>> because the matching is really a big deal. it's going to help them save money and i it's going to help them get a better quality outcome. >> very much so. you're going to have to get that data down in such a way it's more consumer global so people make the right choices. sometimes you get, present us with the best choice but to can't drive us there.

that's a big chunk. >> that's something that employees are also a bit concerned about is privacy as well, as we get more data and start using it more as the nsa incident has shown. we're all very vulnerable having that data out there. >> i would like to follow up on the point you're making. when you think about quality and cost, the two are related and if are going to attack the underlying challenges of making health care both affordable and high in quality you can't just took out the health care level. have to go down to what hospitals and doctors are doing. we are seeing some encouraging results. one of our ncos, their physicians have understood the economics of this new model and out in and of themselves they're starting to be innovative. an example, they notice in the clinical literature that patients who were on a ventilator in the icu, if they

are sedated a stay on the family will and they stay in the icu longer with tremendous cost applications. in and of themselves. we didn't talk to them about this at all. we will create a clinical protocol that we'll implement in the icu, and we will not sedate our patients which is what they were doing, and what they found was that patients got off a ventilator more quickly, they were discharged from the icu more quickly. when you look at how much money they said it was on the order of tens of millions of dollars in one year. that's the kind of innovation at the clinical level that i think is going to be required to get cost and quality to where it needs to be. >> doesn't that lower infection rates as well? spent i don't think this study talked about that. >> there was another study showed the last time you spent on a ventilator was the less infactions. there must be some unintended benefits as well besides just saving money. >> but that's a perfect example

of where it doesn't have to go. we often think most, both of our economy increasing quality cost more money, right? but, in fact, in the health care arena most of our poor quality outcomes wind up costing us more money. and so we are pretty encouraged that some of these new innovations that are forming are going to be able, reach the holy grail. increase your improving our quality for more people while driving down the cost we all pay for health care. it's too early to know whether that's going to happen to the extent we all want it to happen, and we have to make sure that the incentives are right. for the last few decades the incentives are health care system haven't been aligned with what we all want them to be. there's an opportunity here to get them online in the right way and that's to say small businesses a lot of money, allow

them to grow more rapidly, grow our economy and all sorts of ancillary benefits. >> can you define what you mean by the benefits being misaligned? >> for years, the prime minister has been to provide more care, not message of high quality care or care that provides, that increases the quality outcomes. >> it such a powerful point he makes. if you look at one man's cost, it's another man's revenue, right? so the cost that you are paying close to the raven of our hospitals and our physicians. and if you compare our performance versus the other leading industrial countries we spend about 60% more on hospital services than other countries and yet you don't see better quality measures. you don't see that outcomes. so the incentives are largely what drove this. the opportunity to modify those incentives come and again this is being driven by the

accountable care act and the contracting that it encourages, it's really profound. so we are seeing changes. you're going to chang see changh good and somewhat argued that, by think what you see is hospitalization use rates come down but that's going to mean some hospitals may end up going out of business and that's a real challenge for many communities. you look at a many communities. they will look and say wait a minute, that's not a good thing. in reality it may well be as long as the system can accommodate that extra volume. that's all depend on these health care systems be more efficient if they become more efficient, so process could actually work. >> my grandmother used to hospitals are no places for sick people. i think the previous been touched on this which is moving out of the committee more and providing care more in the community. can accountable care organizations be part of that and are we going to see that happening? when i imagine an aco, maybe we should define a little bit about

what an accountable care organization is and what it is an. you think of a big hospital and these doctors being attached to it but that's not what is going to look like, he said? >> i think you will see aco take many forms. most of our relationships are with hospital centric acos. the reason we did that is come if you look at how physicians practice today, traditionally they have been an independent practice, solo and small groups. what happened is physician practices have been bought by hospitals and so now on the order of 70% of all practices are actually owned or are in line -- or are in aligned with hospitals. they are creating the unit of care. i think you will feel a lot of acos take the form. you're seeing other acos that a purely physician driven. they are ones where a group of physicians have come together and said gee, i'm the one who controls how health care is spent because i'm the doctor. i'm going to take accountability for the health and wellness and disease management of a

population of patients, an and t of control that and i'll just use the hospitals almost as a store that i would rent space in. i don't know which model is going to work out better. there's reasons to believe both can work, and i think we'll just have to see in the future how things work out. >> i want to ask, can health pockets and other provisions like yours help patients find one? i can't find a aco right now. i live in washington, d.c. >> i share that pain. absolutely. one of the things that hasn't been mentioned that much better don't take up too much in the general conversation is the effort that government is making and releasing data to the public is the health data initiative. they had anything in june that 2000 developers showed up too. but for that a company like healthpocket wouldn't exist,

because that date is so valuable and it's now in the public domain. so over a period of time, things like aco existence, pricing, how do you do, quality scores, this will all be public. and then the challenge is much more about the usability of that information. your average consumer is not going to figure, not going to want to spend the time to figure it out. they can but it's very, very time-consuming. so then the question is, are there businesses, such as healthpocket and others, that could help consumers navigate through those systems to get to a choice that works for their particular situation? so it's all predicated on the existence of data. the data is increasingly coming out there. it's not all there yet, but it's increasingly coming out there. it's also allowing users to have

independence from the insurance industry. so usually in the old days you'd have to go to the insurance company as they can we do a deal to get some information? now it is much more available for public use, which is a great thing. and will be transformational. >> what kind of data are we talking about? >> we are talking about, we're talking about plan to data. we are talking a sort of the early days of provided data. we are talking about quality of scores, for example, medicare has quality scores but you can go behind that and the data is publicly available for 50 some odd attributes that make up the quality score. so the overall quality score may matter to somebody but somebody with diabetes is going to be much more interested in the attributes that go into the treatment of diabetes. you can do those things now. >> the interface on that so

people find what they need from that. kind of the related concept of medical home is another interesting development that is helping to drive change. too many times we have various positions in various corners, and having somebody quarterback that can help drive the better care is somewhat fairly encouraging. >> this is worst some of your stay most dollars come into play, because in the stimulus bill there's something called the high-tech act. and the high-tech act stated on the order of 30 some odd billion dollars to get physicians and hospitals to deploy health information technology to in essence, computerizing what physicians and hospitals do. and that act has been very effective in getting those systems out into use amongst doctors and hospitals. so there's an infrastructure there that can be taken advantage of. there's a lot of work a lot of

work we selected you around making that data interoperable. clinical data is a prose, this is a 30 year old hispanic they know with a history of et cetera. it's gross, not discrete data so there's a large effort going on with the standards committee and the policy committee to help us take that infrastructure and turn it into interoperable data. that's going to have tremendous benefit and complement what you're seeing with these aco innovations, which is with a private exchange innovations. now we will have real data that can help influence and optimize patient choices and physician choices. >> you say we've made a lot of progress, but i know i've heard complaints from a lot of doctors that the software is hard to use. it's worse than trying to even get on one of the health exchanges has been this week. trying to input stuff. will we see some innovation on that?

perhaps voice recognition software. >> there's a tremendous amount of innovation going on. the problem with the technology that doctors are using and the reason their complaint is a lot of the eu mars that are out there today were built for fee-for-service medicine, volume-based medicine. how do you get physicians to the system in that world? under documentation so you can of code and get more reimbursement. the world we're entering in now is how to use technology to take care of a population of individuals who are accountable for, anticipate their diseases, get them on the right treatments that are evidence-based and keep them healthy. that's a fundamentally different thing but either way it requires technology and so what you're seeing is the industry kind of struggle with we built the technote he for the model, we got to move into this new model and that's a work in progress. >> we touched on briefly but privacy is a huge issue and i know it's become a political issue that the administration has been accused of not protecting people's privacy enough in developing this. is this really an issue or is it

a manufactured issue? >> i think it's very understandable why it's an emotional issue. at least in terms of the data we've seen so far that the government has a very good job of describing it. there's no personal identifier, everybody gets how important that is, that they didn't come without any kind of ability to tie back to an individual. is there a risk? sure. to the extent that the data becomes so important as a prerequisite to make this all work right, there are risks involved but there's a huge upside. the question is how do you manage the risk down to zero? and take the benefit of the upside spent the data scrub, how did you know asked me about my big tell? >> it's like those hospital gowns that don't quite close on

the back. we're going to have to get over a few hurdles. >> how is this all going to move forward? how do we get to 2015 and beyond? what kind of changes do you see coming? how do the exchanges play into this? how do the trans-explain to this? is a something else we haven't talked about that is going to make things change? >> big question is whether the employer's system continues. there are a lot of stressors on it, the employer mandate is going to encourage people to manage through that 30 our syndrome. there's a 50 employee level which woul we would like to takp to at least 100, or more. that are the individual taxes that will burden like the health insurance tax that will burden particular plans. that's as much as three, $400

per family costs on addition to premiums. beginning this year and moving them. so are a lot of opportunities to bend the cost curve but there are a lot of other cost that could turn out to be a barrier to people getting that coverage, whether it's through a company or whether it's individually. >> did i choos just hear you car a single-payer system? >> no. i didn't say that. it would have fewer moving parts than the affordable care act, i would give you that. >> i think i need to stick up on that one. i think you are going to see tremendous changes in health plan industry. what we're trying to do at aetna is be more of what we call an intermediary. in the past what did health plan to? we priced risk. we had claimed it which primarily its purpose was to pay

a bill. in the future when you're working with acos and contractor with acos when they say on the capital for population of patients, the next question is, what data can you share with me to help me manage those patients more efficiently and effectively. health plans have a meaning for you role because while the clam digger we have. the expertise we built over the years and managing it. i think the other thing you're going to see is some health plans are going to kind of move into just we are a contracting vehicle, we play -- we pay to play. i think you'll see their scope of activities narrow and they will fade away in the background and just the background and just the interests of the pace climbs. i think you'll see others like ourselves and a few others are trying to get into the information age and use technology, tools to support the physician and the delivery system and the aco in total in achieving their goal, which is high quality, low-cost, et cetera, convenience. i think you'll see the health plan industry go through

disruptive innovation. >> i do want to indicate that we strongly support the private sector system. i think a lot of change arrives from the direction. we americans are on. we don't line up well. we don't hew up well. and i think the aca is going to bring disruptive change to the marketplace, how people obtain coverage, how they think of medical care but we continue think that innovation is driven from the private sector-based health care system, and that's a strength of our system. >> i think we've hit and innovation tipping point where you don't see the results yet, but having done this for a bunch of years you would get this creative ideas coming to you and you would say if for only a

partial risk for fee-for-service, how do you make that work? because it saves money but how do you get paid to implement this design. it doesn't really matter. if you can go to aetna now and say, i've got this thing that i invented and i can prove to you that it's going to save money and have a similar outcome, or cost no moment and have a better outcome, then if you can prove that point in aco and violent, you will win. this is really kind of the first time that we've had that opportunity. the innovation is following. there's a bit of a lag and it is a disruptive period, but it's there. >> i don't know how long you all have been sitting here, but i'm sure you're eager for the opportunity to ask a question. so i think we will move into the audience with some questions,

and i think you probably already know the routine. there's a microphone going around. can you please let us know who you are and who your with, so that our panelists can structure their questions accordingly? >> i'm doctor carol thompson. i'm a practicing physician i was one with all these plans and moving parts aren't there going to be tremendous transaction cost with a new system, which will also have significant health i.t. costs and significant management costs? no one talked about the costs that come specifically with this disruptive change. >> well, i would say there's tremendous transaction costs today. if you look at the amount of money we spend on administration of the current system, it's high. i think you are going to see

cost -- i wouldn't call them cut transaction costs. i would call them in investments that need to be made to help reinvent how the health care system works. site you think you'll see a lot of organizations making major investment in additional technology, in care management programs, maybe and physical plants that are not inpatient the more outpatient and community focus. sigh to think you'll see a lot of investment but i don't think, i don't think there's any reason to believe transaction costs will get any higher than where they are today. and arguably, with a greater focus, the greater transparency on costs you may see a renewed effort to reduce costs. i give you a couple of examples. some of our acos that we work with, they are investing in software that helps them manage their supply costs much better. others are investing in software that helps them stack more efficiently to demand come which

are things i didn't worry about as much in the past. i think you'll see those kinds of investments occur, but i'm not sure why transaction costs would necessary go up. >> what was that format they used to give you an econ 101 for restocking? i guess we moved past that. are there more questions? >> sherry morgan with the national association of social workers. and i'm interested in hearing from any of you what things you anticipate and changes or plans to implement the mental health parity regulations that are anticipated to be published by the end of the year and how that marries with the affordable care act? >> who wants to take that one? >> i ask of spent a lot of time on that issue, and and it's been a long road from conception an

agreement in congress, president bush signing it, to getting it actually into the promised of care delivery. and education. so we're anxious to see that. we are hopeful that it will not add additional cost to the system but i think in the end in countless ways we know we need to do better, at identifying and treating people to avoid some of the tragedies large and small that we all have experienced. >> another question back there. >> or am i just seeing the microphone going around? let me ask the panel is what people are thinking -- have you seen anything in the past few weeks that surprise you in particular in either a positive

or a negative way? >> you are starting to see, as this go live you're starting to see us into some of the unintended consequences of the law, things that, boy, that was kind of complicated. so you will see things like, we have done some work on the subsidy issue. and doing the math, saw that as a person gets older, say 60 plus, and a couple, there's a cliff in the subsidies. so there's subsidies. so disappointed what you get a $10,000 subsidy and make 1 dollar more and get zero. things like that. as this comes -- we try not to get into politics of it and try to be very forward-looking. in a perfect world some of those things could get ironed out and fix. hopefully that will still be the case. but that's a complex law and to be expected, but i think over the next couple of months we

will see a number of those things pop up along the way. >> we are long, long overdue for a technical fix bill. and hopefully congress gets past the current tantrum and it moves forward on implementation. speak i would say that something i've been thinking a lot about the last few weeks as washington continues its pattern and function as neil second we already are long overdue for a bill on this law. even the framers of the law nude even when time was passed, whether after that it would need to be fixed. but that hasn't been politically feasible. now as we're looking at there's all kinds of things that can go wrong in the next year or two. things that didn't attack the just right. the single biggest one probably

being how effective is individual mandate going to be? are people going to buy the health insurance or not. if you don't, what will the second your premiums look like and how but then if you go back to exactly what neil was talking about. there's a huge thing in the entire law, policy makers want to make some decisions and pivot and do some things, ideally, to deal with that depend on how it shakes out but i don't think any of us have any confidence that we'll or even can happen. spent not in this congress. spent i think the thing that surprised me is the speed of change. you know, usually things happen pretty slowly and health care industry, and what i'm seeing in the private sector, new investors investing, a company which is raised $100 million to go out and do some very innovative things and health plans based. the our massive investments, innovations, new companies and the speed is just, i've never seen this kind of speed in our industry before.

>> are there more questions in the audience? yes, right here. >> i'm with the american medical association. this is for dr. kennedy. whether the metrics that it is going to use or decide to is in or out of the network in terms of physician, hospital, other providers. and the second part is if on the patient with a chronic disease, how do i know ahead of time when i'm checking a plan whether not a physician fee is in the network or not? >> great question. first of all let me first distinguish between narrow networks and acos. a narrow network in the past was a designation by the health plan of a select group of physicians and/or hospitals who met certain quality criteria and certain cost criteria. that's not what we are doing here. what we are doing here is going

through we call an organizer care. it could be a hospital to it could be a medical group. they are decided who they want to include in their aco, not us. when we look at an organizer of care, what we typically look for is does this set of physicians or hospitals or institutions or integrated delivery system, are they broad enough to take care of 80% plus of a typical populations needs? and if they are then we're very open to doing a deal with them. the power of what we're doing is we're getting out of the kind of we're dictating to the physicians who are thin at the their deciding and then they have in some cases what we call private-label health plan. it's their own health plan and we create complete transparency in the end. so what that allows the physicians did it is really be empowered. vacancy specifically in the claim data how their

institutional costs compared with others in the area, other forms because compare with others in the area. then we typically also do is introduce technology so that they can take those insights and influence their practice patterns so they can achieve the kind of outcomes necessary. so i really see what we're trying to do as both empowerment of the physicians, empowerment of the delivery system and through private exchange, choice to be able to create a direct relationship with them. the days where we say you're in or you're out, we are moving away from. >> i think we're time for a very, very quick question and then we will have to wrap it up. >> ari want a way to improve coverage. you say you'll be getting coverage to the new system, affordable care, but it's on paper. issue up at an emergency clinic and you are told they don't take medicare.

they just shoot away. you have to go someplace else and find a physician but in some places they may still be open for business, then you can get something done on a very good basis. another question, do you have a hand surgeon that you have been referred to. you show up and find out they don't take aetna but they do take medicare. now you have another problem. so we have coverage of both medicare and aetna, what to do. yet another hand surgeon, they indicate that they don't really take any of these plants. they leave it to you to try to work out something with the medical coverage you have and file your own claim. is there someway to supply all this and make it better for the public? >> is this what the aco is supposed to be doing and some of the other solutions? >> it's partly a system asia in part a technology issue. so to the extent it's not a system issue, an then technology would really help which is to be able to go to whatever your

smartphone from your computer, your ipab, whatever and say i need to find so-and-so in my network and have it pop with a certain amount of quality information and pricing. and i think once you start to include information problems and you'll know a lot better whether a system problem. then he becomes a quality of your care, quality of your health plan issue. but hopefully can do that sequentially. again, a lot of that data is becoming available to work of those problems over a period of time but it's not going to happen overnight. >> great. i think we'll have to cut it short and let people get to the networking break. i'd like to thank our panelists, steve zaleznick, neil trautwein, charles mccracken and -- spent tom mccracken. >> tom mccracken and charles can be. sorry. i need a lunch break as well, it's quite obvious.

thank you so much for helping us with the questions that we had to answer, for explain what's going on with the health exchanges and the accountable care organizations, and predicting an interesting innovative future for health care system. thanks very much for your attention. [applause] >> thursday kentucky governor steve beshear criticize members of congress opposed to the health care law. in remarks at "national journal" forum on health care, he spoke about kentucky's efforts to implement the law. his remarks are 50 minutes. >> thank you very much. not a great crowd here today. i assume most of you work for the federal government. you needed something to do. i want to thank bruce and the "national journal" for inviting me to speak to this forum on a very timely and important topic.

i also want to say thank you to the presenting sponsors, both of whom have kentucky connections. obviously, blue cross blue shield association has connection everywhere, but anthem blue cross and blue shield of indiana tacky is one of our biggest insurers and does a lot of business there. the connection we have with the american medical association is special. because the president of the association is from lexington, kentucky, the great doctor there and we're very proud that she heads up the american medical association this year. i'm here today to talk about how and why kentucky both proud and aggressively is leading the nation in implementing the affordable care act. now, i know what you're

thinking. kentucky? a red state? red state kentucky seems like kind of an odd choice to be embracing an initiative so closely identified with our democratic president. how is it that kentucky was one of the first states to have our health benefits exchange certified and is the only southern state to both expand medicaid and develop its own state-based exchange? well, quite honestly it's because the conventional notions that most of you have about kentucky's are wrong. as kentucky's governor, let me tell you a few things about my state that people in the national media and on the national political scene have been slow to recognize. for example, some 25 years ago a

court case challenging the adequacy of our school system led to an inspiring top to bottom overhaul of our schools that saw kentucky emerge as a national leader in innovation and reform. since taking office in 2007, i have accelerated that momentum as we've adopted a new testing and accountability system. kentucky became the first state in the country to adopt a national common core academic standards. kentucky became the second state in the country to adopt the next generation, science standards. and this year we just raised our dropout age from 16 to 18. we moved up an astonishing 24 spots in two years in education weeks a claim quality counts ranking movie from 34th in the

country to 10th. in the world of business, kentucky has also been recognized for our aggressive efforts to emerge from the global recession a lot sooner than most states. in 2012, we ranked number two in the entire country for job growth rate over the previous year. number three in auto production. number two in the growth of exports. we set a record for exports in 2012. we are on track to better that record this year. number three in growth of manufacturing gdp. so that might help you to better understand or put in perspective why kentucky is leading the charge on the implementation of the affordable care act. you see, there is a huge disconnect between the rank partisanship of national politics and the governors,

whose priorities are helping beleaguered families, strengthening our workforce is, attracting companies, and building balanced budgets. that's why several governors, not just democrats like me, also republicans like arizona's jan brewer, ohio's john kasich, michigan's rick snyder, see the affordable care act not as a referendum on president obama, but as a tool for historic transformation. in the kentucky, a state whose collective health has long been horrendous, we see this as a huge opportunity. and we are seizing that opportunity. kentucky ranks among the worst, if not the worst, in almost every major health category. from smoking to cancer deaths,

preventable hospitalizations, premature death, cardiac heart disease, diabetes. and folks, those rankings aren't just from this year or last year. those rankings haven't changed much since they started keeping rankings many years ago. now, we've made progress and we continue to make progress, but incremental improvements are not enough. we need big solutions with the potential for transformational change. we are literally going to change the course of kentucky's history through the affordable care act. because for the first time we will make affordable health insurance available to every single citizen in the commonwealth of kentucky. right now, 640,000 people in kentucky are uninsured. that's almost one in six

kentuckians. many of these uninsured people work, or at least they did before the recession took many other jobs away from them. insurance is either not able to them through their employers, or it's simply unaffordable. now, these people aren't a group of aliens from some distant planet. we know these people. they are our friends and our neighbors. they are our former classmates and our hunting buddies. they are the farmer on the charger, the substitute teacher grading papers, the seasonal construction worker, the nurse's aide, the new graduate at a new high-tech startup, the grocery clerk. folks we go to church with these people. we sent them -- we sit within in bleachers on friday nights and watch our kids played baseball and football and soccer and basketball. some of these folks are family

members. lack of health coverage put their health and their financial security at risk. every day they roll the dice and just hope and pray that they don't get sick. they choose many times between food and medicine. they ignore checkups that would catch series conditions early. they put off doctors appointments, hoping that a condition turns out to be nothing. and they live knowing that bankruptcy is just one bad diagnosis away. furthermore, their children go long periods without checkups that focus on immunizations, preventive care, and vision and hearing tests. if they have diabetes, asthma, infected gums, or some chronic condition, it remains undetected and untreated.

