dealing with this high debt is going to crowd out other important national priorities. and finally, the congressional budget office said there's a greater chance of a fiscal crisis, specifically what they're talking about is as we pay more and more for interest on our national debt, we lose more and more control over our fiscal future. and as we all know on a bipartisan basis, we've been told time and time again by the experts that this -- when the public lose confidence, or i should say when our creditors lose confidence in our ability to repay our debt, there can become a breaking moment when all a sudden we lose control and all of these things happen which we can avoid if we deal responsibly today. so, mr. president, in other words, the president seems to content to let one of his successors deal with the problem of our rising national debt and that's only, i would add, if we get lucky enough to postpone the

kind of crisis and problems that the c.b.o. projects, that simpson-bowles projects that long. but the president obviously has other priorities, but toiled remind him what his own former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike mullen, said, when he was asked about the nation's biggest threat to our national security. he said it was the national de debt. the president himself has echoed those comments but the president's still sitting on the sidelines and still takes the untenable position that he's unwilling to negotiate. at a time when the country needs genuine leadership, he's nowhere to be found. natural changes, we're not going to get any closer to where we need to be sooner rather than later and that's at a true bipartisan compromise. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, before you yield the chair, i

just wanted to say that it's almost like deja vu all over again. the great senator from maine was sitting in the chair only a couple of days ago when this senator had the chance to make comments and here we are again. i want to say the senator from texas as he is leaving the chamber that i think is he -- i think he is a good senator and he believes strongly in what he's saying. but if there's a will, there's a way. reasonable people can come together and work through to a reasonable conclusion. and i was going to say with the senator from texas here on the floor that he had his chance to express his opinion.

and, indeed, he did with his vote when he passed the appropriation bill now called the continuing resolution because we haven't brought each of the appropriations bills to the floor. we accepted it at the house number. and the senior senator from texas expressed his opinion my means of his "no" vote. but the "yes" votes won and we sent it to the other body to keep the government open. and, indeed, the government is not open. and i go back to two days ago when the senator from maine was the presiding officer and here we are again talking about, you know, if we would kind of remember the golden rule, putting the old english "do unto others as you would have to do unto you," or put into modern

street language, "treat others as you want to be treated." in other words, recognize that the other fella has a point of view and you have to respect his point of view. and even though his point of view may be different from yours, the genius of american democracy is hammering out those differences and building consensus in a civil way and achieving a workable solution. but what we have here is brink brinksmanship. we hammer it out. we pass an appropriations continuing resolution, we send it down to the house of representatives, and they don't get it up for a vote. because there is, what's operative, we're only going to pass this with republican votes. so what does that do? that takes an outsized minority of the republican caucus being

the tail that is wagging the republican dog in the house of representatives. because if you only pass it with republican votes instead of the will of the whole house, then, in fact, you're going to have what we have now, a small, out of the mainstream political philosophy extremist group dictating what they want and only what they want. it's their way or no way. that's not treating others as you want to be treated. that's an attitude of saying, i know better than you, and my way is going to be the only way. but that's not how we govern this country and that's not how we honor and respect other people's point of view that may be difference than ours.

i didn't want to hold up the senator from maine but i just wanted to follow up to the conversation that i had through the chair two days ago. and before the senator leaves, i have two unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have at approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: now, mr. president of course, you know, all of th this -- now, mr. president, you know, all of this high-minded, highfalutin ideas of getting together and treating each other as wement to b we want to be trd hammering out this policy, lo

and behold, maybe everything i'm saying doesn't have anything to do with this by virtue of an investigative piece being -- having been done by "the new york times" over the weekend. and i just want to read the first three paragraphs of this investigative piece. it's entitled "a federal budget crisis months in the planning." and, mr. president, at the end of my remarks, i would ask consent that this be inserted in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson nelson: it's by chery stolberg and mike mcintyre. "shortly after president obama started his second term, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists, led by former attorney general edwin middlmeese, gathered in the capl to plot strategy.

their four repeal mr. obama's health care law was going nowhere and they desperately needed a plan. out of that session held one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret aim a little noticed -- quote -- "blueprint to defunding obamacare" signed by mr. meese and the leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups. it articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that has long percolated in conservative circles that republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow republicans, including their

cautious leaders, into cutting off financing for the entire federal government." that's just the first three paragraphparagraphs, mr. presid. if that's true, then all these high-minded ideas of the golden rule and treating open other with respect and working out your differences, it's all out the window. and if that's true -- and it looks like it is by virtue of what we see going on down in the other end of this capitol building, where a small group of people are not going to do anything to open up the government unless they get their way to defund the affordable care act, the health care reform bill.

now, i would suggest that if that's the case, then the people who are suffering should sit up and take notice of what is happening to their government. we've heard over and over examples out here. senator brown and i were just talking about the 70 -- that 97% of people that are laid off in nasa and then when do you that with all of the civilian work force of nasa, then just think what that's doing to all the contractors that work for nasa. you've heard also the statistic out here that over 70% of the intelligence community has been furloughed. you've heard out here that head start, the federally funded program to get children ready to

start the public schools -- concerned garden anschools --kit grade -- that's shut down. you know last week when we were in the middle of this shutdown, there was a storm brewing down in the gulf of mexico. thank the good lord it fizzled out. but at one point it was expected to turn into a category 1 hurricane, hitting the gulf coast. and had that happened, do you know what? fema had been laid off, although they reached back and started national guard, et cetera, et cetera. thank goodness for secretary of defense chuck hagel finding an unintended consequence in the law that was passed to pay the united states military while the government's shut down because

