94 green building -- private-sector green building assistance programs, none with a metric, and the agencies don't even know how much money they're spending on them. 82 teacher quality programs run by the federal government. laugh halhalf of which are not n department of education. i won't continue it but you get my point. what have we done about that's things? nothing. where's the oversight on them? not. so the whole idea from me as somebody i'm thinking more about the future than i am a political career, is i think we ought to be working on those things. i think the american public expects us to be working on them. i will finish up just by saying that we've been running the credit card for a long time. and do we, in fact, have the

right or the privilege or the ability to ask for an extension and a raising of our debt when, in fact, we haven't acted responsibly with our spending? nobody else in the country gets their credit raised when you haven't acted responsibly. they actually check your credit score. they know what kind of bills you're paying, whether you're getting further behind. so should we in fact tear up the credit card. should we force some good old adult supervision on congress, to where we'll actually be forced to make difficult decisions about priorities on how we spend america's money, and when i mean america's money, i'm thinking people working hard every day, they may not be the highest taxpayer, but it is unconscionable to me that when we spend their money, that

we're wasting 15% to 20% of it all the time. so i think we ought to tear it up. and the way we tear it up, we just tear it up. we tear the credit card up. we shred the credit card and we say you're going to live within your means. you're going to start making the hard choices. you are addicted to spending, you're addicted to not being responsible with the dollars you have. congress needs to be in a 12-step program and it should start with us. i thank my colleague, the senator from delaware, for his patience and his friendship and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: dr. coburn is is a tough act to follow. i'm not going to try to do that but i'm happy to serve with him. we come from different parts of

the country, different kinds of training, upbringing and careers, but we've ended up here together in the senate and for the last nine years we've had an opportunity to lead first a subcommittee on federal financial management, subcommittee of the homeland security and government affairs committee and for this year to be the leertdz, democrat and republican leaders of the committee. and i enjoy working with him, i find that we have the opportunity to do some real good, some real good for our country and i thank him for letting me be his wing man. i want to just follow on with what dr. coburn has said by asking us to think of how we spend money and would we spend it for in this government of ours. i have -- i actually have an op-ed that i read recently in our local paper in delaware i'd like to read into the record from dr. bob laskosky, the

c.e.o. of christiana care system, one of the largest hospital systems not just in our state but in our part of the country. before i do that, i just want to follow on to dr. coburn, some of dr. coburn's comments by talking about our spending in the federal government. i like to think of it as a pie, a big pie and a little more than half of the spending pie goes for something called entitlements, something called entitlements, things we're entitled to by virtue of our age or station in life, might be entitled to medicare if we're 65 or over, medicare if we're disabled and unable to work, we may be entitled to early medicare benefits, social security benefits at age 62, full retirement, medicare benefits about five or so years after that. we may be entitled to benefits because we served in the military or we're a veteran or somebody with a disability. those are all programs that are

called entitlement programs. a lot of people say they're uncontrollable, we can't do anything to control them and they've grown like topsy and today if you think of that spending pie over half of it is for entitlement programs. roughly close to another 5% to 10% of spending today is for interest on the debt. if interest rates weren't so low, it would be a lot more than 5% or 10%. fortunately we're blessed to have very low interest rates but still our interest as a percentage of that pie is somewhere i think between 5% and 10%. the whole rest of the federal government is called discretionary spending. which means we have some discretion how that money is spent, it's not an entitlement program that we have to pass spending bills. we call them usually appropriations bills. there's about a dozen of them that cover everything from agriculture to defense to housing to environment to education to transportation,

you name it. and that part of the budget roughly, close to 40%, 35% to 40% is called discretionary spending. more than half of that discretionary spending is for defense. i'd say roughly 20%, maybe a little more than 20%, and about 15% of the discretionary spending is a little less than half of the discretionary spending is for nondefense matters. so you think about it, it goes something like this: spending pie, over half of it's entitlements, allegedly things we can't reduce or control. i don't agree with that. another 5% or 10% for interest. and then we've got roughly 40% discretionary spending, the lion's share of which is for defense and a little less than half of it is for nondefense spending. think about that. entitlements, interest, defense spending, the whole --

set that aside, the whole rest of the government is about 15%. and that's domestic and nondefense discretionary spending. we could actually eliminate domestic discretionary spending, i think it's -- in its entirety, get rid of everything, everything we do as the government, we still would have a deficit. we'd still have a deficit. and for people who say that we can only focus on domestic discretionary spending or squeeze that to reduce the deficit further -- did the deficit is down from $1.4 trillion four years ago to about half of that today. still way too big. but we can't get from here to where we need we want to go by g just on domestic discretionary spending screng. i like to say there are three things we need to do. dr. coburn has heard it more times than he wants to remember. the presiding officer as well. three things we need to do if we're serious about deficit

reduction. facing the realities of today, number one, entitlement reform. these are the president's words, entitlement reform that savings money --, saves money, that saves these programs for our kids and our grandchildren. and entitlement reform -- these are my words -- entitlement reform that doesn't savage old people or poor people but is sensitive to the least of these in our society. second thing we need to do is to focus on revenues. we need more revenues. if you look in our country last are year --, last year when the deficit was about $700 billion, the year that just finished, as i recall, revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product were somewhere in the area of 17%, maybe 18%. revenues as a percentage of g.d.p. spending as a percentage of g.d.p. was over 20%, maybe

around 21%, 22%, 23% and the difference between revenues as a percentage of g.d.p. down here, 17%, 18%, 19% of g.d.p. and spending 21%, 22%, 23% that difference is about a $700 billion deficit from the last year. at the end of the day we need to make the revenues come closer to matching the spending and i'd suggest that we need to take a page out of the book they did in the second term of president bill clinton when we had run chronic deficits since 1968 and president clinton asked erskine bowles, then chief of staff to work with republican senate and a republican house, a republican congress, to see if we couldn't come up with a budget plan that included revenues, included spending to actually balance the budget. and as we all know the story, famously, they worked and a democratic president working with republican house and senate

with the help of erskine bowles and a woman named sylvia matthews, who was ear skin's deputy chief of staff, later deputy o.m.b. director, they reached across the aisle and worked it out. their deficit reduction plan was a 50-50 deal. 50% on the revenue side, and 50% on the spending side. and they grew the heck out of the economy. and as a result we had four balanced budgets in a row. i think 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. harry truman used to say the only thing that's new in the world is the history we forgot and never learned. i think as we try to figure out what to do with today's deficits, and remain -- get on on an even more fiscally responsible track, it would be smart to look back about 15 years and see how it worked then. we under folks who might be

watching this around the country, we actually have a budget law and our budget law is i think adopted in 1974, and there's an expectation, our nation's budget law for the president to present us in the congress with a budget. one budget. not a capital budget and an operating budget but one budget. it's different from my state where i was governor of delaware for eight years where we had a capital budget and an operating budget. we have one budget. this year it was a little bit late and the expectation here in the congress under the law is that by say the end of april, a couple of months later, the house and the senate would have passed something called a budget resolution, a budget resolution, what is that? it's not a budget. a budget resolution is a framework for a budget, it includes not nitty-gritty line item spending plans for

everything defense and nondefense but roughly we'll spend this much in these programs and generally raise this much money in these ways from these revenue sources. it's not real specific. but it's a framework for the budget. like -- i like to think of it as the skeleton and later on we pass appropriations bills, we pass revenue measures, we put the meat on the bones. that's where the real specificity comes along. for a number of years we've not been able to pass in the senate and the house a budget resolution, they're usually different and then go to conference, create a conference committee to create a compromise. we've found it difficult to come up with a compromise budget resolution, a compromise spending plan, a framework for the appropriations bills and revenue measures. this year started more promising. because in the senate here in april under the leadership of our senate budget committee chairman, patty murray of washington, we actually passed

a budget resolution, sadly, without republican support, we passed one, and there was one of those like the clinton years a 50-50 deficit reduction deal, didn't eliminate the deficit but kept it going on the right track. half of the deficit reduction was on the spending side, half on the revenue side. over in the house they passed a different kind of budget resolution. and the budget resolution they passed did a little entitlement reform but that 15% of the spending pie i talked about, 15% that is domestic discretion was reduced from 15% to 5%. think about that. we'd be talking about aside from entitlement spending, interest on the debt and defense spending, having about the whole rest of the government be like 5% of our spending. that's not my vision of what our government should be about. that's not my vision. and i don't think that's the vision of a lot of people in this body and in this country.

