saying we can't be to the left of the senate bill on particular matters because it has to pass a more conservative body. all along in six or seven months of work this year, mario and his colleagues were going to their constituency and vetting this bill with them so we know that republicans can embrace much of what we have done. even the first one to leave the group says he still agrees with virtually all of what we have done and was responsible for writing some important parts of the bill. ultimately this product can be the vehicle that moves in the house or something very close to it. in terms of the -- when i talked to my fellow members from kentucky, they are pretty interesting group. every one of the my talk to every one of them, they are republican and i talked to four

of the five and all are voting for comprehensive immigration reform. ones that as long as it is the border security piece is strong enough i can probably go along with the others. the others said i want to vote for something so we have a sales job to do and is going to be people out in the trenches that make their opinions known and actually reinforce this interest in getting something passed. i am optimistic like everyone else but the activists are going to be the ones who give the wavering members cover. >> by partisanship, we have talked quite a bit about on this panel. obviously our group worked very hard. even in the future the product will be presented. it is and being presented today.

how do you feel about the prospect of bipartisan? the only way to do it is if both sides, we can agree on that, the current environment, we are not getting along, you see this position, how do you feel about bipartisanship as it relates to immigration reform and the likelihood of success? >> it is interesting because this is a very positive experience and it was felt by all the members. i won't say who but one of the members said before involvement in this group he didn't know any democrats or have anybody he felt he could trust and if you overlay our voting record, very little matches up but that doesn't mean you can't work together on something that is important for the country. the fact that two of our colleagues decided they needed to withdraw his i regret it but i am not negative about them and you will notice they don't like

president obama. i knew that already. they were not happy about him but the real issue is what can the republican leadership's support? and we could have the best product on the world but if it is not put on the floor for a vote it doesn't matter so i do think as the bill is drafted we could come up with other republicans to introduce the bill, it doesn't matter unless the republican leadership decides to put it up for a vote. similarly with the senate bill. it passed with bipartisan support, doesn't matter if it doesn't go up for a vote. we could take, there are certainly republicans that are looking at what piece of this or that could we support to clean up, but that doesn't matter unless that gets a vote so i do think there is a lot more

agreement than people suspect. i talk to lots and lots of conservative republicans. i work with a lot of the tea party guys on privacy issues on the judiciary committee and have gotten to know some of them. we don't agree on the latest budget just up but we talk all the time and i think there is an opportunity to move forward but the real issue is whether there is going to be a decision by the republican leadership. i hope there is. i am not saying that there is an but that is the pressure point it seems to me. >> given your extremely important position of leadership in the democratic caucus as our chairman and your leading role in building bipartisanship tell us how you feel today on the prospect? >> i think zoe lofgren hit it on the market. there are conversations that if you were to hear them would be you to conclude there is bipartisan support for getting

this done and i think just as we see with this situation with the shutdown of government we all have to figure out how to get to the point we feel comfortable. in the case of the republican leadership john boehner and the republican leaders in the house have to figure out a way to navigate this to bring along a sufficient number of republicans and keeps sufficient number of democrats to make this bipartisan. there is a tipping point. it becomes very difficult politically to sell the bill if it goes too far in one direction and the difficulty when you are in leadership is you have to figure out how to navigate this for your own party that you got elected to the speaker as a result of the that the same time you are speaker for the entire body so you have to reach across the aisle to the other side so i think the speaker has the

toughest task of all of us. he has to figure out a way to navigate to an end point and that is not easy because immigration has never been an easy subject to confront and solve. the good thing is all of us have said never before have we seen so many stakeholders, so many constituencies supportive of getting this done and as i sat at the beginning of the people are way ahead of the politicians on this one. they wanted done so we have to push and do everything possible to start to close the trap door so no one can escape the fact the we are going to have a vote on the house floor to give us an chance to show the we want to fix the broken immigration system and hopefully all of us can make this so the speaker says this is a bill that could be put on the floor and pass on our bipartisan basis. >> mario, give us your perspective. >> one little caveat is our

internal rules, the speaker can't put any on the floor without a majority of republicans support and that is one of the things we're working on and one reason i feel optimism here is i think we are going to get there and i think we are going to get there because so much work has taken place over the years. but then i may say zoe lofgren is one of the most foremost experts in congress on immigration reform. it is not only the work that her and others have done in this group but the conversations and work that goes on every single day so i feel we are going to get there and if we get the support of the majority of republicans we can bring something to the floor and it has got to be something that if you go too much to one side you lose the republicans or you don't have the votes or too much to the other side you lose

democrats enough to kill the bill so it is a delicate balancing act. there are very good people working at this which is why one of the things we are saying if we're going to get this done mathematically at least in the house, that bipartisan support, and i am grateful for all the work that has taken place in this group. individually and that is why i think we have a shot at it and one last if i change the subject you might want to -- it was said that was very important to the outside groups and the community contact members of congress but they say free advice, let me give you free advice. there are ways that are effected and ways that are not. when i see twitter and i see people who friend and that turned everybody off. you better vote this way or else, then one can feel good

about that but you don't get any support or change any minds. those of you who have been very effected and a lot of your here have been very effective, because very calm and in a positive sense you talk about the issues. that is why this group was able to do that. it is calm and focused on the issue. you threaten you lose focus. is either this or nothing, i hate to say it, it is nothing so all of you have a role to play and we will do our part and i know you will do yours. >> congressman yarmuth. >> i don't have a lot to add at this point. i think we know because we did it that bipartisanship is possible and one of the reasons we were able to do it is we did it in secret and we were not out

in the world where the advocacy industry is taking a shot at everything we do and the talk radio world goes off and scares everybody to death. i have learned a lot about as you mentioned the come from the media world and the media is one of our biggest problems in terms of being bipartisan, being allowed to be bipartisan because we have segmented the country into separate philosophical silos and everybody knows, every politician knows you can tell within 15 seconds whether somebody's in the fox news rush limbaugh silo or boat n.y. times nbc silo, the whole garden, everything is different. that is one of the problems with an issue like immigration reform which can be very emotional, very vulnerable to the outside influence that makes it very

difficult to work together. we know that it can be done because we have done it over the last year and translate to the larger body. >> i was given 12 minutes for each of the questions and we have four minutes and 50 seconds left. so we have done a good job. i don't know how you want to do this but we will start here. >> i am a teacher with california teachers association and president and chair of the latino teachers of california and i want to thank you on behalf of the children of california. i wanted to take a back to 1986 and ronald reagan, our president at the time and the amnesty matrix, when the i have been from and my family did as well and i can share with you i am a teacher of 15 years, my brother is a teacher of 20, my sister is a teacher's aid and my other sister works in a school

setting. i think the vision ronald reagan had at the time was potential of the kids and not the potential or threats, potential of the kids to be somebody and productive in the community and i hope we focus on that versus the danger. >> i see you are up there. if everybody could keep your comments short, please continue and we will go to the side. >> vanessa cruise at the university of michigan, i want to thank you for your time and ask you about the real threat that is portrayed in the media and a great point about the media in projecting and criminalizing immigrants, injecting that fear in the audience and elected officials that is easy to skip going on in very racial terms so i am wondering how can we take a step back and redesigned the image people think when they think immigrants. right now is conflated with

thinking mexican drug cartel. >> i will let everybody think about these questions. on this side, please. a lot more questions and comments to add to our conversation, please. >> we know that today we have a government shutdown and that has a lot to do with the affordable health care act and a year ago when it was announced without any need the obama administration -- would not be able to participate in health care and so to me what passed citizenship means is able to have good health care, affordable housing, good education for my family, my future children, in mean so much more than a piece of paper. and means being able to surf, being able to be called one day to represent on the jury and so

my question is what does have to citizenship mean to you? seems to me right now lot of people have a lot of different ideas what it means. >> keep moving the mike around. we will come back to you, the lady in the back, we will come to you. >> thank you, congressman gutierrez, executive director of the inter -- university for latina research at the university of illinois. i would like to hear what you think the president can do to help this. i can't help but think daily deportations of the 1180% of them having citizens in their families, that doesn't help you get the job done in congress. >> last question up here. hello? >> the dream action coalition.

question, obviously many people in the gang of 7 and the gang of 8 and many republicans of the same opinion to want to get it done and that is something we are seeing in bipartisan efforts. however, there is the whole procedure, in turn lead the leadership needs to take action, whatever the process looks like, your efforts, incredible efforts, what does that process look like moving forward? >> we're running out of time but when we get 30 seconds to each of us, you want to give an answer? >> i will answer that. on the judiciary committee the chairman has moved four bills that are outrageous.

one of them would make every undocumented person in the united states of federal criminal. no democrats voted for is that. what has been said is we do piecemeal legislation. that would be the basis for moving forward. unfortunately the judiciary committee led by the chairman is yet to produce any defects that could allow for that to happen so the decision needs to be made by the chairman or speaker that he is not going to go through the judiciary committee to take either the bill we wrote for the senate bill which i don't think they're going to do or some other piece and move it forward. there are other mack nations that occur but really it is simpler than you would think. it is the decision on the part of the republican leadership on how to move forward. i don't want to bash them, i want to help them. i want to support them in reaching and decision that

works. >> why don't you take a minute, xavier becerra, give us your reflections. >> thank you for being so patient in listening to us and i thank all my colleagues because this has been a fabulous experience to work this through. i believe we are going to get there and i would say two thing as. we can't let anyone make us believe we can't get it done because the votes are there and so we have to keep pushing and each and every one of us has a responsibility to prove we are ready to get this done and you keep pushing s in constructive ways, show you are a teacher and you benefited from last time we did something and that is the image, the frame we hopefully will put out there but even if you don't, as john said, in kentucky two thirds of the public want this done so the more we put out that they put real immigrants, hard-working, aspiring and helping the next

generation become the dreamers of tomorrow, we will be ok, don't give up, keep pushing, we will get it done. >> i would like to address the question of what the president can do, best thing he can do is oppose it. [laughter] >> he has clearly made this one of his top priority items for his second term and his job now is he is not going to sell it to the country. pecan keep us together, keep us democrats together but i don't think he will be the one who will influence republicans or john boehner to move this. >> why don't you -- >> let me take questions directly and use you as a teacher to tie it in. thank you for doing that, that is one of the most important

things anybody can do. one of the issues we have to deal with is in essence what you are hearing from the conservatives. they say we did the 86 thing, but part of the thing that was promised was we would have border security so we would not have to deal with it again. starting from president reagan the border security aspect didn't take place. there is lack of trust we have to deal with and i think we can. to you, what do we have to do? one issue we have to deal with, it is not quite, i don't disagree, if the speaker today said we would put this on the floor and he doesn't have majority republicans, he is done. can't do that. we have different rules the democrats have when they are in control so it requires more of we have to get more folks to be on top of that. one of the issues that convinced

folks by policy, not by talk is we are not going to do this again. we are going to deal with this, provide border security, we are not going to do this again and have zero tolerance for any future lawbreaking. can we get there? i think we can. lastly, how i started. it has been such a privilege working with these individuals. they are legitimate decent people who care about this issue. i will end how i started. when it comes to concerns, passion and effort for the immigrants of this country, luis gutierrez is in a league of his own. thank you. [applause] >> as you concede i am getting older, the glasses. let me thank the wonderful panelists for coming to get there. i want to give you some parting

thoughts. [applause] >> chamber of commerce, afl-cio have never gone along. a did on immigration. you can read the editorial from the wall street journal, the new york times, ideological different points of view. they look like they're plagiarizing one another. growers and the union created by cesar chavez reach an agreement. there is paula to celebrate because of your tenacity and your support and diligence of the community, we have created this, didn't happen in that vacuum. there is that. second is we all agree there exists a majority, there exists a majority. that has never happened before. i will tell you something. when democrats were in the majority in 2007 we didn't have

a vote on comprehensive immigration reform and we were nearly 250. want to know why we didn't have a vote? there were not 218 democrats for comprehensive immigration reform. we didn't do it in 2008 when we were in the majority. we didn't do it in 2009. we didn't do it in 2010 and many of you beg us to do it. you know what exists today? a majority. we passed the dream act. we wouldn't have done that in the fall of 2010. it was like 208. and mario joins us but we had 216 to 208. there were 208 democrats and eight republicans. that is not the way. we have seen fit that is not a successful road. and you look at this situation put it in perspective. i want to say we can't look at this as one problem or another. the question of caucus, we were confronted and somebody said you

have the marco rubio problem. we don't have a rubio problem we have a deportation problem. if rubio is going to do something to stop deportation i will take my democratic half off and put the one had that i believe you always want me to have on, the hat of the immigrant community. [speaking spanish] >> i think as i listen, democrats have to wonder stand we are not in the majority in the house of representatives so we can't have everything and you see my colleagues reflect that. republicans on the other hand are the majority but they should understand that they lost the referendum on nov. 6 on this issue. people want comprehensive immigration reform so between democrats and republicans, each understanding their strengths and weaknesses i believe we can realize the real solution to this problem.

last two things. we are about to come upon two million deportations. under a democratic administration, two million deportations. you know what that means? hundreds of thousands of millions of children without a mom or dad. how many families? how many husbands and wives have been separated and destroyed? we have a bill in the senate that doesn't allow some to come back and reunite. all i am trying to say is we have got to get it done because there are issues and challenges for both parties are in this. shame on us. lastly i want to commend my colleagues for how they put the situation together. i want -- you know me. i am the consummate warrior on this issue. it won't be perfect.

the senate bill, already said i would sign it but what do we know about the senate bill? it is a congressional budget office. said the senate bill would lead three million of the eleven million, not out of citizenship, out of legalization. out of legalization. one of our most respected think tanks evaluated the same senate bill and said what? we will lead three million not out of citizenship but legalization, three million. you want to know something? here's what i think our challenge is. let's get done what we can today for the greatest number of people and do the greatest good for them because i know if we sign that bill tomorrow, and next year's conference what will we be discussing? how we bring the other three million in. we won't give up until they are all in. we won't give up until they are all in. it may be hard to recognize but

this is the conference on policy. [speaking spanish] >> and i am going to speak for that bill today, without even thinking about it, i'd vote for that bill today because i want to stop people from being deported and stop women from being raped and stop people from having to die, tired of people dying. you see what the challenge is but you know what? we have the challenge but we also have xavier becerra. give him another round of applause. he has done such a wonderful job. [applause] >> you heard zoe lofgren. thank you. you had yarmuth. john yarmuth.