he found a little hook in there that, in fact -- mr. president, i ask two more minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: he found a hook in there that then he could extend that to most of the furloughed civilian work force, including some in the national guard. but we didn't know that. and down in my state of florida, 156 employees were getting the notices go just in the national guard on friday and there was already a thousand military technicians that had been furloughed in the national guard and we had an inbound storm. what about the programs in our state to help veterans find jobs? if we're not done with this shutdown at the end of october, that's gone. how about the florida fish and

wildlife commission, a part of the state of government? 10% of their funds are federal funds. how about the florida department of agriculture? over 6% of their work force are federally funded. and what about -- and you've heard this out here -- what about women, infants, and children? you know, a society is supposed to take care of its very old and its very young, and that's why we have programs for women, infants and children. and yet the supplemental nutrition program for women, for nursing mothers, for children up to the age of five for breastfeeding support, for nutrition education, for health checkups -- it's gone.

mr. president, i could go on and on. others have said it more articulately than me. this is ridiculous. this shouldn't go on like this. and now, as the drumbeat of the very shacrescendo continues, itl grow larger as we march toward october the 17th, when i the debt ceiling has to be raised so we don't go into default. mr. president, it's a sad day. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, i rise to speak in support of two individuals who will come up for a vote at 5:00. , no we haven't set any records here in the senate in the last five weeks for productivity. we passed one major piece of

legislation which the senator from oregon brought before us relative to the issue of our helium preserve. great work. one of the few bipartisan things we've accomplished in five weeks. maybe the only bipartisan thing. well, here's a chance to improve our record at 5:00. there are two nominees for federal district court judge in illinois that i commend to the members of united states senate and let me say at the outset, it isn't just this side of the aisle and this senator making the recommendation. senator mark kirk and i worked together on a bipartisan basis to come up with these nominees and to get them approved by our nomination committees, then approved by us, by the white house, by the judiciary committee, brought to the floor. since senator kirk's been elected, we have done this in lock-step together every step of the way and by tradition, the president's party's senator, in this case myself, has three appointments, senator kirk has the fourth. but each of us has the veto power over the other's choices.

so we have a working relationship and a good one, and senator kirk has endorsed these two nominees, colin bruce, bhoans nominated to serve that the central district of illinois, and sara ellis nominated to serve in the northern district. they have the experience, qualification and integrity to be excellent jobs. both appeared before the senate judiciary committee on june 19. both reported out of the committee by unanimous voice vote. i'd like to briefly discuss their backgrounds and qualifications. colin bruce nomineed to fill the judicial vacancy. michael mccuskey is also one of my appointments, an outstranding federal judge. i am sorry that he's going on senior status, but he felt, and i did, too, that colin bruce would be an excellent replacement to succeed him in that position. mr. bruce has worked in the u.s. attorney's office for the central district of illinois since 199. he currently is in a position he

has had since 2010, the man i selected jim lewis hired him as his first assistant. it was about two months ago that jim lewis, the district -- the u.s. district attorney came by my office with colin bruce. we talked about a number of things and then he said incidentally, i don't know what i'd do without colin bruce. he is such an extraordinary first assistant. when he finished his presentation, i said, jim, would you stick around for a minute. i said, jim, i have got an opening for a judge here. and i know colin is a person who would fill that bill. he has already gone through all the vetting. he would be an extraordinary judge, but you'd lose him as your first assistant. he said, i can't stand in his way. i couldn't think of a better choice to be a judge in this district. colin bruce was born in urban u, illinois. he got his undergraduate and law degrees degrees from the university of illinois.

he handled civil and criminal cases and tort cases and claims filed against the government. in 2007 appointed branch chief of the urbana division. 2010 first assistant u.s. attorney which is the number-two position. in his current capacity he oversees the day-to-day operations of the u.s. attorney's office. he handles civil defense and affirmative litigation in the district in which the u.s. is a party. he has received numerous recognitions, certifications of afreerks the justice department, the f.b.i., the d.e. ark the metropolitan enforcement group and task force. he has a record of giving back to the urbana community through his association with charities like central illinois chapter of the american red cross and imagine no malaria, a charity purchasing mosquito nets for

children in africa. he is an outstanding nominee for the federal bench and he has a great family. i urge my colleagues to join with senator kirk and me in supporting his nomination. the second nominee is sara he will list, she's been nominated to the chicago-based judgeship formerly okayed by judge gotchow. she works as a law firm in chicago where her practice involves white-collar criminal crime, criminal matters i should say, complex civil litigation and corporate counseling. she was born in ontario, canada, to parents who had emigrated from jamaica. her undergraduate degree is from indiana university, her law degree from loyola school of law in chicago. after law school, miss he will list joined the federal defender program in chicago, served for six years as staff attorney and represented indigent criminal defendants in all aspects of criminal lit gas emissions, preliminary hearings, trials,

sentencing and appeals. then worked in private practice before joining the city of chicago department of law in 2004 where she served as assistant corporation counsel for four years. primarily handing section 1983 cases. in 2008, ms. he will list joined schiff-harass deny. she seabed as ads jufnghts professor as loyola university chicago school of law teaching federal criminal practice and legal wright. a distinguished record of pro bono work, she's taught reading and legal skills to children living in juvenile detention. she has provided guidance to the warren park youth baseball league. she is actively involved with the kath lithuania board in chicago. she is an excellent nominee for federal judge, another person with a great family and children backing her up. i am happy that senator kirk and i can commend her as well to the senate for this nomination.

