"nightmare" is the term that was used by teamsters president james hoffa. my view is we should repeal it in its entirety. but i would note that was not my starting position on this debate. it was not the starting position of the house of representatives. instead, they started with the position that it should be defunded. which itself represented a compromise. the house of representatives passed a bill to fund the entirety of the federal government -- every bit of it -- except for obamacare and to defund obamacare. they sent it over to the senate. and what did the majority leader, what did the senate democrats do on a straight party-line vote? every senate democrat voted "no," absolutely not, we reject it in its entirety. they voted, many effect, to in e us into a shutdown. now, the house of representatives was not done with that. they came back at 12:30 in the morning late saturday night/early sunday morning and passed yet another continuing resolution that represented a second compromise, where yet again the house said we want to

fund the government; we don't want to shut down, we want to keep the government going. instead of defunding -- which is what the house preferred -- the house instead said let's delay obamacare, let's delay it. president obama has already delayed it for giant corporations, he's already exempted members of congress -- both of those actions were contrary to law. the house of representatives said, let's delay it for ordinary families the same way it's been delayed for big companies. it shouldn't bein be the case tt giant corporations get treated by the federal government than hardworking american families. now, madam president, that was a compromise and it was a compromise, even though the senate, under majority leader reid, had no not comprised at a. at 12:30 early in the saturday morning the house voted on that. did the senate come back yesterday? no, madam president, we did not. the majority leader could have called the senate back -- we should have called the senate back. we were just 48 hours way from a gaft shutdown.

a government shutdown. but apparently th apparently thy leader made it it was more important for the senators to be home doing many things instead of doing the people's business. so instead we came back just a couple hours ago. and once again, majority leader reid and every single democrat voted to shut down to the senate. responded to the house's second compromise, not with any discussion, any compromise, any middle ground but said simply, "no." the position of the senate democrats is absolutely not. are we going to listen to the millions of young people coming out of schools who are not able to find jobs coming out of schools because of obamacare? the majority leader says no. are we going to listen to single moms struggling to feed their kids and forced to 29 hours of work because of obamacare? the majority leader says no. are we going to listen to reasonability immigrants who are

struggling to provide for their families and facing struggling health care premiums, the majority leader says no. are we going to listen to millions of retirees and people with disabilities and spouses who are covered under their spouses' health insurance plans, all of whom are losing or are at risk of losing their health insurance? the majority leader says no. instead, the majority leader shared to this body that i was -- and i wrote this down -- the -- quote -- "chief senate rabble rouse hrabble-rouser. "on now, madam president i'm not entirely sure what that is. i'm not sure that's an official designation. i would note the majority leader previously referred to me a me a "schoolyard bully." and i respect the majority leader if he wants to engage in personal insult and add hom then

in attack. i will no not reciprocate. i will note that what he seems most dismayed about is in the past two weeks, the voices of the american people have begun to be heard in this body. in the past two weeks, the voices of millions of americans losing their health insurance, losing their jobs, being forced into part-time work, millions of americans who are struggling have begun to be heard, we have begun to make d.c. listen. and that apparently, the voices from our constituents, from the men and we feel america, apparently to the majority leader constitutes -- quote -- "rabble-rousing." i have a different view of what our responsibility is. i would also note that the majority leader just told us moments ago -- quote -- "we've had enough. we're not going to negotiate." madam president, i find that quite remarkable, because to date, it has been the house of representatives that has been negotiating, that has been compromising, that has been trying to find a way to resolve

this so that we can keep the government running and at the same time answer the millions of americans who have been hurting. and the answer from the majority leader over and over again has been no, no, no, no. we will not be compromise, we will not talk. and as the majority leader said, he hadn't compromised yet and he doesn't even intend to negotiate. madam president, that's unfortunate. mr. durbin: will the senator yield for questio for a questio? mr. cornyn: the senator has described accurately the back and forth between the absolutist position that the majority leader has taken that says nothing can change obamacare because apparently he thinks it's absolutely perfect and we shouldn't change a -- we shouldn't change a letter even though, as you pointed out, a number of obamacare's biggest advocates are now quomg back an sayincoming backand saying it's. i think you quoted jimmy hoffa

for one of those. is the senator aware that reportedly the house is going to be voting on later today and be changing once again the continuing resolution and sending it back over here. this time the report is that they will vote to delay the individual mandate, to make it match, as the senator pointed out, the employer mandate. it's already been unilaterally delayed by the president in an act of lawlessness. unfortunately it's not an isolated event. and then the vitter language, which will overturn the office of personnel management interpretation which basically carves out congress and congressional staff from the -- the law that will apply to havel apply to have one else. it strikes me that is another attempt by the house to enter into some negotiation. would the senate care to venture a i guess as to what sorte sortf

faith that good-faith attempt by the house of what negotiations that will lead to and whether or not, i'd be interested in the senator's observation about whether he believes, as i do, that senator reaching is marching toward a government shutdown and nothing the house does, nothing the house passes will deter him from shutting down the federal government at midnight tonight? mr. cruz: i thank my friend, the senior senator from texas. i think he is exactly right. indeed, the conduct of the majority leader -- tit it's g.ns been report lrd reported in the press, the majority leader advised do not even engage in conversations with congressional leaders. as the senior senator from texas observed, the house is repeatedly trying to solve this problem to keep the government funding and do it in a way that responds to the millions of american people who are hurting under obamacare. and the answer from the majority leader over and over rand over

again has simply been, no, we will not talk, we will not negotiate, we will not compromise, we will not listen to the american people. i'm reminded of the old philosophical question, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear, does it make a noise? likewise, if the house endeavors to compromise responsibly and the majority leader and the president refuse to participate at all, can you solve the problem? ultimately, the only way to solve the problem is for washington to listen to the people. if majority leader reid insists on forcing a government shutdown then we may force a government shutdown. i think that is an irresponsible course of afntle i think the senate should come back immediately and pass the continuing resolution the house -- whatever the house passes. i don't know what it will be, but it will be yet another good-faith effort to keep the government running and to address the train wreck of a law that is obamacare. i very much hope that this body begins to listen to the people. thank you, madam president.

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, we have listened to the people. i recall we had a presidential election. we had two people running in bad economy. normally the nonincumbent would win. it was a republican. he ran on the thing, i will repeal obamacare if you elect me president. he was actually ahead in the polls when he started saying that. but we all know what happens. he lost disastrous lymph the american people -- did the american people speak? yes, they spoke pretty clearly on that one. the other body has voted -- they have wonderful press conferences. they all get out their press release. they can talk about how they stand up as they repeal it 40 times, knowing it will go nowhere. wouldn't it make a lot more sense if the other body, if their leadership said, look, we

lost a presidential election saying we're running on doing away obamacare did, the american people shut us down on that. we've become the butt of late-night jokes every time we vote like this. maybe it would help if their leadership said, why don't we take ten republicans, ten democrats, you folks go back and tell us how would you join together to make improvements in obamacare? if you've got some improvements. and bring it back by june, and then we'll vote those specific improvements up or down. we've already shown that 30, 40 repeals and a presidential election shows you're not going to get rid of it. if you've got improvements, do that. that would make some sense. but, at the same time, say we'll

stop this baloney of never getting on anything. oh, we can vote oh, we wnts to cut the budget. but never say where it is going to be. why don't you do this. then come back between now and the end of the year, vote up or down every single appropriations bill, so you have to vote "yes" or "no." right now everybody is voting "maybe." that is a gutless thing to do. vote "yes" or "no." instead, we have a small group of extremists insisting on shutting down the federal government, putting their own political agenda ahead of the rest of the country, throwing people out of work, costing hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars, making the united states look like the laughingstock of the world. come, come, come ... if they want to really delay or defund the obamacare, they can add $30 billion to our national deficit.

we'll sit here and talk at $30,000 or $40,000 an hour reading children's storeybooks, and what does that do? i was in vermont this weekend. i had vermont farmers court of appeal up to me and say, we have to go and milk every single day. we can't say that we're mad at everybody. we're mad at the people in the house of representatives, the republicans in the house of representatives, who blocked the farm bill, so we're not going to milk those cows for a few weeks. come on, they've got to go to work every day. and they're saying, why don't we? why don't they pick up the farm bill that we passed? why don't they put these people back to work? dur dlur the senator from vermont -- mr. durbin: will the senator from vermont yield for a question through the chair? mr. leahy: of course. mr. durbin: i will say i just missed miss -- i will say i jusd

him. the junior senator from texas has come to the floor and spoken at great length about why obamacare is unnecessary for men's. what i have read have that 40 million americans as of tomorrow will be able to shop on these insurance exchanges to buy these health insurance. he's also spoken, as the other senator from texas did, about members of congress and their own health insurance. i have asked the junior senator, senator cruz, from texas to tell us about his health insurance. he's told us he is a he not in the federal employees' health benefit plan. i think since he's addressing the health insurance of millions of americans, it's not unreasonable for him to disclose publicly what his health insurance is, how much he's paying for it, how much is the employer contribution on his health insurance -- mr. leahy: how much of a tax break is he getting on it. dur dwumr. durbin: it is a rease question. i would say, shutting down the government to keep the american people, 40 million uninsured

people, away from the opportunity under the obamacare is hardly the kind of work we want to be part of. i thank him for his leadership on so many issues and thank him for coming here today in personal witness to the need for good medical care, even for senators. mr. leahy: thank you. as the senator from illinois has heard me mention -- and with pride -- the time i was able to serve in law enforcement as a prosecutor, i was talking to some police officers in vermont this weekend. they were say, you know, what happens here? we got the violence against women act, we've got the community-oriented policing services office. as the other distinguished senator from vermont knows, i ia small state like ours, this is extremely important. it is one of the reasons we are able to keep our crime rate down with this training. they say, what's going to

