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

start on an issue that all of us i think are coming together on, no matter what party we're in, and that's what's been happening to our military families. on sunday, as noted by the senator from kansas a few moments ago, sergeant patrick hawkins from carlisle, pennsylvania, was killed in action in afghanistan when his unit was attacked with an i.e.d. he was moving to the aid of a wounded range whefers killed. due to the shutdown, sergeant hawkins' family cannot receive the death benefit freu providedo soldiers to cover the funeral and burial expenses. today i'm joining theest of a number of -- i'm joining the effort after number of senators in a letter to senator hagel to provide the death benefit to the family of sergeant hawkins and other families. i no he that the president is

working on this issue, is working with the office of mangtsd and budget in the defense department on a solution to this problem. mr. president, i'll move to the question of where we are now. this is a shutdown brought about by the tea party, and we no that if speaker boehner would simply hold a vote on the bill that's before him, which would fund the government, this crisis would be over. so we should continue to take steps, number one, to open our government, number two, to pay our bills and make sure we don't miss a bill and default, and, number three, to negotiate -- or i would argue, to continue to negotiate. because we already negotiated a budget number, which was much lower than our side of the aisle wanted. we took a -- we agreed to a number of $70 billion less than the other side. if that's not a compromise and a negotiation, i don't know what is. we know that this -- this

sentiment and this position to make sure that the government opens is a point of view that's shared by democrats, republicans, and independents across the country. nine members, just by way of example -- nine members of the pennsylvania congressional delegation, four republicans and five democrats, are supportive of a so-called clean bill that doesn't have attachments to it to open up the government. to make sure that we can have a functioning government, pay our bills, and then work together on longer-term solutions. just a couple of examples, and i know our time is limited: as this tea party shutdown moves into its second week, the women, infants, and children program -- we know it by the acronym w.i.c. -- the w.i.c. program will no longer be able to be funded in many states across the country. we know that this program provides nutritional services to more than 8.9 million participants, including 4.7 million children and 2.1 million

infants. a quarter of a million of my constituents in pennsylvania depend upon this program. for now -- for now, state government is using carryover funds to keep the w.i.c. program running in pennsylvania. if the government shutdown continues to stretch on, this may put the program in jeopardy. we know the impact of this shutdown -- we know the shutdown thishut --weigh know the impacts shutdown is having. we are no longer able to provide health care provider oversight. the shutdown has cause add reduction in the number of initial surveys and recertifications for medicare and medicaid providers. if providers are unable to be certified, then they cannot serve beneficiaries. home and community-based services are ad adversary impacted. we know that even though social security checks are going out,

at the same time those who are hoping to be enrolled in social security don't have that opportunity. let me read you one line from a letter that we got from a constituent in northeastern pennsylvania talk about this individual's parents. "based on our" -- "besides our personal difficulties due to the budget impasse, my elderly parents live with the wrongdoer of when and if they are receive that i remember social security checks. at 85 and 83 they should not have this uncertainty. these should be their golden years. it breaks my heart to hear my mother saying she can't sleep and has a stomach ache from the worry about where our country is headed. middle- and low-income families cannot afford another economic down turn. we are just barely recovering from the last one." that entire passage came from one individual in northeastern pennsylvania about her parents.

and that's, i think, the best summation that i've read about what this is doing to people. the worry and the anxiety, in addition to the harsh impact, is something that we should not accept. finally, mr. president, i'll conclude with some comments about national security. i support -- and i know this is widely shared -- the passage of the pay our military act and welcome the defense department's decision to bring a majority of furloughed staff badg back. we mentioned the death benefits for families. we're all altogether on that. but all the while, all the while that the speaker doesn't put a bill on the floor that will open the government, we see the impacts on our national security. 70% of the intel community's workforce have been furloughed. these are people that work every day to keep us safe from terrorists and they're not able to work. the treasury department's office of foreign asset control has a

skeletal crew, and they're not able to do their work, which is part of our national security. so, if we're doing the right thing and if the speaker and his party in the house is doing the right thing, they would vote today to open the government, to ensure that we pay our bills and to continue to negotiate, and it's very simple. what they have in front of them is a 16-page bill. they could pass it this afternoon and reopen our government and give that family in northeastern pennsylvania some measure of peace of mind instead of the worry and the anxiety and the fear that's caused by a government shutdown earchtand efforts made to even contemplate defaulting on the full fanal and credit of the united states of america. with that -- the full faith and credit of the united states of america. with that, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: last saturday the house voted 400-1 to express the view that a government shutdown should not interfere

with the ability of military chaplains to provide services for our service members. the house took that vote amid reports that chaplains were limited in their ability to minister to those who sought their services even if ministers were doing so on a volunteer basis. we've heard reports that those who scheduled baptisms might not be able to have them, obviously this is not a tolerable situation. we've got a very large military presence in kentucky, the folks at fort campbell and fort knox really don't need this. we need to remedy the situation immediately and care for the troops that have volunteered to defend us. the house has already taken a stand on an overwhelming, overwhelming bipartisan basis. only one vote against it. it's time for the senate to do the same. so i would call on the majority to allow a vote to express the senate's view that service members in my state and every

other state or overseas should be able to receive religious services. this is one vote we should have today, and some of my colleagues will talk this afternoon about some of the other votes we should also have. the government may be shut down but our service men and women shouldn't be caught in the middle of this impasse. and i had indicated to my colleague, the majority leader that i would ask consent after my remarks, which i will proceed to do now. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of h. con. res. 58, which was received from the house, further ask consent that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble preamble and the -- the preamble agreed to and the motion to reconsider made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president,

there's no question when you look across the united states senate or across the house, people of different political parties, people of different faiths all support any kind of religious service for members of the armed services. there's no question about that. our budget indicate that every year. that's a widely held point of view. unfortunately, what we're seeing today, though, is a continuation of an effort to pick and choose what areas of our government should be funded. we shouldn't have an exercise where we choose between our soldiers and our kids or between one party versus the other. we should vote and work together to open the government. it's as simple as that. open every service, every service that is part of the federal government. open the government, pay our bills and continue negotiations

to start -- that started a long time ago on the current budget. i come from a state which has well more than a million veterans. no state in the country has contributed more to the armed services of the united states than pennsylvania and i'll take a back seat to no one when it comes to supporting our troops and supporting their families. that's why we're all coming together to make sure that the death benefit is paid for those who recently lost their lives, including sergeant hawkins from pennsylvania. but this process we're going through today is just another attempt to not deal directly with the question of how we're going to operate the federal government. we should urge our colleagues in the house to have a vote today. it would take a matter of minutes for the house of representatives to vote on a bill that will open up the government, allow us to make sure that we're paying our bills, and do everything we can to continue to work together on

a longer-term budget agreement. so i would first, mr. president, offer a modification to suggest unanimous consent as follows, that an amendment which is at the desk be agreed to to expressing the sense of congress that the house should vote on the senate amendment h.j. res. 59, the continuing resolution passed by the senate, that the concurrent resolution as amended be agreed to, that the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: will the republican leader so modify his request? mr. mcconnell: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. casey: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, there are obviously differences in this chamber over the fiscal direction of our country, but we should be united in our

efforts to do right by our uniformed military and their families and certainly their survivors. the way they've been treated is simply unacceptable, indeed, it's outrageous. the president's spokesman today said he's looking for a solution and we're here to offer one to him. washington has not gotten a lot right lately but now's our chance. the legislation i will be offering, the unanimous consent on, would right this wrong by ensuring that the families of the fallen receive four essential benefits, the death gratuityty benefit, the coverage of funeral and burial expenses, coverage of travel to both the funeral and the dignified transfer of their loved one's remains and the temporary continuation of their housing allowance. so, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that when the senate receives h.j. res. 91

making continuing appropriations for survivor benefits for survivors of deceased military service members for fiscal year 2014, that the measure are read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? the majority leader. mr. reid: would my friend agree that we just learned that the president said he would solve this in the next hour. would my friend be willing to wait till let's say 4:00 today and renew your request at that time if it hasn't been done? mr. cornyn: mr. president, responding to the distinguished majority leader, if that will help facilitate this getting done, we'd be glad to work with him. hopefully we can again find another area like we did for military pay for our uniformed military where we can begin to mitigate the hardship caused by this shutdown. mr. reid: i think on this that's

the way to proceed. we can do something together and hopefully the white house will be in on what we're trying to do. i ask my friend to renew this at 4:00 -- that's right 4:00 or have someone do it. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, if businesses ran their operation the same way that the government is running this shutdown, they'd be bankrupt. oh, that's right. that's kind of where we are, isn't it? our national parks particularly the buns that are revenue producers are shut down. yellowstone park is a revenue producer. you pay to go into the park. you pay to travel through the park. the roads connect up montana, idaho and wyoming and it's a thoroughfare. and you have to pay to be able to do that. but right now you can't do that which means you probably have to travel an extra 300 miles to get

to your destination, and the park doesn't get the revenue. not only that, there are people in the park that are visiting there, and they've been made to leave. now, they were made to leave in a very ungracious way. one of the tours was from japan, australia, canada and some people from the united states and they had reservations at old faithful, one of the really historic places in the park, one place everybody goes because they like to see the geyser go off. it's probably the most famous geyser in the whole world. but they were told they had to leave. they had two days' reservation so they said you can stay for the two days but an armed guard was outside of their room and they couldn't leave their room. not to go watch the geyser go off, which they don't have any control over. nor can they harm. but they had -- so it's been written up as gestapo tactics

that met senior citizens in yellowstone park. we're giving up the revenue and creating a bad impression. we shouldn't be doing that. we ought to be taking the revenue and the revenue is a little more difficult than that because we have concessionaires in the park, people that run the hotels and the stores and the filling stations and the other services that are in there and they pay a fee for doing that and a percentage of what they take in. so we're not getting that percentage now, either. and they're losing about $4.9 million a week by not being able to be open. there are a lot of other things i could say about the way the parks are treated here and around the country but the ones that are revenue producing are particularly egregious. so i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 203, h.j. res. 70 making continuing

appropriations for national park service operations, i ask further that the motion be read three times to passed and the motion to reconsider laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i appreciate my emotion from my colleagues as someone who comes from a state about where tourism is the number three -- and we have 38 million people -- is number three in our tate state. we have national parks. but you didn't take care of my recreation land under the army corps or the b.l.m. land. this whole notion of funding the government piecemeal is absurd. this is the greatest nation on earth and all you can do is come here with these little mini piecemeal bills? let's face it, we wouldn't be

going through any of this angst and my friend wouldn't have to have any of that emotion if the republicans had not shut down the government. let me tell you under the rest of my reservation, we certainly support the notion that our parks should open. but we also support the notion that this government should open. and if people over there don't like certain functions, let's duke it out here and find out which you have the votes to do away with. i know a lot of you don't like the clean air act, the safe drinking water act. fine. let's fight that out. i see my colleague is here from wyoming. he and i, we're constantly debating the issue of what should be a priority, but you don't do it this way. we need the entire federal government open. people need to get paid. the communities around the parks, around the b.l.m. land,

around the core recreational land, around our nasa-ames facility, and i could go on and on, need to be paid because the mom and pop shops are suffering. you don't do government by piecemeal. not in the greatest nation on earth. you know what it reminds me of? a woman is drowning and somebody goes to rescue her, but he only takes her halfway to the shore and leaves her to drown. that's what this is about. you don't say i'll save this child over here but this one i don't have to save. i'll save this community over here because i kind of like it, but this community, sorry. no one party has a right to do it, not the republican party, not the democratic party. we don't have the right to decide which kids live and which

kids die, and which families thrive and which sink, and which communities suffer and which communities don't. none should suffer, not in this nation. open the government, pay our bills and let's negotiate. let's negotiate on everything. so i have a modification to suggest to the unanimous consent request, and this is it, if i might -- i ask consent the request be modified as follows -- that an amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, that the joint resolution as amended then be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. this amendment is the text that passed the senate. it is a clean continuing resolution for the entire

government, and it is something that is already over in the house and reportedly has the support of the majority of the members of the house of representatives. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: will the senator from wyoming so modify his request? mr. enzi: reserving the right to object, the reason we're in this mess right now is because we didn't do the budgets piecemeal. we're supposed to do them piecemeal. we're supposed to do 12 separate spending bills. we're supposed to do them one at a time. we're supposed to have the right to amend them. that way we can get into the deal on -- the details on what we're spending instead of an omnibus bill, which is what's being suggested by this amendment. had we gone through each of those, we could have had all these discussions, and that's how we should do it and that's our second most important task.

our most important one of course is the defense of our country, but the second most important one is the spending bills, and we're not doing the spending bills. i know the other side will say well, we brought up one and it was filibustered and we didn't get cloture on it. we just did that one time. there should have been every one of these bills brought up with the right to amend, and then they wouldn't have been filibustered, and then they could have been passed when the house sent their -- when the house sent their companion bill. so since we didn't do the process right, we're stuck with a continuing resolution and piecemeal is one way we can get it through. there was a request for a conference between the two sides. that was turned down by the democrats. that would have been a chance to resolve all of these things at once. that was turned down. so i object to the modification. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mrs. boxer: just reserving the right to object to the original request, i feel i must respond. senator murray and i just looked

at each other and said we feel like it's alice in wonderland here. where was my colleague the 20 times or more -- 21, to be exact -- 21 times when the chairman of the budget committee or her representative asked to go to conference on the budget resolution in which the conferees would negotiate for how to fund the various parts of government, and that instruction would be sent to the appropriators? i do not understand what is happening here. all we hear on the other side is negotiate, negotiate, and they won't remember, selective memory maybe, that they objected 21 times to going to negotiations on the budget. so i have to say this is the saddest display coming from the republicans who serve in the greatest legislative body in the world to try and fund this government on a piecemeal basis, leaving some of our families

winners, some of our families losers. it is pathetic and they have caused this republican shutdown, and they can end it. because i feel my friends -- friend's narrow, piecemeal approach to running this country is really wrong for this country, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask does the senator from wyoming still have the floor? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming has the floor. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask if the senator from wyoming would yield for a question? mr. enzi: i would. mr. harkin: my friend from wyoming mentioned the fact that we should bring up appropriations bills. as someone who has been a member of the appropriations committee for quite a long time, i would

just remind my friend from wyoming that earlier this year on the first appropriations bill that we passed out of the committee, under the leadership of senator mikulski, was the transportation, housing and urban development bill. if i'm not mistaken, it had some -- it had a number of republican votes in committee. it was brought out onto the floor, an extraneous amendment was offered on egypt by the senator from kentucky whereupon the -- i believe senator mikulski, our leader, filed cloture on the bill so we could vote on the appropriations bill. but, mr. president, i say to my friend from wyoming that all of the republicans on that side voted against cloture, voted against taking up that one appropriations bill. i'm sorry. i'm reminded that we had one republican, the republican from

the state of maine, who did vote to go to cloture on that bill. so one republican out of all those on the other side. so i say to my friend from wyoming, we tried to bring up an appropriations bill. it was republicans who objected to even dealing with that appropriations bill. i thank my friend from wyoming. i just ask my friend from wyoming if he had looked at that history and understood what had happened on that bill that came up at that time. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i have looked at both of the histories that have been discussed here. one of them is the budget one. the failure of the budget to not have a conference committee did not stop the appropriations committee from going through and doing 12 appropriations bills. i think that's what i count here on the calendar that would have been brought up. there was only the one brought up. you've said appropriately that in committee there have got to be some amendments, on the floor there were none. what we spent a lot of time around this body doing this year is trying to negotiate how few

amendments could be brought up, and that's taken longer than it would have taken to go ahead and vote on the whole issue. i -- i object. and yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: for the benefit of those on the other side of the aisle, i am not going to end my remarks with the -- with the issue of a unanimous consent, but i still have things i want to say. no one supports a government shutdown, not my side of the aisle or the other side of the aisle. could we have avoided this situation? sure. the government could be open and fully operating today, but for the majority, unwillingness to engage in a legitimate debate over proposals to amendment obamacare or any other issues that have come before us, and not even having a debate on those pieces that have come over from the other body because

hiding behind a motion to table is a way of avoiding debate. so as we know, the house passed and the senate defeated three different continuing resolutions. each one of those would have kept the government open and prevented a shutdown, but they were rejected by the senate majority. we are where we are because the majority refused to give the american people relief from the individual mandate and treat president obama and his political appointees the same as all other americans, or as we now in congress will be treated when it comes to health insurance. we could have considered each of the 12 individual appropriation bills, passed them into law, but the senate democratic leadership has been derelict in that responsibility. the senate did not get into debate on a single one of those bills prior to the end of the fiscal year, and i heard just now what my colleague from iowa

said, that one was brought up and then amendments were filed and there wasn't a motion to move ahead. the point being that the senate is a deliberative body. every senator has a right to offer an amendment. we were denied that right by the majority or at least wasn't assured of that right by the majority, and that's why cloture was not granted. and of course what the american people deserve is fair consideration of all the money that we appropriate, but you don't get that consideration on a continuing resolution. you get it all lumped into one piece of legislation. we should be, as the senator from wyoming said, considering separate appropriation bills. i remember not too long ago that a senate majority -- chairman of an appropriation committee on the other side of the aisle, so that's when they were in the majority was bragging to the united states senate that for the first time in a long time the senate passed every appropriation bill before the

end of the fiscal year. if it could be done then, why can't it be done now? but it isn't going to be done if you aren't willing to debate the bills. so it seems to me that the american people, the taxpayers, deserve a thoughtful and good-faith effort to find common ground on our spending matters. it's a duty to pass spending bills. passing a continuing resolution has become a new normal around here, and that's not right, it's not acceptable. while we wait for the senate majority and the president of the united states to come to the negotiating table and end their government shutdown, we should be working to fund or reopen areas of government where there is agreement. that's what we did when we passed the pay our military act where we all agreed to pay those both in and out of uniform who defend our freedom. we made a commitment to them because their commitment -- because of their commitment to our country. the military people deserve that piece of legislation. that's what we should be doing to open our national parks and

monuments. that's what we should do to ensure the critically important work at the national institutes of health. why hold these widely supported and critically necessary areas hostage? why is the majority insisting on an all-or-nothing approach? why can't we agree to fund these things that we agree on and negotiate the rest? and the very least, a little bit of common sense ought to prevail. common sense, for instance, when the minority leader made the point about -- about chaplains. it's common sense that chaplains have an obedience not just to the government but to a higher authority and they ought to be able to exercise that wherever they are. we have a situation that the parks aren't open. we have a situation where the world war ii memorial was closed down. open air memorials have never been closed down when we had shutdowns in the past.

and just a little bit of common sense prevailing would avoid a lot of these situations that we are bringing before the senate for consideration. but remember the house of representatives has passed legislation to keep the government open, and the senate has refused it. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, we have an interesting debate going on here. without achieving any results, let me give a crack at trying to make a more persuasive argument and see if my colleagues across the aisle would agree. we can disagree on what is an essential function of government, what's a constitutional function, what we ought to be funding and not funding. maybe that's some of the debate that we're in today. but i don't think anyone can

disagree that an essential function of government is providing for our national defense, is providing for homeland security, protecting americans from terrorist threats and responding to natural disasters, and there is an organization of the government called the federal emergency management agency, fema is the common name. fema is there to provide support to first responders. whenever a natural disaster hits, whenever a intended disaster through an act of terrorism hits this country or threatens americans, these are nawngsz have to be immediately responded to -- these are functions that have to be immediately responded to. and fema over the years has improved significantly its ability to play a critical, crucial role in responding to these types of efforts that put americans at risk.

and so what i'm bringing forward lear because that while we now know that some functions of fema are being funded and supported and functioned, many have been furloughed. many who would be essential should a disaster hit, whether it's natural or manmade, are furloughed and not able to assist in that first response. so i'm only asking that we consider seriously and give support for funding for fema to its full extent. we have recently seen natural disasters in the united states. we had tornadoes roar through southern indiana. fema was there just last year. fema was there immediately. we're still in hurricane season, and while we've been very fortunate this year that we have not had a major hurricane land on the continental united stat

states, karen was in the gulf, it dissipated. might remind myself, hurricane season runs all the way to november 30 so we're not out of the woods yet. we've just seen a disaster in the upper midwest with an unprecedented fall -- amount of snow falling affecting ranchers, affecting communities. some of our northern states, south dakota, nebraska, colorado and others. we've seen massive flooding and wildfires throughout the west. all of these are disasters that need to be responded to and fema plays a major role in all of that. and who knows? who knows what potential terrorist threats or attacks are out there where we may need to have an immediate response? so what i'm asking here is that we consider funding of fema at its current annual funding rate of $10.2 billion. this bill will extend funding for fema until december 15 but

funding in the bill could end sooner if congress hopefully reaches a larger budget agreement before that time. hurricane season doesn't end until november 30, as i've said. we can ensure this critical government function is not in any way limited by passing this bill, which was supported by 23 democrats in the house of representatives. so it does have bipartisan support. i, therefore, ask, mr. president, unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 210, house joint resolution 85, making continuing appropriations for the federal emergency management agency. and i ask further consent that the measure be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid -- considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. i want to commend my colleague from indiana for noting the

important role that the federal government plays when it comes to natural disasters. there's not a senator on this floor who hasn't seen this federal response in his own home state because of a natural disasterser. and the senator from indiana is proposing that we respond to these natural disassers with the government agencies -- disasters with the government agencies that have been authorized and appropriated -- usually appropriated -- the funds to do so. he has picked one of them -- fema -- and he's picked it because of the possibility of a hurricane. that's a legitimate observation. unfortunately, the senator from indiana is not telling the whole story. fema plays an important role. wouldn't you like to have the weather service fully funded so we could see the hurricane coming in advance? sadly, it is a casualty of the republican shutdown. wouldn't you like to have the coast guard available to have

aerial observation of the oncoming hurricane and to provide that information to save lives? sadly, it's not included in your unanimous consent request. and many other functions are the victims of the republican government shutdown. i'm sorry, too, that when it comes to the actual damage done by a disaster, fema plays an important role but not an exclusive role. and you know this from indiana, as i do from illinois. listen to the other agencies that are a critical part of responding to natural disasters. the small business administration, you know they're usually the first on the scene with the red cross. sadly, they're closed down because of the republican showfn thshutdown of the government and you don't include them in your natural disaster request. d.o.t., department of transportation, the need for emergency highways in the midst of hurricanes and tornadoes, not included in the senator from

indiana's q. the corps of engineers, the national -- i understand's request. the corps of engineers, the national park service, none of these are included. but the good news of the senator from indiana, we can take care of this together. i'm going to suggest a modest modification of your request that covers all of the disaster agencies of the federal government that respond and keep us safe and do everything to put families back in their homes and businesses back in business. it is just a basic idea. let's oh open the federal government. i ask consent that the request of the senator from indiana be modified, that an amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, that joint resolution as amended then be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. this amendment is the text that passed the senate. it is a clean, no-strings-attached continuing resolution for the entire government and every disaster agency of the federal government and is something that is already

in the house of representatives and has reportedly support of a majority of the members of the house of representatives. i hope the senator from indiana will stick with me. let's get the job done and accept this modification. the presiding officer: will the senator from i understand so modify his request? mr. coats: reserving the right to object, mr. president. i think my colleague from illinois, the senator from illinois, has made an important point. there are agencies that relate to the role that fema plays when a natural disaster or homeland security is threatened. and i, therefore, i don't disagree with that. and so i, therefore, would be willing to modify my amendment to include the coast guard, the weather service, and those agencies listed by the senator from illinois as part of this. so directly this toward applying to natural disasters and threats to our homeland security i think should include those agencies.

and so if we could go forward with that request -- i don't think that's what the senator offered. he offered a total c.r. here, which we know is not going to go forward under the current circumstances even though all of us want to get to that point, but as was discussed earlier by my colleagues, the regular order here is usually to take appropriations -- pieces of appropriations and pass them on an individual basis. and that simply is what we're doing here, given the constraints that we have that prevent us from doing that and coming forward. i would say this. the house has sent over three times opportunities to take up the full c.r. that had been rejected by the other side and a fourth opportunity to sit down and negotiate how we could go forward, which has also been rejected. so it -- it works both ways. so if the senator would be able to acknowledge the addition of what was listed directly related in his statement, then we could give that consideration here. without that, i object.

the presiding officer: is there objection to the request as modified? mr. coats: well, it's sort of a ping-pong game. mr. durbin: mr. president, which request? my request? the presiding officer: as modified by the senator from indiana. mr. durbin: well, let me see if i can clarify where -- reserving the right to object. i understand the senator from indiana acknowledges that just appropriating money for fema does not respond to natural disasters in america. i have offered a continuing resolution which includes all of the disaster agencies. i think what he's asking me to do is to rewrite his original unanimous consent request. i would just like a "yes" or "no" when it comes to my request to modify his original request. i'm not certain what he has asked of me for further modification. so i'd ask some clarification either from the senator from indiana or from the chair.

the presiding officer: would the senator from indiana further modify his request? mr. coats: mr. president, i'm not able to modify the request that has been made, as i understand it, from the senator from illinois because he goes beyond what he listed just as needed to address natural disasters and threats to homeland security. he listed a number of agencies that play into that role. my understanding -- and he could clarify this if i'm wrong -- my understanding is, is that he wanted to expand my request that he consent to adding the limited portion of what he did related to our natural -- the role of fema and our national security issues and homeland security issues that we're faced with but added to that the request for funding of the entire functions of government. and that i cannot object -- consent to.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. coats: had therefore, i object to the senator. the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. this is why this approach is so awful. coming to the floor with 11 requests for 11 agencies, we estimate that there are another 79 requests that need to be made for us to fund our government. grow up, senate. you can't do this one agency at a time. we'll be here in december doing agency by agency. what we're offering is a continuing resolution to fund the government, including all the disaster agencies. i object to the original reque request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 206, house resolution 3230, making continuing appropriations during a government shutdown to provide pay and allowances to members of the reserve

components of the armed forces. i ask fourth consent that the measure be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: reserving right to object. we are again seeing a request to fund a small part of our government. this request refers to our national guard and reserve. these are amazing members of our american family who have given and sacrificed with great honor, who i find to a one are selfless, and not a one of them would say, take care of me but do not take care of any of the other americans who are home today or whose businesses have been hurt, who don't have the services they need because of this government shutdown. i would think the national guard

would stand tall and say, let's take care of every american. it's what i have sworn my own life to do and it's what this federal government should do. so instead of just taking a piecemeal approach again, just asking to take care of our guard and reserve, i would say to the senator from north dakota that it's easy to do this. we can take up a unanimous consent that has been offered a number of times on our side to simply open up the government for all the functions. not what we pick and choose at the moment or by saying one american is more important than another american or one function is more important than another function. it would be like picking your children. mr. president, we don't do that in our families. we shouldn't do it here in the united states senate. so i would ask unanimous consent that an amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, that the joint resolution, as amended, then be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no

intervening action or debate. this amendment is the text that passed the senate -- passed the senate -- and it is a clean continuing resolution for the entire government and is something that is already over in the house and reportedly has the support of a majority of the members of the house of representatives. i ask unanimous consent to modify. the presiding officer: does the senator from north dakota so modify his request? mr. hoeven: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the good senator is talking about a resolution that's already gone from the senate to the house. that -- that's already been done. why do we keep going back to things that we don't have agreement on rather than advancing the things where we can get agreement? we have instances where our national guard is not getting paid. we have instances where our reserve members are not being paid. we have incidents where a death benefit -- where death benefits are not being paid to members of the military who made the ultimate sacrifice.

now, mr. president, we passed the pay our military act. it went through the house and it went through the senate. we passed the pay our military act. all of our military members and the civilian as that support them should be paid. we passed legislation to do th that, whether it's active forces, guard or reserve. we've done that. so what we're simply asking for here is a measure that would make sure that that gets done. that's what we're asking for. let's make sure they all get paid. we've passed the legislation in both houses. let's start working on the things we can agree on. and that's why i've asked for consent to proceed with the measure. i object to the request to modify it and again ask that my original measure, h.r. 3230, pay our guard and reserve act, be

considered. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mrs. murray: mr. president, because this request doesn't resupply the stocks for our guard and reserve, doesn't buy the tools or spare parts, doesn't provide the energy and support they need to keep their facilities open, their electric bills can't be paid, base maintenance can't be paid, they can't get their g.i. education benefits or mental health programs that they need to make transition home because i believe and i think all of us here believe we should open all of those functions, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, despite all this noise going on, this fight we're having, i think the one thing we can agree on is the most important thing for our country is to restore and save the american dream. with all of this talk of an economic recovery it would shock people around this country who are struggling to find a job or who have a job but this job is a dead-end job, they can't live

off what they're make, there is a lot of reasons why that's happen. one of the reasons is in the 21st century the job you need requires a higher level of skill. this hurts people that are disadvantaged especially children growing up in dangerous neighborhoods with little access to education and broken families, they're struggling to get ahead and we're seeing the impacts of the societal breakdown every day. we have a program called head start. this program helps children five years of age and younger, about a million kids a year that benefit from this program. it helps them to get meals. it helps them to get access to medical screenings, physical therapy for children with disabilities, access to quality prekindergarten education for these children. this is not a perfect program. i would thraoeubg see reforms in this -- like to see reforms in this program, become portable so children and their families can access the best provider possible. now is not the time for this

debate. now is the time to do everything we can to protect this program in the short term because as we speak there are thousands of children around the country already being impacted on it. in my state of florida, almost 400 children have already been cut off from these services. and the reason why i think this issue is different than the other ones that have been debated here is because the one thing you can't get back is time. every day that goes by is one less day education these children get. you can never give them back their time. you can always go back and pay somebody the money you owed them but you can't give them back time. so i would like to make a motion that i hope will be accepted. and it's that i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of house joint resolution 84 which makes continuing appropriations for the head start program which was received from the house. and i ask further consent the measure be read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider -- and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. harkin: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from aa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak before i respond to the request. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. harkin: mr. speaker -- mr. president, the senator from florida now wants to fund the head start program. that's all well and good. we all recognize how invaluable the head start program is. but i must say, mr. president, listening to this request, the previous request, the other requests that have come up, it reminds me of an analogy. the republicans, quite frankly, have torn down the wall of government. and now they want to rebuild it brick by brick. but the way they want to rebuild it is by stacking the bricks. here's a stack of bricks here.

here's another stack of bricks. and here's another stack of bricks. anyone will tell you, you build a wall like that and it's very weak. it doesn't hold together. our government is built of a wall of interconnecting bricks. look at a brick wall sometimes. see how the bricks are interconnected like that. because it provides for strength. they all rely upon one another. they're interconnected. they provide a bulwark. if you stack those bricks one after the other, you have a weak wall. now what the republicans are saying, well, we've torn down that wall by shutting down the government. now we want to build it brick by brick but we'll stack it. we'll have a little bit of brick here, we'll have a brick here and we'll have a brick there. here's what i'm getting at with that analogy. the senator from florida wants to fund the head start program. all well and good, but the head start program is not a separate brick in that wall. it's interconnected to so many

others. for example, a variety of other federal programs are used in the head start program. for example, states use the child care and development block grant program. they use the temporary assistance for needy families, the tanf program, the social services block grant to provide wrap-around services in this way. for example, they can use some of those funds to extend the head start day from a half day to a full day. they can extend it from a full day to later hours for parents that have different working hours and working conditions. so under a shutdown, we don't have these other programs. so you might have the head start program, but these other ones are all shut down too. head start providers use funding from the child and adult care food program. funded under a whole different auspices of the government, but