[applause] >> what can we say? he showed up with four other democrats here and sticks with us. thank you for joining us. >> you won't want to miss tomorrow evening's event. >> please get together for this. we do not guarantee up to 7:15 p.m.. the biggest gathering, nonpartisan public and private sector, celebrated achievements of the last year and joined by president obama and the first lady. special guests, entertainment and presentation of the highest

conference. remember the shakedown. >> cowboys mean a great deal to montana. our largest industry is agriculture, livestock, raising of livestock, is a huge part of that. still to this day you need a man or woman or young person that can get on a horse, take care of livestock whether it is bringing them in to pull the cap for bringing it to new pasture, raising them with great care and dignity because what you saw in the fall was pounds of beef. the best way is to take care of your cattle. when the cowboy culture began and this man, this man or woman or person was called the cowboy, had to live in all the elements. they lived and worked outdoors

so they had to dress accordingly and in the old days they really just had animal skins to use much like the natives. there were no modern textiles to repel water or rain or snow and so they would cover their bodies with leather apparel. these are called shapiro's derive from the spanish word. >> more cowboys and cattle from big sky country as booktv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of billings, montana this weekend, saturday at noon eastern on c-span2 and sunday at 5:00 on c-span3. >> it is day 2 of the federal government shutdown but the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to start the day.

the senate and the house continue to work on ways to end the stalemate. yesterday the house intended to past three targeted short-term funding bills to reopen national parks and memorials, continue veterans programs and provide money to the federal city of washington d.c.. house republican leaders signaled they will try to pass those measures again today. senate majority leader harry reid said those piecemeal funding bills would be nonstarters' in the senate. we do expect to hear more on the fiscal stalemate when senator reid and his republican counterpart mitch mcconnell offered their later remarks at the beginning of the session. live to the senate floor on c-span2. o god, who remains our shelter in the time of storms, we are helpless without your power. unless you empower our lawmake lawmakers, they can see the ideal but not reach it.

they can know the right but not do it. they can comprehend their duty but not perform it. they can seek the truth but not fully find it. dear god, help our lawmakers, enlighten their minds, purify their hearts, and strengthen their wills, enabling them to pass beyond guessing to knowing, beyond doubting to certainty, beyond resolving to doing, and beyond intention to action. we pray in your sacred 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., october 2, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable heidi heitkamp, a senator from the state of north dakota, to perform the duties of the chai. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the majority leader. mr. reid: following m.i.a. my

remarks and those of senator mcconnell, the senate will be in debate until noon with the time equally divided and controlled with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. mr. president, it's obvious when you check the press, the republicans have had a very bad week. republicans in congress delivered this nation a government shutdown. thanks to the affordable care act, yesterday millions of americans went online to shopper for affordable insurance plans. some compare that to when google went online. there were some problems they had and of course now we know how people feel about fog l. the same is going to happen with this affordable care act.

people have until december to sign up, and they're on again today, as they were yesterday, signing up. but thanks to the republican government shutdown, hundreds of thousands of public servants were sent home without pay. thanks to the republican shutdown, tourists lined up outside red rock canyon outside las vegas where more than a million people a year go, but they didn't go there yesterday. they were gates. they couldn't get in. thanks to the republican government shutdown, veterans had to break down barricades to visit a memorial in their honor, some of them in wheelchairs. thanks to the republican government shutdown, 200 sick -- really sick -- patients, including 30 children, were turned away from the national institutes of health clinic that offers lifesaving drve and -- ad that's an understatement -- lifesaving new treatments. most of the children that were turnedway are suffering from

some -- that were turned away are suffering from some type of cancer. madam president, i've read that modern-day anarchists in the house have been celebrating the shutdown. they can barely contain their glee at having realized the 2010 campaign promise to halt the basic functions of government. this is what the tea party spokesperson said said, michele bachmann, the woman that ran for president and was the leading contender for about four hours -- or whatever it was. but anyway, she loves to talk. and here's what should i said yesterday. quote -- "it's exactly what we wanted and we got it." end of quote. madam president, you can't make up stuff like that. can you imagine anyone saying that, when we have babies turned away coming for lifesaving treatment? that's exactly what we wanted

and we got it. it's time for my republican colleagues to do a gut check, madam president. republicans in the house have proposed one cockamamie, can't-pass idea after another in the last few days to prevent obamacare, delay obamacare, deny preventive health and things -- they tried that before, they tried it again. they weren't satisfied -- and they said, let's also go after women, things as basic as contraceptives. or else we'll shut the government down, that's what they said. they're obsessed with obamacare. well now they've gotten their way. they shut down the government. as bachmann said, "it's exactly what we wanted and we got it." but none of their whacky ideas are any closer to becoming law.

instead of reading the writing on the wall, house republicans have turned to a new idea: to cherry-pick a few parts of the got they like. credit for this idea goes, i'm told, to the junior senator from texas. he goes over to the house and tells them what they should do, he along with people like bachmann are tea party -- they are anarchists. they are happy. listen, i've come here and talked about how happy they are in hurting government, and we now have them speaking out openly. it's exactly what we wanted and we got i got it. but i do have a little bit of advice for my republican colleagues in the house. when your latest brilliant plan came from the same person that proposed the dumbest idea ever -- according to one of his own republican senators here -- i would think it is a sign that you are on the wrong track. it is time to stop throwing one crazy idea after another at the wall in hopes that something

will stick. there's been a sensible plan to reopen the government. a clean six-week resolution that opens the government today -- and we passed it in the senate last week. i believe reasonable republicans -- i hope -- are desperately looking for a way out, and that's what all the newspapers say tai -- al today. each more a couple more come forward. i don't believe them for looking for a way out. these piecemeal bills, they're not a way out. the obama administration already promised to veto them. so they obviously aren't the answer. reopening the only parts of government that they like isn't a responsible solution. the senate has a plan to reopen the government while we work out our budget differences. if republicans really want to reopen the government, they should just go ahead and reopen the government.

they've had that power all along. once they do that, we'll be happy to appoint conferees, work out a long-term budget priority with the house. let's go to conference. we've talked about it. patty murray has been here 18 times to talk about it. we shouldn't be fighting over a six-week stopgap budget bill. we should be working out our long-term fiscal issues. americans are tired of these fights which cost our economy billions of dollars. the way to put our nation on a sound fiscal foot something to set sensible policy through regular order and the legislative process, not to extort concessions through dangerous hostage-taking. first, republicans must reopen the government. the next move is to go to conference and set our minds on reaching a raj compromise. right now -- reaching a reasonable compromise. right now republicans led by john boehner are the only thing standing between a compromise. i would suggest he stop taking

advice from bachmann and cruz. some in the republican conference are too mad at me personally, too obsessed at et goingo -- at getting me personay to back down from doing what most of america believes is the right thing. the ""national review"" said that i was the villain of villians. john boehner could reopen the government this morning but he's too obsessed with beating the villain of villians and obviously too fraid of the tea party to do -- too afraid of the tea party to do the right thing for the country. when i read this yesterday, i thought, no one likes to be called a villain. i looked it up in the dictionary. an uncouth person. well, i acknowledge, madam president, i probably wasn't born if a place that most people would like to be raised in. but i would hope over the years that i'm not uncouth.

i have tried my best to become part of mainstream society. the other definition is, i am a scoundrel or a criminal. i am not a criminal. i am not a scoundrel. so they better get a different definition for me. well, madam president, in spite of being the villain of villians, i have some advice and some suggestion. i really do believe there are reasonable republicans in congress. they have to, as i said, do a gut check, understand who they represent, understand that americans are waiting for them to do the right thing. i know they believe in public service, but understand why public service is important. i urge them to think about 30 babies -- babies, little kids -- who yesterday were brought by their parents to washington, d.c., for hope -- hope that they are little babies and children

are not going to die, that they can get lifesaving treatment. they were turned away. so i urge them to do the right thing. i urge them to join us to reopen the federal government. mr. mcconnell: madam president president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: well, if it wasn't clear earlier this week why republicans were asking to delay obamacare, it should be pretty clear this morning. it made a trip to the d.m.v. look like a good time. the word of the day was "glitch" and you could probably explain one or two of these glitches

away -- maybe three -- but not glitches in nebraska and maryland and florida and wisconsin and illinois and kentucky, not glitches all across the country. kentuckians who tried to log in yesterday got a message that read, "server error." let me translate that. it didn't work. i mean, if the plural of anecdote is data, it seems to me, the plural of glitch is "government data." they were willing to shut down the government over it. instead of agreeing to a couple of commonsense proposals related to this law, the they stuck to r absolutist position: 100% of obamacare when and how they want it, no matter what. this, of course, unless the president thinks you're one of the chosen few, who deserves a

special break. so basically washington democrats shut down the government because they didn't think middle-class americans deserve the same kind treatment as their employers and because they didn't think congress should have to follow the same rules on obamacare exchanges as everybody else. these were fair things to ask for. they were reasonable. and if the democrats who run washington could have brought themselves to that sensible position, they would have voted to keep the government open. but in the end they got their shutdown, which they apparently think will help them political a and they held onto their absolutist position on obamacare, regardless of the consequences for american families. and two days into this thing, they still refuse to budge. the president reiterated again yesterday, he's not interested in talking. the majority leader made it clear he's not interested in talking either. he shot down just about every

attempt to engage in serious discussions with the house or with anyone else for that matter. this week washington democrats had a choice: defend basic principles of fairness when it comes to obamacare or shut down the government. they chose the latter. it was a wrong decision, in my view, and it's time for them to start finding solutions to start talking and put the interest of their constituents ahead of the interests of their party. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for a debate until 12:00 noon with time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, there were two headlines in most of the major newspapers across the united states this morning. i saw it in "the financial

times" as well as "wall street journal." the headlines noted americans flock to insurance exchanges. "americans flock to insurance exchanges." it was the first day when we had the rollout of the web site where uninsured americans has an opportunity to shop. real competition. a variety of plans. in illinois, 54 different choices in my home state for uninsured people. this is a dream come true. most of these people have lived their entire lives either without health insurance or with no choices. a "take it or leave it policy" that may be worthless when they need it. a situation where many of them were never once in their lives able to be insured when it comes to health insurance. there are a lot of reasons for it. some of them had jobs that paid so little it offered no benefits and they couldn't afford to buy health insurance. some of them had preexisting

conditions. perhaps a history of asthma in your family, diabetes, cancer survivors. they couldn't buy health insurance if they wanted to. it wasn't even offered. yesterday was different. october 1 was different. 2.8 million americans came on the first day to this web site to go shopping for health insurance. what a relief it must have been. in the chicago papers, they told the story of a man who had just about given up hope because he had a child with a mental illness and because of that he could never buy health insurance. he was shopping yesterday. he was disappointed. he want to sign up yesterday, but so many people came to this web site the first day that it wasn't able to meet all the needs of the people who were shopping or wanted to. it will. there will be an opportunity. and i'm sure it will be soon. i can't get over when i hear the republican leader come to the floor, and with barely disguised glee talk about the first day's

problems with the affordable care act. there is no question that many republicans are not only praying for the affordable care act to fail; they're betting on it. you see, none of them voted for it. not one. not a single republican voted for it. and they are frightened, frightened at what is to come. when the verdict of history comes down on this program, and i think i know what the verdict will be. there will be some bumps in the road, glitches maybe, some problems with the web site. but in the end the american people understand the fundamental fairness of the affordable care act. the fundamental fairness that said, yes, we have a right as americans to health care protection. and i believe we do and we should. i've lived a life, a good one, but i had a moment in that life when i had no health insurance. a brand-new father with a brand-new baby, with medical

challenges and no health insurance. i've never felt more helpless in my life. praying that my little girl would get the best when i didn't have health insurance. now multiply that times 40 million unshourd americans and -- uninsured americans and you understand what's at stake. those on the other side opposed to affordable care, don't want to extend a helping hand of health insurance to those who have been denied for years, they don't have anything to replace it with. stick with the current free market system. well, 40 million americans have been left behind with this current system. that's why i supported the affordable care act. that's why the president is fighting for the affordable care act. and that's why we have to continue to fight every single day to make sure it is not defunded as the republicans tried to do just a few days ago, to make sure that the coverage for individuals is not delayed as the republicans tried to do just a few days ago. no. we've got to fight to make sure

americans have this chance. there is no turning back when it comes to offering health insurance to families that desperately need them. so what are the republicans prepared to bet on this wager to end the affordable care act and health care reform? they're willing to bet the federal government. they're willing to shut it down over the affordable care act. harry reid, our democratic leader, told the story that was reported in the "wall street journal", it the national institutes of health, not far from here, in the near suburbs of maryland, this is a beacon of hope. this is where some of the most important medical research in the world is taking place. and the head of that, dr. francis collins, may be one of the most extraordinary people who's ever been involved in public service. he was head of the national

genome project. and they said it would probably take him five, six, eight years. he was so good and had so much talent to turn to that he did it in a very brief period of time. mapping the human genome. and in doing so, started opening doors to understanding and knowledge and finding cures. and he took that back to the n.i.h. and they apply it every single day to save lives and find cures. but now for the second day in a row three-quarters -- three-fourths of the scientists and doctors and researchers at the n.i.h. sit at home, unable to engage in this critically important research, unable to find the new drugs, the new surgeries, the new medical devices, the new procedures to save lives. that's part of the republican government shutdown. oh, they may congratulate themselves on finally bringing this government to its knees, but they have to take responsibility for what they have done as well. they have shut down the national