happen? we're going to be on our own. what's going to happen where the i.n.s. does spectacular service for the whole country on passports out of st.a st. alban, vermont? what's going to happen? we'll close it down. oh, you got a dying relative abroad. you need your passport? sorry, we're too busy reading children's nurserchildren'schile floor. come on. we to inbring the government to -- we continue to bring the government to the brink in every gaivment there's too much in the country and around the world of tremendous importance that demands our attention. instead of helping americans get back to work and stimulating the economy, house republicans are intent on playing dangerous political games that do nothing but weaken americans, harm

americans. when it -- when they showed they weren't willing to do anything, did you see the stock market today? collapsed. just as it has the last three days. how many people have seen their savings for their children to go to college wiped out while they play political games? how many people have seen their retirement wiped out while they play political games? it's wrong. i hope those who have accepted this course will reconsider before more damage is done. congress has a real opportunity to jeectd the influence of pressure groups to show real leadership. it's what we've done in the past. we have to do now and in the future. stop this always saying we're voting for slogans. that way you're never held to anything. let's have the appropriations bills. vote for them ar against them. vote to repair those crumbling bridges or vote against doing it. vote for that medical research

in cancer or vote against it. right now they're allowed to go home and say, i'm on your side, whatever side you're on. no, it's damaging our economy. it's destroying our image abroad. it's stopping everything from cancer research, education of our children, and a little state like my in jermt, it is of extreme danger. -- in vermont, it is of exstrapping extreme danger. i am privileged to be the president pro tempore of the senate, as the most senior member here. i have seen republicans and he democrats come together. democrats are prepared to come together here. where is the republican leadership, as it has been in the past? madam president, i have two unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask that they be agreed and to praintsed in the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy:man, i'd be asked my full statement be be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator verp. mr. sanders: i want to concur with wha much of what my colleague from vermont has just said. clearly in our small state a government shutdown will be devastating for many thousands of federal employees, if a shutdown continues, it will be devastating for families who have kids in head start. if a shutdown continues, it will be devastating for seniors who are on the meals on wheels program, for pregnant women and young mothers and their kids who are on the w.i.c. program. this is going to hit vermont hard, and it's going to hit america hard. and this is something that should not be taking place.

you know, madam president, this debate is not about the affordable care act a p that is something that should be debated. i think it can be improved. what this debate is about is blackmail and hostage-taking. what my republican colleagues, especially the right-wing extremists in the house, are upset about, it's not so much obamacare. what they are upset about is they lost the election in november. president obama won by some 5 million votes. they lost seats -- republicans lost seats in the senate. they lost some seats in the house. what they are upset about is they cannot legislatively accomplish what they want through the normal legislative

process. what legislation is about is the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, they get together, work out something, compromise, the president sig ss it. they don't have the support do that. so what they have now concluded is that the only way they can go forward is to say, if we don't get our way, if we don't shut down the united states government and kill obamacare or delay obamacare, why, that's the only game in town, that's all we're going to do, we can't do it the normal way. so what they are doing is holding the congress and the american people hostage, and that is unacceptable. and it is unacceptable not only in terms of the affordable care act. let us be very clear. if we were to succumb and agree

to this type of blackmail, does anybody not believe that two weeks from now when the united states needs to pay its debts that we will be threatened for the first time in the history of this country -- we will be in a situation where we will not be able to pay our debts, which economists tell us could lead not only to a major financial and economic crisis in this country but it can impact the entire world? so if we say, hey, no problem, we're going to yield to your blackmail now, what do you think happens in two weeks? they will be back again. and next year when we go through this process again, it may not be the affordable care act, it may be social security. many of our right-wing extremist republicans want to end social security. if we go through this process and submit to this blackmail

now, i certainly will not be surprised if a year from now the same group of people says, look, you're not going to have a budget unless we end social security. or we end medicare, as we mow it right now. so submitting, allowing blackmail to take place, i think is very bad public policy. if the republicans or anybody else wants to have a discussion about how we can approve the affordable care act -- and i certainly think we can. i think it's too complicated in many respects. i think it leaves many people still uninsured. we're the only country in the industrialized world that does not provide health care to all of our people as a right, and obamacare doesn't do that. so i want to see some

the government. we're going toacuneds of thousands of federal workers. we're going to impact many, many vulnerable people who are dependent on federal programs. there's another point that i would like to make, madam president, is that we hear from some of our republican colleagues that the world is about to come to an end because the affordable care act may be, will be implemented. the world'st it is impor understand that many of these same arguments have been made in the past around the time or shortly after major pieces of legislation were passed which today are enormously popular. right now we have over 50 million people who benefit from social security.

social security is an enormously important and popular program in this country. but let me take you, madam president, back to april of 1935 when social security was just passed. and let me quote what some of, turns out, republicans had to say about social security at that time, on april 19, 1935, republican congressman john tabor said this about social security -- and i quote -- "never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent this recovery to enslave workers." to enslave workers was his language. "and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people." you go out and you ask most working people in hawaii and in vermont whether social security

is, quote unquote, enslaving them, i think they would not understand what you are talking about. because in fact since its interception social security has been enormously successful in reducing the poverty rate among seniors. but it's not only congressman tabor in 1935, here's what republican congressman james wadsworth told the american people. he said that social security -- quote -- "opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful and to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars down upon the heads of our descendants." end of quote. world is about coming to an end in 1935 because they passed social security. republican senator daniel hastings in 1935 called social security un-american and told the american people that social security would -- quote -- "end

the progress of a great country and bring et cetera people to the level of the average european." end of quote. not quite sure what that means but looks pretty scary. may 6, 1935, former republican president herbert hoover said this about the united states -- and i quote -- "as a matter of economic security alone, we can paoeupbd it in our -- find it in our jails, the slaves had it. our people are not ready to be turned into a national zoo. our citizens classified, labeled and directed by a form of keepers." that is a former president on social security. madam president, it is not widely known, i didn't know it, but in 1936 the republicans campaigned to repeal social security. that year the republican nominee for president, alf landon said that social security -- quote -- "is unjust, unworkable.

stupidly crafted and wastely financed." he called social security a fraud on the working man and a cruel hoax and said we must repeal social security. the republican party has pledged to do this. end of quote. alf landon, republican candidate for president. well, turned out not quite to be the case. turned out that social security will probably go down in history as maybe the most important and successful program ever passed by the united states congress, plays an enormous role in keeping seniors out of poverty, helps people with disabilities, helps widows and orphans. it has been enormously successful and enormously popular despite all of these cries about how it was going to destroy our nation. maybe we should learn something from these prophets of doom. furthermore, you have a similar situation with regarding

medicare. in a fairly dysfunctional health care system which we currently have today, where so many people are uninsured, so many people have high co-payments, so many people have high deductibles, and yet we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on health care as people of other industrialized nations which guarantee health care to all of their people, congress passed in 1965 medicare. and medicare today is a very, very popular program. and today nearly all seniors, 50 million of them, are receiving guaranteed health care benefits through medicare. but when medicare legislation was being debated in 1965, this is what the republicans, or some of the republicans in washington had to say. remember, today medicare is quite a popular program. generally regarded as a successful health care program

for seniors. on april 8, 1965, republican congressman derrick hall had this to say about medicare -- quote -- "we cannot stand 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." well, i don't know where mr. hall is today, but i think if he were to ask the seniors throughout this country whether they are suffering from medicare or whether they approve of medicare, i think most of them would say that they approve of medicare. in terms of the medicare debate that we had on july 8, 1965, republican senator milward simpson said this about medicare -- and i quote -- "this program could destroy private initiative for our aged to protect themselves with insurance against the cost of illness.

presently over 60% of our older citizens purchase hospital and medical insurance without government assistance. this private effort would cease if government benefits were given to all older citizens." 1965 congressman joel royhill wrote -- quote -- "medicare would initiate what would ultimately become a federal monopoly in regard to the financing and rendering of health care with respect to our aged, to the detriment of endeavors of the private sector. this would impair the kwauflt health care, retard the advancement of medical science and displace private insurance. in 1961 ronald reagan warned that -- quote -- "medicare will usher in federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. if you don't speak out against medicare, one of these days you and i are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in

america when men were free." end of quote. ronald reagan. and on and on it goes. so the point to be made is not that the affordable care act does not have its share of problems. it does. and not that it will take some work to implement it. it will. but what we have heard from republicans in the past, whenever a major government initiative was introduced was constant doomsday discussion about how the world would collapse. so let me just conclude by getting back to my major point, and that is in fact this debate really is not about the affordable care act. we can argue about the affordable care act. we can change the affordable care act. all of that is certainly legitimate. what this debate is about is whether 20 or 30 members, extreme right-wing members of the house of representatives are able to hold our entire

government hostage, hundreds of thousands of federal workers, many of whom are trying to bring up their families are going to lose their paychecks, lose their jobs. people who are going to be applying for social security, they're going to be applying for medicare, they're going to be applying for veterans benefits, will have that process significantly slowed down depending on how long this shutdown continues, if it takes place. and i certainly hope it doesn't. it will mean that head start centers will be closing, and other important programs will not be available to the people who need them. so once again, what this is is not a discussion about the affordable care act. what this is is whether or not a small number of members of the house are able to use their position to blackmail the american people and the president and the senate and say that if you do not do what we

could not accomplish, what they could not accomplish legislatively, we're going to render terrible harm to our country. and furthermore, madam president, as you well know, as bad as the government shutdown may be -- and i certainly hope that does not take place -- what we are looking at in two weeks is something that may be even worse. and if some of these guys get their way, for the first time in the history of the united states of america, we, the largest economy on earth, may not pay our bills. and that will certainly cause a huge eruption not only in our country but throughout the world in terms of markets, raising interest rates and doing all kinds of terrible things. but once again, their understanding of government is, well, i guess it's too bad we lost the election for the white house, we lost seats in the senate, we lost seats in the house. that's all too bad but we still are going to do what we want to

do regardless of what the election was about. and we cannot allow that to happen. if we do, it's not going to stop now. it will continue and continue and continue. so my hope is, frankly, that speaker boehner do something that he should do as speaker. he is not the speaker of the republican party. he is the speaker of the u.s. house of representatives. and if he put, i suspect very strongly, that if he put the bill that we passed on the floor of the u.s. house, he would have virtually all democrats and a number of republicans voting for it and a majority would say we are not going to shut down the united states government. so my request to speaker boehner is let the people in his body -- all of the people, not just republicans -- let them vote on what we passed here. and if he does that, i suspect we will not see a government shutdown, and they'll have some common sense over there.