now, for kentucky as a whole, that negative impact is very similar. increased health care costs, decreased worker productivity, lower quality of life, depressed school attendance, a poor image. the affordable care act will help us address those weaknesses. now, those 640,000 uninsured kentuckians, 308,000 of them, mostly the working poor, will be covered when we increase medicaid eligibility guidelines to 138% of the federal poverty level. expanding medicaid is a good deal for us. you know, when i made that decision, i had two factors to consider. one was easy. is it the right thing to do? well, when you have six or 40,000 of your people without insurance coverage and have an opportunity to do that for them, to me it was the morally right

thing to do. but i had another part of that decision to ponder. can we afford to do it backs because of also got a fiscal responsibility as kentucky's governor to make sure that i don't make a decision that will put our state in harm's way from a fiscal standpoint. so i hired to independent groups, pricewaterhousecoopers, the actuarial firm, university of louisville's urban institute. and ask them. i said, look at this and come back and tell me the numbers. they took about six months. they came back. they sat down, you look me in the eye and they said, governor, you cannot afford not to do this. they concluded that expanding medicaid would inject 15 points $6 billion into kentucky's economy over the next eight years. that it was great almost 17,000 jobs, that it would turn costly federal mandates into an

802 million positive budget impact in kentucky. and that would protect kentucky's hospitals from the impact of cuts and indigent care funding. now come the other 332000 uninsured kentuckians are the ones that will be able to access affordable coverage, most with a discount through the health benefits exchange. the online insurance marketplace that we in kentucky have named connect kentucky's health care connection. as a matter of fact, of the 642000 kentuckians, 92% of them will either be eligible for expanded medicaid or eligible for a premium subsidy. now, critics have insisted over and over again that the affordable care act will never work.

the facts show differently. the facts show, for instance, that a similar approach that was put into effect in massachusetts i've been governor romney is working. and it is working in kentucky. let me give you some rather astonishing numbers. as you know we, like all system went live october 1 with our health benefits exchange. we got the first contact on that website at 12:01 midnight on october 1. it has been overloaded ever since. in the first 48 hours of connect, more than 118,000 individual visitors visited that website. more than 109,000 applicants got prescreened. more than 13,000 begin the application process. and nearly 8300 completed their

application. in addition, 122 small businesses started their application process. those numbers demonstrate at least demonstrate to all of us, not blinded by partisan politics, they demonstrate a pent up demand, or rather a desperate need for affordable health insurance in the commonwealth of kentucky. as for the naysayers, i'm personally offended by the partisan gamesmanship. as they continue to pour time, money and energy into either overturning over the funding the affordable care act. it's shameful that these critics have invested -- haven't invested that same sort of energy into trying to improve the health of our citizens. while they are playing their political games, the families in my state are suffering.

we need leaders who focus on helping people, not retaining political power. we need leaders motivated not by short-term political victory, but by long-term progress for this country. look, the affordable care act was proposed by the president, approved by congress, and upheld by the united states supreme court. it is the law of the land. so to those more worried about political power than kentucky's families, i've got a simple message for them. get over it. get over it, and get out of the way so that i can help my people. back home in kentucky, we cannot afford to waste another day or another life. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you for that, governor. you mentioned along the way mitt romney. mitt romney won 61% of the vote in your state. there are very few states that mitt romney won sector 1% of vote by their expanding medicaid and running their own exchange. in some ways you may be a test case to see whether active, aggressive application of the affordable care act will be accepted in a red state. what do you think? >> well, those numbers tell the whole story. we've got the naysayers out here. they have been saying this is going to be a train wreck. well, they are on the wrong train because this thing, so far, is a huge success. i mean, here in kentucky, for instance, or they're in kentucky, we've been hearing this stuff over and over again now for a year. and most folks haven't heard a lot of positive input about it. but man, at 12:01 midnight

october 1, that thing lit up and it's been lit up ever since. you've got hundreds, thousands of people that are anxious to find out about this. my message to them is very simple. i've told everybody in kentucky but i said look, you don't like up to present it don't have to like me because this is not about the president or about me. it's about you and it's about your families. you've got an opportunity to get it doesn't cost you a dime to go on that website, to call our toll-free number come to go see in person someone and find out about this. i'll just indeed this. when you do that, you will come away positively surprised. >> my next question is yup a lot of people in your state who don't have health insurance but are pretty conservative culturally, pretty skeptical of the federal government. do you think there's going to be either a cultural or ideological resistance to signing onto this, especially since it is known as

obamacare, among people who are eligible? you are testing this as well you're probably not see tested in oakland or georgia against do not making the same level of outreach effort spent on sure there will be some just like some in every state judges from an ideological standpoint won't do it. icac a caller this morning on the c-span program on some and he just ranted about the whole thing into something that i haven't even looked and all that and i just and reply said look, all i do this challenge you to go look. it's not going to cost you anything. you don't even have to like the president by just go look. if you find something that really good for your film, shame on you if you don't get it for your family. look, kentucky is one of the few places left for democracy still works i guess in the united states. i've got a republican senate and a democratic house. i'm a democratic governor. not we can sit down for the most part and act like adults and actually get things done. and my message --

[applause] >> my message from the time i ran in 2007 was pretty simple. i said i really don't care whether it's a democratic idea or a republican idea. if it's a good idea then we ought to sit down and work through it and make it happen. that's the way i've governed. so i'm hoping that most of our folks, whether democrats or republicans, are going to really get us a look. and so far the numbers say they will. >> that said, that what you were able to limit this is kind of unique, is extremely unique. it was not a question of the legislature, the republican, one ounce of the state legislature republicans embracing. you were able to do this unilaterally through executive action to talk about how you were able to pursue your own exchange and the medicaid expansion. >> fortunately years ago the legislature delegated to our cabinet for health and human services that regulate and run the medicaid program. they delegated to them the responsibility for medicaid

benefits. and eligibility. and all we had to do was issued and administered regulation and expand those benefits and expand everything we needed to in order to reach that 138% of the federal poverty level. and forth exchange i've issued an executive order setting up the exchange. i was soothed by some who said i didn't have the authority. and i one. so are going to get the job do done. >> and that litigation was specifically on the establishing of the exchanges, greg? >> ride spent now is going to this day the supreme court. when you anticipate them ruling on this? >> most of the time those cases drag on and on, and i'll be well down the road by the time last night. >> been well down the road, you are term limited to your and your final term. >> right. >> so you're pretty confident you can protect us over the next seven years but in 2015 kentucky

will elect a new governor. after you that several years under your belt if there is republican governor and a republican legislature, you think this will still be viable to reversal or will it be established to deep to be pulled out by the? >> i think by then the roots will be today. we look at kentucky and to look at the many areas where most of these uninsured live, yes, some of them live in urban areas. many of them live in rural areas that are represented by republican legislators. so once they have this coverage, and my guess is that within two or three years will get most of the 640,001 way or the other either through the exchange or in the medicaid expansion, once they have it, i really don't think politicians are going to go try to take it away. away. >> i want to talk about the applications of the. you mentioned kind of the pent-up demand, the flood of interest in the first 48 hours. you had some glitches on opening day, right? united out six hours where you were down.

where are you now? what is your sense on how it's working? what, if anything, is a message for other states that have had some bumps in the road, or more, as they've gotten out of the gate? >> the first measure for everybody is, go talk to a website company that puts these things up and ask them and they will tell you, you don't do this without glitches. particularly not on this big volume that we are having come at that they're having all over the country. we had a few bumps on the first day but we got them fixed within about six hours. we haven't had any bumps since. we may have another one but we've got six months to get every sunday. really we've got longer than that. that's when the penalties start taking about the penalties are so small when you first get in it that we will have plenty of time i think to get everybody signed up. >> the coverage on day two is many other states are, in fact, kind of ironing out the problem can't getting good reviews in places like california,

connecticut, minnesota, nevada. the big exception so far seems to be the federal site that is handling for about half the states that have chosen not to create exchanges. how worried are you about that? the federal governments ability to handle that massive task? >> i'm glad we did our own, but in their defense i don't think when they went into this they had any idea what 37 states were going to just default and let the federal government do it. so they've had a real job to get all that done. they will get it done. kathleen sebelius is a great secretary of the cabinet, i wanted to the. she's a former governor, and that's been so important to the governors out in the country. because she understands how to get things done and how to work with us. and they have been great on helping us get over all the glitches and all of the hurdles that we have to and get our exchange ready to go. >> how long do they have to get that together before it starts

creating larger questions about the program's? >> oh, i think -- i don't think there's any artificial deadlines. it's going to get better every day. people are going to get on there. i'll tell you, there's a pent-up demand for this out there. i know the politicians up here who are doing their daily grandstanding, you know, want to say, oh, this is a failure and others to this is going to be a success because people really want health care coverage. so they're going to keep at it until they get their health care coverage. i'll make a prediction to you. in another year or two, those people will look back and say what was all this yelling and screaming about? and the folks are after doing the political grandstanding right now will not have much credibility spent one of the expectations going into this was that people who have health issues or concerned about their families security would find a way to get on the exchanges, fight through any glitches, they know they need health care your but you need not only those

people to sign-up, you need younger people who don't necessarily feel they have the need health care and will not crawl across glass to find. the question is yet the big initial surge of interest, how do you feel about the status of your efforts to reach out to people who may be less motivated are you will probably need to balance your risk pool's? >> we started this education process moscow and we've been on college campuses and we've been out in public affairs and things like that reaching out to young people in middle age people as well as people who look like me to make sure they understand what's going on and get their interest. i've been surprised to i just read anecdotal evidence on this so far, but we've got young people that are going on there and saying, i'm 21, i work part-time, i go to school and all of this, and this is the first time i've ever been able to have health care coverage. obviously, at that age is more for catastrophic type of illness. they are well, they don't feel like they need anything, but

more -- i've been interested that i think more than i would've expected initially are showing a lot of interest. >> i don't know if policies cover hangovers. so a couple of aspects of this, have you been able, whatever the outreach, the affordability is critical especially for those young people about whether they're going, as you noted, take a relatively minor penalty for not complying with the individual mandate, or sign up. where are you on the affordability? how do you feel about the price of? >> i was reading the same stuff that everybody else was months ago where oh, my gosh, the project were these rates are not going to be very good. and then it finally dawned and every that the rates don't mean very much. everybody, all the news media want to compare rates from one state to another. that's just the starting point. that's the sticker price. really what people are interested in is what's it going

to cost the? what comes out of my pocket? when i mentioned 92% of our uninsured are going to be covered by medicaid or get a premium subsidy, most of those people, once they look at the rate that then they get the premium subsidy they will go oh, wow, that's all i've got to pay? that's what's going to make this go so well is to educate people about what's really going to come out of it. >> what does participation look like from injures? what kind of choices are available on the exchange of? >> we have i believe three insurers who are in every region of the state, and then for the small group, that's what individual market. for the small group market i think we have for right now. and, of course, they are all offering of four different levels of plans and all of the stuff that goes with that. so i feel good about the diversity we have. kentucky, for the last many years, haven't had a lot of competition. we've had two or three companies come and that's about what we

have now i'm at least we have those. everybody has at least two companies in any region of the state. >> one of the concerns is the effect on employee provided care. whether it will encourage more employers to -- we've seen his share of americans who receive care through an accord has declined every year since 2000 to i saw kentucky kentucky health issue poker division of using significant retrenchment in your state and employer provided care in recent years, and there was the ups recent announcement it was no longer going to cover spouses if they have coverage i think available on their own through work. as you talk to employers, what do you think is in for the future of employer provided care? would it be a problem is more of the movie there employs onto the exchanges? >> most employers and kentucky are just like individuals out there. they are not quite sure what's involved here. we are having lots of small

business now coming on to the exchange and finding out. you know, the great thing about it is, in spite of that web of misinformation that's been out there for so long, you know, people, employers with fewer than 50, they don't have anything if they don't want to. but if your grill small business and your 25 or fewer, go check because there are tax credits to fill up if you want to provide insurance for your employees you may be able to do it at a very affordable rate. let me clear up one thing. in news accounts of the ups announcement. i checked on that. what they did was, was paid out for their managerial level people. it's not for all their full-time people. it's just for the manager people and it's only for spouses that can already get coverage someplace else. so i think virtually all businesses, not all of them obviously, but most businesses are going to be responsible. those who really want to do something for the folks. you know what?

most businesses understand that it might cost me 1 dollar more here to get health coverage for my people but if it improves my productivity i make more money in the long run spent out of the roughly 640, how many expect you -- how many to expect to bring in speakers will cover the other 322000 in the exchange. >> what would be the impact in the state on the medical infrastructure that you have of bringing in that many people who are uninsured? that's when the questions a lot of people are asking. are we equipped to handle this many people who personally will be accessing more health care once they have insurance? >> i've heard of that concern and, obviously, it's a legitimate concern but we had that same concern when we passed medicare. somehow it all worked, didn't it? this will work also. the old saying build it and they will, i think really applies here. they passed medicare in the health care profession and all other professions adjusted.

it actually gave a lot of people more employment over the next few years. that's what's going to happen with the affordable care act. and i think you are also going to see over the long-term all of the little turf protection things out a lot of different types of health professionals have right now. i think you're going to see all of them being able to do a little more than what they did in the past in order to provide the care that's needed. ..

>> that is a very broad, very sweeping statement. how do you think life in kentucky will change, obviously, for individuals? there'll be better access to health care, but what'll change for the state itself if you could significantly reduce the number of uninshired? >> well, first of all, you've got to understand it's not going to happen next week or even next month or next year, but over the course of a generation, it'll make a huge difference in kentucky, it'll make a huge difference in our work force. you know, when you have a healthy work force, then you don't have the absenteeism, you don't have people incurring big costs that reflect on the employer. and they are, they're more productive. and so going to help us attract even more business than we're attracting right now. i can't wait to compete with some of these states that aren't doing this, because -- [laughter] i mean, it's going to really put

us at a great advantage, in a great situation. now, i really hope they do it, because their people deserve it just like we do. but they better get smart and do it. but it's going to give us a huge advantage in terms of attracting business, in attracting new jobs to our state. and then, let's face it, the quality of life of people is something, it's intangible, but it's something that's damn meaningful to most people. and i want to make sure that that increases. i want everybody in our state to have the comfort and the confidence that they won't go bankrupt tomorrow if they get sick, that they can take their kids to the doctor and get their shots, that they can take their kids to the dentist and get their teeth filled. you know, for kentucky that's going to be a major sea change for us. i'm looking forward to it. >> let me ask you about that state divergence you mentioned. you have been in the political arena for a while, since the reagan years.

>> i don't look like it. [laughter] >> no. you were lieutenant governor, attorney general. what we're seeing now is pretty extraordinary where, essentially, roughly half the states are embracing and trying to implement this law both on the medicaid expansion and the exchange, the other half of the states are sort of in a sit-down strike kind of mode, they're just not participating. have you ever seen a divergence of that magnitude, and how do you think it unfolds? can we sustain, can this endure for a while? >> i think in the long haul every state's going to do this because their people are going to demand it, particularly a of they look at places -- particularly after they look at places like kentucky who do it and they see, wow, it worked. those people over there have health insurance, how come i don't have that? and i think the pressure will build in those states, and those folks will be forced to do it. but, you know, i've never seen the dysfunctionalty in government that we see right now, particularly up here in washington. i mean, these folks up here act

like a bunch of 9-year-olds in a food fight in a cafeteria. and, you know, we're paying them to do this. that's the amazing thing. and it's time they act like some adults. >> you know, it is, and i have been -- from you've written a book or two about it. >> i have. but, you know, we often hear from governors that washington is much more partisan. but, you know, when you look at the states now, it does -- virtually every republican, every state with a republican attorney general sued to overturn the law, and virtually every state with a republican governor -- not all, but the vast majority are not participating. is this so wrapped up in ideology that it will be difficult for some of these states that might benefit substantially from expanding coverage to do so? >> unfortunately, the washington dysfunctionalty has seeped down to some of the states. and, you know, we're not, we're not immune from it. we see it every once in a while in kentucky, but we've been

fortunate in that i have reached out to both sides of the aisle, and i said look, guys and gals, you know, most of this stuff's more important than democrats and republicans. if we do this right, everybody's going to benefit. as long as we're cayennes first and democrats and republicans second. some of these states, they're not there yet. but i think they'll be forced to be there because they're down to where the rubber meets the road. the people in these states are going to be able to see what their friends, neighbors and family members over in kentucky are getting and how come we're not getting that. and i think as that grows, the pressure will build to force these folks to do it. >> in your own state, is there -- the state senate is the body the republicans control, correct? >> yes. >> is there an indication they would become willing to accept this, or will they attempt to symbolically overturn -- >> oh, i think we may have some symbolic votes, but fortunately, aye got a house that wouldn't

pass anything like that. and i understand, they've got to try satisfy their constituents. but many of the republicans in our state are beginning to come to the realization that these real right-wing wingnuts aren't a majority of their party. they respect often a mig minority -- they aren't even a big minority of their party. and they're loud and they yell and scream every day s and some of them are already run against some of these folks, and they lost. and so that realization is starting to come around that we don't have to play that game. and i understand. look, we've got some great republican legislators. the leadership in the senate works with me. i get along with them, and we're able to sit down behind closed doors, talk about anything, and we trust each other, and we know that we're not going to walk out and drop each other in. and i've got that same working relationship with the democratic house, and that's the way we've been able to get some stuff

done. so at least in kentucky while there may be some symbolic stuff done, for the most part, we're going to keep moving our state forward because they love it just like i do. >> speaking of republican reactions before we bring in the audience, you had a rather remarkable encounter a few weeks ago with senators mcconnell and paul in august at the kentucky country ham breakfast and auction which is a longtime political event kind of like a required stop. you made the case for the law with them sitting there very directly, and they made the case against it. do you think any minds were changed either in the audience or on the stage, and can you tell us a little bit about what happened and why you chose to so directly confront them there and then? >> well, first of all, it was a lot of fun. [laughter] and, you know, i did it for two reasons. one is that les been such --

there's been such a deluge of misinformation put out there by those folks that are against this. they don't want to talk about the facts. they just want to keep saying, oh, this is horrible, and nobody wants it and all this. well, these numbers i've been telling you of what's been happening in kentucky tells me something wants it. so number one, i wanted to get the facts out there. number two, the people sitting out in the audience were from our farm communities. they're one of the biggest groups that need this. and they need to know about it. i mean, there's, there's thousands of farm families out in kentucky i'm sure that have never had health insurance because they can't afford it. and their kids have never had it. and i wanted to make sure that they started thinking about this so that, you know, when this event happened on october 1, that they would get online, they'd start checking it out. and i'm sure that that's happening now. so as i say, it was also fun. >> by the way, before we go the audience, microphone's going to be coming, is there any way for

you to know where -- are you seeing the early response, you mentioned this kind of deluge, is it centered heavily in the urban areas, or are you seeing from those farm areas? >> it's too early to have any figures. obviously, we're moving fast right now just keeping up with the numbers. but i've had, i've been on a call-in show or two since we opened up the exchange, and i've had several calls from people in rural areas saying, you know, one fella called this morning and said, you know, my pastor at my church went online last night and said he's excited because he and his family are going to be able to have medical insurance for the very first time. that's what this is all about. when you get right down to it, that's what this is all about. folks like that out in our communities who have never had insurance that now are going to be able to have it. and they're going to have a better quality of life for it. and that's what excites me about this whole thing, is that that's the change you're going to see. >> i'm going to ask you a final

question or two but, first, bring in the audience. i think we have our microphone. >> governor, i hope you'll consider running for national office. i was very impressed with what you had to say. [applause] >> who would want to be in this zoo? [laughter] >> yeah. probably better off in kentucky. anyways, just what i wanted to ask is i'm surprised no one's mentioned the cost savings to have having preventive care as s opposed to just showing up in emergency rooms, and i wondered if you'd address that. >> that's a big part of what this is all about. for several years we had like everybody did in the medicaid program the fee-for-service approach. and that was great for the providers, but, you know, basically what we ended up in was a cycle of we'll do whatever we want, we'll send you the bill, and we wrote 'em a check. and health care cost cans were just going -- costs were just going crazy. and at the same time, a big

number of kentuckyians were using the emergency room as their primary physician, and that's the most expensive care, as we all know. i took our system to managed care. i did it fast, because otherwise i'd have had to cut medicaid benefits during the recess, and we had some bumps in the road, but it's working, and it'll continue to get better. the same thing with the affordable care act. look at what are the essential health benefits that are going to be in not only the insurance policies you can get through the exchange, but in every insurance policy in this country from now on in preventive care. that preventive care in there, ma earnty and child care, behavioral health, substance abuse treatment, all of these kinds of things that many of these policies in the past didn't have. and now they're going to have it, and we're going to have primary care physicianings and gatekeepers that will keep folks out of the emergency room, treat them and teach them how to take care of themselves and to take

responsibility for their or health and to manage, you know, their diabetes and their heart condition and all of the things and keep them out of that emergency room. they'll have a better quality of life, and we'll start bending that health care cost curve that's been going up by leaps and bounds for years and years. >> an excellent preview for the afternoon panel, by the way, on bending the curve. let's see, do we have another question? back here. please identify yourself. >> my name is david, national criminal justice association. can you talk about how you see the affordable care act playing into some of the criminal justice reforms you guys are having out there in kentucky? >> you know, in kentucky we've had a tremendous prescription drug abuse problem. and it just has continued to grow by leaps and bounds. and so a couple of years ago i got my leadership in the senate that's republican and my leadership in the house that's democratic, and we sat down and we said we've got to do something, and we've got to do this fast, and we've got to be aggressive.

