coolidge on our web site c-span.org/first lady or see it saturday on c-span and 7:00 eastern and we continue our series live monday as we look at first lady lou hoover. >> the supreme court heard oral arguments yesterday. the case challenging the campaign contributions from individuals builders. several attorneys had reached for both sides in the supreme court building. this is a half hour. >> in the case today, we had a brief on behalf of the republican national committee and a very pleased with results of the argument this morning. it is apparent that the court views aggregate limits, how many candidates a particular donor can support, nine candidates and

only one of three national political parties, blunt an instrument causing too much first amendment harm to be sustained under the current decisions of the u.s. supreme court so we look -- we are very encouraged by the arguments today. the decision by the court to restore balance in the political system. we are limited in what they can accept, donors are forced to give money in super pacs and not-for-profits and 527s that are much less accountable, much less transparent than candidates and political parties, preventing, forcing money to go in that direction we have a less healthy system. with these aggregate limits we will see more candidates raise money, national party and state

parties raise more money, that is a more healthy system than the current system of restriction and forcing money into independent spenders rather than by candidates and political parties themselves. thank you. >> i am fred wardtimer from democracy 21. one of the attorneys supporting the aggregate limits. there are couple of important points i would like to make. justice scalia asked the question how much money went to candidates and parties and how much went to outside groups. let's be very clear. candidates and parties with these overall limits.

in the 2012 elections. and 80% of the money spent in the elections. and candidates and parties, billions of dollars under overall limits. secondly this case is about million dollar and $2 million contributions. it is not about whether a few more contributions can be made by mr. mccutcheon to a few more candidates but whether john boehner can set up a joint fund-raising committee and solicit the and mr. mccutcheon give $2.4 million but whether president obama in 2012 to raise $70,000 contributions for a joint fund-raising committees could have raised $1.2 million. this case is about precisely the kind of contributions that the

supreme court has ruled for 40 years create opportunities for corruption and can be limited. facing the court is the question of whether they are going to throw out 4 years of supreme court precedent and declare unconstitutional a contribution limit that prevents corruption and we see no basis to knockdown these contribution limits. one other question raised by justice scalia was quite interesting. the supreme court declared limits on outside groups and constitutional because there is no risk of corruption. justice scalia appears now to think there's just as much risk of corruption without side spending as there are with contributions but that is not what the court said in citizens united. in citizens united the supreme

court said outside groups can make unlimited expenditures because they do not corrupt, they do not create opportunities for corruption. the supreme court has repeatedly said that contributions to candidates and parties to create the opportunity for corruption and they can begin. that is the issue facing the court today. this is a corruption case. if the supreme court were to strike down the overall contribution limits we are bound to see million dollar and $2 million contribution solicited by the most powerful office holders in washington given by donors and creating opportunities for the kinds of quid pro quo of corruption the court has said for four decades can be limited.

>> the chief justice was actually just speaking to individual limits, limits that an individual can give to a number of candidates. is there any way to disallow the aggregates for just that category or is it like taking a break out of a house and the whole thing falls in? >> the chief justice's point was if you want more than the number of candidates, you can give $5,200 to, why shouldn't that person give a few more contributions? a couple of answers to that. first of all mr. mccutcheon could give contributions to every republican candidate for congress but the but give $5,200 to each of them. the supreme court in earlier decisions has distinguished between the first amendment rights of the donor which is in

direct and the first amendment rights of the spender which was direct expression. this is a line drawn by congress. congress could change that line but you cannot get rid of aggregate limits for candidates with the opportunity for john boehner or democratic leader nancy pelosi to create a joint fund-raising committee and solicit $2.4 million check from individuals. >> that is not true. >> let me finish and then you can come in. >> i would be happy but that is not true. >> a joint fund-raising committee can be created for all candidates, contributions and two million and more range the gay -- given and solicited. as was point ated out in the sy given justice kennedy in the mcconnell case supported the

prohibition on soliciting large contributions because he said they create the opportunity for quid pro quo corruption. i go back without this aggregate limit for party's president obama could have solicited the $1.2 million contribution. without this aggregate limit for candidates, a huge contributions could be solicited for a joint fund-raising committee. that is the danger here and why this court has no grounds for striking down the contribution limits in this case. >> i am david keating of the center for competitive politics. >> can we get council of here? >> murphy spelled the usual way -- >> thank you. we thought the court was very well prepared today, we had a great chance to make the

arguments we wanted to make and as we told the court in a system like this one where people are allowed to make unlimited expenditures it doesn't make sense to continue to have these aggregate limits on how much people consider the most transparent way possible which is two of the candidate and two of the parties and the past and as we told the court as well in doesn't make sense to continue to have limits where someone can continue denying candidates but when they contribute to the tenth candidate there's something in permissible about that. we thought we had a great chance to make those arguments and the court asked wonderful questions today. miss murphy, at the end of the argument justice kennedy said are you saying we should go along with this system just because it is the law? for almost 40 years by the supreme court it is the law. the ones it reversed? >> we don't think buckley needs to be reversed.

to get where we are in this case we think these limits are unconstitutional under the current system because in this system they impose impermissible burden is on people's ability to contribute to a ten candidate instead of nine and to contribute to parties and tax instead independent expenditures. i don't think you need to change the entire system to hold these limits constitutional. they reveal their are questions about the system itself. >> if the aggregate limits are unconstitutional because they limit the number of people you can give to and the way you give them why not the actual contribution limits themselves? >> it is not about the base contribution limits. those of been justified on different grounds that have to do with the direct relationship between candidates and people giving contributions and when you are talking about average at limit you are not talking how much someone can contribute to one candidate. york those restrictions on how many candidates someone can

support and there doesn't seem to be a rationale for that as a constitutional matter. >> this is about free speech and i guess it is. could you explain at the end of the day if you win you end up allowing people with more money to have more free speech. >> you allow everybody to have more free speech. you allow people to speak in ways they find most effective and the ways that are most transparent in the system instead of forcing people to make independent expenditures you allow them to speak by associating with the people whose values they share and they can put those 4 were on your behalf. >> could you explain what you believe is the correct argument of members of congress, house and senate coordinating? >> there are ways to coordinate in the sense of giving money, and they address the concerns that they are talking about

today. they prevent candidates, large amounts of money to other candidates and impractical conduits the government was suggesting. >> and what some of the justices said here was if you win it means more money for more people who have more money and limits the voice of people don't have a lot of money. >> the person on the standards we want more speech from everybody. not a question of who gets to speak. everybody gets to speak as much as they want in ways that they find most effective by getting rid of these limits we can ensure not only can people do that the doing so in the most transparent way possible within the system we already have disclosure rules in everything else and ensure the public knows who is speaking and supporting home. thank you. >> i am dr. william barber and we come from the monday campaign in north carolina. grassroots organizers.