so, madam president, with that i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, we're just a few hours away, absent some last-minute agreements on the continuing resolution to a government shutdown. this is a manufactured crisis that we are imposing upon our

country, and make no mistake about it, madam president, it will cause harm. people will be hurt by a government shutdown. i am honored to represent the people of maryland. we have one of the largest numbers of federal workers on a per-capita basis than any state in the nation, and i'm proud of the work they do every day, keeping our country safe, doing the important research into incredible life sciences, protecting our food supply, making sure people get their social security checks, and the list goes on and on and on. these are men and women who are on the front lines of public service. at midnight, they will be asked to do another sacrifice in their public service. these federal workers have gone through a lot. three years of a pay freeze. fewer federal workers to do more

work. furloughs as a result of sequestration. they are not getting their full pay today. now, what will happen after midnight? well, some will be asked to work and not clear whether they will get a paycheck or when they will get their paycheck. others will be furloughed, not knowing if they will ever get paid for the time that they're off. i must tell you, this is unfair to our federal workers once again. our federal workers want to show up at work, do their work and get fair pay for what they do on behalf of their country. that's what each one of us want. and yet, once more, they are going to be the victims of the fight that we see taking place here on capitol hill, particularly among our republican colleagues in the house. this is going to hurt people of this country. small business owners trying to get an s.b.a. loan, finding out there's no one there to help them process that loan.

that person's business can't wait, and yet a government shutdown will jeopardize that person's ability to get badly needed capital for their business. it will affect people who are now entitled to get medicare benefits or lesueur benefits, or they may have some questions about it. or veterans trying to get their veterans' benefits worked out. those issues will be delayed as a result of a government shutdown. individuals that depend upon the basic research done by government which will be slowed down, in some cases stopped as a result of a government shutdown. people will get hurt as a result of a government shutdown. now, madam president, this is going to be wasteful for the taxpayers of this country. it will cost the country valuable resources, which should

be used to provide services for the people of this country. this is wasteful. it will hurt our economy. when someone doesn't get a paycheck, they don't go to the local shops as much as they would otherwise. they don't travel as much, and our whole economy will suffer. now, from a logical point of view, it's hard to understand why we've reached this point. and let me explain why. this body passed what's known as a continuing resolution. that continuing resolution would keep government open until the middle of november. now, it did not represent one party or the other's view as to what that level should be. if anything, it represents the republican view because the number we picked for continuing government is the number the republicans thought was the right number. we didn't take the number that

was in the senate-passed budget bill, so we've already made an accommodation in an effort to make sure we don't get into that budget fight as we keep government operating. so now we pass that resolution known as a clean c.r. over to the house. now, madam president, we're told told -- you listen to the comments of members on both sides of the aisle, it looks like we had the votes to pass that on the house side, and yet the speaker won't bring octuplet for a vote. he refuse toss do that. talk about democracy. we passed it here. it looks like the votes are on the other side to pass it. the president is prepared to sign it. the government won't shut down in seven hours. but there's no indication that the majority will prevail in the house of representatives. instead, a minority, extreme views, are saying that we are

going to use this shutdown of government to try to advance our extreme agenda. it gets us to what we have seen in other parts of history. this is not much different than some of the tactics that were deployed to try to prevent medicare from coming into law or social security from coming into law. the republicans in the house are trying to block boxing are saying that they don't want to see this happen. they say they are afraid of what will happen when obamacare becomes a reality. they are not afraid it will fail. they are afraid it will succeed. president obama observed -- and i happen to agree with him -- that the naysayers of obamacare, the one thing he knows in a few years, when this program is successful, they won't call it

obamacare. well, i can talk about the merits or i can talk about the process. the merits of the affordable care act, i am proud that we are at last, the united states, the wealthiest nation in the world, is moving towards universal coverage so that we can at long last say that health care is a right, not a privilege. we're the only industrial nation in the world that has yet to move in that direction. i am proud that we have improved medicare under the affordable care act. our seniors are seeing that coverage gap in medicare prescription drug closed. they are seeing preventative health care services now available without co-payments. and by the way, madam president, they're also seeing a medicare trust fund that is solvent and it looks -- the future looks much brighter than it did before the affordable care act was passed. american families, they are happy they can keep their adult

children on their insurance policies to age 26, and they are getting value for the dollar. i hear these comments, negative comments about obamacare. they're talking about how our health care system used to be. i have talked to american families who saw every year their coverage erode and their premiums go up before we passed the affordable care act. under the affordable care act, we say you're going to get value for your dollar. the insurance company has to return at least 80% to 85% of your premium dollar in benefits. if not, you get a rebate. millions of americans have seen rebates in insurance policies because the insurance company charged too much, they got the money back. they are getting value for their dollar. for affordability, the people who will start to be able to enter the exchanges, starting tomorrow, madam president, tomorrow they can enroll in the exchanges. three out of every four who were eligible to enroll in the exchanges will be entitled to some help. this is affordable coverage, and

it's good coverage. no lifetime caps, no preexisting conditions. you're getting solid insurance coverage for an affordable rate. that's what the affordable care act is all about. for small businesses -- and i've heard a lot about small businesses. if you have under 50 employees, there is no new mandates. and at last, you're able to get competitive products, insurance plans, a little bit of variety, you can pick the plan that's best for you rather than being told by an insurance company this is all you could get, and you're in much larger pools so you don't have to worry about one of your employees getting sick and all of a sudden your premiums go up. that's the current situation that we're changing. so i could talk about the merits of what they're trying to do, but that's not where we're at. this is a process issue. there's a time and a place to talk about how we can improve our health care system in this country, but in a few hours, we're talking about whether government is going to stay open

or not. now, madam president, i could make a very strong argument that the reason we don't have a budget that starts october 1 is because of the obstructionist policies of the republicans particularly in the house. we've tried to go to conference. we passed our budget. they said we couldn't. we did. we passed a budget in the senate. the house passed a budget. they were different. so you would think you would go to conference. republicans refused to go to conference. so now they refused to go to conference, they have refused to negotiate a budget agreement. we're now up to october 1, and they won't agree to keep government open. i would acknowledge it's not the majority but there is an extreme element particularly on the other side if the government shuts down. they want to see government

closed, and that is what we're confronting here, which is terribly irresponsible. it's affecting families. it's affecting our economy. "the new york times" i think got this right, and i don't normally quote from the papers, when it said the republican party has spent 30 years currying ever more deeply into ideological extremism, but one of the novel developments of the obama years is it embraces -- the embrace of procedural extremism. the republican fringe has evolved from being politically shrewd proponents of radical policy changes to a gang of saboteurs who would rather stop government from functioning at all. that's what we're up against. i think most members of this body know that i believe in pragmatism. i believe that we need to work together. i believe democrats and republicans need to come together and form -- forge agreements, to move the process forward. that's what i think the framers

of our constitution envisioned, sitting around a table, working out our differences. we have had divided government before. it's not new. we have gotten through those days, gotten through those days by listening to each other, sitting around the table and working out our problems. but there are three things that are happening right now that need to end. one, we have got to keep government open. second, we have to pay our bills, not be threatened within two weeks with the inability to pay our bills. three, we have to get rid of these across-the-board, senseless, mindless cuts, under the name of sequestration. we have to get rid of those three things. yes, we do need a budget. that budget will not be what the democrats want or what the republicans want. it's got to be negotiated. and will contain, i hope, the best of what both parties can offer in dealing with the future needs of our country. that's what we should do, put america first, and if we do that, we will help the people of our country.

so, madam president, i know that we are just a few hours away from the -- from the shutdown of government. i still hold out hope that we will put the country's business first and stop playing this extremism politics of trying to say it's my way or no way. let's keep government open, let's pay our bills, let's get rid of sequestration, and then let's negotiate a budget that allows this country to grow that unleashes the tension so that all americans can enjoy the opportunity of this great land. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: vorm virginia -- the senator from virginia. mr. karan: i rise with if pending question -- the presiding officer: senator,

we're in a quorum call. mr. kaine: if i could ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: i rise with the question of whether the house will allow government to continue or shut down, to actually talk for a few minutes about a simple concept but that is apparently difficult in this body, that is compromise. i want to talk for a few minutes about compromise. based on the action taken by the senate earlier today the house has an opportunity to accept a compromise that the senate has put before them, the c.r. bill that the house drafted contained a budget number that was their number, not ours, we weren't wild about it but we've accepted it and the question is will the house accept yes for an answer. over the weekend i was traveling in virginia especially yesterday at events in central virginia, big festivals and, you know, weather was great so people were outside gathering and as i traveled i heard again and again don't shut down government. and can't you find a compromise?

people are aware, madam president, in virginia and in hawaii i know they feel the same that there can be severe consequences to a shutdown, just a few, and i know that the senator from maryland may have already offered a number of these thoughts, but a great agency like nasa that funds science and research will see furloughs of 97% of its employees. the commerce department, which is about commerce, about business, about our economy, will see furloughs of 87% of employees. the national institutes of health dealing with research and other important health matters will see furloughs of 73% of their employees. and in even an agency like treasury, just the core treasury functionings separate from the i.r.s., they will see a reduction of their staff of 50% at a time when we need the nation's fiscal system to be strong. and so the consequences of shutdown are severe, and that's why the citizens of virginia are

saying don't shut the government down, find compromise. it's not just employees, either. that's significant enough, it's tens of thousands of employees in virginia. it's also services that people rely on. just to pick one as an example, the number of v.a. employees who will be furloughed is actually a percentage, it's fairly small but the people at the v.a. who are going to be furloughed are the folks who work for the v.a. benefits administration, that the organization within the v.a. that processes veterans' benefits claims. so if you're a veteran and you've come home from iraq or afghanistan, you've been part of a war that is now lasted 12 or 13 years, you want to file to get your veterans' benefits, something you're entitled to because you fought for the nation, and we've had all kinds of stories, madam president, about the backlog in veterans' claims, you're going to be delayed even more because of this furlough. it's just unfair to do this to our veterans, it's unfair to do this across government.