and so we had, for instance, what's called the casper system which is that monitoring system where the prescribers would put into the system what they prescribed for folks, and then you can check it if somebody walks in your office for a prescription, and you can tell that, hey, this guy's been around the corner yesterday to three doctors and got the same bunch of pills. well, it was a voluntary system. we made it mandatory. we said every prescriber's going to be a part of. we cracked down on the pill mills that were growing in our state, and we were running them out of the state. but at the same time, we're well aware that the law enforcement part of this is just one piece. and we've got to treat folks. we have got to get them into rehab. we've got to rehabilitate them so that they can have useful lives in the future. and we obviously didn't have enough money to do it all and don't have enough money to do it all. but part of this affordable care act, as i mentioned a minute ago, says that every policy now

is going to have a behavioral health segment, and it's got to cover substance abuse treatment. and that's going to be a huge thing for us in the commonwealth of kentucky. i think you're going to see some significant improvement because of that part of the essential benefits. >> next question. all right. is there one? while we're waiting for the audience, let me ask you -- is there one? go ahead. >> i like that kind of question. [laughter] >> let me ask you. another -- a political question because you'll be potentially at ground zero for this. there are widespread expectations in the republican party that the affordable care act will be an issue for them in 2014, that democrats will be on the defensive again as they were in 2010. because you have been so aggressive in embracing and implementing this law and because senator mcconnell has been so aggressive in opposing

it, kentucky seems like one of the places where this will be litigated most directly. do you worry today in polling, in most polling the haw is, as they say, underwater or upside down. do you worry this will be a liability in the senate race in 2014 in kentucky, or do you think it can change by then, and what would cause it to be so. >> is. >> well, i would agree it would probably be an issue in 2014. i'm not sure i agree it'll be a liability in 2014. if things continue to go as they're going right now and people kind of open to up to this like they're doing and listen and educate themselves because they're interested in finding out whether they can get something at an an afford cost, the more people do that, the more people see, oh, my god, you know, the world didn't come to an end like they sold to me it was going to -- told me it was going to, i think it's going to boom rang on these folks and using misinformation to try to build opposition to the affordable care act.

so i think it'll be an issue, it may be an issue for us. but what we find in kentucky, the polling i have seen, you know, if you, if you say do you like obamacare, the numbers are big, no, i don't like it. do you like the affordable care act or do you think everybody ought to have insurance? yes, yes, we do. we had one person that was at our booth at our state fair in louisville. we had a a booth, we were handing out stuff and telling people about the affordable care act. and he came up, and this lady, boy, gave him the pitch, and he said, man, oh, man, i like this a lot better than obamacare. [laughter] and the lady said, you know, i debated whether to tell him or not, and i decided not to. [laughter] so we're going to sign that guy up, and then we'll tell him. >> maybe that, maybe that story answers my next question, and i don't know if -- i can't say if there are any more, but we'll go back to the audience in a minute. you know, there is a lot of

centrifugal force in the republican party on this issue as we're seeing here. there's this really extraordinary effort to try to stop this before it goes into effect, a reasonable possibility that the next republican presidential nominee for a second cycle might run on repealing it. what do you think it will take for this law to ultimately put down roots and become fortified in a way that would be difficult to undo? is it simply more people getting access to it, or is it, are there other things that have to happen like effect on premiums for those with insurance or the overall -- what do you think it will take to settle this issue so that we're not going through this sustained post-passage struggle over it? >> well, first of all, when you rook at the next -- when you look at the next presidential election, i look at the last one. president obama won bigger than any president running in some time. and he had that act that he had to carry. i think he was proud of it. he carried it.

so i think overall it's a plus because, apparently, a majority of the folks don't think it's a minus. but i think long term it is simply -- it's now happening. i mean, we've had this huge build-up to this -- >> yeah. >> and we've had this huge bunch of you know what put out there just inaccuracies. anything they could come up with to say this is horrible. and now people are looking at this going, hmm, wow, this is pretty good. you mean i can get health insurance for this? you mean my maternity care's going to be covered by this or i can get substance abuse treatment? once more of this happens, and it's going to happen over the next few months, i think people are going to start looking at these folks and saying what in the world were you talking about? >> we've been talking about changing perceptions among individuals, what about the hospitals, the doctors, the other elements of the medical community? what -- when you talk to them, what is their biggest fear about this? >> well, you hear the concern

about can we handle all the influx of new patients. >> it would seem to be a good problem to have. >> i would say it's a good problem to have. and, you know, our hospitals and most of our provide ors supported the idea of -- providers sported the idea of us doing our own exchange because they wanted us to design our own. so that was an easy decision for us. i think the hospitals are grateful for the medicaid expansion because they were going to lose their dish payments anyway. >> right. >> and be phased out on those. and so i feel sorry for the hospitals in those states that aren't doing that, because they're going to use the care money, and they're not going to get anything to replace it. those are some more people that'll be calling those governors and calling those legislators about, hey, you know, how come you're doing this to us. so i think the pressure will mount in those states, and sooner or later there'll be drug -- they'll be drug kicking and screaming to give insurance

coverage to the people who need it. >> have any of the governors called you and asked you what the secret is to kicking it off so smoothly? [laughter] >> i'm just pleased that things are going as well as they're going in kentucky. but i keep telling people, you know, today's not the last day. today's not the first day. today's the second day. we're going to have some glitches, some problems, but we're going to make out happen for you. >> all right. i think we'll leave it there. governor steve beshear, thank you so much. [applause] >> on c-span2 today, the senate foreign relations committee examines iran's nuclear program. live at 10:30 eastern, the u.s. senate returns for more work on the budget negotiations and the government shutdown. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage

of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our web site, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> undersecretary of state wendy sherman said that the obama administration would support additional pressure on iran if it does not reduce its nuclear program. it also called on congress not to pass new sanctions against iran until after the meetings with iranian officials on october 15th in geneva. her remarks came during the senate foreign relations committee hearing on iran's nuclear program. this is two hours, 45 minutes. >> good morning. this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. we're here today under unusual circumstances, but nevertheless, ready to fulfill our constitutional duty to oversee national security policy,

foreign policy, international economic policy as it relates to safeguarding america's interests abroad. that is our fundamental duty. and we have convened today to insure that the world understands that a shutdown of government in the united states is not a shutdown of american interests and obligations abroad. having said that, we're pleased to have with us a familiar face to the committee, upside secretary of state for political affairs wendy sherman. she is here to help shed light on u.s. policy towards iran given the change in leadership and recent statements of president rouhani and to provide her perspective on behalf of the department on the way ahead on the nuclear issue. on our second panel today we have three distinguished experts from the private sector, dr. david albright, a physicist who is the founder and president of the institute for science and international security and who has written extensively on secret nuclear weapons programs

around the world, ambassador jim jeffreys, distinguished visiting fellow at the washington institute where he is focused on iran's effort to expand its i said nuance in -- influence in the region, and dr. ray takea, a former senior adviser on iran at the state d.. we'll look forward to your testimony and thoughts on the status of iran policy. let me restate concerns that i have expressed publicly and will express again for the record. in my view, the sanctions have worked to bring us to this pivotal point, and the fundamental question is now whether the iranians are ready to actually conclude an agreement with the international community, whether they are prepared to turn rhetoric into action. in the leadup to last week's u.n. general assembly meeting, i was cautiously hopeful about what we would hear. but in my personal view, the new face of iran looked and sounded

very much like the old face. with a softer tone and a smoother edge. although iran's messenger may have changed in the last election, the message seems to have remained the same. the questions are these: should we be cautiously hopeful for a diplomatic solution given the new leadership and rhetoric coming from tehran, what are the administration's near-term diplomatic goals and objectives for the p5+1 negotiations, how do we test iranian intentions if they are negotiating in good faith, how do we get iran to commit to transparency and to allow full verification that it has abandoned its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability? until we have the answers to these questions, it is my view that we must sustain the pressure on iran and maintain the credible military threat that has brought iran to the table. now, it's clear that while we are talking about iran, its

centrifuges are still spinning. in the last two years, it has installed thousands of additional centrifuges, and though it isn't enriching in all of them, the vast majority are fully installed and under vacuum meaning iran could quickly double its enrichment capacity. the fact is, these expanded capabilities are reducing the time iran needs to quickly produce a sufficient amount of weapons-grade uranium. the fear is that iran will achieve a breakout capability defined as a technical capability to produce sufficient weapon-grade uranium for a nuclear device without being detected by the international community. according to the work of one of our panelist, david albright at the institute for science and international security, if iran continues to expand its centrifuges at its current pace, it will be able to produce by mid 2014 enough material for one bomb within a period of several

weeks. it is an open question as to whether the international community would be able to detect a breakout if it could, if it would occur this quickly. iran is also nearing completion of a heavy water reactor. if that reactor operates, iran could create a plutonium pathway to nuclear weapon, enough plutonium each year for one or two nuclear weapons. from my perspective as long as iran is actively pursuing its nuclear program, we must actively work to increase the pressure. this is no less than what is required by multiple u.n. security council resolutions. and while we welcome iran's diplomatic overtures, they cannot be used to buy time, avoid sanctions and continue the march towards a nuclear weapons capability. i welcome president rouhani's announcement at the u.n. general assembly and the supreme

leader's fatwa that iran seeks a peaceful resolution to international concerns about iran's nuclear program and is committed to a peaceful nuclear program. but compliance with the u.n. security council resolutions, in my view, would be the ultimate test of iran's intentions. let me conclude by restating my belief that the sanctions regime in place thus far has been critical in compelling the iranian government back to a negotiating table. if the sanctions were not hurting, we would not have heard so much about them in president rouhani's speech. what is important now is what iran does, not what it says. we do not need more words, what we would like to see is compliance with the four u.n. security council resolutions and the suspension of uranium enrichment. some of us are moving forward with a new round of sanctions that will require further reduction in purchases of uranium petroleum, but we are also serious about relief from

sanctions if the iranian government meets its security council responsibilities. with that, let me turn to senator corker for his opening statement. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i know there was some discussion about whether having a hearing today or not having a hearing today in light of the circumstances was the right thing to do, i be i do -- but i do appreciate very much your focus on iran and some of the threats that our nation faces. and i want to say that we've had since you've been chairman a number of really important issues to deal with. and i know that this is going to be one of the most important that we deal with over the next several months, and i do appreciate the diligence that is being put forth. i also want to thank you for the efforts that you and mark kirk together have put forth relative to sanctions. and just as a in the syrian debate, you know, where we had people with differing viewpoints

all of which, i thought, were very respectful and thoughtful, i really was proud regardless of where people came out. i was really proud of the way the committee handled itself, with humility and soberness. and so as we deal with this issue, i want to start by saying still the greatest threat to our nation, the greatest threat still is ourselves. and it's our inability to deal with our fiscal matters in an appropriate way. and i think today's meeting in light of a government shutdown still points to that. this, on the other hand, is a grave threat to world peace, and again, i thank you for the way that we're going about this. and i hope that what we will do together as a committee after testimony from these two panels and i know some potential activities that will take place in the banking committee is that we'll be prudent about how we go forth with these. i i do believe the sanctions

that we've put in place have created this moment, and i do know that the administration -- in fairness -- opposed some of those sanctions, and we had to sort of push the administration to the table. and yet i will say the administration now is trying to take advantage of those. so i hope that together through intelligent testimony and thoughtfulness, i hope we'll move ahead in a fashion that shows a real strategy, that causes congress to help push these negotiations along and push to insure that what iran does is real. it's not just talk. so i thank you very much for the sentiments, i thank you for your previous efforts. i look forward to the testimony today, and i look forward to this committee and the banking committee acting in unison in a way that produces a result here which is what all of us want to see. so thank you very much. >> thank you, senator corker, and we appreciate your work and your leadership as well with us. with that, we'll recognize

secretary sherman, your full statement will be included in the record without objection. and the floor is yours. >> thank you very much. chairman menendez, ranking member corker, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to be here today even during these difficult times. it is always a welcomed return to the senate to speak with you about an issue we both agree, we all agree is one of our country's primary foreign policy and national security challenges. today i plan to speak about recent talks with the iranian government at the u.n. general asemiby in new york of which i was -- assembly in new york of which i was a part, the status of our negotiations, our continued effort to put pressure on the iranian government and a potential path forward for diplomacy including the core actions needed to reach a verifiable agreement with iran. let me start with a very brief survey of our dual-track policy to show how we arrived at this

point. as president obama has said many times, the united states remains committed to preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the strategy we have pursued and continue to pursue to fulfill this commitment is the dual-track policy of engagement and pressure. while our preference has always been diplomatic engagement, we concluded that such engagement would not work absent meaningful pressure. in response we and our allies with the president's and your very crucial leadership established one of the toughest sanctions regimes the world has ever seen. as a result, 23 economies have united in significantly reducing or eliminating purchases of iranian crude oil. over the past 24 months, iran's rial has depreciated by approximately 60% as iran's access to the international financial sector has been largely severed. indeed, in the runup to his

election this june, president rouhani made the case that the failure to pursue a serious agreement on the nuclear file and the international sanctions that resulted from that failure was devastating the iranian economy. i would emphasize that it was the iranian government's choices that led to these devastating sanctions, and it will be the iranian government's actions in the months ahead that will be a key factor in many determining whether we -- in determining whether we decide the sanctions should remain in place or whether we can begin to relieve some sanction pressure as iran addresses our concern. president rouhani says he has a mandate, both a popular mandate from the iranian people and a mandate from supreme leader khamenei to pursue an agreement that satisfies the international community's concerns over iran's nuclear program. as the president reaffirmed last week, we are prepared to that proposition in a serious way.

in doing so, we must remain mindful of the long history of iranian deception regarding its nuclear program and insist that iran's new tone be met as soon as possible by new and concrete and verifiable actions. we must also do our part to insure the success of this effort and to avoid any measures that could prematurely inhibit our ability to secure a diplomatic solution. the process for testing iran's intentions taliban last week in -- began last week in new york. there on the margins of the u.n. general assembly, secretary kerry and i met the foreign ministers of the p5+1. in that meeting as in all of our exchanges with the iranian government including the secretary's bilateral, we made clear that we seek a right that insures to the world that iran meets its responsibilities under the nuclear non-proliferation

treaty and u.n. security council resolutions. foreign minister sa reef gave a thoughtful presentation. he told us that iran does not seek nuclear weapons and detailed the reasons why it did not make sense for iran to possess nuclear weapons. we also made clear in return that his words alone, while welcome, are not enough. so in the coming weeks, we will look to the iranian government to translate its words into transparent, meaningful and verifiable actions. we enter this period with our eyes wide open. as secretary kerry has said, no deal is better than a bad deal. now it is time to see if negotiations can begin in earnest. let me give you an idea of how we see this moving forward. given the scope of iran's nuclear program and its history of noncompliance with u.n. security council resolutions as well as the deep mistrust

between our two countries, any productive path forward must include confidence building through meaningful, transparent and verifiable steps. we will be looking for specific steps by iran that address core issues including but not limited to the pace and scope of its enrichment program, the transparency of its overall nuclear program and stockpiles of enriched uranium. the iranians in return will doubtless be seeking some relief from comprehensive international sanctions that are now in place. we have been clear that only concrete, viable steps and verifiable steps can offer a path to sanctions relief. we look forward to hearing the foreign minister's suggested plan which he says he will bring to us when the p5+1 meet next -- with the iranian delegation in geneva on october 15th and 16th. let me assure you that we will continue to vigorously enforce the sanctions that are in place as we explore a negotiated

resolution and will be especially focused on sanctions of evasion efforts by iranian to relieve the pressure. i must note here, if i may, mr. chairman, to take an extra moment and note, however, our ability to do that, to enforce sanctions, to stop sanctions invaders is being hampered significantly by the shutdown. i think many of you will have seen an article by josh rogan and ely lake today that government shutdown empties offices enforcing sanctions on iran. o fact, which is in the treasury department which really oversees much of this along with our own sanctions-monitoring group, has been completely, virtually utterly depleted in this time. in addition, the intelligence community which we rely on for intelligence information to go after sanctions evaders and sanctions people who are not paying attention to the sanctions as the dni said,

general clapper, the other day has been devastated as well. more than 60% reduced during the shutdown. so we will do our best to enforce these sanctions, to stop sanctions evaders, but i sincerely hope that the shutdown ends soon to so that we are truly able to do so in the runup and as these negotiations proceed. as we move forward, it will be critical that we continue to move together and take no steps that a signal decision tws to iran -- divisions to iran that it could and likely would exploit. further, as the effect of our sanctions on iran depends in part on the actions of our partners, we must insure that our sanctions do not place an undue burden on those countries. it is not in our interests to create fissures within the international coalition facing iran as the impact of our pressure comes from the steps these countries take. we will also continue to raise our other concerns including

iran's sponsorship of terrorist organizations and destabilizing activities across the region. and we will remain absolutely dedicated to the return of u.s. citizen robert levinson, and amir he can madty. indeed, both the president and the secretary of state raised these questions with the iranians. every day their families wait for them to come home. so as we do, we will remain in close consultations with oural highs and partners in the region including israel whose security remains a paramount focus. we will also continue our close consultation with you and with other members of the congress as we have in the past so that any congressional action is aligned with our negotiating strategy as we move forward. thank you again for this opportunity to discuss with this committee the important developments over the past week in new york. as always, i look forward to regular engagement with you in the weeks ahead and to your questions and comments today. thank you.

>> thank you, madam secretary. let me, relate me start off -- let me start off. there's so much here, but i heard a sentence in your statement, and i get a little concerned. let me make it very clear from my perspective that when we start talking about relieving sanctions as the iranians begin to alleviate our concerns, you know, i'm not sure exactly what we mean by begin to alleviate our concerns. you know, there is a real, legitimate concern here that the iranians will do a certain amount that ultimately begins to create some sanction relief, but at the end of the day, that draws back the international community, that draws back the forces of keeping the pressure that has brought us to this moment, and then to gear that back up would be an incredibly difficult proposition.

so i, you know, listen to the words, but iran has repeatedly said that they reject the development and use of nuclear weapons. and that's been reiterated now. but how believable is that statement given what we know about iran's history, that prior assessments that have been brought before this committee both, i think, in public as well as in private that iran has previously at the government's direction sought a nuclear weapon withs -- weapons program? so they still, as far as i know, haven't admitted that they were pursuing a nuclear weapons program. they still say they reject that. unless that's happened at the p5+1 negotiations -- and we haven't heard about it -- what are we talking about here in terms of relieving sanctions if they begin to alleviate our concerns, and how do we reconcile what the iranians are saying now with what is a verified history of moving

towards a nuclear weapons program? so i get concerned about that. and the final element of this so that i can package it so that a you can give me a response is president rouhani has been very clear and proud of the fact, as is evidenced by his book, that last time he conducted negotiations over iran's nuclear program, he was able to use those negotiations as a stalling tactic while his government advanced its nuclear program. i look at all of those realities, and i get concerned -- i understand the need to test the diplomatic possibility. but by the same token, i get concerned when i hear about easing of sanctions to satisfy some of our concerns. >> mr. chairman, i think this is a very legitimate concern and one that we have thought through very care friday as we moo -- carefully as we move ahead to these negotiations. we quite agree with you, the fundamental, large sanctions that we have in place should not disappear anytime soon unless

all of our concerns are addressed by the iranians. and with that, we agree with you because we do not want the sanctions regime to fall apart. at the same time, the reason we also focus on confidence building, some early tests whether that is some degradation of their current posture, some free, some pause. there are many ways to do this. every day their nuclear program goes forward. and to get to a comprehensive agreement will take some time because there are highly technical issues here that take some time to negotiate. it's not like you can do this over a 48-hour partied. 48-hour period. it will take more time than that to do so. since we know they're continuing on with their nuclear program and because of the history that you point ounce when rouhani was the chief negotiator 2003-2005, we know that deception is part of the dna. we want to make sure that we can put some time on the clock for

those comprehensive negotiations. so what we are thinking through is what is it that would give us some confidence today, would put some time on the clock, stop their nuclear program from moving forward while we get to that a comprehensive agreement that would allow the full sanctions relief they are looking for. there may be some elements that we can do initially if they take verifiable, concrete actions that will put time on the clock that are reversible or, in fact be, don't go to any of the key sanctions that have brought them to the table -- >> let's talk about the -- >> so this is the issue. >> let's talk about the time on the clock. david albright, who will follow you on the second panel, provides some very detailed information about the status of iran's nuclear program that is very concerning, indicating that iran will soon have the ability to break out in a time period as short as two weeks to several months. is that an assessment you concur with?

