i'm sorry, october 2. those are the facts. and on every single occasion there were five senators that stood up on behalf of the others here and blocked it and said, no, we cannot, we will not go to budget conference. those senators were senator mcconnell on may 8, senator mcconnell on may 9, et cetera, et cetera. senator paul on may 2. senator toomey on june 19. senator cruz, who's been the leader of this irresponsible and reckless strategy, which is getting, i don't think, his party or his future anywhere, but we'll have to see about that. mike lee on july 17. and then senator rubio on july

1. and i ask for five more minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none. ms. landrieu: so this is the record. when people say democrats haven't been willing to negotiate, that is false, false, false. we have been trying to negotiate for six months, and the way you negotiate is going to a budget committee. now we are in control of the senate. the people elected us. no one appointed me here. the people of the united states elected us in a fair and square election. some of us won by a lot. some of us won by small amounts. but this was an election by the people of the united states. the people elected the republican leadership in the house. they passed a budget. we passed a budget. all we have to do is go to conference. but not everyone in washington is reckless. not everyone loves to fight over

our constituents' misfortune of unemployment and lack of business. there's a small group that put them on the chopping block, and they need to take them off. they should not be used as fodder in political fighting and debate. it is not right. that's the argument. so when they remove the constituents and refund the government and put the government open again, we could then ask to go to conference. this time they should say yes. they just have to not show up. sit in your desk and just not say anything, don't object, we'll go to conference. in the budget conference then, you put everything on the table. everything. you can talk about anything you want. you can talk about taxes, no taxes.

you can talk about how much money you want to spend overall. and most importantly, you can decide how much revenue, how much tax. that is what the american people want, is a budget. we haven't had one for awhile. we need to get one. we've had spending limits, but we've not had a budget. spending limits, but we've not had a budget. let's get a budget. then those of us that are appropriators -- and i'm one of those in charge of how to try to build the homeland security budget -- the chairman then will give us the number that's agreed to by democrats and republicans. and they'll say to me and to senator coats you have "x" amount of money to spend. you've got lots and lots of requests out there. you've got lots and lots of responsibility. let me list a few: securing the border of the united states; all airports, all land ports, all river ports. we have to check all the cargo that comes in to the country.

our budget funds t.s.a., not the most popular group but we try to keep our air travelers safe. and support international commerce at every level. every business travelers that's trying to cut a deal in germany, england, asia has to get either preclearance or global entry or travel. we support that effort. we want our businesses out there making contracts, bringing jobs to america. we can't do that if this budget doesn't get done. so give us a number. we'll put the best we can together. we will live within the restrictions that are given to us, or the guidelines that are given to us. we will not spend one penny more than what the budget tells us. but we can't even get there because not everyone is being reckless. not everyone is being unreasonable. there is a clearly identifiable

group led by the senator from texas. one of his colleagues, or one of the press -- i'm not sure who but it was a great quote -- said that senator cruz has led the republican party and the tea party into the middle of eight lanes of traffic and walked away. eight lanes of traffic with traffic coming both ways is a very unsafe and dangerous place to be. they're going to have to find their way to the side of that road. open the government and then say, "yes" to a budget conference, where all things can be negotiated, and have been for hundreds -- literally hundreds of years. this is not a new process that the united states senate and the congress have been undertaking. this is regular order.

now, i'm going to end here. this is day five, and i want to put into the record, since they're in the middle of traffic now with no way -- very few ways, safe ways out for them. but we could open the government and get to the negotiating table. i want to just put into the record that for businesses, 800,000 workers. i know they passed a bill a little while ago to say these workers could be paid. that's important to do. but, again, it's not just workers. what about the contracts that they're supposed to be giving out, or the projects? they still don't have authorization even if they come back to work to do that and it's going to affect businesses. the federal government spends $400 billion in the private sector. that's $1 billion a day. so this reckless behavior has

already cost $5 billion. every day $1 billion gone. now, is their resolution in the house going to reinstate that $1 billion that small businesses have lost, or businesses generally? i don't think so. i didn't read the fine print. i don't think that's in there. every day if you say that 25% of all of our contracts should go to fine business, that is $240 million a day for small businesses lost. and in one bank -- and let me just say this. and then the government roughly loans about 150 loans to small businesses every day. so we're in day five. that's 600 loans gone. and i could go on and on with every day with how this affects business.