madam president, i said i wanted to talk about compromise because i think this is not even fundamentally a battle about the budget. it's not a battle about the affordable care act. it's a battle about whether compromise is a good thing or a bad thing. i know if any of you had a chance to read this. there was a wonderful article in "the washington post," an opinion article last friday, the 27th, that was authored by a columnist for the post, michael gerson, he's the former speech writer for brush prush, president bush 43, george w. bush. he worked in the bush administration and wrote an excellent piece. the title of the piece was "a compromised reputation among the g.o.p." and it ran in "the washington post" last friday. i'll read a couple of quotes. "the real target -- not the a.c.a., not the budget -- the real target is the idea of compromise itself along with all who deal, settle, or blink.

in the middle of this unfolding republican debate comes a timely national affairs article by jonathan rosh, entitled "rescuing compromise" but it might as well have been called james madison for dummies. he argues that madison, i got to mention a virginian in my speech, madison had two purposes in mind as he designed the constitution. the first was to set faction against faction as a break on change and ambition, a role that tea party leaders have fully embraced. madison's second purpose, however, was to build constant adjustment into the system itself by requiring constant negotiation among shifting constellations of actors. following the articles of confederation america's founders wanted a more energetic government but they made action contingent upon bargaining within the branches of government and within them. compromise then is not a necessary evil, argues rosh,

it is a positive good that keeps government moving forward instead of toppling. compromise, of course, can have good or bad outcomes but an ideological opposition to the idea of compromise removes an essential element in the cog of machinery of constitutional order. at the end of the day, the madisonian framework asks not that participants like compromising but that they do it and above all they recognize the legitimacy of a system that makes them do it. finally from the gerson article, it is a revealing irony that the harshest critics of compromise should call themselves constitutional conservatives. the constitution itself resulted from an extraordinary series of compromises, and it created the system of government that presupposes the same spirit. compromise is the most essential principle of our constitutional system. those who hammer out painful deals perform the the hardest

work of politics. they deserve in general respect for their willingness to compromise, be condemnation for treachery." that's what this debate is about, is compromise good or bad. we have to be willing to compromise. madam president, as you know, let me talk about what the senate has been doing to advance the spirit of compromise. on the 23 rt of -- 23rd of march in this body after a late night at 5:00 a.m. in the morning the senate passed the first budget in four years. that same week the house passed a budget as well. now, madam president, we've talked about this often that once that happens and the two budgets are passed, that you have a budget conference to sit down and try to find compromise between these two different documents. these budgets passed now six months ago but there has been no budget conference. there has been no effort to find compromise. why not?

because the republican -- a tiny handful in the senate and the majority in the house do not want to compromise. senate democrats have made a motion 18 times since march 23 to begin a budget conference, and in every one of those instances, a handful of republicans -- and i use that word handful, that is quoting from one of the senators, the senator from utah who objected to a budget compromise and said a handful of us object -- a handful of the republican members of this body working together with house colleagues have decided they do not want to put in motion the process for dialogue and compromise. the senate democrats were, are, and will be ready to sit down at a budget conference table to negotiate, listen, and compromise to find a budget going forward. we've tried 18 times, we'll try it a 19th time, we'll try it a 20th time, we will keep

working to compromise. but, madam president, we've also compromised in the very matter of the bill that is pending before this body today. as you know, the continuing resolution bill was sent from the house over to the senate last week. that's the way these bills start. they originate in the house and the bill had two components. the first was defund obamacare and the second was -- and then we will fund government. now, madam president, the house bill said they would fund government at their proposed budgetary number which is $986 billion in discretionary spending. madam president, that was their number. that was not our number. we had extensive discussions among senators about what we thought of their proposal. and, frankly, we thought the $986 billion number was too low. it includes all the sequester

cuts that we disagree with. we think the right now to the budget compromise should be $1.05 trillion. but guess what, the senate was willing to accept the house's number. we accepted the house's budget number out of the spirit of compromise and we stripped away the defund the affordable care act provision and said it let's put it in a budget negotiation. we can talk about that, talk about anything else you want but we won't tie it up with the threat of a government shutdown. so we sent the number -- we sent the budget bill back to the house at their budget number and we said to them can't you take yes for an answer. you have proposed funding at $986 billion. we do not agree with that number but for purposes of the short-term c.r. we will agree out of a spirit of compromise, can you take yes for an answer?

and, madam president, you know the answer. they wouldn't take yes for an answer. so they brought it back and added on new provisions, the repeal of a tax that would increase the deficit and a delay in affordable care act provisions that would provide maternity services to expecting mothers that would protect adults from not getting insurance on the grounds of preexisting conditions. that would give a significant tax credit to small businesses to help them pay for insurance. they wanted to delay all those provisions. well, madam president, we've taken action again today. we have again made this bill what we call a clean spending bill. we've taken out anything other than what this bill is supposed to be. at what level should government be funded. and we've gone back to the house and we've said we're accepting your proposal. we're accepting your number even though we have a different number that we want to argue for and we'll save the other arguments for a budget conference if you will finally go to the table with us.

so, madam president, i just want to conclude and say that james madison was right and not because he was a virginian, he was just right to recognize that compromise is the essential element of our system. think about it for a minute. if you set up a government you have three different branches. the legislative branch has two houses. you have to find compromise between the two houses to move forward. the supreme court and the judiciary, they have nine justices, they have to work together and find at least a compromise by a majority, a consensus guy bye a majority on any case. even the president's powers which are unilateral and would seem like that's not a compromise branch because we put the executive powers in the president's hands, how do we choose the president? we choose the president through the fundamental constitutional compromise of the electoral college clej so the choice of a president is based on compromise. the entire communal system we have requires -- constitutional system we have requires compromise.

the senate was willing to compromise and we were blocked by the house. we were willing to accept the house's budget number and they haven't been able to say yes. we stand here tonight at 5:1727 ready to compromise, we'll be here the next hour ready to compromise, we'll be ready to compromise and find a deal to keep this government open every minute, every second from now until we get this right. but we do feel very strongly one last thing, madam president, no one should threaten to shut down the government of the united states. if a foreign enemy threatened to shut us down we would unify as we have so many times to repel that threat. but we're allowing elected members of congress to threaten to shut down this body, the government of the greatest nation on earth? it is unfathomable to me and the only way i can understand it is in exactly the terms that michael gerson indicated last friday in the post.

this is not fundamentally a debate about the affordable care act, it's not fundamentally a debate about the budget. it is fundamentally an attack by some upon the very notion of compromise that is at the core of our system of constitutional government. madam president, i stand on behalf of virginians i don't think virginians are different than americans in saying we have to be willing to compromise to find the common good and it is my hope that the house when they act tonight will act in the spirit of compromise and the common good and allow this government to remain open. thank you, madam president. i yield back the floor and noting the -- noting the absence of a quorum -- i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. is there a quorum call proceeding? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. in that case, i ask unanimous consent to end the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise again

to urge both the house and this body to pass into law what should be the rule and the law for everything we do in washington, and that is to apply the same rules to washington as are applied to the rest of america, across the board, certainly, including in obamacare. of course, madam president, what i'm talking about is ending the special washington exemption from obamacare. that exemption is moving forward 6 under what i consider clearly not illegal rule issued by the obama administration. and it's illegal because it's contrary to the statute, contrary to the clear language, contrary to the lear wang wage of an obamacare provision that says every member of congress, all congressional staff, need to be treated like the millions of other americans who are going to

the so-called exchanges for their health care, 8 manipulate yon against their will, losing their previous employer-provid employer-provided -- 8 million against their will, losing their employer-provided subsidies. let me recount the history because it's important. several years ago during the obamacare debate, there was a proposal made by many, including myself and one of the leaders was senator chuck grassley was iowa, and that proposal was adopted iowa, amazingly, to my surprise -- pleasant surprise at the time -- adopted and put in the obamacare bill, and it said just what i mentioned a few minutes ago. every member of congress, every congressional staff need to go to the so-called exchanges for their health care. need to leave our present syst system, federal employee health benefit plan with our employer-provided subsidy. the idea was simple and it was a

good one, that we would actually walk in the shoes of other americans who are living under the challenges and the burdens of it law, including having to get our health care in the exchanges with no special deal, no special subsidy, no special exemption. and that law was passed as part of obamacare, pure and simple, exactly those words. now, madam president, i guess it was an example of what neaps pelosi said -- yonancypelosi sad to pass the law to find out what's in it. because after we passed the law, lots on folks on capitol hill started reading that and they said, oh, who you know? we can't stand for this, we can't live by that, we can't be subject to the same situation as other americans and so there was furious scheming and gnashing of teeth about how we're going to get out of this burden, even

though there was very little broad-based discussion about how we're going to get all americans out of that burden that they were subjected to. well, that developed into furious lobbying of 9 obama administratio -- of the obamaadd in the senate by the distinguished majority leader, harry reid, saying, mr. president, you need to issue a special rule that exempts congress, that takes the pain out of that provision, a special, unique -- special deal, special rule, special bailout for congress. and sure enough, that's what the obama administration did conveniently right after we left town for the august recess, right after congress got away from the scene of the crime. according to numerous press reports that are not rebutted, president obama personally got involved, he personally had discussions within his administration, at the urging of harry reid and others, and he ensured tha this that this spece