attorney mcsurely is here and many lawyers are speaking to these issues but one of the things we want from the grassroots to make clear is when we look at equal justice under the law, the law in all its majesty wants to ensure constitutionally that the home of this person has as much free speech as a wealthy person. this mccutcheon piece would undermine that. we have seen this court put in place by overturning shelby, a ruling that allows people on limited ways to rollback voting rights and only be challenged on the back end. i am from the south and we a seeing what is happening as soon as shelby was passed. we have seen the worst voting restrictions in the country. now they want to allow unlimited amounts of money to influence politics. in north carolina we have seen that when we look at the influence of someone like the

pope, we see the direct evidence of what happens when money and forces who gets in our state capital and in the governor's office. we have seen a direct connection between obscene amounts of money being spent and an attack on people who need medicare, the attack on public education, on voting rights, on the unemployed, the attack on tax policy so for those at the grassroots level we are deeply concerned that this mccutcheon case, the real question should be money versus the people. will this be a democracy where we have equal justice or will this be a democracy that is sold piece by piece to the highest bidder. as a clergyperson the moral issue in this also from a biblical standpoint is found in

isaiah chapter in 1 where it says when leaders chase the gift and chase after bribes and do not care for the poor and fatherless in their public policy, they undermined the nation. and in favor of the mceachern undermining our democracy. and allowing it to be bought and paid for by the highest bidder and that will undermine the very majesty of the law which was designed to ensure the homeless person had as much free right, free speech as a wealthy person. >> say your name again. >> dr. william barber, president of north carolina naacp and leader of the moral monday movement in north carolina. >> i am david keating, president of the center for competitive politics. we file a brief in this case, a

brief comment about the case and correct the record. what these aggregate limits are all about is politicians in congress want to starve challengers from having the funds necessary to mount an effective campaign against them. that is what this law is all about. as far as this idea that joint fund-raising committees can raise millions of dollars, the law already allows the speaker, the president, to ask for over $4 million from political action committees and it doesn't happen. the second thing is in the mccain feingold bills there is a limit on how much can be solicited by an elected official. that is not challenged by this case. we think there is a good chance that that limit will survive. in other words they will not be able to ask for these multimillion dollar contributions as he alleges. >> can you explain? >> it helps incumbents because

studies have shown challengers' rely on a larger portion of their funding from people like mr. mccutcheon because people like mr. mccutcheon and people who are left leaning as well like to support challengers. as the chief justice said in one of his questions, what about someone who wants to support candidates, who want to support environmental regulations or gun control regulations? aid donor must choose between either giving to the environmental candidates or giving to the gun control candidates. you can't support all of them. >> a bargain for this? >> if we need to have laws to restrict large -- what we should do is have laws that are -- a scalpel aimed at that problem and not a meat axe approach congress takes to start funding for challengers.

for example the scalpel approach would be you would say an elected official couldn't ask for more than the current limit of $123,000. i actually think the law requires that now but if it doesn't the law could easily be passed just to target that and not to target the ability of people like mr. mccutcheon and others to support the candidate they believe in. >> i am asking whether this bars corruption or not. >> i think the current scheme may help keep corruption in because the way to get rid of corruption is to get rid of the people who are corrupt and if you can't give doing of challengers to get rid of the corrupt people that will help them stay in office. that is why we have the first amendment. the first amendment is to allow speech, and speech is against corruption. speech by the press and speech by the people. we have to be careful about

limiting either. thank you. >> i am president of public citizen's. we filed an and the guests -- on behalf of david price and chris and holland. this is about corruption pure and simple. it is about corruption as real people understand it which is to say is the system more tilted toward the millionaires and billionaires? it is about corruption in the supreme court defined it, quid pro quo corruption. it is a certainty if the supreme court decides this case on behalf of mccutcheon in the republican national committee that we will see more corruption, more legalized bribery will become the norm. if there's any doubt how this is going to go about the billionaire of millionaires to evade any kind of suggestions of limits, what about the recent example of freedom partner is where we have a couple hundred people pulling together $250 million in the purported

trade association through secret organizations that fund other secret organizations to fund election influence over election outcomes. this case is simply about corruption. in this case suggests that the courts actually may uphold the existing rules to overturn this decision means overturning core precepts, we can hope the court today will decide not to do that. >> put more money back in the political parties, that was an issue that was raised, the case could potentially put more money back in the hands of the rnc and other democratic and republican party organizations instead of outside groups. >> it is a sin to that of the case goes for mccutcheon there will be more money for the political parties. is not a certainty there will be less money for outside groups. billionaire spenders are pretty well getting big checks they need to and it will be just more.

will not deprive people of citizens united secrecy they have been taking advantage of. >> i am liz kennedy and we filed a brief in this case with a group of membership organizations representing almost 9.5 million americans who came together from the oldest and largest membership and constituency groups such as the naacp, greenpeace, sierra club, all coming together to say americans are outraged about the dominance of big money on the current government, politics and policy. we are seeing six in ten americans say their relative representatives are more responsive to their big money donors than voters or even the public interest. tweeting ten americans saying large campaign contributions are blocking, preventing our government from focusing on

fixing the current issues that affect our lives such as responding to climate change, such as upward mobility issues like fair taxation. this is something causing the american people to have the lowest current opinion of congress in historical record and did is critical that the court uphold the aggregate contribution limits to be able to protect our government from even more dominance by big money. we currently see according to some light foundation 84% of candidates elected to congress last year raised more money from the 1% of the 1% than from all their small donors combined. i would like the information being said about incumbents versus challengers, in all the $4 billion democracy we find a big money system is already benefiting incumbents over challengers with house incumbents raising $1.7 million as compared to $300,000 from

challengers and the senate incumbents at $7 million, senate challengers 1.6. also, some justices were trying to say today we must understand the american people do, these decisions do not get made in some kind of vacuum, separate and apart from other governing structures that we have. we saw in citizens united come to some decisions that than actually they thought the money would be disclosed. it turns out as we know much of that money is not being disclosed. citizens united lead to an explosion in dark money that now we are trying to go back through and fix the regulations after the fact. much as with the whole conversation about the ability to circumvent the limits and how all of those limits would play together, it was accepted by the lower court contributions of over $3.5 million would be solicited and received and that would cause a correction risk and in fact if the court wants

to look with such detail we encourage them to consider the real world impact of their decisions they perhaps should questions at in a trial court where they could build an actual record, a point that got -- this case is about whether our politics and policy as democratic government will be open for sale when able to be further captured by private economic interests that are distorting our policy and causing the voices of the average american to be really absent from the public policy debate. our brief shows government is so much more responsive to their big donors than lower-income folks that it is blocking majorities of african-american community and almost a majority of the latino community finding themselves in the bottom third of the income groups, therefore not the government has been found not at all to be responsive to their public preferences. this is a real crisis in

confidence in the american democracy and it is time the supreme court make some good decisions for the american people. thank you very much. >> my name is bob beersack of the center for responsible politics which is a nonpartisan research organization that does work in this area. airfare amount of confusion in the court about the mechanics of some of this process, how the movement of money can occur between different kinds of organizations without much restriction and the impact on very large contributions that would be allowed if this decision, if this part of the law is reversed. we have a lot of experience over many years with that kind of innovation, the way the process works and we know how transfers can be done so we are discussing that in detail if you would like to know how the process will evolve over time. if this part of the law is overturned. secondly there was question

about wetter the system we currently have really fundamentally disadvantages the party. there's a lot of experience with those kinds of changes overtime as well. mccain feingold which allegedly have destroyed the party's to the the need to raise funds because they lost their ability to raise unlimited funds in fact the party innovated very well and were very active in raising small contributions from lots of americans and raised more money under the new restrictions than they were before hand and there is no reason to think this provision needs to be overturned to protect those parties is succeeded in the system as it exists today but we are happy to have water conversations about the details, to clear up the confusion that was in court this morning. >> my name is terry malloy, senior counsel at a campaign legal center. the legal center was involved in this case ever since the district court five out in front of the court brief and district court and filed again in the