institutes of health. they have shut down the medical research. and, madam president, it's worse, because you see, the toughest medical cases in america end up at the doorstep of n.i.h.. the most challenging medical conditions, families and people who have just about given up hope think there's one last place to go -- the n.i.h., the very best. yesterday, dr. francis collins announced that 200 people who would have started clinical trials this week at the n.i.h. were turned away because of the government shutdown. 200. and within that population of 200, 30 children, most of them cancer victims. imagine for a moment that you're the mother or father of a child diagnosed with cancer. you have one last hope: the

national institutes of health. it may be a great personal sacrifice for you and your family to pick up and come out here, but you're going to do it. it's your baby. and you come to the front door of the n.i.h., and there's a sign that says "this agency is closed." why is it closed? some national emergency? some disaster? some crisis? no. a manufactured political temper tantrum coming from the tea party, speaker boehner and those who believe this is the right way to go. excuse me if this example is so stark, but i haven't even gotten into the details. i would invite any miami that's been a -- invite any family that's been a victim of this shutdown at n.i.h. or medical facility, come to my facebook page, come to my twitter account, send me a message and tell me your story. i want to come to the floor and tell your story. you shouldn't be in the shadow as we share this debate. you ought to be front and

center. share your story new wish. if you don't want to, i understand. they said yesterday in the house we're going to open the veterans tk*epl. -- veterans administration. senator cruz made a decision he'll pick and choose which agencies to open. as congress woman phroe -- pelosi said they'll open one agency at a time. if he really cared for the veterans, put this government back to work. put over 500,000 veterans working for our federal government back to work. incidentally, one out of four of them are disabled. disabled veterans. put off the payroll, furloughed. no promise that they'll ever be paid because of this tea party

government shutdown. madam president, we have serious challenges facing america. but the first thing we need to do is to reopen this government now. now. there's no excuses. speaker boehner sits there with a bill that he could bring before the house by 11:00 this morning. they can vote on it, and the word would go out before noon that the government is reopened. that's how quickly he can act. it's there. but he won't call it for a vote. what is he afraid of? why wouldn't he call this measure for a vote in the house? i'll tell you why. he knows it will pass because every democrat will vote for it and moderate republicans will step up and vote for it. the only hope we have to end this tea party republican crisis is if moderate republicans will step forward now and say we're not part of this strategy. we want this government open. we're prepared to face all the challenges that follow. but we're not going to move forward at the expense of patients coming to the national

institutes of health. it's only one example. there are many more just like it. i will just say this in closing. once again the republican leader has come to the floor and mentioned the fact that members of congress will be in the insurance exchanges, the same exchanges that were advertised yesterday for the first time. just a moment of reflection in history. we are in the insurance exchanges because of an amendment offered by a republican senator, senator grassley, an amendment which was part of the affordable care act, which passed, and we will be buying insurance the same kinds of policies, exactly the same kinds of policies offered to all americans on the exchanges. no special favors for members of congress. now we hear an objection from senator mcconnell to the employer's contribution for our staff and for members of congress. over half of the american people get their health insurance through their place of employment. virtually all of them have employer's contributions that

help them pay their monthly premiums. the same thing is true for federal employees. the same thing is true for members of congress. the same thing will be true when it comes to the insurance exchanges. there is no special treatment of members of congress. this notion that you can't have an employer's contribution when it comes to the insurance exchanges, flat-out wrong. a business with fewer than 50 employees, for example, can send their employees to the exchanges and continue to contribute for their premiums. it's already accepted under law. there is no special treatment in this. it's just another diversion. trying to find ways to create chaos and uncertainty when it comes to the affordable care act. that is the message of the republican party. and unfortunately, it's being delivered at the expense of 800,000 furloughed federal employees, the services this government offers and 200 people turned away this week for clinical trials at the national institutes of health. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: madam president,

i've listened with great interest at the comments of the distinguished deputy democratic majority leader, and i was reminded of a radio commentator who is perhaps not remembered as frequently now, but when i grew up, he had a radio show where when he started out he would say, "and now for the rest of the story." so i'd like to offer the rest of the story. i listened as senator durbin talked about the fact that the national institutes of health is not open for business. well, the good news is that republicans and democrats both agree that we should reopen the national institutes of health. in fact, it's my understanding that the house of representatives will pass a bill perhaps as early as today and send it over here to the united states senate, and i hope that senator reid, unlike over the

last few days, where he has killed every reasonable offer by the house of representatives, that he will reconsider and he will not kill that funding for the national institutes of health during this partial government shutdown. so there's some other areas where i think we could work together. senator reid knew that republicans were going to come to the floor and try to make sure that our uniformed military continued to get their full pay on time during this impasse in congress. and like the good politician he is, he actually beat us to the punch. he got down here first. he made the same offer. and the good news is there was bipartisan support for funding our troops, our uniformed military, on a timely basis in full during this impasse. but this has been sort of a surreal experience in so many

ways because my friends on the other side of the aisle have been making what i consider to be some very strange arguments. very strange arguments. the argument they have been making is that president obama's h*bg, the affordable care act -- health care law, the affordable care act otherwise known as obamacare is untouchable and our efforts to modify it in any way are illegitimate, or their favorite word is "extreme." or the product of some effort by the tea party republicans or some other disparaging connotation. i'm not sure exactly how to respond except to say this, if obamacare is untouchable, if obamacare is perfect, if we can't change one word and one sentence about obamacare, then you need to tell the obama

administration. after all, since 2010 the administration has granted more than 1,000 different waivers to its friends and political allies. it suspended all work on a large portion of obamacare known as the class act. it's delayed obamacare's basic health program. and delayed the employer mandate. and when we tried to delay the individual mandate so that average americans get the same sort of consideration from this administration that employers get, that businesses get, we're told, this is -- this is an unreasonable request. senator reid tabled that, in essence killing that provision rather than take it up and embracing it and saying, you know what? if employers get a break for a year, then let's give average

americans a break. the bay obama administration, h, likewise, delayed the eligibility verification for the exchanges that started yesterday. in other words, you can apply for one of these insurance exchanges, but you don't have to prove what your income is. if there's a bigger open invitation for fraud, i'm not aware of what it might be. but that's what the obama administration has done, delayed the eligibility verification for the obama exchanges. and they've delayed the cap on out-of-pocket expenses. in short, the obama administration has, by its very actions, demonstrated that obamacare is not perfect, that itself has made the -- the administration itself, by its

own actions, has acknowledged that obamacare is not ready for primetime. now, this became painfully obvious to millions of americans yesterday when the obamacare exchanges widespread problems on it

well, going to give you another example. during the obamacare debate, democrats voted in a party-line vote to impose a medical device tax on medical device manufacturers. iit is not based on their incomes. it is based on their gross receipts, how much money comes in the don't, before they even deduct their cost of doing business and their overhead. so they would actually is to pay taxes without generating any net income, because of the nature of this tax. this is a job-killing tax. i've had constituents come into my office and say, we have operations in costa rica, so

we're going to have to move jobs we would create in dallas to costa rica because of this job-killing medical device tax. and you know what? medical devices are some of the most innovative part of our health care system. how better to discourage medical innovation and lifesaving discoveries and manufacturers than to impose this gross receipts tax on medical devices? that's not just my opinion. last time we had a debate on the budget resolution, 79 senators voted against the medical device tax because they realized it was a terrible mistake. in this law that we're told today and yesterday and the day before is perfect in every way, wouldn't change a thing. and yet senate democrats are now lining up to repeal the medical device tax.

and yet somehow in a schizophrenia i don't quite understand, other democrats are saying an attempt to do that would represent partisan extremism. well, which is it? i think the american people know. i'm not really sure exactly how our friends on the other side of the aisle define "extremism." but i submit to you that very few extreme ideas gain the support of 79 senators in the united states senate on a bipartisan basis. how is it extreme to delay obamacare's individual mandate when the administration has unilaterally done the same thing for businesses? how is it extreme to ask members of congress to live by the same laws that apply to everyone el else? the majority leader, senator

reid, tabled two amendments to the continuing resolution that would change this special carve-out for congress that would provide a delay of the individual mandate for average americans like the administration has already done for businesses, and we're told that that's extreme? that somehow we're the ones that caused the government shutdown? i'm absolutely convinced that president obama and harry reid think that this shutdown is the best thing that ever happened to them politically in recent memory. and so, rather than come out and tell sympathetic stories about what's happening at n.i.h., let's work together to mitigate some of the hardship and inconvenience. let's talk about working through this impasse. why can't we get the president of the united states to do what he apparently, reportedly

intended to do in the first place, which is to convene a meeting at the white house of republicans of democrats to work through this? they're not just refusing to make big compromises. they're refusing any compromise. my way or the highway. they won't even agree to keep the war memorials open for our honor flights that are coming to washington, d.c. i would urge the majority leader and president obama to join with us in passing a bill today that will keep our war memorials open. my father was a world war ii veteran. he's dead now, but he was a b-17 pilot in world war ii. on his 26th bombing mission, he was shot down and captured as a prisoner of war. my father-in-law landed on utah beach the second day of the normandy invasion. he is 95 years old now.

his mind is still sharp, his body not quite what it used to be, and he would love nothing better than to come to washington, d.c., on one of these honor flights, but, unfortunately, his health won't allow him to do it. the chairman of the honor flight network, james mclaughlin, has said that it is beyond belief that those deserving men and women who've waited decades to see their memorial and selected the trip of a lifetime to discover they may not be able to see their memorial. and for many of them, madam chairman -- madam president, this may be the last time they get during their lifetime. so i would ask for the president to cancel his trip to asia that he's leaving on on saturday, to overrule senator reid and convene that meeting at the white house and to come together to try to work through some of these differences. we can fund n.i.h., we could do it today if senator reid and president obama would allow it.

but, no, instead, we're told it's my way or the highway, and we actually like this shutdown, they're saying to themselves, because they think they're winning politically, but a they are -- but they are not winning politically when the american people are the net losers. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: [inaudible] -- sometimes stretches credulity. was it harry reid? no i kept passing menls to keep it -- no, he kept passing messages to keep it going. it was his junior clieg in the senate, ted cruz, who had the idea of shutting down the government. as leader reid said, we're not in 184. truth has some degree of credulity here. for my colleague from texas to get up and say, harry reid and

barack obama, open up the government, when his junior colleague led the charge to shut it down, when the cries of the tea party are shut it down, and we are desperately reagan to keep it open? it makes no sense, and it's not going to wash. one of the amazing things about our politics, madam president, is how rhetoric has become so detached from reality, and then you have talk radio and some of the networks -- fox news -- who repeat it. i saw a cartoon in "the new york post" yesterday saying that senators and congressmen are exempt from obamacare. it's just not true. we are part of obamacare, and we will join the exchange. i will, and so will my colleagues. that's what they have to do. but it doesn't even matter. the hard right is so angry at obamacare and frankly at

president obama and the fact that he just trounced them in 2012 on an election that was run on their issues that they are so angry and white-hot that they are rhetoric just becomes totally detached from reality and totally detrached from the trunnel. i feel -- from the truth. i feel bad for the veterans that couldn't get to the memorial. why was the government shut down? because speaker bane speaker boe republicans wouldn't keep it open. after others paved the way to keep the government open with a vote that allowed us to go forward, that got 25 republicans, even though ted cruz, his junior colleague, was urging him not to vote that way. that was the right vote. we know that. he knew, senator cornyn did, to his credit, that shutting down the government was a bad thing. so on the one procedural vote that mattered where he could have had the senate say shut

down the government, he voted the other way. so, madam president, the real onus here is on speaker boehner. the entire focus of this debate should be on speaker boehner. now, some might say it should be on ted cruz, senator cruz, the senator from texas. some might say it should be on the 30 or 40 hard-line tea party people in the house. but in my view, it is the speaker of the house who has the responsibility not to listen to a small faction of his party when so smuch a much is at stak. instead, speaker boehner seems to be listening to the junior senator from texas. the junior senator of texas has become the de facto speaker of the house. if he says "jump," the house jumps. the junior senator wanted the house to embark on a crusade to defund obamacare so the speaker,

speaker boehner, did it. the junior senator from texas told the house to delay obamacare for a year so the speaker, speaker boehner, did it. and now the junior senator from texas is telling the house to pass piecemeal bills in a cynical attempt to pit important programs against each other. and now the speaker's trying to do just that. senator cruz has driven speaker boehner to pit kids who should be enrolled in head start against kids who should be enrolled in cancer trials. he's driven the speaker to pit families who want to visit the statue of liberty against families who own a small business and need help from the s.b.a. he's pitted research and cancer against help for our veterans. it's a cynical strategy. and like all the others that they have sent us and that have

failed, as these will fail tod today, it is -- it has one purpose. not to get anything done but to try to wriggle out of this view that they've shut down the government. senator cornyn's rhetoric won't work. it's too far detached from reality. so they try to come up -- speaker boehner tries to come up with these gizmos, these gimmicks, these legislative ploys to say, hey, i'm trying to do something. at the same time when he's in a vice lock grip of the tea party members of his house who are taking their orders from the junior senator from texas. and so there's a simple way to open up the government, i'd say that to my friend -- and is he my friend -- senator cornyn of texas, and my other colleagues on the republican side in the house, there's a bill saight sig

there waiting for a vote. it will open up n.i.h. it will open up the veterans administration. it will open up the world war ii memorial t. will open up the statue of liberty so the guy with the little sandwich shop right by that statue of liberty gets some business back. because, make no mistake about it, madam president, this crisis doesn't just hurt -- quote -- "the federal government," it doesn't even just hurt 800,000 families who aren't getting their paychecks and who depend on them. that's not abstract. it hurts lots of private-sector people as well. whether they be the construction worker building a road, using federal dollars, or the veteran waiting for that disability claim to come through, or the guy with the sandwich shot next to this closed statue of liberty who's making no sales. it's not abstract.