was issued. and it does two things basically. number one, it says that even though the obamacare statute states plainly and clearly that every member of congress and all official congressional staff had to go -- have to go to the exchanges, well, we don't know what sticial staff is so we're -- official staff is so we're going to give that up to each individual member of congress and we're not going to second-guess that. so any individual member of congress can say, oh, these folks aren't covered by that mandate; they can stay in their current plan. they don't have to be disrupted. in theory, a member of congress can say, nobody on my staff is part of my official staff for purposes of this mandate. that is silly and ridiculous on its face because the statute is clear. the second thing this illegal rule does is it says that for

members and any staff who do go to the exchange, what's supposed to be the fallback position for americans and for congress, for members and staff who do go to the exchange, they get to take their very generous taxpayer-funded subsidy with them, even though that's not available to any other person losing employer-based coverage going to the ect to the exchangt his or her will. so that deal isn't available to anyone put the select ruling class. that's why, madam president, i think this rule is completely illegal and that's why i know it flies in the face of what i consider the first, most basic rule of democracy -- that laws passed here by congress, by washington, should be applied to washington just the same as they're applied to america. that should be true in

obamacare. that should be true across the boardmenthe -- to the board. to react to this illegal obama administration rule, madam president, i joined together with many colleagues in the senate and i want to thank all of my cosponsors, senator enzi, senator heller, senator -- several others -- excuse me, i'm forgetting the entire list -- and members of the house who have identical legislation and identical language. they're led by congressman ron desantos of florida. ron john is another colleague i was trying to think of business who's a leading coauthor. i want to thank of them for leading this fight. and our language does two simple things. first of all, it negates this illegal obama administration rule. that's a special exemption, a special bailout for congress against the clear language and intent of obamacare.

secondly, it broadens that rule and also applies it to the president and the vice president and all of their political appointees. that is the no washington exemption language. that is vitter amendment here in the senate, with many other cosponsors. that is the desantos amendment in the house with many house cosponsors. and i urge all of my colleagues to come together around that commonsense, fair language which again simply ensures what i think should be rule one of our american democracy -- whatever depress passe congressr america, it applies equally to itself, whether other -- whatever washington impose on america, it applies equally to washington, to policy-makers in washington. now, madam president, we're making progress because there are reports that the house may very well take up this exact

language tonight as part of the continuing discussion about a spending bill and i urge the house to do that, to stand with the american people -- not to stand with washington -- to stand tall with the american people and say, yes, it should be that even playing field and whatever is passed on america should be applied equally in the same way, no special deals or exemptions or subsidies, should be applied equally to washington. and i urge all of my colleagues here, republicans and democrats, to september that effort, to support that simple, basic, fair language. to support it on obamacare, to support it across the board. because it is essential that what washington passes on america is applied with equal force and effect to washington. if we did that on obamacare, i am convinced that we would rush

with greater determination, speed and focus to fix the very real problems of obamacare because we would be vested in it. if we did that on other laws, i am convinced it would have the same positive effect. and so let's do it, number one, because it's fair and right; number two, because our personal interests should be completely aligned, should be the same as those of the american people. and that will get us to act, that will get us to fix things, that will get us to fight in the right direction, republicans and democrats together. so again, madam president, i urge support of this no washington exemption language. i urge the house to vote positively on that tonight. i urge the senate to accept that fundamental principle, that important language which, as i said, i think is the first core rule of democracy. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mrs. warren: i ask unanimous consent that the time for morning business with debate only be extended until 8:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes speech and that the majority leader be recognized at 8:00 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. war len: madam president, i -- mrs. war len warren: madam presi come to the floor today in a state of disbelief. with millions of people out of work, with an economic recovery fragile, with millions of families being crushed by student loan debt, with millions of seniors denied their chance at one hot meal a day with meals on wheels, and millions of little children pushes out of head start because of a sequester, with the country hours away from a government shutdown and days away from a potential default on the nation's debt, the republicans

have decide that the single-most important issue face willing our nation is to change -- issue facing our nation is to change the law so employers can deny women access to birth-control coverage. in fact, letting employers decide whether women can get birth-control covered on their insurance plans is so important that the republicans are willing to shutter the government and potentially tank the economy overwhelm can get access to birth control in the year 2013. not the year 1913, the year 2013. i have a daughter and i have granddaughters, and i will never vote to let a group of backward-looking ideologues cut women's access to birth control. we have lived in that world and we are not going back. not ever.

this assault on birth control is just one more piece of an ongoing republican assault on the orderly functioning of our government and the orderly functioning of our economy. in effect, the republicans are trying to taic th take the govet and the economy hostage, threatening serious damage to both unless the president agrees to gut the affordable care act. this assault is utterly bizarre. congress passed the affordable care act to solve real, honest-to-god problems. our health care system is broken. 48 million people in this country had no health insurance. women couldn't get access to cancer screenings. people with diabetes were denied health insurance because of preexisting conditions. people with cancer hit the caps on health insurance spending. and health spending in this

country was growing way too fast. so we worked hard, we compromised, we came up with a solution -- a solution that will substantially improve the lives of millions of americans, because that's the way democracy works. it is time to ends the debate -- it is time to end the debate about whether the affordable care act should exist and whether it should be funded. congress +waol h. voted for thivoted for. the president ran for reelection on this law. in fact, his opponents said he would repeal it and his opponent lost by 5 million votes. i see things like this and i wonder what alter national reality some of my cheetion are living in. so let me be very clear about what is happening in the real world. the a.c.a. is the law of the land.

millions of people are counting on it. people who need health care coverage, people who need insurance policies that don't disappear just when they are at their sickest, women will get insurance coverage for birth control. the law is here to stay, and it will stay. earlier today the senate emphasized that reality by flatly rejecting the republicans' newest ransom note, just as we did last week. we should be having a real debate about our budget because we have real problems to solve. earlier this year automatic across-the-board cuts went into effect throughout the federal government. that's the sequester. the sequester hits american families where they live. during my visits to cities and towns across massachusetts, i've heard from families, small business owners, and community

development organizations, from the berkshires to the cape. they tell me what it's like to try to stay afloat with mindless across-the-board spending cuts weighing them down. more than 1,000 employees at westover air force base at barns national air force base are as facing furloughs. this fall more than 2,000 massachusetts kids couldn't get into head start because of cuts and the head start program in belricka will close completely at the end of this year. federal workers across our state stand to lose as much as 30% of their salaries, and every one of those losses will tighten family budgets. and when families make less money, they have less to spend with local merchants and less money to pay off bills and less money to save and less money to do all the things that keep our economy humming. in fact, the congressional

budget office says that ending the sequester would add 900,000 jobs to the economy by the end of next year. next time you think about someone you know who is looking for a job or who is working part-time but hoping to get full-time work, think about the 900,000 jobs that the sequester has destroyed. scientists and medical researchers in massachusetts are also getting pounded by the sequester. they're working hard to expand our knowledge and develop new cures for devastating diseases. they're working on discoveries that will help us in ways we can't even imagine. yet here we are bruntly hacking away at their funding, delaying their research, and cutting off promising new work before it even starts. not because we have to, not

because it's inevitable, but because washington has its priorities all wrong, and it's making some truly terrible decisions. consider the framingham heart study. it is a generations-long study of the causes of heart disease, a study that has helped create ground had breaking advancements in medical knowledge. there are people across this country who are alive today, in part, because of the work that began with this study. this study continues to yield extraordinary results, but it is scheduled to lose 40% of its funding -- 40%. the next time you think of someone you love who has heart trouble, think about the sequester cutting one of the world-premiere heart research programs. senate democrats have put forward alternatives that would adequately fund the government

while also addressing our budget deficits. back in march the senate passed a budget that would have ended the sequester. it wasn't easy. we had to make some compromises. no one loved everything in the final bill, but we debated it and we passed it. this is what congress is supposed to do. but after we did all of that, the senate republicans decided to filibuster the budget again and blocked us from going to work on a conference with the house on the final bill. that's just pure obstruction, plain and simple. in july, the senate attempted to pass the first of several appropriations bills to keep the government open and to end the sequester. we had a bipartisan transportation and housing bill that would have helped repair crumbling jobs -- crumbling roads and bridges in our communities. it would have created more jobs, and it would have rolled back

sequestration in these programs. but, once again, senate republicans filibustered and blocked that bill. now we are just hours from the government running out of money. we haven't fixed the sequester because of all the obstruction. we haven't finish a budget because of all the obstructions. we haven't passed a single appropriations bill because of all the obstruction. the least we can do, the bare minimum that we can do, would be to pass a continuing resolution to keep the doors open and the lights on. we can ensure that over a million federal workers aren't simply sent home for no reason. we can avoid a government shutdown. but the republicans have refused to do even that. they have continued to threaten to shutter the government unless the president agrees to gut the affordable care act. the senate rejected that

position twice, yet the republican response has been to continue to threaten to shut the government down. these threats may continue, but they are not working, and they will never work because this is democracy, and in a democracy, hostage tactics are the last resort for those who can't win their fights through elections, can't win their fights in congress, can't win their fights for the presidency, and can't win their fights in the courts. for this right-wing minority, hostage-taking is all they have left, a last gasp of those who cannot cope with the realities of our democracy. the time has come for those legislators who cannot cope with the reality of our democracy to get out of the way so that those of us in both parties who

understand that the american people sent us here to work for them can get back to work solving real problems faced by the american people. we have real work to do, and that's what we should be doing. thank you, madam president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, i urge leadership in the house of representatives to simply schedule a vote on the senate-passed bill. you know, i understand a number of people in the majority party are going to vote "no." i also believe that -- and the presiding officer used to be in the house of representatives, as i was many years ago -- and it is a democratic house -- i mean, democratic with a small "d." they should schedule a vote. i believe a majority of

democrats members in the house would vote to pass the c.r. if the speaker of house would let it come to a vote. if the speaker of the house going to be the speaker of the radical right of the republican party, or is he going to be the speaker of the united states house of representatives? fundamentally, that's the question. is he going to be the speaker of the radical right in the house of representatives, or is he going to be the speaker of the united states house of representatives? if he chooses the latter, if he chooses before midnight, there won't be a government shutdown, because a majority of the house of representatives -- not necessarily a majority of the republicans, but a majority of those who took the oath of office on january 3 of 2013, who were elected in november of 2012, then took that oath, i believe a majority of them will support it. i think, madam president, it's always a -- it's always a good idea to look back in time a little to things that happened