>> [inaudible] what i would say is i can give you in this setting, and we would be glad to have a classified briefing with our intelligence community and give you our detailed assessment. i'm not going to do that here publicly because, quite frankly, i would not want iran to know what our ais accessment is -- assessment is about how much time there is. >> let's assume -- okay. so let's assume that mr. albright's assessment is right for argument's sake. let's assume his assessment is right. if that assessment is right, then your time frame for definitive action is relatively short. >> we believe that we have some time, but we don't have a lot of time. i would agree with that statement. i would also say that what we have said publicly is from the time that the supreme leader decides that he truly wants to go for a nuclear weapon and we do not believe he has yet made that fundamental decision but

wants to put the pieces in place that give him that option, it could take as much as a year before he got there. now, there are many factors here that change that clock, and i have tremendous regard for dr. albright, and so i would listen carefully to him, for sure. but i think it would probably be best for us to have that classified briefing with the committee and tell you all of the elements that change that lock. ..

they started to convert their enriched uranium in the oxide, and even though it can be changed back, that takes some time. so the iranians very smartly changed the calculus of the clock by converting that enriched uranium oxide. so cal getting the clock here is very complicated, which is what i would like to do in a classified session. what i will say though is every single day our intelligence community of these women have them full-time, which we don't at the moment, but we are still focus on this even with the staff we have, look at what the iranians are on a variety of factors because all of those factors change the clock. >> and i'll just move on by saying part of the equation here is our ability to detect a nuclear breakup of iran and that is not with scientific precision. and so that is part of our

challenge as to how close to the line do you let them go. senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, thank you for your testimony, and your job on behalf of our country. i don't think there's any question but that the action that this committee and others have taken and congress in general towards iran have helped put us in the place we are in. i know the administration touted the fact this committee passed an authorization of use of military force as being one of those things that moved those things that movie theory and a place where they were willing to negotiate. we will see if history plays out whether that was, in fact, the case of what the outcome is going to be. obviously, there's a lot of questions about what's happening on the negotiating front. i just want to ask you relative to us is, what is it you would like for us to do in the interim to support the outcome? i know there have been discussions about additional

sanctions. there have been discussions about things even more draconian than that, and a date certain in the future if nothing changes. what is it that you would like to see us do to support a successful conclusion here? would you like for us to move ahead with additional sanctions? >> thank you, senator. first of all, i do want to thank this committee for the value took on syria. i know it was very difficult that i do believe it was helpful. i was with the secretary in the negotiations with lavrov in geneva for the agreement. and very much part of all of the discussions on the u.n. security council resolution and opcw come in looking ahead to the geneva conference on syria and the action by this committee to say that there was a credible threat of force in syria was absolutely critical to our ability to move forward on see dubya, sigh thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you ranking member corker and all the members of

the committee for the action that you do. i know it's quite difficult but i do want to tell you having experienced it was quite meaningful. secondly, in terms of iran, i think that you're holding the string today is important. i actually told the iranians on the margins of the p5+1 meeting that i would testify, and they would hear from you that we were glad for what the president, president rouhani have said, what foreign minister zarif headset, but that words would not be enough, that they had become geneva with actions, zarif had to present a plan. sigh thank you for this opportunity because it is imported into the messages you're delivering and the message i am delivering in public, that secretary kerry said in tokyo just today. you saw in the morning is where he said, again, a no deal is better than a bad deal. that we're doing this with her eyes open. so this public discussion is very important to the

negotiation. secondly, on your encouraging us to enforce the sanctions, to get all the assets in place to do so is equally critical, and oversight to provide in that regard, very helpful. in terms of legislation that is currently being discussed on the hill, we do believe it would be helpful for you all to at least allow this meeting to happen on the 15th and 16th of october before moving forward to consider those new sanctions. and the reason i say that is because i want to be able to say to iran, this is a -- i'm saying it here today because they will listen to all of this. this is your opportunity, come on the 15th of october with concrete, substantive action that you will take, commitment you make, in a verifiable way, monitoring and verification that you will sign up to, to create

some face that there is some reality to this. at our congress will listen. but i can assure you if you do not, on the 15th and 16th with that substantive plan that is real and verifiable, our congress will take action and we will support them to do so. so i would hope that you will allow us the time to begin these negotiations and see if, in fact, there is anything real here. with my telling of the iranians quite directly that if there isn't, that everyone is ready to act. >> well, that's a pretty clear answer, and one i didn't really expect. we have been getting some mixed signals from others within the administration. so i think what you have said is that if iran doesn't come to the table in mid-october in the way that they should, that you will fully support this committee and the banking committee and

congress in general adding additional tough sanctions on iran. >> we would very much look forward to working with you on figuring out what those sanctions ought to be and how to proceed forward. so i cannot commit today for the administration that i agree with every line and legislation that is currently pending, i'd we will certainly want to go back looking at what pressure needs to be added, yes. >> in the interim to alleviate any concerns and any of us might have, we pass laws here and it's up to the executive branch to implement those, and i think what i'm hearing you say is that, that throughout these negotiations, administration absolutely going to continue to put pressure on and continue to process and to all those things necessary to keep the existing sanctions working in a better way each day, is that correct?

>> that is correct senator. we will continue to enforce them with one caveat, that the shutdown does make more difficult for us to do so because we do not have our full intelligence community. the state department is putting restrictions on travel i state department employees, and we use our sanctions team to travel the world to go after sanctions the gators and folks are not following through. so it will impact our ability to do that so quite frankly where iran is concerned, the sooner the shutdown is over, the better we will be able to do the job we are asked to do and that we want to do. >> tricky if i could just as one more question, my time is up and i appreciate very much your testimony today. i know that you don't want to talk about wha what you think publicly where we think iran's capabilities are but i think most of us have a pretty good idea based on the many classified meetings we've been involved in. but it's been my sense that the

appropriate length of time to give iran and the united states to come to a conclusion is two to three months. so let's move away from what their capabilities are, just to give us a sense as far as how we might be most productive year. would you agree that's an appropriate timeframe for us to allow negotiations to occur, to a fruitful conclusion speak with senator, to be perfectly frank about it i think i'll have a better answer to that question after the meeting in geneva on the 15th and 16th. it really depends on how fast they are ready to go down. you heard various things from the iranians in new york. we heard them say that they could complete an agreement, a comprehensive agreement and implement that agreement within a year. that's what zarif said to us. i think they can get to

agreement when you said we wanted to go faster than that. he said we'd get to an agreement faster than that, we couldn't implement it in that period of time. and they probably can't be implement in that creed of time because in three to six months, because there's a lot of highly technical things that have to be put in place. but i do think you're correct to say that we will no in the next short period of time whether there's anything serious and real here or not. >> mr. chairman, thank you. madam secretary, thank you. >> senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary sherman, thank you very much order holding service. thank you for being here today. and underscoring the point that this is shut down is really hurting this country in so many ways. so many ways. the success of dealing with iran, and i understand your two tracks of pressure and diplomacy very much depends upon our

ability to carry out what we say we're going to do. and we have to get a monitor that and have to get intelligence on the. we have to be able to understand what's happening around the world, and any diminishment of that capacity could have a major impact here. so there's many reasons why we should resolve this issue today about the government's remaining open. not tomorrow, today it should be done. you are just giving us one additional reason. i thank you for that. i want to underscore the point that the chair been made. it's not just what we do as far as sanctions against iran. and keeping the pressure going. is what the international community does. it's the enforcement. it's what the united states position is with the international community. i think we all agree that we're like to see diplomacy work. would like to see iran move in

the right direction and be able to monitor and make sure it occurs. but when we use language such as we are prepared to take common to look at the sanctions if iran makes significant progress it does certain things, it seems to me the international community may interpret it differently than we do. just the fact that we are meeting today has put additional pressures on international capitals to look at reducing some of its pressure on iran. many of our closest allies could do more in reducing their oil consumption from iran. they could do more. it seems to me that if we are to be successful in the pressure to get iran to give you, not just the offer we are looking for, but the actions that are needed, then we need to increase the pressure not reduce the pressure

on iran at this point. and that, yes, he means what we're doing and working with our elation is to say now is the time to reduce your oil sales purchases from iran, not increase it. the world oil market right now is favorable for us to really reduce even more. so i guess my point to you is, i would hope that our position is to strengthen the effect of the sanctions today so that we have the very best chance to make diplomacy work, and that we have an understanding with the international community, our partners in this, that they will also move to strengthen the sanctions. and yes, we are prepared to give you additional tools here in congress. we would like to do that with you, and i think as senator corker's point about that is clear. senator menendez point.

i think you have the support of congress, but i would hope that we could have a sense of urgency with our coalition partners on sanctions to tighten the enforcement of these sanctions. how is our coalition responding to this? are we making progress? >> thank you very much send you. i think we've made enormous progress in every single meeting that we had at the u.n. general a summit, and i think probably some of these saw the "60 minutes" piece on secretary kerry. he had 59 by the meetings last week. in the u.n. general assembly, and i don't know how many i had on my own as well. so when every single one of them where there was a concern about whether it was financial sanctions or oil sanctions or evaders, iran was the topic of conversation. in virtually every one where it was relevant to that particular country, whether that was china,

whether that was russia, whether that was turkey, whether that was india, whether it was to indonesia, anybody that is part of the international coalition. as you are quite right. what matters here, it's that international group. >> china is still buying a significant amount of oil from iran. some of our closest allies in asia are buying oil from iran. we had a rebalanced through asia to it seems to me that we could be more effective in having greater help from those countries. >> i agree. indeed, as you know, secretary kerry is on his way to aipac in east asia summit. he's in tokyo today. iran is a big topic of conversation in japan. if the president is able to go to aipac and to the east asia summit come he's not going to malaysia and philippines. iran will be a big topic of conversation as well. there are talking points that are part of any bilaterals held

their. >> those are to strengthen the enforcement? >> it is to ensure the enforcement, to strengthen enforcement, to watch what iran does on the 15th and 16th. many of these countries have a relationship with iran. we do not. and one of our talking points is to say to them, here's a message we want to deliver to iran. this is the opportunity on the 15th and the 16th to put in front of the international committee, not just the united states in front of the international community, specific congress substitute and verifiable steps that will address the concerns of the international community. take this opportunity o aren't u see that pressure continuing to increase. >> senator risch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, let me say that i'm glad you included the pastor is one of my constituents who is a red and the other to individuals, and, frankly, without those people being free,

there's no chance that iran will convince me that they have any willingness to participate in the international community and do what's right here. secondly, let me say that i associate myself with remarks of the chairman, and with senator cardin, and we got some discussions here about the shutdown. and i think the world knows that we are having an intramural fight your over internal policy. but let there be no mistake. when it comes to these kinds of issues we stand shoulder to shoulder on them. and we are not divided on these issues your we will move forward together on these issues as americans and will join the country. given that, but me say i appreciate senator cardin's remarks, and again, i know this gets into the political weeds and i can't speak for all republicans but if the bill came

to the floor in moments that relieved our intelligence services, the state department enforcing the sanctions, all the problems that you describe, i would vote in a heartbeat. i can't speak for any of the republicans, i can tell you that it think it would probably if we had a vote on, past the senate unanimously. but we're not going to get a vote on it for political reasons, and it's unfortunate but it want you to know that, that either and i think most every republican, if not all republicans, would be there to back the expenditure of those funds. because we all agree on the. and it should unfortunate that those of us that have been elected to govern and want to govern can't govern because we can't get a vote on these things. we are going to get in to work on a. we know what's right for the country and this has got to get results. let me move for a minute to the new president of iran. frankly, i've been really

dismayed by the embracement of his charm offensive that he brought to the united states. when you look at this man's history, an and, indeed, when yu look at his abilities and we all know who's actually running that country, we ought to just flat ignore him. he has indicated that he has used this type of tactic in the past to achieve the policies and the goals iran wants to achieve in the nuclear field. and so having said that, what can we expect of him now? what we can expect is the front he is putting on, the façade he is putting on is to do exactly what he's been doing all along, including in formal meetings that he bamboozled us. and he brags about bamboozling us.

look, we are smarter than this. we should understand that this guy, what he is saying now you can't put any weight on whatsoever to when you look at what his history is. so i, for one, have been very disappointed at all of this. i think we ought to do is take a step back and say look, we don't want to do this stuff. we don't want to see you smile. we don't even want handshakes. what we want to see is some action. i look forward to october 15. i'd like to say i had a cautious optimism. i have no optimism. i think what you're going to get is you're going to get another dog and pony show. i think you get another shuffle and i think it will be business as usual, and we seen it day after day, month after month, year after year while i have been here. and i think it's just going to go on into they can achieve what they want to achieve. so bless you for what you do. keep it up. you have a very difficult task,

and i think this committee and this congress is willing to help. and willing to put our foot down firmly to proceed with the role -- the road we have gone down to try to bring these people to where they need to be. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to secretary sherman, we very much appreciate you being here. you talked a few minutes ago and in your testimony about meaningful transparent and verifiable steps that would address core issues. i want to ask you first if there is agreement within the administration about what those concrete, verifiable steps would look like in order for negotiations to continue? and then secondly, whether there's agreement with our international partners about what those steps should look

like? >> thank you very much senator. we have extensive discussion about in various scenarios before we go to a negotiation. both internally and with our p5+1 partners. because it is being united that really makes any negotiation effective, and doing a negotiation with six partners is never an easy undertaking. and that senator cardin and others have pointed out it is the international unity of sanctions and international unity of negotiations that makes this effective. and if there are divisions it makes it much harder. so yes, we have gotten clear about where we want to head at the end of the day. what might be an early test of whether there's anything real here, and we are, in fact, have

many mechanisms in advance of the negotiation to make sure that we are completely united in our approach. we may disagree with some of our partners in the p5+1 on many things, russia and china don't always agree with us. some of my european partner sometimes want to go further and i want to go. but at the end of the day we come to an agreement because we all understand how important it is to be united in going forward. and i appreciate as senator risch says, the bipartisanship on this issue. i did come if i may, senator, want to make one remark in response to senator risch, which goes to this as well. the shutdown and putting a piece of legislation on for the intelligence community, or for treasury would indeed be hopeful that it wouldn't be nearly enough. there are so many parts of this that are problematic. even in the state department,

indeed, 2014 security assistance funding for israel, for instance, will be delayed until there is a c.r. or full-year appropriations. our ability to protect the sinai is delayed with that force. so no one piece of legislation is going to solve what is a very complex international issue that we face. and we are beginning to editorials which we understand their political so willing taken so far. but in sri lanka where we've been pressing him very hard on democracy, governance and human rights, they wrote a very critical editorial today, saying health is a universal human rights and yet the united states can't come to an agreement on it so are they to preach to us about accountability and governance? this is very complicated for us but i very much appreciate the bipartisan support on iran and our efforts to move forward. >> i would just have one

disagreement with you, and that is i think there is one piece of legislation that would deal with this and all the state has to do is to call it up and that would give us a continuing resolution that would keep the government open. but let me just go back to your statement, because i understood you to say that there are ongoing negotiations. it wasn't to me whether you were saying that there is agreement now on how those negotiations might go forward, and what people are looking for. >> we are finalizing by the negotiation frame will look like. what i will say is that the p5+1 has agreed that the proposal we put on the table stays on the table. and we will not offer anything new in the first instance. the onus is on iran to put their response on the table to us. so we are waiting to hear from

foreign minister zarif who would head the delegation. we will not put new ideas on the table until we hear from iran. >> thank you. i only have a few seconds left, but i was struck by the news account of rouhani's return to iran and that there were demonstrators their in opposition to him and to some of his statements. and i wonder if you could speak to the internal situation in iran and to what extent he continues to have the support of the religious leaders in the country? >> well, as many of your colleagues have pointed out, rouhani is very much part of the religious cleric class in iran. he has been a member of the expediency discernment council. he has been on the supreme national security council. so he is very close to the supreme leader. he is very tough.

he is very conservative. but he does have politics, even in iran. he won as a moderate, moderate and their system, not moderate in our system, but he won as a moderate in their system saying that he would take a different approach to the west. but he does have to deal with people who are much more hardline than just. hardliner that he is, there are people who are more hardline. i would suspect that those protesters were approved by the regime so that we would see that there wasn't just support for what rouhani was doing. there were also some people who oppose what rouhani was doing. and i think the supreme leader has given rouhani and zarif enough rope to get this over the line, and perhaps even enough rope for other purposes if they

aren't successful. >> thank you very much. >> senator rubio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today, madam secretary. over here. thank you. this is not an issue for us, the country. back in the '90s i know you involved with president clinton in a north korean expense. present and was adamant north we would not obtain nuclear capability, and, of course, they did i raise that with the following questions i have. five questions in the world that enriched uranium are reprocessed with time because they'll have a question to germany, japan, brazil, argentina and the netherlands. there are two other countries that do have a weapon. north korea and pakistan. so i guess my first question is, which one of these two types of countries that surround look like the most? if you look more like north korea or pakistan or do they look more like germany and japan and brazil and argentina? who do they resemble the most?

>> senator, i'd make a couple of comments. one, they resemble themselves. they are -- in many ways more dangerous than any country who has the ability to reprocessed, enrich, or has nuclear weapons or seeks to get nuclear weapons. so -- >> might understand they have a special case to your are only different in some ways the north korea or pakistan. but you would agree to looking like germany, brazil -- >> of course. >> is why i'm asking. the president at the u.n. general estimates and we respect the right of their many people to access peaceful nuclear energy. that sounds innocuous enough. now, the president of iran has said publicly that iran's right for enrichment is nonnegotiable but here's my question. what is our position? what is our official position? does iran have a right to enrich plutonium, to enrich uranium are reprocessed plutonium? >> so, the presidents of full

comment on the quote that you gave is, i have made clear we respect the right of the iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy in the context of iran's meeting its obligations. so the test will be meaningful, transparent and verifiable action which can also bring relief from the conference of international sanctions that are currently in place. so the president has circumscribed what he means by the iranian people having access, and that word was national security advisor rice said, very carefully chosen access, not rights but access to nuclear energy in the context of meeting its obligation. >> is it our position that iran has the right of access to uranium or plutonium for peaceful purposes, but they don't have a right to enrich it

are reprocessed themselves? is that -- >> it has always been the u.s. position, and i said to mike iranian interlocutors anytime that article iv of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty does not speak about the rights of enrichment at all. doesn't speak to enrichment, terry. it synthesizes batch of a right to research and development him in many countries including countries like japan and germany have taken that to be our right. but the united states does not take that position. we take the position that we look at each one of these. and more to the point, the u.n. security council resolution has suspended iran's enrichment until they meet their international obligation. they didn't say they have suspended their rights to enrichment. they have suspended their enrichment. we do not believe there is an inherent right by anyone to enrichment. >> why is it that then -- someone has an inherent right to

enrichment although you outlined the case of these countries which by your own admission they don't with some of it at all. my question is this. i understand our position if they don't have a right to it but as we enter negotiations, why is it that our starting point? i do we make it clear of the? the present iran has made it very clear that in his opinion in richmond is nonnegotiable. why isn't our position, why doesn't the president say that he will not negotiate until a certain condition is met? he's laid down those markers on some domestic disputes were having up to why doesn't he enter the negotiations in the blessing there is not a negotiation until you give up your enrichment and reprocessing capability? because of the kind of country you are. >> very interesting, send it to. i think it was today yesterday that president rouhani actually qualified his own statement. he said we will not give up our capability to have enrichment,

but we can discuss the details. so you know, a negotiation begins with everybody having their maximalist positioned where of ours, too, which is the have to meet all of their obligations under the resolution. they have their position and then she began a negotiation. >> will the united states ever agree -- is my last question. will we ever agree, will this president ever agree to ease sanctions? any negotiation that does not require iran to abandon its enrichment and reprocessing capabilities? is that -- >> i'm not going to negotiate in public, send it to come with all due respect. all i can do is repeat what the president of the united states has said he, which as we respect the right of the rainy people to access peaceful nuclear energy in the context of a rain meeting its obligations. the test will be meaningful, transparent and verifiable action.

>> my last question that you're not able to say today that it is impossible, that they will never be a negotiation, going to be an agreement to lower sanctions lonalong as a man does not abann its enrichment or its and reprocessing capabilities? >> what i can say today is that iran must meet the concerns of the international community, including united states and all of its obligations under the npt and the uintah coup d'états resolution which has suspended its enrichment. >> senator coons. >> thank you, chairman menendez. thank you for convening this quickly important hearing and ensuring that this committee who continues to fulfill its constitutional duty even in the middle of a government shutdown. madam secretary, thank you and all the witnesses who will appear today, and thank you for the very hard work that you and the secretary have been doing to continue to strengthen and to sustain the sanctions regime which is critical to getting some chance of some progress in

this. engagement with iran we have to be clear eyed and realistic about our goals, and at the end of the day i think there is broad agreement here that we must not allow iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability and any negotiation must demand a verifiable end to their iranian and -- uranium enrichment program. all options on the table but i appreciate your opening comment about the actions of this committee and its role and progress with regard to syria and i strongly believe the credible threat of military force has to be maintained in order that the be in the process around the negotiating table. i'm encouraged that the sanctions are having some real impact oath in terms of economic repercussions and hopefully forcing the regime and iran to change its cactus with regard to their nuclear program. that's formed i think the basis for negotiations but i think it's unclear whether hassan rouhani is genuine in his stated attentions -- intentions and is

capable of making a deal. i might also say at the outset i appreciate your continuing to press the cases of several americans are iranian americans, in my case i've been concerned that an occasion in the case of amir hekmati. this charm offensive to me is so far not charming. the release of local dissidents and prisoners is a beginning and very, very modest step in could be advanced further by taking real steps to end the oppression within iran and ongoing terrorist actions outside of iran to kill or take hostage iranian dissidents. so let's talk if we could first about whether or not rouhani is capable of making a deal. does he have the authority from the supreme leader khamenei in a speech in september talked about a rogue flexibility. that i was pleased to hear your clear eyed about the fact that the perception as a think as it has long been part of the dna of the negotiating strategy. does rouhani have the authority

to make a real deal and see it through? >> i think we don't know, senator, to be perfectly honest. he says he has a mandate from the supreme leader who, as does foreign minister zarif in a derivative fashion, to entice counted an agreement with the international community. but as i've said we are ready to test that, but we don't know. and he may not know. it may be that the supreme leader has said to president rouhani and foreign minister zarif, and give it a try. see where you can go. see where you can get, and they may not even know. what the limitations are of the ability to negotiate. but we have to test it and we have to test it as many of your colleagues have said, in a short enough period of time in a way to ensure that their nuclear program can't just go on and on and on and on to the point where would wake up one day and find

out they have the capability we all don't want them to have. so we will test this. we will do it in a relatively short period of time. we will see if there's anything real fear, and we will see whether president rouhani, foreign minister zarif can deliver on what they have said to us, which is an add-on have a mandate from the iranian people by the mandate from the supreme leader, but we have to test it. >> we have short timelines i think both in terms of their steady progress, their steady advancement towards nuclear capability, and his shutdown, this maddening i think i'm constructive, instructive shutdown of u.s. federal government. as you mentioned at the outset it is preventing both ofac and intelligence community from enforcing. what is the plan for for dealing with the shutdown should continue for another couple weeks. and how do we make sure that the american people understand the very real risk is is grading for

the united states and for our goals with regards to stopping iran's work towards a nuclear weapons capability? >> i certainly think that this hearing today, from the members, from the senators help to convey that message. i think it is critical that we move forward in a bipartisan way that this committee has proceeded to deal with iran, and to do so we not only need all of the tools at our disposal to enforce the sanctions, but we need all of the tools at our disposal for national security and foreign policy, including the lectures that would give the country all over the world about good governance. i have been in washington for a very long time and once worked up here on capitol hill. i know that members on both sides of the aisle can come to the right decision, and we're all hopeful. i speak as an american citizen and that that happens very quickly spent last if i might, rouhani has made all these great

promises both at the u.n. but also domestically. what, if any, evidence is there that the human rights situation within iran has improved or that iran has in any way backed off their campaign against iranian dissidents outside of iran? what more could we be doing to try to advance human rights both within iran or to thwart their efforts outside of iran that have taken many lives and continue to threaten stability of the regent? >> thank you, senator. as you said we welcome the release of the 16 prisoners of conscience, including human rights lawyer, but we hope that iran will expeditiously free all of the 80 political prisoners whose pardons everything i as my of them were still working to confirm as released. so indeed it would be very, very wise of iran to seek to the international many by making

affirmation of the release of all of those prisoners. in addition, as you pointed out, we have three americans we're all quite concerned about, robert levinson, amir hekmati and saeed abedini, both saeed abedini and amir hekmati are imprisoned it would be a grand humanity and gesture since they really did nothing wrong for them to be released. and it would be a very, very important if robert levinson, who has not been known to his family since march 2007. almost seven years now, almost seven years for iran to cooperate, help us to find where he is and get him released back to his family. finally, we have sanctioned more than 30 iranian individuals and organizations for their involvement or implicit in censorship. we will continue to move in that

regard on sanctions enforcement. we have continued to strongly support the mandate of the u.n. special rapporteur for human rights in iran, and we also the use our virtual embassy tehran platform and his associate u.s. facebook twitter and google+ platform to promote freedom of expression, respect for human rights and free and fair and transparent electoral processes. it is very interesting that a fluent farsi speaker and really the voice of our face to iranians, an interview with him was put on the front page of an iranian paper for the first time come including with a very nice picture of alan. he is part of our delegation and our team for negotiations, because he is a fluent farsi speaker he understands around quite well. it helps to understand what's going on in the room.