i hope my colleagues will join me in voting to confirm these two nominees who have bipartisan support and will be outstanding federal judges. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from or omplet. mr. wyden: mr. president, before he leaves the floor, let me thank the senator for his kind words. mr. president, on friday last, it was thrilling to read that the united states is now number one in the world when it comes to energy production. not saudi arabia, not russia. our country. and particularly, mr. president, it was a source of such satisfaction because, after all these years, the american people hearing about how we're dependent on foreign sources of energy, at the top of our papers

friday last, the energy experts said that the red, whierkts and blue was at the top in terms of energy production. and this good new-news story abt the energy boom is absolutely essential to creating more high-skill, high-wage jobs. i saw it with my colleague when i was in his state. you see it all across the country, this energy boom, for example, has been key to triggering a manufacturing renaissance, the lower cost of natural gas in particular being a magnet to bring companies that had gone overseas back to the united states again employing our workers with good-paying jobs. and it's been key to the falling imports of foreign oil and, of course, wind and solar farms are adding tremendously to the power mix.

in our part of the country, it's sheep lard slatt, our state's biggest wind farm that we are proud of. but, mr. president, the current, senseless government shut downis putting this good-news story at risk. when it comes to causing problems, unfortunately, this shutdown has something for everybody. if you care about oil and natural gas development, federal agencies now cannot approve drilling permits either on federal land or offshore. if you care about real estate -e energy, wind and wave energy permitting is now at a standstill. it is at a standstill because of the shutdown. environmental reviews for solar farms on federal land has stopped, and the federal energy regulatory commission has

canceled a meeting about implementing two hydropower bills that passed this congress, mr. president, on overwhelming votes. now, in my part of the country we are especially proud of this legislation. hydropower is responsible -- is actually the biggest source of clean power in the united states. industry estimates that it could generate perhaps as much as 60,000 megawatts of additional clean power, and these hydropower bills -- there were two of them -- were the first stand-alone energy bills to become law since 2009. now, mr. president, they languish because of the shutdown. all of these developments -- these developments that i've described with respect to natural gas development, solar and wind energy, the hydropower laws that passed overwhelmingly in both the senate and the house

-- now, in effect, languishing and what it really means is less new energy, fewer new jobs, and less revenue, less revenue that we're going to need in both the public and the private sector. might also add this shutdown harms the important safety work that needs to be done by blocking work that's going to speed up response to oil spills and accidents offshore. of particular concern to me, mr. president, and i know so many others in the senate -- i see my colleague from alaska here -- the people who get hammered, who really get hit hardest by these consequences, are our rural communities, the ones that depend on producing energy and timber and recreation. they are the ones who feel the biggest hit from the shutdown. i'm going to talk about what this really means in terms of

recreation and hunting and fishing. hunting season starts at different times in different parts of the country. but between recreation and hunting and fishing, we're talking about something in the vicinity of 600 -- excuse me, $646 billion a year, mr. president, goes just to the recreation sector. another $140-plus billion in terms of hunting, and i'm going to describe the consequences there. but we are talking about policies with enormous impact for our rural communities. and i can tell you, i got some additional news -- i mentioned the thrilling news last friday about how we were toss in terms of energy production -- we were tops in terms of energy production, but it wasn't exactly a thrill last friday to get called, mr. president, by

the chief of the forest service, tom tilwell, who called to report that the forest service had canceled timber sales on 140 national sales across the country. twha means is that loggers like the hardworking folks that i represent in oregon who want to do a hard day's work, they're being benched because of this shutdown. and the shutdown comes at a particularly ominous time because it comes at a tile with winter, you know, at hand, in effect, putting an end to logging operations for the year in many parts of our country. so that means workers won't be able to make up for lost time and money this year. they're simply -- those loggers are going to have to get by with less.

so, again, rural communities are the face of what this really means. they're the ones that are going to get walloped because, really, a handful of members of congress, a handful of members of congress won't fund the government. so logging, energy, recreation -- i mentioned the hunting season, sort of the flip side of the coin with respect to recreation, the hunting season for ducks and geese starting up in my home state and across the country. the government shutdown here is closing hundreds of wildlife refuges where those waterfowl are nor normally game. they usually generate about $144 billion a year. hunters contribute $.5 billion

in state and local taxes each year. because waterfowl season there is a only three months longs in or, if you lose in a week every lost week is a huge bite out of the benefits that hunting tbroi- that hunting brings to our local economies. what senators may also not be aware of is the shutdown also means that our government is less prepared to respond to these fires, these rapidly developing, dangerous infernos in our national forests. forest fire risk is lessened in some parts of the west, but there are areas of high to extreme danger in california, montana, new mexico, south dakota and other states. while many firefighters are considered essential, others, such as our off-duty firefighters, have been furloughed. and public safety on federal lands is also impacted by these

furloughs. although law enforcement continues without rangers and other agency employees o on han, the conditions are ripe for visitors to find themselves into understaffed forests and pose a safety risk. and of course thousands of hardworking employees at these key natural resource agencies are now out of work. as we we peek 24,000 at the forest service. more than 10,000 furloughed at the bureau of land management. mr. president, if they're not work be bureau of land management employees can't issue permits for grazing on federal lands. energy department workers and contractors can't clean up nuclear waste sites like the hanford reservation that threatens the columbia river and the million people who live downstream. our committee, recognizing the situation, recently had to cancel a hearing on the columbia river treaty, which is vital to the energy and environment of