in the past. we know that some 30 times -- more than 30 times when president reagan was president, president bush sr., president bush)the congress raised the debt ceiling without preconditions, without threatening to shut the government down, without threatening default. but let's -- but never, never have we had -- never really have we had a body in this country, in the house of representatives or the senate has there been a body of members who have tried repeatedly to have their way to, in a sense, put their political platform from the election the year before to attach their political platform to a continuing resolution. and if they don't get that political platform attached, they're simply going to shut the

government down. that'that's really what's hasmg there's all this talk about the public doesn't like the affordable care act. some call it obamacare, the official name is affordable care act there's some talk from the house of representatives, really ad nauseam that they don't like the affordable care act. they say the public doesn't like the affordable care act. let's look at that. 2012, the president of the united states was reelected, strong supporter of the affordable care act. in 2012, supporters, including the new presiding officer that just replaced the senator from hawaii, was elected, support ofr of the affordable care act. i was reelected, strong supporters of the affordable care act. a strong majority in the united states senate, many of whom stood for reelection, were successful. in fact, two more were elected in time from -- that held office prior to this election in support of the affordable care act. more people voted for members of congress, for house candidates that supported the affordable

care act. more people voted for democrats in the house races than republicans, even though redistricting made the outcome a little different obviously from that. so the point is, mr. president, that there is no public sentiment to shut the government down in order to defund or repeal or hold back or delay or emasculate or pull apart, or whatever, the affordable care act. but let's go back a bit in history. in 1965, president johnson -- july 1965, 48 years ago and a couple months, president johnson signed medicare. it passed bipartisanly, although a number of republicans were strongly against it, especially the far right. now, in 1965 when medicare passed, the joh john birch sociy didn't like t a lot of doctors and insurance companies didn't like it. a lot of speem that were suspicious of -- a lot of people

that were suspicious of government said they didn't like it and opposed it and a lot continued to oppose it after the election. but five years later the country clearly was very happy with medicare, certainly 48 years -- 48 years later the country is very happy with medicare. i don't think there's much question that, you know, five years from now people will be happy with the affordable care act. they know that it will have worked for people in this country, that it's -- that much of it has already worked, as the presiding officer knows. we already have in my state almost a million seniors -- almost a million seniors have already received benefits, they've gotten prepreventive care, no co-pays, no deductibles. people from youngstown and toledo, seniors, have seen -- they've gotten screenings for osteoporosis and physical and all of that. no co-pay and deductible, those living on comaimplet people from cleveland to cincinnati, people in their 20's have -- 100,000

ohioans in their 20's have been able to get -- have been able to go on their parents' health care plan. up until the age of 26. we've seen thousands of ohioians get a rebate check from the insurance companies because the insurance companies -- because of the rules in the affordable care act have charged too much and they're getting rebates. i would know a lost those benefits have been out there. families that have a child with a preexisting condition are no longer being denied coverage because of the affordable care act. so we know much of it has taken effect and much to the public benefit. we also know come tomorrow, october 1, much more of the affordable care act, the rest of it will be rolled out. seniors have saved in my state and i think in the state of indiana an average of about $700, those who are in the prescription drug plan saved about that amount of money on their prescription drugs. again, because of the affordable care act. we know that. put that aside. let's simply ask this house of representatives to bring this bill up.

we know what happens if we don't. a shutdown would hurt financing of more than 1,000 small businesses per week in my state, from hamilton to chillicothe to mansfield to ashtabula. the small business administration approved nearly 54,000 applications through their credit loans programming supporting over half a million jobs. a shutdown would stop the ability of the s.b.a. to loan to small businesses through this program. a shutdown would put 52,000 ohio federal employees at risk of being out of work. most of them would temporarily lose jobs. we know that is a drag on the economy. we know it would mean the government services aren't being rendered. it would mean those tens of thousands of workers wouldn't get paid. it would mean a stumbling, a faltering, a sputtering of our economic growth, the economic recovery, because people aren't making the money and putting money back into the economy. senior citizens would be ineligible, if there is a shutdown, to apply for new

social security benefits. social security applications wouldn't be taken as a result of federal furloughs and service cuts. in 2012 more than 2.2 ohioans received -- obviously many had been receiving for years -- received social security benefits. all we ask, mr. president, again is that the speaker of the house do what you should do in a democracy. give the elected members of congress the opportunity to vote. give them the opportunity to vote yes or no on this senate-passed bipartisanly passed continuing resolution. again, speaker boehner needs to make a decision. is he going to be the speaker of the radical far-right republican party or is he going to be the speaker of the united states house of representatives? that choice is clear. bring that bill to the floor. let all the 435 members of the house of representatives who were elected last november and sworn in in january, give them the opportunity to vote. i think if they do, it will mean the president will sign the bill before midnight.

keep this government operating. there is simply no reason that we lurch from crisis to crisis, all created by a political agenda that, frankly, most of the people in this country have at election time rejected. mr. president, 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 senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business for up to -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. casey: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i would ask consent to speak as if in morning business for, i guess, up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we are here tonight in the senate hours away from a deadline which will, if action isn't taken on the house side, the other body, we will

have a government shutdown. unfortunately, when i've been asked today by either constituents or reporters, they asked is it less likely or more like threu liu there will be a -- less likely or more likely there will be a shutdown, i've had to be honest and say at least at this moment it seems more likely. we have to remind ourselves how we got here. this isn't the typical battle in washington. we've had a lot of those, and we should all try to work that bipartisan fashion. but this one is unique in the sense that you have on the one side, you have democrats in congress and i think across the country united in an effort to continue the operations of the government and not have a government shutdown, even if we want to make a point, even if we want to make an argument about

this or that policy. you see a growing number of republicans here in the senate, i think across the country, maybe even a few in the house, even though the last 24 hours or so, who are saying let's just get the government funded so we can move forward. we might be able to have a debate in the middle of november or somewhere down the road. but let's not hold up the operations of government or default on our obligations for the first time since 1989 in order to make an ideological point or a political opponent. i think it's clear from the national data that independents are on that side of the argument as well. so you have this consensus on one side, democrats and independents and republicans, that you shouldn't, in order to make your point about an issue, whether it's health care or the economy or whatever it is, you shouldn't act in a way that would shut down the government to do that. on the other side i think you

have the far right of the republican party that not only believes that in order to make their point, they're willing to allow the government to shut down, but you also have, i think, a determination to do that to the extent that one wing of one party is really driving the train in that party. it happens to be the republican party. so this is unusual. it's not the typical democrat versus republican debate. and it started months ago where politicians who work in this town would go home to their state or their districts and make the point that they are going to, no matter what, argue that this is the moment where they should stop the health care bill. and no matter what was in their way, they were going to just continue to drive in that direction. so i think that's where we've --

that's how we've gotten here. what happens if we go past the deadline and there is a shutdown of a few days or longer? here's what some of the data show, some of the folks who are not in the congress but who observe broader trends and especially economic trends. mark zandi is a moody's chief economist. he's, i think, widely respected. i think people in both parties respect his opinion. and according to him, i'm not quoting but i'm just summarizing what he said. a shutdown lasting a few days would cost the economy .2% of g.d.p., while a longer shutdown could cost as much as 1.4%. sometimes it's difficult to say what is .2% of g.d.p. means? what it means for sure is that the economy, which has been moving in the right direction, we've had tremendous job growth over, i think, nine quarters

now, many, many months of job growth but we're not moving fast enough. we're not creating jobs at a fast enough pace. and when i go home to pennsylvania, people don't say to me score every point you can for your point of view. they say to me, work together with the other side to create jobs. work together with the other side to put in place strategies that will lead to job growth, economic growth and obviously job growth. so if you're going to go in the wrong direction when it comes to growth and you lose .2% of growth. and then if the shutdown goes longer, you lose .4% or .5% or .6% over time, you're obviously going in the wrong direction. we know when you lose even .2% of growth you're killing jobs. first and foremost, any shutdown is a big job killer. a default on our obligations would be a much bigger job killer.

a shutdown would also not just slow growth, but it would spread anxiety. and this is just human nature. it would spread anxiety among consumers. we know in the summer of 2011 the almost default on our obligations caused consumer confidence to take a nosedive. we didn't come out of that hole of consumer confidence until many, many months later. a government shutdown has a similar effect. how about chamber of commerce? not usually on my side of a lot of debates or on the democratic side. the u.s. chamber of congress urged -- urged congress to keep the government open. this is the chamber of commerce, which is often making arguments about uncertainty in other contexts, are saying a shutdown would create even more uncertainty. how about economic recovery? i mentioned those nine quarters

of growth we've had. we've had job growth as well. just in terms of how you measure it, 7.5 million jobs, private-sector jobs, 7.5 million added in the last 42 months. so that will take a nosedive. so instead of growing at 165,000 jobs a month monthly, which has been kind of the pace for awhile now, which isn't fast enough. we need to be at 200, 230 or 240 if we want to say the economy has taken off but instead of growing at 160 or 170 or even higher we hope, we'll go backwards. maybe the job growth for the last couple of months will be substantially less than that. a shutdown all but ensures for that to happen. we don't know exactly how much slowing would -- or how much damage would be done to the job growth, but there's -- there's going to be a job impact for

sure, and i think that's pretty clear from the data. now, both sides in a lot of debates here in washington say they stand up for small business, and we can debate that, which side does a better job for small business, but we know one thing. we know that when a small business person needs some help, a measure of help from the federal government, they usually turn to the small business administration, and we know that the s.b.a., that their approval of applications for business loan guarantees and direct loans to small business would cease. okay. so if you take the small business administration off the -- off the playing field, they average about a thousand loans or loan guarantees per week. now, that's nationally. what does it mean for pennsylvania? well, from october 12 -- i'm sorry. from october, 2012, through august of this year, 2013, the