so he is a great asset on all of these issues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to thank the chairman for making the determination this hearing was essential to our continuing the government here. i happen to think that national security is a top priority of government. it's an essential part of government, and so i would also like to thank secretary sherman for coming here today and i'm thankful the state department is determined that your essential as we are moving forward to making sure we enforce sanctions against iran because it's essential to our national security. let me start with that. a question, i appreciate the fact that any testimony you said at the shutdown is causing concern about our being able to force -- enforce iran's sanction. doesn't the state department, the treasury department have the villages like we have to make a determination terms of was

essential activity? >> certainly, and the head of ofac understand is don't work, as those with a couple of staff, but ofac's response those are enormous, and they have to determine given what they have in front of them who they can keep and who they can't. >> but we're here today in this hearing because we believe the actions of iran pose a serious national security threat to this nation. so why would the state department and the treasury department not deem the people in charge of enforcing sanctions against iran as essential servants of the federal government? why wouldn't they do that? >> we only have limited budgets available to us. so i know that you would believe that there many things that treasury must do to make sure that u.s. currency, u.s. monetary and fiscal policy is protected. they have a whole variety of things that are essential to

u.s. national security speech as a matter of prioritizing spending. >> it's not just a matter of prioritizing spending. the our bottom lines are, senator, with all due respect. and i think the fundamental point here is, i truly believe every member of this committee wants us to keep iran front and center, as we do. and i know that secretary lew, i know that dni clapper and director brandon all want to make sure that iran is front and center. but there are realities to how much money we have available to us and it is limited. >> as i said to before the hearing, i really would like to thank that we can have politics at the waters edge. i believe this committee really it has shown that capability. i think during a very thoughtful debate on the syrian issue. so i believe that's true, but

then you come before the committee and i think they're appropriate, again, i appreciate the vector pointing out to us that you're concerned about our ability to enforce the sanctions against iran. i guess the question i would have is isn't also appropriate been for you to come before congress, maybe for the house and say listen, if you don't have the ability to deem those sanctions enforcement is essential, you need additional funding, to ask the house to pass a measure quickly, which i believe they would you probably today if you made the request. and then ask senator harry reid to bring it up in front of the senate, probably on the basis of newness consent i think we could get the funding to you in a matter of hours. would you going to work with congress to do just that? >> as speed is because it's essential. >> as i said, senator, i believe that there are many essential pieces to what we do. >> have you made the point to the present how crucial it is

that we maintain the sanctions and enforcement against iran? have you made a point to the president? >> i think that everyone knows it's essential we enforce sanctions with iran. i also think it's essential we make sure that israel peace and security is a firm through our budget. i also believe that it is essential that we can, in fact, talk with countries around the world about good governance and have credibility when we do so because our own system is working. so this is very complicated, and i defer to the bipartisan, bipartisanship up your to audibly solve the problem. you know how better to get that done that i. >> we are at an impasse to come and discussions aren't working very well. i certainly didn't want of a government shutdown, but now we are having the house making the attempt to start passing over, let's call the many a progression bills. the way the process ought to work on it should happen a month ago. i'm highly concerned about the

national study of this nation. i would hope the president is equally concerned. so that indicates, we are at this impasse. why don't we at least allow the house to pass many appropriation bills? we need continuing resolutions so we can fund the essential parts of government so that we are not concerned about the enforcement of the sanctions against iran? again, i would encourage you through the administration talking to the president, whoever you need to talk to to make that request, allow that to come to vote innocent and have president obama's scientist funding measure so we can can continue with essential services of government. thank you. >> granted i was not going to do this but i can't resist. -- mr. chairman, i wasn't going to do this but it can't resist but it's not the department of states fall and and it's not the administration's fault that congress hasn't passed a budget. it's not the department of state's fault and it's not the administration's fault that the

house and some in his body have repeatedly blocked even a budget conference from starting. everyone on this table knows this but just for folks who are here, the senate has not passed a budget in four years and we passed one on the 23rd of march, the same week the house passed a budget. we have been making an effort to go into a budget conference so that we can make these funding decisions since the 23rd of march and been blocked from doing it 19 times to the attitude is we will not have a budget conference because were not interested in talking or listening. only after pushing the government to shut down at midnight monday did the house say, well now let's have a conference. but not a conference about a budget. let's have a conference about whether or not the government of the united states should be open or closed. i mean, and we should not be expecting the state department to help bail congress out of the dysfunction of not being willing to sit down and compromise.

i mean, please do all you can to stress the critical nature of your work, but we know that. and so does the president. this is up to congress to solve and it's only going to get solve the we sit down and have a conference about the budget which we've been trying to do since march. now, my question is really an observation and it's based upon some questions that i have heard senator risch asked before, ms. sherman. in the sanctions regime against iran, an area that i continue to be concerned about, is the waivers to nations that continue to purchase iranian oil in a significant way. and senator risch and i were talking about that, who's going to deal with india. and the nations, especially china which purchases such as large amount that continue to

purchase iranian oil, if we could get them to do more to scale back their energy purchases, i think it would take the sanctions regime, which are having an effect and make it more even more effective, and hopefully help us. we had a meeting in early july, i think senator mccain was at this meeting. it was with the number two leader of the chinese government, and asked him this question. you have reduce your oil purchases from iran for a variety of reasons, including to help the sanctions. 2g reduce them dramatically further? and then say, but he give up their nuclear program we're going to buy -- we're going to buy a but more from you? then could indeed do the same thing, dramatically reduce the oil purchases, or japan to do the same thing. and the response to the chinese officials very quick. he said, we would be very willing to consider cutting our purchases from iran even for the eq celis liquid natural gas. that was the issue we were

talking about without an answer our representatives to india. and that which is kind of from a political affairs standpoint hope that the united states, significant supply of natural gas, while the exportation have some other domestic economic issues without violence, i think it is a real resource and asset that we could have it could even take a nations that we are currently exempting from the sanctions and to help them dramatically reduce their purchases in a short-term period as a way to enhance sanctions but and i just want to sort of encourage you to think about that asset in that way. >> thank you very much, senator. indeed, our energy. headed up by our ambassador has looked very carefully at this and be glad to ask him to come up and brief the committee on what we're doing in this regard. lng works in some countries as a

substitute in others it doesn't and as you point out the art a lot of domestic as well as international issues involved in deciding whether we're going to export our gas and the tremendous assets we have now discovered that we have. but if you think it is something worth pursuing. we are pursuing it, and would be glad to arrange a briefing for the committee on what works about this and wasn't as does k about this and how we could move afford and what are the considerations for it. we also agree that we need to keep pressing china, india, turkey, south korea and japan and small amounts of august ago to taiwan and we need to keep pressing. and we are, all of them, for reduction. but all 23 imported iranian oil have either a limited or significantly reduced purchases from iran and we are left with only five major customers of oil.

so with your help, sanctions -- >> if i might just very quickly, but you continue to believe though that if those five major purchasers continue to scale back and significantly, that could be very strong additional leverage point to increase sanctions and help us with our diplomatic discussion surrounding the iranian nuclear program? >> without a doubt, though i would note particularly probably for china and india becomes more and more difficult to do because their demands are growing exponentially, even as they're reducing. and i think i've used the statistic in front of the committee before, a given percentage reduction from china who is probably the largest purchaser of oil from iran would be approximately equal to the volume reduction twice as large as the same percentage reduction from india, three times as large as the percentage reduction from south korea, and four times bigger than percentage reduction from turkey. so even a 1% decline in chinese

purchases is a double what anybody else is reduction is, because there've always are so great. >> senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary sherman. thank you for being here. i think there's a question in the minds of many us about credibility. back in -- mr. boone is one of the most trusted figures of the islamic regime's supreme leader -- mr. rouhani. he has been deputy speaker of parliament, and as we know, he also served as a negotiator. and then on the interview that he gave, and which is out there on the internet, quote the day that we invited the three

european ministers, only 10 centrifuges were spent at the iranian nuclear facility. rouhani boasted on the tape, we could not produce one grant of you for or you six. we do not have the heavy water production we could not produce devotee. our total production of centrifuges inside the country is 150. but then rouhani admitted innovative the purpose of along in negotiations quote we wanted to complete all of these we needed time. he said three european ministers promised to block use of force, transfer the iranian nuclear dossier to the united nations using the to power if necessary. he called iran's claim that stopped his new program in 2003 estimate for the uneducated and admitted that the program not only continued but was significantly expanded under his tenure. and in a few rouhani said that he took over the country's nuclear project, countries 150

grit 100,000 by the time he left the project. then rouhani made his boldest statement and we did not stop, we completed the program. now, we're supposed to trust this guy? what possible confidence do you have in this individual? >> senator, i don't trust the people who sit across the table from the in these negotiations, and you are quite right that rouhani was the chief negotiator from 2003-2005. i'm will the money with that interview in his book, -- i'm well familiar with the interview in his book. secretary kerry has said we must test the proposition that spoke before us, not for ever and ever, for the reasons you pointed out. >> how long should the test taker, do you think? >> i think we will know whether we are even speeded so we don't know how long the test will take? >> we will no speeded do you

have at the? >> can i finish my sentence? thank you, senator. i think we'll know when we meet on the 15th and 16th whether there's anything real here or not. i think we will know rather quickly whether we're beginning a serious negotiation or whether we are moving down one more round that leads to nowhere. nowhere. >> do we have evidence that the iranian regime is training regular forces and use of chemical weapons in syria and? >> in this setting what i can say to you is that we are quite well aware that iran is very heavily engaged in syria, both with advisers, boots on the ground, financing of lebanese hezbollah, providing all kinds of strategic advice in ways that are quite destructive and horrific. >> so you can't say in public hearing whether we know whether the iranians are training syrians and the use of chemical weapons or not?

>> i'll be glad to have our intelligence community come back to you on that. >> i.c. -- what influence does he have over the regime's command and control? >> what i can say again in deciding them and they think we probably should make sure we get classified briefings for you on all of us, he is very critical to the irgc. he is engaged, we believe, in what is going on in syria in ways that obviously we wish he was not. u..

>> the 51 people who were members of this camp, and many of them had in their possession guarantees from the united states of america that they would not be harmed. what -- first of all, are those fact true, and second of all, if true, what lesson does that send to people who we say will be under our protection?

>> senator, i share your deep concern about what happened at the campus oshraf and many lives were lost. the u.s. continues to press the government of iraq at every opportunity at the most senior levels to ensure the safety and security of residents at the camp where many were removed for better safety. we strongly condemn the attack. we of course extend our condolences to the victims' families and we are working with the government of iraq and the united nations mission for iraq to peacefully and voluntarily transfer of the surviving residents on september 12th. and we are working for the protection of the people in the camp because we do not want a repeat of this. so, today the government of iraq

has moved in over 700 large malls over 500 of the bunkers and 50,000 sandbags. u.s. monitors visit daily in accordance to ss these conditions. but i must say the answer to the safety and security to the people who want to live in the camp is resettlement to the countries to get out of iraq and to get out of harm's way. i would call on all of the people here today representing the rights and interests and the leaders of the m ek to allow the settlement to go forward because until the settlement happens, safety and security is going to be at risk. we will do everything in our power to keep people safe in these camps but as you pointed out, the threat is increasing in iraq and it is difficult.

>> [inaudible] and i hope this issue will be raised with the iraqi government and in congress we may have to look at the kind of aid and how we are extending that to iraq if this kind of thing is going to be counted by the iraqi government. i used up all of my time thinking for the response. >> let me echo what the senator said in his regard and i put out a statement in this regard and i also talked to our department. america said disarm and we will protect you. and then we'll ultimately laughed and that protection isn't there. i don't care how many tons of sand bags but when the elements of the irony in for the iraqi

forces actually may very well become plus it in what took place, it is sand bags aren't going to take care of the problem. i agree with you that the settlement is a critical part. maybe the united states could be part of leading the way saying to the universe of these individuals that in fact you could be resettled to the united states and that would get the rest of the world to offer a further resettlement. but it is unacceptable to lose one more life when american commanders gave these individuals a guarantee to words their safety and it sends a message to others in the world that when we say that we are going to do that and we do not, that they shouldn't trust us. one thing this committee can do since it has jurisdiction over all weapons sales is that i doubt very much that we are going to see any approval of any weapon sales to iraq until we

get the situation in a place in which people's lives are safe. senator? >> thank you mr. chairman. the sanctions have squeezed, but we cannot let the iranians wiggle out of the impact of the sanctions through a maros of cooperation. we shouldn't relax them 1 inch while iran's intentions are still unknown. and as you have noted we are not in a trust but verify situation with iran. we don't trust the iranian regime and we shouldn't trust the regime. that is where we are going to be and i think we all agree on that. utter has been a very high

historical coming out of iran on this program. by the way they are no different than koreans, they are no different than the iraqis. they are no different than the syrians using what each of the country says is an interest in a mortgage, electricity wattage in order to get access to a civilian nuclear electricity program to compromise it for the iranian and plutonium. they all. it's all about the nuclear weapons and each country does it and we keep falling for it. we keep trusting them. we need a slight change in the government and all of a sudden these materials are going into the hands of those that want a weapons program. by the way that is my concern saying we are giving the program to saudi arabia. all for that matter to the arab

immigrants and the government changes, so can the program as they just blew out all of those people who were inspecting the civilian program. it's just an ongoing story line that never changes and then we wind up getting deeper and deeper which is why we have to be thankful for the israelis in 1981 in bombing the nuclear power plant in iraq it wasn't with a bond of the syrian nuclear plant they did the world a favor because again this will safeguard regime question is completely dependent upon how intrusive, how continuous be inspections regime is in guaranteeing the the program is not compromised and i know don't think that it should take a long time to determine whether or not they are going to allow the

inspectors in to go to those sites to begin the preliminary work. we all know that's what happened in iraq. they let them in when they thought there was going to be a war. and we couldn't find a nuclear weapon program. we should have never started the war because we couldn't find the program. that was the justification to make sure the next didn't come in the form. that's been a compromise to the program as other countries have compromised their program and that's why we have to be very careful in the middle east as we talk about saudi arabia as a civilian nuclear program. there's 300 days of sunshine in the middle east. whenever we are talking about selling nuclear power for electricity into countries that have oil and gas we should just cash and eyebrow. it's very likely that ten years from now, 20, 30 it will turn on

us and we will be talking about american young men and women being put at risk. so i guess my question just came in the form of that comment. i would like to move over if i could very briefly over to the cyber issue. we know that there are iranian extremists that have been attacking the sites in the united states and saudi arabia and other places. what role is their capacity to launch cyberattack on the west, on other countries in the middle east playing in these negotiations to make sure they know that we want that shut down as well and we don't want them playing games in this effort increasingly dangerous area of international conflict? >> senator, thank you for your comments and you have long been a leader and a champion and a speaker about nuclear energy, nuclear power, nuclear weapons.

you and i have had these conversations for many years. where cyber is concerned we are concerned about the capability of iran and about the capability of many countries in the world to use cyber. we're iran is concerned i think that discussion would better take place in a classified setting and i would be glad to arrange for that briefing to occur. >> again i just want to say that that is a big part of the story line. >> absolutely. >> they use it again in a regional context and then try to use other countries to the own sense of that they have to increase their own protection. so i think it's absolutely critical that we play the lead role here. they played a big role in buying us more time. but we know that a counterpart capacity also exists in iran and

other countries to attack us, to attack the west, the regional neighbors. so, i just want to highlight that issue. thank you for your work on it and we wish you good luck. i think we are at a critical point and i would say this in summation, mr. chairman. back in the cold war, brezhnev died and a drop-off died, three leaders in three years and gorbachev took over april of '85. he said he wanted to end of the nuclear arms race and reduce nuclear arms. he said he wanted an agreement. we had to test it but we have a moral responsibility to test it and to in the same category that we put the former soviet union, but he shows up in a new era of potentially come potentially and

i think it is exactly what you just said. we don't know how long his leash is the supreme leader is giving him. but if it is one, then we can test it quickly because they can let those inspectors and and we can get the preliminary guaranteed that to those sites are going to be made accessible to the world and i think it will be a sigh of relief we will breve as there was in the east when reagan was able to extract that same kind of inspection regime. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. madam secretary, before i let you go i have two final questions. one is last week pakistan's prime minister said he intended to move forward with a natural gas pipeline deal with iran that was agreed to by the previous government of pakistan. if that were to take place, it would be in a clear violation of our iran sanctions regime, and not to mention that would provide a critical revenue

stream to iran and would create challenges boldly with our other partners in terms of saying we are following you on the sanctions but we can't allow somebody to get away with it but i know we would be subject ultimately to the sanctions. is the administration having discussions with pakistan on this issue and are we ready to proceed with sanctions as they continue on the deal? >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of points if i may. on pakistan we have had those discussions and we will continue with the pakistani government. my own assessment is that it's not going anywhere anytime soon. but they certainly understand where we are and what our sanctions require so we will keep vigilant about not only what pakistan may do about any country that is going to have to confront the sanctions.

if i may, senator i would like to take the opportunity to comment on what you said about iraq coming and we agree with what senator mccain said that we need to do everything we can to settle people to get them out of harm's way, to make good on the word we gave. i know there are strong feelings of here and i understand why dewaal, but i do want to put on the record that the u.s. security assistance and foreign military sales in particular our tools that we use for building and shaping the defense capabilities and integrating the iraqi security forces with our security forces and regional partners and i just want to caution that withholding security assistance may serve to decrease our influence in baghdad and the relationships

and leverage to strategic competitors who will fill the vacuum and could damage or long-term interest so i just ask that we talk very carefully as we go forward. >> let me caution you about the overflights that iraq has permitted from iran into syria largely with impunity, and let me also caution that the seven hostages which we believe the iraqi government knows where they are should they die eight would be complicating matters for all of that. so, i hope that we have both cautioned each other. >> i agree with you on both. >> let me close by asking you one final question. what is it that we will accept less than of the world has said is necessary to the security council resolutions? >> i'm sorry? >> what would we accept in these negotiations with iran, less

than what has been established under the security council resolutions? >> we have continued to say to iran that we accept them to fulfill their obligations under the npt and security council resolutions. >> well, thank you for your look forward to what the department and the state department is going to be able to do with iran as you test their intentions i intend to keep the department's feet to the fire on our issue of sanctions as we move forward. >> mr. chairman, i will be very brief. i know we have another panel coming but i would like to ask the secretary -- we talked a lot today about the nuclear issue and other important issues here today. but if we negotiate the end to their nuclear program or a significant rollback we still have a country that is hostile.

they are a state sponsor of terror that they have a terrible human rights record. so, you know, i know that you are looking at trying to negotiate some relief if you will relative to the sanction, but the fact is the way that it reads the space to not only dismantle the nuclear threat and they also have to renounce terrorists and i just wonder how those negotiations going simultaneously to the others and what you are doing to ensure it because the way that bill walz reads, these sanctions cannot be undone unless all of that occurs in this seems to me we are only moving on one track. very good one track i'm just wondering how he might be addressing the other. >> we have been clear with the armenians that we are talking about the nuclear program and the sanctions that relate to the nuclear program. the right actions, there are terrorist actions still on the

table because of exactly what you say which is that the need to make progress, considerable progress on human rights they have to stop their sponsorship they have to stop regionally destabilizing in many parts of the world quite frankly, so those are other discussions that we have with iran as is the subject of this today and as the subject of the 15th and 16th will be on their nuclear program >> we always appreciate your service. >> thank you for the opportunity. let me call it the next panel. i've introduced them already that david albright for international security, the honorable james f. jeffrey distinguished visiting fellow with the washington institute for near east peace and senior fellow for the middle east council of foreign relations.

[inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] >> let me apologize for my mispronunciation of your name.

we welcome you. you're full testimony will be included in the record without objection we ask you to summarize it in about five minutes or so. we will start with mr. albright. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, ranking member senator corker and other members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. i think it has been made clear that there is certainly hope in an agreement that iran can be achieved over its nuclear program. and i think i certainly share many of the views here that one should be skeptical of and moved very quickly to test whether the iranians have really changed. and i think we also have to keep in mind that if the goal isn't necessarily specific limitations on the nuclear program, but it's to provide an agreement that ensures that they will not seek nuclear weapons and i think that is a very difficult thing to do. and what i would like to do is

talk through some of the issues on the nuclear program and then some of the implications of that kind of the objective on what you would like to see in an agreement. and i think it is clear to everybody and some have made the point today that iran's nuclear program is large and growing. and it's also true that there have been no signs of the reduction in the program since president rohani took office. some of the comments in new york envisions he has a growing nuclear program. as you know there are two main gas centrifuge sites and there's also growing suspicion that they may be building a new one and president rohani has not provided answers to that question. also iran has produced very large stocks of enriched uranium, a significant stock that's near 20% and then a very large stock of 3.5% enriched

uranium. during the last two years, iran has essentially doubled the number of its centrifuges and it now has over 19,000 centrifuges installed at these facilities. and 1,000 of them are these advanced centrifuge is that we have worried about for years so iran is putting together a considerable nuclear weapons capability if it chose to go that route. and i think as i mentioned in the negotiating position we have to look at how to come stream that program and provide the kind of assurance we need that it wouldn't build nuclear weapons, and in that we have to consider how long it would take iran to make the weapon grade uranium for the nuclear weapon. and i think the chairman has mentioned some of the estimates and we have done some of looking at today and how much they could do. and essentially if they made a decision today to produce

weapons-grade uranium which is tossed in the tent it could make enough weapons-grade uranium at about one to one-and-a-half months. there are many things that could happen that would lengthen that time but that to us is a credible time for iran to break out. i don't think that iran would do that now because a would be detected by the inspectors and would have to fear that it would be struck militarily. so what we would call the breakout estimates provide some assurance that there is still some time to solve this problem. and we would hope that i would stop, but if you will get the plan the trends of the centrifuge program we think that by mid 2014 iran could have so many centrifuges installed and could also produce more 20% enriched uranium that it could

break out and produce enough weapons-grade uranium before the international inspectors could detect that. that doesn't mean they would have a bomb at that time and the ambassador talked about about a year or up to a year here there is controversy on that. the estimate is to get the nuclear first could take anywhere from three months to 12 months. we don't know the capabilities that goal but in terms of the weapons-grade uranium once they have enough for the bomb or to it's going to change things fundamentally even if it is going to take them several more months to actually construct a nuclear explosive. therefore negotiations should aim to limit the ability to reach what we call a critical capability and which he would call a breakout capability and to increase the time it takes

iran to build nuclear weapons. i think that iran has caused more alarmed by saying that it's going to start the heavy water reactor which from a technical point of view is designed to make the weapons-grade plutonium and isn't designed to make the medical isotopes and there's ways this could open a second pathway to the nuclear weapons for iran if they operate so i think it's very important in the negotiations to get iran to first simply say we are not going to start it until 2015 or later and then have to seek the end of the construction project and just eliminate this as a possibility. let me make one last point. for us it's a very important one. we have worked on a lot of

countries over time and we see them get nuclear weapons and we seen them give them up. one of the troubling aspects of iran's statements is the insistence it had no program in the past and it has none now despite the overwhelming evidence that that is simply not true. now we understand and the senator made the point the country's often lie about their nuclear weapons programs. that is nothing new and sometimes people live with those lies. but in the case of iran if they don't start opening up and i would say answering the questions of the international atomic agency on this issue which has developed evidence and a whole set of questions and a negotiating path with iran to settle this it's going to be very hard to believe anything they do on this question and i think if they are not willing to do this then i'm not sure they would pass the test that's

needed to settle this issue. let me in there and i apologize for going over. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and mr. ranking member for inviting me here today. first of all i agree with the doctor said that sharpens my comments considerably. we do have an opportunity through this latest set of actions associated with mr. rohani to perhaps find a negotiated outcome. there is a possibility that will avert either a military action or possibly war or what would be even worse a nuclear-armed, nuclear capable iran. the devil is going to be in the details. they're then various attempts to achieve a breakthrough. at one point in 2009 the iranians accepted a very broad limitation on their enrichment moving out and limiting what they would do. but then they reneged on it.

in 2010 under different circumstances they accepted a different plan so there is some room for maneuver in here with the details are going to be very difficult and involving the sequencing of the sanctions to withdraw and the question of enrichment and whether what conditions and how much you discuss this in very considerable detail with secretary sherman and she was as expected very general with where the administration was on this because it's going to be very basically much of the core of the negotiations. but what i would like to do is very quickly get a couple of more broad context aspects of this. first of all, the reason that we are so concerned about this nuclear weapon potential compared to a nuclear armed neighbor of iran even when i think that the secretary sherman's comment that iran is so generous is because ireton is a different kind of animal.

it has a regional claim to power that goes deep into the population, deep into its history. it presents the kind of problem we have with milosevich a decade plus ago, the kind of problem we have with saddam hussein. the iranians are going to be very likely to give up this regional request for power and the various tools, nuclear, terrorism, alliances with syria, hezbollah and on and on. we can get them to push back on one or another if we put enough pressure on them such as nuclear but this is a long-term conflict that we are in with iran. even if we do get a breakthrough on the nuclear account we are not going to resolve that and we should bear that in mind. the second thing is what we have had that has brought us to this point is very successful synergy between military threats, the sanctions regime that sherman went through the statistics

they've been verified publicly it's a very dramatic drop in oil almost 60% of their exports have been cut and third the cooperation per because it is mainly the international community that has to carry out the sanctions that the price of being denied access to the u.s. banking system so these elements are important to keep in balance. i'm very concerned about the credibility of the u.s. military threat. the president took a step in the right direction with the prime minister netanyahu when he named all options were on the table and specifically military force that's important we have to keep emphasizing that because what i am hearing in the region i've been out there is that people are doubting us and it's very important that the military credibility remain intact. on the other hand we have to be very watchful of our allies and our friends in the the 55 plus one and people carrying out the

sanctions because we need to have as much international cooperation as possible to get a deal and continue to put pressure on them and if necessary if we have to go to military action to support us there. i will stop there. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, senator corker for inviting me. it's a pleasure to be here with ambassador jefferies and my old friend david albright. i think the presidency of rohani has assertions ranging from cautious optimism to the you for it participation. he has been described in various ways as a reformer, pragmatist but his critics as a wolf in sheep's clothing. although it is often that he is on a significant domestic pressure at home i think those claims are closely exaggerated if not overstated. the islamic republic has established a consensus on the security issues including the

nuclear issue that the consensus may prove fragile and may be subject to internal but he's under political pressure and therefore requires international assistance. despite this rhetoric we can count on the iranian regime to continue to answer with regards to the nuclear rights and press a disadvantage isn't contestant middle east. the islamic republic will remain a backer of the dynasty a benefactor of the hezbollah and supporter of the palestinian rejection groups and will persist a tactic at home and deny fundamental human rights to the population. it is the government will seek a negotiated settlement to the nuclear issue but on the terms that will find advantageous. rohani's case is not without its contradictions. he insists that iran can expand its nuclear program while reclaiming his commercial contracts even those programs that are in violation of security council resolution tone and style matter about what

should await the president rohani is a trade of dispensing with critical aspects of the program in exchange for sanctions relief. it needs to be stressed that the united states is sending these negotiations with important advantages. iran's economy is faltering, the population is disaffected and destructive by its neighbors. this is a time for washington to negotiate a maximum agreement and not settle for the irony in half measures and half steps. although much of the attention recently for obvious reasons has been focused on the president rohani and his foreign minister certainly an intelligent man i want to draw attention to the supreme national security council, which one actually make a fundamental nuclear decisions. the nuclear faizal hasn't been transferred to the foreign ministry. the negotiations and representation of the nuclear file has been transferred to the foreign ministry. the supreme national security

council has also had a new staff members and their names are on the press and they don't give interviews. it's headed today by the admiral a founding member of the revolutionary guard official in iran's nuclear program. his recently appointed as deputy a shadow revolutionary guard they care -- figure who's been involved since the very beginning. as the ambassador suggested, their vision of iran is one of a strong iran and preeminent power in the region. of the leadership at the helm of the supreme national security council has also been very much committed to the nuclear capability and has involved procurement efforts. he had in one interview said the program is an opportunity for us to make endeavors to acquire a strategic relations and consolidate our national identity. they believe in a measure of restraint of the nuclear

strategy and recognize the importance of offering confidence-building measures to the skeptical and international community. all of this is not to suggest that they are inclined to suspend the program and relinquish the critical components but as i mentioned they may be open to dialogue and they stress their reasonableness but the idea is that if iran presents this as a more reasonable answer that its nuclear program can be sanctioned, not sanctioned the way that you are thinking, but acknowledge. the supreme leaders instincts are to call for the defiance in pursuit of the bomb and must consider a nuclear program in the context of the larger concerns. in the recent months he has opted for a strategy that takes to recount his competing mandates. on the one hand he presses for the program and on the other hand he has excellent for the need of negotiation and a measure of restraint. he hopes that his new president

can somehow square the circle that confront them and make the program more acceptable for the international community. so, as the cautious changes that are taking place. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you for your testimony. i want to pick up where you just finished. is it just to the iranians have come to a conclusion domestically me because of the sanctions and may be because of the other events change their nuclear program or is that that they want to see if they can preserve the greatest amount of the nuclear program but remove the sanctions to be >> i think it's the latter.

the intent is to preserve the program at least once there and the infrastructure that has been created in their routt of the facilities as well as the introduction of the new generation of centrifuges that can operate with the efficiency at high velocity. it the intention is to preserve all of that but as a measure negotiate over the program in exchange for the sanctions relief bit about fundamental sanctions relief. >> let me turn to you what is the consequence of that if we accept that what is the consequence, what is the risk? >> i have the concern that we create the sanctions relief for less than what the security council has established not in just the world but in the united states that's established through security council resolutions and what it believes is the standard of what iran needs to do and if you accept less do you run the risk that he

wore in a position in which iran changes the course of events after all these agreements have had a year or two from now that were largely back to where we are act? >> certainly the risk is that they would continue developing this capability and innocence reduce the breakout times and perhaps give a greater capability to build covert centrifuge plants and the goal is probably not much different than it was in 2005 when the negotiations broke down as they are willing to pause, but they are not willing to commit not to grow their centrifuge program and that was in the central roadblock back then was it's not good enough that for a couple of years they don't install more centrifuges and they make transparency measures and then after those few years they will

just to grow again and then maybe they will pause again. but the proposals have tended to be the program will grow and they will not shrink. and i think that this test is to be very hard for iran to meet the way that we've discussed today it is a very hard issue for iran and then that there is a mistrust that the offending nuclear weapons development program in the past then the iaea wants them to come clean on the benet me just be a bridge too far. >> what is there a devotee with the time that has passed in the international atomic energy administration that has refused countries throughout the world, their concerns and views that iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program what is the ability of iran to now

undermined the fact is as to what they had been doing? >> it's in the last two or three years. the argument is pretty clear. the documentation is fabricated, people are lobbying, there is no evidence that's worth talking about if something is substantially proven they will say it's nothing to do with nuclear weapons. they tell them you can't talk to the people you want to go to. they are not allowed to go to those sites. and recently in the last year or so, the iea was told you can't ask about procurement information anymore. that is a large part of the evidence on some aspects. and at the meeting that just happened last week, i think they

tried to say that it was constructive but they also issued a statement saying that there was no progress. but we hope to have progress in the next meeting in late october. a somewhat different definition but we are talking about the same thing. just give the committee a sense of how you come to the top of this that you come to or the time frame that you have developed. >> it's based on a set of work that we do with centrifuge specialists at the university of virginia of one of whom used to head of what was called the physics program at the center deutsch program it was a theoretical program for the centrifuges, and we look at the calculations to the we then look at how many iran is in stalling and at what rate that is projected over the next year or so. we then assume that time we are

worried about is when they would have been a 20% enriched uranium that would allow for the fastest breakout. and then we assume that they could make the switch over from the low end of it to the ninian program faster than they can today. then we came up with this estimate in mid 2014. and i must say the criticism that we are hearing is sooner. particularly if they can deploy large numbers of these advanced centrifuges. we did is made 2014 as a solid date. they are interested in knowing how the administration thinks about this in its calculations. there are specialists that came out of the enrichment program in the u.s. and its aware of how the u.s. government does these calculations. we don't see major differences. one difference that i will point out is that we look at minimum times. and we have heard this in previous hearings. we look at minimum times the

dormant looks at more likely times. so i know that we cut -- from the policy point of view or the implications we think the minimum time is the one to know. the likely time which would be longer has less policy relevance but it's an important number. >> so it is eight months from now. eight or nine months from now. musette to the extent that there's criticism of your institutes work that it might be on the shorter time. >> that's right. >> senator corker. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to begin the day. the lawmakers are in a holding pattern as leaders try to give out a way forward to and the shutdown and fund the federal government. yesterday the house continued its strategy of passing targeted short-term funding bills for things like the national institutes of health. the house will continue along that today with bills funding

fema and federal nutrition programs for poor women and children. harry reid said the strategy of passing the funding bills as a non-starter in the senate and we do expect to hear more from the senate leaders shortly as they gather light on the senate floor on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the senate chaplain, retired admiral dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, thank you for the many mercies you extend to us each day. lord, we're grateful for our federal law enforcement agents and first responders and pray that we may emulate their patriotism and self-sacrifice. may we go beyond applause in expressing our gratitude but

make decisions that will ensure their timely and fair compensation. today, give our lawmakers the vision and the willingness to see and to do your will. remove from them that stubborn pride which imagination itself to be above and beyond criticism. forgive them for the blunders they have committed, infusing them with the courage to admit and correct mistakes. amen. the president pro tempore: 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. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in a period of morning business for debate only until 2:00 p.m. today. during that period of time, senators will be allowed to speak up to ten minutes each. mr. president, following the suggestion in the prayer of admiral black, i want to take a few minutes to talk about senate did hdiddid hdecorum.

mr. president, i think we've all here in the senate kind of lost the aura of robert byrd, who was such a stickler for senate procedure. i think we've all let things get away from us a little bit. the senate is a very special place with very particular rules. these rules help to keep debate among senators civil, even when we're discussing matters on which senators completely disagree. one of those rules concerns how we address each other here in the senate. the practice that we observe is that when senators speak, they address themselves only to the presiding officer. mr. president, through you to the senator from missouri -- or whatever the case might be. when senators refer to other senators -- and this is

something we all have to listen to -- whether those other senators are in the chamber or not, senators must address and refer to each other in the third person and through the chair. thus, senators should refer to "the senator from vermont" or "the senator from illinois," or "the manager of the bill." senators should avoid using other senators' first names. and senators should avoid addressing other senators directly as "you." these rules are a little unusual, but they've been in place for a couple centuries, mr. president. as people will generally talk directly to other people, if they're in the same room with each other, that's a little unusual, because that isn't how we address one another. but the senate rules preserve distance, a little distance, not a lot of distance, but a little distance so senators are more likely to debate ideas and

leslelesslikely to talk person . -- personalities. directing a little self-criticism here, i think we have to understand that these rules create a little distance so that senators are more likely to debate ideas and less likely talk about personalities. and if we do that we maintain a more civil di decorum as a resu. i bring this to the ateption of senators -- i tbli t bring thise attention of senators because we've fallen out of habit. i will work harder and i hope my colleagues will do their best to maintain these tha matters of decorum. the presiding officers have all been directed to make sure we do a better job of following the

basic rules of the senate. mr. president, every day members of congress come to work at the united states capitol. i said some of these things yesterday afternoon, but because of the melee, the death and destruction outside the capitol, the sound system didn'tst didn't work and so i want to make sure people understand a few things how i feel about the united states capitol police force. members of congress come to work here and we come with 16,000 staff people. we are here with millions of tieforttourists every year, ande good men and women, most of whom are in uniform but not all of them are, are here to keep us,

members of our staff, and the public safe from harm. yesterday's events were a sobering reminder of that fact. i spoke yesterday afternoon shortly after the incident to brian carter, a 23-year veteran of the capitol police force who was hurt during yesterday's incident. i've talked to police officers that i come in contact with the last 16 hours or so, said, do you know brian? almost everyone knows him and everyone said the same thing, what a fine young man. as i spoke to him yesterday -- and he is speacted t expected ta recovery; i wish he and his family the best during this difficult time, i wish add speedy recovery to the secret service agent who was also injured yesterday. but i thought the most memorable

thing that we had in our short telephone conversation was he said, my job is to keep you safe. he wasn't referring to me, even though he and i were on the phone. he meant his job is to make sure that everyone is safe. that was something i'll always remember. these brave men and women put their live lives on the line evy day, capitol police, other law enforcement agencies who work here in the capital. why do they do that? because that's their job. so my thanks go out to every capitol police officer. we owe them a debt of gratitude. i want to remind everyone listening that yesterday and today the capitol remains closed to most business.

the federal government remains closed. in the newspaper today, it lists all the layoffs. today it has a graph of those in the administrative area, not the legislative or judicial but administrative -- the administration. we have tens of thousands of public servants who are not furloughed, but they're working, including law enforcement officials, without pay. remember the people out there yesterday. they were out there risking their lives without pay. hundreds of thousands more, such as intelligence officers that keep the nation safe. because of these if you are loarks the capitol police, the f.b.i. and other law enforcement agencies face additional risk as they're asked to do their with limited manpower. congress owes it to them and every american 235e7 family to t

past our disins differences and reopen the united states federal government. this is just hard to comprehend, mr. president, what's going on ... all because of president obama's signature legislative issue that we were so fortunate to pass to allow all americans to have health care, as is the case in every industrialized nation in the world except our nation. we have as many as a 45 million to 50 million people with no health insurance. i would hole hop hope that my rn colleagues would understand that the law is four years old, has been declared constitutional by the supreme court, it is in effect. millions of people have gone onion line this week to -- have gone online this week to find out what to do to have health

insurance. mr. leahy: would the leader yield for a question? mr. reid: of course i would to the presidenthe president pro t. mr. leahy: the leader has note add number of time that a small group in the house of representatives has held up the government was they want to do away with affordable care act. my question to the senator is, have they ever once come up with an alternative piece of legislation that would provide for your children, if they are in college, to be on your health care program, or if you have a member of your family with a preexisting condition like diabetes or having gone through cancer, have they come up with any alternative or is it just,

we want nothing? mr. reid: madam president, to my friend, the most senior member of the united states senate, in today's newspapers and the commentary on television and radio, even republicans, prominent republicans, former chairs -- i have in my mind, which i read today, two former chairs of the national republican party, said, we've got to start being for something, not just against everything. that's the problem we have here, madam president. they're against everything, against everything. and, as the distinguished senator from vermont said, what are they for? we know what they're against, but what are they for. mr. leahy: well, madam president, i thank the distinguished leader because i know in my state of vermont, people are happy if they have

children going to college and they can keep them on their health care, or if they have a spouse who had breast cancer, for example, they can still get health care, or whatever -- diabetics and so on. and i think the distinguished leader has answered, no, they want to do away with all of this and nothing in return. that is a kneel list stick approach that -- that is a an anigh list stick approach that makes no sense. 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 debate only until 2:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the president pro tempore is recognized. mr. leahy: madam president, several people have spoken, and

i was touched so much by the chaplain's prayer, by the words of the leader about our capitol police. the leader, in his young days as a student, served as one of the capitol police. because i'm president pro tempore, i do have a security detail. but long before i had that, i made it a point to go every time i'd see a prise see a police ofs campus, i'd say, you keep us all safe; keep yourself safe. we worry about it. i'm wearing this pin applying to them today. i think we have know tourists who come here, members, staff, everybody are kept safe by these brave men and women. i ask those who are assigned to

me to join me in my office for a silent prayer asking for the safety and recovery of the officer injured but of the safety of all of these prisers. they rush in. they rush in when there's trouble. they don't say, oh, gosh, i'm not being paid. or, gee-whiz, i was supposed to go off duty in main. they rush in. no questions asked. extraordinay well trained. one of the best trained police departments anywhere in the country, and i think we owe them a debt of gratitude. we've also heard in the last few days on the floor about the costly impacts of this needless government shutdown. and it's needless. the senate passed a resolution that would reopen the government while we work on a meaningful compromise to address our budget and our national debt because of a small radical group of tea party activists in the house of

representatives that won't even vote on it. they have this parochial bit by bit funding. they want to pick and choose little popular things and say here, we're for that. they don't want to stand up and vote "yes" or "no" on actual appropriations because if they do that, they have to take a position. it's easier to vote "maybe." if they vote "maybe" they can go home and say we're for medical research. we're for the veterans. no, they're not. they voted to shut it down. they had a member of the house of representatives on television posturing to a group of veterans that isn't it terrible the administration is closing off the veterans memorial. one of the veterans called him on it and said no, it's not the administration that's closing it. it's you, it's you people, this small group in the house of representatives that's closing this down. why don't they bring the

senate-passed resolution to the house floor for a vote? instead they allow a small handful of extreme ideologues who decided arbitrarily that we won't do it. bring it to a vote. how about 435 members stand up and vote "yes" we'll open the veterans programs and the medical research activity, or no we won't. they have to be on record "yes" or "no." the senate judiciary committee heard testimony this week, and the distinguished presiding officer is a member of that committee, the distinguished deputy majority leader is, we heard about the danger to our country from the threats that increases every day because of all of the people who have had to be furloughed. it was evident on tuesday when the department of defense released guidance to the national guard they needed to issue massive furloughs even though the national guard is essential in this country.

there was 450 technicians in the vermont national guard. an additional 100 vermont guardsmen were recalled from active borders, weekend drills canceled where 3,000 members of the vermont guard come together for joint training. so it results in decrease in our readiness. some of the 450 military technicians in vermont who received furlough notices tuesday are home without pay after forfeiting 20% of their pay for six weeks of summer because of sequestration. i've talked to them. i know many of them personally. some are neighbors of mine in vermont. these are real people. they're not getting paid every week like the members of the house of representatives, the tea party group who are holding them hostage. now, i believe that the number of furloughs in the national guard was a misinterpretation by the department of defense.