supreme court tried to explain the real world consequences of striking down the aggregate limits. one of the notable things about oral argument was how abstract at how many hypotheticals were supported by supreme court justices exposing how little they were versed in the realities of politics and the realities of campaign finance. we tried to point out in our brief both the low end hear what would happen in the absence of the aggregate limits and came up with numbers that were bandied about such as a single individual could give $1 million to a party of their choice. a single individual could give $2 million to the candidate of the party of their choice and it was extraordinary that these numbers were not in dispute. seven justices had skepticism whether this would really happen or whether in the wake of citizens united this was a big deal. this is very troubling and we could speak further about what exactly would happen if the aggregate limits were indeed on

wound. i want to say that it was disheartening to have a particular justice the bsa over and over again why do we have to worry about a $3.5 billion contribution when already we have super pacs spending $100 million independently. i point out justice scalia, your citizens united unleashed independent spending and super pacs and it was unbelievable that he is now using citizens united as independent study of that for striking down yet another protection against big money in politics. i think the oral argument really expose how far the justices are willing to go to completely deregulate money in politics and would be happy to explain further if there are further questions, thank you. >> good morning. my name is steven spaulding, council of common cause in washington d.c.. common cause signed onto a

friend-of-the-court authored by the campaign legal center. standing up for average ordinary americans who are tired of their voices being drowned out by big money. we have a lot of problems in our politics today, a lot of dysfunction. look at what is going on across the street with the government shut down. there are some litigants that think one of the problems in our politics is there is too little money in our politics. that is something we reject as common cause and the supreme court has rejected for over 40 years. the only thing that stands between the integrity of our representative democracy and a system of pure and utter legalized bribery are these contribution limits and these contribution limit as we heard justice ginsburg say promote the first amendment. contribution limits ensure we have a vibrant democracy, where folks are able to express themselves on the basis of their ideas and not by the depth of their pockets and the size of

their bank accounts so the american people across the country have been calling representatives, republicans and democrats and independents, to adopt a constitutional amendment to make clear once and for all that money is property, money is not speech. corporations are entities that spurred the economy but do not have a constitutional right to spend unlimited money in politics and i would talk to anybody after this about what is happening at the grassroots level across the country. thank you. >> the u.s. senate continues speeches on the government shutdown now in its ninth day and the federal debt limit which the treasury department will hit a week from tomorrow on october 17th. live coverage of the senate. y. o god, in whose presence our souls take delight, to whom in affliction we call, forgive us

for continuing to sow to the wind even when hearing the sounds of the approaching whirlwind. lord, when our federal shutdown delays payments of death benefits to the families of children dying on far-away battlefields, it's time for our lawmakers to say enough is enough. cover our shame with the robe of your righteousness. forgive us, reform us, and make us whole. we pray in your merciful name.

amen. please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 9, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable heidi heitkamp, a senator from the state of north dakota, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will be in a period of morning business until 2:00 p.m. today. during that period of time senators will be permitted permitted. to speak forum to 10 minutes each. there are two measures at the desk due for a second read,, i'm told. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the second time. the clerk: s. 1569, a bill to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the united states senate government until -- the united states government until december 31, 2014. s.j. res. 77 making continuing appropriations for the food and drug administration for the fiscal year 2014 and for other purposes. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings with regard to both matters. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar number under rule 14. mr. reid: madam president, it's very hard to find on occasion common ground here in washington, and it's -- of late it's been hard all the

time. but there's one thing on which republicans and democrats should be able to agree. there's no more important issue before congress than to prevent a catastrophic default on our debt. default would put our economy in grave danger, and that is a gross understatement. i've said it, so many of my republican colleagues have said it, and the business community is shouting it from the rooftops. goldman sachs c.e.o. lloyd blankfein, he's not known as a great liberal or outstanding democrat, but he is known as a great businessman. here's what he said -- and i quote -- "while the current government shutdown is unfortunate, the impacts of a debt default would be magnitudes worse. and should not even be considered a viable option. the economic damage associated with default or near default would be severe and have serious

consequences for the recovery of the united states and global economy. that, mr. president, was amplified the last couple of days by christine la guard, head of i.m.f. who says this is just awful for the world economy, the world economy affects us. we affect that. no country in the world affects the world economy more than we do. and we're going to affect it in a very negative fashion which will have tremendously negative consequences for us. there are so many republicans in congress who are threatening default even being elited that we're going to have one, saying it doesn't really matter. warren buffett said using the threat of default to extract political payment -- quote -- "ought to be banned as a weapon. it should be like nuclear bombs, basically too horrible to use." warren buffett said that. now, by the way, warren

buffett's dad was a republican member of congress. business leaders are begging us to do the right thing and to do it now, quickly, in addition to america's reputation in the world, the bedrock of the global economy is at stake and i've already said that. yesterday a bill was introduced that would remove the specter of default and and allow the united states to pay its bills with no preconditions or strings attached. republicans and democrats may have our differences but neither shiedside should hold the full faith and credit of the united states hostage while we resolve them. let's reopen the government, speaker boehner could end this government shutdown today an hour from now. by letting the house, entire house vote on the senate's clean bill to reopen the government. when the speaker is on national tv and other places saying we don't have the votes, he never -- he will never know

that because he won't let the measure come to the floor. of course it has enough votes. let's reopen the government, let's pay our bills. there's there is no reason for republicans to drag out this process and force the nation's economy ever closer to a catastrophic default and then let's negotiate. 200 days ago to the day, senate democrats passed a budget led by senator murray that reflected our priorities. since then we've asked 20 times to negotiate a compromise between our budget and the one passed by republicans in the house. we're not afraid to negotiate. but we need someone to negotiate with. we need, i guess, madam president, a dancing partner. if republicans end this irresponsible government -- this irresponsible government shutdown as it appears now, remove the threat of a cat sliz mick default and stop objecting 0 to a budget default we can

negotiate now. republicans have already been so harsh on their rhetoric, madam president,, republicans already have done enough harm to our economy with a reckless shutdown designed to undermine the law of the land, obamacare. but the consequences of first in history default on the debt would be far worse, even worse than the 2008 financial crisis in from which we're still recovering. two years ago, the last time republicans flirted with this terrible idea, america's credit rating was downgraded for the first time in the hit of our -- history of our great country. stock market dropped 2,000 points. it's already dropped 7% or 8%. over the last few weeks. raising the debt limit doesn't cost taxpayers a single dime and republicans shouldn't claim it does because it doesn't. that's certainly not what they claimed when george w. bush raised the debt ceiling seven

times. congress has raised the debt more than 9009 times since it was created. the majority of times with republican presidents. ronald reagan asked congress to raise the debt 18 times. twice as many as any other president and he being the great orator he was, said that to do what is being done now, to use an example why sun swurn should never do it -- why someone should never do it, he called it outrageous. raising the debt ceiling think simply allows payment of bills we've already incurred. bills for wars, tax breaks paid for would with borrowed money. and basically it's a simple -- the simple operations of our government. i heard one republican senator today, i read about it, i didn't hear him, but he said, well, we have enough money coming in to pay the interest. madam president, social security payments would not go forward. and that's only the beginning.