s.b.a. supported over 1,400 loans for over $600 million for small businesses in pennsylvania. on average, that's about 30 loans for over 13 million to entrepreneurs each week. so every week, on average, based upon the recent data in pennsylvania, 30 loans and $13 million helping small business in pennsylvania. to should that off would make our economic circumstance even worse. in pennsylvania, we had a -- we had many, many months in a row where the unemployment numbers were 500,000 people unemployed or more. thankfully, it dipped below 500,000 for a couple of months. we just got the numbers from august because the state numbers are always behind. the state data for august shows we're unfortunately just above 500,000 jobs -- 500,000 people out of work. a shutdown will bring that -- that half a million person out

of work number higher and send it the wrong direction. how about veterans? people say well, veterans' disability checks will still go out, just like social security checks would go out in the aftermath of a shutdown. well, that's only part of the story. if you're a veteran getting disability checks or a pension benefit -- in our state, we have about 109,000. 109,000 veterans get disability or pension help. they may get their check, but it's highly likely, if not a certainty, that those checks will be delayed. so you're a veteran and you're entitled to this because of what you did for our country and because part of a political party wants to make an ideological point, you've got to wait for your check. you have to wait for your disability check. that makes no sense, and to say that it's unfair to a veteran or to his or her family is really an understatement. how about social security? people say well, the checks are

going to go out so people are -- are going to be just fine in a shutdown. well, that's -- that's only part of the story. yes, current recipients will get their checks, but if you -- if you reach the age of 65 and you want to have your appear application -- application processed, you won't be able to do that, or at a minimum, that will be slowed substantially. in every state, every month, 11,600 people are able to start the process for their social security benefits. those people will have to wait and wait and wait in the advent of a government shutdown. how about national parks? we have a great blessing in our state where we have an abundance of national parks, historic sites, which are wonderful for the country, wonderful for enrichment and learning and the history, but they also are a big economic driver in different communities.

in southeastern pennsylvania, when you add it all up, one of the numbers i saw was over $200 million of impact. those -- unlike a lot of things i just talked about, those parts of the government will stop completely. so an economic engine in one part of our state that averages about $200 million of economic impact will just stop, so maybe we'll lose $10 million in -- over the course of a shutdown. maybe pennsylvania will lose $20 million or $30 million, so we're going to lose for sure and a lot of other states will as well. the flight 93 memorial is one of those, from 9/11. gettysburg is another. valley forge, independence park in philadelphia. so there are lots and lots of examples and lots of job impacts when it comes to all of those. but here's the -- here's the basic point.

some people would say well, look, you're in a -- you're in the united states senate or the house and you want to have a debate about something as significant and consequential to people's lives or to our economy like health care, and you ought to be able to debate that. i would agree with that. there is no question about it. we have big debates in 2009 leading up to a vote in the senate. then the debate continued into 2010, the bill was enacted in march of 2010. there was still debate about it after that. there were votes taken one after another to repeal it. then the supreme court litigated it. that took months until the supreme court made a decision, the supreme court which is -- which is dominated, or at least the majority have republican-appointed justices. they said the affordable care act was constitutional. then you had a presidential election which was another kind of litigation or debate, and one candidate said i am going to keep the affordable care act in place and we're going to

implement it. the other side said we're going to repeal it. well, the side that said they were going to put it in effect won the election, meaning president obama. so this has been debated and litigated several different ways in several different branches of our government. that will continue, and frankly it should continue, because some of the -- some of the impacts are already in place, we know that. we know, for example, that since 2010 when the consumer protections went into effect, which had nothing to do initially with those who were uninsured, the tens of millions of uninsured, but we put in place the consumer protections for those with insurance, those who had coverage, were making payments or premium payments, and yet their children were still not protected because of -- because of a preexisting condition. so up until 2010, it was -- it was the law or the -- it was the prevailing policy that if an

insurance company wanted to say to you who were paying premiums sorry, i know you're making your payments, but your child has a preexisting condition, they are not covered. okay. that was permitted when insurance companies had all the power. i would argue all the power and an unfair advantage and bargaining power. so now you have since 2010 something on the order of 17 million children who can no longer be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition, solely and completely because of the affordable care act. you have millions of young people who can stay on their parents' policies from the age of 19-25. they can only stay on those policies solly because of the affordable care act, because it was enacted into law. you have millions of seniors who are getting payments over time to help them fill the coverage

gap, the so-called doughnut hole. they are getting those payments solely because of the affordable care act. now tomorrow, we're going to see the beginning of the exchanges going up where people can go into a marketplace and shop for the best possible health care insurance that they can -- that they can afford. most people, probably as many as 150 million americans, already have coverage and their employer provides it, so their status won't change that much at all. these changes keep going into effect over time. i hope the people that keep debating it and make changes to it and i have voted for changes in it as well would allow it to be if not fully implemented, close to fully over the next couple of months and the next couple of years. and then at some point, this debate about who was right, who was wrong about the impact will have been -- will have been determined. so we're all for debates on the budget and on health care and

everything else, but we shouldn't bring the country to these cliffs, the cliff meaning this deadline tonight on the budget where the house has our legislation, which is just about the budget. it will pass if the speaker puts it on the floor tonight. it would pass. we would be beyond this crisis. then we would move to the next deadline and we could get beyond these deadlines and then have a big debate and have very strong arguments made about how we get a full year's worth of a budget, starting in the middle of november. that's the appropriate time and the appropriate place to make our arguments about the budget or the economy or jobs or health care, whatever else it is. now is not the time, and i would hope that between now and midnight, the house would put our bill, which is very simple, meaning it just keeps the government operating with no conditions and no add-ons, and pass that legislation and we would be done with this, we could move on to issues that i think people want us to work on.

i will restate what i said before. people in pennsylvania, when they say to me what they want me to do, they say work together to create jobs. that's -- if you had to put it in a sound bite, that's what it is. so i'm hoping that between now and then, this consensus of republicans, democrats and independents i think prevails throughout the country will -- will have the appropriate influence n those who are trying to push this to the end and shut down the government. a government shutdown is bad for everybody, no matter what party you're in, and we should keep working to make sure that it doesn't happen. mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, earlier today, the senate rejected a second time a house republican continuing resolution. now, that approach that they have adopted over in the house

attempts and would deprive millions of americans of health insurance if it were passed here. it's not going to pass here. so i would say to speaker boehner, we have given your proposal now a vote. in fact, we have voted on it twice. now you owe it to the american people to hold a vote, a vote on the bipartisan, clean continuing resolution, which would keep the government open, a resolution which the senate sent to you just a few hours ago. the only thing, mr. president, preventing us from keeping this government open is speaker boehner's refusal to bring a bipartisan senate continuing resolution to the house floor. i think most republicans over there even acknowledge that it would pass if speaker boehner would allow a vote on it. the senate just a short time ago, mr. president, approved a measure to allow for the pay of our men and women in uniform to

continue in the event of a government shutdown. this measure was necessary because requiring our military to go into combat, for instance, with only an i.o.u. instead of pay would be a travesty. but nobody should be fooled. it's just one travesty that was avoided among many. even if we restrict our view to the impact of a government shutdown on the military, there are many other terrible impacts of a government shutdown. now, our military members would be paid so a shutdown would result in at least avoiding that problem. however, there are other unthinkable outcomes of a government shutdown on our security. family members, military members who die in combat would not receive death benefits during a shutdown. it defies belief that in the

pursuit of a narrow ideological goal, house republicans would prevent the payment of benefits for those who died defending our country. that is the result of a government shutdown. in the event after shutdown, the department of defense would also further reduce already curtailed training and bring routine maintenance to a halt, exacerbating the corrosive effects that sequestration is already having on military readiness. the department of defense would be barred from entering most new contracts. that would harm modernization programs. a shutdown would severely -- would severely curtail medical services for troops and their families, commissaries would close, hundreds of thousands civilian employees, workers vital to our defense, would be laid off. outside of the d.o.d., a shutdown would disrupt some

operations of the department of veterans affairs that are providing benefits for those who have served. and there is the extraordinary disruption of having to plan for all this absurdity. as under secretary of defense hale said on friday -- quote -- "even if a lapse never occurs, the planning itself is disruptive. people are worrying right now about whether their paychecks are going to be delayed rather than focusing fully on their mission, and while i can't qualify the time being spent to plan, it has or will consume a lot of senior management attention, probably thousands of hours in employee time better spent on supporting national security." again, that only covers the impact on our military and our veterans. while border patrol agents and f.b.i. agents would continue to work, they would be putting their lives on the line for an i.o.u. instead of for a check,

a paycheck. health clinics would stop taking new patients. life saving research would ground to a halt. the far-reaching effects should give us all pause, the fact that a shutdown is likely to damage the all--too-fragile economic recovery. this has gone on far too long and speaker boehner can end it now. there is still time for him to bring to the floor of the house of representatives a clean continuing resolution and avert a government shutdown. for the good of our men and women in uniform and our national security, for the good of our economy, and for the millions of americans who rely on and who benefit from important federal programs, i hope the speaker will allow our bipartisan continuing resolution to be voted on. i hope, mr. president, that even this late in the game that reason is going to prevail.

i hold that hope in part because while house republicans have put tea party ideology ahead of the good of the nation, many of our republican colleagues here in the senate not have. these members recognize that there's a difference between on the one hand debating serious policy preferences and, on the other hand, threatening government shutdown if you don't get your way. all of us in the senate have issues on which we feel every bit as patiently as the opponents of the affordable care act feel about that law. i happen to feel strongly, for instance, we should have universal background checks for firearm purchases. by the tea party method of proving the strength of my belief, i should threaten a government shutdown if i don't want what i want on that subject. if all of us pursue akron

anarchy in pursuit of our goals, democracy would cease to function. as appalled as i am that some members would threaten such damage to our nation, i am heartened that many of our republican colleagues here in the senate have spoken out in opposition to this approach. when i came to the floor last week, to speak on this topic, senator ayotte was speaking. i commended her for saying that the american people expect us to keep the government running, even though i disagree with much of what she said about the affordable care act. i commend senator collins for saying that a shutdown -- quote -- "will only further damage our struggling economy and that we should resolve our differences without resorting to constant brinksmanship and the threat of government shutdown." and i commend senator collins even though i disagree with her on affordable care act. i commend her for taking that position against the shutdown

and for seeing the distinction between fighting hard for what you believe in and threatening to bring down government operations overall if you don't get what you want. i commend senator portman for saying the differences on the affordable care act -- quote -- "ought to be handled outside the context of a government shutdown" -- close quote. i commend senator chambliss for saying that -- in his words he'd love to defund obamacare, that a government shutdown is -- quote -- "going to do great harm to the american people if we pursue that course close goat -- quote --." i commend senator kirk for saying -- quote -- "let's not shut down the government just because you don't get everything you want." and there are others who have made that critically important distinction between opposing a certain policy and shutting down the government if one doesn't get his or her way. i welcome spirited debate, i welcome differences of opinion.

as my friend, senator mccain, said last week, there was plenty of both during the debate on the passage of the affordable care act. but it is deeply distressing to hear members of congress argue that the litmus test of whether you're fighting for your beliefs is whether you're willing to shut down the government if you don't achieve a particular goal. that's more than fighting for your position. that's wanton destruction. i hope at least some house republicans will come to see the difference between fighting for your goals and sowing anarchy in pursuit of them. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: madam president, moments ago the house -- the presiding officer: senator, we're in a quorum call. mr. blumenthal: thank you very much. i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: madam president, moments ago the house of representatives adopted a rule that indicates clearly that it is set to adopt a resolution containing unrelated

conditions that will forestall its approval by this chamber. that is a tragic result that threatens harm and havoc to countless people who depend on government programs and to our economy. it threatens harm to veterans and troops, children who depend on head start, seniors who receive meals. and it threatens jobs and economic growth with a ripple effect that will set all of us back in the continuing fragile and all-too-slow recovery we've seen from the greatest recession in recent memory. today's result in the house of representatives is a tragedy for democracy. without any overstatement, we have to recognize that this

result reflects a dysfunction in democracy. the threatened shutdown in our government is the result of an extreme ideological fringe element in one house and one party that has made the decision that their agenda is a take-it-or-leave-it condition, that it's more important than economic growth, more important than or seniors, our children, our veterans and our troops who will be impacted very directly by this impending shut down, more important than not only the key services, but also to our economic growth and jobs. this morning i gathered in glassenbury, connecticut, with a group of manufacturers, their employees, and economic experts.

one economic expert in particular, steven lanza, of the university of connecticut, who told us that a shutdown of three to four weeks would cost the state of connecticut alone 2,000 jobs. we know from predictions of expert exists like mark zandi, moody's analytics that the result for the country as a whole could be percentage points in lost growth. in fact, we can ill afford this self-inflicted matched wound to our nation and to the trust and confidence that people deserve to have in our democracy and our economy. for some businesses, these problems will be more than acute. they will be life-threatening, because their existence, not to mention their profits, depends

on consumer demand that will be diminished by the ripple effect and ramifications of the 9,000 federal employees in connecticut who will be furloughed and the hundreds of others whose jobs will be threatened by a shutdown of just days or a week. the fact of the matter is we can't know at this point what the full economic ramifications will be. there are more questions, serious questions than there are answers. i will support an amendment and a measure that will be offered, i think, later this evening or within hours to preserve the benefits and payments that are due to our veterans for their service and sacrifice. that is a provision that we need to make. it's our responsibility to keep faith with those veterans and make sure that we leave no veteran behind and that the

processing of claims goes forward and that our veterans receive the benefits that they have earned. at the forum that i had this morning, brian montinary, president of haveco in glassen bury told us he relies on contracts of the federal government for much of his business and his employees, whose ranks he has been adding will be impacted by this potential shutdown, if only the uncertainty that it creates. and he is not alone. businesses all over connecticut and all over the country will face a tougher economic climate because of this shutdown. the small business administration will stop processing applications for the business loans that it provides for tens of thousands of entrepreneurs, risk takers and job creators around the country.

and perhaps the most galling aspect of this shutdown is the direct economic hardship it will cause to families whose jobs will be threatened, whose livelihoods will be at risk. i'd like to say there is still time. and there is. there are hours to go before the final hour. but the point here is, as the president said so well earlier, keeping the government open is not a bargaining chip. it's our job. as president obama said, you don't get to extract a ransom for doing your job. families need to be able to plan for their future. businesses need the certainty to make investments and hire new workers. and the nation needs both parties, not just one, to be fully committed to the democratic process. i hope in the time remaining that the house does its job,

that these extremist demands are rejected, and certainly by this chamber they will be. my hope is that we can move forward, keep the government open, and providing services that people need and the support for the economy that is all too necessary at this point in our history. madam president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: madam president, i would ask success spedges of the quorum call. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you. first i would ask unanimous consent that the tile for morning business with debate only be extended until 9:30 p.m., with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, and that the majority leader be recognized at 9:30 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you. madam president, let me speak for a moment about what we have happening here, and there's no reason for this happening. and there's absolutely no reason why, first of all, that we couldn't have worked together to put a budget in place. we months ago passed a budget in

the senate and have been trying to go to a conference committee with the house so that we could work it out and have a long-term budget that continues to bring down the debt. by the way, the deficit is coming down, which is very positive. but we know we need to continue to do more in a balanced way. that could be happening. it's not happening because the same people now who are putting us in a position where in a few hours there may very well be a government shutdown are the same ones that don't want to negotiate to get a budget for our country, which is very difficult to understand here in terms of what the strategy is, other hasn' than to just obstru. so we're now in a situation where we have agreed to a compromise that would allow the

continuation of funding of public services from safety to health research to what we do around education, innovation, small business, a whole range of things for six weeks. so we are talking about six weeks. and the compromise is that while we believe that we ought to be reinvesting in education and innovation, we ought to be creating jobs, rebuilding our roads and bridges and water and sewer system and doing a number of things that would strengthen our economy and create jobs, for this six-week period we agreed to continue the funding level at the lower level that the republicans want. so the continuing resolution that we have sent to the house is a compromise by definition

because we are willing for six weeks, while we negotiate a broader package on a full year's appropriations, to continue funding at the level that the republicans have asked to be the spending level. by definition, certainly for many of us who believe we won't have a middle class, that we can't grow the economy without doing the right kinds of investments and that we certainly should not be cutting back on cancer research and cutting clinical trials for women with breast cancer or cutting back on other possible cures -- and that's happening right now at this lower level -- but for six weeks we've said that we are willing to compromise with the house republicans in order to continue funding the government while the

larger issues are worked out. instead of that happening, what we are seeing is a fight that frankly has been fought over and over again. it was fought in the last election. it was very clear we had a president of the united states who ran on and who made a signature accomplishment of his first term -- health care -- access to affordable health insurance for all americans, running against someone who said he would repeal that, and the president of the united states won with a substantial margin. in the senate we had democrats running against republicans, republicans saying "elect me and i will repeal obamacare." democrats saying, "no, we need health reform; we need to create better, more competitive way to

bring down health insurance rates like massachusetts, the home of our distinguished presiding officer." our candidates, democrats, huang. so i would suggest that in many places -- i mean -- and certainly across the country with the president of the united states, the people of america spoke pretty -- pretty strongly. so now we are here, and i -- we all have seen the intensecy of what is a -- the intenseties of what is a minority opinion. i appreciate that. it is very, very inten. but -- it is very, very intense. but it is a minority opinion in this country. so the minority of a minority are trying now to essentially slow down or stop the economy, hurt middle-class families, bring public services to a

standstill because, even tho thh they lost in the election, even though there's not the majority view, they've decided it doesn't matter, doesn't matter. they're going to shut things down if they don't get their way. and what i find particularly appalling is that on top of delaying or repealing what we're going to see tomorrow when healthcare.gov comes online are more competitive lower rates for many, many men' americans, young americans, maybe those who could not get insurance? the past at all -- could not get insurance in the past at all, moms who couldn't find maternity care, 8 million people in this country who have not been able to find insurance companies that will cover them for maternity

care because somehow being a woman was a "preexisting condition," they're going to have a chance to do that which means we'll have more healthy moms, we'll have more healthy babies, and this is a good thing. -- ther this is a good thing for country. we are seeing now in health reform are that's already taken effect hundreds of dollars more a year more in the pocket of senior citizens that they used to pay out for prescription drugs, but they don't have to do it anymore because we're closing this gap in coverage from the medicare prescription drug bill. now, as a caveat, let me say that as somebody at the time seven years ago who voted "no" on that medicare prescription drug bill because i believed -- and the majority on our side believed -- that it was written way too much in favor of the

drug companies as opposed to the seniors in terms of cost, not allowing medicare to negotiate group rates and so on, when we lost that fight, we didn't shut the government down. we didn't try to stop funding the implementing of medicare prescription drugs. we didn't do all of the antics that have been done. we said, okay, we lost that fight, so let's make it work the best we can make it work. and we'll fix it later. so, we didn't stop the funding for the educational efforts for seniors. we didn't spend hundreds of millions -- or, i don't know, maybe it's billions now -- trying to scare people, confuse people. we said, let's try to make it work. and even though in the may before the prescription drug

bill took effect 21% of the public said they wanted it, they supported it, seven years later, 90% of the public says they support it. and now in health reform, we are able to fix one of the things people were concerned about then. one of the things that stopped seniors from getting help -- rather than stopping that, we said let's make it work the best we can and look for opportunities to make it better. now, under the affordable care act, we have made it better. we have made it better by closing the gap in coverage, which has been dubbed the doughnut hole, so that gradually under health