we have adopted legislation to ensure that members of our nation's military receive their pay. i'm the cochair of the national guard caucus. i joined senator manchin and others in a letter asking the secretary of defense to reinterpret this. it also affects our veterans. there are nearly 5,000 veterans who called vermont home. my distinguished colleague from vermont, who is the chairman of the veterans kph-d has heard from them -- veterans' committee has heard from them. i hear from them. these are real people. they showed up and supported this country when they were asked to, and now they say why aren't you supporting us? veterans across the country know that while their benefit payments will continue in the near term, furloughs within the v.a. are unfair to our veterans.

and they now have a real question, what is our commitment to them. we didn't question their commitment to the country when they served, but now where is our commitment to them. so let's stop picking winners and losers, let's bring up those, let's vote on them. the distinguished chair of the budget committee is here on the floor. she got a budget through this committee. i remember passing the last vote. i think it was 5:30 on a saturday morning after we had gone all night long. and then when we want to go to conference and actually work out the differences with the house, oh, no, then they might actually have to vote on something, and it's blocked by a republican senator working with the tea party in the house. and say, oh, no, we can't go to conference. the same people giving the

speeches say why don't we have a budget. we pass a budget. oh, no, now we might actually have to vote on something. we might have to vote "yes" or "no" instead of "maybe." we're elected to vote "yes" or "no". not "maybe." have the courage to do that. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader is recognized. mr. durbin: i want to thank the president pro tempore as well as the majority leader for their comments this morning. i'm wearing a button as many of my colleagues are that says thank you to the capitol police. the one i'm wearing is not the one that's been issued today but the one i asked to be commissioned back on 9/11 because i thought about the extraordinary courage these men and women showed on that day when an imminent attack on this building was well known, and yet they did everything in their power to protect all of us who work here and those who were visiting. a special thank you to them.

yesterday was a tragic day. a young woman, it is still unclear what motivated her, got involved in an incident at the white house, backing into a police vehicle and then trying to escape, followed by a secret service officer. she drove up toward the capitol building and, sadly, her life was taken. but it's understandable. we live in an era where this campus, this u.s. capitol grounds, is carefully guarded for obvious reasons. it is a clear, visible target to those who hate the united states. and someone in a car is a threat. we know that because car bombs are so common in some parts of the world, and we're wary of vehicles that may be used to harm innocent visitors or people who work in the u.s. capitol building. it will be some time before we

sort out all the details of what led to this incident yesterday, but there's something we know very clearly, and that is that the men and women in the capitol police stepped up to defend this capitol building and all those who work here and visit here, did this, risking their own lives. this morning's "washington post" has a few paragraphs on this which barre peteing for the record. ed -- bear repeating for the record -- and i quote -- "it seems beyond doubt that secret service personnel, capitol police and probably many others rushed forward, not away from danger, as they're trained to do, as americans expect them to do. inside congress aides took cover, traded anxious text messages and went on with their work. like hundreds of thousands of other federal employees, these are men and women whose contributions have been demeaned by the federal shutdown, who are being asked to work without at least for the moment being paid, and who are doing their jobs with considerably more dignity

than the house of representatives has mustered. quote -- "we owe the capitol police a debt of gratitude for the work they do every day, no finer provisions of bravery" tweeted john boehner, republican of ohio. the post went on to say that's true. but mr. boehner owes them and the rest of the federal workforce more than a 140 minnesota -- 140 character message of thanks. he owes them an apology. how many times have we listened on the floor of the senate those on the other side of the aisle kreut side -- criticize federal workers, trying to find some way to lay them off, if not fire them, restrict their pay over and over again. they are trampled on here. they are political casualities time and again on the floor of the united states senate.

and yet each and every one of us, every member of congress in the senate and the house and our staff and our families who visit is safe because of these men and women, these federal workers. it's about time that we realized that when you shut down the government, it is the ultimate disrespect to these men and women who simply want to do their job to make this a safer and better nation. it was very visible right here on the grounds, right off the grounds of the capitol building itself yesterday afternoon. while many of us were told stay in your offices, don't move for at least a half an hour, these men and women risked their lives during a government shutdown, when they aren't receiving a paycheck. it was very visible. it should have been visible to everyone. the irony of the situation that we shut down our government and yet ask them to risk their lives without promise of a paycheck. let me mention one other thing that happened yesterday that may not have been noticed. it impacted the government

shutdown not quite as visible. testimony before the senate foreign relations committee. wendy sherman, assistant secretary of state, testifying about the fear of iran developing a nuclear bomb, sanctions imposed by the united states and the civilized world to persuade them not to develop a nuclear bomb. and she went on to say the government shutdown that has furloughed 72% of the civilian intelligence employees in our government is not making this a safer country or giving us the eyes and ears around the world we need to make sure that iran does not develop a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon. and she added, within the department of the treasury, 90%, nine out of ten, of the people working in the agency which has the responsibility of specifically watching that the sanctions in iran are enforced have been furloughed. 90% of them. so it isn't just a matter of the

visibility of the capitol police risking their lives despite this demeaning government shutdown. it is also things less visible. 72% of our intelligence workers charged with keeping america safe, avoiding another 9/11, have been sent home. 90% of those who are watching carefully so iran does not develop a nuclear weapon sent home because of this government shutdown. this is the third embarrassing, shameful day of this government shutdown. people say how could it possibly end? well, it could end very simply. speaker john boehner has on his desk in the united states house of representatives a continuing resolution which is a spending bill which will reopen the government for at least six weeks. he should call that for a vote today. he will receive bipartisan support. he shouldn't fear that. he should celebrate it. bipartisan support to reopen this government. and then i hope he'll accept the invitation of senator reid and others to meet with senator

murray, the chairman of the budget committee, and sit down, plan the spending, plan the savings, plan the important policy decisions which we have for six months tried to bring to this floor in a conference committee. let's do it and do it today. today should be the end of the government shutdown. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i join with our majority leader who spoke a few moments ago and the majority whip who just spoke so eloquently as well as our president pro tempore who just spoke to thank our capitol police and secret service officers and all those who responded so courageously yesterday to the situation here in the nation's capital. we all depend on them to do our jobs to be there for all of us. madam president, we need to be there to do our jobs as well today. so i thank all of them for doing their jobs and i plead with our colleagues to do our jobs. madam president, i am so disappointed that we find

ourselves here again on a morning waking up where the government is shut down, where families and communities across our nation are feeling the impact today and worried about what the impact will be tomorrow. i spoke to some small businessmen a few days ago in my office, in the construction industry. the impact on their contracts or lack of contracts or uncertainty about their contracts is affecting their ability, and they are now worried they're going to have to lay off some of their employees because they can't sign contracts when they are so uncertain where our government is going to be paying our bills in the future. i met with some head start moms a few days ago, a young woman who told me this passionate story about being homeless and on the street with a brand-new baby because of an abusive spouse. the head start folks in her community found her, found her a shelter, got her into some

education courses about how to be a mom, and two years now from then she is now on her own, working and back in school because of a government service that was there for her. she didn't plead for me, madam president. she pleaded for those other moms or dads who are out there who now face uncertainty and may not have that help in the future. i have talked to veterans, as the chair -- as the president knows, as former chair of the veterans' committee having worked so hard to make sure our veterans get the services they need as they come home. they are not here pleading for themselves although they are very worried about whether or not as this goes on, they will get the services they need. they are pleading, as veterans always do, so selfless in their service to our nation, for us to get the government moving again so that our country is back on track, this country that they proudly have fought for and that people are not hurting.

and, of course, today we're hearing news of a -- of a storm, a tropical storm that is approaching our nation as well and families across the south are paying attention to that and they're worried about what a government shutdown or impact might be to them as they face that news on their televisions and radios this morning. and, of course, fema will be there. they have told us they will be able to call back their furloughed workers. they're prepared to respond to this, as our great nation always must, but we have to be very determined about what happens in the future if this government remains shut down. whether there will be reimbursements in a timely fashion, whether cleanup be able to move forward and the ability to pay for that. thousands of members of the national guard as this approaches us, who have been furloughed, will need to be called back and get ready for that emergency. and, of course, if there is any significant damage -- and we all

pray that there is not -- but if there is, cleanup and recovery will likely be impacted because of furloughs at the small business administration, at the department of transportation, all of our government agencies, government employees who are there to respond in a disaster who are today not at work, not getting ready, not possibly there in the future if this shutdown continues. so i hope for the best for these communities as this storm is threatened. i know that our federal workers will do everything they can to protect these families. we owe it to these communities that are impacted by this stomple and communities across -- by this storm and communities across the country to get our government back up and running as quickly as we can, which can happen fast. and by the way, madam president, i will be here later to talk -- today to talk about the impacts on my state. so the impacts of this shutdown are real, and as it continues along, the uncertainty that it produces and our inability to

respond as a nation in any kind of crisis is a concern for every family. so i'm here today to say it doesn't have to be this way. the answer to this is so simple. as the majority whip just said, there is a bill in the house of representatives right now this minute that sitting there that speaker boehner can simply bring up for a vote. we know that it has the votes to pass. it will say that this government will continue to run until november 15 and give us the opportunity to go and negotiate and to get -- to deal with the broader issue as thaer issues tw we need to deal with in items of our budget. but we cannot hold our communities and the future of this country hostage while we negotiate those bills. so it's so easy, madam preside madam president. the speaker can take up this bill, put people back to work, our government employees who need to respond in any kind of

emergency, our national guard will be back at work, our veterans will not have to worry about payments coming at them and we will be there as a country for our fellow countrymen as we always have. simply by speaker boehner bringing up the bill, allowing it to pass, it will go directly to the president and this can be over quickly. now, madam president, i know there's been a lot of talk in the last few days about a grand bargain. no one on this floor has worked harder than i have to get us to a bipartisan budget compromise so we have a path in future to deal not only with our debt and deficit and deficit that we have but also with our deficit in terms of transportation and education and our deficit in terms of our investments that we need to make as a country to be strong in the future. we all know what the sides are on that. we all know we need to come to the table and solve that. that is the differences that we as leaders of this nation need to address. i have worked extremely hard on that, and it is time for us to

do that. as everyone on this floor knows, we were told by our republican counterparts and told and told and told that the senate needs to pass a budget. madam president, i became budget chair at the beginning of this year. we did our job. our committee passed a budget. we brought it to the floor. we lived through several -- five days of amendments. we brought up every amendment possible. we voted on over a hundred of them and we passed that budget. and, madam president, that was the time, six months ago, when we should have then said the house has passed a budget, the senate has passed a budget; let's go to conference and figure out those differences so we don't end up in this crisis today. madam president, that is the expectation that people have of a democracy. unfortunately, we were told time and again, no, we're not going to allow you to go to conference, so here we are in a crisis. well, madam president, we address this crisis first. first. put people back to work.

get our country and our economy moving quickly again and then allow us to go to conference to deal with those issues that are so critical in this nation in items of our fiscal responsibilities and the investments and priorities that we need to make as a nation. so my plea today, madam president and to the speaker to take up the bill, allow country to work again and then for us to take our responsibility to find the -- to find solutions to the disagreements that we truly do have as a nation. so thank you, madam president. i urge our colleagues to urge the speaker to allow the country to get back to work and then let's get to the table and let's solve this. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. first of all, madam president, i want to thank the capitol police for their bravery and for the important work that they do protecting all of us and the

capitol and yesterday really showed how important they are so i want to thank them for everything that they did yesterday to make sure that people were protected. madam president, this is day four of the government shutdown, a shutdown that did not need to happen. and i had hoped when i came to the floor a couple days ago and i had hoped when i heard that congressional leaders were meeting with -- from -- with the president at his request, that they would have emerged from that meeting with a plan to end this impasse, to get the government open again, to come to an agreement as to how we can responsibly fund the government and address the challenges that we face as a nation. yet coming out of that meeting, what we got, of course, was a president who says he won't

negotiate. we have a strategy that was started from the beginning -- i've said it was an ill-conceived strategy by some members of my own party who thought that defunding obamaca obamacare -- therefore, shutting down the government -- would, number one, stop the exchanges from opening. but we know that's not true because it already happened even though we shut down the government. it was ill-conceived because, again, we knew that with the president in the white house and the senate democrats in charge, that they were not going to defund their signature piece of legislation, as much as i support repealing that legislation because i've seen the impact already in my own state of new hampshire in terms of premiums, in terms of less choice for individuals. and i do believe there's a better way to address health care in this country.

but where we find ourselves right now is unacceptable for our america. it's unacceptable as leaders that have been elected by the people of this country. we owe it to our constituents to resolve this now. because on both sides, we need to get together, resolve this. and i would say to my republican colleagues in the house and to some in this chamber, it's time for a reality check. defunding obamacare did not work as a strategy, so let's find common ground and work together, yes, to address the concerns that are very legitimate that we have with this health care bill but also to get this government funded. and i would say to my colleagu

colleagues, my democratic colleagues here in the senate and the president, yes, come to the table and negotiate. let's work this out on behalf of the american people. because i will say it again -- i think where we are is an ill-conceived strategy by many in my party leading to an immature response that we won't negotiate and talk and try to work this out on behalf of the american people. and we all know that the american people are the ones that are suffering the most from this shutdown. i've heard it from our guardsmen in new hampshire who have been forced to go to the unemployment office, federal employees who wonder whether they'll be able to pay their mortgage, furloughed civilian workers in new hampshire at one of our proudest military installations in this country, the portsmouth naval shipyard, small business owners who can't help -- get the help that they need from the small business administration.

and they deserve better than this. i hope, as we head into this weekend, that the president, that the leaders of the house, that the leaders of the senate, they will get together, that we will get behind them on behalf of the american people, get this government open, resolve our differences, find common ground and do the people's business. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: first, let me thank the men and we feel the capitol police officers who remind us and all the first responders

around the country who are the thin blue line as well. so we are also grateful for what do you for us and how you keep us say. and i wanted to talk, of course, about this week. it's been an interesting week, to say the least, beyond the events of yesterday. you turn on the cable news, and it features these countdown clock leading to the glof govert slowdown, and now even after it, you see the countdown clock how much days we've been do you sphwheu. this is not the best way to run the most important government in the most important country in the world. people around here who all they do is focus politics, who, for them every day is election day, they're focused on is who's winning, who's going to get the blame, who's going to get the most help in the next election. and i suppose suppose tha that e in the process. let me tell you who's going to get the blame. all of us. the house, the senate, the entire government is going to get the blame. let me tell you why.

because there are people who woke up this morning, they didn't get enough sleep last night, maybe they were getting up late last night helping their kids with their homework. they guzzled a bunch of coffee because they were tired. but they have to go to work today. and they're wondering, why can't you guys do that? why can't do you your job? and i think that's a very valid frustration people have with this process and with us here today. i'm not happy about some of the things we've seen this week or over the last couple weeks. i think it's very unfortunate that some of the rhetoric that's been used around here, both in this chamber and in the public domain. but -- but each day that goes by, what i'm more and more worried about -- what i'm more and more worried about may not be what everybody else is so worried about or else what too many people around here are worried about. look, i think it's wrong that those of us who stand on principle, who believe, for example, that obamacare is going to badly damage our economy, i think it's wrong that we have a congressman from my home state that compares us to the taliban. we have a spokesperson for the

white house that says we're like people with bombs strapped to our chests. i think that's wrong. i think it's wrong too, by the way, that the president has used the megaphone of the presidency not to bring americans together but he's used the megaphone to deepen these divisions. you know, mr. president, you're not the chairman of the democratic party. you are the president of the united states. act like the president of the united states. rise above that stuff. your job is to bring this nation together. i know people are going to say things about you, you don't like. it comes with the territory. you've got to rise above that and i hope that he will. but those resident the things that concern me the -- those are not the things that concern me the most. what i'm most concerned about is that this country faces a very serious crisis and we are running out of time to fix it. now, there's no doubt, this government slowdown is not a good thing but it's not the crisis i'm referring to. this issue about the debt limit, hitting the debt limit, that's a problem. but that's not the most serious crisis we face either. the single-most important crisis we face in this country is that

for millions of americans, the prosmpromise of the american dem literally slipping away -- dream is literally slipping away through their fingers. and whatever the focus and crisis of the day around here may be, i fear we're not focused enough on that reality. it reminds me of a story. a few years ago, a friend of mine in florida was on a twin-engine airplane flying from one part of the state to another. at some point during that flig flight, a fire broke out in the cockpit. now, that fire is a problem. but the bigger problem was that both of the pilots started to put out the fire and no one was flying the plane. and within a few seconds the plane began to plunge and it lost hundreds of feet in altitude. now, luckily they figured it out and were able to correct themselves. but they were tow focused on the fire in the cockpit that they weren't flying the plane. and luckily they realized in time that if they didn't start flying that plane, that fire was going to be pretty insignificant a few seconds from then.

so we -- we have a government. this government slowdown, it is a problem, yes. we have this upcoming debt limit, and that's a problem, yes. but the fire in our cockpit and the one we need to address is the erosion of the american dream. now, you think that the slowdown in government is problematic. well, that's a vote away from being solid. all you have to do -- from being solved. all do you have is take a vote in either chamber and we can solve that problem. let me tell when you the slowdown is going to be a big problem? when this government no longer has enough money to pay its bills. if we chemical weapon doin -- it we are doing now, we're going to have that problem. let me tell you when it is going to be a real problem. when no one wants to buy our debt anymore because they don't think we can pay them back. you think all this division and dysfunction in washington is bad for our economy?

yeah, but you know what's worse? a tax code that kills jobs, regulations that hon a daily basis are killing jobs. a national debt that's killing jobsment. by the waring's one of the greatest destroyers of jobs in america today is obamacare. that's why we're so passionate about t the american dream that people throw around so loosely as a term, the american dream is the notion that no in the where you start out in life, no matter how many obstacles you have to overcome, you have the god-given right through hard work an perseverance achieve a better life for yourself and your children better off than yourself. but it is be rode being eroded a daily basis. i don't see any countdown clocks on american television about the american dream. most dangerous thing happening in washington today is that everyone is so bus sphieting with the problems -- fighting about the problems before us today that there doesn't seem to be enough focus on the crisis we're headed to here pretty

soon, that we are on the earth of losing the american dream. i say that because to one extent or another we are all guilty of misplacing that focus. so my speech is a reminder to me of why i wanted to serve here to begin w the reason i wanted to serve here is because i know -- i don't think, i know -- that america is special. and i know this partially because i was raised by and around people that know what life is like in places other than america. in places other than america, you can only go as far as your pawrntses went. you are during tha trapped. whatever your families did, that's the only thing you are allowed to by those societies. but i know different and i've seen it with my own eyes. both in my may b neighborhood ay family. i have seen people achieve a better life, achieve a meaningful life and leave their kids off better than themselves. and i also see that every single

day there are millions of people out there now that are trying a chief the same thing -- achieve the same thing. and they're finding it harder and harder to do that. and we're on the verge of losing that. and if we lose that every day that that's eroded, so, too, is the exceptionalism of this country. people love to use that term, "an exceptional nation." but it is exceptional primarily of the american dream. many countries in the world have powerful militaries. every country in the world has rich people and big companies. what makes us different is that here if you are a h willing to work hard, you can be rewarded for it with a better life. and those eroding. if we lose that, we lose what makes us special and different, and no one seems to be fighting enough about thafl all these other issues, the only reason they matter is because they relate to the american dream. the reason why the debt really matters is that if undermines the american dream. the reason why our tax code that's broken matters is because it undermines the american dreesm the reason why i'm so

passionate about obamacare is because it is undermining for millions of people the ability to achieve the american dream. as a country the reason i ran for office -- the reason i ran for office is because as a country, we're headed in the wrong direction because we are losing the american dream. we don't have all century, we don't even have all decade. we have got to begin to take these issues seriously. or we will be known as the first generation of americans who lost the american dream and left their children worse off than ourselves. we still have time to refocus ourselves on this. with all this noise about politics and who gets the blame and who is responsible for what i hope that we can use these challenges before us as a catalyst to begin to focus on these issues for why they matter: they matter because they're hurting people. and it's hurting people who are trying to achieve a imert life. -- a better life. if we do that, if we focus on

that and solve the problems before us with an eye towards that, then i think we have the real opportunity to do what every generation of americans before us has done: to leave our children better off than ourselves, and to leave them what our parents left for us -- the single-greatest nation in the history of the world. madam president, i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor again today to talk about the effects of this government shutdown that are being experienced in new hampshire. but as i begin be, let me start -- but as i begin, let me start where a number of my cheetion cs have, and that is in thank the capitol police and the metropolitan police for the great job they did yesterday.