so i'm happy to see, in conclusion, that the house, in realizing that they're in a bad, bad situation, has sent a lifeline out to the 800 federal employees. their own constituents that they put on the chopping block and took those paychecks as negotiating fodder because they don't like a bill that passed three years ago, upheld by the federal government and is being instituted in the majority of states, including states with republican governors. now, that is foolishness, recklessness and irresponsibility. but that's what they did. we didn't do that. they did that. now if we open the government, get contracts going again, get small businesses to stop threatening small businesses who have nothing to do with this, then we can go to the budget conference and open up everything for negotiation. maybe we can do the medical device tax. maybe we can do -- i'd like to

work on flood insurance, for one. my constituents are going crazy. flood insurance has gone up tenfold. i can't even get to a negotiating table on that. we'd like to pass the wrda bill in louisiana. i'd like to see the keystone pipeline negotiated. i'm for the keystone pipeline. the president is against it. but maybe we can find some way forward on that. but we can't go anywhere until we get out of eight lines of traffic, and the only way to do that is to admit you were wrong, open the government up and then go to conference and put everything on the table and let's talk. and i yield the floor. i see my good friend from connecticut here, and i thank him for joining on the floor today, and yield the floor. mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, before i make my remarks, i have a brief unanimous consent request. that is a request of unanimous consent that the period of morning business be extended until 5:00 p.m. today with all

other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. must have been must have been thank you, mr. president. let -- must havemr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. let me thank my friend from louisiana for her remarks and all the work she's done to stand up for her constituents but also for small businesses. i think she makes a great point that right now there are thousands of small businesses throughout my state and the northeast, through your state as well, mr. president that are waiting for loans from the s.b.a.. they can't get them because right now the s.b.a. is essentially out of business. right now that is having a detrimental effect on our economy. i want to thank her for her great advocacy on behalf of small businesses throughout louisiana and across the country. mr. president, there's a lot truth to the fact that there can be mutual blame thrown around this place very often when it comes to the reasons why we have

not solved a lot of our most vexing problem as a nation. the deficit, for instance, didn't get to be the size that it is without both parties playing a role and the fact that we still sit back without the will to try to take on that enormous problem and burden that we're leaving to our kids, that, i think, is due to both republican and democratic intransigence. so there are a lot of things that here which you can very accurately and appropriately assess that both sides of the aisle have been part of the blame. this is not one of them. this is not one of them. when it comes to trying to figure out the reasons why our government is shut down, it is pretty simple to explain how we got here. and yet i've heard a lot of my friends on the other side blame the majority leader or blame the president for the shutdown. i've even heard some newscasts try to suggest that it's just sort of good old-fashioned

generic gridlock here in washington that has led to this shutdown. mostly the american public gets it. i think mostly the american public understands that this is essentially a shutdown of the federal government caused by a small band of ideological conservatives in the house of representatives called the tea party. and i sort of tried to struggle with how to explain this to the handful of people back in connecticut that still don't really understand what's going on here. and although there's really no way to create an analogy that works for this. i mean, this shutdown is so ridiculous, it's so unique that there's really no metaphor that works. i've tried this one. so, imagine that there's a couple, and they live in boston, let's say, and the wife really loves living in boston, but the husband has sort of been fed up with boston for awhile. he wants to move to the west coast, let's say to san francisco.

but they have been living in boston for a long time, and they have this disagreement as to what to do next. and they have been having it for awhile. they just haven't sorted it out. but they chose to live in boston so that's where they continue to be. one day the husband comes home and just says to his wife, you know what? i've had enough. i've had enough. i want to move to san francisco. and if you don't agree, i'm going to call up some contractors and have them come over and take the roof off our house. she says, what are you talking about? take the roof off our house? i never talked about the roof coming off our house. the roof is important. it keeps us warm. it keeps us dry. you're kidding; right? you're not going to take the roof off the house. he said listen i'm going to give you three days. if you don't agree to move to san francisco, i'm going to call somebody to take the roof off our house. she says of course i'm not going to do that. i'm not going to move to a place

i don't want to move to. we should talk about that. we should come up with a compromise. we should discuss this. and certainly i'm not going to agree to move to san francisco if you're threatening to take the roof off the house. three days goes by. she goes to work. she comes home, and the roof is gone. he took it off. she can't believe it. she can't believe it. rain's coming in. it's the middle of winter. it's freezing cold. it's miserable. and he shows up to work on the second day and says to his coworkers, you can't believe what my wife did. she took the roof off our house. the coworkers say, what do you mean? i told her we had to move to san francisco. and when she didn't agree, i told her i was going to take the roof off the house, and i did but it was her decision. she wouldn't move to where i wanted to move. and so i had to go through with it. i had to take the roof off the house. if you were that coworker and listened to that story, you'd know exactly what was going on.