i get a little resentful when i hear my colleagues talk about the federal government, as if it's some big ogre -- "shut it down." and, by the way, if you watched rachel madow the other night, she had a variety of tea party congressmen running for the congress in 2010 who said they're going to shut the government down. i saw one, i think it was congressman mulvaney of small-business supreme court, he said, when i'm going to get -- of south carolina, he said when i get to congress, i'm going to shut the federal government down. and the tea party cheered. and i think that's their real goal, because they hate "the federal government" so much. that's their goal -- to shut it down. obamacare is an excuse. but in any case, mainstream republicans know that shutting the government down is a bad thing and know that they are, indeed, paying a political pri price. so speaker boehner should follow the majority of his party.

stop being scared of the tea party. he'll face them down easily in a challenge for speaker. speaker boehner knows, as the "national review" said this morning, that more than a hundred house republicans would vote for our bill to reopen the government if he put it on the floor. instead, republicans are wasting time on political stunts and asking to go to conference on a short-term c.r. well, the -- in conclusion, madam president, the republicans have this exactly backwards. they say, let's talk and then maybe we'll open up the government. they ought to say, we'll open up the government and then we can talk. if republicans would simply switch all of the lights back on, allow hundreds of thousands of furloughed federal employees to go back to work, allow cancer research to continue, veterans

to get their disability claims, kids to go back into head start, we can have a discussion about the budget which they've rejected 18 times. madam president, i yield the floor. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i woke up this morning feeling like i think most americans feel today -- pretty disappointed in the antics of washington, d.c. as my colleague from new york just pointed out, we all know why we're here. speaker boehner and the republicans in the house demanded a ransom in order to keep our government open. and their ransom was to repeal a law that they do not support, obamacare. and they made it very clear that government was going to shut down, and my constituents in washington state, who are -- were supposed to go to work today, thousands of them, aren't

going to get their paycheck because of that ransom. they made it very clear that they were not going to open government over a policy that they cared passionately about. well, madam president, i just have to say, i started my morning thorning talking to people involved in the construction industry in the state of washington. they told me this unserchts, this crisis, this shutdown of government is impacting their small businesses at home in the state of washington because, who's going to sign a contract to build something new when it's so unclear where our economy is going to be as a result of this shutdown and the looming debt ceiling crisis? so they're seeing real intraction in their own busine businesses, not because of a government funding of a programmer 0 anything else that's ongoing, but because of this shutdown today. just a few minutes ago, i talked to some moms and dads in head

start, from my home state of washington. a young mom from birmington, washington who has a two-year-old daughter who told us that a few years ago she was on the streets homeless, a victim of an abusive partner, and because of head start and the wrap-around services they provided found her place to stay, got her and her child involved in early childhood education, and because of that support and that start as a head start mom deciall mom, she now t school work on their degree, her daughter is doing well and she's a back on track. thousands of moms and dads like that exist across the country today. a helping hand at the right moment with the right program. but because of sequestration and now because of the government shutdown, we're telling moms and dads like her, sorry, we're not going to be there for you.

now, i happen to be a very passionate advocate for early childhood education. i was a former preschoolteacher. i'm using my skills as a pr preschool teacher right now. i think all of our colleagues would learn a lot from those kind of skills. no bullying, it is my turn to t, teaching our kids not to throw sand in the sandbox. i think we could all learn from that. about i think about that and i think about those head start kids and the children that i taught before and -- who are not being taught now because of the sequestration and what lesson we're giving them: thairk that if i don't get my way right now about a bill that i voted against and i'm so mad that i'm not going to let you have anything else because i'm just

so e enench en-- entrenched in , that's nothat's not a lesson i.d teach our kids. what if i said, i am so passionate about funding early childhood education and for research because i no what that will do for our nation, and if i don't get my way to make sure every child in this country gets that head started, this government is going to shut down. that's not the way we run a country. i compassionately fight for any cause i believe in. any legislator can. but the way you get your way isn't to hold that policy hostage. we have a country that is counting on us to be responsible adults, to come to the table, to work out our disagreements between each other, and they are large -- there is no doubt about that -- but you don't do it by hurting every family, every neighborhood, every community, every part of this country by

holding this country hawfnlg ho. madam president, we have a responsibility. it's to pass a clean continuing resolution. it is to get our government working again. it's to tell people they're going to get their paychecks. we're going to responsibly do that and then we are going it take ow differences it a negotiating table and hammer them out in. i may want $1 million for something. my house counterparts may say no. we may meet in the middle. i may have to say, gee, i didn't get my way. you got yours. you don't do it by holding your country hostage. so we say to speaker boehner today, open up the government. let everybody go back to work. don't hold our economy hostage. and we will then sit down with you and work out our agreements. we have asked 18 times now do it and have been told "no," we're not going 0 to let you go to that negotiating table, by the

same people that wanted this government shutdown. i find myself in a very odd place where we have a country that is closed to business, we're sending a very bad message and lesson to the children of this country that we can't work and play well together, that we can't even disagree together in an admirable way, and we're doing it while people are getting hurt. speaker boehner, open up the country again. open up our economy again and agree to go work out our differences, like responsible adults should do. madam president, my understanding is, after trying all kinds of different ways to appease some of his members with all kinds of different proposals, the latest proposal is to send us over piecemeal pieces of legislation. well, okay, we feel bad about the veterans -- and we all do; i am the biggest veteran ad advocate in here -- we'll take care of them now. and oh, gosh some of our

constituents are mad and the national museums aren't open so we'll open those. and then on and on and on, whatever the cause of the day s i guarantee you, madam president, that if we began to pass those piecemeal pieces of legislation, cause of the day, my moms and dads in head start would be at the end of the line and would never get funded. i'm standing up for them today and saying, you're first in line, too. we're all in this together. we need the government open, all of our agencies, everybody gets a chance and an opportunity in this curntion and we'r country,o stick together and say to speaker boehner, pass a cleaning c.r. and allow this government and this american way of life to function as it should by sitting down at a gorkting table and work out our differences. that's what i've asked ford for 18 times now. it's what we need to say we're going to do again but mott while

our country is shut down, not while my families in head start are held hostage, not while our small businesses are held hostage, not while everybody in the country intlooking at us wondering how we have ever gotten to this. open up the government and let us be responsible legislators. it's what i came here to do. it's what i know the presiding officer came to do. let's tell the kids in this country who are watching us today that this country can function, we can work like adults, and we have a responsibility do that here and abroad. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent there be a period of morning business for debate only until 2:00 p.m. with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees and with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each and the majority leader will be recognized at 2:00 p.m.. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask that the time that is used in quorum calls during this period of morning business be equally divided between democrats and republicans. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. corker: madam president, we find ourselves in a very predictable situation, and what is unpredictable is what our response to this situation is

going to be. for some time i've talked about the box canyon that we were taking ourselves into, and i think it's now become very apparent to folks on both sides of the aisle that to overturn an essential piece of legislation, it takes more than one-third of government to do so. and when you have the presiding president over that piece of legislation, it actually takes two-thirds of the -- each of the bodies to make that happen. and i think everybody's realized that. and that gives me no joy but this is obviously something i've talked about for some time. and we find ourselves in this box canyon now that we are in. and what is also -- was also very predictable is my friend, tom coburn, the great senator

from oklahoma, laid out very clearly here on the senate floor that even if you were to shut down government, the health care bill could continue o. and i think what meernz -- would continue o. and i think what americans are waking up and seeing, even though republicans have strongly opposed the health care bill at every turn, that even with government being shut down, the health care bill is continuing on and people around the country are signing up for what people call obamacare. so both of these were very, very predictable outcomes. and now what is unpredictable is what our response to that is going to be. and i'm speaking to a number of people on side of the aisle, and there have been a number of people on the other side of the aisle who have spent a great deal of time on the last couple of years trying to find ways to reduce government and making our country stronger in the process.

and i think to a person over here, and i think many on the other side of the aisle, understand that our inability to deal with the fiscal situation that we find ourselves in in this country has hurt us economically. because people have not been willing to invest in capital investments within their companies and around the world, in many cases, because they don't know what's going to happen here in our country. and i think -- i know firsthand, being in the position i'm in on the ranking -- as ranking member on foreign relations, that as i travel the world, no doubt it has affected us around the world as people are really not understanding whether we're going to be able to -- to meet the obligations that we've made in many ways from a security standpoint. so again, where we are today is very predictable. and i don't want to be crass. i do, you know, obviously is

creating -- is creating a hardship for some people that have been furloughed and certainly affecting people around our country and that obviously is -- is not a good thing. on the other hand, if there's some way for some good policy outcome here that strengthens our country over the longer haul, which is why we're all here, then that's a -- that's a good tradeo. and so we'll see what happens. here's my concern. while the situation that we're in is very predictable and many people in this body have been predicting we'd end up exactly where we are today in this box canyon and that people would still be, in spite of the fact that government is shut down, signing up for the new health care law, that, you know, was attempted to be defunded, what i'm concerned about is this -- is we've made great strides as a nation, we've made great strides in this body to reduce government outlays that we have

control over. this hasn't happened in this nation since 1955 and 1956. two years ago, we were at $1.43 trillion in annual yowlt lays from a discretionary standpoint and that's what we deal with in a c.r. last year we were at $998 billion. and this year, if we continue to uphold the law that we all put in place, we're going to be at $967 billion, $967 billion that. is a phenomenal ching fo phenomo have achieved as a body and for our country to have achieved as a way to strength he were our nation. and for us to change the way the outlays are done and maybe the mandatory spending that's substituted for discretionary spending and maybe there's way of doing it that make it more sensible to people in this body, what we have done is truly remarkable. is truly is remarkable --

it truly is remarkable that washington figured out a way to reduce the amount of spending that was taking place. and again, i know that we can figure out a way to do that even smarter. but let me get to the unpredic unpredictable point. sometimes when people find themselves in a box canyon or in a place that is difficult, people begin doing things that are not in the interest of themselves and certainly not in the interest of the body that they want. and what i'm worried about is that while so many people have been focused on this shiny thing over here and so much. the nation's focus has been on this shiny thing over here, what people have not been focused on in the way that i would hope is the gains that we've made in controlling spending as a nation. and what i worry about, as we now begin to, it looks like, combine the continuing

resolution process with the debt ceiling is i'm beginning to be very concerned that people forget about the tremendous gains that we've made in strengthening this nation. and while i'm saying this to an empty chamber, like most of us do when we come to speak on the senate floor -- and i understand that; i know people are busy and have other things to do -- my talk today is really focused on people in the other chamber. i know there's a lot that's happening over there. and what i'm worried about is, as the leadership over there tries to cobble together 218 votes to maybe do something relative to the continuing resolution and at the same time do something relative to the debt ceiling, that somehow or another, because we're in this box canyon that was very predictable, they deal away the very gains that have been -- been gotten. and so what i hope that we will do on this side, and to all of

those -- and there are many on the other side that have fought so hard to try get the momentum gog that wgoing so that we willr country from huge deficits down the road and do what we can do to make sure we leave this country a better place for young people like these interns that are here on the floor and pages, what i hope we will do is keep our eye focused on the fact that whenever negotiations take place around a debt ceiling, they traditionally and always have been about making sure that we're trying to do those things to keep us from having more debt down the road and that we will keep our eyes focused on the reforms that are necessary to keep that process going. to be candid, this is the first time i've said this publicly, but to look at a continuing resolution at $988 billion, i'm sorry, the law says, as it now

is, that we would be spending beginning a couple days ago in this new year at $967 billion. and i know that the discussions here on the floor have been, well, in six weeks, the sequester -- the sequester, by the way, is that mechanism that was put in place in the budget control act to continue to put downward pressure on spending, the sequester will kick in, in six weeks according to all the discussions that have taken place. but i think most of us who have fought hard to try to save our nation from these mounting deficits down the road candidly were a little disappointed that we would even be looking at extending last year's spending for six weeks and really not taking ourselves down to $967 trillion. and i realize -- you know, i realize what has happened. but here's my -- my -- my point to the other side of the building, the house.

whatever you do, please -- please -- whatever you have to do to cobble together 9 -- 218 votes to pass a bill relative to maybe the c.r. and the debt ceiling, please -- please -- do not negotiate away the hard-won gains that we were able to put in place to reduce spending and to help make our country stronger for the people, for young people like those sitting in front of me. that is my message. we're in a place that is very predictable. the outcome is unpredictable. but what i hope the outcome will be is an outcome that causes us not to -- not only to not deal away the gains that have been put in place but to maybe put in place -- and i hope mandatory reforms that we all know need to occur to make this country stronger. there's tremendous, trenl tremes bipartisan support. the president's budget -- the president himself in april laid

out a budget that had numbers of mandatory reform as that he was in agreement with. and so what i hope will happen is we will keep the discretionary levels at levels we've already agreed to and will take up some of those mandatory reforms that the president himself has already said he thinks are in the interest of our nation and use those to help us raise the debt ceiling and in the process -- in the process have an outcome that causes this country to be stronger, causes this economy to grow and causes us over time to continue to honor the commitments we've made around the world. and with that, madam president, i notice the absence of a quor quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: madam president, thank you very much. i would ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: madam president, i had a great honor this morning, and it will change the nature of the remarks i intended to make on the senate floor this morning, but i just returned from the world war ii memorial. we have a group of 90 world war ii veterans on an honor air flight. honor air is a program, a

national program in which funds are raised by friends and neighbors and community individuals to help bring their world war ii veterans to the nation's capital. i have probably visited the world war ii memorial dozens of times, maybe 40, 50, every time there is an honor air flight from my home state and i am in washington, d.c., i want to be there to say thank you, welcome, it's an honor to have you at the memorial that was built for you. i visited the world war ii memorial. it's especially meaningful to me personally. my dad is a world war ii veteran. my dad has been on an honor air flight. he was the oldest veteran on that flight at age 93. my dad will now be 98 in november. and just a few days before the world war ii memorial opened, i walked down there. i was a house member at the time, not a senator.

i walked down to the memorial and got a glimpse of what it was going to be like. it's a -- it's a wonderful place, and it reminds us of many things. that day, i stepped away from the memorial and used my cell phone to call my dad at home in plainville, kansas, and i was fortunate, i got the answering machine because these are difficult things to tell your parents. dad, i'm at the world war ii memorial. thank you for your service to our country. i respect you and i love you. and it was great to be able to say that to an answering machine instead of to your own parent. my dad actually one-upped me a few moments later. my cell phone rings and my dad says gerald, i couldn't understand what you said. and so i repeated it in person. it's a great thing about that memorial in which it causes us to reflect and to say things and to express ourselves in ways that we otherwise would never do. and so that memorial, like others, that honor our service

men and women is one that calls us to say we thank you for your service, we respect you, we love you, and that's the experience again this morning. again, i try to be there every time that a group of veterans come from kansas. i was hoping today wouldn't be any different, with the shutdown of our government, with the funding for the national parks. there was some concern about whether or not these veterans would be able to actually get to the memorial. it all worked fine. i appreciate the way that the morning's events transpired, and there was no confrontation and no one wanted to deny those veterans that chance to visit that memorial for their first time. in addition to those sentiments about these individual veterans, i think what may be of value, as we approach today and tomorrow

and try to find the solutions that are necessary to solve the circumstance we find ourselves in, is a recognition that our veterans -- i have had this thought every time i walked to the vietnam wall or the korean war memorial or now to this newer memorial, the world war ii memorial, not a single person represented on that wall or memorialized in the world war ii memorial, the korean war memorial, not one of them, i just can't imagine a single one of them volunteered or was drafted for purposes of a fight between republicans and democrats. no one went to serve our country. no one volunteered to serve our country, because they believed in republicans or they believed in democrats. my view, knowing veterans as i do, is they answered the call to duty, they were willing to serve because they believed in america. they believed in what the united states and our principles and

freedoms and liberties that it provides, and they knew that their service would make a difference in the lives of their kids and grandkids. they knew that this would help make america a better place for everyone, but certainly for people that they knew, they are family members. i -- i hope that i can portray to my colleagues here in the senate and here in this capitol building and down pennsylvania avenue that the battles we engage in need to be a lot less about republicans and democrats and much more about what's good for the country. we ought to use the veterans that we met with this morning and those that are memorialized on the national mall in every circumstance to remind ourselves that there is a higher calling to what we do in our nation's capital. there is something more important than the political skirmishes. i don't say this in any

pollyanna way, i don't say this in a way to suggest there are partisan differences. i always assume that the american people send a variety of people to washington, d.c., to represent their interests. my state of kansas will probably send somebody different than some other state, and we all come here with a philosophy, a background, the way we grew up, the way we think about things. the instructions our constituents have given us. and all of that is to reflect in the way that we vote, the issues we pursue, the priorities that we have. so it's not that we're all supposed to agree, but surely there ought to be a recognition that when there is disagreement, as there often is, there is a desire, just as our service men and women had, to serve the country, much more important than the desire to serve our political party. so today's trip to the world war ii memorial, while it is a common experience for me, today

was especially useful and meaningful. at a time when these veterans came not knowing whether or not they would be able to gain entry to the memorial, to be there, to encourage them and to see that they were welcomed and greeted, but perhaps as equally important is to make sure that what we do is a reminder to me as to what we do in the united states senate is motivated by the best of intentions and the greatest of goals, the idea that america is a special place and that we who serve here have a special responsibility. we have a chance to try to do something good for the country. one of the things that has always inspired me, pleased me about kansans, and i assume it's true elsewhere, most of the conversations i have with folks back home, a lot less about what they want me to do for them but more about what decisions they want me to make to make certain that their kids and grandkids have a better life.

it's something very great about how we have an interest as human beings, as parents, in the well-being of the next generation and not just the well-being of ourselves. and so my -- my efforts and trying to find resolution to the circumstance we find ourselves in has strengthened the resolve i have to try to work with others here in the united states senate is one that is highlighted by my experience this morning on the national mall. i think about where we are and where we need to go, and it's -- again, having decried the high partisanship nature of this place, i don't want to detract from that, but we need to be able to have leaders who are willing to have discussions, conversations and a coming together. it's true of republicans and it's true of democrats and it's

certainly true of whoever is the president of the united states. we need to make certain that we have the ability to recognize that not all of us agree on everything, but with the efforts that we make to find a solution to a problem, there is a coming together, and it seems to me we have now gotten ourselves in this entrenched position. and while i was pleased moments ago to learn that our president has called congressional leaders to the white house, it's disturbing to me that the message is but we're not negotiating. i'm not certain what the purpose of the white house visit will be. i hope it results in movement, in success. and it's my understanding that my colleagues on the democrat side of the aisle have agreed this morning to -- quote -- "not negotiate." all i know about that is what i read in the press. and i don't, again, in an attempt to make certain that this doesn't sound partisan and

detract from what i was attempting to convey moments ago, we need to make certain that republicans understand that we can make progress in the positions that we hold even without getting everything we want. and so this experience of being a united states senator, the great deliberative body, hasn't been my experience in the short time that i have been a member of the united states senate. and the idea that we can't negotiate just seems to me to be contrary to the purpose of this historic body. so i hope that the attitude and approach changes, that every senator recognizes that it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. it's an opportunity for us to resolve differences, and each find some satisfaction in moving in the direction or preserving

the status quo, if that's your position, that because america is a diverse place and that people care differently about different issues and have different opinions, we certainly have a responsibility to represent those views of the folks back home but recognizing that the country doesn't always agree with us. surely there is that common ground, that opportunity to find solutions. and so my call is for leadership , to say -- and leadership i mean broadly all 100 of us, not leadership in the position of somebody who occupies a position of leadership beyond being a member of the united states senate. but all of us to demonstrate the leadership to find the necessary resolve to solve our country's problems. the affordable care act is a very controversial piece of legislation. it's been said here on the senate floor it's the law. it's not negotiable.

it doesn't make sense to me that that's the position. in fact, the president has delayed, excluded, found exemptions for what's the law. so surely if the president can, for example, delay the implementation of the employer mandate, it's not without the realm, in fact, i would say it's within the constitutional responsibility of congress to have the debate, discussion and consideration of whether to delay the individual mandate. it's the law of the land, but if the president can make changes in the law of the land, surely the body created by article 1, the legislative branch, has that opportunity to do as well. so it ought not be nonnegotiable. it's time for the senate to function. it's time for us as individual senators to provide the leadership to resolve our problems. and, madam president, in my view, we desperately need

leadership from the president. and while i have serious policy and philosophical disagreements with president obama, my greatest complaint about his presidency is his lack of leadership. we need somebody to rally us to come together and find solutions to those problems, to better resolve our differences. and again, i don't want to detract from the observations about the -- how partisan this place has become by talking about president obama. in this case, he is a democrat and i'm a republican. but regardless of who is the occupant of the white house, in order for the congress to resolve difficult issues, it takes the leadership of a president. and so my call as it was earlier to my colleagues in the senate to provide leadership, i hope

the president will, in his meeting with the leadership of the senate -- senate and house today, will provide the leadership necessary to help us move in the direction and step back from the statement that while we're meeting, nothing is negotiable. madam president, i appreciate the opportunity to address the senate, and i yield the floor. mr. manchin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: thank you. first, i want to apologize to the people of west virginia. i'm embarrassed and ashamed as a united states member of congress how we are acting. i have been up answering phones in my office. they're upset. i said well, you're not as upset as i am. i have a front row seat, and it's not pretty. this is not what we were sent here to do. it's not what i signed up for. it's not what i asked the people

in west virginia to allow me to represent, what i consider the greatest state in the nation. and i'm sure each one of us feel the same way about our states and the wonderful people. i have always looked at public service as an opportunity to fix problems, to make life better, to be able to use the wisdom and skills as we received through just our experiences in life and watching people and the compassion we have for people to try to make it better. shutting down government is simply unacceptable. i don't care any way you look at this, it's unacceptable. this is the first time in 17 years, madam president, that our government is not open for business. first time in 17 years that we're not open. this is self-inflicted. this didn't happen by any outside forces. this has all been self-inflicted. it not only hurts the people of virginia deeply, it hurts heem all over the opportunity. this is only the second day but

it's two days too long. most of you know know i'm pretty moderate. i'm very conservative on fiscal issues, this is how we were raised. we were accepted to pay our bills, to take care of our debts and take care of ourselves and our family. when i game became governor the first thing i did was try to put the financial house in order in west virginia so that basically i could take care of our values and that was our priorities, based on who we wanted, our children to have an opportunity. we never cut any services during the recession. we took care of our seniors with the dignity and respect and pride they should have. we took care of our veterans. we just couldn't be everything to everybody but we watched our dollars and got our financial house in order. so i look at it from that standpoint where i come from as a proud west virginia democrat. but also i'm very compassionate on social issues. i believe watching my grandparents and watching my family in the little town of

farmington, west virginia where i grew up, people expected you to do things. they expected you to chip in and help people. but they expect you to help yourself also. and they expect you to take care of those who couldn't, the less fortunate. and i've always taken that with me in every aspect of public service. i think i'm reasonable and willing to compromise and work with anybody on any issue. i've always put my state's interest ahead of my party application. -- party politics. i don't make any excuses. i really believe that i'm absolutely a privileged person to be living in the greatest country on earth and being a member of a great family and a great state of west virginia but i'm an american, i'm a west virginian, and then i'm a democrat from west virginia. and i have dear, dear friends who are republicans from west virginia and from all over opportunity. -- all over the country.

so when i look at the cause of this problem we have right now, it's about finances, strictly about finances. can we continue to pay. i looked at also the way i thought the democrats truly looked at this and they said nine, we'll agree to the 986 number, $986 billion. that was the republicans' request to keep the spending level. the democrats would have loved to have the one trillion 58 he is they reduced it $90 billion. to me that was a good compromise. we can live with 9 $6 billion, have to tighten our belts a little bit but we're good at that in west virginia and we did it. then all of a sudden the affordable care act or the obamacare as people have referred to it becomes the issue. there's a lot of things in that piece of legislation that i don't agree with. i don't know how i would have voted if i was here. by have tried to make what i would have thought constructive changes. but you know what, it's the

law. and i said i'm in a mode that i would call a reform, repair and then repeal parts that we can't fix. i don't know that yet. we've got to get in there and do it. now, i'm probably part of the problem and caused some of this because i made a statement. we were talking to some people and they were asking me what do you think is going to happen. i said for my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, my republican friends, i would think they would look and if they really want to talk about health care, can it be extended for one year before it takes the effect of the law. i didn't mean to postpone it. i didn't mean to stop and don't start until next year. i meant the fines and the penalties. think about this. i'm very much opposed to the individual mandate but i understand it's part of the process. but i would have thought why wouldn't we have a transition year so the law takes effect as of yesterday, it has, we've got people trying to find the

best opportunity they have in my little state we don't have a lot of options so i want to make sure the people who have good insurance are able somehow to keep that. there's got to be a way we can work through that. i want to make sure the people with no insurance and never been able to buy insurance can now be able to afford it. i want to make sure the people with preexisting conditions or a child born a with a condition are able to keep the insurance they now have that they couldn't have above. i want to make sure that basically the senior citizens in west virginia that basically are going to fill the doughnut hole out of their pocket, they couldn't afford, is taken care of. they can go get an exam on an annual basis and not have to pay a co-payment from their medicare. those are all goodz good things and i -- good things and i know my friends on the republican side feel the same way about some of this. why would you want to throw the baby out with the bath water when all you have to do is change the water every now and then and we have a little clean

water we can bathe the baby in again? these are sensible solutions where i was raised looking at how can you fix it. i've never fixed a problem by calling somebody else a name. i've never chastised anybody for their beliefs. i try to think if i was in their shoes, how could we fix that? when i was governor i used to sit down with people, in the profession we're in, public service, how do i allow them to go home to save face? how do i allow them to have some comfort that they're able toably bring constructive ideas to the table that basically makes it better? i've always thought of that. so you're not going to hear me saying that we're right and they're wrong. in this case here i will say that please, don't have this self-inflicted pain on the people of my state of west virginia or your state or this country. that are there could be a time when we're not able to stop what might be happening. the market forces might push us

in a direction we can't control. this is something we can control and all we're asking for, please, let government continue. if you want to talk about a big, grand plan which i hope we do which is fixing the financial condition, getting our financial house in order, i'm a fan of bowles-simpson, there's an awful lot of things people say i don't like this or that, none have said it's not what needs to be done. it's a three-pronged approach. that's the fix we're talking about. but we're not talking about. we're talking about things we don't like and people we don't like, calling people names and just doesn't fix things. it doesn't make it right. so you will hear me continue to talk about the grand bargain. this is a time between now and the debt ceiling and i will say this about the debt ceiling -- raising the debt doesn't fix the debt. continue to raise the debt, we need to have a path to fix it.

we shouldn't be going through this political fight every three, six months. this is the fifth time that i've been in a debt ceiling, how many times have we voted on the so-called health care, obamacare? it's ridiculous to continue to fight the same fight over and over. i would hope that we are in a reform and repair and then repeal when you can't fix it. when you've given it ul all for the betterment of our country and it's not fixable or doable, then you change. we haven't gotten there yet. we got all naysayers and people just basically that just don't want change. i've got too many people that need the services of government. i've got too many people that depend on it. and not that i believe that they shouldn't be dependent, i would hope people would be independent, but government is so intertwined in all of our lives and just to say you want to stop it all is wrong, and so i would ask my dear friends and

my colleagues on the republican side to please think about a continuing resolution. please, we've come to the agreement on the number that you wanted of 986. health care, if you wanted to bring up the keystone pipeline, i'm a total supporter of keystone pipeline for energy independence. i'm an all energy person, use whatever we have. it's not -- it's not the place for it. it's not the place for me to draw the line to inflict so much pain on so many americans, so many west virginians because of one issue i like or don't like. there's a time for that. there will be a time for this health care bill. the obamacare. it will either succeed or fail on its own. but we ought to try to make it better if we can. if we can't, come to the conclusion we can't. but don't shut down government because you don't think it will work. or maybe you're afraid it will work. that could be it, too. so with all that being said i'd say to my friends, you never

hear me say anything derogatory about you, you can always reach across the aisle to me, i'm always going to talk to you, i'm willing to compromise and work on any issue that% the position that -- betters the quality of life, that creates opportunities, makes us the strongest and most powerful nation on earth and i will continue to fight for that but i'm asking you this time, don't allow the self-inflicted pain to continue. this is not fair to my state, it's not fair to the people of west virginia, it's not fair to your state of west virginia, madam president, or anybody in this great country of ours. thank you for allowing me to say what has been on my mind. i'm a proud american and it's about this country first and always about this country first. if the united states of america does well, i'm guarantee you, the great to have west virginia is going to do fine. we're going to do -- we have to work together and put our priorities in place. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania.