to even consider defaulting on these obligations or use the threat of default to extract concessions is terribly irresponsible and the negative fashion -- it's irresponsible, that's the word i should have chosen, madam president. republican governor john huntsman, who had been governor of utah, an extremely liberal state, utah, said this about the current republican brinksmanship over the default: "it's pretty sad, pathetic for the greatest economy on earth to be experiencing this, russian roulette with our economy." he went on to say "we have to see it as an economic issue. if you think the government shutdown is a big deal, that's a hand grenade compared with a therm owe nuclear weapon that would be hitting the debt ceiling." yesterday the minority leader suggested that the only way to disarm this weapon would be for me to engage in one on one talks

with the speaker of the house. i'm happy to talk to john boehner any time. we've talked. but it's obvious to me no amount of talking will make the speaker willing or able to end the shutdown. as the senior senator from arizona said yesterday, it's time for the senate to deal. and to lead, and he's right. we have an issue coming before us momentarily, the debt ceiling. we have to be the senate and lead and get that passed, send it over to the house of representatives. we've already passed a bill to reopen the government. we've already done that. but we're going to go a step further. senate democrats have introduced legislation to avert a default on this nation's obligations. so i say, madam president, to my republican colleagues in the senate the time for misleading rhetoric is through and the time for responsible leadership is here. we're happy to work with our

republican colleagues, open the government, pay our bills, we'll negotiate on anything, anything they want to talk about. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for debate only until 2:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, each morning the senate opens with the customary prayer by our chaplain and the pledge of allegiance. this is an opportunity for members of the senate to reflect on two important things. first, our mission on earth not just as elected officials but as human beings, and second, our devotion and loyalty to this great country. i've listened to most of the prayers that have been offered over the last nine days of the

government shutdown by dr. barry black, a retired admiral from the united states navy and came again before us this morning to offer a prayer. this prayer had a very important message to it. it was short and direct. he talked about this government shutdown, he reflected on the fact that we literally have families, families, who in the last few days had that awful knock on the door when they were told that their son had died in service to this country in the united states military. five of them over the weekend, i understand 17 during the course of this government shutdown. and sadly, the support which we always give to these families is not there. it's not there. couples mayoral within -- customarily within 24 to 36 hours they're given an advance on the benefits that soldier earned so they can take care of

the funeral expenses. we can't do that because the government is shut down, that awful knock on the door was not followed by the consolation of this government helping these families. and we offer to many of these families an opportunity to come, to come and be there and become at dover air force base in delaware the return of their fallen hero. we can't offer them that benefit because the government is shut down. what dr. black said to all of us this morning, all of those who believe that a government shutdown is just another political gambit, what he said, we should remember, and his words were direct and simple: enough is enough. enough is enough. it isn't just a matter of these families losing that loving son, that husband, that brother, it's a matter that our government that asked them to

risk their lives for this great nation will not stand by them in this moment of grief. oh, yesterday the junior senator from texas came in and said i think we've already voted to take care of that. it's not true. what's happening now is the house of representatives, the house of representatives which refuses to reopen the government is now scurrying to pass a little bill to take care of these families. let's get that bill in, they said. we don't want to face the embarrassment of another headline like this. it isn't enough, madam president, it isn't nearly enough, because the embarrassment of this government shutdown goes beyond this grievous situation with these bereaving families. it goes to so many different levels. think about this for a moment. in the united states of america, when it comes to infant formula for babies, 60% of the infant formula is sold through one government program called

w.i.c., women, infants and children program. it's a program that brings in pregnant mothers and moms with new babies and does its level best to make sure those babies are healthy and off to a good start in life. in my state of illinois, the largest county, cook county, 50,000 mothers depend on w.i.c., the w.i.c. program that provides the basics for healthy moms and healthy babies, the w.i.c. program will run out of money this month. and when it does, the support for these families, for these moms, for these babies is in danger. why are we doing this? is this part of the republican strategy? sick babies, mothers unprepared to deliver? is that part of their strategy? is that their leverage for what

they want to achieve? if it is, i have three words for them -- enough is enough. i just left my office and had a group of people from my state whom i have a special affection for. they are with what's known as the primary health care association. and i will bet you have some in your state of north dakota. these are folks that open the clinics in the neighborhoods and small towns so that people who aren't wealthy have access to a doctor and a nurse. i love them. i just love them to pieces because they put their whole lives invested in helping folks who are often ignored. they told me that despite the sadness they feel and even anger over this government shutdown, there is a feeling of elation now that the insurance exchanges are open under the affordable care act. people are coming in and saying

you won't believe it, but i qualify for health insurance for the first time in my life. these are their clients. these are the people that they help every day, and now these people have the peace of mind of health insurance. now, that drives some on the other side crazy, to think that obamacare will go forward and provide this kind of help. in my state, over 250,000 people have already visited the web sites. they are signing up now for health insurance, many of them for the first time. ours isn't the most successful state. it appears per capita that the state of kentucky is one of the most successful, some 10,000 people already signing up for health insurance, health insurance that they otherwise can't afford or don't have. but this is part of the debate in washington. the republicans, many of them, are arguing we have got to shut down the government, we have got to shut down obamacare, we have

got to stop these people from signing up for health insurance. it's not going to work. they cannot reverse history. this is a law that has been on the books almost four years, enacted by congress, signed by the president, judged constitutional by the u.s. supreme court, a law we have had a referendum on and a presidential election. when president obama stood up and said i am going toified for affordable health care and health care reform and the republican candidate said i will abolish it. president obama won that re-election by five million votes. that's the verdict of history. that's the judgment of the american people. that is how we guide a democracy. there are some very wealthy, very extreme who will never accept the results of an election. they think with enough money they can overcome the voice of democracy. they are wrong. and that's why what we're setting about here is to reopen this government, pay our debts and then work out whatever

remains in terms of issues. i ask my staff each morning, give me a list of what's happening because of this government shutdown. madam president, i can't keep up with it. i mean, page after page, issue after issue. a major salmonella outbreak affecting hundreds of people in many states right now. u.s. department of agriculture's food safety and inspection service has announced an estimated 278 people across 18 states, mostly in california, have been reported ill. they are working with the center for disease control, along with state and local officials, to track that. that said, we have got to understand with a government shutdown, these agencies are not fully staffed. families and children across america are vulnerable because of this republican shutdown strategy. for some, it will mean an illness they will get over in a few days. for others, it would be more serious. the words of the chaplain ring

in my ear -- enough is enough. we know as well that when it comes to this piecemeal approach which we're hearing from the house of representatives where when they see these ghastly headlines of families, bereaving families who were denied basic benefits that we offer to the families of those who have fallen in service to america, when they face that embarrassment, they quickly manufacture a little spending bill to cover it, saying oh, we'll take care of that one. chuck e. cheese calls it whack a mole. that's what they are doing. each time a story pops up, they try to knock it back down. a review has been done of the 14 bills that passed the house. they fund approximately $83 billion in funding, just about $6 billion a bill. the total amount of nondefense funding in the original house-passed continuing resolution was $469 billion. therefore, the house bills that already have passed are

currently under consideration, make up less than 18% of the total. so for all the efforts of the house of representatives, sending over these bills to react to embarrassments from their government shutdown, they can't keep world cup it. the simple honest answer is open the government. we have passed the bill and sent it to speaker boehner. he is living in political fear of calling that bill because he knows it will pass. the democrats overwhelmingly will support it, and enough moderate republicans will step up to reopen this government and speaker boehner cannot accept that reality. he's afraid to call a vote. well, how many more embarrassing moments will we have reporting on situations like these poor families who have given their all, who have lost their loved one and now they are asked to suffer because of the republican shutdown. it's got to come to an end. yesterday on the floor, i

appealed to moderate republicans in the senate to step up, step up and join us. we're going to have a bill before us in a short time, i hope sooner rather than later, that's going to avoid a default on america's debt. if we default on october 17, it will be the first time in the history of the united states that that will occur. it will have a devastating impact on businesses, on jobs and on the savings of americans. if you have a savings account, if you have a retirement account and you have been watching it over the last several days, have you seen what the republican shutdown has done for your plans for your future and your families? this is unacceptable, and it will get dramatically worse unless we pass in a bipartisan fashion this extension of the debt limit for the united states of america. this will be a chance for moderate republicans in the senate to speak up and stand up. and before i close, i want to