the pacific northwest. it's vital, mr. president, to our relations with canada. this treaty is about managing a river that is the lifeblood for the pacific northwest. it's our lifeblood for transportation, for electricity, for fish. and there isn't much time for our two nations to really come together to decide the treaty's future. in just wrapping up, mr. president, i would just say i've tried to describe what the shutdown means in terms of our status as number-one in energy production, what it means with respect to logging and forest fires, hunting and recreation. and it's all happening because a small group of members in the other chamber are demanding negotiations with the american economy tied to the train tracks. and i'll close with this, mr. president. it is especially ironic that in many cases the districts of those members are the ones that are going to bear the brunt of the impact. those rural communities. they are the ones who are going

to bear the consequences of stalled energy production and stalled logging. and i hope that we can quickly come together, pass this budget without all the various additions that have made it impossible for the congress to go forward. it's time to reopen the government. i spent a lot of time working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on these other issues. we'll continue to do so. and i know a lot of senators will. right now it is time to reopen the government and end the shutdown. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: will the senator stay on the floor for a moment for a question? one of the bills i know that was mentioned by the senator from illinois was the helium bill. within that, there is an important alaska priority. i know my colleagues worked with you and it is important to my state, and it is cleaning up these legacy wells, these wells that have been there on federal

land for years and, you know, oil literally seeping out of these wells. now there is money for the first time in i don't know how many years to actually clean up these wells. but from what i just heard, and correct me if i'm wrong -- and i have a couple more questions -- and correct me if i'm wrong but what you just indicated was bureau of land management, they don't have the capacity to do permitting and other staffing, so these wells, there is no work to be done. even though now we finally passed a bipartisan bill, both houses, signed by the president, something that's been waiting for decades, now to be cleaned. am i correct on this that b.l.m. now can't do the work that we want them to do and the american people do, and alaskans have been desperately waiting for for decades? mr. wyden: what we know for certain, i would say to the senator, is 10,000 individuals have been furloughed at the bureau of land management. so clearly, this important work -- and i tried to describe particularly getting these new permits.

i guess if you're already out there with something -- and i talked to chief tidwell about how he would try to stabilize operations put in place now but, yes, you're not going to be able to go forward with operations like the senator from alaska described. mr. begich: you came to the state a few months ago and had an opportunity to see our great ability with energy companies and what we're trying to do. today i got an announcement, an important announcement from exxon and conocophillips about "bilding" a gasification, building a gasification plant that i know you had a chance to see. i want to say thank you for the announcement. it will be a multibillion-dollar investment in our state, something we've been doing it for 40 years, exporting to japan. but now the permits they'll need, the odds of them getting

them or getting them in a timely manner is now delayed. is that a fair statement? mr. wyden: again the senator is right because alaska, like oregon, there is an extraordinary level of federal ownership. in my state the federal government owns more than half of land, and the senator is absolutely correct with in effect the shutdown, federal agencies cannot approve drilling permits either on federal land or offshore. and i saw both when i was in alaska. you know, the point is these are issues that we can work on in a bipartisan way. and as soon as the government gets reopened, we'll set about to the task of getting those permits out and coming together on a bipartisan basis as we've done on so many issues. but we can't do it if the government is shut down. we can't do it if we can't pay our bills.

and that's what we're going to have to deal with first. mr. begich: i think this is more of a question comment, the last part i'll say in one of your statements at the end there, you talked about how this is held up. we passed a bill out of here, a continuing resolution in which we cut on an annualized basis $70 billion. we didn't compromise. we took their number. we talk about negotiations. we negotiated starting back in july, reduced, reduced, reduced, and then we went to their number. $70 billion annualized reduction. the body passed it. and nothing passes out of this body unless you get a motion to proceed with some sort of unanimous consent or bipartisan -- that was 99-0. people forget that. 99-0 to move us to the bill. then we moved it, sent it over to the house, where it has sat since the day we sent it over there, which would have kept this budget operating.

and again, it had a $70 billion annualized reduction. i think that was your point toward the end of your comments, that a simple vote over there would put everyone back to work. these permits we just talked about, the cleaning up the legacy wells, the timber which we have in southeast now, alaska, is now in jeopardy because our federal lands, your federal lands are now at risk sthafplt a fair assess -- are now at risk. is that a fair assessment? mr. wyden: it is. i was one, i'm sure the senator was involved in this as well, where after all these years hearing the senate hadn't passed a budget, we stayed up one night until the wee hours. we passed a budget. we had scores and scores of votes. and then a lot of simply wanted to have a conference with the other body. and after hearing that there hadn't been a budget, we thought lickety-split we'd be able to get that conference going, and

we haven't been able to do that either. mr. begich: passed their budget too. we had two budgets ready to go to conference. is that fair? mr. wyden: it was there for the doing. i remember coming to the floor and asking unanimous consent to go to conference. i knew there had been some conferencing, but there was an immediate objection. and i pointed out that at that time republican and democratic economists were saying look to the long term. and i was especially proud, and i talked about it that day, saying that senator isakson of georgia, very able member of the finance committee, he and i have new ideas on medicare that we think can protect the medicare guarantee and hold costs down. but you can't get at those kinds of issues unless you first as a -- the senator says, reopponent government with that simple -- reopen the government with that simple vote. mr. begich: i appreciate that comment. i think it is important again to