mr. casey: first i have four unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the estimate. tremendous the approval of the majority and minority leaders, i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i rise to -- first i want to commend the words of my colleague from west virginia about first of all the frustration that so many americans feel that we share, and also his words about trying to come to a resolution. i think it bears repeating -- the main purpose of my remarks today will be focused on, really on one central theme and that's that in the house right now speaker boehner could put a bill on the floor that would open the the government up after

a house vote. i'm holding here the bill that would do that. this is the bill that passed on friday. it's an amendment to -- amendment 1974 to house joint resolution 59. this is the bill that if the speaker were to put this on the floor, it would pass overwhelmingly. you'd get not just one side of the aisle, it would be a bipartisan vote to pass that bill. and upon passage and then of course getting the bill to the president for signature. so within however long it takes for the house to complete a vote, a rule and maybe two votes, and then get it to the president, this could be over. and it should be over. we should open up the government. this is the way to do it. a bill that doesn't have anything attached to it, it just funds the government. i would hope that the speaker at long last would put that bill on the floor and we're hearing

voices that are bipartisan today asking for the speaker to do just that. we've also heard a lot of talk about -- a lot of talk about negotiation and compromise. and that's good that people are talking about that, but i hope that some of our republican friends talk about it with a -- a degree of faithfulness to the facts or adherence to the facts about what has happened over the last couple of months. in an effort to reach an agreement that would avoid the shutdown going back now a number of weeks and even months, democrats here in the senate and the house as well accepted some of the very difficult so-called sequestration cuts. what do i mean by that, i mean the across-the-board indiscriminate cuts that went into effect in 2013. and were, unfortunately, a

carryover from a battle in a fight in the summer of 2011. so we've accepted those difficult cuts in this budget negotiation when the -- when the so-called continuing resolution, meaning the bill that would keep the government operating, the one i just held up, as a compromise, and this happened a while back. i mentioned that last friday, september 27, the senate passed the so-called clean continuing resolution which is just a fancy way of saying a budget bill without -- without add-ons, nothing about any other issue, just a bill to fund the government. that bill, the one i referred to earlier, that passed the senate on the 27th and is sitting over in the house would open the government up and continue funding for the government until the middle of november.

so we get passed this crisis, we don't have this as a problem in the next debate about paying our bills and we can have a big debate in november about making sure that we can pay for government operations. what we should do as well, as we're debating in november -- we hope we can get there -- but as we're debating that, we should figure out a way, and i think this is a bipartisan concern, to shut off, to turn off, at least for two years, the across-the-board cuts that i think both parties have real disagreement with. so if -- if -- but the key is passing this in the house, this measure that will end the crisis, open up the government. by -- when we pass it here in the senate, we accepted those levels of spending which were significantly less than democrats would have -- would

have hoped for, would have wanted. despite the fact -- we accepted these despite the fact that we reversed the sequester in the budget we passed this spring. so we had a long budget debate here, and some might remember last spring, voted well into the early morning hours. i think it lasted until 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning. but that was a higher number than what we have agreed to already. so democrats have compromised substantially, substantially already on the spending level. that doesn't seem to get reported very often. the bill that passed the senate last friday is a $70 billion cut from the last fiscal year, 2013. the levels that were enacted, the spending levels enacted in fiscal year 2013 before the across-the-board cuts went into effect.

so just to restate, this legislation which is in the house right now, and they could pass with overwhelming bipartisan support and would open up the government and end this crisis, they could do it this afternoon, they could do it this evening, they could do it without a lot of trouble. they put this bill on the floor. it doesn't mean that republicans have -- all republicans have to vote for it. the speaker himself could vote against it. but just putting it on the floor and having an up-or-down vote i think would be good for everyone. it would end this crisis. it would open up the government. and then we could begin to work on what i think the american people hope we're working on. they expect us to keep the government open. that's fundamental. but i think they expect us as well to work on strategies to -- to create jobs or at least put into effect strategies that will lead to job creation. but i'll say it again -- this -- this bill that is sitting in the

house is not just a bill that will open up the government and will have overwhelming bipartisan support. this bill is $70 billion less than what we wanted. now, to say that's a compromise is an understatement. so on the main issue before us, how do you fund the government? how much in terms of dollars do you -- do you direct towards the operations of the government? we have already compromised a long time ago to reduce that number to -- by $70 billion. so when our friends are saying that democrats are not negotiating or compromising, my goodness, we compromised on day one. they -- they prevailed in that debate. we decided that it's better to -- to compromise on that number and keep the government operating and move the process along in terms of the budget rather than -- rather than shutting the government down to

get our way. some democrats might have said to us, you know what? you should have taken this farther and not accepted those cuts and maybe even take it as far as some republicans want to take the debate on health care to shut the government down. we said that doesn't make any sense. it's bad for the economy, it's bad for vulnerable people, it's bad for national security and a whole host of other reasons which i'll mention and itemize to shut down the government. so from the beginning, we were not only willing to compromise and negotiate, we've already done it. in a very substantial way on the core issue, which is the budget and the number, okay? so -- so for them to say we're not going to insist that the government stay open, and then they want to have some negotiation about that, doesn't make a lot of sense, does it, when you consider the compromise that we have already made. so i think the -- the

fundamental thing the american people want us to do is open the government. and the key to opening the government is not only sitting in the house, the key is already in the -- in the lock. all the speaker has to do is turn it, ever so slightly, to turn that key, and the turning of the key is this bill. if this bill goes on the floor of the house of representatives today, tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, tonight, whenever, it will pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. so i'll come back to that in a moment, but i think the question of compromise is frankly weighted to our side. i think we have made already a substantial and significant compromise in any negotiation, and that was done a long time ago. i think at this point when it comes to the question of what the house -- some members of the house have tried to do to bring

us to this point where there is a shutdown, i think their actions are in a word irresponsible and i think a lot of americans expect that they would act in a more responsible manner. by pushing an agenda that has now led to a government shutdown, in addition to being irresponsible or a dereliction of their duty, it's also reckless. this is a reckless step to take just to make a point about -- about health care, about anything else. there are a lot of us, we would all like to have our arguments litigated or debated in a way that -- that has a lot of attention paid to it, but to take it this far where you're literally willing to take an action which leads, as this has done, leads to a government shutdown is both irresponsible and reckless.

so i think we're just beginning now in the hours and now unfortunately we're into the second day of this, we're just beginning to understand the impact that this is having on americans, but in the case of pennsylvania, we're just beginning to hear the impact on individual pennsylvanians. let me give you an example of that. this morning, i learned that bushkill outreach, a food pantry located in the delaware water gap recreational area is closed because it is on federal land operated by the national park service. so when you close a national park area -- or a national park itself, you're not just impacting what happens there and the opportunities for people to tour a national park or to recreate, you're actually having an adverse impact in this case on a food pantry. this particular food pantry, bushkill outreach feeds 30

families per day, amounting to 150 per day and 1,200 people per month. just imagine that. you have a group of members of congress in washington that believe that their ideological point of view on one issue is so compelling and so important to the country that they're willing to shut the government down and deny those 30 families the opportunity to have the benefit of a food pantry in a still-tough economy. we have had fortunately a lot of job growth over the last several years, and we're happy about that. we're happy that the economy is moving in the right direction on job growth, but it's not moving fast enough for pennsylvania. in this sense. we have hovered around a half million people out of work for far too long, who is well above 500,000 people. fortunately it came down below half a million, but it's begun to creep up again.

and once again, pennsylvania has an unemployment number which is just at about -- i think it's 501,000 people. in my home area of northeastern pennsylvania, we just saw data today. unfortunately in my home county, in the county next door and at least one other county if not two more in that region of the state, including the region where bushkill outreach is, the unemployment rate in several of those counties is more than 9%. so this -- a food pantry is not just a -- a place for people that are particularly vulnerable. these are people that have been vulnerable because of job loss, because of the economy. the shutdown has two adverse impacts on those families. it has a direct impact on their ability to access food every day. that's horrific enough. talk about direct and substantial pain, physical pain on an individual or family. but it also has another impact.

when they shut the government down and certainly over a long period of time, you for sure -- and this is irrefutable -- you injure the national economy. when you injure the national economy, you make it less likely that those people that have to access the food bank can actually get a job. in northeastern pennsylvania where i live or anywhere else in the country. so this is -- this is about real life. this isn't some washington theoretical debate. so there are thousands of reasons to open up the government and to say to the speaker in the house get this bill on the floor and a food pantry won't be adversely impacted. our national security will no longer be adversely impacted if we can open the government up again. so folks that are -- that access this food bank are -- a lot of them are on fixed incomes, so it has an especially detrimental effect on them. how about national security? the shutdown is having a direct

and substantial impact on national security. our colleague, senator feinstein, was on the floor yesterday, spoke of the critical support that the shutdown -- or i should say the critical impact, the critical impact that the shutdown is having on the intelligence community. as many americans know, the intelligence gathering isn't just the c.i.a. it's a whole range of agencies that gather intelligence, which -- which arms us with information to protect ourselves and to be able to protect ourselves from terrorist strikes. in the intelligence community, meaning all of the federal agencies that gather intelligence to protect us, 72% of the civilian work force is furloughed. it's hard to -- really hard to comprehend the adverse impact of that. this means that the bulk of federal employees who gather

critical intelligence and work with law enforcement agencies are not working during the shutdown. you've got to ask yourself at this point if you are a member of the house or the senate who believed that your point that you wanted to make, health care or anything else, that has led to this shutdown, do you really want to maintain that position, that your point is so important and so compelling that you're willing to -- to allow a shutdown to take place and then continue and allow this number that i just read, 72% of the civilian work force in the intelligence community is furloughed. it puts at risk our soldiers, our fighting men and women who are on battlefields around the

world or in danger zones. it puts at risk our -- our diplomatic personnel. and at some level, at some point in time puts americans at risk because you cannot stop terrorism. you cannot arm yourself against terrorist attacks unless you have information, and you don't get the information unless you have the full measure of intelligence gathering. so i would hope that folks would ask themselves is my ideological point of view on this or that issue important enough that we should have a government shutdown in place which injures our ability to gather intelligence for national security? i just hope that people would ask themselves that question and see what the answer would be. i've also heard in the connection -- when you tell people that about the furloughs, i've heard some republicans -- not all, a few -- make the

argument that somehow the president is making a decision about furloughs that adversely impact national security, and he's making a mistake when he does that, he or his administration, or that -- that maybe members of congress are somehow part of the decision on furloughs that would -- that would adversely impact national security. look, every member of congress is exposed to intelligence, every member of congress has an opportunity to take action when it comes to national security and intelligence, and every member of congress has a right to say things about decisions that impact national security, but i would say this to my republican friends. if the charge is that the president and his administration are making decisions about furloughs that somehow

compromise our national security, if you are going to assert that and you're free to do it, it's a free country, but if you're going to assert that, you should have proof. okay. if you're going to make a charge like that against any president or frankly any member of congress, democrat or republican, you have got to have the proof there. so i'd hope that the media, when someone makes that charge against the commander in chief, i would hope that that member of congress would have in their hand the proof, a document, a statement, something that they can -- they can put on the table and say that that's -- that's the proof. if you're going to make a charge that is that serious in such a grave matter as national security, you've got to prove it. and if you can't prove it, you should keep your mouth shut and not make that charge. i hope when people say somehow you know this furlough number, i've heard people say that's

support personnel in the intel community and you don't really need those folks. if you're going to contest the number and say our national security is -- is okay during a furlough, during a shutdown, you got to prove it. you know, a lot of things people say in washington that -- that are part of the political gate but if you're going to accuse someone of taking an action that undermines the national security, i think you should have to prove it. so -- and why do i say that? well, i spent six and a half years on the foreign relations committee, and i've traveled to the middle east several times, been to pakistan three times, afghanistan three times, iraq twice, the middle east several times, so in both of those regions of the world where our national security interests are directly at stake, we have personnel either uniformed or diplomatic personnel in those areas, i've seen directly how

much at risk people can be in -- in those postings. in ambassadors, in cons slats, and -- cons consulates and how dependent they are not just literally marines and soldiers to protect the embassy or consulate but how dependent they are on good intelligence. there shall a lot of reens to open up the government, had a lot of reasons for the house to vote on this today and open up the government but there are few that are as compelling as national security and intelligence. okay, i know i've gone over a liberty. let me -- i've gone over a little bit. let me quickly go through the impacts that the sequester -- or that the shutdown is having. we know that the shutdown has an impact on small business. why do we know that? well, the s.b.a. on a weekly basis provides help to lots of

businesses, small businesses across the country and we know more than a thousand businesses per week could see their critical financial support deferred until the government opens up again. so bad for small business to shut the government down. a shutdown would end nutrition support for pregnant women and children. if the government shuts down, the women, infants and children's program -- we hear the acronym w.i.c. all the time, it's women, infants and children, a great program -- in the event of a shutdown that we're living through right now, that w.i.c. would only be able to continue serving participants for one week. so we're in day two of the shutdown so after one week, they would have to stop serving participants. what are the numbers here? here are the basic numbers: in fiscal year 2012, the average monthly participation totaled

more than 8.9 million people. of that 8.9 million, 4.7 million are children and 2.1 million are infants. so another good reason to pass this bill in the house today with a quick vote, it would be overwhelm -- overwhelmingly bipartisan, in addition to intiewns is to the w.i.c. program. 5, it would compromise public health. why do i say that? 70% of n.i.h. employees would be furloughed. this is the national institutes of health that do research on all kinds of diseases and ailments. it's the envy of the world. no other country in the world has anything anywhere near equivalent to the national institutes of health. but a shutdown will lead to furloughing of 70% of their

employees, and that's another reason. we heard on the news this morning lots of reporting about the centers for disease control, that also is adversely affected in this shutdown. a shutdown compromises school readiness for young children. a government shutdown delays funding for 22 head start providers across the country. jeopardizing early childhood education and care for the 18,000 children and families those programs serve. so you're talking about 22 providers for head start not being able to provide services for 18,000 children and families. and finally, a shutdown endangers benefits owed to our veterans. the veterans administration will run out of money to pay mandatory benefits for existing beneficiaries by the end of this month. okay. so i know we've heard people saying, well, this check or that

check will not be stopped but ultimately there's going to be a direct impact if you -- if the shutdown continues. so i would say to my friends in the house that they can take action right now to prevent this from happening and how do they do that? well, it's very simple. all they need to do is to take the bill that's sitting there right now and put it on the floor. a lot of people can vote against it but the vote for that would be overwhelming. so if speaker boehner puts that on the floor today or tonight or tomorrow -- he should do it today or tonight -- we can be beyond this. according to a new report in "the national review" there are potentially more than a hundred house republicans that would be open to a so-called clean c.r. that's what this is. this bill is a clean bill to fund the government. doesn't have anything attached to it. and, by the way, it includes the

$70 billion compromise that democrats have already agreed to by reducing the overall cost of the funding the government. so i'd hope that we could end the shutdown today by having the house adopt this legislation. i urge the speaker to put the bill on the floor for a vote in the house today. madam president, i want to just conclude with some remarks that are -- are separate but they are related to the shutdown but they're also related, unfortunately, to a lot of other budget items. i'll do this quickly but i meant do it the other day but i wanted to make sure i put this on the record today. in addition to everything i talked to, over 35,000 correctional officers in our federal prisons will report to work not knowing when they'll receive their next paycheck. these are officers that put their lives at risk every day

and deserve to know when they'll be paid. during the last shutdown in the mid 1990's some guards went over a month without being paid. these men and women are literally putting their lives on the line every day. yesterday i was supposed to be at an event with a number of families who had been directly impacted by the violence that -- that is perpetrated against corrections officers but i couldn't be there because it was at the same time as our 9:30 vote on the budget and trying to prevent a shutdown. and -- or i guess at that point trying to reverse the shutdown. i was supposed to meet with don and jean williams, parents of erik williams who lost his life as a corrections officer. officer williams lost his life performing his duties at the united states penitentiary in northeastern pennsylvania, my home area and i was able to meet

his parents briefly at his viewing. that is real life for the williams family, but, unfortunately, that was not the only family represented at the event yesterday. there were several other families that had lost loved ones in that -- in that way. and i'm not sure i had a full appreciation for this before i was elected to the united states senate. we have corrections officers in pennsylvania and our state system and i had some exposure to their work, but it wasn't until i spent a lot time talking to corrections officers at the federal level that i learned the gravity of this problem. it is a problem with -- with multiple elements to it. one, of course, is just an erosion of support for corrections officers over time. so that over time, the ratio of one corrections officer to inmate has grown to -- to --

to say they have grown to dangerous proportions is an understatement. one of the reasons officer williams lost his life is often these officers are in situations where they are outnumbered, sometimes by hundreds of inmates and they, of course, can't carry a weapon. so the tragedy that officer erik williams suffered and the tragedy that others have suffered serves as a stark reminder of the risks that corrections officers and staff face every day. so budget cuts over time plus across-the-board cuts from sequestration plus a shutdown leads to a very dangerous situation for corrections officers and we need to address their concerns and these issues as part of this overall debate about the budget. so, madam president, i'll conclude there, but again

reiterate i hope the house will take up the bill that can end this crisis and open up the government. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, today we continue to find ourselves in an unfortunate position of a partial government shutdown. following a veto threat from the president last night, democrats in the house of representatives killed three spending bills that would have funded parks and monuments, veterans' programs, and the d.c. government. senate democrats have already rejected four house-passed proposals that would have provided americans with relief from obamacare while ensuring that government operations continue. mattesenate democrats even rejed one proposal that would have sent the two chambers to

conference, the house and senate to conference, to work out some sort of a solution to the stand-off that we find ourselves in. but they haven't even been willing to talk. when that proposals -- that request from the house came to the senate to create a conference that would allow the house and senate to come together and try and find a solution, it was tabled, it was soundly rejected -- tabled -- by the democrats here in the united states senate. and so we're continuing in this holding pattern as the house continues to send proposals over and they continue to be rejected by the senate, but then the senate democrats don't want to even sit down and talk with the house about how we might resolve this. now, i'm had a especially to hear that the president has, a of a week of essentially ignoring congressional republicans, called the leaders to the white house tonight. i'm a little confused, however, about the purpose of the meeting, as the white house continues to say that they're not going 0 negotiate much i i hope the president does change

his mind on that, and tha that l express a willingness to work with us. it is important for the president to be engaged in this process. i cant can't imagine a scenarioe you've got consequences like this with a funding resolution still not approved, partial government shutdown, a debt limit coming up here at the middle of the month, and the president of the united states essentially saying, i'm not going to negotiate. i'll just not negotiate on any of this. i think this is completely unreasonable and the american people find it to be completely unreasonable as well. in the meantime, we have an opportunity now to address some of the concerns that have been raised by people about various parts of our government that, as a result of this unnecessary shutdown, are not open, and so republicans continue to try and work to open government and at the same time provide obamacare fairness for all. and, you know, i've said this before, madam president, but i

get the sense that some of our colleagues on the democratic side and the president seem to be content with shutting down the government. but we republicans are not. we are consistently trying to come up with solutions. and, again, the house of representatives will be meeting today, and they're going to voting again on some of the same proposals that were voted down last night by house democrats that are commonsense spending bills that would ensure that important functions of government can resume. these bills would ensure thattist abouts for our nation's veterans continue interrupted, they would allow our members of the national gad and reserve to be paid -- national guard and reserve to be pairksd providing funding for the national institutes of health to ensure that this senseless shutdown does not prevent patients from receiving lifesaving treatments. and i'm just going to explain very briefly, madam president what some of these bills would do and they're going to to be coming over later tate today toe

house of representatives where non.none of the proposals have n accepted by the senate. they have been tabled by the majority leader, which is unfortunate, because it is the essence of what i think the american people believe we ought to be doing and that is working together, coming together to find a solution to some of these big problems sm. unfortunately, as i said before, when the request came over to go to conference with the house, that would tabled as well. so there's been no discussion, no willing to talk -- no willingness to talk, no willingness to try and cooperate in a way that would help us get government fundamenta -- fundaml operations of government up and running again. but, anyway, the bills that will come over from the house today follow the same track that they tried to get approved last night. one deals with the availability through the annual appropriations process for the department of veterans affairs to continue to serve veterans; namely, veterans' disability payments, the g.i. bill,

education, training v.a. home loans, all that were in effect at the end of the just-cleated fiscal year. it would make sure they were uninterrupted until such time as congress can come up with a longer-term solution, whether that is an appropriations bill, which should have been passed much earlier this year and wasn't, because none of the appropriations bill were moved mere here in the united states senate, or another continuing funding resolution like the continue resolution has put forward. but there are but that is a proposal that -- a similar proposal, i should say, that was introduced by a number of senate democrats. so when it comes over from the hart, i hope we will have broad bipartisan support in the united states senate for making sure that veterans' programs are continued and funded. there will also be a bill at that deals with national parks and museums and would provide immediate funding for the

national park service operations, the smith sewn yarning the national gallery of art and the national holocaust museum under the same conditions and effects as at the end of the just completed fiscal year. these functions of government would be funded at the same level as they were at the year we just completed until such time, again, as an apings pros bill is passed or a continuing funding measure is put in place. so that was something that the house voted on yesterday. it was defeated. again, house democrats not -- i shouldn't say it was universally but almost so, voted against that measure when it was brought up yesterday. hopefully today they will get a different outcome in the house. i think they will and it will come over here to the senate. another bill the house will move today will provide for the immediate availability of local funds which are subject to the control of congress through the annual appropriations process for the district of columbia. again, under the same conditions

as in effect at the end of the just completed fiscal year. and then finally there will be a bill that comes over from the house, provides funding for the pay and allowances of military personnel and the reserve component who are in active status. it will fund the guard and reserve, those funds, again, would be made available at the same level as the just completed fiscal year until such time as congress takes more formal action. and then finally the other thing that it will do, there will be another bill coming from the house, a fifth bill that will provide immediate funding for the national institutes of health at the same rate and under the same conditions in effect at the end of the just completed fiscal year. so the important work that's done by the national institutes of health will continue if the bill is enacted here by the senate to go on, even in the midst of a partial shutdown. i guess what i'm saying, madam president, is republicans are trying to address all of

these concerns that we have about various elements of our government that are not functioning today because of this partial shutdown. last night were met with resistance in the house of representatives. those were voted down by democrats. we are hoping for a different outcome today. i think we will have a different outcome today in the house of representatives, at which point those bills will come here to the senate. if the senate is interested in going on the record and making sure that there is funding available for veterans programs, for the museums and for our monuments and that sort of thing, for our guard and reserve, for the national institutes of health and for the district of columbia, which is under the jurisdiction of the congress when it comes to funding, the senate will -- should vote affirmatively and actually ensure that those important functions of our government are addressed and are funded. and so, madam president, i guess what i'm simply saying here

today is that time and time and time again now the house of representatives has sent to the senate legislation, measures that would continue to fund the government, and in earlier cases as they came over here address what i think the american people have said they want to see addressed in obamacare. you know, we've talked a lot about this, but the president of the united states has granted a delay, a one-year delay to employers in this country from the employer mandate. so essentially he gave a delay, a waiver if you will, to big business. what the house of representatives in one of the bills they sent the senate simply said was we ought to in fairness give the same break to individuals. there is an individual mandate in the obamacare law that kicks in, and that we ought to be able to give individuals in this country the same treatment that we give to big businesses. so as a matter of fairness that was proposed by the house of representatives, and the -- when

that bill came over, it also included a provision that would ensure that members of congress and their staffs and the staffs of the president's office and the executive branch of the government are all subject to the same law, same provisions, the laws apply the same way, the obamacare law, as are other americans. and so you had a one-year delay, temporary relief from the individual mandate included in that, and a provision that ensured that those of us up here and our staffs and members of the executive branch are treated the same way as are other americans. that too was tabled here in the united states senate. and it strikes me at least that as we think about the impact of this law, we ought to ensure that middle-class americans deserve the same relief that the president and that democrats here in the senate have already given to members of congress and to their staffs as well as to big businesses in this country. we had an opportunity to do that the other night.

that was rejected by the senate. and i think the question that every american ought to be asking is why? why would you not here in the united states senate, why won't democrat senators give the same break to the american people that big businesses have received? i would argue again it is an issue of basic fairness. we think it ought to be delayed for all americans, not just the favored view. there is bipartisan support for this. i've mentioned before that we have a democrat senator here in the united states who has said that a delay in the individual mandate is a very reasonable and sensible approach. i would hope that at some point that view will start to spread to others and we'll able to provide relief to the american people from the harmful effects of obamacare. but at least while we're in this period, as this continues to be discussed and hopefully eventually a solution reached, we ought to be protecting those americans who are being hit by

the shutdown. and so when these bills come over from the house of representatives today, i hope the senate will pick them up very quickly and act on them. we had an example or incident yesterday where a number of world war ii veterans came here to washington, d.c., honor flight guests. it's an organization that brings veterans here, world war ii veterans here to see their monument, the world war ii monument, memorial here in washington and couldn't get access to it because of the shutdown. that should be unacceptable to every american. we need to ensure that that never happens again. there was even reporting, madam president, that they had made a request of the administration to be able throg and that they -- to go able to go there and that they were turned down. i can't imagine turning down a group of world war ii veterans who simply wanted to see and have access to the very memorial for which they fought and defended our country 6789 those are the types of things action

taken by the senate here could prevent if in fact when this stuff comes over from the house of representatives the senate will act in an expeditious way, pick those bills up and pass them, we can ensure people have access to the monuments, memorials, we can ensure that the national institutes of health and the important work it does continues. we can ensure our national guard and reserve also are funded through this time. it strikes me at least that's a very commonsense way to approach the situation in which we find ourselves today. i would hope at the end of the day we could find a resolution that will allow the federal government to function on a sustainable basis. i think when you do these things on a short-term basis it is not a good way to govern a country as large as ours. if we at least can get a

minimum, we ought to resolve we're going to ensure that veterans and members of the guard and reserve, people who are visiting our country want to see the memorials, the phaourpls and that sort of -- the museums and that sort of thing have the opportunity to do that. we can do that today by passing the bills when they come over from the house of representatives. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, let me sort of review where we are. i've been listening to my colleagues on both side of the aisle talk about the effects of a government shutdown. and i will admit, i'm pretty sensitive about this. my state of maryland that i have the honor of representing is home to 286,000 federal workers, 124,000 on furlough today. we have 172,000 federal workers

who work in the state of maryland. i'm very much aware of what the consequences of what this government shutdown has been to our local economy. let me just sort of review where we are because i'm one who wants to get together. i want to get a government reached as soon as possible. i hope we can move forward, get rid of sequestration and get a budget that makes sense. but let me just review how we got to this point because it's been six months since the senate passed a budget. that's the blueprint for our committees to work. the house passed a budget which was different than the senate budget. and then it was important for both sides to negotiate well before october 1 to get a budget we could agree on so we could pass the appropriations bill. but one party and one party alone refused to meet. that was the republican party.

they refused to meet. then we got to october 1. this is not the first time in american history that congress hasn't been able to pass appropriations bills by october 1. it happens too frequently. what we do if we can't reach agreed, we keep government open while we continue at last year's funding level. that's called a continuing resolution. and that's what this body did. we passed a continuing resolution so the government would stay open at the funding level that the republicans wanted, because we didn't want to get into that fight because of the importance of keeping government open. and then we had the votes to pass that. we passed it here. we had the votes in the other body. but for one person, the speaker of the house, not bringing that up for a vote in the house of representatives where we have had a bipartisan majority, the

government shut down midnight on september 30. now, let me, if i might, i want to quote from the "baltimore sun" papers. it was this morning's editorial. because i know what i say sometimes people say was it a democrat speaking or republican speaking. let me just read from "the baltimore sun" today what they said about the negotiations. and i quote -- "it would be tempting of course to write that this impasse, the inability to agree on a continuing resolution to fund government past the end of the fiscal year was the fault of democrats and republicans alike. but that would be like blaming the hostages for causing the perpetrator to put a gun to their heads. as president barack obama noted he and congressional democrats put forward no agenda other than keep the government operating

currently at current levels. house republicans set conditions, not senate democrats. and it's not even clear how much in the g.o.p. truly wanted this to happen. conventional wisdom is the so-called clean resolution funding government would have passed on a bipartisan vote if it had been allowed on the floor by house speaker john boehner. " the editorial goes on, and i to in quote, "do house leaders think they can push the blame on president obama? some have already tried, but it sounds suspiciously like shoplifters blaming store owners for having so much tempting merchandise lying out. national polls show the public isn't buying it. most americans didn't want the government to shudder over obamacare. the presiding there is a double

digit lead in the white house. even the most unusual antigovernment crowd can't find much comfort in this, as sending federal workers home isn't saving anybody any money. the last time the federal government had an extended shutdown for 21 days, in late 1995 to early 1996, it cost something on the order of $2 billion. what an extraordinary waste of money, particularly at a time when conservatives claim to be worried about the deficit.." end quote. so, madam president, it's hard to negotiate when one side has put on the table what is where we should be, allowing government to stay open, using last year's numbers. and the other side brings in issues that are totally unrelated to the continuation of

government. having said that, we've got to find a way. we've got to find a way to get government opened. i'm pleased the president is meeting with the leaders this afternoon. i'm pleased they are also talking about making sure we pay our bills, which is at jeopardy in just two weeks. i mentioned earlier -- i'm a little sensitive about this because of the impact it has on the economy of my state. it has an impact on the entire country. the entire country is tpw-g to to -- is going to hurt. my state is $15 million a day we lose as a direct result of the government shutdown. it has been estimated by moody's brian kessler if the shutdown went three or four week it would cost our economy $15 billion. it is a major impact on our economy. it is not just federal workers who aren't going to get paychecks. it's the shop owners who depend upon business that's going to be cut back. it's contractors who depend upon

the contracts being honored by the federal government. and the list goes on and on and on, the impact it has on our economy. and as i quoted from the "sun" papers, the taxpayers will pick up the tab. they're not going to save any money. it's going to cost them money big-time. not a few bucks. it's going to cost a lot of money once we get back. and every day we wait, it costs the taxpayers of this country more money. so -- so those of us that are interested in dealing with the deficit keep government operating. it's a huge waste of resources to shut down the government. now, we're going to lose some vital services. earlier today, i held a conference with senator mikulski, senator warner and senator boxer where we went over some of the real impacts that occur, and we were joined by federal workers, madam president, that wanted to be at work doing their service to this country but because of

the government shutdown, they were furloughed workers. now, this isn't the first attack against federal workers that we've seen. we have seen in the last couple of years freezes on their budgets. we have seen them furloughed as a result of sequestration. we have seen freezes on hiring so they are asked to do more with less. we have less federal workers per capita in modern history asked to do more work. so let me just relay some of the stories, some of the accounts by the people that came to washington today so that their story can be told. delsolo decanta works for the substance abuse administration. he works in rockville, lives in poolesville, maryland. he does vital work to help prevent substance abuse. he has worked on his -- he has work on his desk that he could do today to help keep people healthier.

instead, he is furloughed, sitting at home, can't go in to work. we have heard from amy fritz, a meteorologist and physical oceanographer at the national weather service. she works in silver spring, maryland. i have been there. this is the agency that tracks the storms. thank goodness we have reliable information about hurricane sandy. that work was done not on the weather channel. it was done by federal public servants. amy has a double degree. she is a national expert in this area. you know what she said today? how do i know we shouldn't be tracking a storm right now, getting additional information to keep our country safe? that's what's at stake here. people that are here -- we have seen incredible weather episodes of late. every person should be on board

doing their work. noaa had to furlough, same as a layoff, 55% of their work force, 6,633 employees furloughed as a result of the government shutdown. we have heard from carter kinsey. she works for the national science foundation. she has been there since 1976. she works with young people getting them involved in science, giving the basic research that's critically important for economic growth and this country's competitiveness. she tells us that she has work on her desk that's critically important to young people continuing in science. she can't work today because of the government shutdown. that's going to affect america's competitiveness. we're going to lose scientists.

we're going to lose a great deal as a result of government being shut down. heard from steve hopkins, office of pesticide programs at the environmental protection agency. e.p.a. had to furlough 94% of their workers. 15,181 workers furloughed at e.p.a. so what is he not doing today that he could have been doing? helping keeping our environment safe for the overuse of pesticides, making it a little bit safer for our children as they breathe the air, drink the water of this country. that's what's at jeopardy here. now, i can tell you about their individual stories. when i talked to marcel decanto, he told me he just recently purchased a home in poolesville, maryland. we're happy about that. he has a mortgage payment.

i asked how is your spouse doing? she is also furloughed. how are they going to pay their mortgage payment? it's interesting, a story that was told to us by carter kinsey. she was telling us the ethics that they use in scientific experiments, and they talk about how they treat the animals they use, and they say, you know, we make sure they get the resources necessary. they're fed, they are taken care of. well, how about our federal workers? shouldn't they have their paycheck to pay their food bills? this is outrageous, as far as being wasteful, as far as being against economic growth in this country, but it's also wrong, wrong to the people who have been victimized by this, who don't know if they are going to get a paycheck. we have people working. we have people getting paid.

we have people working that don't know if they are going to get the money to pay their bills. what is the empathy here to what you're doing? this is outrageous. my colleagues already talked about the national institutes of health, located in maryland. 73% of their employees furloughed. do you know what they do? just the most incredible research in the world so we can stay healthy. we can find out the mysteries of incredible diseases. they are working on that scene now with influenza, save millions of lives. what do we do? we go home and not work? this is not a game. we're affecting people's lives by what we're doing here. 200 people, patients, will be denied care this week at n.i.h. as a result of the shutdown. who knows whether one of those individuals, whether it makes it

life or death, that's what is involved. the f.d.a., 45% of their employees furloughed. they won't be able to conduct the inspections, compliance and enforcement of our food laws, our safety laws. department of interior, 81% of their employees furloughed. what an embarrassment, i was talking to a reporter from another country, what an embarrassment. the iconic national parks of america closed, but it also affects the businesses around all those parks, as well as convincing the public. small business administration, two-thirds of their employees furloughed. if you are a small business person depending on a loan. you don't have the officer there to process that loan. what do you do? madam president, the list goes on and on. i go through every agency. there is only one answer to this -- keep government open. not one agency, two agencies, three agencies.

keep every agency open. that's the responsible thing for us to do. we should do that, make sure we pay our bills, and, yes, we should negotiate a balanced way to move forward on the budget. i have been talking on the floor many times about that, and there is a give and take we have to make on the budget moving forward. we have to balance our books. we need the revenues necessary to do it. we have to look at all spending, not just discretionary domestic spending. we have to look at all spending. we need to do that in a bipartisan manner, because guess what, the republicans don't control the house and senate and the white house and the democrats don't control the house, so the public expects us to work together on a budget. that's not what this debate's about. this debate is whether we are going to keep government open, whether we are going to pay our bills, and we must do that for the sake of the people in this country. i just want to mention one other issue. i filed yesterday legislation with many of my colleagues that

make it clear that those federal workers that are furloughed, we're going to fight to do what we did in the 1990's when we went on a furlough, when we went on a government shutdown and pay all federal workers. they are innocent. they should be made whole. my legislation, cosponsored by many of our colleagues, we have bipartisan support in the house of representatives, that we get that bill passed and make sure that every federal worker is held whole as a result of this shutdown. it's not their fault. 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: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended

until 5:00 p.m. and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect and that senator reid be recognized following morning business and that all time spent in quorum calls be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, what is the pending business before the senate? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. mikulski: i ask unanimous

consent that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: madam president, i wish to speak as this morning business and consume such time as necessary. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: thank you, madam president. well, i think we're growing weary. i think we're growing weary of the gridlock, deadlock, hammerlock on our government. i think we're growing weary of the partisan posturing by one faction in one party in one house. the american people want us to reopen government so that government should be meeting the national security needs of the united states, protecting the safety of the people of tunes, meeting -- of the united states and meeting jobs like in physical infrastructure and laying the groundwork for jobs tomorrow investing in research

and development. the american people want a government that works as hard as they do and so do i. instead of working hard to serve our veterans or our elderly or promoting a growing economy, here we are in the shutdown of the government. now, towz is going -- the house is is going through sending us bills that on the first blush seem attractive. i mean who doesn't support our national guard? who doesn't want to fund n.i.h.? i certainly do. n.i.h. is located in my state. i'm so proud of the fact that the men and women who work there and also the funding that goes to great state universities doing research like the university of wisconsin, that they're out there doing it. but we cannot cherry pick what they're doing now is a public

relations ploy, public relations ploy. the house wants to send us cherry picked solutions to the shutdown problem. it is contrived and it is cynical. what i am asking for the house of representatives to do is to take up the senate bill that we sent them that is a clean continued funding resolution. what does "clean" mean? it means it is stripped out of politically motivated, ideological riders. and the second thing is, it would fund government for six weeks. it would give us in that six weeks the chance to work out what our funding should be for the rest of the year. i would hope we'd find a way to cancel the sequester, which is

to reduce public debt without reducing jobs or opportunity, and get us through the debt ceiling. please, that bill is pending in the house now and i would ask that they do that instead of sending us these piecemeal solutions. i'd remind my colleagues that the continuing funding resolution passed the senate last friday. it does keep the government -- it reopens the government. it does give us the opportunity to renegotiate. we need to -- i'm willing to negotiate, but we can't cap pittualate to these -- capitulate to these partisan demands to defund obamacare and to do other kinds of riders that work against us. to move forward, we need to

pass the senate continuing resolution. now, i understand that later today that the president is meeting with speaker boehner, nancy pelosi, majority leader reid and senator mcconnell. i hope that wiser heads would now prevail and we would get a path forward to reopen all of government, not cherry pick items, many of which are desirable. absolutely desirable. but we need to open the entire federal government. so i know that what the house wants to send us over is to reopen n.i.h. of course. that's what i just said. but what about then, the centers for disease control? so we open n.i.h. but we don't

open the centers for disease control. you know, it's an agency that's located in atlanta, but it's part of our public health triad which goes to the work of n.i.h., the work for the food and drug administration, which stands sentry over the safety of our food supply, and the safety and efficacy of our drugs and medical devices, and then there's the center for disease control. that's down at atlanta. right this very minute in atlanta, georgia, at the center for disease control, close to 9,000 people have been furloughed. furloughed is just a nice word that means layoff. layoff. and it also means that not only are the labs in atlanta, but it also affects labs in colorado, ohio, pennsylvania, west virginia. the work of the c.d.c. is

nationwide because they're our biosurveillance system on infectious disease. that means that state health departments, all 50 states and our territories depend on the centers for disease control to be giving them information on what is the -- tracking the trends related to infectious diseases. that way they can avert -- alert clinicians, pediatricians if there is a new kind of ear infection that could infect children. but there is no one there that can do this. earlier this year, to give you an example, hepatitis a sickened 161 people in ten states. c.d.c. linked the outbreak to pomegranate seeds coming in from a foreign country in a frozen berry mix. we were able to go right to the

private sector, who complied with this right away, we were able to get that off the market, contain this from spreading to other people, and be able to, again, working with the private sector, protect the american people. don't we want to reopen c.d.c.? i could go on to the fact that we could go over diseases after diseases, infections after infections they won't be monitoring. let's take a common one, flu. we've all had the sniffles but the sniffles can also kill people. on the average, more than 200,000 americans will be hospitalized because of flu. 3,000 americans die from flu. vaccines can prevent the flu. we now -- c.d.c., the centers for disease control, were out there making sure there was enough vaccine available, that

it was being distributed fairly and equitably in the united states but also watching the infection trends because if a trend was heading to one state or one locale, the public health people could work and we could be working to accelerate or expand our flu vaccine. this is what they do. and did you also know that they're disease detectives? many people don't know they're disease detectives. so what does senator barb mean when she says this? sometimes there is an outbreak. people are sick, people even die. they wondware it is. they dial 911 and it's like a disease identification s.w.a.t. team. they go in working with the best and brightest at that state level, going to use the best technology and science from our country and even around the world to identify what that is.

that's how we found out about legionnaire's disease, the hunter virus disease affecting indian reservations. that's how we jumped in on the pomegranate seed situation. they get right in there. but you know what, those people were furloughed. they were furloughed. what is this? so, sure, do i want to reopen n.i.h.? i absolutely do. but i'm going -- i want to talk about the centers for disease control. i could also talk about federal -- other federal employees, and what shutdown means. not only public health, but, madam president, i believe in social security. i really do. it's meant so much to so many people. it is one of the great earned benefits in our country. the -- i want to make sure there is no false alarm here. social security checks will go out. however, as of this week, for

the people who work at social security on eligibility benefits for the elderly, disability benefits for those who are unable to work, they have been furloughed over the entire united states of america, social security has furloughed 18,000 people in local communities, social security is everywhere, providing access to the american people to apply for their social security, apply for disability benefits, and also apply for their medicare. 18,000 people. now, social security is headquartered in maryland. again, this isn't because it's in maryland. i know these workers. i know how the exams that they take to qualify to work for social security, whether it's a claims -- the claims representatives or whether i