so the three things we need to do, mr. president, number one, entitlement reform, saves money, saves programs, doesn't savage old people and poor people, second thing we need additional revenues and i remember ken conrad when he was our budget committee chairman, gave a presentation at a meeting a year or so ago and he talked about revenues. and he talked about tax expenditures. talked about tax expenditures. and the tax expenditures he talked about, he said, you know, we spend about 1.2 -- excuse me, over the next ten years we'll see about $12 trillion to $15 trillion go out of the treasury because of tax breaks, tax credits, deductions, loopholes, tax gap. $12 trillion to $15 trillion out of the treasury for those tax expenditures. he said we'll actually more money out bill come out for tax

expenditures, tax deduction, loopholes, more than all the appropriations bills we're going to pass. think about that. we found a new way to appropriate money. we do it through the tax code. and -- and i would just say to our republican and democratic friends, and this is really where -- i think where senator conrad is coming from. if we can't figure out of $12 trillion or $15 trillion of tax expenditures every year, maybe 5% of those that could be reduced or could be eliminated because they served a useful purpose, something's wrong with us. and if we can do 5%, save $12 trillion in those tax expenditures, 5% would be about $600 billion over the next ten years, and match that with entitlement spending reductions. that's about $1.2 trillion. that's a pretty good next step to take in narrowing our deficit on top of what we have already

done. the third piece in addition to entitlement reform that saves money, saves the programs for the long haul and doesn't salvage old people or poor people, from reducing tax expenditures, the third piece -- and dr. coburn was talking about this, and he was talking about the way we spend money. we have a culture in the federal government, we have had it for a long time. big companies have this culture, too, some states and counties and cities. i call it a culture of a spendthrift as opposed to a culture of thrift. what dr. coburn and i do, tried to do with our committee and folks on the committee, is look at everything we do in the federal government to the extent that one committee can. we like to work with the office of management and budget, o.m.b., with the general accounting office, the g.a.o., with the office of personnel management, general services administration, all the inspector generals across the agencies, throughout the federal government.

we like to work with nonprofit groups like citizens against government waste and others, and we do this in order to figure out what are we doing, how are we spending our money, taxpayers money, and the ways that we can do those things, realize the goals we are trying to achieve by spending less money or getting better results for the same amount of money, and we need to do that in everything. what i -- one of my colleagues said to me when i said i was coming over to speak tonight. he said what are you going to talk about? i said i think i will talk about regular order. we talk a fair amount about regular order around this place. we don't always follow it. people who tuned in, what is regular order? following the rules. in this case, we have a budget act that says the president submits a budget the early part of the calendar year, congress adopts this budget resolution and we do that really by about the beginning of may and then we do our work on appropriations bills and revenue measures. every time we have -- in order

to go to conference in the budget resolution, we have to get agreement, and the majority leader will come -- or the budget committee chair will come to the floor and say i ask unanimous consent to go to conference with the house and name conferees and begin working out a compromise between the house and the senate. for many years it's perfunctory. the unanimous consent request was made. we go to conference on the house. go to a budget resolution. this request has been made dozens of times, by democrats and at least one republican, dozens of times, and there has always been an objection to keep us from going to conference to work out this compromise. as much as anything, we need to create an environment where we can focus on doing the three things that i talked about -- entitlement reform, tax reform that raises some revenues for deficit reduction and just trying to focus on everything we do and say how do we get a

better result, how do we get a better result, for less money or the same amount of money. and i would just say to my republican colleagues who continue to object, stop, please stop, and let us actually have a chance to gather in a room here in this building and see what we can hammer out to address not a short-term continuing resolution or -- but actually a thoughtful, comprehensive spending plan like they did 15, 16 years ago when republicans were in the majority here, the house and senate, and we had a democratic president. we got the job done and helped to continue the longest running economic expansion in the history of this country. i mentioned, mr. president, i mentioned the bob leskowski, president of christianity care and health system, large regional health care system. they do a great job, we're proud of them in our state, provide care to a lot of people. he is a doctor and a health

system leader. i thought his perspectives on the health care reform and the affordable care act were important enough to -- to share here on the floor. this comes from an op-ed that he submitted, it appeared in our local -- one local statewide paper called "the news journal" and his op-ed was in "the news journal" last week. i'm just going to read it. it's not that long. it goes something like this -- with some in washington promising to speak out against implementation of the affordable care act until they -- quote -- can no longer stand -- close quote -- it might be a useful reality check to visit an emergency room in any town or city across america. he goes on to say there you will find thousands of americans each day that really cannot stand, and it's not just because of an injury, an illness or disease that has put them on their backs. too often, it's because an

imminently treatable ailment has been allowed to turn into something much worse for the simple reason that the patient doesn't have health insurance and could not afford to see a doctor until things became so bad that the emergency room was their only option. in the continuing cacophony of criticism around so-called obamacare, this crucial fact keeps being lost. this doctor goes on to say our health care system remains badly broken. in the absence of reform, it will continue to get a lot worse. i see this -- i being dr. lebowski. i see this as a physician, as a health care executive, but more importantly i experience this as the friend of too many neighbors with no health insurance. he goes on to say i think that might be the reason why three of four americans surveyed in a recent pugh research poll say

they oppose the sabotage to the affordable care act because they know the people threatening to defund or derail the affordable care act are not offering a better solution. ironically, the part of the affordable care act that we're attempting to implement and stand across the country right now in the marketplaces is a republican idea. i think it was first offered as an idea to hillarycare back in the first term of president clinton. it is a republican idea, a business idea. but i don't care if it's a democratic idea or a republican idea, it's a smart idea to use large purchasing pools, enable people who otherwise would buy health insurance for one person or five people or small business, for them to bring down the cost of their care, use competition to get better options. it's a smart idea. and the idea -- mr. president, the idea of a lot of criticism about the individual mandate, people would be individually mandated to get health care, and if they didn't, they would maybe face some kind of fine, modest at first but grows in time.

that's not a democratic idea. that is actually ironically an idea we got out of massachusetts. the author, if you will, the governor signed into law was the republican nominee for president last year, mitt romney. so what we tried to do here is take some republican ideas and some democratic ideas and frankly some good ideas. but over half those who oppose the law today, the affordable care act, say they want it fixed, not scrapped. i agree with that, fixed, not scrapped. they know that in the absence of reform, there are still too many people who use the emergency room as their only source of medical care, too many families and businesses who cannot keep up with the ever-rising costs of health care premiums, and too many americans who find nothing but frustration when navigating our health care system, who still fill out way too many forms or prescribe too many tests that do not help them and get passed from office to office without anyone really guiding their overall care. beginning last week, millions of

uninsured americans began to shop for quality, affordable health care through the health insurance marketplaces or exchanges that i just mentioned. these marketplaces are a key element of the affordable care act and represent an important step toward putting quality health care within reach of all americans. just as medicare has enabled seniors to get the care they need to live longer and healthier lives, increasing access to health insurance is vital to unlocking a healthier country. by insuring something that millions of americans do not have today, and that is the opportunity to stay healthy through regular doctor visits rather than seeking help only when they get sick -- in some cases, really sick. it's worth remembering health care reform is not about special interests. it's about people like us, our families and our neighbors, and it's about fellow parishioners and little league coaches. it's about a neighbor who cuts himself making dinner and a spouse who finds a worrisome

lump. everyone we know and everyone we love will need our health care system at some point in time. three years after america debated the need for health care reform, millions of americans who work hard, pay taxes and raise families still cannot afford to see a doctor, and that's wrong, and even though the resistance of some states to fully adopt the affordable care act will tragically still leave some families in those states in the lurch, we now at long last have the unprecedented opportunity to create a system that will work better for us all. we should also remember this -- over time, the affordable care act promises to improve the system as much for the shrinking the majority of americans who have health insurance as for those who do not. access is just the first step. the act provides a blueprint for a new model of care, one that rewards doctors for more coordinated care.

here at christiania care where dr. lebowski is president and c.e.o. and throughout delaware, we have seen what happens when we provide that kind of care through engineered medical practices known as medical homes where doctors are unable to not only efficiently meet patients' needs but to anticipate them as well. this coordinator approach means getting care simpler and makes the lives of those getting care easier. it makes quality better, and by making care simpler, better and more accessible, it saves money. no law has been as ambitious as the affordable care act can possibly get it all right on the first try, but let us not forget when medicare was signed into law, critics warned seniors would languish in long lines and that we would all long for the good old days before reform took place. today medicare has helped hundreds of millions of americans live longer, healthier lives while reducing the poverty rate among seniors by 75%.

the doctor goes on to write i believe if these historic changes are given a chance, we will collectively create a system that is defined not by volume but by value. over the next several years, i know we can make health care in america more people focused and less transaction alibi realizing the best way to provide better outcomes at lower costs is by partnering with patients. as we in health care listen to our patients, we learn what our patients truly value, and then we will be able to free up resources to help patients get healthy faster and stay well. the affordable care act is a map toward that future. history is being made. well, i would just close by saying while many of our colleagues argue that the affordable care act will lead to rising insurance costs and lost jobs, the truth is that in delaware and throughout the rest of the country, millions of americans are already learning that they will be able to find

quality health care insurance plans for a more affordable price. in delaware and much of the country, millions of americans will be able to find quality insurance plans for less than than $100 a month. i have told my constituents and our colleagues since the debate over health care reform began that this law is not written in stone. we want to make the law better wherever we can, just like we have made the medicare prescription drug program better, which was largely supported by republicans, largely supported by republicans but actually made better in the affordable care act. i would just urge my republican colleagues to enable us to reopen our government, to reassure our americans and our creditors in this country and around the world that we will honor our debts, and then let's get to work right away to improve the affordable care act and these insurance marketplaces to come to a consensus on a bipartisan budget resolution that lays out a spending plan that will get us from where we are to where we need to be.

the last word, mr. president. i spent some time in the navy. you spent some time in the military yourself, i know. others in your -- i think one of your sons may be actually on active duty today. we used to fly in and out of japan on navy p-3 airplanes. you know, i learned not long ago that in japan, they spend about 8% of g.d.p. for health care, 8% of gross domestic product for health care. in this country, we spend about 17% or 18%. think about that. they spend 8% of g.d.p. for health care. we spend 17% or 18%. they get better results. for the most part, they have lower -- lower rates of infant mortality, higher rates of life expectancy than we do. and the other thing is they cover everybody. and tonight when folks go to bed in this country, this evening, some 40 million people will go to bed in a country without health care coverage.

i'd like to say the japanese, as smart as they are, they can't be that smart and we can't be that dumb. we can't be that dumb. and there are ways to get better results for less money, including the provision of health care, and we can work together -- if we work together, we can make that a reality. the last thing i'll say is i think the presiding officer has heard me tell how i like to ask people being married a long time what the secret is for being married 40, 50, 70 years. people give me really funny answers, some hysterical. every now and then some are serious and almost poignant. i want to close with one of them tonight. a couple years ago, i met a couple. they had been married over 50 years. i said what is the secret for -- for being married 55 years? he said the two c's, the two c's. i said what is that? they said communicate and compromise. think about that.

communicate and compromise. i said that's pretty good advice. i got to thinking about it later, i said that's also the -- some pretty good advice, maybe the secret for a vibrant democracy, to communicate and to compromise. we think we are willing to compromise on the short-term spending resolution, the continuing resolution by agreeing to the numbers sought by the republican house leaders. they don't regard that as a compromise, but i think it was really an attempt to compromise. we need to find compromises in a conference on the budget resolution. that's where we should put our money. that's where we should put our efforts in the weeks to come, mr. president. and i would add one more c. communicate and compromise, as important as they are, maybe a third c would be collaborate, and that would be a good one to add. we have three c's -- communicate, compromise and

collaborate. what it's american people sent us to do. there are a bunch of people who feel that way. so does dr. coburn. that's what the american people sent us here for. and with that, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. casey con. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i would ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, pending before the senate is a unanimous

consent agreement on h. con. res. 58, a bill to urge the department of defense to allow military chaplains to perform duties during the shutdown. earlier today, i objected to this bill because i misunderstood its purpose and i'd like to withdraw that objection at this time. the bill will urge the department of defense to allow military chaplains, including contract personnel, to perform religious services during the shutdown and permit services to take place on property owned by the department of defense. today, just as the department of defense and the administration solved the -- the problem with military families and their death benefits upon the loss of one of their loved ones serving our country, i urge, and i know others will as well, urge the d.o.d. to enthat all -- to

ensure that all active-duty members are able to exercise their first amendment rights, i should say, and participate in religious ceremonies while they're serving. so that's something i hope we can -- we can resolve. mr. president, i also wanted to raise some issues that relate to the shutdown. i raised some earlier but these are additional concerns that i have with regard to the shutdo shutdown. the -- the impact of this shutdown is being felt across the board, across the commonwealth of pennsylvania and, indeed, across the country. it's felt by small businesses, states and municipalities are feeling it already and are anticipating much more of an impact as time goes by, and, of course, families are feeling it very acutely. yesterday i sent a letter to speaker boehner emphasizing the detrimental impact that the shutdown is having on my constituents in pennsylvania. just by way of a couple of

examples that apply to both pennsylvania and the nation, domestic violence programs across the country have been impacted directly by the shutdown. the offices that oversee grants under the violence against women act have had to shut down and are not able to issue grants or provide reimbursements to local programs. and i would say parenthetically that it took many, many months for the violence against women act reauthorization to go forward. thrfthere was a lot of problems along the way, a lot of objections. fortunately we got the program reauthorized and now because of the shutdown you're having problems with women who are victims of service -- or victims of violence getting the services that -- that they are entitled to. we're hearing as well from -- from folks in pennsylvania. pennsylvania domestic violence shelters that rely upon federal funds and who have already been

impacted by the sequester, the across-the-board, indiscriminate cuts that have been in effect since march, these shelters may have to further reduce services to vulnerable victims of domestic violence. in the words of one state advocate -- quote -- and these are her words -- "we are hanging on by our fingernails." meaning hanging on just in terms of being able to provide services with funding either limited or funding being -- being jeopardized. women trying to escape abusive relationships should not be hampered by the failures here in washington to end this shutdown. in terms of social security, we know that -- that social security checks are going out fortunately but on average, in pennsylvania, 2,900 new claims are processed each week. that's the typical weekly total

for new -- for new claims. this means that pennsylvanians who have reached retirement age and have paid into the system their entire careers are now forced to wait for benefits. you have to ask yourself: why should a domestic violence center, people that work to prevent domestic violence or to help the victims, why should they have to wait for a political dispute where you have one wing of one party engaged in a -- in a -- in a -- an ideological exercise that allows a government shutdown and, therefore, that domestic violence center doesn't get the help that it needs and the wom women, and mostly women who are impacted, don't get the help they need. the same could be said of someone who reaches retirement age and expects and has a right to expect that their social security eligibility will be

processed. why should they have to wait for washington? in pennsylvania alone, when it comes to small businesses, 30 loans on average are made each week by the s.b.a. for a total of $13 million each and every week. the loss of these loans is hindering entrepreneurs from growing their business and from obtaining much-needed capital. again, why should a business owner who -- a small business person who gets help from the s.b.a. and has an expectation of getting that help and that we average 30 of those loans every week in pennsylvania amounting to $13 million, why should that all be stopped because someone in washington has an ideological point to make? it makes no sense and it's an outrage. the shutdown is also impacting infrastructure on public lands in this country. until government is open, the

maintenance of our nation's basic infrastructure is -- is impacted. in pennsylvania, a lot of that basic infrastructure involves our waterways. the locks and dams, that whole system which is in place for pen and many other states, the maintenance of those locks and dams is deferred. and we all know what happens when you defer maintenance on something as fundamental as infrastructure. i've been involved that repairs that were scheduled to take place on locks along the lower ma nong hey la river in western pennsylvania are suspended. if you have a problem with those, with a lock -- and locks and dams generally but in particular focusing on the monongahalia river, you stop the flow of commerce or you slow it down substantial. when you slow or stop the flow of economy, that affects the economy of southwestern pen. if just one of these locks were

to fail, you could have a detrimental impact on the whole region. how about national parks this we've heard a lot of talk about that topic last week and this week. the closure of national parks is negatively impacting pennsylvania's economy. according to the national park service, the communities in -- and businesses surrendering pennsylvania's national parks and memorials are losing up to $5.7 million in spending by nonlocal visitors for each week that the government remains closed. that is just national parks and just in pennsylvania, almost $6 million. and that's just the beginning of what can be a much more substantial and detrimental impact to the state's economy. so i'd go back to the -- the point that i've made several times and all of us have made these arguments in different ways, but we -- we know for sure

that there's a very simple way out of this predicament for washington, but more importantly, for the country and that's to -- for the speaker to put on the floor a bill which both parties now agree will pa pass. it's -- it's a clean funding bill. all it does is fund the operations of the government, albeit at a much lower level, $70 billion less than our side wanted. we compromised greatly at the beginning of this process, despite what some have said so we have compromised -- despite what some have said. so we have compromised to make sure we can fund the government. it's about time for the speaker to put this bill on the floor. they can vote on it very quickly. it would pass very quickly. it's only 16 pages long, and that is the key to resolving and ending this tea party shutdown. i'd urge the speaker to do that. i've urged him, and we all have in various ways, and we

respectfully suggest that that could happen tomorrow. thursday would be a good day to end all of this so we can get people back to work, we can have the functions of government operating in such -- to such an extent that the economy can grow and we can have a lot of debates and a lot of discussions about how to fund the government long term or what to do about our fiscal challenges, what to do about a whole range of issues. but it's time for the government to open and it's time for the house to act to do that. it's also time to make sure that we pay our bills. and, thirdly, it's important that we continue to negotiate just as we negotiated a long time ago, many weeks ago, to reach point -- reach the point where we could have a -- a bill that would fund the operations of the government. some people in the house chose to take a different path which led to shutdown. it's about time that we get them back on the right path which is

to open the government, pay our bills and then have negotiations and discussions and compromises to move the country forward. so with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll quorum call: mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration

of s. res. 267 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 267 relative to the death of rod grams, former united states senator for the state of minnesota. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. casey: use use the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i understand that there are four measures at the desk and i ask for their first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the measures for the first time. the clerk: h.j. res. 84 making continuing appropriations for head start for fiscal year 2014 and for other purposes. h.j. res. 89, making appropriations for the salaries and related expenses of certain federal employees during a lapse

in funding authority for fiscal year 2014 and so forth and for other purposes. h.j. res. 90, making continuing appropriations for the federal aviation administration for year 2014 and for other purposes. h.j. res. 91, making continuing appropriations for death gratuities and related survivor benefits for survivors of deceased military service members of the department of defense for fiscal year 2014 and for other purposes. mr. casey: i now ask for a second reading en bloc, and i object to my own request en bloc. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the measures will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. casey: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10 taofplt a.m. on -- 10:30 a.m. on thursday, october 10, 2013, and that following the prayer and pledge,

the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the time until 1:00 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and that at 1:00 p.m. the senate recess subject to the call of the chair to allow for a special caucus meeting with the president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the provisions of s. res. 267 as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late senator rod gramms of minnesota. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on thursday, october 10:30 a.m. on thursday, october

>> the house has adjourned and the senate has adjourned. preston preston brooks miggs made his way over to the senate chamber across the house over to

the senate chamber. he is carrying a cane with a gold knob at the end. he gets to some there and says mr. sumner and as he does so he raises his game. mr. sumner i have read your speech over twice. it's a libel against my state and my relative. as sumner is looking up books calmed down on the top of his head. >> now back to the senate floor where earlier today senators asked to go into negotiations with the house over the budget but for the 21st time republicans objected saying they

want to preserve minority parties right to limit the budget being discussed in the talks. we begin with budget chairman patty murray. this is 50 minutes. >> mr. president when the house is on fire the reasonable thing to do is put it out and then figure out what happens so you can prevent the next one. when a ship is headed towards rocks the reasonable thing to do is to steer away and then work on charging a better course. when a government is shut down and is headed towards a default that economists would say is catastrophic the reasonable thing to do is to end the crisis , steer away from the next one and work together on a long-term plan to avoid these crises in the future. mr. president -- madam president we are now in the second week of this absolutely unnecessary

government shut down. >> the senate is not in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from washington. >> thank you madam president. everyday we are hearing more and war about the tremendous impact that this is having on our families and our communities across the country and it is only going to get worse. but madam president we can end this today. it it does not have to continue. we are holding the door open for our republican colleagues to join us in putting a stop to this madness. all they need to do is come in. madam president senate democrats have spent the last six months trying to get republicans to join us at the table in a budget conference.

we knew there were two options, conference or crisis. working together towards a bipartisan budget deal or lurching separately into a completely avoidable government shutdown. a number of republicans have joined us in a push for negotiations but no matter how many times we try we were blocked. we were pushed to this point by a refusal to negotiate and now the only path forward is for the house to end the crisis and then join us at the table that we have been waiting to sit at first six months. because madam president democrats want to negotiate. we want to have a conversation. we think the only way out of this cycle of constant crisis is for the two sides to work together to make some compromises and get to a fair

and responsible long-term deal. but it just does not make sense to do that while our families and our communities are being hurt by this government shutdown and while the threat of a default hangs over their head. madam president i served on the supercommittee. i worked with my colleagues to write and pass a budget here in the senate. i know democrats and republicans have some serious differences when it comes to our budget values and our priorities and i absolutely believe we owe it to the american people to try to bridge that divide, to find common ground. but are we really going to ask them to wait patiently, continue suffering through the shut down, keep watching as we cruise towards an economic climate the while another supercommittee gets together and has a conversation? madam president that does not

make sense. let's have those conversations. let's have those negotiations but let's end this crisis and get to work. now yesterday i heard something from the speaker. he said he didn't want to end the shutdown or address the debt limit now because that would be quote unconditional surrender to the president. madam president have we really come to the point where simply allowing the government to open is considered by one party to be a political loss? are we really in a place where the majority of one chamber in one branch of government he leads allowing the united states of america to pay its bills is a major concession? i say to my republican friends who are here today, but can you imagine if our roles were reversed? for example i have been working very hard this year to write and

early childhood education bill that i am passionate about that i believe will really help our children and their families. now i suspect there are a few people in this chamber today including several on the republican side who could one day see themselves in the white house. if that day were to come what would my republican colleagues do if i said to them that if they did not pass my bill to expand pre-k i would get all the democrats together and we would refuse to pass any spending bills until we got what we wanted? and if that lead to a government shutdown because they refuse to let my bill passed what would they do if i demanded a supercommittee to discuss ways to invest in our children before i allowed a vote to open the government back up again? i would humbly suggest that my republican colleagues would say

exactly what democrats are saying now. thisthis is not daily jenna wayo negotiate. and the only path forward is to end this crisis and then have a conversation. madam president the great american system that we hold so dear, our democracy that is the envy of the world, simply cannot work if a minority of members can threaten to shut down the government and devastate the economy if they don't get their way on an issue, any issue. that is not what democrats did when we were in the minority and it is not what we should do should that day, again. our system was designed to push both sides towards negotiations in a divided government, to encourage the gauche asian and movement towards common ground.

it breaks down when one side refuses to negotiate in advance of a crisis and it falls apart when the minority refuses to allow the basic functions of our government to perform unless their demands are met. madam president i know all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, came here to fight for their constituents to solve problems, to make this country work better. ..

it's certainly not any kind of vunder, it but it would allow us to get out of the mess that has been created and open up a path to negotiations so we can avoid the next one. i'm going to ask for consent, once again, to start a budget conference as soon as the current crisis is ended. democrats have made it clear, we want to negotiate! we couldn't have knead clearer. we will sit down and negotiate over anything the republicans want, and we pledge to work as hard as we can for as long as it takes until we get a fair, long-term budget deal to end these constant crisis. but first, this current crisis

needs to end. and the threat of the next one needs to be listed. ma'am president, republicans don't need a hostage. there are plenty of things that democrats want out a long-term deal that with are interested in making some comprises for. i urge my republican colleagues to please consider today taking us up on this offer. we can end this today. we can do the right thing for our families and the communities that we represent. they have receded from their amendment and concurred in the amendment of the senate with respect to hjrez59. the senate then proceed to the consideration of calendar number 33, hr25 that the amendment of

the death, which is the -- the budget resolution passed by the senate be inserted in lieu thereof that hr be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. that the senate proceed to a vote on a motion to insist on its amendment request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of those two houses and authorize the chair to appoint con free on the part of the senate with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. >> is there objection? >> madam president. >> the republican. >> madam president, reserving the right to object, on this side of the aisle, we agree it's good to negotiate, and we should. i would only hope that the president of the united states be a part of the negotiation in order make it successful. but i would ask my friend, why is the request contingent on passage of the house continuing

resolution? the democrats want to reject the house request to be to conference on the cr, seemingly in contrast what they're asking for now which is negotiation. hopefully we'll pass hr3273. the deficit reduction and economic growth working group act which will create a bipartisan group to address the cr and the debt limit situation. on the republican side, again, i would say to our friends, we have a long-standing request to make sure that reconciliation instructions are not in order in a budget conference so that the debt limit can be increased on a strictly party-line vote. we happen to think it's a problem when -- if the debt ceiling were raise as the democrats were requesting we'd see the debt go up by 68 percent under this president. more than all other presidents in american history who proceeded him. we think that's a bad idea.

so madam president, i would ask the distinguished senator from washington whether she would consider an amended unanimous consent request. we'd ask the nate by way of amendment, that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 33, hconrez25 the amendment of the desk which is the text of sconrez -- be amended -- being considered laid upon the substantial that the senate proceed to a vote on the motion to insist on its amendment request to conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses and authorize the point conferee on the part of the senate. with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. i would further ask consent that it not be in order for the senate to consider a conference

-- report thatble includes reconciliation destructions to raise it. >> madam president. >> the senate so modify her request? >> reserving the right to object. let me make ones on -- observations. i think the folks objecting 21 times to go to conference have forgotten who i will be conferencing with. which is the republican house majority. when they fight adequately and strongly for here in the senate will be ably represented in a conference committee. that's the point of a conference committee. that's what our democracy was set up to do in a divided government. we have the opportunity to do that. having a conference committee, madam president, to work out the budget agreement is what i have asked for. i will object, because what the senators' request does is simply say we're going keep our government closed.

we're not going to allow people to do the functions that are desperately needed. we're going to stay closed and hold that hostage. miami president, i said so clearly when i spoke before, we need to open the government, we need to pay our bills, and we need to negotiate. that's what our ask does, that's what the republican request does not do. i object. >> objection is heard to modify. >> madam president, i object. >> is there objection to the original unanimous consent? >> i object. >> objection is heard. >> madam president, -- >> assistant majority leader. >> madam president, i want to thank the senator from washington for the 21st time come together floor of the united states senate and asking the republicans to join us in a conference committee to resolve our budget differences between the house and the senate. 21 times! senator murray has come to the floor simply asking to negotiate!

and the republicans, who have been arguing that we don't negotiate, turned her down 21 times. the latest by the senior senator from texas. the junior senator from texas shut down the government over the notion of defunding obamacare. now the senior senator from texas has said he objects to going to a conference committee to resolve our differences, republicans and democrats, between the house and the senate. if we are going restore this senate to the orderly process, what the senator from washington has asked for is very basic. open the government! this morning the chaplain of the senate started by acknowledging the fine families who were novembered after they -- notified after they have lost a military member, a son, a husband, brother in afghanistan over the weekend. and the chaplain noted that in their beravement they were being

denied the basic governments gives they to the grieving families. the senate of the chaplain said it this morning. enough is enough. this notion that closing down our government and keeping it closed is somehow acceptable, political conduct is outrageous. we just left a press conference where senator mick cull sky of maryland, senator carden, senator cain spoke about the local economy of the loss of these 0 joshes in the government shut down. i can tell stories there were over 50,000 federal workers have either been fur loid -- fur low -- furloughed or checks being withheld, for the most part. it's unnecessary and up acceptable. we were the in midst of a terrible accident last week right before october 1st. a train ran in to one of our met -- metro trains coming back from

the airport. 30 people were sent to the hospital. the national transportation safety board went out to investigate the accident, to find out when lead to -- what lead to the terrible thing. they had to leave at midnight on october 19st. after collecting what evidence they could because the government was shut down. the investigation was suspended. that's one example of five families grieving. it goes goes on and on. what we hear from republicans we'll take care of each of these as it arises. we'll pick out the vital function of government. so far all of the bills passed by the house of representatives represent only 18% of the domestic discretionary budget of the united. all l -- the bills combined. each day as another tragedy and embarrassment in to the republican strategy emerges they'll try to find a way to fix that story. fix that problem. it's time for us to fix our sights on a solution that is

befitting the great nation of america. open the government! pay our bills! while we negotiate. that's the only responsible to approach it. i'm sorry for the 21st time the republicans have come to the floor and denied the request by the senate to budget committee chair, senator murray of washington to sit down and negotiate. 21 times the republicans have refused to allow us to enter to a bipartisan negotiation. that's why we're in the problem we face. we face the problems we do today. i yield the floor. >> the senator from ash. >> madam president, it is a good thing that the democrats, for the first time after four years, pass a budget. at least brought one to the floor and passed it on a strictly partisan basis. before they, they didn't only pass one. they didn't bring one to the

floor for four years and refused to to so e even though a specific provision of the united states code called on them to do so! thought to bring budgets up. said he was going to bring the budget up. senator durbin and others and the leadership apparently had a vote and voted gins him. senator murray, to her credit, has gotten a budget through. the presiding officer's amendment of the committee and got a budget through this year. which was a good thing. but i'm not sure, but i suspect senator murray was one of those who blocked senator conrad for even bringing a budget up for four years. i don't know, i think -- it's a bit aggress toif --

aggressive to say republicans blocking a budget which the history is they haven't voted on one. secondly, on that part, their members on this side of the aisle that simply say that the legislation necessary to raise the debt ceiling again should be passed like legislation should be passed on the floor of the senate and it would require a 90-vote point of order. but so you to have 60 votes to pass. their concern is that in conference, a raising of the debt ceiling would be put on the budget, which requires 51 votes to pass. and they have simply said they would allow the budget to go to conference, they would agree to conference, but they want a commitment from our democratic colleague. they want to try to sneak through raising the debt ceiling

on the budget. which doesn't require but 51 votes. and our colleagues have refused to do that dpreement. if they would make that agreement, they would go to conference. that's clear on the budget. and i think that our democratic majority should agree to that. they indicated they don't intend to put on the budget. one time senator durbin said he didn't think it was froapt put on the budget. let's make clear we're not going to gimmick it up and add it to it. we are, the reason we've had such convention at this point -- contention that the point in history, we're facing fundamental challenges relevant to the whole future of america financially. it's a time of great importance. the american people understand it. the american people want us to

take action to place this country on a sound financial path. we're head together debt ceiling. and we, by law, limit the amount of money congress can borrow. how much money we can spend above our current -- how much question borrow, we're now spending about $3,500,,000 a year and taking in $2,800,,000. that's what we're doing every year and unsustainable. august of 2011 we faced a debt ceiling. the american people told congress, you guys -- we want to clip back on your credit card. you're not going continue to borrow this much money every year. we want you -- before you raise the debt ceiling, we want you to somehow

you're going to be more frugal and manage our money better. and the republicans dug their heels in and said, mr. president, we're not going raise the debt ceiling until you agree to some financial constraints. you're not going to keep spending recklessly every year, and after a tenth time, there was an agreement reached and the committee was formed. an agreement was reached, and this is what we agreed to. over the next ten years, first we would raise the debt ceiling $2.19 trillion. then we agreed over the next ten years, we would reduce the projected growth of spending by is $2.1 trillion. one for one speaker boehner said. it gave them ten years to find the cuts. we've already borrowed over the

two years borrowed it and hit the debt ceiling cap again. we have not come close to saving the $2 trillion we promised to save. and, by the way, these are not really cuts. overall, when you look at the united states budget, the united states budget was projected to increase spending from $. -- $37 trillion to $47 trillion over ten years. what the budget control ability spending -- act spending would increase from $37 trillion to $45 trillion over 10 years. that's not really a cut in spending, is it? yet, the way it's been carried out it's some department more than other, particularly defense department. and we need to adjust that. fundamentally, the reduction in the growth of spending that was part of the bca last year of not

extreme, not irresponsible, and should be preserved and must be preserved. but colleagues, president of the united states after signing that agreement in august and a sequester is part of the bca, it was all part of the same deal that created the $2.1 trillion in savings. in january, after that august, he proopposed a budget that would increase spending another trillion dollars. and would raise taxes a trillion dollars. and that's basically what our colleagues passed in their budget this year. i'll spend a trillion dollars more are more than the budget control act said we should spend and raise taxes another trillion dollars over ten years. this is a total abdication of the promise we made to the american people.

we said american people, okay, we're going vote to raise the debt ceiling. a lot of people didn't like any raising of the debt ceiling. i have to tell you, phone calls in my office were against it. any raising of it. i said it's time for you to live within your means like i have to do in my house. so we raised it, but we promised, did we not, we promised we wouldn't spend so much. we promised that we would reduce spending $2.1 trillion but over ten years, and a lot of sin cynics said congress won'ted a her to that. it's a budget baloney. they promise it all the time and breach their promises automatic the time. that's why the country is going broke.

-- well, i didn't really want to sign that agreement. i didn't really want to spend that much money. i didn't make a promise to the american people. i forgot about it. it was six months ago. a ten-year promise that we're going contain the growth of spending for ten years? forget that! i don't want to do that! i want to spend more. i have investments i want to make. i have taxes i want to en-- increase. this is fundamentally what is occurring here. so we have got to stand firm. and adhere, at least, to the containment of the growth and spending that was in the budget control act.

failure to do that is a capitulation to the promise to the american people. a total abandonment of any pre-- it is unthinkable we would abandon the limits that we had in the budget control act. and the truth is; the sad true is, that the budget control act reduction in the growth of spending do not come close to putting us on a firm financial footing. we are still on an unsustainable debt course as our congressional budget office has told us. yes, we've seen a reduction in the deficit this year. $600 billion. people say that's great. george bush was then called profligate, sometimes he was. the highest deficit he had was $470 billion. his year before the last year in

office he was $167. president obama averaged in his six years will have average almosted a trillion dollars a year! $100,000 billion in deficits. we've never, ever, ever come close to that kind of deficits before in the history of the republic! what is a budget say that says we want to tax people a trillion dollars more than and spend more money? and on the circumstances? i'll tell you what it says, it's our not problem. we can't cut and find anymore ways to reduce the growth of spending. we can't save another dime, you people, you just don't understand. there's no way we can save anymore money.

we have a problem, though, and you know who is responsible for it? you are! you, the american people, it's your fault! you won't give us enough money. if you would send more money, another trillion dollars, another $2 trillion, another $600 billion that was passed? january. just another few billion more a trillion here and trillion there in the taxes. we could solve all the problems. send us more money! we'll use it to create government programs, government bureaucracies that are impose great cost on the american economy, and have, in fact, resulted in the declining wages of american workers. to a degree not acceptable. to me, the growth-oriented lean government, a lean government that serves the people for the least possible cost and reduces

these deficits and deficits themselves are -- the size of our debt is so large we've never had anything like it. it's already beginning to diminish the prospect of growth in our economy and reduce job creation and reduce wages. so miami -- madam president, i know we're in a tough time now. we certainly need to work our way out of this but the president negotiated over the debt ceiling august of 2011 and we made at least a step forward, in fact, it was the most significant fiscal step this country has taken, maybe in decades, and for the last two years we've actually spent less money than the year before. to hear people talk, you would

think that the country was going to collapse. we have a modest reduction in spending. that's been good. it's been good. but it's not near enough to put us on a sustained path. we need to save social security, we need to strengthen and save medicare, we cannot afford the affordable care act. we've got totally misrepresentation on the affordable care act with regard to the cost, the governmental accounting office, -- has told us it's going to add $6 trillion to the debt of the united states over the long-term. it doesn't pay for itself. nowhere close. that's -- it's as unstable financially as social security is. >> the senate's time has expired. >> i thank the chair. i would say, colleagues, let's keep working and maybe we can develop some ways that confront

our financial problems. it's absolutely critical we do. we have a moral responsibility to do that. and we've got start working together to achieve it. and i think the president needs to back off his statements that he'll not negotiate on the continuing resolution on the debt ceiling. i would yield the floor. >> madam president. >> the senate from oregon. >> i ask my colleague from alabama, if he has a moment or two more after i read an official consent request if he might statement -- stay for a moment how the budget conference committee works. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you very much. madam president, i have one unanimous consent request for committee to meet during the session today during the senate. it has the apriewfl of the majority and minority leader. i ask it be agreed to and the request be printed in the

record. >> without objection. >> thank you, madam president. and through the chair, i wanted to pose a question about the budget conference committee. because i think it's a -- it's something that has puzzled a lot of people across america. we hear some folks standing up and giving speeches saying for six month we've been trying to get a conference committee and we have other folks signing up and saying we're glad to go to conference as long as there's a deal beforehand on exactly what is done in the conference committee. in that regard, i thought it would be useful to have kind of a little bit of perspective here, and my understanding is that anything that comets out of the budget conference committee would have to have agreement about the team of delegates from the house side and a team of delegates from the senate side. it's a question i would ask of the ranking member of the budget

committee to clarify that process. >> madam president -- >> the senator from alabama. >> i thank the senator, and of course that's correct. as i understand that the speaker has indicated that there's no guarantee that the increase in debt ceiling would not be a part of a conference report that came out of conference committee, and we have independent senators in this body that simply said we don't think we should be subjected to having the debt ceiling increase without a full debate and the normal processes of 60-votes in the senate. so that's where the disagreement lies. and people can have disagreements about the validity of their concern, but it's legitimate concern and if

there's no intention to move a budget through a 50-vote -- move a debt ceiling increase without at 195-votes why wouldn't my colleagues agree not it? so that's the disagreement, i think that now exists. >> thank you, madam president. >> the senator from goodbye to. >> i might a couple of other pieces of the puzzle. why not, with that concern, i would pass this question through the chair to my colleague. why not with that concern simply ask the house delegates to carry that concern rather than blocking the start of the conference committee? >> madam president, -- >> senator from alabama. >> my colleague through the

chair, well, it's very simple! senators have rights and they have a right to assert those privileges on the floor of the senate and we have senators that cite you shouldn't do this on -- you shouldn't raise the debt ceiling on the budget bill and we don't want to go conference unless you do agree not to sneak it through without a full debate and on the floor of the senate. attaching it to a bill is a budget deal that is huge and would have a lot of interest in it. would make if even more difficult to separate that question out. so rightly or wrongly, that's their view. and i just would say i don't see any problem. i'm amazed that the intransigent

in the majority of accepting that. i don't think it's likely, as you indicated, the house would add it to it, frankly, not too worried about it. but some are ab and that's causing the disagreement right now. i think it would be great to go to conference and would like to see a conference occur, frankly. i think it's an unusual and positive development that after four years of not even bringing a budget to the floor that we now have our -- the majority here passing a budget. so we could try to do something with it in conference. although i have to tell you, all of our colleagues there is a big difference in the budget. the budget passed out of the senate that without majority that every republican opposed completely busted the budget

control act. and there's nowhere close to what was agreed to in that act just two years ago. i wish they would commit not try to sneak the debt ceiling increase in under budget. i would thank the chair and appreciate my colleague, the member of the budget committee, contributing ably and works hard to try to go the right thing around here. thank you. >> madam president? >> senator from oregon. >> the thing that puzzles me, if my colleague would still consider responding, that would be fine. is there's a process on this floor of giving instructions to a conference committee.

and so my colleague left the floor, but the question i would have followed up with is: give there's a specific process in the senate for doing budget instructions to a conference committee, why not utilize that specific process, hold a vote on the conference committee instructions rather than brocading the conference committee from starting? i guess i'll have to rhetorically answer the question that there's really no good explanation. no good explanation for -- not going through the normal process of proposing a budget committee --

under the budget act so we can, indeed, get the job done. and not be paralyzed. i think, madam president, i believe the story, and i believe have liked to have the perspective of my colleague -- to instead allow the minor toy do so. i believe also it's an absolutely unprecedented situation, but i wanted to clarify that. and understand whether there was, in fact, president, this type of determination that in a simple majority budget process and minority would blockade a budget conference. t very strange it should become such a central issue, but i

want, for americans to understand that essentially if boils down this. for six months we've been trying to start a budget conference committee that a small group, a couple of individuals, that have wanted to instruct that budget committee but to do so without going through the normal process on the floor. so they can do it the minority rather than as a discussion and decision of the senate as a whole. it's that precedent that seems unacceptable. i think the tables were turned it would be felt strongly on other side. i hope to keep the point to the question. the six-month obstruction of being able to get the budget that provides the frame work for spending is really deeply damaging.

he was providing a road map on how to block any sort of improvement or health care system. he said, and he was specifically instructing my colleague across the aisle, said it doesn't matter what is in the health care bill. it doesn't matter what good it does whatever it is,let attack it and call it a government takeover. this was long before anybody

knew what was going to be in the bill. this strategy of poisonous partnership rather than problem solving has been with us since at least april of 2009. a series of myths were generated. as the process proceeded it doubled down on them. for example, we have, in the health care reform, a process by which small businesses can join together and get the marketing clout of a large group negotiate lower rates and get a better deal. but under the frank lutz, let's demonize and deceive strategy, instead of honoring the fact small businesses will be able to get a better rate there's been assertion it would hurt small businesses. now when the health care reform bill, we have a presence by which individuals who have no market clout can band together and get a much better deal.

we're seeing significant drops in rates for individuals across this country under the marketplaces that are just now opening for signup. but indeed under the frank lutz deceive and demonize strategy, it became let's tell people the insurance rates will go up instead of down. we have a bill before us, not a bill but a health care reform law coming in to effect, that ends abuses in the insurance industry. a situation where you couldn't gate policy if you had a preexisting condition. the sort of situation if you had insurance and you get sick you would be thrown off the policy. the fact that children weren't able to stay on the policy until they were able to get health care insurance of their own. these bill of rights are reforms that are deeply sought by americans across this country, urban and rural, but under the

frank lutz deceive and demonize strategy, there was simply an assertion unfounded that it would destroy the insurance system. so you a process where by under the marketplaces, insurance companies will have to compete -- private insurance companies, and yet under the frank lutz strategy adopted by some of my colleagues across the aisle, they decided to say it would hurt competition even though it strengthens competition. it puts people app toll apple having to lay out the rate and benefits under the different level of insurances. we see it from private companies proceed to lower rates. so, let's fast forward. we have that phase of the demonize the plan even though we have to mischaracterize it and deceive and delude americans what is really in it. the senator's time has expired. >> thank you very much, madam

president. i will just wrap up with a sentence or two. thank you for coming to the floor to continue the conversation. i think it's so important that we proceed to put our state government back on track and quick careening from crisis to crisis doing damage to communities and fames across our nation. each session of the senate begins with a prayer by chaplain barry black. senator dick durbin comment order today's prayer and talked about the government shut down. let us pray. oh god, in whose presence our souls take delight to whom in affliction we call. forgive us for continuing to sew

to the wind even when hearing the sounds of the approaching world wind. lord, when our federal shut down delays payments of death benefits to the families of children dying on far away battle field, it's time for our lawmakers to say enough is enough. cover our shame with the role of your rich -- righteousness. forgive us, reform us, and makes whole. we pray, in your merciful name, amen.

madam president, each morning the senate opens with a custom prayer by the chaplain and the pledge of allegiance. it's an opportunity for the members of the senate to reflect on two important things. first, our mission on earth not just as elected officials but as human beings, and second, our "devotion" and locality to this great country. i have listened to most of the prayers that have been offered over the last nine days the government shut down by dr. barry black. a retiredded a mirm from the united states navy, and came again before us this morning to offer prayer. his prayer had an important message to it. it was short and direct. he talked about this government shut down. he reflected on the fact we literally have families, families who in the last few days had that awful knock on the door where they were told their son had died in service to this

country in the united states military. five of them, over the weekend, as i understand 17 during the course of the government shut down. and sadly, the support which we always give to these families is not there. it's not there. customer -- they are giving given some a sum of money in advance on the benefits that soldier earned so they can take care of funeral expenses and the obvious needs of their family. we can't do that because the government is shut down. that awful knock on the door was not followed by the consolation of this government helping these families. and we offered to many of these families an opportunity come and to be there to welcome at dover air force base in delaware the return of their fallen hero. we can't offer them that benefit because the government is shut down. dr. black said to all of this morning, all of those who

believe that a government shut down is just another political gamete, what he said, we should remember. his words were direct and simple, enough is enough. enough is enough! it isn't just a matter of these families losing that loving son, that husband, that brother. it's a matter our government that asked them to risk their lives for this great nation will not standby them in this moment of grief. yesterday the junior senator from texas came in and said i think we voted to take care of that. it's not true. what happening now is the house of representatives, the house of representatives, which we refuses to reopen the government is now scurrying to pass a little bill to take care of these families. let's get that bill in, they said. we don't want to face the embarrassment of headline like

this. there isn't enough, madam president, it's not nearly enough. the embarrassment of this government shut down goes beyond this grievance use situation with these grieving families. it goes to many different levels. think about that for a moment, in the united states of america, when it comes to infant formula for babies, 60% of the infant formula is sold through one government program called wicc, women infants and children's program. it's program that brings in pregnant mothers and moms with babies and does the best to make sure the babies are healthy and off to a good start in life. in my state of illinois, the largest cook county, 50,000 mothers depend on wic. the wic program that provides the basics for healthy moms and healthy babies. the wic program will run out of

money this month. when it does, the support for these families, for these moms, for these babies is in danger. why are we doing this? is this part of a republican strategy. sick babies? mothers unprepared to deliver? is that part of their strategy? is that their leverage for what they awant to achieve? if it is, i have three words for them: enough is enough! i just left my office and had a group of people from my statement whom i have a special affection for. they're known as the primary health care association. i bet you have some in your state, north dakota. these are folks that open the clinics in the neighborhoods in small towns so people who aren't

wealthy have access to a doctor and a nurse. i love them to pieces. they put their whole lives invested in helping folks who are often ignored. they told me despite the sadness they feel and even anger over the government shut down, there's a feeling of elation now that the insurance exchanges are open under the affordable care act. people are coming in and sg you won't believe it, but i qualify for health insurance for the first time in my life. these are the clients, these are the people they help every day and now these people have the peace of mind of health insurance. that drives some on the other side crazy. to think that obamacare will go forward and provide this type of help. in my state 250,000 people have visited the website.

they are sign up for health insurance, many for the first time. ours isn't the most successful state, but the state of kentucky is the most successful. some 10,000 people already signing up for health insurance. health insurance they otherwise can afford and otherwise don't have. it's part of the debate in washington. the republicans, many of them, are arguing. we've got shut down the government! we have to shut down the government. and republican candidates --

president obama won the election by 5-million votes. that's the verdict of history and the judgment of the american people. that's how we guide a democracy! there are some very wealthy with very extreme who would never accept the result of an election. they think with a enough money they can overcome the voice of democracy. they are wrong. that's why we're -- doing here is reopen the government, pay our debt. a major outbreak affecting hundreds of people in many states right now in people across 18 states, mostly in california have been reported ill. they're working with center for

disease control along with state and local officials to track that. that said, we've got to understand with a government shut down, these agencies are not fully staffed. families and children across america are vulnerable because the republican shut down strategy. the words of the chaplain ring in my ear. enough is enough. we're hearing from the house of representatives when they see the ghastly headline of families bereaving families who are denied basic benefits that we offer to the families of those who have fallen in service to america, whether they face their embarrassment they quickly manufacture a spending bill to cover it. saying we'll take care of that one. chucky cheese call thes it wack

amole. that's what they're doing. each time a story pops up, they try to knock it down. the center for american progress has done a review of the 14 bills passed by the house. they find about $83 billion in funding. and $6 billion a bill. the total amount of nondefense funding in the original pass continuing resolution was $46 9 billion. therefore, the house bills that already have passed are currently under consideration. make up less than 18% of the total. they cent keep up with it. the simple honest answer is -- we passed a bill and sent it to the boehner and living in political fear of calling the bill. he know it is will pass.

how many more embarrassing moments will we have reporting n who have give their all, who have losted their loved one, and now they're asked to suffer because of the republican shut down. it's got come to an end. it will have an devastating impact on businesses, on jobs and on savings of americans. if you have a savings account, if you have a retirement account, have you been batch --

watching it over the last several days. have you seen what the republican shut down has done for your plans, future, and your family? this is unacceptable. it will get dramatically worse unless we pass in a bipartisan fashion, the extension of the debt limit from the united states of america. this will be a chance for moderate republicans in the senate to speak up and stand up. before i close, i want to say a special word about my colleague, my republican senate colleague mark kirk who announced this week he would vote for a clean debt ceiling. i've said it back home and will stay on the floor. it's the right thing to do for my colleague, the right thing for america. i want to express my appreciation for his leadership. i hope his example of stepping up and saying he's going put the country first before his party is one that be followed by other members on his side of the aisle. miami president, i yield the floor.

>> on the next "washington journal," we'll have more about the government shut down and the upcoming debt ceiling deadline. congressman celt allison, who serves on the financial service committee will join us. we'll also talk with arizona republican, david schweikert. the effect it could have on national security. he served as legal adviser to the national security counsel during the george w. bush administration. we'll also take your calls, e-mails, and tweets. "washington journal" each morning on c-spanned at 7:00 eastern. during the coverage of the national book festival, biographer david nasaw spoke about joseph kennedy. >> kennedy couldn't figure out churchill played a mind game with him whether churchill was teasing him or was so drunk that he forgot from the day before that kennedy didn't drink. they disliked one another

intensely. but the war was over! there had been intense suffering. church hill said to kennedy; he held out his hand and he said, i'm sorry for your loss. joe junior had died during the war. and churchill was so sincere. he said to churchill, what good was it all? and churchill looked at him, unbelieving world war ii had destroyed -- in churchill's mind hitler, news lee knee and the dictator. it had saved democracy! it had saved western civil ization, so churchill thought. and kennedy belays hay -- hatred at him. booktv is the only national television networking devoted to non-fiction books every weekend. this fall we're marking 15 years of booktv on c-span 2.

in a few moments a hearing how the irs is implementing the health care law. and a little more than four hours a debate between the candidates for u.s. senate in new jersey. after that, the chinese ambassador to the u.s. discusses china's role in the world. several live event to tell you about tomorrow morning. here on c-span2 the senate finance committee hears from treasury secretary jack lew about the government shut down and the upcoming deadline for raising the debt limit. that's at 8:00 eastern. the senate banking committee looks in to how the economy would be affected by not raising the debt ceiling and going in to defoment. that's on c-span 3 at 10:00 ament -- a.m. eastern. this sunday part ii of the conversation with josh bolton. start off by giving us what you saw with the press, the media, and that world.

how did you view them? >> guest: usually with some hostility, which is, just a natural state of affairs. between the white house and the press corp. because that's just the nature of what the press needs to do. they need catch the white house out on whatever is going on. more with bush administration chief of staff sunday night at 8:00 on c-span q & a. now the house oversight committee looks at how the irs is implementing the health care law. members heard testimony that the irs has experienced few problems since the insurance exchanges opened for enrollment on october 1st. this is 4 hours.

[inaudible conversations] coming to order. first, americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them at the irs is well spent. and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government

that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform to protect these rights along with every, every right articulated in the constitution. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their boft government. it's our job to work tirelessly with citizens watchdog to deliver the fact to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. today the american people are suffering through a second week of partial shut down created by an inability of congress and president obama to comprise. to reach an agreement on funding the government. but more importantly, the funding of the government today is virtually impossible without dealing with entitlements. one of the central issues in dispute is obamacare, formally called the affordable care act, since no part of it it makes it

more affordable except through subsidizes the president and the congress have chosen to call it obamacare. for today we'll call it obamacare. three and a half years after the affordable care act became law, the administration has struggles to launch the massive program, and in fact, is failing. it is the chatter on nighttime comedy that, in fact, you can probably download anything and everything faster than you can get on to an irs site. the fact is, well, no mitigation in the responsibility to vote pay taxes or to buy obamacare, americans are unable to get on the site. if they get on the site, it's confusing, and without a doubt, there are few choices. the promise of obamacare to bring people, better health care for less has been just the opposite.

.. we are not here to do that but it is in fact the result of that kind of legislation has led us to find that after three years of our witness working at the