quorum call:

the president pro tempore: a quorum is not present. the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to instruct the sergeant at arms to request the presence of absent senators. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there other senators who wish to vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 78, the nays are 18. the motion to instruct the sergeant at arms is agreed to and a quorum is present. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington state. the senior senator from washington state. mrs. murray: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the senate will be in order. the senator deserves to be heard. the senator will withhold just a moment. if conversations could -- the senator from washington state. mrs. murray: mr. president, when a house is on fire, the

reasonable thing to do is put it out and then figure out what happened so you can prevent the next one. when a ship is headed towards rocks, the reasonable thing to do is to steer away and then work on charting a better cour course. when a government is shut down and is headed towards a default that economists would say is catastrophic, the reasonable thing to do is end the crisis, steer away from the next one and work together on a long-term plan to avoid these crisis in the future. mr. president -- madam president, we are now in the second week of this absolutely unnecessary government shutdown. mrs. boxer: the senate is not in order. we have colleagues engaging in conversation. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. you know, every day we are hearing more and more about the tremendous impact that this is having on our families and our communities across the country, and it is only going to get worse. but, madam president, we can end this today. it does not have to continue. we are holding the door open for our republican colleagues to join us in putting a stop to this madness. all they need to do is come in. madam president, senate democrats have spent the last six months trying to get republicans to join us at the table in a budget conference. we knew there were two options: conference or crisis. working together towards a bipartisan budget deal or lurching separately into a completacompletely avoidable got

shutdown. now, a number of republicans have joined us in a push for negotiations, but no matter how many times we tried, we were blocked. we were pushed to this point by a refusal to negotiate. and now the only path forward is for the house to end the crisis and then join us at the table that we have been waiting to sit at for six months. because, madam president, democrats want to negotiate. we want to have a conversation. we think the only way out of this cycle of constant crisis is for the two sides to work together, to make some compromises and get to a fair and responsible long-term deal. but it just does not make sense to do that while our families and our communities are being hurt by this government shutdown and while the threat of a default hangs over their head. madam president, i served on the

super committee. i worked with my colleagues to write and pass our budget here in the senate. i know democrats and republicans have some serious differences when it comes to our budget values and our priorities, and i absolutely believe we owe it to the american people to try to bridge that divide, to find common ground. but are we really going to ask them to wait patiently, continue suffering through this shutdown, keep watching as we cruise towards an economic calamity while another super committee gets together and has a conversation? madam president, that does not make sense. let's have those conversations. let's have those negotiations, but let's end this crisis and get to work. now yesterday i heard something from the speaker. he said he didn't want to end the shutdown or address the debt limit now because that would be -- quote -- "unconditional

surrender to the president." madam president, have we really come to the point where simply allowing the government to open is considered by one party to be a political loss? are we really in a place where the majority of one chamber in one branch of government believes allowing the united states of america to pay its bills is a major concession? i say to my republican friends who are here today, can you imagine if our roles were reversed? now, for example, i've been working very hard this year to write an early childhood education bill i'm passionate about that i believe will really help our children and our families. now, i suspect there are a few people in this chamber today, including several on the republican side, who could one day see themselves in the white house.

if that day were to come, what would my republican colleagues do if i said to them that if they did not pass my bill to expand pre-k, i would get all the democrats together, and we would refuse to pass any spending bills until we got what we wanted. and if that led to a government shutdown because they refused to let my bill pass, what would they do if i demanded a super committee to discuss ways to invest in our children before i allowed a vote to open the government back up again. i would humbly suggest that my republican colleagues would say exactly what democrats are saying now. this is not a legitimate way to negotiate, and the only path forward is to end this crisis and then have a conversation. madam president, the great american system that we hold so

dear, our democracy that is the envy of the world, simply cannot work if a minority of members can threaten to shut down the government or devastate the economy if they don't get their way on an issue, any issue. that is not what democrats did when we were in the minority, and it is not what we should do should that day come again. our system was designed to push both sides towards negotiations in a divided government, to encourage negotiation and movements towards common ground. it breaks down when one side refuses to negotiate in advance of a crisis, and it falls apart when a minority refuses to allow the basic functions of our government to perform unless their demands are met.

madam president, i know all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, came here to fight for their constituents, to solve problems, to make this country work better. i know there is nobody here today, not a single senator, who was sent here to shut the government down or to push this country towards an unprecedented default on our loans. and i know so many of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, are sick of the constant crises. they hate seeing their constituents get hurt. as my friend, the senator from arizona, said yesterday, think we should find a way to sit down and find a way out of these dead ends. madam president, that is what i am here today to offer, a way out, a path forward. it is not a defeat of one side or the other.

it is certainly not any kind of surrender. but it would allow us to get out of this mess that has been up ao negotiations so we can avoid the next one. i am going to ask for consent once again to start a budget conference as soon as the current crisis is ended. democrats have made it clear, we want to negotiate. we couldn't have made it clearer. we will sit down and negotiate over anything the republicans want, and we pledge to work as hard as we can for as long as it takes until we get a fair, long-term budget deal to end these constant crises. but first this current crisis needs to end, and the threat of the next one needs to be lifted. madam president, republicans don't need a hostage. there are plenty of things democrats want out of a long-term deal that we are very

interested in making some compromises for. so i urge my republican colleagues to please consider today taking us up on this offer. we can end this today. we can do the right thing for our families and the communities that we represent. and we can get back to work helping people, solving problems and working together. so, madam president, i respectfully ask unanimous consent that when the senate receives a message from the house that they have receded from their amendment and concurred in the amendment of the senate with respect to h.j. res. 59, the senate then proceed to the consideration of calendar number 33, h. con. res. 25, that the amendment at the desk which is the text of s. con res. 8, the budget resolution, passed by the senate, be inserted in lieu thereof, that h. con. res. 25 as amended be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made

and laid upon the table, that the senate proceed to a vote on a motion to insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of those two houses and authorize the chair to appoint conferees on the part of the senate with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: american public, reserving the right to object, on this side of the aisle we agree it's good to negotiate, and we should. i would only hope that the president of the united states would be part of that negotiation in order to make it successful. but i would ask my friend why is the request contingent on passage of the house continuing resolution? the democrats have already rejected the house request to go to conference on the c.r.. seemingly in contrast what they're now asking for, which is

negotiation. hopefully we'll pass h.r. 3273, the deficit reduction and economic growth working group act which will create a bicameral bipartisan group to address the c.r. and the debt limit situation. but on the republican side, again i would say to our friends, we have a long-standing request to make sure that reconciliation instructions are not in order, and a budget conference so that the debt limit can be increased on a strictly party-line vote. we happy to think it's a -- we happen to think it's a problem when if the debt ceiling were raised, we would see the debt go up by 68% under this president, more than all other presidents in american history who preceded him. we think that's a bad idea. so, madam president, i would ask the distinguished senator from washington whether she would consider an amended unanimous

consent request. and we'd ask that the senate, by way of amendment, that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 33, h. con. res. 35, that the amendment at the desk which is the text of s. con res. 8 and the budget resolution passed by the senate, be inserted in lieu therefore, that h. con. res. 25 be amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, that the senate proceed to a vote on a motion to insist on its amendment, request a conference of the house on the disagreeing votes twaoft houses and authorize the chair to appoint conferees of the senate with all the above occurring without action or debate. i further ask consent that it not be in order for the senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: will the senator so modify her request? mrs. murray: madam president,

reserving the right to object, let me make one observation that sometimes i think that those who have been objecting now 21 times to our request to go to conference have forgotten who i will be conferencing with, which is the republican house majority. what they fight so adamantly and strongly for here on the senate will be well i believe ably appointed in the conference committee. that is what our democracy was set up to do in a divided government where we have the opportunity to do that. madam president, having a conference committee to work out our budget agreements is exactly what i've asked for. but i will object because of what the senator's request does is simply say we're going to keep our government closed. we're not going to allow people to do the functions that are so desperately needed. we're going to stay closed. we're going to hold that hostage. madam president, as i said so clearly when i spoke before, we need to open the government, we

need to pay our bills, and we need to negotiate. that's what our request does. that's what the republican request does not do. and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modified -- mr. cornyn: madam president, i object. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original unanimous consent request? mr. cornyn: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: madam president, i want to thank the senator from washington for the 21st time coming to the floor of the united states senate and asking the republicans to join us in a conference committee to resolve our budget differences between the house and the senate. 21 times senator murray has come to this floor simply asking to negotiate, and the republicans, who have been arguing that we don't negotiate, turned her down 21 times. the latest by the senior senator from texas. the junior senator from texas shut down the government over

the notion of defunding obamacare. now the senior senator from texas has said he objects to going to a conference committee to resolve our differences, republicans and democrats, between the house and senate. if we are going to restore this senate to the orderly process, what the senator from washington has asked for is very basic: open the government. this morning the chaplain of the senate started by acknowledging the five families who were notified after they had lost a military member, a son, a husband, brother in afghanistan over the weekend. and the chaplain noted that in their bereavement they were being denied the basic benefits which this government gives to these grieving families after they have lost someone in uniform. the chaplain of the senate said it this morning. enough is enough.

this notion that closing down our government and keeping it closed is somehow acceptable, political conduct is outrageous. we just left a press conference with senator mikulski of maryland, senator cardin, senator kaine and senator warner of virginia talked about the local economy. i can tell stories where 50,000 government workers have either been furloughed or their checks are being withheld for the most part. this is unnecessary and it is unacceptable. we were in the midst of a terrible accident last week, right before october 1. a train ran into one of our metro trains coming back in the airport. 30 people were sent to the hospital. the national transportation safety board went out to investigate the accident to find out what led to this terrible thing. they had to leave at midnight on october 1 after having collected

what evidence they could, because the government was shut down. the investigation was suspended. that is one small example. the five families grieving. it goes on and on. and what we hear from republicans is we'll take care of each of these as it arises. we'll pick up the vital functions of government. so far the bills passed by the house of representatives represent 18% of the domestic discretionary budget of the united states. each day as another tragedy occurs, as another embarrassment to this republican trapblg emerges -- tragedy emerges they'll try to find a way to fix that story, fix that problem. it is time for us to fix our sights on a solution befitting the great nation of america. open the government, pay our bills while we negotiate. that is the only responsible way to approach it.

i am sorry that for the 21st time the republicans have come to the floor and denied the request by the budget committee chair, senator murray of washington torque sit down. 21 times the republicans have refused to allow us to enter in a a bipartisan negotiation. that's why we're in the -- we face the problems that we do today. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, it is a good thing that the democrats, for the first time after four years, passed a budget, at least brought one to the floor and passed it on a strictly partisan basis. but before that, they not only didn't pass one, they didn't bring one to the floor for four years and refused to do so, even though a specific provision of the united states code called on them to do so. actually required them to do so. it was a stunning development.

senator conrad, then democratic chair of the budget committee, wanted to bring budgets up, fought to bring budgets up, one time said he was going to bring the budget up, but senator durbin and others in the leadership apparently had a vote and they voted against him. senator murray, to her credit, has gotten a budget through, and the presiding officer is a member of that committee, and they got a budget through this year, which was a good thing. but i am not surings but i surem not sure, but i suspect that senator murray was one of those that blocked senator conrad from bringing up a budget for four years. so, i think it is a bit aggressive to say that republicans are blocking a budget when the history is they haven't even voted on one. but, secondly, on that point, there are members on this side of the aisle that simply say

that the legislation necessary to raise the debt ceiling again should be passed like legislation should be passed -- on the floor of the senate, and it would require a 60-vote point of order. you'd have to have 60 votes to pass. and their concern is that in conference a raising of the debt ceiling would be put on the budget, which only requires 51 votes for passage. and they have suml simply said y would allow the budget to go to conference, they would agree to conference, but they want a commitment from my democratic colleagues they won't try to sneak through raising the debt ceiling on the budget, which doesn't require but 51 votes. and our colleagues have flatly refused to do that agreement. if they would make that agreement, we would go to

conference. that's clear on the budget, and i this i that our democratic -- and i think that our democratic majority should agree to that. they've indicated they don't intend to put that on the budget. one time senator durbin said he didn't think it was appropriate to put it on the budget. well, if so, let's make clear we're not going to gimmick this up and add that to it. we are -- and the reason we've had such contention at this point in history is that we're facing fundamental challenges relevant to the whole future of america financially. it's a time of great importance. the american people understand it. the american people want us to take action to place this country on a sound financial path. and so we're heading to the debt ceiling. and we, by law, limit the amount of money congress can borrow,

how much money we can spend above our current -- how much we can borrow. we're now spending about $ $3,500,000,000,000 a year, and we're taking in about $3,800,000,000,000 a year. tbhi that. -- think about that. that's what we're doing every year. and it's unsustainable. august of 2011 we faced the debt ceiling and the american people told congress, you guys, we want to clip back on your credit card. you're not going to continue to borrow this much money every year. we want you, before you raise the debt ceiling, we want you to show that you're going to be more frugal, that you're going to manage our money better. and the republicans dug their heels in on that and said, mr. president, we're not going to raise the debt ceiling until you agree to some financial

constraints, that you're not going to keep spending recklessly every year. and after a tense time, there was an agreement reached and a committee was formed, an agreement was reached, and this is what we agreed to: that over the next ten years, first we would raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion. then we agreed over the next ten years that we would reduce the projected growth of spending by $2.1 trillion, 1-1, as speaker boehner said. so we gave the congress ten years to find the cuts, but we've already now in a little over two years borrowed another $2 trillion, and we hit the debt ceiling cap again. and we have not yet come close to saving the $2 trillion that we promised to save. and, by the way, these are not

really cuts. overall, when you look at the united states budget, the united states budget was projected to increase spending from $37 trillion -- from $37 trillion over ten years to $47 trillion over ten years. with the budget control act, spending would increase from $37 trillion to $45 trillion over ten years. that's not really a cut in spending, is it? yes, the way it's been carried out hits some departments more than oh, particularly the -- more than others, particularly the defense department. and we need to adjust that. but fundamentally the reduction in the growth of spending that was part of the b.c.a. last year was not extreme, not irresponsible, and should be preserved and must be preserved. but, colleagues, the president of the united states, after signing that agreement in august

-- and the sequester is all part of the b.c.a., it was all part of the same deal that created the $2.1 trillion in savings -- in january after that august, he proposed a budget that would increase spending another $1 trillion and would raise taxes $1 trillion. and that's basically what our colleagues passed in their budget this year. spend $1 trillion more than the budget control act says we should spend and raise taxes another $1 trillion. over ten years. this is a total abdication of the promise we made to the american people. we said, american people, okay, we're going to vote to raise the debt ceiling. a lot of people didn't like any raising of the debt ceiling, i got to tell you. the phone calls in my office were against it.

any raising of it. they said, it's time for you to guys to live within your means, like i have to do in my house. so we raised it, but we promised, did we not -- we promised we wouldn't spend so much. we promised that we would reduce spending $2.1 trillion, but over ten years, and a lot of cynics around here, you know what they said? they said, congress won't adhere to that. that's just a bunch of baloney. they promise that all the time, and then they breech their promisessal thpromises all the . that's why the country is going broke. that's exactly what the president did in january of 2012, six months after the thing was agreed to. he proposed to spend another $1 trillion above the amount of money we agreed to spend six months before. this -- oh, why? well, i didn't really want to sign that agreement. i didn't really want to spend

that much money p. -- spend that much money. cut that much money. so i'm not bound by it. i didn't make a promise to the american people. i forgot all about that. that was six months ago. oh, a ten-year promise that we're going 0 contai to containe growth fe of spending for ten years? forget that. i've got investments i want to make. i got taxes i want to increase. this is fundamentally what's occurring here. so we have got to stand firm and adhere, at least, to the containment of the growth in spending that was in the budget control act. we have to. the failure to do that is a capitulation in our promises to the american people. a total abandonment of of any pretension that we will be fiscally responsible in this body. it is just unthinkable that we

would abandon the limits that we had in the budget control act. and the truth is -- the sad truth is, the budget control act reductions in the growth of spending do not come close to putting us on a firm financial footing. we are still on an unsustainable debt course, as our congressional budget office has told us. yes, we've seen a reduction in the deficits this year. $600 billion. people say that's great. george bush has been called profligate, and sometimes he was. the highest deficit he ever had was $470 billion. his last year in office -- the year before his last year in office, he was $167 billion. president obama has averaged in his six years -- will have averaged almost $1 trillion a year. $1,000 billion in deficits. we've never, ever, ever come close to that kind of deficits

before in the history of the republic. so what does a budget say that says we want to tax people $1 trillion more an spen and spende money under these circumstances? i'll tell you what it says. the american people need to pay attention to this. what it says is, from the president, from our majority here in the senate, it says, it's not our problem; we can't cut -- we can't find anymore ways to reduce the growth of spending; we can't save another dime, you people. you just don't understand. there's no way we can save anymore money. we got a problem, though, and you know who's responsible for it? you are. you, the american people. it's your fault. you won't give us enough money. if you would just send more

money, another $1 trillion, another $2 trillion, another $600 billion that was passed in january, just another few hundred billion more, a trillion here and a trillion there in taxes, why, we could solve all our problems. send us more money. and, but the way, we'll use that money to create government programs, government bureaucracies that impose great cost on the american economy and have, in fact, resulted in the declining wages of american workers to a degree that's not acceptable. we need a growth-oriented, lean government, a lean government that serves the people for the least possible cost and reduces these deficits. and deficits themselves are pulling the economic growth in our country down. the size of our debt is so lar large. we've never had anything like

it. it's already beginning to diminish the prospects for growth in our economy and reduce job creation and reduce wages. so, madam president, i know that we're in a tough time now. we certainly need to work our way out of this. but the president negotiated over the debt ceiling august of 2011, and we made at least a step forward. in fact, it was the most significant fiscal step this country has taken maybe in decades. and for the last two years we've actually spent less money than the year before. think about that. well, to hear people talk, they'd think the country was going to collapse. but we've had a modest reduction in spending, theansdz been good. -- and that's been good. but it's not near enough to put us 0en on a sustained path.

we need to strengthen medicare and medicaid. we cannot afford the affordable care act. we have got a total misrepresentation on the affordable care act with regard to its cost. an independent auditor has told us it's going to add $6 trillion to the debt of the united states over the long term. it doesn't pay for itself. nowhere close. this is unstable financially as social security is. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sessions: i thank the chair and would just say, colleagues, let's keep working. maybe we can develop some ways that confront our financial problems. it's absolutely critical that we do. we have a moral responsibility to do that. and we've got to start working together to achieve it.

and i think the president needs to back off his statements that he will not negotiate on the continuing resolution or the debt ceiling. i would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i'd ask my colleague from alabama if he has a moment or two more after i reach an official consent request, if he might state how that budget conference committee works. thank you very much. madam president, i have one unanimous consent request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that this be agreed to and that this request be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. through the chair, i wanted to pose a question about the budget conference committee because i

think it's something that has puzzled a lot of people across america. we hear some folks standing up and giving speeches saying for six months we've been trying to get a conference committee, and we have other folks who are standing up and saying we'd be glad to go to conference as long as there's a deal beforehand on exactly what is done in the conference committee. and in that regard, i thought it would be useful to have kind of a little bit of perspective here. and my understanding is that anything that comes out of the budget conference committee would have to have agreement of both the team of delegates from the house side and the team of delegates from the senate side. this is a question i would ask of the ranking member of the budget committee to clarify that process. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank the senator. of course that's correct. i understand that the speaker has indicated that there's no

guarantee that the increase in debt ceiling would not be a part of a conference report that came out of conference committee, and we have independent senators in this body that simply said we don't think we should be subjected to having the debt ceiling increase without a full debate and the normal processes of 60 votes in the senate. so that's where the disagreement lies. and people can have disagreements about the validity of their concern, but it's a legitimate concern. and if there's no intention to move a budget through a 50-vote -- move a debt ceiling increase without -- at 51 votes,

why wouldn't my colleagues agree not to do it? so that's the disagreement i think that now exists. mr. merkley: thank you. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: might i ask a couple of other pieces of the puzzle? why not with that concern, i would pass this question through the chair to my colleague, why not with that concern simply ask the house delegates to carry that concern rather than blocking the start of the conference committee? mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: my colleague through the chair, well, it's very simple. senators have rights, and they have a right to assert those privileges on the floor of the

senate. and we have senators that say you shouldn't do this on -- you shouldn't raise the debt ceiling on the budget, budget bill. and we don't want to go to conference unless you do, agree not to sneak that through without a full debate and vote on the floor of the senate. and attaching it to a bill is a budget deal that's huge and would have a lot of interest in it. it would make it even more difficult to separate that question out. so rightly or wrongly, that's their view. and i just would say i don't see any problem, and i'm amazed at the intransigence of the majority in not just accepting in a because i don't think it's likely as you indicated the house would add that to it, frankly. not too worried about it. but some are, and that's causing

the disagreement right now. i think it would be great to go to conference and would like to see a conference occur, frankly. and i think it's an unusual and positive development that after four years of not even bringing a budget to the floor that we now have our, the majority here passing a budget, so we can try to do something with it in conference. although i've got to tell you, all of our colleagues, there is a big difference in the budget because the budget passed out of the senate without a majority, that every republican opposed, completely busted the budget control act. it is nowhere close to what was agreed to in that act just two years ago. so i think that we've got a huge

gap to cover in conference. not impossible, and it would probably be a healthy thing to start that process. and i wish my colleague would relent and commit not to try to sneak the debt ceiling increase in under budget. i would thank the chair and appreciate my colleague. remember, the budget committee contributes ably and works hard to try to do the right thing around here. thank you. mr.merkley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: the thing that puzzles me is there is a process on the floor for giving a conference to the budget committee. my colleague left the floor. but the question i would have followed up with is, given that there is a specific process in the senate for doing budget instructions to a conference

committee, why not utilize that specific process, hold a vote on the conference committee instructions rather than blockading the conference committee from starting? i guess i'll have to rhetorically answer the question that there's really no good explanation, no good explanation for why not going through the normal process of proposing a budget committee instructions for our conferees. and then the question becomes, so couldn't we resolve this today? couldn't we resolve this today, have a proposal put forward to instruct the conferees, vote it on the floor of this senate and it either passes or it doesn't? isn't the whole budget process designed specifically to be a simple majority process under the budget act so that we can indeed get the job done and not be paralyzed?

i think, madam president, i believe the story, and i would have liked to have had the perspective might have colleague, but i think the story is a determination to not allow a majority determination of the budget instructions and instead allow a minority to do so. i believe also that is an absolutely unprecedented situation. but i wanted to clarify that and understand whether there was in fact precedent for this type of determination that in a simple majority budget process a minority would blockade a budget conference. it's very strange that this should become such a central issue. but i want for tphoerpbs -- for americans to understand that essentially it boils down to this, for six months we've been

trying to start a budget committee that a small group, a couple of individuals have wanted to instruct that budget committee, but to do so without going through the normal process on the floor, and so they could do it as a minority rather than as a discussion and decision of the senate as a whole. and it's that precedent that really seems unacceptable. and i think the tables were turned, it would be felt strongly on the other side. i hope to keep exploring these questions because this six-month obstruction of being able to get the budget that pro*eus the framework -- that provides the framework for spending is really deeply damaging. and this body, this body absolutely has to be able to do its fundamental work in determining the budget, getting a budget conference, getting a budget number, doing the spending bills, called appropriations bills. because otherwise we are careening from crisis to crisis. i'm going to shift gears here. i'm going to step back from what's going on immediately with the shutdown and ask where did

the seeds of this come from? and if we turn back to about april of 2009, shortly after i first came to the senate, there was a memo put out by an individual named frank lutz. and frank lutz was providing a road map on how to block any sort of improvement in our health care system. frank lutz said, and he was specifically instructing my colleagues across the aisle, said it doesn't matter what is in the health care bill. it doesn't matter what good it does. whatever it is, let's attack it and call it a government takeover. now this was long before anybody knew what was going to be in the bill. so this strategy of poisonous partisanship rather than problem solving has been with us since at least april of 2009.

therefore, a series of myths were generated. and as the process proceeded, those behind the myth kind of doubled down on it. for example, we have in the health care reform a process by which small businesses can join together and get the marketing clout of a large group, negotiate lower rates and get a better deal. but under the frank lutz let's demonize and deceive strategy, instead of honoring the fact that the small businesses will be able to get a better rate, there's been an assertion this would hurt small businesses. now in the health care reform bill, we have a process by which individuals who had no market clout can band together and get a much better deal. and we're seeing significant drops in rates for individuals across this country under the marketplaces that are just now opening for signup. but indeed, under the frank lutz

"deceive and demonize" strategy, it became let's tell people insurance rates will go up instead of down. we have a bill before us -- not a bill, but a health care reform law coming into effect -- that ends abuses in the insurance industry. a situation where you couldn't get a policy if you had a preexisting condition. a sort of situation where if you had insurance and you got sick, you would be thrown off the policy. the fact that children weren't able to stay on your policy until they were able to get health care insurance of their own. these bill of rights are reforms that are deeply sought by americans across this country, urban and rural, but under the frank lutz "deceive and demonize" strategy there was an assertion unfounded that this would destroy the insurance system. you have a process whereby under the marketplaces, insurance

companies will have to compete, private insurance companies. and yet under the frank lutz strategy adopted by some of my colleagues across the aisle, they decided to say this would hurt competition even though it strengthens competition. it puts people apple to apples, having to lay out their rates and their benefits under these different levels of insurance. and we're seeing that competition from private companies proceed to lower rates. well, so let's fast forward. we had that phase of the demonize the plan even though we have to mischaracterize it and deceive and delude americans about what's really in it. then we have -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. merkley: thank you very much, madam president. and i will just wrap up with a sentence or two with the cooperation of my colleagues. thank you for coming to the floor to continue the conversation. i think it's so important that we proceed to put our government

back on track and quit careening from crisis to crisis doing damage to communities and families across our nation. thank you, madam president. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business for debate only be extended until 5:00 p.m., senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, the majority leader be recognized following morning business, further, the republican side have the time from 2:00 to 2:45 p.m., the majority have the time from 2:45 to 3:30 p.m. ferrarthe presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. leahy: thank you. and, madam president, you thinkn listening to the distinguished senator from oregon, wha he said about regular order ... he remembers he was here with me at 5:00, 6:00 on a saturday morning to pass that budget

bill. we'd gone all week long. dozens, dozens upon dozens of votes, and we passed it. wanted to go to conference with the house, where there'd actually be a lot more republicans sitting at the table than democrats. and why haven't we? because a republican -- one republican representing the tea party stands up on this floor and objects unless it is rewriting to be exactly the way -- rewritten to be exactly the way the minority people wanted. i have been here a long time. i can't imagine any of the republicans or democrats that i've served with over these years, distinguished people, including one of my best friends, the distinguished republican from the senator's state, mark ha mark hatfield, td never have agreed to that. so i thank him for his reason. madam president, today is day

nine of the government shutdown. if you are one of the people directly affected by it, it like a lot more than nine days. the republicans have piously blamed everyone but themselves. but there's no mystery. it's very simple. they continue to r refuse to permit a vote on keeping the government open: the affordable care act. childreparents like the idea thr children can stay on their insurance until they're 26. they don't like that. or people like the fact that if they have a preexisting condition, they can now get asnuns. they would do away with that. but no alternative. we voted on this dozens of time. it was signed in to law by the president. it was ruled constitutional by the supreme court. in the last presidential election, one candidate said, if elected, he would do away with it.

the american people resoundingly opposed that. so now we have tens of millions of uninsured americans that can obtain affordable health insurance, including those with preexisting conditions. but house republicans, a handful of tea party senators don't like it, they've used all kinds of scare tactics to try to derail it, but they offer absolutely nothing, not one word, of an alternative to help the uninsured people, help the people with preexisting conditions, help the children who are in college. millions of americans know better. they've already shown they want to sign up. tea party members of congress are on a you crusade to hold the affordable care act hostage until the affordable care act which has been passed and held up by the supreme court, is

repealed because handful of them want it repealed. then having closed the government, they go to a lot of angry phone calls from outraged constituents. so all of a sudden, wait a minute. we'll pick and choose which government plan to vote. the latest ploy is revealing what it says about the tea party republicans. it is as though they suddenly learned that the federal government is comprised of millions of hardworking americans, democrats and republicans and independents in every state have performed countless tasks the rest of the country depends on. do they not realize that many of the people that sent them to washington depend on the federal government for their monthly paychecks, for the hard work they do? that every american, every american, depends on the federal government to inspect the safety of the food they eat, the water they drink, the air they breat breathe? that america's students and farmers depend on loans from the federal government, countless needy families depend on federally funded head start

programs, that the department o health and human services pays for the vaccine to protect american children from polio, measles, and other diseases? does the speak say what he wants and the president sits down and have a conversation. president obama has shown time and time that he's willing to compromise. more than some of us would have liked. but he said down with the speaker last week. but no president, i don't care if it is republican or democratic, should negotiate the terms of keeping the federal government operating. and no member of congress should recklessly toy with the united states defaulting on its debt payments for the very first time in its history and when the world is finally recovering from a devastating global recession. the senior senator from maryland, the chairwoman of the appropriations committee, has done an excellent job of explaining what is at stake. not only for american families but for the reputation of the ayes. -- for the united states. we are after all the world's

oldest democracy. i think senators should be aware of the impact of the shutdown on thousands of american companies that depend on financing from the federal government to export their products and invest overseas and create jobs here. during the shutdown, the export-import banker the ove overseas private investment corporation cannot provide new loans or insurance to u.s. companies. this means that every month those companies lose $2 billion to $4 billion in revenues because of this unnecessary shutdown, and they jeopardize just in that one area alone 30,000 -- alone 30,000 american jobs. the shutdown continues, the department of state which conducts all kinds of services for americans in programs overseas, will be severely affected. in fiscal year 2011 when the federal government came close to shutting down, the department

estimated 70% of its washington staff would be furloughed. do our tea party fishermens just think that these federal workers sit islandly at their desk doing nothing? that they're some kind of luxury we cannot afford? wait until one of their constituents is falsely arrested, imprisoned overseased or robbed or badly injured or suddenly has to come back here and there's no one there at the staiment state department to help them. look at the other things we do. almost 800,000 children under the age of five die every year of diarrhea, mostly due to unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation. all 800,000 of those deaths are preventable. a prolonged government shutdown would mean curtailing water sanitation programs for millions of people in the world's poorest countries, programs that have always had strong bipartisan

support in this body, and yet because of the shutdown, children will die. malaria causes half a billion deaths a year. 90% of them are children, the age of my grandchildren. a continued shutdown would force the u.s. agency for international development to stop funding malaria prevention programs and that will put tens of thousands of lives at risk. speaker boehner is right on one thing p. he says shutting down the federal government is -- quote -- "not a damn game," to quote him. the house is playing rush should roulette with the american economy and people's lives. there is no excuse for t the speaker has two choices: stop it or continue to roll the dice with the u.s. economy and the lives of millions of american families and programs that protect our nation's security. the state department, the

shutdown has already forced the cancellation of international visitors programs that enable future foreign leaders to experience this country firs firsthand. so instead of seeing what a great country this is, they see our political system in disarray. it's embarrassing for our country. embarrassing for our embassies. it's embarrassing for this senator. i believe it is embarrassing for all of us. but, despite the shutdown, the state department still has to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of nearly 10,000 scabbinacademic exchange partics in the united states and abroad. now, either those students and scholars have to return home and, thus, hurt the united states, or the universities and organizations responsible for implementing the exchanges continue operating without knowing if, when, and how their costs are going to be paid. we've heard about the impact of

the shutdown on the u.s. national security establishment, including the department of defense and our intelligence community. significant. putting america at risk every single day, escalating every single day. but the shutdown may also affect the state department's antiterrorism program. i would ask unanimous consent to continue for one minute further and then in turn if the distinguishe-- and then inturn r who's waiting for given an extra minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: it utahs can down our border control threats in countries like kenya, niger. it cuts down talks on trans-atlantic investment standards. it prevents trade first of all, from traveling to brussels.

the president canceled his trip to asia this week. so the chinese were able to fill in. who made it to the summit? china's president zi. he filled president obama's seat next to vladimir putin. and yet we hear from the tea party, we need to do more. so, madam president, i thank my distinguished colleague. i'd ask consent my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: madam president, thank you very much. i'm pleased to be here on the the floor of the senate. i'm saddened by the circumstance we find ourselves in and look for solid, responsible, and quick resolution to our differences in regard to the continuing resolution. yes, madam president, could i ask unanimous consent that the senator from california, senator boxer, follow me upon the conclusion of my remarks.

the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: you're very welcome. madam president, again, the circumstances that we find ourselves in i look forward to a quick and responsible resolution to the differences that we have and that we move forward with the funding of our federal government. i would point out that a reason that we're at this point is that we need a continuing resolution because the senate failed to do its work in the first place. while for the first time in four years the senate passed a budget, it was never reconciled in conference with the house. and i'm certainly a republican who would be supportive of that reconciliation, a conference committee to work out the differences between the house-passed budget and athe senate-passed budget. but the relate city that there are 12 appropriations -- but the reality is that there are 12 appropriations bills -- i am a member of the appropriations committee. take that responsibility very seriously. i was excited to become a member of the appropriations committee as an opportunity to establish our priorities, determine what

we should be spending money on. and yet not one of the 12 bills that are required for us to pass across the senate floor has been passed this year, and, therefore, we end up on september 30 with no funding in place and creates this opportunity for us to have this debate and discussion about a continuing resolution at a time in which there's great leverage on that issue. what i lament, what i wish would have happened is that we would have passed 12 appropriations bills and then worked out the differences with the appropriations process in the house. today i want to speak about a particular issue related to the shutdown of the federal government, the lack of funding. prior to that occurring, prior to september 30, both the house and senate and the president signed legislation called "pay our military" act. it was designed to make sure that our military men and women had compensation, should there be a shutdown. and i appreciate that legislation passing and am

pleased that it is in place now that we are in the circumstance that we're in. there were rumors and concerns about how that bill would be implemented by the department of defense. the senator from west virginia, senator manchin, and i led an effort in which we had 50 senators in a highly bipartisan way ask the secretary of defense to interpret that legislation in a broad way that would make certain that our furloughed civilian employees who support our military men and women as well as our reserve component, those who serve in the national guard and the reserve, would be put back to work for the benefit of the nation's security. and i want to thank the secretary of defense, secretary hagel, for his decision to implement that legislation in a broad way that did exactly that: returned furloughed civil workers for the department of defense back to work and gave the ability for our national

guard and reserve members to continue in their responsibilities forb for defeng our country. so, mr. secretary, thank you. i'm here today to point out that we have an additional problem, in fact one that is certainly as equally, if not more, serious than that, and that is that we have read, heard that those who die in the active service of our country are not now able to receive the death benefits that come to their families upon their death. and i can't imagine that there's a senator of any political or party persuasion who thinks that's a desirable outcome. again, with senator manchin and others, we worked at bringing this attention now to the -- this issue to the attention of the department of defense asking secretary hagel in a letter that was led by senator coons and

senator blunt to use every opportunity, full authority, wide flexibility, whatever circumstances the department of defense could find to provide the benefits to those who died in service to our country. there is a special tax-free payment of $100,000 to eligible survivors of members of the armed forces who are killed in action. and those benefits usually arrive within the first three days following the death of a service man or woman, and those help the family certainly not overcome their loss but to have the necessary funds for funeral services, to travel in this case, to dover air force base to meet their loved one as he or she returns home, to overcome the lack of a regular paycheck. this death gratuity is such a small price to pay to honor and recognize someone's family who

has lost a member of their family in service to our country. and now at least the stories are, the reports are that due to this inability for us to resolve, to work with the president, republicans, democrats, house and senate to resolve the resolution that benefit will not be available. my understanding is that the members will be poised to pass legislation to pay those benefits. i hope that is a piece of legislation met with unanimity of support. here in the united states senate we've asked secretary of defense, secretary hagel, if he has the ability to do that within his current legal jurisdiction, within his -- the law, if he has the ability to do it within the law that he does that. and we anxiously await and hope that the secretary can do that. but if not, i hope that this

senate will unanimously confirm that legislation that would allow the secretary to pay those benefits immediately. again, no one can -- i just can't imagine any of my colleagues ever thinking that under any circumstance we ought not step forward to resolve this issue. and just because we can't resolve everything, it seems to me that there's a method of operation too often here in the senate that if we can't solve every problem, we're unwilling to solve any problem. on those things of which there is such significant agreement, we ought not let anything stand in the way of coming to the aid and rescue of a family who now so desperately grieves the loss of their loved one. we know over the weekend there were five soldiers killed in afghanistan. there were five families as of today who would be in this

circumstance. and i'd like to pay tribute to one of those five. sergeant patrick hawkins. he was born on october 1, 1988. he graduated from high school and listed in the -- enlisted in the army of his hometown of carlisle, pennsylvania, and sergeant patrick hawkins, according to his battalion commander, was described as a brave and incredibly talented ranger. and the description of his death revolved around the fact that he was in -- he was moving to aid another wounded ranger when he was killed. his actions, according to, again, his commander were in keeping with the epitome of the ranger creed, which is "i will never leave a fallen comrade." sergeant hawkins dedicated

himself to serving us, to serving our families, to serving all americans. and he ultimately paid for that service with the loss of his life. and, madam president, i pay tribute to this soldier as an example of many who have sacrificed in similar ways over a long period of time, but especially for those five who this weekend lost their life in afghanistan. sergeant hawkins was awarded the bronze star, the meritorious service medal. he was awarded a purple heart. none of that replaces the loss of life. he is survived by his wife, who is a resident of kansas, of lansing, and her parents who are residents of my hometown of

hase, kansas. today i pay tribute to a soldier who in serving this country lost his life, who leaves behind grieving family members and friends and who once again epitomizes what we all should know in service here in the united states senate, what i spoke about earlier on the senate floor this week, which was if you need a reminder about how this place should work, look to our service men and women who for no partisan reason, no republican or democrat reason, volunteered to serve their country but conclude that had there were things that were much more important than life itself. and that being the ability to have a country that we know and enjoy as the united states of america, that has the freedoms and liberties guaranteed to us by our constitution, and creates the opportunity for every american to pursue what we all

call the american dream. today, madam president, i pay tribute to one more hero, one more soldier, one more american who through service to others was willing to sacrifice his life for the betterment of his family back home and for the future of a country that we all love and call home. the united states of america. madam president, i yield to the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, would it be possible, because senator casey and i, each thinking we get ten minutes, we're willing to cut that time back to 15 minutes between the two. could we ask unanimous consent, if the republicans don't mind, just slipping a little bit because people took extra time? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. boxer: thank you. we'll each have about 7 1/2 minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, we're going to fix the injustice

that my colleague spoke about. in justice to families who lost their loved ones. let me be clear about one of those five who denied the benefit was someone important to me, a constituent of mine, army first lieutenant jennifer marino from san diego who was killed this weekend in afghanistan by a roadside bomb. 25 years old. and because of this shutdown, brought to us by the republicans, those families suffered even more in their already suffering. let's be clear, this never had to happen. never had to happen. this government has been shut down by the republicans for one reason, and john boehner was honest about it. he said -- and i quote him --

"the american people don't want to shut down the government, but the american people don't want obamacare. they don't want the affordable care act." well, let me say that to close down the government because you don't like a law that was passed almost four years ago, to shut down the government because you lost a presidential election which was based in large part on this, to shut down the government to keep our people, millions of them, from getting affordable care for the first time, it's a disgrace. it is. there is no other way to say it except maybe it was said beautifully here, it was said beautifully here by a chaplain. "enough is enough." now we are going to fix this

problem, of course we are. this indignity that our military families had to face. but let's be clear, it never would have happened if the government had been open. now we have two things that are in our job description, madam president. i know that you know that quite well. one is to keep the doors of government open officially. we do our best. we don't always succeed. there are problems here and there. keep the doors open. just like a pilot has to fly a plane, just like a teacher has to teach a class, just like a nurse has to give a vaccination, we have a basic responsibility to keep this government open. and we know how to do it. they pass a budget over in the house, we pass it in the senate, the conference is called, they

hammer it out, and we've got a budget plan. and none of this would be happening, and let's be clear, the republicans have objected now 21 times. 21 times to senator murray, the chairman of our budget committee, so she can sit and confer with her counterpart paul ryan and hammer out the details of a long-term budget. but, no, the republicans don't want to do that. they want to hold the country hostage. they want to put our backs up against the wall or the backs of the american people. why? they don't like the health care law. if you don't like a law, you try to repeal it. they tried to repeal it 43 times. it went nowhere. if you don't like a law, try to replace the people who support the law. oh, they tried. they tried, and they failed.

i served with five presidents, three of them republicans. i didn't like everything they did. believe me. but after they won and they had an agenda, i did what i could, and so did my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to, carry it out the best i could, to fix it where i could. let me just say this. we're in a shutdown because they are throwing a temper tantrum about the health care law, the affordable care act. and i just want to share some news with them because i went home to see how the health care law is working in my state. and i want to say what i know. i know that it is working. by now we have had more than a million distinct visitors to our site, covered ca.com.

we have tens of thousands of applications. we have completed more than 20 ,000 small businesses by the hundreds are coming on to the site. and in the time i have remaining, let me read you about one woman who the republicans want to stop from getting health care by shutting down the government. okay? according to the associated press, nothing could dissuade rachel mansfield of la quinta who sent in an application last week. rachel has been waiting for the exchange to start so she and her husband could get health insurance. rachel is self-employed. her parents currently pay a $530 monthly premium for her coverage. her husband has been rejected for health coverage because he was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder. rachel's new premium, instead of

it being $530 for just her, will be $400 for both of them. with higher-quality coverage than she currently has. that's why the republicans are having a temper tantrum? to stop my constituent from for the first time having peace of mind and having good insurance? come on. if you don't like the law, work with us. we can make it better. then there's melissa harris. according to the "fresno beat," she stopped at a covered california tent on campus. she's paying $600 a month with help from her family. she has diabetes and hypertension and under the affordable care act which prevents insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, she can now afford health insurance on her own. and the quote from her, from my

constituent, is -- and i quote -- "it is a godsend to me. a blessing. a blessing." and that's why the republicans are shutting down the government, to stop my constituent from getting a blessing of health insurance. there was another story of a man who waited on the phone for 45 minutes and he finally got on and signed up. he said, i have a been waiting for 45 years. 40 minutes was nothing. so i say to my friends, the law is the law. open up the government. pay our bills, and we'll negotiate. and i'd yield the rest of the time to senator casey. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. i know our time is limited. i wanted to start with -- to