this food program comes in to provide healthy meals and nutrition services. i say to the senator from florida, i visited a lot head start centers. and they have nutritious food for these kids. that doesn't come under the head start program. that comes from the child and adult care food program. that's also shut down right now. so, again, again, you could fund the head start program, but all these other programs interlock and provide the support necessary for a good head start program. i might also say that a head start program is a program that's need-based, so that if someone wants to get their child into a head start program, sometimes documentation is used and needed. documentation needed like last year's tax returns. what was your income? well, as long as the i.r.s. is

closed right now, out of 94,000 active i.r.s. employees, 87,000 are furloughed. the i.r.s. is not processing those. so my point i make, mr. president, i make to all and to the senator from florida, is not enough just to say i want to fund -- i want to reopen the head start program. all of these bricks are interlocked. they're all interlocked. and that's why it's so important to get the government running again. if the senator from florida wants to cut funding for some of these other programs, there's plenty of opportunity to do that through the legislative process and the appropriations process. but just to say we're going to fund the head start program, that's, i say with all due respect, mr. president, that's a cruel irony to hold out to all the families that use the head start program that somehow, yes, we want to fund head start but all the other things that go to

support it and make it workable, we're taking that away. and like a wall built of stacked bricks, it will fall over because it won't have the other supports that it needs. so, mr. president, i respectfully object to the request from the senator from florida. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: let's be very clear here today. republicans have come to the floor to reopen government. we've offered request after request to reopen the government. we've offered to negotiate. from the other side, we hear, we will not negotiate. we will not compromise. and we will not reopen the government. we have offered 13 different compromises today to reopen the government. we are willing to open the government, and they say, oh,

you must agree to everything or we will open nothing. we will not compromise, and we say to them, why don't we open the parts of government that we agree to. can we not end this farce of putting security guards in front of the world war ii memorial? my goodness, it's an open park. they spent more money closing it than we spend keeping it open. we spend more money guarding the world war ii monument than we do protecting our ambassador in libya. it's become a farce. 85% of your government is open. we've offered today to open another 10%. compromise means coming together and voting on some of the things you agree on. every program that we've wanted to open today -- the national parks, n.i.h., veterans affairs, allowing funerals, for goodness' sakes, our military heroes who

have died in action -- they say we agree to it, but we won't agree to it. so let's be very clear. republicans have offered today very specific proposals for opening government. the democrats have uniformly rejected every appeal to open government. so in one of our wounded heroes can't have a funeral, when one of our people cannot be buried in arlington cemetery, when a world war ii veteran goes to the monument and is barricaded and kept from viewing the monument to celebrate their service, be very clear that republicans have asked to open the government, and the democrats have rejected opening it every point. in fact, they're very, very explicit with their strategy. we will not negotiate, they say. the president says he will not negotiate under pressure. my question is, when will he negotiate? we've had one good thing happen

for the american taxpayer in the last five years. the bad thing is $7 trillion have been added to your tab, to your kids' and your grandkids' tab. one good thing happened, and it happened under duress, and it happened with regard to the debt ceiling. the sequester actually cut the rate of growth of spending. didn't cut spending, but it's cutting the rate of growth of spending. the sequester happened under duress. the other side loves debt, loves spending, doesn't care how much your kids or grandkids will have. they don't care. they have rejected every compromise. well, what we are saying is $7 trillion of debt under president obama is too much. the country is struggling. economists say a million people are out of work because of the economy and because of the debt and because of the burden. and what do they want to do? heap more debt on your kids and your grandkids. i say enough's enough.

let's reopen government. republicans today have said we will open government. let's open the parts we can agree to. so i ask, mr. president, unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 207 for house joint resolution 70 to open the national parks, to make continuing appropriation -- i'm sorry -- to make continuing appropriations for the year 2014, that the measure be read three times and passed and the motion to consider be -- to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object, it was my understanding that the senator from kentucky was going to make a request relative to the veterans administration. the request relative to the national parks had been made earlier today. is the request for the national park service? mr. paul: yes. and i can go on. mr. durbin: spare --

mr. paul: i wanted it to be very clear that you are objecting to funding the national parks, so when people go to the national parks, they know they can call your office; okay? because we want to open the national parks, and we want to make it very clear that your side is objecting to funding the national parks. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. i would like to clarify a few points relative to statements just made by the junior senator from kentucky. the first statement, the democrats will not negotiate. well, let me remind the senator from kentucky -- and i'm sure he's not forgotten this -- the spending level for the continuing resolution is the republican spending level, which we agreed to in negotiation. $988 billion on an annual basis. mr. paul: it's the law. mr. durbin: do i have the floor, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois has the floor. mr. durbin: it's the figure that the republicans placed as part of the negotiations which the majority leader agreed to. that was a negotiation which led

to that number which speaker boehner agreed to. secondly, this argument by the senator from kentucky that the republicans are here today to open the government, let me at least remind the senator from kentucky that it's their failure to pass the continuing resolution by the republican majority in the house that has closed the government for nine straight days. we passed the continuing resolution to coop the government open at republican spending levels. the house has refused. this is a republican shutdown. point number three -- paul will the senator yield for a question? mr. paul: will the senator yield for a question? mr. durbin: well, let me finish my statement, please. i have reserved the right to object, and i have the floor. [inaudible] mr. durbin: i'm sorry. i stand corrected. the senator from kentucky has the floor. but i can object to his unanimous consent request, is that correct?

the presiding officer: the right is at the sufficien suffef the senator who has the floor. mr. paul: i will suffer longer. mr. durbin: the point that i would like to make about the national parks is one that i hope the senator will understand. we want to open the entire government, including the national parks and other lands, recreation facilities that are owned by the federal government beyond the national panchts when it comes to the world war ii memorial that the senator made reference to, i was just there. there were a group of honored veterans from world war ii came last week and i met them and they had access to the memorial. the reason there was any restriction was because the republicans' shut down took the employees away. here is my offer to the senator from kentucky. it is not bu new but it really

tells the senator. i ask consent that your request be modified as follows: that an amendment which is desk be agreed to, that the joint resolution as amend be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, this amendment is the text that has passed the senate. it is a clean continuing, no-strings-attached resolution for the entire government, including the national parks and many other important things. it's something that's already in the house, could be called in a matter evematter of minutes andy a bipartisan majority in the house. mr. paul: reserving the right to object, mr. president -- reserving the right to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i'm not topped a clean c.r. if we want to have a clean c.r. at a level at which we can balance the budget, i'm for it. i'm all for it. if you'd accept a modification of a top-line number of $940 billion to replace $988 billion where appropriate throughout the

continuing resolution, i can support your unanimous consent for a continuing resolution to go back over to the house. mr. durbin: does the senator object to my modification? paul palm mr. paul: i am offeriw modification to your modification and ask unanimous consent that you accept for a new top-line number where $98 billion appears throughout the resolution, that if your objective is to have a clean c.r., let's have a clean c.r.ment but we need to do it and restrain the growth of government because your party has added so much that our quun country is drowning if a sea of debt. if you will agree to $940 billion to replace $988 billion where appropriate, i would agree to your consent? the presiding officer: will the senator from illinois so modify his modification? mr. durbin: holding the floor at the suffe sufferance of the r

from ken company, i would like it ask him a question without yielding the floor. mr. paul: sure. mr. durbin: when was the last thyme our federal government had a surplus in the budget and who was the president at that time? mr. paul: could i ask for a germane question? well, we might want to -- part of the question was divided question -- part of the answer. the interesting thing about divided government is that it can work better and more conversation, i think we could get beyond this impasse. and i think if we would negotiate -- and here is the problem. i know now there are some in your party saying you will negotiate but the president said at least 20, maybe 30, maybe 40 times on national television, he will not negotiate until he gets his way, and that's still slings what you guys are saying. you'll negotiate only after you get your way. the problem is, we think that you won't negotiate unless there is a deadline, because the thing is when you finally did negotiate -- and here is my

question for the senator from illinois through the president is, did you vote for the sequester? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky -- mr. paul: the sequester wasn't a republican bill. it was voted on by many members of your party. the numbers are yours. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky's time has expired. procedurally, i believe we have modified -- mr. durbin: i reserve the right to object to the modification to reduce the topline budget number. this was a number negotiated between speaker boehner and the majority leader. speaker baron said this was a number that he could pass and since we took a $70 billion cut in the budget resolution that has already passed in the senate, i will not agree to further cuts in the programs -- the presiding officer: there is objection to the request. the presidin mr. durbin: i ab. spher officer is there objection to the original request? mr. paul: this is objection to the original modification of my motion? i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: i believe what's pending is the original unanimous consent request?

the presiding officer: is there objection to the original unanimous consent request? mr. durbin: for the rorksd the last time we had a surplus was under a democratic president named lyndon johnson. and i object. the presiding officer: there is objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, what is the order? the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. mrs. murray: mr. president, i yield one minute of my time to the senator from california. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, while the junior senator from kentucky is on the floorks i want to make sure the american people know the answer to the question that my friend from illinois asked him. who was president the last time there was not only a balanced budget but a surplus? the answer is bill clinton. and i was here when we had that vote. and so i think was the senator from illinois. we did not get one republican to join us in that budget that actually worked so well that we had a surplus until the republicans put a huge tax cut for billionaires on the credit card and two wars. so let's be clear here what this

is about: we have to open up the government, we have to pay our bills, and then let the good senator from washington go negotiate with congressman ryan shall the chairman of the budget committee, and, yes, we can see our way to a balanced budget. but let's not play these games of government b by piecemeal spending. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president, as we now know, the government has been closed for business for more than a week. across the country, newspapers are now filled with stories about how the shutdown is coflghiscosting us jobs and intg with everything from head start to v.a. claims. this shutdown has already caused american workers and families a lot of pain and its impacts are only going to get worse. that's why, what we heard this weekend from speaker boehner, was so frustrating. speaker boehner said, "the

american people expect in washington when we have a crisis like this that the leaders will sit down and have a conversation." mr. president, listening to speaker boehner, you would think a government shutdown fell out of the sky last week and caught everyone by surprise. the truth is, it was completely avoidable. senate democrats tried to start negotiations to avoid the shutdown 18 times before october 1, and each time an extreme minority of republicans stood up and said "no." speaker boehner himself even spoke out in favor of delaying negotiations. mr. president, this shutdown didn't just happen by accident. we didn't have to have this crisis. this shutdown happened because tea party republicans and the republicans who would not stand up to them chose brinksmanship over negotiations for six straight months. and now that we've reached this

point, republicans say they are ready to have a conversation. but only if we allow the government shutdown to continue. mr. president, democrats are more than happy to talk about the budget, but republican insistence on keeping the government closed during these negotiations makes no sense at all. and it suggests that they are really not thinking about how the shutdown is impact our families and our businesses who can't afford talk at the expense of action. so, i'd like to talk about some of those impacts today at time when we should be focu focuses focused on creating jobs and growing our economy. this smu shutdown is hurting our workers and families. from the sandwich shobs who rely on federal employees. to the construction companies who can't get contracts because of the economic uncertainty, to major corporations like boeing that are considering furloughs.

it's clear the shutdown is putting both public and private-sector jobs at risk. and because federal workers and agencies like the i.r.s. and social security administration are out of work, thousands of potential home buyers will be unable to get their mortgages approved, which could damage our housing recovery that has boost ped our economy -- that has boosted our economy. our nation's veterans deserve our gratitude and respect and all the respect we can offer. but this shutdown is creating uncertainty for these men and women who have heroically served our country. veterans make up nearly 30% of the federal workforce, 30%, and they're feeling the effects of furloughs. the shutdown has worsened the backlog on disability claims at the department of veterans affairs and veterans across the country are now watching and waiting for on end to the shut down because if it goes long

enough, their benefits could be threatened. nearly 640,000 veterans in my home state of washington alone are at risk of losing their v.a. benefits if this shutdown extends past october. it shouldn't have to be said, but they deserve much better. so do the struggling families who are now wondering how much longer they will be able to put food on their table. this shutdown will stop funding for the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children known as w.i.c., which helps more than 8.9 million struggling moms and young children get healthy food. many of our states are now scrambling to find money to keep those w.i.c. operations going, but the usda now estimates that most will only be able to continue as usual until the end of october, before their funding runs out. other struggling parents are wondering where they will send their children while they are at work. more than 7,000 children and their families have lost access to head start due just to this

shutdown. and, by the way, that is on top of the 57,000 slots that would result -- as a result of the sequestration that has impacted so many. so, mr. president, as much as republicans may not want to acknowledge it, the effects of this shutdown will far-revengevg and severe. and should this government stay closed, it will only get harder for agencies to continue providing services that are so crucial to our families and communities. so when speaker boehner says the american people expect their leaders to sit down and have a conversation, well, you know what? that's what i've been saying for the last six months. but what i won't accept and what i strongly believe the american people won't accept is starting a conversation while we are in this shutdown, which is hurting our economy and some of our most vulnerable, children and families does even more damage. now isn't the time to talk about

avoiding a shutdown; it's the time to actually do it. speaker boehner has said there aren't votes in the thousands pass a cleaning -- in the house to pass a clean continuing resolution that will keep our government open. if that's the case, i'd like thim to prove it. speaker boehner should bring up the senate's clean continuing resolution and allow democrats and republicans to vote on it. and then he should join democrats in preventing a default, without delay and without strings attached. because i want to be very clear, mr. president. a default on u.s. debts would be unprecedented and devastating. i held a hearing you a few weeks ago in our senate budget heat to talk about the impact of brinksmanship and uncertainty on our economy, and the economists who joined us warned us that for families in my home state of washington and across the country, default would mean mortgage rates and student loan costs would rise, making it harder to achieve homeownership

or even afford tuition; that home prices and stock prices would fall; and businesses of all sizes would have trouble financing their activities, which would of course lead to layoffs and surge unemployment. mr. president, i am not going to let the tea party cause washington state families that kind of hardship. but after we've reopened the government, prevented this default and make sure our families and communities are no longer paying the price for tea party brinksmanship, i'd be morninmorethan happy to begin te negotiations that democrats have been out here requesting to have for months. and it's clearer every day that there is bipartisan support for those responsible steps. democrats and republicans may not agree on much, but i think a lot of us on both sides of this aisle have said enough of tea party brinksmanship and seen enough of governing by crisis. we are ready together to resolve

our differences in a way that works for the american people. and oury. and i sincerely hope that speaker boehner won't let the tea party stand in our way. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, the united states treasury says that exactly eight days, it will not have enough money to pay the government's bills. now, we're not in this position because the secretary of the treasury or the president spent more than they were supposed to. the constitution allows them to spend only what congress tells them to spend and that's exactly what they've done. we're not in this position because investors refused to buy our bonds. investors are lining up around the block to buy those.

we're in this position for one reason and one reason only: congress told the government to spend more then moin than we have, congress told the treasury to run up our debt to pay for it, but now congress is threatening to run out on the bill. if that strikes you as bizarre, you are not alone. the united states is the only democracy in the world where the legislature debates whether it should pay the bills it has already incurred. the united states is the only democracy that regularly considers whether or not to run out on its bills. that is, to voluntarily default on its debt. congress exercises direct control over the amount the federal government spends and the amount the federal government brings in through taxes and fees. our national debt is simply a function of those two things, the money coming in and the money going out. and so congress exercises direct

control over the amount of debt we have. if congress is unhappy with the size of the debt, it should change how much it spends or how much it brings in. there is really no other option. the idea that we can somehow renege on our debts without paying a huge price is a fantasy, a dangerous fantasy. consider what happened in 2011, the last time the government came up to the edge of a voluntary default. even the possibility that the government would not make good on its debts spooked investors and pushed up interest rates. according to the bipartisan policy center, the interest rate increase from the last time the u.s. even talked about default will cost the government $19 billion over ten years. that's $19 billion that could

have brought back funding for head start, for meals on wheels, for our military. that's $19 billion that could have eased the interest rates on student loans or been invested in medical research. that's $19 billion that could have been used to pay down the debt. instead, that's $19 billion that was just flushed down the drain. does anyone here care about wasteful government? well, then that's it. the last time the government came to the edge of a voluntary default consumers and businesses got spooked, too. the s&p dropped by more than 17%, $800 billion in retirement assets vanished, mortgage rates went up nearly three-quarters of a point costing every new homeowner real money. the net result was lower

homeownership rates and slower job growth. now, that's what happened the last time congress came to the edge of a voluntary default. what happens if congress actually defaults? well, if that happens, there's widespread concern among economists of every political persuasion that we would plunge into another recession. government debt may seem like an abstract and complicated thing but, in fact, it's pretty simple. the government owes money to two main groups of people. payments on u.s. bonds which are mostly owned by gun foreign governments and money to the american people for things like social security payments and medicare reimbursements for hospitals and physicians, paychecks to the military and retirement checks to veterans. if the treasury does not have enough money to make all of its payments, then it will likely try to minimize the damage to america's credit rating and that means making payments on the

bonds held by foreign investors leaving others to absorb the losses. so who will not get paid? will it be seniors who rely on social security to live, hospitals that rely on medicare to operate, our service members who rely on paychecks to help their families back home? federal contractors, large and small, who support millions of jobs nationwide, the treasury makes 80 million payments a month and many of them will be delayed. as more time passes, unpaid bills will pile up. from there, it just gets worse. the federal government's inability to pay its bills could set off a chain reaction of defaults, sending the financial system into turmoil. millions of people who rely on federal payments might not have the money they need to keep current on their student loans or their mortgages or their

small business loans. that could cause interest rates to spike, leading to a wave of further defaults. all the while, the financial markets would be faced with the very real possibility that the united states would not have enough money to make payments on its bonds. american treasury bonds are considered safe investments, so safe that they are used as collateral in millions of financial transactions around the world. if the u.s. does not have enough money to pay its bills, parties to these transactions will demand more collateral or different forms of collateral. that has a domino effect throughout the economy. the end result could be the kind of freeze the credit markets that we saw after the failure of leeman brothers collapsed in -- lehman brothers collapsed in 2008, the freeze that triggered the financial crisis. the idea that we can refigure if nig on -- renege on our debts and not pay a huge price is a

dangerous fantasy. i've heard some extremists in congress argue that even if the united states runs out of money to pay its bills it won't be so bad because the treasury bring will be able to keep current on bond payments and avoid a technical default. boy, that's a heck of a best-case scenario. making bond payments to foreign governments, mostly china and japan, while holding up social security payments, hospital payments, military payments here at home? it's a terrible idea. people count on those payments to live. but it's also a terrible idea that wouldn't work, just ask top wall street executives, including c.e.o.'s of goldman sachs who said publicly and unequivocally that prioritizing bond payments would still create insurmountable uncertainty for

investors, causing a spike in interest rates that would immediately increase monthly payments on student loans, on mortgages, other personal debt, and would cripple job growth. like it or not, the threat of default will cause this country a lot of pain. i want to make this absolutely clear. if we run out of money to pay our bills, the world will view this as the first default in the history of the united states. wall street and the global financial markets will view this as the first default in the history of the united states. this fight is about financial responsibility. financially responsible people don't charge thousands of dollars on their credit cards and then tear up the bill when it aretires -- arrives. financially responsible nations don't do that either. when we put our name on the line saying that a debt is backed up by the full faith and credit of

the united states, we follow through. we protect our good name, we protect our good credit. for many things that we do in congress, we can make a mistake and then back up and fix it. a default on our national debt is not one of those things. if we default and pay late, the damage could be irreversible. the first time we flirted with default was the first time in history that america's credit rating fell. if we actually default, some economists estimate that we will add $75 billion a year to the debt in additional interest payments. that's three-quarters of a trillion dollars over the next ten years. there are a lot of good things to do with that money. flushing it down the drain is not one of them. if we default on our debt, we

could bring a worldwide recession on, a recession that would pummel hardworking middle-class people, people who lost their homes and jobs and retirement savings who are barely getting back on their feet. maybe we can escape a recession. maybe. but we are playing with the lives of every american, and it is not what the american people sent us here to do. this is no time to act out dangerous fantasies. we must raise the debt ceiling, we must raise it now. a bedrock financial principle of government is to tell the world that the united states always pays its debts in full and on time. that's who we are. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i join my colleagues in taking the floor to stress the urgency of action. i agree with my colleague from massachusetts and her comments about the devastating impact that the failure to pay our bills would have on our economy, on our nation's reputation, and on the worldwide economy. that would make absolutely no sense at all and would put our nation at great risk. so i thank her or taking the time to explain the specific consequences if we were to allow the united states treasury to be put in the position where it couldn't honor all of the obligations that have already been incurred. this is not about increasing spending. this is about paying the bills that we've already incurred, whether it's those who hold our bonds or those who are entitled

to a payroll check or those entitled to a contractor's check, we've got to honor our debt. that's -- our bills. that's what america's great reputation is all about. i thank her for bringing that up. i tell you, mr. president, the combination of a government shutdown combined with not paying our bills will have an impact on our economy that will be very hard for us to overcome. we've already been harmed. this government shutdown has already hurt america. it's hurt us internationally. this past week, president obama was supposed to be at the asian economic summit, the presiding officer, the senator from delaware who serves on the foreign relations committee, knows very well the importance of that particular conference. the headliner for that conference should have been president obama. pointing out how important the rebalance is to asia's economy and that we're open for business. instead, america was closed for business, and the headliner at

that economic summit was president xi of china. that's not what this nation needed. we were harmed by that government shutdown and the president's inability to be able to travel to asia. make no mistake about it, it hurt america. our economy has been hurt already by the shutdown. every day that the government shutdown hurts our economy. i could give you a lot of specific examples, but it was reported in this morning's paper that the state of colorado that just recently experienced one of the worst floods in its history, causing a devastating impact on its economy, well, they're now telling us that this shutdown is approaching the economic damage to colorado that nature did to it last week -- a couple weeks ago by the floods. major difference, mr. president. we can't stop what nature does.

we try to mitigate it, but we can stop this government shutdown. this is a government problem that we've imposed on the people of colorado, the people of maryland, the people of delaware, the people of our entire country. this shutdown has hurt the taxpayers of this country. i hear my conservative friends saying that we want to make sure we don't spend so much money and help the taxpayers. in this short period of time already the shutdown has cost the taxpayers of this country a reported $2 billion. that's just wasted taxpayer dollars. we have a responsibility to care for the public funds. well, the way to do that right now is to open government and stop wasting taxpayer dollars. mr. president, i've taken the time to be on this floor many times to talk about the harm that we're doing to the federal work force and yes, we are

harming the federal work force, no question about it. i'm particularly sensitive because this region has more federal workers of the 800,000 that have been furloughed, over 300,000 come from this region. 30%, by the way, mr. president, are veterans. people who served our nation. now being furloughed because of this government shutdown. maryland's work force, about 10% are federal workers, so this has had a real impact on the state that i have the honor of representing in the senate of the united states. but each one of those 800,000 that we all represent are real people. they're not just numbers. these are real people who have been harmed by the closing of the federal government. let me just give you a couple of people who i have heard about or who i have called. kayla is a 15-year-old who i

spoke to on the telephone. she told me about how her parents are worried. you see, both of her parents are federal workers, and she, a 15-year-old, sensed the fear in her parents as to whether they will be able to pay their bills. we put that family at risk by failing to keep government open. melissa ayers is a furloughed federal worker at the social security administration. her husband was unemployed for two and a half years as a result of our economic downturn. now our economy is recovering. but melissa was the principal wage earner. she stated i have always been the primary earner until monday. now i think what do i do to support my family? the government shutdown has hurt melissa ayers and her family. i heard from a farmer on the eerns of -- eastern shore of maryland, cecil county. he is part of the conservation stewardship program.

i know the presiding officer from delaware is well aware of that. what this person has done is taken some income away from his farming activities by planting buffer crops. those buffer crops help with reducing the amount of pollutants that run off into -- in this case it's the chester river which will flow into the chesapeake bay. so he is being a good stewart of the environment, and he -- good steward of the environment and he enrolled gnat conservation stewardship program. he gets some of that fund because he is giving up income from some of his farming activities in order to help us preserve the chesapeake bay. now, during this shutdown, that payment is not being made. now, he's put himself in a tough position. he did the right thing. now he's put his family at risk. he told me that he has a young child who is undergoing certain

treatment for his eye. he doesn't know whether he has the money so his child can continue in that medical treatment. he needs the check for his participation in this program. this government shutdown has had real impact on real people. johnny zaiger who works at the census bureau -- i should say used to work at the census bureau, he has been furloughed. of the 5,000 employees at the census bureau, less than 40 are currently working. 40 out of 5,000. now, his budget that he has for his family is based upon his paycheck, and if he doesn't get his full paycheck, he can't pay his bills. his question is which bills should he pay and not pay? that's what we're putting people in as a result of this government shutdown. marcello delcanto was here

earlier this week. he helps against substance abuse. he has done that for eight years. he is in the unenviable position that he and his wife both work for the federal government, he is being furloughed. he is a marylander, just recently bought a home in maryland. now, he has a mortgage. if he doesn't get a paycheck, how does he pay his mortgage? the mortgage company isn't going to say a government shutdown, you don't have to pay your mortgage payments. real impact on real families in my state of maryland and in every state in this nation. and then there is agencies that just can't do their work that's going to hurt our country. the environmental protection agency currently has 93% of its work force on nowg. now, that means that we're at a risk on our public health, clean air, clean water. our environment is at risk, chesapeake bay is at greater risk. because the people out there doing the monitoring, doing the

enforcement are not there. scientists aren't doing what they need to be doing in order to help us deal with public health and to deal with our environment. it's also directly hurting our economy, for in baltimore, one of our most important economic development sites, harbor point in downtown baltimore, which is being developed is a ricra site which requires the approval of the environmental protection agency in order to move forward with the economic development plan. the people who would do that approval process are on furlough. that project is now on hold and the economic development that would help baltimore and help our state economy is now on hold. the shutdown is having real effect on real people. the national institute of standards and technology, nist, which is located in the state of maryland, they do work that is so important for innovation, for science and technology.

they do work to help us have a competitive edge internationally. 91% of their work force is on furlough. how do we expect to be competitive? well, this year the sammy awards were recently given out. sammy awards are given to federal workers who excel in public service. these are our front liners. these are people that are serving their nation, and we want to honor them. many of the people who were being honored at the sammy awards this year. one is daniel maserkowski. he works at nist. i mentioned him because he has been there for 28 years. the work he does is to figure out how he can keep our first responders who fight fires safe. he does the research as to how you can go into a building in a safer way. well, he is furloughed, and our first responders are at a little bit greater risk today as a

result of this government shutdown. the shutdown is having an effect on real people. i read with interest how we celebrated the nobel prize in medicine going to james rothman and randy shockman for the incredible work that they did. i don't know if i could explain what they did, but i tell you it is incredible. they were able to reach that pinnacle in their career and the accomplishments that they were able to do because during their career they were supported by the n.i.h. the n.i.h. does basic research which is so important, the building blocks for discovery in america. it provides incentives for young people to go into science and to go into research. now, will we have the next group of nobel laureates? well, today it's less certain

than it was a week ago. n.i.h. cannot support those types of research grants today. their people are on furlough. america is not open for business. real people are being hurt by what is happening. it's not just government employment. i could talk about private sector employment. just reported today that lockheed will be laying off 400 maryland workers as a result of the shutdown. i could give you many, many more examples of companies that are laying off, private companies that are laying off people as a result of this shutdown. the bottom line, mr. president, is this -- we hear from some of our republican colleagues in the house that we have got to negotiate, we have got to pick winners and losers, we have to wait for a crisis to occur in a particular agency before they will consider a special bill to open up some of that agency, so let me just conclude by the quote i have cited once before on the floor of the senate from the "baltimore sun" papers. it says in regards to

negotiations and what we should do. the gun isn't raised to mr. obama's head or to the senate's. the democrats have no particular stake in passing a continuing resolution or in raising the debt ceiling other than keeping public order and doing what any reasonable person expects congress to do. no, the gun is raised at the nation as a whole. that's why descriptions like ransom and hostage are more -- are not mere hyperboles. they are as close as the english language gets to accurately describing the g.o.p. strategy. mr. president, it's time for speaker boehner to put down the gun. it's time for us to open government and to make sure that we pay our bills, and then, yes, we want to negotiate for six months we have been trying to negotiate a budget. open government, pay our bills, and then let's negotiate a responsible budget for this

nation. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to address the twin manufactured crises that are facing the country -- a hobbled government and the threat of default. i have seen some describe it as a game and i have seen others talk about it as just partisanship and posturing. but, mr. president, this situation is neither. this is serious business. in fact, i am deeply troubled about this not only as a senator, a representative of the state of rhode island, but as an american, of where my country is going. i am dismayed that some on the other side have decided that for whatever reason -- and they seem to keep changing, the only way to achieve their goal and these goals keep changing is to shut the government down and suggest that defaulting on a debt will have no consequences.

now, it would be nice if we could say well, you know, america really didn't have to pay its bills. we don't have to pay for the trillions we spent in iraq and afghanistan. giving tax cuts under president bush for the wealthiest americans. i didn't support the operations in iraq and i didn't support those tax cuts. i think we could have invested the munch more wisely in a much more productive america. they are also suggesting that programs like medicare, et cetera, well, they're on the chopping block, too. but the reality is all these bills are coming due, and the united states treasury has to pay them. now, some are suggesting -- we can just prioritize payments. no one would be upset, no one would be hurt if we don't pay the bills as they come due.

we just pick the ones we want to pick. but as i suggested, these are not democratic bills, they are not republican bills. these are america's bills. they were approved by the congress congress under republican presidents and democrat presidents, under republican congresses and democratic congresses. and as they come due, they must be paid. but we are here today, mr. president, in this manufactured crisis that essentially lox out and blocks the american people from accessing their government, basic government services. women and children receiving food under the w.i.c. program, head start students, a whole panoply of americans who are literally being denied benefits they've earned, benefits that are necessary, not just to their health but the health, the vitality, the fabric of america. and then on top of that is the added threat of a default on our

obligations already accrued, already authorized, appropriated obligations. not new borrowing for new expenditures. these are bills coming due. and we have seen this ever-changing theme about why we have to do these things from the other side. at first it was an effort to repeal obamacare at some point. then it was a one-year delay of health insurance under the affordable care act. then it was just a delay of part of the law. then it was repealing a tax that was part of the law. and now we have talked about or heard about canadian oil pipelines, consumer financial protection bureau, medicaid. the rationale keeps changing but suggesting that the reasons behind this lockout are not only unclear to the american public, they are unclear to its proponents. in fact, indeed, some lately are

suggesting this is really all about social security and medicare and other programs that are essential to every family in this country. indeed, it seems like they have transitioned from, let's say, obamacare repeal it to let's take the new deal and repeal that. in fact, one of our colleagues in the house apparently suggested he didn't know what he wanted, he just knew he wanted something in exchange for an open government that's functioning and a government that pays its bills. it is hard not to draw the conclusion that many of my colleagues on the other side have simply committed themselves to extracting major policy concessions, whatever they can get by threatening to default on our debt and by continuing to lock out the american people from its government. they are sadly using economic leverage, potential economic chaos to exert their -- their

way. now, if they are serious -- and we have heard this discussion for years going back, the decades about -- in fact, the initial debate on medicare, the evils of socialized medicine. i'm sure in the days of the discussion, the criticisms of this growing central government, but to seriously take away these programs i think would cause the american people to stand up, since most if not every american fundamentally depends on them. particularly as they get to the point where they are retired or they are approaching retirement. so now the story has shifted as they have gotten closer and closer to what seems to be some of the real motivating factors. shrinking dramatically the government. not just those parts that are popular.