you'd know exactly who to blame. you would associate yourself with a decision that the wife made to say forget it, i'm not moving somewhere with that hanging over my head. and you'd back her up when she said put the roof back on the house before we start discussing about where we're going to live that's essentially what's happening here. we had always assumed that the operation of the federal government was not something that we negotiated over. just like the woman in my analogy assumed that the roof being on the house was just not something that she had to worry about disappearing. and yet here we are, the government is shut down simply because of the demands of a small group of tea party republicans in the house of representatives. now, their demands in this case is that they want the health care law repealed, despite the

fact that it was passed by two legislative bodies, signed by the president, upheld by the supreme court, verified in an election in which a president who said he would implement it got re-elected by a huge margin and every single senator in this place that supported it and ran for re-election got re-elected. that's their demand in this case. and as the senator from louisiana said, we should react just like we would expect that woman to react. we want the government back up and operating, and then we'll talk. i want the roof back on my house before we're going to discuss where we're going to live. and this isn't about politics any longer. this isn't about inconvenience. we're now going into the second week of this shutdown, and, mr. president, it's starting to ruin lives.

like melanie rhodes from bridgeport, connecticut. a few years ago, melanie was homeless, living out on the streets. things were really, really tough for melanie. melanie got pregnant, had a little boy about two months premature, a wonderful little boy named malacai. he had some developmental issues right off the bat, but she knew that her life had changed and that she had to do everything possible for her little boy, and so she got him into birth to 3, an early screening program, they got connected with the head start program in which he enrolled at about 9 months old, and malacai is behind his peers at 3 years old, but he is doing a lot better. he is beginning to finally communicate with a handful of signs. every day that he has been in that head start program, his life and her life has gotten

better. you know what? even though she has been struggling through the worst recession of her life, of my life, of most of our lives, she has started to turn the corner as well. she applied everywhere over the last three years. she did everything we would have asked of her to try to find a job. she applied to wal-mart, to walgreens, to mcdonald's. and finally just in the past few weeks, she got a job as a bus driver. she had completed her training, she was just waiting for her background check to come through and she was going to start her job in a couple -- actually, not even a couple of weeks. i think it was a matter of days she was going to start her job. she stayed up all night last monday night, past midnight, watching cnn, watching the news to see if the government was going to be up and operating because she knew that the bridge port head start program runs on a budget that expires at the end of september, and so that was one of the handful of programs that would shut down immediately upon the shutdown of

the government. she woke up on tuesday morning and hoped against all hope by calling head start to just see if maybe they were going to be up and operating, and they weren't. they had shut down. bridgeport told 1,000 families across southwestern connecticut that they couldn't show up for preschool that day, that their families had to scramble to find some coverage or childcare. and for melanie, it was a double disaster because she has got a child with developmental disabilities, and she can't just have anybody take care of him, and so she has had a hard time finding someone. she is now going to be faced not only with inappropriate care for her child, perhaps setting him back developmentally, but she also probably can't start that job she was waiting for as well. take that situation and multiply it times a thousand just in one city in connecticut. then look at the fact that that problem could be multiplied

18,000 times over the course of next week as more head start programs shut down, and you start to see that this shutdown is not about politics, it's not about inconvenience. it's really about people's lives falling apart. what about the 1,500 workers at sikorski aircraft, many of which are in connecticut, the majority of which are in connecticut. they have about 43 employees from the federal government that inspect the helicopters as they go down the assembly line, but because those helicopter assembly lines making blackhawk helicopters for the u.s. military, they move pretty fast, if they don't have those inspectors for a handful of days, they can't continue to move the assembly line. so on friday, 1,500 workers were furloughed from sikorski aircraft, let go until those inspectors are back on the job. 43 inspectors equal 1,500 private sector layoffs. you know what? when you get laid off from a job, sometimes if you can see it

coming, you can try and make arrangements. if you're on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis where everything that comes in goes right back out again to pay your food bills, mortgage bills, your student loans, whatever it may be. if you can see the layoff coming, you might be able to scramble to try to find a part-time job or save a little madam speaker for the final few months of your employment. but when you get a notice that in two days you will be laid off for an indefinite amount of time, there is no way for the people that were living paycheck to paycheck to put their lives together. as senator landrieu said, that results in mortgage payments being missed, in credit ratings going into the tank, lives being ruined off of a purely political crisis caused by a handful of right-wing republicans in the house of representatives. and i hear my friends on the other side of the aisle and speaker boehner say yeah, but if the democrats would just negotiate, would just compromise, we could get this

thing done. well, mr. president, before i give the floor to my friend from rhode island, let me just say two things about that insistence from republicans that the problem here is not their demands that the health care law be repealed before we open the government, but that the democrats won't sit down and negotiate. well, i think the senator from louisiana said it best. it makes no sense to negotiate with a gun to our head. open the government and we'll sit down and talk about anything you want to talk about, but let's also discuss what the positions of the two parties are republicans want the most important achievement of president obama's first term repealed. we want the government to just continue to be operational. republicans want a law that will ensure 30 million more people with health care taken off the books. we want the government to just

continue to pay its bills. what i'm trying to say here, mr. president, is that we don't actually have demands. all we want is for the things that our constituents have always expected to happen to continue to happen. all we have asked for in this crisis created by tea party republicans is for the government to be open and for the government to just continue to pay its bills. we could make a bunch of our own demands. heck, i think it's ridiculous that we don't have background checks on the purchase of firearms in this country, but i'm not saying that i'm going to shut down the government unless i get my way on background checks. all i want is the government to be open and for us to pay our bills. and second, normally you negotiate when you don't have consensus. normally you sit down and compromise when 50% of the

senate and 50% of the house don't agree to the exact same thing. that's the very reason why you have to sit down and talk, because you don't have consensus. we do, mr. president. we have a bill which is the clean continuing resolution and otherwise just keep the government up and operating for another six weeks on the same rules that it used to be operating, that we have got, i think, 54 votes, 55 votes for here in the senate and is publicly supported by the majority of the house of representatives. why would we negotiate when we already have a bill that is supported by the majority of the senate and the majority of the house? the only thing that has to happen in order for the government to get back up and on its feet is for speaker boehner to call a vote on that bill. it makes no sense that speaker boehner says sit down and negotiate when there is already a proposal pending before the house that has the support in

the majority of both bodies. we don't have a lot to negotiate over because all we want is the government to open and for us to pay our bills. we don't need to negotiate because we already have a proposal that enjoys the support in the majority of this body and the majority of that body. tea party republicans should stop holding this country hostage to their ideological demands. speaker boehner should call a vote on this bill tonight, and this totally unnecessary, totally self-created crisis could come to an end today. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to speak up to 20 minutes as if in

morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we are five days into the government shutdown, but unfortunately there has been no progress on resolving this issue. now, i disagree with some policies championed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and indeed i sometimes disagree with the president and members of my own party on specific policy prescriptions. case in point, raising the student loan interest rates on the so-called jobs act. in both cases, i tried to make my best argument on the merits of the issue and then we voted, moved on, and i'm still working to try to improve both. i have not given up but i have not shut the government down because my views didn't prevail. and so i say to my colleagues on the other side the way to change laws that you do not like is not to shut down the government at the expense of your fellow americans and the expense of our economy. it is try to build consensus and persuade a broad swath of the american people that there is a

better way of doing things and make concrete proposals. it's been pointed out many times before that the house of representatives has attempted to repeel the affordable care act 45 times at last count, i believe. but i have yet to hear any credible plan put forth to replace it or strengthen it or make it work better. and the american people want this effort to succeed. they would like it modified if it needs modification, but they have rejected this attitude of we're just going to strip the whole books of significant legislation and replace it with what? we don't know. that's irresponsible. now, this senate, this congress is a great institution. our founding fathers in their wisdom set up a system with plenty of room for debate, different points of view and checks and balances, but checks

and balances is not what is happening today. the government has been shut down not because congress can't agree on levels of funding. we agree. we have actually agreed with the house on their level. the real reason is that some on the other side of the aisle -- and i do think it's just a small cadre -- have a very different vision about the government itself, and this is not hyperbole. you can recall we all -- you can recall, we all recall during the republican presidential primaries, you had candidates seeing who could outpromise each other in terms of eliminating aspects of the federal government. they proposed getting rid of the e.p.a., the congress department -- commerce department, the department of education, fema, the department of energy, not reforming these agencies, not changing their missions, not making them more efficient, more effective, but just doing away with them. and that spirit is animating the house today, unfortunately. i am particularly glad that that

view did not prevail in the last election because these agencies are vital to all americans. looking back at rhode island, we were victims of serious historic flooding over the last several years. if fema was not the -- there to step in and help us, we would still be trying to pull ourselves together. as a small state, like connecticut, like other states, we wouldn't have the resources to do it. we saw the same thing with hurricane sandy. they were there helping efficiently, effectively, and those are one of the agencies that my colleagues are not allowing to operate today. many of the small business men and women in my community, manufacturers, et cetera, have been aided immensely by the department of commerce. that's something else that was on the hit list during the presidential primaries by republican candidates. and those of us who enjoy clean water, fresh air and the

importance of a healthy environment, i.e., every american, even if they don't notice it or admit it, their health and the health of their children would be jeopardized severely if e.p.a. was eliminated. there are calls to make it more efficient, for effective, more businesslike and those calls have to be recognized and heeded but the notion we wipe it away and the private markets, private self-interests will ensure our air is clean, our water is clean, our health is protected, that's not something that i think is either realistic or indeed, even something that is arguable. there is room in this country for a range of views and i recognize that many of my colleagues who consider themselves members of the tea party are simply doing their best to represent views of those who sent them here, but i would

hope everyone who has been entrusted with the responsibility of government can work together to at least make the government function, i.e., to stay open. that i think is a basic responsibility that our constituents entrusted us with when they sent us to washington. there's nothing patriotic about about shutting down the government, putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work and potentially forcing our country into default and the hundreds of thousands out of work are not just government employees as my colleague from cobb connecticut pointed out, defense contractors are beginning to furlough workers. these industries are the heart and soul of so many communities, and when these jobs are lost, there is a multiplier effect. these are the good jobs. but it affects the entire community. and this cascading series of economic problems will get worse each day we keep this government

closed. both sides need to work together. but we have already significantly compromised on our side. again, as the senator from connecticut pointed out, we are vogue for a continuing resolution at the house levels, not our levels. a multibillion-dollar gap, we've accepted that at least for intertrim period for six weeks or so of the continuing resolution, we accept the house's position. and for many of us who have been arguing coadvisoriously to end the sequestration to increase spending, to increase investment, this was a significant compromise. we're not keying that re -- seeing that reciprocated on the other side. it's my way or the highway. stop obamacare or nothing gets done. government doesn't work and we will default on our credit. that is reckless,

irresponsible, and does not serve the interests of those who sent us here. it's time for those who are proposing these wild plans of shutting down the government if they don't get exactly what they want to grasp the reality of the situation. we cannot keep this government closed. this closure will last as long as speaker boehner wants it to. he can under the rules of the house call thbl up within -- this bill up within hours or perhaps less. or republicans can join democrats and sign a discharge petition to bring it to the floor regardless of the speaker's position. those are two paths that should be taken immediately to open up this government. now, we all have a shared responsibility to govern, and as i sense it, one of the basic rationales of government is keep the lights on, keep people working, let's get to the

difficult negotiations of how we improve efficiency, how we improve operations, but we have a responsibility to keep our government open, to open it and to keep it open. and the longer this shutdown drags on, the more people are affected. cancer patients, young mothers, scientific researchers, federal employees, people who take prescription drugs, all are being negatively impacted. government contractors are being laid off. so let us work together and reopen the government for business. let's continue to debate the issues. we have many issues that we can debate, but not under the sort -- sword of damocles of a government that is closed and an economy that is beginning to lose more and more of its momentum and strength. that just harms the american people. irresponsibly and recklessly for narrow, self-interested principles. now, there's also another

aspect here, too. it's not just this government shutdown but we are coming perilously close to a potential default on the debt of the united states. now, the government closure is affecting our economy dramatically. a default on our debt could be catastrophic. and there's a growing risk that this brinksmanship on the part of the republican party could force us to that default. we are only 12 days away from a potential default because the tea party republicans would rather play with their games over the affordable care act, obamacare, than choose to do what we've always done, pay our bills. not borrow more money to spend more. this is because we have to pay for those things we've all agreed on, republicans and democrats, through congressional appropriation,

through legislation creating programs like medicare and medicaid and social security. these are obligations we've incurred and we won't be able to pay all of them. indeed, on october 17 unless my republican colleagues end their obstruction, the nation will not be able to pay its bills, causing dire consequences for american workers and our economy. many commentators have pointed out a default will destabilize the global economy, it could cause another financial crisis and over a month cause $150 billion shortfall of spending that could cause a severe economic contraction. if we can't pay our debt, we will contract activity. that will be multiplied in the economy. our economic growth will slow. in fact, not only decelerate, it could collapse. ironically, one aspect of that will almost oversight --

overnight increase our deficit as it produces more people who are laid off, eligible for employment compensation, it is a downward spiral. and economists on both sides agree that it's just the specter of a default that has serious economic consequences. in fact, we've already seen the one-month interest rate on treasuries jump over the six-month and the yearlong rates. the market is already voting. they are nervous. they are nervous that the republicans will carry out these threats. and you can see it in what they're demanding in order to buy the short-term paper of the united states versus the longer-term paper. and we just have to look back at august, 2011, to know that there will be consequences. back then the republicans pushed us perilously close to defaulting on the debt and that manufactured crisis set back job

growth in economy. the government accountability office estimated that the debt ceiling crisis cost taxpayers $1.3 billion in that fiscal year. it all rattled american households and created economic uncertainty from june to august, 2011, consumer confidence fell 22%. and i would suspect that as this debate, particularly with respect to the debt ceiling continues to pick up over the next few days, american consumers will become more and more nervous. it took several months after august, 2011, for the recovery of consumer confidence, for people to come back in the marketplace and begin to participate. back then the s&p index fell about 17% in that period. and it did not recover to its average over the first half of the year until well into 2012. so you'll see a market effect. we know that. that was august, 2011.

and indeed i'm concerned that this crisis is even more perilous because the opposition seems more intransigent. those people are saying there won't be any consequences to default, or repeal of obamacare is more important than anything else, even the economic well-being of the united states. now, roughly half the united states households own stocks directly or indirectly through mutual funds or 401(k) accounts. this fall in equity prices will cut across a wide swath of the american public. in fact, we saw again in 2011 as a result of the approaching and debating the facts that we may or may not pass the debt ceiling wiped out about $2.4 trillion of household wealth. now, this decline in wealth

leads to the decline in consumption and consumption, consumer spending accounts for 70% of our gross domestic product. put the links together. people are nervous. they pull back. the economy pulls back. growth begins to decelerate. in fact, reaching zero or worse. that is demonstrably the effect in some degrees from what happened in august, 2011, it would likely happen again. in fact, this time perhaps worse. and already we're starting to see some of the warning signs. we're see banking institutions prepare for the worst. according to the financial times, october 3, 2013, one senior executive said his bank was delivering 20% to 30% more cash than usual in case pan irked customers try to withdraw

cash en masse. banks are also holding daily emergency meetings to discuss other steps including possible free overdraflghts drafts for customers relying on social security payments from the government. but this potential consumer dash for cash is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to entirely avoidable self-inflicted economic wounds if we get close to and certainly if we do not raise the ceiling and default. according to the economist, the british magazine, treasuries are more than 30% of the collateral that financial institutions such as investment banks use to borrow in the $2 trillion tri party repo market, the source of overnight funding for most financial institutions and many other institutions. a default could trigger demands by lenders for more or different collateral. that might cause a financial heart attack like the one of the

attack of the leland brothers in 2008. we just barely understand the interrelationships of all these financial instruments and financial markets, but this is not the only financial instrument that could be affected. money market funds are prime source of investment by thousands of americans, both institutions and individuals. and according to the federal reserve's september 25, 2013 release on the financial accounts of the united states, money market funds in the second quarter of 2013 hold $449 billion of u.s. treasuries. now, back in 2011, matthew e. glains, the chief operating officer for j.p. morgan chase and the chair of the treasury borrowing advisory committee which offers observations on the overall strength of the u.s. economy as well as providing

recommendations on technical debt management issues, wrote to at that time secretary geithner and expressed concern of in his words, a run off money market funds as was the case in september, 2008 after the lehman failure. in the event of a treasury default, i think it is likely at least one fund could be forced to halt redemptions or break the buck. since money fund investors are focused on overnight liquidity even a single fund would cause a broader run on money funds. from the same treasury commit alexander, i would note because treasuries have been viewed as the world's fave safest asset, they are the most used clat ram in the world, a default could trigger a wave of margin calls and a widening of haircuts on collateral which in turn could lead to deleveraging and a sharp

dropping drop in lending. what he's saying essentially not just in the united states but worldwide. this could have a huge immediate, unpredictable global effect on markets everywhere. causing deleveraging, causing a sharp drop in lending. causing confusion and uncertainty and one thing i think we should recognize particularly after the events of twailt 2008, markets do not like uncertainty. and when things are uncertainty, they pull back. and in the expectation is it's a committee de-climate change market there's a premium for the institution or individual that can get out first. and when they start getting out, people notice. and then you have the stampede to the door. so the consequences that are possible are staggering. and yet we hear so many of our colleagues glibly sort of talking this off as well, we don't get our way on certain aspects of this bill or that

bill, we're going to default on the debt of the united states. i think the approach is very, very dangerous. and we're seeing already some indications in the financial markets that -- that -- properly that these factors are beginning to affect economic behavior. again, from the financial times on october 3, "money market dumped october treasury bills on thursday in the first sign of investor unease that washington may not raise the federal debt ceiling in the coming weeks and risking a technical default by the united states treasury on its debt. " from the international institute of finance this month, a well-respected committee, "with geopolitical risks in the middle east seem to be subsiding, consumer and investor confidence could be tested by a range of political and policy uncertainties. what is truly unprecedented is a

possible but still unlikely" -- and i hope that's the case, unlikely -- "combination of government shutdown and failure to lift the current $16.7 trillion debt ceiling by october 17. the impact of such a failure or political leadership on business, consumer, and investor confidence is difficult to say and could lead to further downgrades of the u.s. sovereign debt. reflecting credit risk five years c.d.s. -- "credit default swaps, the insurance that financial institutions take out on these instruments -- "these c.d.s. spreads for the u.s. have risen by 45% in the past three weeks to 33 basis points and could test or exceed the previous high of 62 basis poin points." that is an indication that the market is getting very nervous about what we're doing. these rising rates aren't good for the united states. they mean that the market is beginning to look at default or the possibility and the risk is being written into the

instruments that they are providing in terms of insurance, if you will, on u.s. treasuries and other securities. now, on october 17, the -- the extraordinary measures the department of treasury has had to employ since may 19 will be exhausted. the treasury secretary has told us that. on that day, treasury will have to approximately, in their view, $30 billion on hand to meet the government's daily expenditures, which can be as high as $60 billion. that $60 billion figure represents payments for the nation's bills on things like social security, medicare, national defense, and education. however, some tea party republicans have started to dismiss this issue and say, well, we're planning to -- to limit the fallout, to end -- and we shouldn't be blamed for it because we have a plan. they call for what they argue, prioritization, where some of the u.s. bills are paid and others are not. but their plan for prioritization is just another

version of default. indeed, the house-passed legislation that would prioritize payments, however, in a letter to speaker boehner, the department of treasury made it clear that prioritizing payments -- quote -- "would not protect the full faith and credit of the united states" and that prioritization is simply default by another name. it's shocking to witness the length some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to go in order to win political points and gain negotiating leverage. they are threatening the economic well-being of every american by refusing to do something, at least at this point, as essential as paying the nation's bills. paying the nation's bills should be a routine matter. there's no alternative. congress has always done so. since 1960, congress has acted to prevent a default. on the debt -- prevent a default on the debt 78 times, 49 of was were under republican

presidents. indeed, president reagan said in 1983 that -- quote -- "the full consequences of default, or even the serious prospect of default, by the united states are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate." and regrettably, because of some particularly colleagues in the house of representatives, there is a serious prospect of defau default, something president reagan warned us against. and he also i think quite rightly pointed out, it's impossible to predict. and the markets, frankly, are much more complicated, much more interrelated, much more driven by technology today than in 1983, decades ago. automated, computerized training was not a exon features of -- common feature of markets in 1983. today it is. today allege goatoday, algorhyte

places to buy. it's a machine. and we've seen these machines go haywire. there is a real possibility that initial reaction to a technical default on the debt could trigger some of this trading in a way that even the -- the people who built these elaborate algorhythms don't fully understand. this is very serious, more serious today than in 1983. but president reagan's words were prescient then and decisive then and right then and they're the same today. so this shouldn't be a negotiating chip, this -- this default. speaker boehner's threat to default in order to extract dollar-for-dollar cuts to programs, to make changes in this program, that program is risking the economic viability of the united states and, indeed, the world's financial community.

also the speaker suggested, we well, we've always done it this way. he said, every major effort to deal with the deficit over the past 30 years has been tied to the debt limit. that's not supported by the facts. over the past 30 years, 77% of laws passed by congress to pay for spending already accrued were not statutorily linked to deficit reductions or budget reform. 77% were simply, we've got to extend the debt ceiling; we'll do it. we always have. furthermore, several of the deficit-reduction measures identified by speaker boehner tied to paying our nation's bills included significant new revenue. according to the u.s. treasury estimates, the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1990 raised $126.6 billion over four years. and the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1993 raised $188 billion in new revenue over four years. i don't see the speaker coming

up and saying, we have a plan. we're going to make adjustments here on the spending side and on the revenue side and then we're going to tie it to the debt ceiling. no. in fact, this discussion of revenue increases or revenue positions, spending cuts, all of this is not appropriate for the debt ceiling discussion. it's appropriate for the conference on the budget. we have had a budget in the senate since march and we have been prevented from going to conference with the house republicans by members on this side, and there is a bipartisan demand really because many of my colleagues on the republican side have asked, suggested that we go to conference, say that's the appropriate way to deal with this issue. not threatening the world and the american people with default on our debts but doing it in regular order, taking up the budget, talking about revenues, talking about changes to

programs, talking about continued efforts to reduce our deficit. talking about growing the economy, because that ultimately is the best way to reduce the deficit. now, you can't expect, as the speaker implied in his sort of citing, well, every time we do one of these deficit -- debt ceilings, we have some revenue, et cetera. that's not going to be the case from what i sense from the other side. so we have i think a real challenge before us. and the challenge is that there seems to be this blaise attitude in some respects, particularly on the house among certain of their members that, "so what? we default?" well, other countries have defaulted and they've seen the consequences. we saw something like it in august of 2011. but greece, for example -- and it's very difficult to compare the two economies.

and i don't want to suggest that our experience will be -- mimic their experience. it's a much smaller economy. it does not have an independent currency. it is tied to the euro. but their debt in 2012 was basically challenged. the international swaps and derivative association determined that they had technically defaulted on their sovereign debt. this would trigger quite a default -- credit default swaps being called. one estimate of the net notional value of the greeks' credit default swaps at the time was about $3.2 billion. but in that economy, that was a significant number. and according to a "forbes" article on march 9, 2012, while no one expects the greek settlement to have systematic implications, it does set the precedent for any subsequent restructurings, which could take on added importance if big, troubled peripherals like spain or italy take a turn for the worse. well, the greek situation, as i said, is not even closely

identical to ours. in fact, because of the size of our economy, because of the ubiquitous -- ubiquity of u.s. treasuries across the globe in so many different instruments, in so many institutions, it could be much, much worse. but the greek example does demonstrate there are consequences to default. the "wall street journal" on september 7 pointed out, "since tipping into recession in 2008, greek's economy has shrunk by more than 20% from its peace. while since the start of the greek debt crisis in 2009 have helped push tens of thousands of businesses into bankruptcy and sent unemployment to a record of around 27%." and the pew center reports that unemployment among young greeks under 25 years old skyrocketed to 62 person in june 2013. now, austerity in some respects is another word for contracting government spending, contracting

government engagement in the economy. well, we -- this is a mini austerity program for the last five days, because we have contracted government contributions to the economy. hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed. additional private-sector contracteecontractes furloughed. extraordinary measures to shutting down the government. and these measures i think will lead inevitably to the contraction we've seen in other places. holding the full, faith and credit of the united states hostage to appease a handful of irresponsible and reckless house members who are fighting battle as that have already been lost several times is not what democracy's about. i urge immediate action to get our government up and running and our bills paid and then we can focus on a more pressing need -- creating jobs, opportunity and prosperity for families in my state of rhode island and across this nation. and with that, mr. president, i

would yield the floor. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm grateful to the distinguished senior senator from rhode island for his statement. i watched every word it was from my office -- every word of it from my office. he is such a great asset to the state of rhode island and our country. his military background and his experience on the banking committee and armed services. very few people have the wisdom that he has. i would also note with the presiding officer, i also had the good fortune to be able to watch the presiding officer's presentation this afternoon. it was also quite remarkably good. mr. president, in closing today, i want to read just a very brief statement from a nevada publication. headline "nevada residents are calling their obama hot-line in tears, desperate for health coverage."

"uninsured americans in nevada are so desperate to get health coverage under obamacare that many are calling the state's new insurance marketplace in tears. kevin walsh, a senior xerox official who heads the department that's helping some states maintain their on-line obamacare marketplace and call centers, told bloomberg business week that many people had contacted nevada's obama hot-line with just raw emotion. within the first hour that the marketplace opened on tuesday, nevada has an adult insurance rate of 27% -- i'm sorry, an adult uninsurance rate of 27%, the fifth highest in the country. they were calling up saying, 'can i get my coverage today so i can see my doctor this afternoon?" and that is in one sense moving but also frustrating because, sure, you can sign up but the coverage won't be effective until january 1. uninsured americans and those with costly or skimpy health plans have been rushing to sign up for health coverage under the law, although technical glitches

have delayed enrollment process for some of them. those who have successfully enrolled say they are pleased with the new coverage they are getting beginning in january. even some ardent republicans and obamacare skeptics signed up for coverage are admitting that the law will be a financial boon to them and give them peace of mind. butch matthews, a lifelong republican and initial proponents of repealing the law, said this: i will end up saving $13,000 a year in medical costs. i'm still a very strong republican but this, i'm so happy that this came along." mr. president, it's this way all over america america this week. it's -- it reminds a number of us, as i've heard others say here on the floor, and i learned personally from a man that started google, they had problems when that started. they didn't believe that many

people were interested in the information that they could gi give. it's about 9 million people this week have gone on-line to find out about this obamacare. mr. president, this has been very, very successful. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me with the concurrence of senator mcconnell, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 206, 207, that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed. the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and no further motion be in order, that any related statements be printed in the record, and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will readed titles. the clerk: an act mak