and particularly for the capitol police, who are willing to put their lives on the line, as we say frequently, every day to protect us, but in this case where they're doing that and they're not getting paid is certainly a tribute to the commitment and the dedication they have to this congress and to this government. and i hope that, as members of the senate and as members of congress, that we will take inspiration from that dedication and recommit to trying to end this government shutdown and end the negative impacts that it's having on people across the country. we're just four days in to the shutdown. this is day number four. but every day we see more and more of the effects that it's having across the country and in my home state of new hampshire,

and i know my colleague, senator ayotte, was on the floor earlier talking about some of the frustrations that people are experiencing as the result of the shutdown. as i said earlier this week, hundreds of air national guard civilian employees have already been furloughed. we have portsmouth naval shipyard workers facing furloughs. we have new s.b.a. loan originations that have come to a halt, so businesses are not able to get the capital they need. and so many other important services and so many other people are being affected. i really wanted to talk today a little more in depth about the effect of the shutdown on one of new hampshire's national treasures, the white mountain national forest. this time of year the cankaman

cankamangas highway really starts to see bumper to bumper traffic. you might not expect to see traffic like that in the middle of the mountains, but when tourists come in to see the beautiful fall foliage, it really is a boon to new hampshire's economy and they are everywhere. new hampshire's director of travel and tourism estimates that about 7.8 million people will come to new hampshire between september and the end of november, which is 2% higher than last year. and according to the director, more than spending time, these visits will spend more than a billion dollars. that's why this season is so critical for the small businesses in new hampshire who depend on the tourism industry. this is really about the economics of new hampshire and the ability of so many of our small businesses and their owners and employees to survive throughout the year. because local stores, restaurants, and attractions

reaattractionsrely on this seast their bottom lines. many tour unfortunates coming to new hampshire visit our federal forest lands in the white mountain national forest. those lands are administered by the united states forest service. the white mountain national forest stretches over 800,000 acres in new hampshire and maine, and it's one of the most visited outdoor recreation sites in all of the united states, with nearly 6 million visitors a year. that's more visitors than go to yellowstone and yosemite parks combined come an visit the white mountains of new hampshire. and for everyone who has been there or visited one of the many landmarks in the forest, it's no surprise because its natural beauty has kept visitors coming back for centuries. and given its proximity to cities like boston and montreal, it is a great place to bring

families. nearly 60 million people in the united states alone live within a day's drive of the white mountain national forest. unfortunately this year, during the busiest few weeks of the year, tiefort tourists will be t of important services because of this unnecessary government shutdown p. resrestrooms will be closed alog the highways and trail along the forest. garbage collection will be suspended, campgrounds will be closed starting over the next few day, families looking to camp in the white mountains will have to find new lodging or change their plans, ongoing repairs to bridges and roads in response to hurricane irene because we're still cleaning up as a result of the damage from hurricane irene -- those projects are going to be put on hold, and only a few staff members are going to still be there to respond to emergencies

emergency,-to-, to conduct repairs, to help direct people. so this is leading to a frustrating experience for tourists. it's frustrating for all of those businesses who depend on the people who come to visit. and the shutdown could really hurt a very important industry in new hampshire at a critical time. all told, about 120 employees for the white mountains have been told to stay home until congress reaches a budget agreement, and, as we've heard here in walkers as we know from our own staffs, these employees have done nothing to deserve these furloughs. they've worked hard, they've been dedicated, but they're going to have to try to make ends meet because congress can't get its act together. no wonder people are outraged. our federal forest lands are not only critical drivers of the tourism descrirks they support new hampshire's timber industry. and if this shutdown continues,

the forest service will have to determine whether to suspend existing contracts for timber, harvesting on federal lands, and these companies will have to shut down their operations at one of the best times to harvest timber, so the impact will also be on all of those people who work in the timber industry, who depend on that industry for their livelihood. i wanted to highlight some of these effects because we need to remind ourselves just what this government shutdown means for the people who are being hurt, what it means for the small businesses and their employees, and what it means for the economy in my state of new hampshire, of the economy across the country. we are clearly seeing the effects of the shutdown in new hampshire, and if we don't act, these effects become more and more severe every day. i hope that we can begin to see talks going on between members

of the house and senate. i hope that those who are holding up the continuing resolution in the house, the legislation that would get this country operating again, would reconsider. all it takes is for the speaker to bring that legislation to the floor. you know, he keeps saying we haven't negotiated. well, in fact, we have negotiated. we negotiated for over a year before we passed the affordable care act. we gorkte negotiated before this continuing resolution was agreed to. and the senate in fact accepted the numbers, the cost of that continuing resolution, to keep the government open. we thought our numbers were better but sweeped the house numbers because we wanted to try -- but we accepted the house numbers because we wanted to try to negotiate and reach an agreement. the house has reneged on that agreement. wcialg it's timwell, it's time t

legislation to the floor, to get this government back operating again, to end the negative impact, the real hardship that so many people across this country are experiencing. thanku very much, madam president. i skwr-f. -- i yield the floor. mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president, in vermont and all over this country, there is profound anger and disgust at what's going on here in washington. and the reason for that is that today we remain in a significant and very serious economic downturn. real unemployment is close to 14%, over 20 million workers are unemployed. and what the american people are saying as loudly and as clearly as they can is, congress, we want you to create millions of

decent-paying jobs. all over this country people are struggling with wages of $9 or $10 an hour. and what the american people are saying to congress is, congress, mr. president, we want you to raise the minimum wage. so in the midst of a serious economic crisis, the american people want us to act to improve the economy, to create jobs to raise wages. but what are we doing today? we are saying to 800,000 hardworking federal employees, don't come in to work, and we don't know when and if you're going to be paid. we are saying to 1.2 million other federal employees who are at work, thank you very much for

coming in to your job today. thank you for your work as a capitol hill police officer or an f.b.i. agent or somebody in the c.i.a. or somebody working at head start or somebody delivering meals to low-income senior citizens, thank you all very much for your work, but we don't know when and if you will be paid. so what we are doing is right now the exact opposite of what the american people want. they want us to create jobs and raise wages. and what we are doing is saying to two million american workers, you're not getting paid. some of you are furloughed. some are coming in. these federal employees, they're not millionaires. they are hardworking, middle-class americans. they are struggling like efbls in this country to -- everybody else in this country to pay

their mortgages, to send their kids to college, to afford child care, to do the other things that middle-class families need to do. and we are putting all of them under extreme anxiety today. and in an unstable, volatile economy, that is not what we should be doing. but in addition to that, mr. president, we are also having a very negative impact, the shutdown is having a very negative impact on the entire economy. the estimate is that we are losing about $10 billion a week as a result of the government shutdown, according to goldman sachs. if the government is shut down for three weeks, the economy will lose over $36 billion -- over $36 billion. moody's has estimated that if the shutdown lasts four weeks, it will drain $55 billion from the economy.

does any sane person believe that when our economy today has so many problems, when we are just beginning to recover from the worst economic downturn since the great depression, when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, when we're trying to get our feet on the ground economically, does anybody think it makes sense to not be paying over two million workers and to be losing billions and billions of dollars in the economy as a result of the shutdown? mr. president, this is the start of the flu season. every fall the centers for disease control closely monitors the spread of flu and directs vaccines to where they are needed the most. but because of the shutdown, the c.d.c. is today unable to

support the annual season influenza program. does that make sense to anybody? we are endangering the health and the lives of millions of americans because of the shutdown of the c.d.c.. during the shutdown, the food and drug administration is stopping most of its food safety operations. we have seen over the years outbreaks of salmonella and other types of food problems. does anyone think it makes sense to shut down the the f.d.a.? most of the department of labor is closed. ironically, we are supposed to be receiving a report from the department of labor telling us what kind of unemployment rate we now have, but we can't get that because they're shut down. the w.i.c. program, women, infants and children, nutrition program is being shut down. this is a program that provides good nutrition to low-income pregnant women, and their babies

so that the mothers and the babies will be healthy in these critical times in their lives. we want healthy children in this country. we don't want to see children die at birth. that's what the w.i.c. program is about. social security services are being delayed. in burlington, vermont, where i live, there was a rally just yesterday. social security workers are being furloughed. others are working without pay. we owe it to the seniors in this country that when they are eligible for social security and they apply for social security, that their papers are processed in a timely manner. that's what they are due. head start programs. head start programs for thousands of lower-income kids are starting to close. today head start provides education, health, nutrition and other services to roughly one million children throughout our country.

the "wall street journal" reported yesterday of the impact the shutdown is already having. four head start programs that offer preschool activities for 3,200 children in florida, connecticut, alabama and mississippi have closed. and officials said 11 other programs will be shut down by week's end if federal funding isn't restored. does any sane person believe that we should be shutting down head start programs at a time when preschool education is so important? we all understand that, and it's so hard to come by. so what we are telling parents today is next week you may not be able to bring your kid into a head start program. how does that impact your employment? what do you do with your kid? does anybody around here care about that? mr. president, let me conclude just simply by saying this. the united states is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee

health care to all people. today we have about 48 million people with no health insurance. obamacare, to my mind, is not a solution to the problem, but it is a step forward. we're talking about 20 million, maybe 25 million people who are in desperate need of health insurance being able to get that insurance. others who are paying more than they can afford, perhaps getting insurance which is more affordable to them. we should be going further in terms of health care. but for right-wing republicans in the house of representatives to be saying that we are going to keep this government shut down until we deny millions of people the health care based on legislation that we passed is inexcusable. it is not acceptable. the point i think that many of my colleagues have made, and everybody agrees with now -- this is not in debate, and the american people have got to understand this -- number one, the senate passed a continuing

resolution that in my view simply underfunds many of the programs. i am not happy about that bill. it is not a good bill, but it was passed. now everybody understands that if speaker boehner chose to be the speaker of the united states house of representatives and not the speaker of the republican party, and if he brought that bill that we passed here in the senate on the floor this morning, there is no debate they have the votes. the democrats and moderate republicans and maybe more would vote for that legislation, and government could be reopened this afternoon. so the speaker there has an issue that he's got to deal with, and that he has got to understand that he represents all of this country and not just an extreme right-wing faction. and i hope very much the speaker will do the right thing, bring

that bill to the floor and reopen the united states government. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. begich: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: i want to follow up just briefly first on senator sanders' comments. you know, we have a continuing resolution over there. analyzed cut is $70 billion. usually when you compromise, one side gives a little, the other side gives a little. on this continuing resolution that passed out of this body, we took their numbers. compromise usually means a little bit from both sides. we took 100% their numbers of the house. $70 billion analyzed cut, that's what we took. so people who keep saying that we're not negotiating, we did. as a matter of fact, went much further than many of us wanted, but we did it because we wanted to keep the government open.

so let's not get fooled by some of the political speeches that they're making on the floor or over there on the outside in the courtyard. we met their analyzed reduction that they wanted $70 billion, with this continuing resolution. when they have sent bills over here, we have voted on them. they have not prevailed on their side, but we have voted on them. we sent the bill over there. it's sitting. we know by public statements by many republicans and democrats over there, they're ready to vote on this bill. clean c.r., continuing resolution, to keep the government open. what's amazing about this is that we're debating this. what we should be getting back to -- and i know my chairman of the appropriations committee, senator mikulski, as a members of the appropriations committee -- we'd like to get back to the appropriations annual bills, because then we won't be in this start-and-stop deal here that i think the american people are fed up with,

these manufactured crises by a few over in the house have set up -- us up in a situation where we create more uncertainty in the economy, families and small businesses, individuals in the federal government now on furlough. 80% of my staff is on furlough. every day they're on furlough, i donate my salary. i'm doing my part because we shouldn't be exempt from this situation, but at the same time we have to recognize the impact it's having to our economy. and i get it, they're passionate about their view on the affordable care act. they don't like it, some of them over there. some of them also have said we should work to fix it. i propose multiple solutions and ideas on how we can move forward on that. but to hold up the economy, hold up the budget over this issue is ridiculous. i don't like no child left behind. i hate it. for alaska, it doesn't work. it destroys many efforts in our rural communities.

but to hold up the government over that, i'm going to work to fix it. and if i can't fix it, i'll vote against the reauthorization. that's the right that we have here. but they're playing, and i called it last night, russian roulette economics. that's what they're doing. and the american people are the ones on the back end, and it's shameful. we should get back to doing what we should be doing here. annualize appropriations bills, focus on this economy that has moved for four or five years out of the recession, a great recession. it is a slow climb out. let's keep it moving that direction with the right kind of policies. i know in my state, now that winter is setting in, low-income housing assistance program is critical for alaskans who live in areas that their income is not able to purchase the energy that they need to supply for their house for their winter heat, and they depend on the low-income housing energy

assistance program. it is not about some fluff program or some luxury program. it's for them life and death. if you can't heat your home in alaska when it's 30 below, you may not survive. it's that simple. when i said earlier that i think the members on the other side clearly understand that we have to get the government running, and there are members on both sides that are ready to do that over there if the speaker would just put it on the table so people could vote on it. and if it fails we get back to negotiations. my bet is it won't fail. people forget the cloture vote here, the vote to move the bill here in the senate passed 99-0. i'm not sure when that's happened recently around this place, but we did it after great passionate speeches by some. but we did it. we debated it. we moved the bill over because it's the right thing to do. again rephaoepbgd -- reminding people we met the house numbers. we didn't lift our numbers up or

down. we went all the way down to their number. $70 billion in cuts in annualized cuts to the federal budget on this six week or so continuing resolution. in anchorage we estimated about 13,000 federal workers are in some form or another impacted by this. laid off or impacted because they're working longer hours with no pay. i want to detail a couple of examples in alaska where it's impacting. you take this federal worker who's now been furloughed, they were in the midst of repholgzing their home -- remodeling their home and everything stopped. the contractors are expected to get paid. they are not getting paid. the contractor working for that employee who was remodeling their home, that won't happen because of the uncertainty. his comment was i thought pretty clear, life doesn't stop just because congress says you can't come to work anymore. life finances on and these costs pile up.

in my state, the fisheries, many people see this on the tv shows, "the deadliest catch," this industry is worth about $80 million a year, but it is critical that what we call the quotas, the amount of crab they can catch, is determined by noaa, federal agencies -- noaa fisheries in the state of alaska. the crab season starts october 15. if they do not have these -- quote -- "quota set." making sure that the process is safe and the product is exactly what people expect when they get it on their food or on their plate to eat or at the grocery store, the problem is, those employees are furloughed. so the quota won't be set, these permits that they need to catch those -- the crab will not happen. the end result is a multimillion-dollar hit. not to some government impeachment i know i've heard, you know, people criticizing bureaucrats. well, you know, not only plus million or so employees are

furloughed across this country. now it's affecting second and third options. in this case, the crab industry, which will affect people all over this country and all over this world. again, delay after delay. alaska receives about $1.2 billion in federal payroll every single year. a lengthy disruption will have an incredible fiscal impact to our state and will trickle out because these folks travel. they travel to many of my colleagues' states here. i see my senator -- my colleague from washington state. we have lots of people that go to seattle and washington state. they may not take that trip. they may not spend in that economy because they're afraid of what might happen or -- or this stop-and-go situation. we're now about to move forward after decades of waiting to move forward on the national petroleum reserve for oil and gas exploration. for what does it take? it's a federal reserve so it takes federal permits. without the federal permits, it can't happen.

or it gets delayed and it's costly. again, when you look at these issues and the calls that i've received, all the way from an elder in the arctic circle saying, please get the people back to work, it has direct impact to not only alaskans but people all across this country. you know, when i think about this issue, and, you know, there's a lot of great debate, and yesterday i saw a press conference done by the -- a small group of the minority over there concerned about the national institute of health. i'm concerned about the national institute of health. i can tell you story after story where those medicines are critical for young people and adults. but what they failed to mention was the billions theefd already cut. they forget that little detail. amnesia is like a prerequisite with some members around here and they forget to that little detail. it's amazing to me. they also forget, as i mentioned now several times and i'll mention again because i think the public has not heard this

enough because they say over there, they're not negotiating, we have -- we have -- we've taken their numbers, gone all the way down by $70 billion annualized cuts. we've taken them for this continuing resolution. every time they've sent something over here, we've voted on it. they may not have liked the vote outcome but we voted on it. we send one bill over there -- well, i should say one continuing resolution. we do have the farm bill over there, the immigration bill, the wrda bill. it's piled up over there for them not taking action because they'd rather play party politics and figure out what elections they can win or lose rather than focus in on what's important for the american people and for my constituency in alaska specifically that i represent. so, mr. president, i hope that we end this debate, get on with the business, open the government back up, let's negotiate. they have some ideas to fix the health care act. i'm happy to talk with them. i have several bills on the -- that i've introduced but i've

never heard from them over there. as a matter of fact, i know they mention my name quite a bit over there. i've seen it on tv. the house somehow recognize as that i have some influence -- and die in certain ways -- but they want to have some conversation. i'm game. pick up the phone or walk across the capitol. but let's be real. the continuing resolution is about managing our budget and putting people back to work so we can keep this economy moving and get on with the big issues in we have to deal with. if you want to fix the health care act, i'm happy to sit down with members. if you want to move the immigration bill, i'm happy to work with folks. you can go through the list. but let's not hold the american people hostage for a simple situation where if they put it on the floor, it would pass. i will bet on it. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

snore mr. president? the presiding officer: the senatoa senator: mr. president?e senator from marylandment mr. cardin: mr. president, yesterday we had a hearing in the senate foreign relations committee, the gentleman, the presiding officer knows, and we had testimony by secretary sher sherman as to the enforcement of sanctions against iran in order to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state which would be a game changer. and during the course of that hearing, it came out that as a result of the government shutdown, we are not as effective as we could be, that there's always more that can be done in working with other countries and that the shutdown is affecting our full preparedness for enforcing the sanctions internationally against eye rafnlt now iran.

now, one of my colleagues started to challenge the representative from the state department as to why they couldn't do more, and of course it was the treasury department's budget that was primarily affecting the attention here. and the secretary assured us that we are enforcing our sanctions. senator kaine made the observation -- and the right observation -- don't blame the administration; blame the congress. it's the congress that has the responsibility to make sure that government is functioning on all silcylinders. and this tea party shutdown is jeopardizing our national security. it is not putting us where we should be farce taking care of the -- should be as far as taking care of the needs of the people of this country. i talked -- i was on the floor a couple of days ago and i quoted from the -- the "baltimore sun" as to the responsibility for the shutdown, and i'm going to quote

a little bit more from that article. it said, "it would be" -- this is a growth the "baltimore sun." "it would be tempting of course to write that this impasse, the inability to agree on the continuing resolution to fund the 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 head. as president obama noted, he and congressional democrats put forward no agenda other than keeping government operating temporarily at the current levels." i just want to review how we got here on october 1, because it was six months ago that the senate passed a budget. it was different than the house budget. and then we, the democrats, said, let's go to conference. that's what we should do. let's negotiate a budget so that when it comes to october 1, we have a budget in place to fund government at the level as that we agreed to, democrats and

republicans. the republicans refused to go to conference. fast forward to october 1. we didn't have a budget and, therefore, it was necessary to pass a continuing resolution. that's what you do. if you can't pass a budget, you keep government operating at the current levels until you can agree on a budget. so that's what we decided to do. but we went further. the majority leader met with the speaker of the house, and rather than negotiating between what level we thought the continuing resolution, the democrats thought and republicans thought, we went along with the lower number. we negotiated the continuing resolution at the lower level. and that is what we passed. but the republicans in the house decided that they would not go for that and that he attached

their changes in the health care system as a condition to passing a continuing resolution. make no mistake about it. it's a tea party shutdown. now the republicans saying to us, why aren't we negotiating? well, let me quote one more time from the "baltimore sun" in this morning's editorial. in this morning's editorial, i think it really captures where we are as far as negotiations. the headline says, "there is no room to negotiate with extremists that take the federal government hostage and threaten to do the same to the economy." i'm quoting. "how can the tea partiers in the house expect to be offered anything for doing the equivalent of strapping c-4 and a detonator to their chest and holding the government hostage?" the editorial goes on to say -- and i quote -- "rewarding these

tactics and you will only see more of it in congress, and that's critically important give than the stakes are about to rise. should republicans engage in similar behavior with the debt ceiling, they risk not only the health of the u.s. economy but the global economy. to default on a debt, to refuse to pay bills already incurred by the federal government has the potential to pull the nation back into a recession and put thousands, if not millions, of people out of work." so, mr. president, it's very clear, we have compromised and the tea party republicans have shut down government. you can't negotiate with a gun to your head. you know, it reminds mef - me oe of a football team that played a game and didn't like the results and said, let's just play that game all over again. you know, last sunday the baltimore ravens didn't play a very good game.

they lost. they didn't say, let's play that game over again. they're going to be here next week -- this weekend playing again, trying to improve their record. i heard one of my colleagues use another sports analogy, saying we could do a mulligan on obamacare. well, let me tell ya, we're the big leagues. there's no mulligans at the u.s. open. there's no mulligans in golf. let's use the regular order ord. yes, we want to negotiate a budget for the next year, but you can't do it with a gun at your head. open government, pay our bills. so then the republicans are saying, well, let's do this piecemeal. why don't we just take up small provisions? well, let me quote again from the "baltimore sun" this morning. "even the little fixes the g.o.p. is rofer offering are outrageous if she slowed down the return a fully funded government. reopening parks would be great, but what about cancer patients denied treatment or for every national institute of health

reopened, what about the funding for inspectors that are making sure our food isn't tainted or intelligence officers monitoring the next al qaeda attack or f.d.a. scientists reviewing the next miracle drug? it's impossible to even keep track of all the hardships that the shutdown has created. and why do so when the solution is at hand?" this shutdown is -- has hurt our country. my colleagues have talked about it. it's made america -- it's affected our welfare, it's put our nation at risk, it's hurt our economy. in my own state of maryland -- i know senator mikulski is here and she's going to be speaking as chairman of the appropriation committees -- $15 million a day every day is lost in our state economy. we have hundreds of thousands literally, over a hundred thousand workers who are on furlough, not getting paid, and

it's costing the taxpayers money. the last shutdown in 1995 cost $2 billion. what a waste of taxpayers' resources. so let us put an end to this tea party shutdown. let us also assure those who are put on fur three they'll get paid. i've introduced legislation in this regard. i believe the -- the house is going to be passing other legislation. let's make it clear that our federal workers who've endured three years of pay freezes, furloughs under sequestration, asked to do more with less, that they'll be made whole when this shutdown ends. so let's put an end to the shutdown. let's -- let's make sure we pay our bills. and, yes, let us meet together to work out a budget for the coming year, as we should. the tragedy here, mr. president, is that the votes are in the

house of representatives to pass the senate continuing resoluti resolution. if speaker boehner would just vote, just vote on the resolution we passed over, the shutdown could end and we could get on to the business of this nation. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i had intended to give remarks and then promulgate a series of unanimous consent requests. however, the majority leader requested for purposes of scheduling that i begin with the unanimous consent request, which i'm happy to do so to accommodate his schedule. but i would ask that at the conclusion of these unanimous consent requests, i would ask unanimous consent that i be given 20 minutes to speak at the conclusion of this to lay out the reasons why i