say a special word about my colleague, my republican senate colleague mark kirk who announced this week that he would vote for a clean debt ceiling. i have said it back home and i will say it here on the floor -- it's the right thing to do for my colleague, it's the right thing to do for america. i want to express my appreciation for his leadership. i hope his example of stepping up and saying he's going to put the country first before his party is one that will be followed by other members on his side of the aisle. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i appreciate the comments of my colleague from illinois. i heard him make reference to the insurance exchanges that opened last week because it was one week ago that president obama's health insurance exchanges opened. by all accounts, madam president, it was a

complete disaster. the administration had three and a half years to prepare for the big launch. it spent months, spent millions of dollars advertising the start date, and yet on october 1, the american people had their first chance to sign up, and the exchanges flopped. it was a complete fiasco. the administration tried to say it was caught off guard. they say they were caught off guard by too many people going to the web site on the first day. madam president, even saturday night liveried ciewld the excuse. they -- ridiculed the excuse. they said that's like 1-800-flowers getting caught off guard on valentine's day. there were glitches the first day but they lasted the whole week, the entire first week. well, the question is did the administration finally get its act together? well, actually, no, it didn't. the past weekend, they had to pull down the web site to try to fix some of the worst problems.

"usa today," a newspaper whose editorials have actually in the past supported the health care law, they had to say yesterday, headline, "health sites generate more error merges than coverage." that's the headline. the sub headline, "exchange launch turns into incuseable -- inexcusable mess, inexcusable mess." they go on -- "the administration managed to turn the experience for most of those visitors into a nightmare. they said that the web site's crashed, refused to load, offered incomprehensible, bizarre choices. even though the system was shut down for repairs over the weekend, they said monday early reports continued to suggest an epic screwup. the front page of "the wall street journal" on monday, software and design defects cripple health care web site. madam president, you don't take down the web site for minor glitches. these are signs of major

trouble. some of us have been warning the administration has failed to prepare properly. we said that there would be security holds that would expose people to fraud and identity theft. well, it turns out that the administration didn't even get to the point where the security flaws would actually matter early on because people couldn't even start entering their personal information. the exchanges were failing to launch. people got repeated error messages. they couldn't fill out forms or applications. they couldn't create an account to start looking at the most basic of information to even make comparisons. when they tried to telephone to get help, they found long wait times and they got disconnected entirely. even the administration's biggest cheerleaders admitted defeat. one reporter at msnbc spent so much time trying to show viewers how to sign up for the exchange web site online that she actually gave up. they were playing this on television. she finally threw in the towel,

saying if i were signing up for myself, this is where my patience would be exhausted. "the wall street journal" tried to find out what went wrong. it talked to computer experts, who looked at the healthcare.gov web site, and what the computer expert said is the site appeared to be built on a sloppy software foundation. according to those experts, such a hastily constructed web site -- of course, they had three and a half years -- such a hastily constructed web site may not have been able to withstand the online demand last week. even the far left wonk blog at "the washington post" couldn't believe how badly the administration had failed. one of its columnists wrote that -- quote -- "the obama administration did itself and the millions of people who wanted to explore signing up a terrible disservice by building a web site that four days into launch is still unusable for most americans." it wasn't supposed to happen

this way. president obama promised that using the exchanges, he said, would be like shopping on amazon com. well, amazon can handle 13 million or 14 million transactions every day with no problem. there are over 5,000 web sites generating more traffic than healthcare.gov, so how many people were able to successfully enroll in the health care exchanges on the first day? we have no idea. the administration doesn't want to talk about it. first, they said that we're thrilled that so many people were checking out the web site. by sunday, treasury secretary jack lew was on multiple television shows, refused to answer questions about how many people had enrolled. just repeating the white house talking points. he claimed that 4.7 million people had visited. well, if they are willing to tell us how many people had visited the web site, why won't they tell us how many people

actually got coverage? the administration won't provide any data to back up its claims until they say at least november. you've got to remember, california claimed that five million people visited their web site for its own state exchange on the first day. later had to back up and say no, we're sorry, that wasn't true. it turns out that they had 645,000 visitors. less than a million, not the five million that they claimed. that's a state that spent $313 million on their site, and it couldn't handle even that many people because they had trouble. president obama said he was going to have the most transparent administration in history. that's what he claimed. well, the health care law is this administration's signature accomplishment. october 1 was the day that they had been working toward for more than three years, and now the president won't tell the american people, won't tell any of us how many people have even signed up for health insurance.

why not? what's the president trying to hide? cnn looked into the 24 states that set up their own insurance exchanges under the law. they found that as of last friday, about 52,000 applications had been started. that's not how many people actually have completed their application successfully. it's just they have started. it's not how many people have actually gotten insurance. that's just how many people get to the point of starting their application. so even if the obama administration fixes the technical problems with its health insurance web site, it will not have fixed the many problems with its health care law. the law will still not give people the lower cost, high quality care that they wanted, which was the reason we needed health care reform in the first place. but i think the american people will hold the president to his promises and hold the washington democrats that voted for this law to their promises.

the president said just right before the exchanges opened that coverage in the exchanges should cost less than your cell phone bill, less than your cell phone bill. he said you should be able to keep your doctor. and he said it would be as easy and secure as amazon.com. so far, the president's health care law has failed on all of these. that was exactly what many of us warned would happen. it doesn't matter if the obamacare system failures happened because of heavy traffic or because of design flaws. the administration officials should be embarrassed, but they should not be surprised. republicans warn that the exchanges were not ready for prime time, but the president and democrats ignored calls for a delay. why is the administration insisting now on fining people, fining people who don't have insurance even though people can't even sign up on the web site successfully? the president unilaterally gave big businesses a one-year delay in the employer mandate. workers should get the same

break that the bosses get. if bosses get a year break in a delay in the penalties, why shouldn't hardworking men and women all across the country get a delay of a year of the individual mandate? president obama should have delayed the launch of his insurance exchange until it was ready. that would be the fair thing to do. it is still the right thing to do. it is also the fair and right thing to do to give individual americans the same delay of the mandate that the president has unilaterally, without the action of congress, given to businesses all around this country. thank you, madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you. yesterday, madam president, the veterans affairs administration announced that it would furlough 7,000 veterans benefit administration employees and that, activities and services in the following areas would be suspended. the education call center, personal interviews and hearings at regional hearings,

educational and vocational counseling, outreach programs, including at military facilities, the vet success program on campus. but this announcement is only the beginning of the contraction in the services and activities of the v.a. in fact, the v.a. also announced that at the end of the month, it will run out of funding for compensation, pension, educational and vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits. what does that mean to america? what are the consequences of the v.a. saying, this shutdown means we are shutting our doors to processing and paying claims of men and women who have served this country, who have been disabled as a consequence of that service, who have earned

educational benefits so that they can come back and continue to contribute to this country? what that means to america is that we are, in effect, defaulting and failing on a core obligation this country has to men and women who serve and sacrifice. america is failing to keep faith with its veterans and america is failing on one of its most essential obligation. we awr ought to be ashamed and embarrassed that 7,000 men and women who want nothing more than to help their fellow veterans -- in fact, half of those 7,000 men and women at the v.a. are

themselves veterans -- have been told, go home. and, in fact, at the end of the month, the benefits and pensions and educational benefits that are received by veterans will have to be suspended because the v.a. is running out of money. right now it is, in effect, continuing on the leftover money that will last only through the end of this month. i spoke this morning to a veteran named jordan massa, a native of bridgeport, who served for six years in the united states army as an infantryman, including two tours in iraq. jordan massa was injured in an i.e.d. explosion, a roadside bomb that left him severely

disabled with ear and back wounds as well as post-traumatic stress. and jordan massa waited for two years after he applied for the benefits that he needs and deserves. he waited for two years until october 1, just days ago, when he heard the good news that he would be receiving the disability benefits to which he is entitled. not as an act of charity or beneficence. he is entitled to those disability benefits. and now jordan massa is on the verge of being denied the benefits that he needs and deserves because of this

shutdown. a connecticut native, awarded the purple heart, who has been a student at tonkshus and has sought to help other veterans as a counselor, giving back to this country even after his service in uniform. i spoke also to aaron jones, who works at the south park shelter which serves homeless veterans in hartford. that shelter is full. there are thousands of homeless veterans in connecticut, millions across the country who also are a mark of shame and embarrassment for this country, the greatest nation in the history of the world is failing to provide for men and women who

have worn the uniform and now are homeless. and he is telling me that the government shutdown has created an additional obstacle to those veterans who want to leave that shelter to find permanent housing. some of there for emergency, about seven; some of there are for transitional housing, about 10; and they want to resume productive and constructive lives. and this shutdown has created an additional obstacle for them doing so and, in fact, for aaron doing so who is a veteran, served in the national guard, a tour in bosnia, a tour in iraq, this shutdown is a horrendous obstacle. at this moment as i speak on the floor there's a house hearing. the house committee on veterans

affairs has as its principal weather, the head of the v.a., general shin schecky who has sought valiantly to riewfer the backlog in disability claims and provide benefits more efficiently and effectively to our veterans. rather than using general senseky as a political punching bag, it ought to have a vote on a straightforward, no-strings-attached funding resolution that will enable those 7,000 v.a. employees to come back to work and serve the people they love. it would provide for other essential services whether at n.i.h. serving cancer victims or the other agencies that work with the v.a. to help serve our veterans. like the department of labor and

the department of housing and urban development. the piecemeal approach that the house has taken, a cause du jour approach to governing, is simply inadequate and irresponsible. and the bill that they've sent to us while it deals with the v.a. would not provide for those other agencies that are essential to the v.a.'s work whether in training or housing or processing claims. this nation should be embarrassed and ashamed. this legislature ought to be embarrassed and ashamed that it is failing to keep faith with jordan masa, with the folks who live at the south park inn shelter and countless other veterans in connecticut and across this country who are entitled to benefits,

pensions, and processing of their disability claims so that they can receive what they deserve and need. if the house votes, it will pass a simple, straightforward funding resolution. if the house is permitted to simply say yea or nay to that very straightforward, simple measure, this nation will keep faith with jordan masa, with aaron jones, and with the countless millions other veterans who at the end of this month will lose the benefits and pensions that they are entitled to receive as a result of their service and sacrifice to this nation. and so i ask the speaker of the house to simply allow a vote. let the house vote.

so that we can open government, pay our debts, and then reach a budget that is comprehensive and responsible and meets the needs of those veterans and many, many other americans who are harmed and handicapped and enduring hardship as a result of the failure of that body -- and it really is a small minority in one branch of the legislature, one branch of our united states government that is failing our nation. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i appreciate that, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: i understand we are in morning business and i would like to ask to speak for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: thank you. i want to talk a little bit about the government shutdown -- what else? -- and it's my understanding that my colleagues across the aisle, i will not have the opportunity to speak to any one of them should they come down to the floor, but they are out on the capitol steps, the senate capitol steps exhorting the house to send something that

they prefer or to simply end the shutdown with a clean bill. i would have suggested they would go over to the house steps, as a gesture of goodwill, i'm not sure any member of the house -- i know when i was in the house i'm not sure i would have appreciated either party getting on the capitol steps and urging me to do something in the house but let that as it be, perhaps it's a goodwill effort, as opposed to further demands. i just want to make sure that everybody in kansas -- and i know i speak for everybody on our side -- on the republican side did not want to shut down the government. as everybody knows, the current continuing resolution, a and i'm sorry that we have to go through continuing resolutions, that's where we bundle everything up on appropriation bills that have been -- some of which have been worked through

and simply meld them together into a continuing resolution. we don't do appropriation bills anymore. that's called regular order, and i really resent that and i find that most unfortunate. so here we are, trying to consider how to fund the government, and many of us believe this funding measure should do everything possible to also control spending. seems to be the real issue. chief among these proposals were to be defund or at least delay the health care reform law. my colleagues and i have supported multiple measures to try to avoid a shutdown, in the past few weeks while republicans have offered no fewer than three solutions to avoid the government shutdown i voted to keep the government open every single time. most recently, the house is passing mini c.r.'s to open the government piece by piece if we can't come to an agreement on a

continuing resolution. most people if they pay attention to the media know -- or if the media even covers this know what the house is trying to do, the first -- the first item of business would be to certainly fund the veterans administration, we've all seen about what is going on down at the world war ii memorial, unfortunately, at the marine memorial as well where we have yet to break the gatelines, being the senior marine in the congress, i may lead a charge at the memorial sometime later this week. haven't made up my mind yet. at any rate, that's just not reasonable. and there's a lot of things going on, including death benefits for people who have paid the ultimate sacrifice here just recently in the current wars that are continuing to go on. that's abhorrent and why that decision was made by the department of defense i really don't know. but at any rate, the house is

trying to target these particular items, most of which have been mentioned by the president. so these c.r.'s by the house have mirrored what the president says in regard to the hurt that is being caused by the shutdown. what the president says the house is trying to fix, send it to the senate, it's very unclear whether toartd will even allow -- the majority leader will allow a vote regard to this. i think senator cruz referred to this as plan a when we were discussing this in the republican conference. at any rate, the majority leader has refused to consider a single one. this debate isn't about shutting down the government. it's actually protecting in part to protect kansans and americans from what i call a disastrous health care law that is damaging our economy. raising taxes, and costing people their jobs. and it's about a president who is unwilling to lead, unwilling

to keep even come to the table to negotiate. the president is now indicating he might want to negotiate on a short-term continuing resolution but we don't have an agenda, we've had quite a few people offer up plans, the distinguished senator from maine, susan collins, has a bill, a bipartisan bill, it calls for a short continuing resolution to repeal of the medical device tax and fixing the sequester so the different agencies would have the authority to really pick and choose as to how to meet the guidelines with regards to the budget control act and the sequester. and then also oversight responsibility by the appropriations committee to take a look at what the various secretaries have done and make sure that's all right. that would be plan b. we go to plan c by paul ryan i just read about in "the wall street journal." we're not lacking for plans.

what we're lacking is the room. we don't have a room, don't want have a table, we don't have chairs and don't want have anybody in the chairs and, by the way, i would just as soon not have another super committee that didn't turn ute to be super selected by the leadership, we could have the finance committee pi which has the jurisdiction and the ways and means in the house which has the jurisdiction and i'll bet you we could come up with something that would be reasonable. but at any rate, it's still about the majority leader insisting no, he's not going to consider something like that unless, of course, the president would change his mind and i hope he does. my colleagues across the aisle have refused to consider even the most moderate proposals such as repealing the medical device tax as recommended by senator collins and ensuring members of congress and their staff are treated the same as the average american in the obamacare exchanges. let me repeat that. members of congress and their staff are treated the same as average americans in the obamacare exchanges.

when that came up in the finance committee, clear before obamacare was passed or for that matter, it went to the finance committee behind closed doors, and the majority leader's office, where i think he was singing with mr. rich in terms of behind closed doors but that's another story. at any rate, this was at that first time, it was senator grassley who said i think it's only right that members of congress and their staff live under the same rules. and he proposed that amendment, i voted for it then and i will for for it again if it ever comes up. we had it come up and, of course, it was defeated by those across the aisle. after failing to pass a budget last year and three years prior to that, or to pass a single funding measure this year, the federal government has been operating under a stopgap measure as i mentioned before called a continuing resolution. this is not what the people of kansas expect from their government. despite multiple disruptions and critical delays the exchanges

became active as of october 1, about a week ago. however, since then we have heard feedback that the exchanges are off to a rocky start. and are unusable. totally disappointing, fraught with frequent error and and error messages from a software component. that also is not what any people did not expect from any government programs and certainly not what is sold as the president's signature achieves cheevment. this was not unexpected for those of us who have opposed the law since the beginning. and it really brings up an issue if you watch every major news media, and for that matter, the comedy shows that follow late in the evening, there is always somebody there trying to sign up with regards to a computer and following the instructions by the department of health and human services. first you get a smiling face and then you get maybe three questions, one of which i was

really interested in in regards to what do you eat, what's your favorite food? what on earth does that have to do with signing up for obamacare? maybe they don't want somebody that they feel might be obese or something like that. maybe that's the person who ought to be signing up, i don't know. but i know when i went through the first 16 pages when i got them as a member of the finance committee on how you sign up, i got to page 3 and i wouldn't -- i wouldn't give any database -- it is supposed to be a six megadatabase that we're using here, i wouldn't give them that part of the information. but part of the delay is hooked up on that. but you get past stage three and then it says wait. i don't know how long we're going to wait. the president has called this glitches and bumps in the road. the front page of "the washington post" saying many people had warned the administration this was not

going to work is certainly pertinent with regards to this discussion, and i would offer up that there are system failures as opposed to bumps and glitches. i don't know when this is going to be worked out. and now despite a government shutdown, again my colleagues across the aisle will not consider solutions that acknowledge the widespread concerns expressed by the american people with obamacare. let me also point something else out. the nominee to be the new i.r.s. director, the head of the i.r.s. -- i asked him first why on earth he would want to take on that job. he said well, i'm mr. fix-it. that's what his resume says. basically he came to my office, i asked him just a couple of questions and i wished him well. i said how are you going to implement or enforce this fine that's going to be on everybody if they don't sign up? and then i understand from the administration that nobody has to put down their eligibility requirements with regards to income, so that's going to lead

to fraud and abuse and scamming. secondly, you can't sign up to begin with. and thirdly, how on earth is the i.r.s. going to fine anybody when they do not have the implementation capability to do that? i asked the distinguished nominee who will come before the finance committee, and i will ask him again how are you going to do that? he said i need 8,000 more people. i said what do you think the chances of that happening are around here. and they would have to be trained, right? right. so they even -- they don't even have the people to enforce this if, in fact, they are going to enforce a fine. so why not just tell the american people i'm sorry, but we're not ready to fine people, we're not ready to have people declare their eligibility with regards to income, and we're not ready to sign people up yet because of the glitches, bumps or system failures in the system and just delay it. or maybe you could delay it as has one prominent newscaster

proposed and just say look, if you want it, sign up for it. if you don't, you don't have to. and you don't have to anyway because you're not going to get fined because the i.r.s. has no ability to fine people. how are they going to do that? cut back on your rebate check? most of the people don't even get rebate checks. this is a -- this is an idea that is just, you know, fallen apart. i -- i for one am going to do everything i can to not let this stalemate stand. i'm number three on the finance committee. i would encourage basically that we do meet and that we do have a continuing resolution that would extend this out and would allow us to try to work together for the systemic problems that face us with regards to the national debt. i would also say i want to work toward a solution. i'm going to do everything in my power to bring my colleagues to the table. i think they would want to come

to the table. we have a lot of responsible people over there, good people over there who want this to end, just like this side does. but we race headlong into another debt ceiling debate where the president -- with the president in the exact same position as he is on the shutdown, unwilling to lead, unwilling to even come to the table, and we still have the majority leader saying no. and we have white house officials running to the media declaring we will default on our debt, the sky will fall, and that this will be the fault of republicans. these claims of inevitable default are false, given the operation of the government, the cash flowing into the treasury each month, so they are clearly posturing. no one wants a default. as well as a shutdown by shotgun, nobody wants a default, least of all me, so it's the height of irresponsibility to make these claims, all while refusing to negotiate.

what we're asking for and what we must do is very simple -- consider a debt limit extension and budget changes at the same time that answer our debt problem, and contrary to what secretary lew and other administration officials say, this is how these issues are handled. it's the regular order, the debt limit for at least the last 27 years for one small extension has been attached to larger spending cuts and budget reforms. this is not unprecedented. this is how we do business. this is the regular order. so the president's position is at odds with the stance taken by his predecessors of both parties. we saw the common sense of coupling deficit reduction with the extension of the debt limit. it's hard to figure the president's thinking on this, maybe now that a huge portion of the federal spending is on auto pilot. he simply wants a blank check on how to fund it with automatic increases in the debt limit. now, i want to mention something that bothers me.

i'd like to go into negotiations, at least with certain things that are guaranteed that have been guaranteed before. i'm talking about the budget control act and i'm talking about the so-called fiscal cliff. the fiscal cliff protected 99% of americans from a tax increase and a state tax reform that really made sense and some real progress on capital gains. the budget control act, as we all know, led to the sequester. again, senator collins has a bill that would fix the sequester, giving people more flexibility to do it but also oversight by the appropriations committee to make sure they do it right -- or the appropriation committees, plural. but in meeting with the president -- and he indicated in a press conference the other day maybe he could invite more people down to the white house. i really appreciate being invited down to the white house about six months ago, and the

subject came to a grand bargain, and we were asking how this would work out. madam president, i would ask for an additional five minutes, if i may have it. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: thank you, and i will try to wrap up, and i appreciate the senator who wishes to speak and has had time reserved and i will try to get this done. so we were meeting with the president. i was bringing up overregulation, but the rest of the people were talking about a grand bargained what could happen. the president said on tax reform, why can't we start with a clean page? basically, everybody agreed and then said also we could take mortgage interest and charitable giving and retirement and we could means test those, and we could start from there. i thought oh, boy, here we go again, income redistribution. that is not an answer. i would just say before we enter

into any negotiations, we ought to make sure that the budget control act, the fiscal cliff act which was negotiated in good faith with the vice president and has resulted in lower spending, lower spending, actual decreases in spending in this federal government ever since the korean war. that's unbelievable. so in going to negotiate, i don't want to give up in regards to that, and i don't want a situation where the president has said i gave up on c.p.i. so i need $800 billion in revenue. the distinguished majority leader has said it's $1 trillion. if we're going to raise $1 trillion in revenue, here we go back again that whatever negotiation comes down the pike, it's going to be more spending and more taxes. people are already trying now -- now really figuring out with their tax bill what is going to happen with obamacare. we don't need a situation where we sit down and we negotiate sexually for more taxes and spending. so without going into the constitutional implications of

granting the authority on auto pilot from the president, i would just say i'm adamantly opposed to giving any president that much control over the budget. why does all this matter? why am i making a speech? why is my friend across the aisle going to make her speech? the debt limit is currently $16.7 trillion. debt has increased more than $6 trillion since the president took office, more than any other president in our history. the main source of this tremendous growth in the debt is entitlement spending, social security, medicare and medicaid. paul ryan has a plan to fix that, at least it ought to be on the table, see where we go with it. without change, spending on these programs is expected to grow by 79% over ten years. in fact, by law there is no upper limit on how much we spend on these programs. this spending added to interest payments on the debt will make up close to 65% of the budget in ten years. we won't have any -- any discretionary spending. the congressional budget office

reports that we remain on an unsustainable tax, so all we are asking, prudently, i hope, is that any increase in the federal debt limit needs to be coupled with real tangible cuts in discretionary spending and meaningful structural reform to entitlement spending. we need to get this done to rein in our unsustainable debt to make sure the programs are there for our children and grandchildren. i ask unanimous consent that an article by thomas sal, the senior fellow of hoover institution from stanford university be inserted in the record at this point and yield back any time that i may have. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, madam president. as my colleague from kansas said, i also came to the floor today to talk about the unnecessary government shutdown that's continuing and having widespread ramifications in new hampshire and across the country. but i would just like to respond

to some of what he said about the budget control act and about the current state of the deficit, because the fact is the deficit under this president has been reduced by more than 50% since he took office. it's on course to reach a little over 4% of g.d.p. by the end of 2015, i believe, and by 2023 to get even lower, down to a little over 2%. so there is no doubt that we need a plan to deal with the long-term debt and deficits of this country, and most of us who supported the budget control act thought that's what we had done, that we had put in place a committee that was actually going to come up with an agreement on how we could get to a long-term plan to deal with this country's debt and deficits, and it's really unfortunate that some of the people who were pointed to -- who were appointed to that committee didn't share in that commitment. so i think it's important to

remind us all where we are. we have made significant improvements on reducing the deficit in this country. we have been willing to look at a long-term agreement to deal with the debt and deficits, and i think that's what we ought to do, and i would hope that as the result of this government shutdown, we could get some agreement from both sides of the aisle to actually do this. but my main purpose, madam president, in coming to the floor today is to talk again about the impact of the shutdown on too many people who are caught in the middle between this unnecessary inflicted crisis that we're seeing in washington and the impact that it's having on families, on small businesses, on the economy of new hampshire and the country.

we are now in the ninth day of this shutdown. in new hampshire, we have seen hundreds of federal workers who have been furloughed. now some of those are back to work, fortunately, at the portsmouth naval shipyard. most of them are back to work. that's very good news. we still have people at the forest service. we have people who work for the federal government in other capacities all over the state who have not been fortunate enough to be called back to work. and i would just remind everybody that even for those people who are back at work, they are not being paid. and so they are working without pay. in new hampshire, small business administration loans have been halted. that's true across the country. federal housing administration and v.a. loans have been slowed down. we have seen the white mountain national forest, which is a federal forest that hosts more visitors than yosemite and yellowstone national parks combined, and yet people who are

traveling through our beautiful white mountain forest at this time of the year looking at the foliage are not even able to use the rest rooms because of the shutdown. i really wanted to this morning also talk about some of those businesses that i have heard from who are being hurt by the shutdown. new hampshire's truly a small business state. 96% of employers in the granite state are considered small businesses, and they are the backbone of our economy. they are also where most of the new jobs are going to come from. two out of every three new jobs in the united states are created by a small business, but the shutdown is really hitting them hard. i heard this morning from two of our businesses who have been established in the state for a long time. they have national reputations. tightflex which is an aerospace company in the lakes region. they do a lot of business for the department of defense, and

they also provide supplies to larger companies. they told me that their inventory is piling up on their docks now because they don't have anybody to inspect it because those federal officials who do that are not working. they are furloughed. and they said, it's really going to be a problem in ten days if we don't get this resolved when they have to report to the corporation their bottom-line numbers and that will show on their reports and that will affect their company. then i also heard from some representatives of smith's tubular, which is a medical device equipment company that does business with the v.a. and with the military, and they also do a lot of work with f.d.a. they said they're seeing their contracts affected. and they've heard from f.d.a. that they shouldn't provide the payments that they normally provide to them because there's nobody at f.d.a. to process those payments. so that's having an effect on

the ability of businesses to innovate, to provide the products that are needed. now, in new hampshire, we've seen an impact on lending. the small business administration has reported that loans are not being originated, and you don't need a ph.d. in economics to understand that if small businesses can't access capital and credit, that there are real economic consequences. one of our largest s.b.a. lenders in new hampshire is a company call the granite state development corporation. they've got 20 of their loans that are on hold already because of the shutdown. and then this morning i heard from a community bank in new hampshire called provident bank, that it has about a half a dozen s.b.a. loans that are held up right now. and one of those loans is for a newly starting up entrepreneur who wants to open an orange leaf frozen yogurt franchise in new

hampshire. all the paperwork's ready to go but provident bank can't get the final approval for the loan until the s.b.a. is up and running again. so if the shutdown continues, provident bank is concerned that interest rates are going to rise and that as interest rates rise, the cost of borrowing for small businesses is going to go up. well, as the presiding officer knows, because her state is much like new hampshire, with a lot of small businesses, access to credit is the lifeblood of those small businesses. and right now we're preventing them from getting the help that they need. then we have small businesses in new hampshire who really rely on consumer demand. i heard from charles molten, who's the owner of a new hampshire maple syrup company called new hampshire gold. no, this is the time when people are looking to come see the foley -- foliage and sample our

may umaple syrup. he has a storefront but it also sells one of their signature products, their maple syrup, to zion national park in utah. kind of an unlikely location for new hampshire may you will syrup. but new hampshire gold sells to tourists who come there from all over the world during the summer and early fall. but now because zion national park, like all of our national parks, is shut down, new hampshire gold's sales have dried up. and while they continue to sell in concord, new hampshire, in their retail store, much of the cushion that they need to get -t they needed to get through the winter to next year come from that location althoug at zion. and they can't afford to lose their dollars as they're thinking about how to get through the rest of this year. new hampshire gold is just one of the thousands of small

businesses that have been hurt by the shutdown of our national parks. visiters to the parks spent nearly $13 billion a year in regions within 60 miles of the park and this shutdown is hurting not just visitors to those parks, it's hurting small businesses like new hampshire gold and all of the other small businesses around our parks who depend on that tourism business. and there's no doubt that this shutdown is hurting our economy. economist mark zandi projected that a three- to four-week shutdown would reduce gross domestic product by 1.4% during the fourth quarter. he noted that the projection likely underestimates the economic fallout since it doesn't really fully account for the impact of such a lengthy shutdown on consumers, businesses and investor psychology. the bottom line is clear -- the

shutdown is bad for our economy, it's bad for middle-class families, and it's bad for 9 countr -- badfor the country. and as we look at the looming deadline for when we need to raise the debt ceiling so we can pay the bills that this country has incurred, there is potentially even greater fallout for america. holding the economy and critical services hostage to score political points is just irresponsible. we need to open the government, we need to raise the debt ceiling so we can pay our bills. with the economy finally showing signs of improvement, the last thing we should be doing is what's happening right now. so i'm really hopeful that the house will do what's right, that they will pass a short-term funding bill, that that will get our government running again and that we then can continue to

negotiate on what we need to do to address the long-term debt and deficits in our country, and also talk about where we need to invest, where we can invest to make sure that this country stays competitive in the future. so thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: