end, allow government to reopen, give those on both sides of the aisle who have voted during the consideration of the budget resolution by 79 votes to 20-something votes to repeal this harmful tax on medical equipment and devices, and yet replace the revenue so the administration -- i don't see how the administration could object to that, because the revenue would be replaced, yet this harmful tax would be repealed, and we would give federal agencies the flexibility to deal with sequestration. mr. president, there's something in the collins-murkowski plan that everyone on both sides of the aisle can point to, and yet

it would get us out of this impasse that is increasingly harmful to our country and its image in the world. mr. president, it is past time for us to come out of our partisan corners. it is past time for us to stop fighting. and it is past time for us to reopen government. we all have made crystal clear what our positions are on obamacare at this point. let's proceed with governing rather than continuing to embrace a strategy that will lead us only to a dead end and whose consequences will be increasingly felt by our economy

and by the american people. we can do this. i ask my colleagues, my democratic colleagues, to take a close look at the plan that we're putting forward. it is a reasonable approach. i ask my democratic and republican colleagues to come together. let's get this done. we can do it. we can legislate responsibly and in good faith. thank you, mr. president. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise to respectfully say that we in the united states senate and we in the united states congress have to do what our constituents elected us to do and that what

the constitution requires us to do: keep the united states government open and make sure the united states of america pays its bills. to do that, we are open to negotiation and examining a variety of ideas. but the main ideas go through the regular order in the committee process. we can keep open the government. we can meet our responsibility on the public debt if we embark upon two solutions, and they are in the hands of the other party. we call upon the house to pass the senate continuing funding resolution that would reopen government, keep it going for -- until november 15. no long-term solution. get to it right now.

keep it funding at 2013 levels, acknowledging the sequester level. that was a big compromise. i compromised, as the chair of the appropriations committee, to move that continuing funding resolution. it was $70 billion less than what i wanted, but in order to get the conversation going, get the negotiations going, get us into the room, i was willing to compromise. i call upon the house to pass that. i call upon the senate republicans, who have objected to going to the budget committee, to lift their objection so we can take the senate-passed budget and go to conference to give us a budget. now, why is this important? for those who want to say, we've got to control spending, there's nobody who disputes that. but the way you control spending

is to go through the regular budget process. i say to many of my colleagues who might not understand the budget control act -- and i say to many of the american people listening -- the way you control discretionary spending is to pass a budget. that sets a cap on what the appropriators can spend in domestic spending. i heard the wonderful senator from arizona, the distinguished war hero, senator john mccain, ask us to get to it today. i agree. let's get to it today and lift the objection for senator murray, the chair of the budget committee, to take appointed conferees and go and negotiate on the budget. i say to my colleagues, again to

explain the budget control act, we appropriators are not wild spenders. we appropriators can't go rogue in terms of wild runaway spending. we have a budget cap imposed upon us through a budget process and something called a 302-a. but we can't get that, we can't get the cap on spending unless the budget committee is a able -- is able to move. mr. president, this is really serious. i have the high honor of of representing the state of maryland -- i have the high honor of representing the state of maryland. and i note my colleague from maryland, senator cardin, is on the floor. we represent 5.5 million people, but a lot of civilian agencies. i note also on the floor the distinguished senator from virginia, the former governor of

virginia, and also two former governors of virginia. between we four, we represent the largest concentration of federal employees in the world, from the department of defense to the national institutes of health, to the national standards, there is a roll call of honor, of service, and duty that makes the united states a stronger country, a stronger economy, and so on. when we speak about government, we know what we're talking about, and we know what's going on. many have spoken about, let's hope the n.i.h. i want to open n.i.h. that clinical hospital is not accepting to new patients. 200 people this week have been turned away. children in the united states of america turned away. and i.t. noand it's not just me.

"the washington post" reported on a lady who has cancer who comes -- wants to come to the n.i.h., but she can't get into a clinical trial because it is closed down. they say, well, senator barb, open the n.i.h. but you have to open the rest. government. -- but you have to open the rest of the government. right now the center for disease control has a substantial number of its workforce furloughed. c.d.c. is being closed and that constitutes a danger to public health. right this minute in 18 states, 280 people have been sickened by salmosalmonella. thank god there have been no deaths. but it making people very sick. we don't have c.d.c. on the job tracking the way it should and also alerting public health departments around the united states of america how they should be standing sentry to protect people against salmonella.

open up the c.d.c. open up the whole government. just this week in our own metropolitan area, a worker was killed trying to service the the metro. this should be under investigation. one death, several injuries. there was a bus crash in tennessee, but right this very minute the national transportation safety board has the majority of their people furloughed. they cannot investigate the metro accident. they can't investigate the bus crash in tennessee. a weeks ago senator cardin and i knew that a person had a terrible accident on the bay bridge in which a car went over the side. we've asked for an investigation to make sure our bridge is safe. that is under way, but it's going to be delayed. now, let's take our f.b.i.

our f.b.i. agents are on the job. they're being paid with i.u.u. u.'s -- with i.o.u.'s. but a group of f.b.i. agents said to us that you're united states government. guess p what is this w what? we don't have gas for our cars. the f.b.i. does not have gas for its cars. agents gas is limited to 200 miles per week, and they can't even buy gas out of their own pocket. well, mr. president, not only is the f.b.i. running out of gas, i think we're running out of gas here. and the way we fuel our tanks and get america running and rolling again is to reopen government. the way you reopen government is mr. boehner, the speaker of the house, under his job as the

speaker, we respectfully call upon him to vote on reopening the government by voting on the senate-passed resolution. we say to our colleagues here on the other side of the aisle, lift your objection to the budget committee going to conference so they can come up with a budget and place your caps on domestic discretionary spending. we -- and place your caps on all discretionary spending. we appropriators will abide by the cap. we will not have runaway spending, we won't go rogue, we will follow the rules. but i think we need to follow the rules. under the statutory requirement of the budget control act, they were supposed to bring a budget back april 15. well, we passed one on march 23, and we're waiting and we're waiting. so i want to join with my

colleague from arizona. let's get to it. let's get the job done. let's reopen government. let's pay our bills. i'm willing to negotiate. i'm willing to compromise. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i would suggest that, of those who have just spoken prior to me, it sounds to me like we ought to be able to get something done around here. we've listened to the chairman of the appropriations committee, with her commitment to advancing things through the budget process. i, too, think that we need to go to conference an g.e.d. that moving. mr. president, we're sitting here in a kind of a rarefied world here in the united states senate in these chambers. some would suggest that we live in a little bit of a bubble. let me tell you the folks who

are not living in a bubble. those who have been furloughed as federal employees, those that have been shut out of whatever it is that they had hoped they were going to be doing this past week, those in my state, for instance, that are look to fill the family freezer. it's moose season, but now they're told that they can't access any of the refuge lands because fish and wildlife has said you cannot access these lands regardless of what anilca provides, regardless of the promise for full public access to these federal lands. those folks who are feeling the real impact of a government shutdown are not living in a bubble. we just heard the chairman of the finance committee talk about the looming threat that we are

facing as we approach the debt limit, and he refers to a fiscal cliff and the fact that, in fact, as a nation we could lose our financial footing, we could go over that fiscal cliff. well, for a lot of folks, they're already looking at their own fiscal cliff. they're not waiting for us to figure out what we're going to do or not do when it comes to dealing with the debt limit. they're not getting paid. they are perhaps a small business, like song's su g's sur in june know. they're -- in juneau. they're losing business because they don't have the folks that

frequent capital brews, which is a drive-thru coffee shop also there in juneau a cross from the federal -- across from the federal building. these are folks that are lookint it, and they're feeling their own fiscal cliff right now, with or without the threat of the debt limit. so they're looking at us and they're saying, wait a minute, you told us a couple weeks ago that we were going to avert this shutdown, that we would figure out how we're going to pass a continuing resolution. we didn't pass a continuing resolution. somehow or other that all gets wrapped up in obamacare. they're trying to figure out where's the nexus here between funding the government and what's going on with the affordable care act. they then find out that, well, we are in a government shutdown. what does that mean for me? i'm sitting near alaska 4,000 miles from washington, d.c..

but then when they learn that fish and wildlife is saying, you can't go out on the refuge to get the moose you're going to need to put in your freezer to make it through the winter. or no, you are the crab fisherman who is waiting to go out to the crab grounds beginning october 15, but the quotas have not yet been determined from within the national marine and fisheries service center yet. so you can't go out. the revenues that the industry might be able to derive, about $7 million from the sale of great king crab that we would all love -- great market out there -- but they're going to not be able to get out in the water because some federal agency 4,000 miles from home hasn't delivered to them the quota. so when we talk about these fiscal cliffs, it's not just waiting for us to hit a debt limit. it's what is happening with this

government shutdown. so what they're asking me, and i know each of every one of us is hearing from our constituents is, "so what's your plan? and, oh, by the way, you better get on it pretty quick because you got my attention now. what's the plan?" and so they see some of the things coming out of the house. the house has these mini efforts to fund a specific section, doesn't go anywhere here. we're told, well, we want to open the whole thing, so if we can't open the whole thing and we can't open a portion of it, nothing happens. nothing happens. so where is the plan? what are we going to do? so i'm pleased to stand with my friend from maine, senator collins, as she has described a plan, which i think is pretty reasonable. i think it is pretty sensible. when you think about those small rational, reasonable steps that might get us to a place where we can stop the madness, if you

will, break this impasse, a proposal that would pull back on the medical device tax with an offset so that you're not eroding, you're not undercutting the revenues that would come in for the affordable care act, a six-month extension of the continuing resolution as well as a sequestration with a little bit of flexibility and, oh let's add in some oversight. sounds pretty rational. some would suggest that, well, maybe the president doesn't want to do this because it's a small incursion in his signature bill. well, you know what, mr. president? right now what we need to be thinking about is who we work for. whether it's the crab fisherman twhopts get -- who wants to get in the water and is waiting for us to step it up, whether it is

the family in galina who is hopping they're going to be able -- hoping they're going to be able to get their moose before the season closes, whether it's the sushi bar in juneau, whether it is the alaskan family, i got an e-mail from a family, the family has been planning for a year to bring them all together, boyfriends, girlfriends and they are going to do a great hike out in moab for a week. and they're stuck and their family vacation is ruined. this is an amazing one. the keni river happens to proceed through some refuge area. good rainbow fishing out there. when you move through that refuge part you better bring your lines in because we're

going to have enforcement action on the river. there are so many stories that we can all attest to, and some of them are horrible. some of them, as senator mccain has indicated, families who are grieving the loss of their loved one, someone who has served this country with honor, being denied death benefits. mr. president, the country expects us to get our act together. and they expect us to do it without delay. and they're not interested in knowing who is going to gain -- which side is going to gain more leverage the further we delay. nobody is winning in this, and i tell my friends, the democrats, you are not winning. and i tell my friends the republicans, we are not winning. the administration is not winning. everybody is losing in this when

we cannot come together with a plan, with a resolve to do the job that we are tasked to do, which is basic governing and keeping the government open is basic governing. so whether it's senator collins' plan, whether it is the effort that is yet to be created, as the senator from arizona challenged us, let's start this now. let's not delay any further. because real people, the people that we care for, the people that we are charged to help are hurting right now. this goes beyond mere inconvenience. this is hurt. so let's do what we have pledged to do. let's do what we signed up to do, which is work together.

at the end of the day this is not going to be a republican plan or a democrat plan or a senate plan or a house plan. it is going to be a plan that allows us to govern. and with that, mr. president, i thank you, and i yield the floor. mr. warner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i ask to request here, first ask unanimous consent to extend the period of morning business for debate only until 7:00 p.m. and that all provisions of the previous order remain in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i have three unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders, and ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i want to follow up on the colleagues, some of the senators who have spoken before me. it seems like we've accepted this new normal, that shutting

down the operations of the largest enterprise in america is acceptable. i want to concur with my colleague, the senator from alaska, about the real stories and real pain that's taking place because of this government shutdown. and i commend some of my colleagues' comments who when we read these tragic stories, whether it's around n.i.h., around our veterans, around our park service, oh, but that part of the government we want to reoefplt does that mean -- reopen. does that mean, every other aspect of government remains closed until we can find that story? i point to my colleagues stories that were in both "the washington post" and "the new york times" today, a story that we should be celebrating about three american nobel prize winners. well, does that mean we should now reopen the n.s.f. because if

the national science foundation isn't funded, there may not be a next generation of american nobel prize winners? we have to bring in a story about some child being hurt because of the food or the meat or the fish wasn't inspected correctly? i've got to tell you i spent a lot longer in business than i have in politics, and i've been involved in a lot of business negotiations. but i've never been involved in a negotiation that says during the negotiation we have to shut down the operation of our business and inflict pain not only upon our employees, but upon the general economy across the board. that is not the way to govern. and i would agree we've talked about stories with federal workers, but i would agree with the senator from alaska, it is also the hotel owners along the skyline drive in our state of virginia, the government contractors who start and stop

because they don't understand what government is going to operate. this morning i heard the story of a small business outside a government facility in st. louis. this piecemeal effect, this piecemeal approach to reopening government makes no sense. what might be better, is we hear from some of those folks who want to have this piecemeal effect, what parts of the government should stay closed. this is not the way to operate. we ought to reopen this government, put our people back to work, get this economy going again, and continue the very real conversations we've got to have about getting our fiscal house in order. and what makes this, to me, in the four and a half years i've been in the senate, different than these previous discussions and debates is that we have this, first in my tenure in the senate, government shutdown which disproportionately is hurting virginia and maryland but is literally hurting every

community across america. but we have this tragedy, this catastrophe merging now into a deadline that's going to hit us next week where there are certain members of congress who say it's okay if america defaults. i find that stunning. if you look back, there has never been a major industrial country in modern history that has defaulted. as a matter of fact, the last major country to default was argentina back in december of 2001. the aftermath of that default, they had over 100% per an number inflation -- per annum

inflation. every family in argentina saw literally 60% of their net worth disappear within a few weeks. america is not argentina. but why would we even get close to that kind of potential economic catastrophe? and has been mentioned already, america holds a record as reserve currency for the world. when crises happen as have happened around the world recently, people and capital flows into the dollar. that's because the dollar and the united states full faith and credit has never been suspect. it's never been a question of whether we're going to honor our commitments. well, mr. president, next week or very shortly after that history is going to be put potentially in jeopardy. and i'm just going to tell you i heard those who say we can

prioritize payments. there is no business group in america or no economists that i know of, mostly from the left or right, who believes that somehow america can partially default and prioritize payments. we're going to pay interest, we're going to pay our troops. those of us who served at state levels realize that sometimes our budgets are close to 50% past from the federal government. the presiding officer, the governor from the great state of west virginia, how long before west virginia defaults if america starts prioritizing its stphaeuplts how -- payments? how many detroits would there be all across america if we were to take this type of irresponsible action? and even if there was some possibility that there might be some chance of some logic behind this partial payment scheme, it's never been tried before.

no industrial country has ever got this close to a default. why would we take the chance? why would we play russian roulette with only one bullet and two chambers. something that at this moment for our national economy and the world economy can be devastating. so, mr. president, i know we seem to be repeating ourselves on both sides but to me it seems very easy for negotiation. we've got differences. i would say to my colleagues i probably make folks on my side more angry than anyone else on these issues around getting our country's balance sheets in order. i'm anxious to continue those discussions about tax reform, about entitlement reform, about bringing our debt to g.d.p. ratio down. but not only have that kind of negotiation while you've got the government shutdown and the full faith and credit of the united states in jeopardy.

let's open the government not just because we hear some tragic story about one component of the government, not just because we need to come and make that case about food inspectors, about national science foundation, about nasa langley where we do aeronautics research, 3,500 people, spaoefrpbl were at work -- seven people were at work last week. china, india, other nation -rs not stopping their research because we can't get our act together. open this government, take off the table the idea that america would default. then i am anxious to join with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get our country's balance sheet in order. but to continue to hold this economy and these stories of these americans' lives in this limbo is irresponsible beyond words. so, mr. president, i hope that we will go ahead and -- agreeing

with my colleagues who have spoken already. let's get this government open. let's take and make sure that we're going to honor and pay our debts, and let's get to the very, very real, important questions of how we get our nation's balance sheet right. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i want to again thank the majority leader for bringing to the attention of this body the tragedy of those servicemen who lost their lives, and the fact that unfortunately they had been notified improperly, i believe, that they will not be -- their families will not be being paid the tax-free death gratuity that they are entitled under law. this is wrong. every member of this body agrees this is wrong. every republican agrees it is wrong, and i am confident every

democrat agrees it is wrong as well. and indeed, the way this announcement was made was highly troubling. the department of defense notified our military families via twitter that those service members who die in battle will not be paid their tax-free death gratuities due to the partial federal government shutdown. i think this is yet another pattern that we have seen distressingly from the obama administration of politicizing this shutdown and playing partisan games to maximize the pain that is inflicted on americans. it is part and parcel with the pattern we've seen barricading the world war ii memorial, barricading the parking lot at mount vernon, george washington's home, even though mount vernon is privately operated, barricading the roads

leaving mount rushmore, even though they are state roads and not federal roads. and the actions by the department of defense are also contrary to the statute that this body just passed. the military death gratuity is by statute a pay and personnel benefit. and accordingly, it is clearly funded by public law 113-39, the pay our military act that was passed in a bipartisan manner this week. we already acted to prevent this, and unfortunately the defense department is declining to follow that law that we passed. the legislation that this body already passed would immediately act to take the families of those soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines whose lives are tragically taken, to take them off the table and say regardless of what happens in a government shutdown, we're going to stand by the men and women fighting for america. and indeed, the house of

representatives has to introduce a bipartisan bill to immediately fund death gratuity payments. when that bill is passed, the senate should pass that bill immediately. indeed, the pentagon should abandon this policy to begin with and simply follow the law that was already passed, but if they don't, i call upon all 100 senators to come together to listen to the majority leader who spoke powerfully about the need to stand by our service men and women whose lives are tragically taken, and when the house passes that bill, which i am confident it will do so, with considerable speed, i would call upon every senator to listen to the majority leader's call and to stand with our service men and women. but there is something else we can do right here today to demonstrate that this body doesn't have to be locked in partisan gridlock, to demonstrate that bipartisan cooperation is possible and to demonstrate that our veterans

are truly not the subject of partisan dispute but are separate and deserve to be treated fairly, deserve to have the commitments, the promises we made to our veterans honored, and that is this body can stop blocking the legislation that the house of representatives has already passed, bipartisan legislation to fund the v.a., to fund disability payments so that we don't hold them hostage to what's happening in washington. and accordingly, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of h.j. res. 72 making continuing appropriations for veterans' benefits for fiscal year 2014, that the measure be read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. mr. reid: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, the

distinguished senator from texas has stated again what has already been talked about here a lot, and that is a piecemeal approach to funding our government. as do most americans, we democrats support the purpose of this bill to fund the veterans administration, but there is no reason for us to have to choose between this important government function, disease control, n.i.h., highway safety, f.b.i., poor children, workplace safety and protecting the environment. we can do all these things if the house republican leadership would just allow the house to vote on the senate-passed measure and the shutdown. everyone knows the votes are there. our position is simple -- open the government, pay our bills, and then we would be happy to negotiate about anything. we need to end this government

shutdown. now, mr. president, first of all, my friend talks about these five families who are in bereavement, and that is an understatement. five sons, husbands, friends were killed over the weekend. providing the funding that my friend requests would not enable d.o.d. to pay death gratuity for the families. 17 members, five over the weekend, we have had others die have given their lives to protect the nation since the shutdown began. 17. this is one example of how the senator from texas' efforts to fund the government on a piecemeal basis doesn't work. if the speaker allowed the house to pass a continuing resolution, they would have the family they

need to go to dover, delaware, to receive the remains for the families and pay the death gratuity benefits. the junior senator from texas expresses concern for america's veterans, but his consent request addresses only some of the things that the american people through their government have committed to help our veterans. let me quote from the remarks of the senator from connecticut, senator murphy. he gave these remarks on october 3. here is exactly what he said -- "i would note that i believe the resolution the senator is offering and suggested be passed provides only partial funding for the v.a. there is no funding here to operate the national cemeteries, no funding for the board of veterans appeals, there is no funding for construction of v.a. hospitals and their clinics, there is no funding actually to operate the i.t. system that the entire v.a. needs in order to continue going forward." so, mr. president, there couldn't be a better example of why we are involved in this.

why couldn't we just open the government. veterans' benefits have -- our former colleague, former senator from georgia, max cleland, a decorated, disabled american veteran who runs the cemeteries do his job. he can't do that now. let's get it all over with. let's have the n.i.h. go forward. let's have the centers for disease control, the park service. we can't have this piecemeal approach because you wind up with the same situation we now find ourselves. we want to do something for the veterans, but it doesn't take care of much of what the veterans need. so, mr. president, i ask that my friends -- friend's amendment be modified, that the joint resolution as amended be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. this amendment is the text that

passed the senate as a clean continuing resolution for the entire government, everything. veterans, their cemeteries, their benefits, everything, and is something that is already over in the house and reportedly has the support of a majority of the members of the house of representatives. so i would ask my friend to really surprise the world, surprise the country and let's say i agree, modify it. let's fund the government. and then, mr. president, as we have said, i have said, everyone listen. we're happy when the government is open, when we can pay our bills to sit down and talk about anything they want to talk about. it doesn't matter. no restrictions. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. cruz: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i would ask unanimous consent that the majority leader and i be able to engage in a colloquy so

that we may perhaps be able to, as the majority leader said, surprise the world by finding some avenues of bipartisan cooperation. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president, i am happy to sit down and talk to the senator, his office or my office. the point we have right here today is that we need the government open, and with all due respect to my friend, the junior senator from texas, i want to say this in a most respectful way, he and i, with a dialogue here on the senate floor, we're not going to work this out. i have asked that the senate open so that everyone can have benefits. the veterans measure that he proposes leaves many veterans out in the cold, out in the

cold, including the families of 17 of our servicemen, families who were killed since this came into effect, since this shutdown. so, mr. president, we will go, as we have -- i object to his proposal. i assume he will object to mine, and then we'll go through the ten minutes per person and see what happens later today. but i do -- i'm happy to sit down and talk to the president in my office, his office, anyplace he suggests, privately or publicly. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cruz: mr. president, was there -- the presiding officer: will the senator so modify his request? mr. cruz: just for clarification, was there objection to the request that we be able to engage in a colloquy? i wasn't clear to what the majority leader was objecting. the presiding officer: the senator is correct on that. back to the normal order of ten minutes on each side. is there objection to the modified request? mr. cruz: well, mr. president, reserving the right to object, i will note with regret that the

majority leader objected to engaging in a discussion to engaging in negotiations here on the senate floor. i think that is unfortunate. so i will promulgate the questions that i would have asked him directly, and he may choose whether or not he wishes to answer them. the majority leader read from comments that senator murphy made on the senate floor suggesting that the house bill funding the v.a. was not broad enough. i would note in my office we have drafted legislation that would fund the v.a. in its entirety, and if his objection is it is not broad enough, i will readily offer that i would happily work with the majority leader to fund every bit of the v.a. as it is right now today, and we could introduce that bill. indeed, i would be happy to have it labeled the reid-cruz bill and to give lead authorship to the majority leader. mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a question? mr. cruz: i would be happy to yield for a question. mr. durbin: would the senator be

willing to take care of the 565,000 veterans who are federal employees, many of whom have now been furloughed? mr. cruz: i thank my friend from illinois for that question, and indeed i enthusiastically support the proposal that the house unanimously passed to give back pay to federal workers, and indeed i would ask a question of the minority -- assistant minority leader whether the senate will even vote on that proposal, because there are eight bills funding the federal government that are sitting on the majority leader's desk, and we have not been allowed to vote on any of them. mr. durbin: if the senator from texas is asking me a question, i would respond through the chair that we have given the senator from texas ample opportunity to completely fund the government, including all of the veterans who work for the federal government and all of the functions of the federal government so we don't run into the embarrassment of these poor families in their bereavement being denied most basic benefits that our government gives.

he has a chance to do that over and over again, and i believe he has declined that opportunity. so he bears some responsibility for the unfortunate circumstances we face. mr. cruz: and, mr. president, i would note the fact that there are some issues on which we have partisan disagreements does not mean there are not other issues on which we can come together. a senator: would the senator yield for a question? mr. cruz: i'm happy to yield for a question. ms. stabenow: i'm wondering if your motion includes the full funding of the v.a. medical system which is a completely government-run, government-controlled health care system. mr. cruz: i thank my friend for that question. as i said, i would readily support legislation fully funding the v.a. because the v.a. is a vital government system, it is a promise we have made and it is unrelated to

obamacare. and my principal complaint this past week has been that the democratic majority in this body is holding programs unrelated to obamacare hostage in order to force obamacare on everyone we agreed for active duty military. ms. stabenow: just so i am clear, if i might, just to clarify so that i understand, because the senator from texas has, in fact, made the ending of a private-sector competitive health care system for up to 30 million americans part of what he wants to stop, i just wanted to be clear that the fully government-funded, government-run, with government doctors system through the veterans administration is something that you are advocating that we continue to fund through the federal government? mr. cruz: i thank my friend from michigan for that question and the answer is again, yes, i

believe we should fully fund the v.a. the two questions i would promulgate --. a senator: regular order. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? mr. cruz: reserving the right to object. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: regular order. the presiding officer: is there objection to the modified request? mr. cruz: by note the majority leader seems not to want to engage in debate so i object and i hope that --. mr. reid: regular order. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the original request. is there objection to the modified request? mr. reid: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: using leader time we have a number of peek wishing to speak and they should be able to do that. but i say as nicely as i can, the problem we have here is what people are saying, like my friend from texas.

little bits and pieces of government. it won't work. we've got to open the government. so, mr. president, until that happens, we have to open the government, we have to make sure that we can pay our debts and then we'll negotiate, i know he is fixed on obamacare obamacare, we know that but the problem is, mr. president, that that's not going to change and so i would hope that we can do what needs to be done, open the government, make sure that we pay our bills and then we negotiate. so i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i want to join most of my colleagues that have talked about the urgency of us getting government open. it's causing great harm to our country. make no mistake about it, it's hurting our economy and i could talk about my own state of maryland, our governor has estimated we're losing $15

million every day so every day is precious. i could talk over 100,000 federal workers in maryland who are furloughed out of the 800,000 nationally, having a huge impact on our economy. this morning senator boxer held the news briefing where we talked about the impact, the environmental protection agency where 93% of its employees have been furloughed. we can talk about the direct impact of those employees not being there. there is a representative from the ding darling refuge in florida saying not only did it hurt the local economy directly, but she talked about one of the contract services that are provide -- that provide the touring service to the refuge had to lay off 20-some employees employs. so there's private-sector jobs that are directly being lost as a result of this furlough, and it's going to be very difficult to get back that loss in our

economy, the longer the government shutdown lasts. it's wasteful to the taxpayers. the last shutdown cost the taxpayers $2 billion. here we talk about conservatives who want to do something about the national debt and they're wasting taxpayer dollars but keeping government closed and yes, it is hurting our federal work force. i join with senator mikulski in the comments she made a little bit earlier. our federal work force has had to endure freezes in salaries, furloughs as a result of sequestration, freezes in the number of employees that could be hired.org more work with less and now furloughs again under a government shutdown and those who are working don't though when they're going to get paid. it is not what we should be doing to our federal work force. they have suffered and this is wrong and it is totally avoidable. the furloughs that the environmental protection agency is jeopardizing our public

health. we had experts come in today and talk about the fact that we don't have the people on guard to protect our waters, to protect our air, to protect our environment. it's jeopardizing public health, it's jeopardizing our environment. we had -- i mentioned this morning and let me mention again, the blackwater national wildlife refuge in maryland on the eastern shore of maryland in cambridge. this is a community in which that refuge is a huge part of their economy. this is a popular month for visitors to visit blackwater. well, the local businesses are hurting. the restaurants have less customers, the hotels less rooms are being rented and it goes on and on and on, the damage to our economy. harbor point is one of the most important economic developments in downtown baltimore. it's a rcraside site, requires the environmental protection agency to sign off on the development plan.

well, we have a development plan, the city council is acting, we're read ready to move forward but guess what, we can't get e.p.a. to sign off on it because the people responsible are now on furlough. that's holding up economic growth and development in baltimore. that's what this is doing. it's harming us. an area of maryland farmers in the chesapeake bay, maryland farmers are doing what's right to try to help our bay. they depend upon the protections of the programs that are out there on soil conservation. the senator from michigan knows how hard she's been working on the agricultural bill to provide the tools that are necessary to help our farmers be responsible farmers on land conservation. i received a call from a farmer near centerville, maryland on monday that sums up pretty well how the natural resources conservation service is to their work. this person is enrolled in the

conservation stewardship program, the c.s.p. that means that he is planting bumper crops in an effort to help us deal with the runoff issues of pesticides and insecticides into the bay helping us and helping the day, by the way. now, that -- receives certain payments as a result of that participation in the program. he no longer is getting those payments. now, we're asking him to make sacrifices but we're not giving him the federal partnership. that's not right. he is hurt. he said what am i supposed to do? am i supposed to continue to do this? he told me he has a son with a medical condition that requires regular clinical eye treatment. he doesn't know whether he can afford that this month and he was helping us with the environment and now what do we do? we back off on what is necessary. mr. president, i could give you many more examples. there's no piecemeal way you can

direct each one of those. on our foreign policy issues, i have the honor of chairing the east asia subcommittee of the senate foreign relations committee. well, president obama was supposed to be the headliner at the east asia economic summit this past week. guess who stole the headlines -- president xi of china rather than our president. asia is wondering whether america's open for business. we were missing at the table. that's no way for america to be conducting its business. we need to be open, we need to get government open. so, mr. president, i hear my colleagues, we want to negotiate budget deals, i'm all for that. i think i have a reputation around here people know that i'm interested in getting democrats and republicans together and getting a budget that makes sense to our country, but let me just, if i might, quote

from "the baltimore sun" from this this morning. this is an exact quote from "the baltimore sun" about negotiations and how we have to go through negotiations. "passing a clean continuing resolution keeping government fully operating at funding levels the g.o.p. has already endorsed is no compromise, it's status quo. raising the debt ceiling isn't a concession, either. it allows the nation to pay the bills congress has already incurred and prevents the possibility of a government default which would hurt the economy, raise borrowing costs and increase the federal deficit. so when speaker boehner lashes out at president obama for failing to negotiate, one has to ask, what is this thing he describes as negotiations? house republicans are not merely leveraging their political position as some dryly claim, they are threatening to do grievous harm to the global economy and the american public.

the gun isn't raised to president obama's head or the senate's. the democrats have no particular stake in passing a continuing resolution or raising the debt ceiling other than keeping public order and doing what any reasonable person expects congress to do. no, the gun is raised at the nation as a whole. that's why descriptions like ransom and hostage are not mere hyperboles, they are as close as the english language gets to accurately describing the g.o.p. strategy." the editorial ends by saying "it's time for mr. boehner to put down the gun and put more faith in the democratic process." mr. president, we need to negotiate a budget for next year, we absolutely need to do it. we've tried to go to budget conference many times, the majority leader has repeated that request -- has repeated

that request today. it's not one side getting an advantage over another, the right thing to do is open government, pay our bills, and yes, let us negotiate a budget that will not be what the democrats want and not what the republicans want, we're going to have to compromise. as the framers of our constitution envisioned that we would do. that's what we should have done months ago. we passed our budget in march. we should have been negotiating months ago. but what we need to do right now is open government, pay our bills and yes, then it's right for us to sit down and negotiate and i can tell you we're ready to do that. but it's up to speaker boehner now to vote, to vote on the resolution that will keep government open, to vote on a way that we can make sure that we will continue to pay our bills and then accept our offer to sit down and negotiate a budget for the coming year. that would be the best thing we can do for the american people. i urge my colleagues, to urge the sense of urgency that we

move this immediately because of the damage that we're causing to our country. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, there can be no doubt that no one wants to be here. not one member of this body wants to be in shutdown. we all may have different reasons, different explanations as the to why we're here. we might differ with regard to our own beliefs as to how best we should get out of this, but not one of us wants to be here and every one of us recognizes how awful it is to be in a shutdown posture. i'd like to take a few moments and explain my thoughts on both of those two points. i believe that perhaps the single most important reason, the single most indistiewtable -- undisputable reason we're in a shutdown

posture, we've been operating on continuing resolutions for several years in a row. a continuing resolution, of course, is a bill, it's a legislative vehicle through which congress may choose to just keep government programs funded at current levels. it's kind of a reset button. it pro tells us forward on the basis of our current spending patterns rather than on the basis of an independently freshly negotiated set of priorities. this is a different way of running government. normally this is reserved for unusual circumstances and it usually doesn't last as long as we've been going this time around, about four and a half years this way. but this causes us to do things in a way that is different than we would otherwise choose to do them. it's certainly very different than the manner in which we would operate any other aspect of our lives. to use one familiar example, let's analogize congress'

spending conditions to a consumer going to the grocery store. suppose you went to the grocery store having been informed by your spouse that you need to bring home bread, milk, and eggs. you went to that grocery store and you put bread and milk and eggs in your basket. you go to the checkout counter and place the bread and the milk and the eggs on the counter. the cashier rang you up. the cashier said okay, here's what you owe us for these items but we won't low he allow you to buy just bled bred, milk and eggs. in order to buy these, we require you to purchase half ton of iron ore, a bucket of nails, a book about cowboy poetry and a barry manilow album. of course, anyone being told that would be a little surprised. anyone being told that would be reluctant to shop at that same store in the future. and if another store existed, another alternative, very few if any consumers would continue

shopping at that institution. and yet that in some ways is the way that we're asking to spend money here in congress when we're operating on the basis of back-to-back continuing resolutions, just pushing reset on our spending button. keeping federal government, that spends about $3.7 trillion a year, operating on sort of economic autopilot t. woul. it would actually be a little bit more of a close analogy if we changed the hypothetical to a circumstance in which the cashier said not just that you have to buy a half ton of iron ore and a bucket of nails and a book of cowboy poetry and a barry manilow album, but you have to buy one item in every single store in order to buy anything, no eggs, no milk, no breath, no nothing unless you buy one of everything in the entire store. that would bring us a little bit closer to the analogy that we're

dealing with here, where we have to choose to fund everything or, alternatively, to fund nothing. neither one of those, it seems to me, is a terribly good solution. neither one of those fairly represents good decision-making practices. we ought to be able to proceed, as past congresses have, historically passing a dozen or so, sometimes more appropriations bills, going through our federal government category by category, debating and discussing each appropriations measure to discuss the contents of that measure to make sure that there is sufficient agreement within this body and within the house of representatives to continue funding the government function in question. we have a new item in the store, so to speak, as we're shopping this year, a new item in the store, an item called obamacare, one that's about to take full effect on january 1, 2014. yes, it's the law of the land but we do have the final choice,

the final option, the final authority to choose whether or not to fund that moving forward or, alternatively, to defund it. we can take that out of the grocery cart. it's a new item that's caused a lot of people a lot of concern. a lot of people are fearing and experiencing job loss -- job losses, doubts their wages, having their hours slashed or losing their health care benefits as a result of this law. and they see more of these disturbing trends coming in the near future. and so they're asking for congress to help. they're asking for congress to defund the implementation of this law. now, a lot of people, and many of my colleagues in this body, have responded by saying, yes, but it's the law. well, that's true. it was passed by congress 3 1/2 years ago and signed into law by president obama. it's important to remember two facts about this, however. first of all, the president himself has announced that he's not following the law. he himself says the law's not ready to implement as it's

written. he himself has refused to follow it as it's written. secondly, it's not unusual, it's not unheard of by any means to have a law that puts in place one standard, one program and then have a subsequent appropriations decision made by congress, a decision that results in the defunding of that very program. to cite one of many, many examples that we could point to, under federal law, currently there is designated something known as the yucca mountain nuclear waste dpoz to her that. waste depositives to her. for many years, it has been defunded by the congress. that is congress' prerogative. congress holds the power of the purse. congress may decide to do that. it's important also to remember that this was by design that it would work this way. our founding fathers understood and set up the system that it would work this way and they put the power of the purse in the

hands of the house of representatives, understanding that thous house woulthatthe hos would act first when acting. james madison acknowledged that in federalist 58. and if i could quote in part, james madison wrote, "the house cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the surprise requisite for the support of government. they in a word hold the purse, that powerful instrument by which we hold in the history of the british constitution an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance. and finally reducing as far as it seems to have wished all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government. the power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the "the "most complete and effect wal wall -- "the" most complete and effect waleffectual weapon of the peop. for retraining a redress of every grievance and for carrying into effect every just and

salutary measure." so we find ourselves now in a position in which the house of representatives is wanting to get government funded again and is acting to keep the government funded on a step-by-step basis starting with those areas as to which there is the most broad-based bipartisan support, those areas of government that have nothing to do with the implementation and enforcement of obamacare. moving step-by-step in this fashion, we can get the government funded again. we should be getting the government funded again. and in many respects, what we've seen over the last week, the conduct from the obama administration during this first week of this shown ma shutdown e as the single-best argument against obamacare. what we've seen is a willingness of this president and his administration to utilize the already vast resources of the federal government to make it hurt, to hurt families, to hurt buys, to hurt those who depend on their access to federal lan

lands, the national monuments, national parks, and other federal installations. this itself is evidence of the fact that when you give government too much power, that power may and ultimately will be abused. i want to be clear. this is not a problem that is distinctively democratic. it's not something that belongs uniquely to liberals. this is equally a pre republican problem. republican and democratic administrations in the past and in the future will have chosen although times to abuse power when it sights their interests in order to get their way politically. we need to not give yet another source of power to the federal government, a source of power that intrudes into one of the most personal aspects of human existence. when we give the federal government control of our health care system, we give them control of aspects of our lives that are intensely personal, very intimate, and, frankly, not the business of the federal government.

we don't want to give that power to a government that may one day be abused, be used against us for someone's partisan political gain. it's for that reason that we're having this discussion. it's for that reason that we need to keep the government funded. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president? officer the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, we are now on day eight of the government shutdown and the pain has been felt by all across the country, by the cancer patients being denied access to new clinical trials at n.i.h., to the mom whose son has muscular dystrophy. his name's jackson and she told me that every day when those researchers aren't working on a cure for her son's disease is a day lost. she said, every day counts. to the small businesses that can't get affordable loans through the s.b.a., through farmers who write me about not being able to get their conservation loans. got a letter here that i road

saturday on the floor, "please do whatever you can to stop the government shutdown. we have 14 acres of land enrolled in the conservation reserve program. our rental payment is made to us the first week of october. we depend on this money. it's not a small amount, for our family." kathy from minnesota. "i'm an employee of the social security office. i'm furloughed as part of the government shutdown. if you want your constituents' hearings to be addressed, i need to be at work and in the office." alicia from hastings, minnesota, "i'm writing to express my extreme concern over the federal government shutdown. i'm a teacher, a mother of three boys and a wife of a furloughed veteran who works for the minnesota air national guard. i've never before written a letter to my representatives but feel so yo utterly helpless and frustrated at this time i need to voice my concern. at this point in time, my husband, who is a veteran, is

out of work because he's a federal employee not deemed essential. i'm afraid that not only are the other 800,000 laid-off federal employees deemed not essential but the rest of the american citizens are nonessential as well." she goes on to say, "our struggles are real-life struggles, not philosophical, not distant and not imaginary. my hopes is that these struggles and hardships matter to you." "this is your duty, this is your charge, this is your enormous task. shutting down government is not a responsible action." that's what we're hearing from the people in my state, the people all over the country. it's time to end the shutdown and i will continue to urge my colleagues in the house to do the right thing and pass the straightforward bill that the senate passed on september 27 that would get the government back to work, get those employees back to their jobs. it's great that the house passed a bill to pay them. that's a good thing. but now they are paying them to stay home.

they are paying them to not do their job. they want to come back to work. but as you know, madam preside madam president, we are now facing another critical deadli deadline, the deadline for paying our bills or facing default. next thursday, on october 17, our country will hit its legal borrowing limit. and when that happens, we will be asked to do what congress has routinely done 70 times over the past 50 years and that's pay our country's bills. let me be clear, this is about making good on commitments we've already made. this is about doing what regular americans do every month when their pay their credit card bills. and yet lately we've heard voices from the other side, from a number of people who seem to think this is just no big deal. just the other day, republican congressman jordan nomination barton of texas said -- quote -- "some bills have to be paid and some bills we can defer and only pay partially, but that doesn't mean that we have to pay every bill the day it comes in."

then there was dan mitchell, a serve active fellow at the conservative cato institute who said -- quote -- "there's no need to fret." no need to fret? that is not what history teaches us. as chair on the senate side of the joint economic committee, i had a hearing a few weeks ago about the cost of this brinksmanship, about what happens if we go over that cliff, if we let our bills go, if we don't pay them. let's turn back to 2011. we have a very clear lesson of what happens. when the mere prospect of a default sends shot waves through our economy. a recently released report examining the fallout of that brinksmanship, the results were ugly. the dow jones plummeted more than 2,000 points, our credit rating was downgraded, and $2.4 trillion in american household wealth was wiped away. now, i think it's important for every one to remember that in 2011, all of this happened

before we averted default. treasury secretary sent a letter to congress about the looming debt ceiling starting on january 26, 2011. on may 2, he announced that the debt limit would be reached on august 2. that was the magic day, august 2. now we have people who are saying, well, maybe it's not october 17. they were saying that back then. but you know what happened on the lead-up to august 2? on january 14, standard & poor's warned that it may downgrade the u.s. credit rating. they followed through on that. they downgraded it after the magic day of august 2, but it was two weeks before that they warned that they might do it. what happened then well, over late july and early august leading up to the date the dow jones dropped more than 2,000 points.so the next time someone says there's no need to fret over playing games with the debt ceiling, tell them to talk to the families whose retirement

plans took a hit. make no mistake, this brinksmanship has very real consequences for our economy. we can't afford to go down this path again because this time around the fall could be so much harder. our joint economic committee analysis indicates that rates could rise everything on from credit cards and home mortgages to borrowing costs for businesses. at a time when our economy is finally turning a corner, this would put a real strain on families and small business owners. but don't take my word for it. secretary lew said that extraordinary measures will be exhaust bide mid-october. already our government is not matching the retirement funds that federal workers put in. already they are not issuing some of the municipal bonds. already they are not making some of the typical investments they would normally make. and the business community -- and my friends on the other side of the aisle thn -- is know this

overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of america not paying its bill, including the c.e.o. of at&t,ages stevenson, who said -- quote -- "it is unthinkable that the u.s. could default and it would be the height of irresponsibility for a public official to consider such a course." our country, madam president, cannot afford to keep lurching from crisis to crisis. it's time for both parties to focus real solutions that get the government back to work in the short term so that we can focus responsibly reducing our deficit in the long term. i supported the work of the gang of eight, the work that was being done by the domenici-rivlin comirks the work that was being done by the debt commission. i was one of 14 senators that pushed for that work to be done and i think it is a great basis. i don't agree with everything in it, but it is a good start for how we can negotiate a major deal. we can dmot that in the next -- we cannot do that in the next

tiefew days. that's why the senate proposal is six weeks. six weeks to allow the government to open up so we can negotiate the kind of long-term deal we should. we need to be forward-looking, madam president. we need to be forward-looking enough to recognize that the decisions we make staid today go far beyond the next election cycle. they will be felt by generations to come, and we have a responsibility to get things rievmenright. we can't allow our country to go over the brink. it is not the american way. in a 1987 address to the american people, president ronald reagan said when he was talking about the debt ceiling and the need to pay our bills, he said, "the united states has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. it means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility, two things that set us apart from much of the world." i urge my colleagues to take

these words seriously, to join me in ensuring that congress acts responsibly and in the best interests of this country. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, madam president. skilled that the ten minutes shall -- i would ask that ten minutes be divided between myself and senator cornyn. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. i'm sorry, is there objection? ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. i just quante wanted to clarifyk if we might expand to indicate the order we've agreed to on the floor after our two colleagues, that i would be allowed to speak after my two distinguished colleagues and then senator whitehouse and then senator coburn. the presiding officer: will the senator modify her request? ms. ayotte: absolutely, i would modify my request to reflect when the senior senator from michigan said.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you. thank you, madam president. i rise today -- i think it is time for us to end this government shutdown. and here's where we are: i said on the floor twice last week and prior to that that i didn't think that the strategy of defunding obamacare was a strategy that would be successful, and while i support repealing and replacing obamacare, because i have seen the negative impact p in my own state of new hampshire, we've already seen the government has shut down and yet the obamacare exchanges have opened, showing the many problems with those exchanges, with the computer system, what are called glitches, but are major flaws at this point. so where we find ourselves, it is time for both sides to come together and resolve this on behalf of the american people. i've seen in my home state of new hampshire not only what was

discussed earlier on the floor today -- let me just say that it is appalling that we have soldiers that have been killed in the line of duty and their families aren't receiving death benefits. it is wrong. it is outrageous. we need to solve that right away. but we need to solve this overall government shutdown. in new hampshire we have private campgrounds that contract with the white mountain national forest that are be closed despite the thact that they actually -- despite the fact that they actually bring revenue into the government. i think the administration is playing games with things like that and that they should open up those campgrounds. but ultimately we have to tbet this government open. and i want to praise my colleague from maine, senator collins, who came to the floor earlier today, the senior senator from maine, with an idea that she has drawn from other senators not only in this chamber but in the house of representatives of a way that we could resolve this impasse, and

that is taking something that we have already voted on in this chamber on the budget resolution. there was a vote in this chamber on the medical device tax repeal, and that vote got on the budget resolution 79-20. we voted on a bipartisan basis that we should repeal this tax. i've been against this tax since i campaigned, because in new hampshire the impact on our companies, we coo that it's going to -- we see that it's going to increase medical costs, many companies in new hampshire are negatively impacted by this tax and their workers are nut a difficult place when these companies can't expand or they have to reduce their workforce because of this onerous tax, which by the way is a tax on revenue, 2.3% tax on ref new york a tax on innovation and new ideas in health care rather than a tax on profit. but ultimately we should repeal this tax. it is wrong. so i want to support what my

colleague from maine came to the floor on today as something we should take up and discuss in this chamber, a repeal of the medical device tax with a pay-for, a c.r. proposed for a longer period of time. she has proposed six months. within the budget control act numbers and flexibility for the agencies to address the sequester in the way that is best and most sensible for the american people. so i want to thank my colleague from maine. we can come together and resolve this, and i hope that members on the other side of the aisle that voted for the medical device tax repeal, that we can work together along with members of the house of representatives, that we can work this out, get the government open, and also address concerns that we have with obamacare that is impacting an industry that's an important descrirks the medical device industry, that provides innovation and important lifesaving diswieses for people in this country. thank you, madam president.

mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the sphoer from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, four times the house of representatives has sent over continuing resolutions with various additions for consideration in the united states senate. each time senator reid has tabled those provisions, shutting them down without giving them a vote. the last time i believe senator reid really led his colleagues down a very treacherous path because the provisions of this otherwise clean c.r. would have repealed the provision that carves out congress and members of of our staff and gives us preferential treatment under obamacare. the second part of it has to do with delaying the penalties on individuals, just like the president has done in delaying the penalties on employers unilaterally. there is no good reason for us not to pass both of those provisions. but instead of trying to deal

constructively with the house of representatives, which has sent four separate bills over here on the continuing resolution, the majority leader has chosen to stiff-arm each of those efforts. and so when the majority leader comes to the floor and he bemoans the government shutdown, something that we all agree we should try our best to avoid, he claims that they are willing to negotiate and that the president is willing to negotiate a change in the outcome. but we know that's not true. we know that each time they have shut out republican proposals from the house of representatives that would open the federal government back up with reasonable bipartisan agreements. but what really is beyond belief is when i hear our colleagues come to the floor and they say, why can't we have cancer research for children at n.i.h. continue? and we come to the floor, we

offer bills that would open up that funding at the national institutes of health any, that very same cancer research, and they're objected to by the democratic side of the aisle. i don't know any other word to describe it other than hypocrisy. and then we read in the newspaper -- this morning "the washington post" talks about the case of michelle landbem, who was diagnosed with sarcoma. she is from california, who is unable to get an opportunity to participate in a clinical trial at n.i.h. this is the very same sort of program that would have been funded by the bill that we offered on this side. aisle and that was -- on this side of the aisle and that was objected to by the majority leader and the democratic side. there is one bright spot of agreement. that is, we were able to agree unanimously to pass the house tbhail funded our troops -- to that is the house bill that funded our troops. that's good.

but the bad news is that this has more offe morpheda debate on the debt ceiling. what the majority leader and this side of the aisle is apparently proposing is that without making any arrangements to pay for the $17 trillion in debt that have already been accumulated, they want another clean debt ceiling increase and the president says he won't negotiate about that. but we'll be voting in all likelihood later this week on another trillion dollars added to our maxed-out credit card, without doing anything whatsoever to take care of the debt that's already been incurred. now, that is just fundamentally irresponsible. that's not me saying it. the american people have said this. the congressional budget office has said this. the president's own fiscal bipartisan commission has said that. one recent poll from nbc/"wall street journal" when people are given the choice between raising the debt ceiling or not raising

the debt ceiling, 44% said don't raise the debt ceiling. 22% said raise the debt ceiling. i realize we have more choices than that. there could be coupled together with the raising of the debt ceiling some real reforms of our broken entitlement programs, to shore up social security and medicare. but our colleagues and the president of the united states himself has said, no, i'm not going to negotiate. no, i want a clean debt ceiling. no, i want the freedom to max out the credit card another trillion dollars without doing anything to pay off the debt that threatens our country, not only our future prosperity but our national security. i remember very clearly admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, when he was asked what the greatest national security threat to the united states there was, and he said, "the national debt." why would our colleagues -- why

would the president of the united states -- ignore what the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff called the most significant national security throat our quun by saying, we're not interested in any real estate forms, we're not interested in anything that would actually pay down the debt and remove that threat to our national security and our future prosperity, why would they want to say, no, we want to keep on spending money, money we don't actually have, continuing to borrow from our creditors like china and other foreign countries that hold a majority of our national debt. and you know what would happen and what will happen when interest rates start to tick back up again as the federal reserve starts to taper its purchase of our own debt. we're going to see more of our national expenditures go to paying interest on that debt, crowding out not only national security but the safety net programs for people in our country. madam president, i would yield

the floor. ms. stabenow: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. first let me apologize for the hoarse voice, as i have been recovering from a cold. but it's important for me to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of michigan and to speak about what is happening, as everyone at home is scratching their head trying to figure out why in the world, in the greatest country in the world, we have seen government services now shut down and why there are those that think it's all right for us not to pay our bills and default the full faith and credit of the united states of america and why folks aren't willing to just, in fact, open the government, pay our bills, and then negotiate. and, in fact, we have been negotiating. we've negotiated on a lot of things, i'm proud to say we

negotiated a success bipartisan farm bill not long ago. that's the real deficit reduction proposal that's actually passed the united states senate with over two-thirds votes. so we certainly are willing to negotiate. our leader, senator reid, was willing to negotiate and in fact did negotiate with the speaker of the house, as we all know. the speaker called him in september and indicated that he would like to see a six-week extension of the current funding levels for the government while we were negotiating something more broadly on a budget. it was at a funding level that we don't believe is the right one in terms of investing in education, innovation, and creating jobs. but it was six weeks, and our leader said, after talking with all of us, that in the interest of negotiating and compromising that we would be willing do that. and so, as we know from republican colleagues now in the

house who said that was the intent, and unfortunately, the speaker could not follow through on what he had negotiated, the agreement he had negotiated because of a minority of a minority in the house that's extremely intent and in fact has successfully achieved one of the goals they ran on, which is to shut the government down. but we have negotiated. we also negotiated on the big picture. we know a few years ago with the simpson-bowles commission, with others, that $4 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years was picked as an important goal to be able to right size and bring down our long-term debt. the good news is that not only have we cut the annual deficit in half, but of that $4 trillion, we've already agreed to $2.5 interest of that in deficit reduction over the next ten years. over half of that has already

been achieved. when my friends on the other side of the aisle act as if nothing is happening, i first have to say the deficit has been cut in half. and secondly, that over half of our long-term goal on the debt has been achieved. and we need to keep going. now, we don't need to shut the government down to do that. we don't need to default on our debts of the greatest country in the world to do that. we need to just work together to do that, which is why we would say that we just need to open the government, pay our bills and continue to negotiate. let's negotiate. but it is a continuation of negotiating. because in fact weakening the full faith and credit of the united states of america -- think about that. the greatest country in the world. the full faith and credit of the united states of america, that's been the highest standard in the world when you say the full faith and credit of the united states of america. and right now there are folks

playing russian roulette with that who are willing to weaken that and undermine our recovery, if not take us over another horrible economic cliff and cost billions of dollars, billions of dollars for american consumers. now given the seriousness of this and the fact that we're very, very close to having that happen and the fact that we are the world's leader, 30 years ago president ronald reagan warned about the consequences of the richest, most powerful nation in the world suddenly running out of money to pay its bills. and he said the full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of a default, like people are flippantly discussing these days, by the united states of america are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. he went on to say, "denigration of the full faith and credit of

the united states of america would cause inincalculable damage." this is president ronald reagan. president reagan reminded congress never before in our history has the federal government failed to meet its financial obligations. to fail to do so now would be an outrage. his words. the congress must understand this and bear full responsibility. we know that if the united states defaults on its obligations, if we don't pay our bills, the result will be a financial crisis worse than what we went through in 2008. frankly, madam president, i don't want any part of that. i know it happened in michigan in 2008, 2009. i know our presiding officer, the distinguished senator from massachusetts, understands that as well, what happened to families and businesses all across america, to even come close to that is irresponsible.

at that time 57.5 million americans -- or excuse me. if that were to happen, 57.5 million americans could very well lose their social security checks on time. my mom called the other night. 87 years old, doing great. and she said i was at church on sunday, and my friends were saying that couldn't really happen, could it? i didn't know what to tell her. i said, no, mom, it shouldn't happen. it's not happened before. but i can't promise, given the words of people who believe it's no big deal on the other side of the aisle or of what's being said by the speaker and by the tea party republicans in the house, i couldn't absolutely say to her don't worry about that. 3.4 million veterans might not get their disability benefits on

time. we've just been debating whether or not we should make sure, as we must, that the v.a. is fully funded. and yet, next week if we don't back up the full faith and credit of the united states of america, veterans could very easily be in a situation of not getting disability checks. seniors' social security, medicare, children, families, communities, businesses, farmers, that's who will pay the cost of this default. middle-class families will pay the cost of this. it will be catastrophic in terms of interest rate increases and loss of jobs if we do not stand together as republicans and democrats in the congress of the united states and back up the

full faith and credit of the united states of america. according to goldman sachs, if we adopt the china first model of only paying the interest on our debt, which has been proposed by the house, where we pay some of our debts but not others, the drag on our economy would be massive. they estimate we would lose 4.2% of our gross domestic product. taopbd put that in per speck -- and to put that in perspective, when the recession hit bottom in 2009, we lost 4.1% of g.d.p. from the peak in 2007. and that was the worst recession in our lifetime. this is not a game. this is serious. even more concerning to me is that this would drive up borrowing costs for families, for small businesses, four our manufacturers that are back on their feet now and roaring and

bringing back our economy. for every 1% increase in interest rates, we're told americans will pay $75 billion. $75 billion lost to the economy. when republicans in the house took us to the brink of default two years ago, which resulted in the lowering of america's credit rating for the first time in history, even though we didn't default, just talk of default ended up lowering our credit rating for the first time in america's history. it cost the average family buying a home at the time about $100 every month for the life of their mortgage in higher interest rates. $100 a month for the life of the mortgage. that's outrageous and irresponsible. that same default crisis in 2011 cost taxpayers $19 billion in additional interest when our

credit rating fell and interest rates went up. and where did that $19 billion go? right back on top of the national debt. and not only is it adding to the national debt, it threatens to erase america's retirement savings. in 2011, over $800 billion was lost in retirement accounts after the house republicans played politics with the full faith and credit of the united states of america. if i might take stkwruft one more -- take just one minute? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: this time if we actually default the fall would be worse and the damage could be permanent. madam president, this is the greatest, wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, and it's outrageous that this would even be considered. i ask unanimous consent to put into the record a letter from the national association of manufacturers expressing their deep concern about the

possibility of default. and i would just share finally -- the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: "the chairman of at&t. it is unthinkable the united states could default on its financial obligations and it would be the height of irresponsibility for any public official to consider such a course. our country deserves better. the people of this country deserve better. and we've got to do better for them. i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, i'm glad to join this debate which throughout the afternoon has been peppered with the assertion that either majority leader reid or the president or democrats in general will not negotiate, that we will not negotiate. i remember when i was younger

there was a radio commentator, a man named paul harvey. and his little motto in his radio bits was to surprise you with the rest of the story. well, will not negotiate, you don't even have to go to the rest of the story. go to the rest of the sentence. the rest of the sentence is that the president and the majority leader will not negotiate while the other side is holding hostages. while the tea party is holding hostages. here is what our former colleague, my former ranking member on the budget committee, senator judd gregg, has said about this. "a small group of republican legislators led by the junior senator from texas decided to take as hostages government operations and the raising of the debt ceiling."

well, those are exactly the hostages. federal employees who can't work, people and businesses who want or need federal services, those families we've heard so much about today who lost loved ones on the field of battle and can't get their death benefits. and there's an even bigger hostage out there, which is the threat of a catastrophic default, which would be the result of a failure to lift the debt limit. our country's been through a lot, madam president, through civil wars and world wars, through depressions and calamities of various kinds; through all of that we have never defaulted on our debt. but there is a group in congress so desperate that they're willing to use that, that threat as a hostage for leverage in

negotiations. so when colleagues on the other side invite us in the old phrase, come let us reason together, let us negotiate, they don't mean come let us reason together, let us negotiate. they mean let us negotiate, but we want a blackjack in our pocket. if the negotiations don't go just the way we want, we want to keep hundreds of thousands of americans out of their jobs, and we want to threaten the economic security of this country. madam president, there is a difference. there is a difference that every american understands between negotiating and negotiating while threatening the hostages. and i will say that sanctimoniously offering to release a hostage here or a hostage there when a program becomes too popular or there's too much scrutiny on the damage that one thing is doing, you

say, we'll give that hostage up. we'll let us vote on that hostage; doesn't change the principle. there is a difference between negotiating in good faith, negotiating on the merits and negotiating with threats to hostages. that is no road to go down. that is a very dangerous threat. as president reagan warned us, congress must realize that by failing to act, they're entering very dangerous territory if we don't raise the debt limit. never before in our history has the federal government failed to honor its financial obligations. to fail to do so now would be an outrage. ronald reagan. the congress must understand this and bear full responsibility. we have to address these problems in the traditional order of government with real

negotiations. because if we don't, if we yield to hostage taking as the new way of governance in this country, where does it end? the continuing resolution that we proposed that the speaker has refused to have a vote on -- and all this time he's never had a vote on the continuing resolution that we passed that would open up the government -- it would only extend the operations of government for six weeks. we'd be back at it again. what would the price be next time, after we defunded obamacare, would they want to privatize social security? they tried that before. over and over again the popular will has to rule, and that we do through our american procedures. the vaunted procedures of our american system of government would be lost in a devil's game of threats and hostage taking on both sides, because two can play at this game if those are the new rules. we don't want to go there.

america is a great country, and in part we are a great country because our democracy is an example to the world. we are no example to anyone when we legislate by threats of default, disaster and confusion, to use the phrase of our colleagues from alabama. there is a condition that sometimes befalls pilots called target fixation. it happens when a pilot diving on a target becomes so fixateed on hitting that target that they become disoriented to their surroundings, and the worst thing that befalls somebody who is the victim of target fixation is that they crash the plane.

well, we right now have republican target fixation on repeal obamacare. imagine passing it 40 times in the house, 40-some times which they have done. if that's not a sign of target fixation, i don't know what is. not seeing the damage that is being done by closing down the government, not seeing the damage to families, not seeing the damage to employees, not seeing the damages to people who depend on government services and licenses and safety checks, not seeing any of that, that seems to me to be a sign of target fixation. if they have got target fixation this badly, they may not actually see even president ronald reagan's warnings about how dire and dangerous it is to play around with our debt limit. they are already on the house side talking about playing around with our debt limit.

they want to go into the danger zone, and who knows how close to the flame they're willing to fly? when they have target fixation, their judgment isn't very good. and they are certainly not seeing the damage to american values and american procedure that an insistence on legislating by holding hostages and threatening them does. it does damage to our values. it does damage to our procedures. a great observer of the american system of government once described procedure as a bone structure. we can throw it all out, the constitution, bicameralism. we can just go back to the basic animal state that whoever can make the worst threat wins the argument. that's not the american way. the american way isn't to win the argument by seeing how many people you can put at risk and

how badly you can threaten them, but that is the stage that we are in right now. so let's negotiate indeed but let's negotiate as americans. let's negotiate under our proper procedures. let's open the government. there's no reason for it to be closed other than bargaining leverage, other than hostage taking. there is no other reason. that's exactly why the tea party has shut down the government, just for that purpose. if you listen, they say it. they use nicer words. i think the word that was used earlier in the debate today was to create adequate incentive. when somebody else is holding hostages, we have incentive, but it's not appropriate incentive. so open the government and stop threatening the debt limit. that is wildly irresponsible. don't believe us. believe ronald reagan. leave the secretary of the

treasury. believe the national association of manufacturers. believe the c.e.o. of at&t. believe virtually every responsible, knowledgeable adult who has observed what the dangers are of blowing the debt limit and default. open the government. stop threatening the debt limit, and by all means let's negotiate. we could set a date tomorrow. i'm sure the president will have a meeting at the white house the next day. anything people wanted could be on the table, but they would have to come in and negotiate like americans, on the merits and fairly and not with a blackjack in their back pocket with threats that if they don't go and get what they want, they're going to go out and start wrecking things, like our economy and our government. that's not the right way to proceed, and if we go down that road, who knows what evil lurks

at the end. i yield the floor. mr. coburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i have listened very carefully to previous speakers on the floor. i understand a lot of their frustration. we are where we are. i think we have two big problems. actually, we have two major problems. one is is our country is bankrupt. people don't like to hear that, but let me give you what the facts are. the total unfunded liabilities of the united states of america is $126 trillion. if you add up all the net worth of everybody in the country and all the assets of the federal government and all the assets of

the state and you combine them, we have $94 trillion worth of assets. we're already in the hole $30 trillion. that doesn't include the $17 trillion in debt that we have. so i'd like to correct a couple of things. one, the senator from michigan mentioned that we were downgraded because of the impasse in congress. no, we got downgraded because congress has failed to address the real problems of our debt and deficits. go read their statement. it had nothing to do with action here. it had to do with the fact that we will not address the biggest problems in front of us. and i just for a minute would like for us to consider, i ask unanimous consent to have some scissors on the floor because i want to make a point in a minute. the presiding officer: is there okay? without objection. mr. coburn: we have a credit

card. and i want you to think about your own personal life, that if, in fact, you have a limit on your credit card and your financial situation worsens, you're still paying the payments but you're not bringing down the principal on your credit cards and you're not earning any more money significantly and you go ask citibank or american express or chase and you say i want you to raise my limit, do you know the first thing they are going to ask you is what have you done to improve your financial situation so that we might consider raising your credit limit? that's what happens to every other american. and we have this big talk about a debt limit. there's no debt limit in this country. we've increased it every time

it's come up. there is no limit right now in this country on the debt that we have. so we hear all these speeches about the risk. do you know what the real risk is? the risk is continuing to do nothing to address the underlying problems of our country. the risk is to continue to add entitlement programs that have no way to pay for themselves and no reform of the entitlements that we have today, that's the risk. how does that play out? we have heard all these dire warnings of what's going to happen. here is what's going to happen to your children and grandchildren. what has happened over the last 15 years in this country. do you realize the average median family income in real dollars now is at the same level it was in 1989? we're going backwards right now. not addressing the real problems. and let me put it in medical terms since i'm a doctor.

if, in fact, you treat symptoms of disease, raising the debt limit, rather than treating the real disease, which is reforming the problems, reforming our spending, quit having 100% involvement in everything americans do from the federal government, if you continue to borrow the money and treat that as the symptom when spending, the lack of oversight by congress, the lack of real work by the members of this body to actually eliminate waste, which is over $250 billion a year, as outlined by the government accountability office. and yet we ignore that with the political arena that we have seen the last couple of weeks in washington. the real disease is not fixing the real problem, and if all the politicians, republicans and democrats alike, we want to give you a soft answer. well, here's the answer.

if you're $30 trillion in debt that you can't pay for, what you have to do is have everybody have some pain. and we have refused to do that. there's no leadership in congress to address the real disease that we're facing. a government that's totally ignored the enumerated powers. a government that totally ignores the tenth amendment. and now a justice department that completely ignores the rule of law, in terms of how they decide what they will enforce and what they won't, always on a political basis rather than on what the law says. those are the real problems in front of us. and so we hear all the dire warnings about oh, you can't not raise the debt limit. well, what does default mean, because they always say you can't raise the debt limit, but they won't talk about what default means.

default in the international financial community is you won't pay the interest and you won't pay back the principal on your bond. that won't ever happen to us. it will require less than 6% of the cash that we have right now to manage the debt that we have right now, less than 6%. so only somebody who wants to hurt us further would play the political game if we ever got there -- and i'm not saying we should get there, but if we ever got there would only play the political game to not pay social security or not pay medicare or not take care, we have more than enough money to do that. but what we have is a bloated, oversize, inefficient, ineffective federal government that nobody wants to hold accountable except the american people. so the question is is who gets to decide? congress obviously isn't deciding very well. the president hadn't shown any leadership on it. maybe it's time for the american people to decide. maybe it's time to take some of the power away from washington

and restore it where our founders thought it should reside, by respecting the enumerated powers very specifically listed by our founders with very great commentaries so it wouldn't be distorted but we have distorted it anyway, and reembracing the tenth amendment, which says everything that's not specifically enumerated in these powers is left to the power of the people and the states. so we find ourselves with a credit card. this happens to be our debt, the number i chose to put on here was our debt this morning, morning, $16.74 trillion. we need to cut this up, just like you do for an adolescent or young adult kid that you're responsible for the credit card. if they are not responsible, you cut up the credit card. you fix the real problem. you don't continue asking for an increase in their profligate

spending. you don't continue to reward members of congress who won't do oversight and get rid of a quarter trillion dollars worth of fraud, waste and abuse every year. but that's what we'll end up doing because we don't have the courage nor the leadership to address what is the real problem in front of our country, and the real problem is cowardice. the real problem is to not recognize where we are and not act on making decisive decisions. now, we heard how bad it will be if we don't raise the debt limit. i agree it's going to be tough. there will be ramifications. how bad will it be if we do? what happens to your children? what happens to the family income in this country if we do, if we continue to let the federal government run out of

control, if we continue to not old congress accountable for forcing efficiencies on the federal government? you know it can be done. there was an agreement called the budget control act. and what it did is it forced sequester. sequester is a stupid way to cut funding in the federal government, but it's far better than not cutting it at all, and what has sequester done? sequester has forced agencies because congress won't force them because we're afraid we might offend somebody. it has forced agencies to start making choices. now, they are still making tons of bad choices like the state department on the last day of their budget spend all the remaining money. they just spent $500,000 -- no, it was $5 million, pardon me, $5 million on new crystalware for all of our embassies.

what's wrong with the crystal we have now? they had to spend the money because they could come back to congress to say we could save $5 million. so we are addressing the wrong problems. we're not holding people accountable. so maybe it's time for the states to exert and the people to exert some common sense on us. i dare say there's not one member of this body that would let their adolescent child run up a bill and not eventually try to intercede on a credit card but let them continue to run it up. well, congress and the u.s. government is that adolescent child. we are the adolescents and the people in the states are the grownups. and we're -- where we are today at an impasse, and it really does kind of sound like kindergarten. i'm not going to talk to you. i don't like the way you did that. we had the majority leader the other day