point out that budget was passed back in the april, may area. we did ours. they did theirs. we tried 18 times to bring the two parties together. we tried unanimous consent, as you've noted here on the floor, 18 times. unable to do it. then we went to the continuing resolution. that negotiation started in july. the house had one number. we had one number. as time progressed, we took their number, $70 billion annualized reduction. we took their number. some would not call that a compromise. that would just take their number. but we'll call it negotiation, compromise because we wanted to get it done, we again sent it over there. it has sat idle. one person, the speaker over there, could put it on the floor. i heard him on the radio over the weekend, or tv explaining how the votes aren't there. the votes aren't there, put it on the floor, it will fail. but the reality is the votes are there. just as we have taken every one

of their items, brought it to the floor, we have voted on every single item, they haven't prevailed but we voted on it because that's the process. but for whatever reason over there, it's gone over there and sat idle. he doesn't think the votes are there; put it up. his side will win then. but there is clearly republicans and democrats over on the house side that want to put the government back in operation so we can get on to these bigger issues. is that a fair chronology of events there? mr. wyden: it is. what i was struck by over the weekend with respect to those comments is why not at least try that? it just seems if you add up all the senators on both sides of the aisle who said that they would vote for what -- mr. begich: house members? mr. wyden: correct. the house members who have said that they would vote for it, it sure looks like the votes are

there. and if you're trying to break the gridlock, why not try? so i hope that kind of thinking will set in here in the next few hours, because that would be the fastest way, the fastest way, as the senator from alaska has made clear, to get the government open again. mr. begich: thank you for allowing me to ask some questions. mr. wyden: i thank my colleague. i yield the floor. mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we are in day number seven of this government shutdown. as was pointed out by the senator from alaska and the senator from oregon, we started out with a continuing resolution of $1,058,000,000,000.

that was compromised down with the understanding there would be a c.r., that wasn't good enough because there were some that wanted to add different amendments to deal with the affordable health care act. the bottom line is we're in the throes of a governmental shutdown. it was interesting that since this government was shut down, it will be midnight tonight it has been a solid week. we have seen bills come over from the house that would fund the v.a., national park service. it's interesting there is nobody -- the senator from alaska is on the veterans' affairs committee. we both work very hard for rural veterans in this country, but we both know the v.a. can't do their job unless the i.r.s. has funding and c.m.s. has funding.

it's great to put that political gesture out there but the truth is they can't do their job until we have more than just the v.a. funding. then there was a story of childhood cancer, so the house came across, said maybe we ought to fund the national institutes of health. then there was the terrible scene last week where capitol police officers who were all laid off -- actually they were still working, without pay -- had to address a lady that had driven into a police officer's building by the hart building. since those officers respond, maybe we should pay them. they came across with a bill for them. they should be paid all the time, i might add. then there is the issue of hurricane karen so we need to fund fema. they came across with a bill to fund fema.

then they thought all these furloughed federal employees, we should pay them. and i agree we should. the fact is they do a great job and they should be back here working, which every one of them want to be back here working to get that back pay. and then they decided to fund things like food inspectors because they understand that our food security is at risk. look, these guys can't see past their political noses. the bottom line is that, as the previous speakers talked about, if in fact the speaker of the house, with the clean resolution for $986 billion, it would pass the house. they said it wouldn't this weekend. okay, so, if it doesn't, put it up anyway. prove us wrong. the bottom line is that it would pass, and this senseless shutdown would be over. there are plenty of things out there that continue to hamper this country's moving forward economically due to this

economic shutdown. we've talked about head start. we've talked about forest service suspending logging contracts. i heard the senator from alaska talk about drilling permits. the fact is in montana being an outdoor state, people live for this time of year. it's called hunting season. and a lot of the hunting, camping, fishing sites access has been severely restricted. this weekend, a national guard -- national guard furloughed their drill for 3,500 guardsmen. communities around our national parks are being severely impacted, losing literally millions and millions of dollars, which is real money. so how do we get out of this? it's pretty simple. if the speaker put the bill on the floor, it would pass. he refuses to do that. i think he refuses to do it for another reason, and that reason is that i think there is a lot of his members over there that

want to cater to the tea party movement but go back home and want to appear like they're moderates. they had that -- if they had that vote, it would certainly point out who stands for what in that body, and that's why he needs to have the vote. as was said with the senator from oregon, the senator from alaska, we have had votes on everything they have sent over here, just about, and the fact is that they need to do the same. we sent a clean c.r. over to them. i think unless they really want this shutdown to go on and on for some unknown reason, they would vote on that clean c.r. and then we're rapidly approaching the debt ceiling, which puts the full faith and credit of this country at risk if we don't increase it, and i might add that this isn't money that's yet to be spent. this is money that has been spent. it's not unlike the mortgage on your house or your credit card

bill. if you don't pay them, interest rates will go up, and if we don't increase the debt limit, interest rates on our national debt will go up. and those that are concerned about the debt and the deficit, as i am, and others on both sides of the aisle will see our national debt increase, not decrease, by doing something as silly as not increasing the debt ceiling. now, i know there are some in this body that would love to put issues on the debt ceiling, and they're playing with fire. we saw what happened in 2011 when our credit rating was downgraded because we were just talking -- some were just talking about not increasing the debt ceiling. the truth is is that i'll be the first to work with anybody in this body to try to reduce the debt and the deficit by reducing spending, by removing tax loopholes in the code. we need to do that at the front end, not the back end.

the debt limit is dealing with the issue at the back end, and if we don't do it, if we don't increase that debt ceiling, we will see the economy spiral down out of control, potentially even putting us into a depression. and i don't say that to scare people. i say that to make the point that we shouldn't be fooling around with this issue. we're grown adults here. we need to get together and realize that the debt ceiling is too important to play politics with. and i know that since i have been here -- and this government shutdown issue is a prime example -- politics have trumped policy nearly every time. it is time to endorse the right policy. get a long-term comprehensive deal that isn't a patch, that doesn't add to the uncertainty but yet puts us by the continuing resolution, gets us out on the debt ceiling so we don't have to deal with this every 45 or 90 days and we don't

have to deal with the debt ceiling just about every year. and i think if we were to do that and the cooler minds would prevail, we could see this country start to really grow economically. we would see the unemployment drop even more than we've seen it previously, and we would see this country go on to a -- an opportunity to pay down our debt and deficit in a way that makes sense for our kids and grandkids. i don't know where this is going to end. i can tell you that the folks back home see it for what it is, and they're tired of the foolishness and they want to see it stopped, and i can tell you that what makes it particularly frustrating for me is is that, as i see businesses start to expand, as i see entrepreneurs

starting to be ready to take chances, they look at what goes on in washington, d.c., and go whoa, this isn't worth it, we don't know what the future is to bring because of the uncertainty of -- not only the continuing resolution, keeping the government open, but also the talk that has been revolving now for some time around the debt ceiling talk. so with that, mr. president, i would hope that this body would do the right thing and that it would push the house to do the right thing, and that is put the clean resolution on the floor in the house, let's get the debt ceiling behind us, let's talk about the debt and debt ceiling in a meaningful way. thank you, mr. president. a senator: could i ask a clarification on one of your beginning statements? mr. tester: sure. mr. begich: from what i saw -- and we hear over and over again, there is not negotiations going

on, there is not compromising going on, but if i hear your numbers right, there was negotiations, there was compromise. as a matter of fact, there was so much compromise, we went to the house number, not to our number, their number. we actually reduced the budget on an annualized basis $70 billion. isn't that what your numbers -- i mean, you're on the appropriations committee, i am on the appropriations committee. it's one thing we do know a lot about, and that's numbers. mr. tester: it is, it is a much lower number. i will tell you this, the senator from alaska, the good senator from alaska. that is what happened in the negotiations, and the upshot of all that was that we would get a clean c.r. coming back if we negotiated down to that figure, that there wouldn't be a bunch of games being played. mr. begich: a lot of stuff added on that wasn't necessary. we could debate those later. mr. tester: absolutely, and should debate them later. but the bottom line is it's

important that we keep our government open. why? because we're wasting a ton of money the way it's being done right now. and this piecemeal funding for trying to get political advantage is crazy. people see it for what it is. it's political gamesmanship. mr. begich: isn't it odd that they would pass a let's pay everybody, everybody, 435-0, they pass it, but they only want to have some of them come back to work. now, if you're a fiscal conservative -- and i think i'm -- we're from montana, alaska, fairly conservative states. i want them working if we're paying them. doesn't that make sense? instead it seems like you're just giving a couple of agencies, but they are still going to pay everybody. i don't know where the logic is there. mr. tester: why not have them come back? we know the value of the work. we know the value of work to the self-esteem. we know the fact that those folks are important to my office. if they weren't important to my office, they wouldn't be working for me. and they are important to everybody's offices. as we tell folks what's going

on, help a lot of our constituents when they have problems with some of the agencies around. but the bottom line is they are setting at home. these aren't rich folks. a lot of them are hand-to-mouth. they don't know how long this government shutdown is going to go on, and they want to go back to work. mr. begich: i guess one more. you said something i thought was very interesting on the budget deficit. you and i are both kind of new around here. you are older than me. i came here two years after you. when we came in, dealing with the debt ceiling, which is really just about paying your bills. got to pay the bills that were racked up for a period of time before we got here, but they came. i think in 2009, the deficit per year was $1.4 trillion. this year, that just kind of closed out because we're still not done, was about $630 billion. almost a 60% reduction in the deficit. we're headed the right way, but

this isn't helping. mr. tester: yeah, and my last point would be this. if we're going to debt the debt and deficit under control, one of the things we have to do is grow the economy. by stopping government with this continuing resolution, by talking silly talk about increasing the debt limit, it does not do good things for our economy. in fact, it takes it in the wrong direction. we see businesses contract when we start seeing what's going on here in washington. it really is time to start using some common sense. folks -- there is folks who claim to be business representatives out there. i talked to a bunch of businesses this afternoon. every one of them said they ought to quit messing around, get to an agreement, have the debates on debt and deficit you need to have because they are important to have, but don't hold up the debt limit and don't hold up the government funding in the process. i want to thank my friend from alaska. mr. begich: i thank my good friend for allowing knee me to take a few minutes and ask a couple of points.

i will just say that's what this debate is about, it's a simple question, allowing the vote on the house side. if they believe they don't have the votes -- obviously the speaker over there believes he doesn't have the vote -- then let it be on the floor, it will fail and we'll be back to the drawing board. but the reality is he knows, he knows the votes are there. we would be out of this shutdown, the result would be that people would be back to work, services would be provided and the businesses will not be losing confidence that they're losing every day today or like the market once again -- since this debate started and the threats of shutdown to the actual shutdown, the stock market over the last 15, 16 days has lost almost 600 points. now, those are people -- most people don't pay a lot of attention to that, but if you have an education account, a 401-k account, a retirement account, i.r.a. or you have a little money set aside, it has direct impact to your livelihood

over the long haul. so i would just encourage the speaker on the house, representative speaker boehner to allow a single vote. we have on every bill that's come over here. now, they haven't prevailed but we have allowed a vote, that's the process. over there they have refused. they keep sending back gimmicks. it is surprising to me to understand this logic. they want to pay every single federal employee, but they're only going to have some of them come back to work. it makes no sense. if you're paying your employees, have them come back and work. you know, i run a small business, my wife runs a small business. i know the senator from montana who just left here runs a small business. you don't pay your people not to come to work. when you pay them to work, you pay them to work. you were a governor, mr. president. you wouldn't say one day, oh, by the way, i will pay everyone, stay home for a month. no, you would have them come to work if you are paying them,

unless they have leave or vacation time. but this is crazy. it passes unanimous on the house side. and they say but we don't want you to work. the taxpayers should be outraged about that. i'm happy, i want to vote on that bill. i want to vote on that furlough bill. i want to make sure everyone gets paid and then i want to follow it up with the c.r. and put everyone back to work. that's what we should be doing here. not these games when they bring over political statements with the items they're bringing over. do we want to vote against veterans? of course not. i have the highest per-capita veterans in my state, in my state compared to any other state. veterans are important to our economy, and they have served this country. they deserve every benefit. but to play this game of leveraging, the american people see right through this. these guys who keep bringing these schemes over here, for them to think that they are thinking one step ahead of the american people, they are absolutely wrong. the american people are two, three steps ahead of us. they see the show and tell

that's going on, and it doesn't make sense. again, if you're going to fund all the employees -- and again, 435-0, they voted to fund all the employees that get paid, but then they only want some to go to work. it makes no sense to me at all. so i appreciate the time, i appreciate the president's time allowing me the opportunity toen gang with a -- to engage with a couple of my colleagues down here. but every time they spoke, i wanted to explain and kind of show the farce that's going on over there and what's happening over there with a small group of tea party very small 30, 40 members who decided how they are going to run the government here. the government is not run by one group. it is run on compromise and negotiations. we negotiate all the way down to their number, $70 billion in annualized cuts. we have put every single one of their bills on the floor here. we have voted on it. now all we ask is one simple vote. a clean c.r. that sits in the

speaker's office ready to be put on the floor. he even says it will fail. okay. let's see. let's see where his votes are. let's see where it all is. if it fails, we will be right back where we are today. no difference. so what does he fear? he fears the fact it will pass. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.  quorum call:

mr. begich: mr. president, i ask to vacate the quorum. the presiding officer: the quorum call will be suspended. the senator from alaska. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations, colin sterling bruce of illinois to be united states district judge. sara lee ellis of illinois to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. begich: i ask unanimous consent the time be equally charged to both sides during the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. begich: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be diswendz with. the presiding officer: without objection the call of the quorum be suspended. mr. leahy: mr. president, what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is considering judicial nominations under the previous order. mr. leahy: thank you. mr. president, today we are going to vote on two of the district court nominations pending before the senate. i'm glad we're getting to these important nominations. we should have -- weeks ago, the normal course of events should have just been done in a routine fashion. but there has been this concerted effort to slow up

president obama's judges, something we've never seen with other presidents but we do with him. but i am glad at least these are going through. but i hope that on the same vein, we see the needless government shutdown, i hope it comes to an end so the senate can tend to the business of the country including as i said on the floor the other day, ensuring that the courts have the judges they need. in fact, as far as the judges, speaking of both from illinois that have the support of senator durbin and senator kirk, i'd ask my full statement regarding those judges be placed in the record as though read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i can't help but think, and i have spoke on the floor i think every day since this happened, what has become an

all-too-familiar scene around the capitol the past couple of years, we find ourselves in a stalemate over providing funding to keep the federal government running. i share the frustration of most americans, republicans and democrats, what was once the regular business of congress, funding the government, has been replaced by political theater and artificial made-in-congress crisis that might get a number of people on television but while doing it they imperil the economy and in many ways large and small every single family in america. makes no difference what their politics are, they're imperilled. of course there is an easy way to resolve this fabricated crisis. the house of representatives could simply vote on the senate bill, a clean consideration, has no -- clean continuing

resolution, it provides the funding necessary to keep the federal government open through november 15, and speaker boehner could accept the offer that leader reid made to get on with the business of negotiating and passing this year's appropriations bill. bills that were supposed to have been passed by the end of last month. now, over the past week, the house has had ample opportunity to end this shutdown. they could have passed the senate's legislation to fund all the federal agencies, provide a time to find a path forward. but a faction -- not the whole house by any means -- a faction of dream extreme house members supported by their leadership have prevented the full body from voting on the senate bill. extreme republican members, certainly don't represent the kind of republicans we have in

vermont but these extreme republican house members have prevented the full body have voting on the senate bill. instead, what do they do? they're collecting their salaries but they close the government, all because they want to erode access to affordable private health care ochtions for millions of uninsured americans. unconscionable and they have not come up with an alternative. they say we'll get rid of you able to have your college-age children on your health insurance but we have no alternative. we're going to get rid of the ability for your spouse who nay may have had a preexisting condition, cancer, diabetes, or heart condition, for having insurance, we're going to get rid of that, but we have nothing as an alternative. we're going to get rid of you who might be a low-income person who get insurance, but we have no alternative.

we just want to get rid of it. now, there's no question this is a crisis driven by a handful of partisans other than-on the other side of the aisle for whom there is no path to compromise on just about anything. well, we with one exception. they do find every possible the opportunity before a television camera to talk about what they've done but the american people know what they're doing. it's hurting them terribly. the demands are constantly shifting and breathtakingly unreasonable. one of them says we have to have something for this. what do you have to have? i don't know but we have to have something. come on. these are like little children in a sand box arguing. but while the senate has voted on one flawed house proposal after another, the house refuses to vote anything from the senate. incredibly, these same extremists -- and they are

extremists -- are now threatening to employ the same tactic when the government reaches a statutory limit in a couple of weeks. it's interesting, when the speaker says we're not going to be able to do anything on debt limit, you saw the stock market was projected to be up 150, 200 points, suddenly go like that and down 150 points, 300-point swing right then. so, in other words, we'll continue our sloganeering and our stalling and no matter what that might do to your savings for retirement or pension or kids in college or small businesses that are trying to make money so they can stay in business, we don't care comaps what happens to you because we got to be on the evening news and talk about how we're

standing up for america. no, they're not standing up for america. in fact, the treasury department reported last week the failure to raise the debt limit could cause credit markets to freeze, the dollars to plummet, interest rates to rise precipitously, the report goes on on to say a government default on its debt might prove so catastrophic it could potentially result in a financial crisis and rescission that could echo the events of 2008 or worse. they don't seem to care, so long as they get on television. we've all heard a lot of talk and seen a lot of crocodile tears about getting our fiscal house in order. oh, what a great campaign slogan. too many who got elected are not following through on their constitutional responsibility to govern. just look at their list of ransom demands for reopening the government. the first one blows $100 billion

hole in the national debt by repealing the affordable care act. the second one adds $30 billion more to the debt without offering any suggestion for making up the revenue. the third still keeps closed important government functions like providing food assistance to young children, expectant mothers, seniors, continuing health trials that might cure cancer or childhood diseases. and the list goes on and on. now, it's truly unfortunate that a relative few who are obviously enjoying the limelight, the relatively few in congress on the other side of the aisle, republicans in congress are willing to play politics and brinksmanship at a time when the public demands statesmanship. their reckless actions are hurting families all across

america. i'd remind them, they're hurting democratic families, republican families, independent families. they're hurting americans. for this small extreme faction, it seems "compromise" is a dirty word and "distrust" is a political tactic. that may explain why we've heard excuse after excuse for blocking the budget discipline they so desperately pled for just a short time ago. you know, they said, why don't you get a budget? why doesn't the senate get a budget? well, mr. president, i was in the chair at 5:00 in the morning on a saturday morning when we were voting on that budget. we voted all day and all night and we finished it. that was back in april. and so what happens?

we want to go to a conference on it and work out the differences with the house. instead of a conference, if you count the number of people that would be on it, there would be more republicans than democrats. but it was a republican senator who stood on the floor and said, i object to going to conference. same one giving speeches about saying how come we don't have a budget. and then when we pass a budget, we have to go to the next step to work it out with the house. "oh, no, i object to that." probably because he's surprised we'd actually done our work. and the chair, patty murray, who did such a brilliant job in getting together a budget that saved the taxpayers' money, they then act terrified that it might actually pass. they've objected 19 times to going forward with that budget conference. they've shut the government down. they're preparing to cause the government's first-ever debt default in our nation's history. that's right.

the speaker of the house is now holding the government's credit hostage. he's threatening this weekend to let the nation default come october 17 when the debt limit is reached unless even more draconian spending cuts are made. is there any reason markets all over the world are dropping? is there any reason why the rest of the world looks at america and says, "what are you doing? why are you letting the children in the sand box take over?" we caught just a preview of the chaos such a move could create. stock futures, as i mentioned, dropped sharply. european stocks dropped dramatically in the wake of house republicans' newest ultimatum. this is no way to govern. it's also not an example to set to the rest of the world when we have to go to the rest of the world and say, "help us, work with us to stop the terrorists that threaten the united states. help us, work with us so that we can export our goods to your country. help us, work with us to bring about stability around the

world." and they say, "you won't do a thing to even help yourself. why should we help you?" mr. president, i talked to some of these countries, i talked to the people in them, they're shaking their heads and saying, what has happened to america. so it's far past time for reason and sanity to return to congress on this government shutdown, on setting budget priorities and a whole host of other issues. let's let the grownups come back and start running things around here. i remain ready to work with people on both sides of the aisle and i'm proud of my record as the seniormost member of this body, that year after year after year legislation i've had with both republicans and democrats has -- as cosponsored have passed. the distinguished presiding officer was governor of one of the great commonwealths of this

country, the commonwealth of virginia. he brought republicans and democrats together. it was a model for the rest of the country. it can be done but it takes grownups to do it. you're always going to have a few loud voices to say, "oh, we can't possibly do this." the american public expect the people who really lead to be leaders. so let's work with people on both sides of the aisle. let's find a solution that ends this needless shutdown and gets us and hundreds of thousands of federal employees back to doing our work on behalf of the american people. but that starts with the house voting on the senate bill to reopen the american people's government. that bill is sitting over there right now. bring it to a vote. right now everybody wants to vote "maybe." vote "yes" or vote "no." vote "yes" will put americans back to work.

and will reopen those trials to find cures for childhood diseases. or vote "no," we want continue to be children in the sand box. well, mr. president, i'm blessed with grandchildren. i like to think none of my grandchildren would act as childish as a small group of ultraright-wing republicans have in the house. they don't reflect the great tradition of the republican party in my state or this country. they reflect an atmosphere of people who care only for themselves, no matter what they say. they care only for their own egos and their own political future. it's time they start caring for the united states of america. i see nobody else seeking recognition.

i would suggest the absence of a quorum with time as being charged -- to be charg charged h sides. the presiding officer: without objection. and the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, with nobody else seeking recognition, i ask consent that all time be yielded back. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the question occurs on the bruce nomination.

mr. leahy: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: