>> that's why we're here because we think 1.1 trillion is okay. after 17 trillion. by the way, it doesn't end there. we're another i don't know, 30-$52 in unfunded liability. that's why we are here. that's why we are having this conversation. we can't control ourselves. we can't control that. i think that's a very honest conversation that this committee and this congress needs to have. we go back to nevada. nevada is hurting. i don't know that i have to tell you this. we are highest in unemployment. everybody has heard me say this, highest in bankruptcy, highest in foreclosure.

we are in tough shape. i just got a letter from the governor. he was talking, some of you may know about this about how tough is shut down has been and will be for the state of nevada. programs like child nutrition programs, snap benefits, unemployment insurance, dozens of other programs. he said this undermines the economic security of the vatican's. i agree with that. -- nevadans. a default. that's due to a shut down. a default would make matters even worse. and i'm concerned. i'm concerned the direction this country is going and the effect it has on my own state. if i can ask the governor a question. you said that when you were governor -- and help it's fair to say you did a good job. and you said you had both houses were democrats at the time. under what circumstances, what

circumstances did you tell the leaders to the other party that you wouldn't negotiate or you wouldn't compromised? what were the scenarios that you had that would make you say that? >> well, i come from a very bipartisan background. my grandfather was a democrat. in oklahoma when i was in the house, republicans sought us out with flashlights on sunday night. and as governor, the legislation was overwhelmingly democrat but i had oklahoma and okemos state economics departmendepartmen t why are we poor. they came back and said you don't have right to work. trial lawyers run this place. kids don't take part in of course in school. you got herzl and corporate income tax. you need to address the. the two economic departments of our universities. so i sat down with a speak and said here it is. this isn't the heritage foundation. we went to everyone of those things, even the right to will vote in the constitution and got it all done. together.

because as i said if we crashed and burned, texas would laugh at us. [laughter] who in the world would want that to happen? i don't think -- i don't think the analogy to the federal government is misplaced. >> mr. stevens, you talk about compromise. i'm sorry, confidence. i want to stick to confidence for a minute. what sense does it make to raise the debt ceiling, and yet do so without any structural changes to this government? do you have confidence with raising the debt ceiling? >> i think there needs to be high seriousness about both of them. they need to deal with that because it would be hugely self-inflicted wound, but there needs to be very probably attention to the longer problem. because as i said they'r their h in terms of what creates and builds confidence in the millions of people, thousands of institutions that we turn to to

help finance the united states. >> thanks for your time. >> we will be visiting at this point. you can see it in its entirety on our website. go to c-span.org. back live now to the u.s. senate as centers are gaveling in after meetings with president obama on the government shutdown and the debt ceiling.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the time until 6:00 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders and that the democrats be limited to 10 minutes each. basically the reason for that, mr. president, is we have lots and lots of speakers on this side and i need not say more. i ask consent. the presiding officer: without objection.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. we're hearing a lot of discussion right now about the role of government, the role of the public sector. we know that there's a minority of the minority in the house of representatives who ran on shutting the government down, were elected, think they've achieved something, as we see the economy teetering now, as we see people who have been put out of work, who have mortgages and car payments and imernz their -s about their children and so on, all the services that are in jeopardy, from food safety to law enforcement to what happens in the case of an oil spill and

all of the things inbetween. and i've found it interesting that with our colleagues who have embraced the idea that in the greatest country in the world, in the greatest democracy in the world, that there is no need for the public sector. now, no one else, by the way, is having this debate around the world. nobody is having a debate. they are embracing every tool of the public sector to embrace their private sector, to try to beat us by out-educating and o outinnovating in a global economy. and the distinguished presiding officer certainly understands that. so we're in a global race where everybody else understands it's all in, we use all the tools that we have. we have the greatest private sector, most robust private sector, entrepreneurs that can beat anybody in the world, but we also have a public sector that creates the framework and

support for that by having the rule of law, by having basic protections in place for the public. and as i've had the opportunity to listen to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly in the house, it seems that every time there's a story -- a salmonella outbreak -- gosh, we better bring some folks back. oh, we have veterans that are hurting -- oh, we've got to bring something back. we have women and children not getting baby formula through the w.i.c. program -- we should do something about that. we have concerns about national safety -- we should do something about that. it's almost like we are educating these members about the role of government in this process. as they go, "oh, i didn't realize we did that." and so maybe that function ought to be working. it's a chaotic way in which the greatest democracy to operate

but that seems to be what is happening right now. you know, i remember in my times in traveling to china, and the last time i was there where they said to me, oh, you're here in beijing on a great day; you can see across the street. we're lucky, we can see across the street almost every day because we collectively have decided that one of the things that we need to do to be able to breathe the air is to have certain rules, certain protections, standards in place so that we can breathe the air. that's important to do through the public sector. we can't say, i'll do the air in front of this desk. you do the air in front of this desk. somebody else will protect the air over here. doesn't work that way. we do it together. and so we don't have to worry about saying, oh, i'm in d.c. on

the two days a year of the week we can breathe the air and look across the street. we have the confidence knowing that we have a quality of life, including the building to see across the street and breathe the air because in a civilized society, the greatest democracy in the world, we have made it -e sure that our standards are there for our citizens. i remember a few years ago being on a trip to russia -- this was a few years ago now -- where they were talking about wanting to get more private-sector investment into moscow, into russia. came home talking to our businesses and they said, do you know what the problem is? they don't have a rule of law. we don't trust how we can invest there because we're not confident in their government, their rule of law. we don't have that problem here. we have the -- they pi epitome a system of checks and balances, a rule of law up until >> of this

has begun, we've had the confidence available in the private sector on how to invest and know that there is a system in place. i had the opportunity with my agriculture hat on a few months ago to be in haiti, where we see a grait desire meeting with the haitian president to bring in more -- a great desire, meeting with the haitian president, to bring in more investment from the united states. the problem is, you bring aship load of cargo into the harbor, you can't get it off the ship without paying bribes. they have no law enforcement system, judicial system, rule of law. that's not true in our country. we do it through something collectively we call government, that creates a way for us to make sure we can drink the water and breathe the air and see across the street and drive on

the roads and have the opportunity for education for all of our children, know that you can walk into a restaurant and have some level of confidence that the food is safe or go into the grocery store and know that. we have research institutions that suddenly, after our colleagues in the house have been saying now for years -- i've had personal debate with folks that said, you know, we don't need a national institute of health. let the private sector do it. and yet we know collectively we are willing to share a risk of basic research to try to find cancer cures, to go over and over again on research until you get that one that may be able to move forward and be successful, in which case the private sector comes in, takes it from there. but we have done it together and shared the risk because we know

it's in all our interest to save lives -- our own, our family members, others, whether it's alzheimer's, parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, cancer. all of those things are done collectively through this thing that we call government. that's why the -- we have the best standard of living in the world. we're the wealthiest country in the world. we are the envy of the world. people want to come here and invest. they want to be a part of this opportunity in this country. and now we are debating w4r50 lit -- and now we are debating whether or not literally there should be a public sector. should we fund the police and the fire and the judicial system and -- and while there are those on the other side of the aisle who say, "oh, no, we don't mean that." every time we bring up something, "oh, no, we didn't mean that." i'm not sure what, mr. president, they mean then in

a civilized society. now, we know that we have challenges around issues of finance and debt. as chair of the agriculture committee, i'm proud of the fa fact, i've said so many times on the floor, we're the only committee on a bipartisan basis that's actually brought a deficit-reduction bill to the floor that has passed in the senate of ththesenate. and so i take a back seat to no one when we are looking at ways to consult duplication, to cut things that aren't important, to strengthen those things that are and to save money. but you do not do it by destroying our economy, by shutting down the services that we call count on to protect us as consumers to make sure our children have opportunities, to make sure that we are safe and cure in this country.

obviously that makes no sense. it's totally irresponsible. what we are not talking about enough is the fact that we have begun to see things happening in terms of the debt and deficit and we can continue to do that. in -- in fact, the yearly deficit has been cut in half. i don't hear people talking about that, but the numbers say that. we set a few years ago a goal of $4 trillion in deficit -- in debt reduction over ten years, and we're more than halfway there. not all the way there, but we have put in place the mechanisms through cuts, through new revenue, through interest savings -- $2.5 trillion in debt reduction out of the $4 trillion. now, what is happening today by shutting down the government and

threatening the default? that debt is going to go back up. we're going to undermine the work we have already done by adding increased costs through interest payments and delays that will actually increase the debt. we saw that in the last go-round in 2011, even though there wang actually a default -- there wasn't tilely a defaul actuallye full faith and credit of america. we saw it because of exactly what's happening now. a lot of talk, in my judgment; some very irresponsible talk, posturing back and forth, instead of working together in a reasonable way. and we saw the market's effect -- a drop of 2,000 points in the markets. $800 billion in retirement savings of folks who have worked hard owl thei all their lives oe

are still working, and can't figure out why we can't work together in a reasonable, rational way to solve problems? during that in the meantime 20 e who was signing up for a new mortgage is paying on average $1 more a month in payments because the interest rates were higher. so instead of building on what we've already done together or even acknowledging it -- it may not be good politics to acknowledge; folks on the other side of the aisle they certainly don't want to give credit to the president or to anything we've actually been doing, it seems, unfortunately. but the reality is the deficit has been cut in half and we are more than halfway to the goal of

savings over ten years. and there's nothing that's been happening in the last few days -- shutting the government down, threatening possible default on the full fanal and credit o faie united states -- that is helping us reach that goal. it is actually going in the opposite direction. billions of dollars as interest rates go up will be added to the debt. so, as we have tried to figure out over the last number of months how to continue bringing down the debt and tackling long-term challenges while, by the way, growing jobs because the best way to get us out of debt is to create jobs so people can go back to work and being bt of the economy -- that's the best thing, and we're sure not hearing enough talk about that. i'm very proud to come from a state that makes things and grows things, and it's manufacturing that is bringing

us back, that is driving the economy, and it's agriculture. but we have the biggest exports in terms of export surplus in the country. we need to make things and grow things, focus on that. that will bring down the debt, as we create more opportunities and more jobs. but, as we have tried in the last six months to go to a conference committee, negotiating team -- formal negotiating process on a ten-year budget that will bring more of the debt down, create jobs, do things in a fair and balanced way that puts middle-class families first -- while we've been trying to do that and as of today 21 times the chair of the budget committee has come to the floor and moved that, in fact, we get to that process -- 21 times --

joined by distinguished members of the republican caucus in the senate who've come to say the same thing, "let us go to a budget negotiation," a formerraa formal budget negotiation, the same folks that say, oh, it doesn't hurt anything if we default the country, even though every economist, every business leader is begging and pleading and providing facts and information as to why it would be a complete disaster, the same people that are saying defaults don't matter, government doesn't work except when they're reading something in the paper and somebody is saying that there's a problem, these same people have 21 times been able to block the senate from going to a formal negotiation with the house on the budget.

so we're in this crazy place where, on the one hand, when you step back, we're actually seeing the economy slowly moving forward. of course, until now, where it's beginning to be stymied by all of this. but the economy has been moving forward. the yearly deficit coming down. we have been tackling the long-term debt. we're coming out of this, and then we have a group of folks that have decided, in the big picture, that there is no value in a democracy, in the greatest country in the world, in government. they don't seem to care about what it takes to really provide an economy and so on. and now they are saying that they are willing to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the

united states of america, have america default on our bills, and potentially send us not only -- and probably -- into a great recession like the one we just came out of, but economists tell us that it could send us back even further into the 1930's or the 19 phos. -- the 19 40's. they just don't know. we just don't know what happens when we default on our bills, when we lose the confidence in the world to invest in america or to even purchase our debt. we don't know what happens when small businesses see all their capital dry up and people are not able to get mortgage loans

again or they cost much, much more than they did before and all the other ramifications of our not paying our bills. now, there are colleagues that say, well, the secretary of the treasury, who, by the way, came in and gave an excellent job in the finance committee today. it was very serious, it was very sobering, but i thought he was clear and he was factual, and i very much appreciate his coming to the senate finance committee. but there are those that say, well, he says october 17 is the last time that extraordinary measures can be used to stop us from falling off the cliff and going into a default and losing the full faith and credit of the united states. and some say, no, it could be the next day, it could be the day after. it reminds me, coming from a car

state, it reminds me of somebody who is driving in their car and they look and it's on empty and you know you may have a little bit more, right? you know sometimes they tell you, you got five miles more, you got ten miles more, maybe you even have 30 miles more. but you're on empty, and you're going to stop -- the car is going to stop. and the question is: how often do you really want to risk that and play that game when you know the car is going to stop? well, that's the kind of, in my judgment, absurd and irresponsible debate that is going on right now. about whether the car stops immediately or in two miles or three miles or 30 miles. why in the world would you want to put yourself in that position? and, lord knows, defaulting on the full faith and credit of the

united states of america is much more serious than running out of gas in your car. there is no reason for this, none, zero. this is a manufactured crisis. do we need to continue to work together to tackle the long-term debt of this country? absolutely. count me in. do we need to focus on what's happening to middle-class families who are getting squeezed on all sides and have a hard time just holding on? do we need to focus on jobs in this country, making things and growing things, and out-educating and out-innovating the world? absolutely. count me in. count me at the head of the line. we in michigan right now in terms of our hard work and ingenuity and innovation, take a

back seat to nobody. but to find ourselves in this craziness is beyond my understanding. and i know people at home are going, what in the world is going on here? can't you guys just come together and figure this out and quit making up crises and quit creating artificial deadlines and get things done? i think it's important at this point in our history, mr. president, that we remember president ronald reagan when he said, "never before in our history has the federal government failed to honor its financial obligations." we are the greatest country in the world. others look to us. they want to be like us. they want a vibrant middle class

like america has had. we need to fight hard to keep ours and keep it growing. and we need to make sure that we do not fail to honor the financial obligations of this great country. i yield the floor. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, thank you. and i just listened to my colleague from michigan talking about the need to reopen government and the need for us to deal with the debt. of course, i agree with that, as do my colleagues on this side of the aisle. we also heard discussion about the fact that we shouldn't be manufacturing crises. unfortunately, we have a crisis on our hands, and that is the crisis of debt at record levels. and so i want to talk a little about that today and talk about

why this discussion is so important, particularly on extending the debt limit, because that would be the place naturally for us to deal with the problem that faces this generation and certainly future generations, which is this historic level of debt. in a matter of days, we're told that our nation is going to be reaching this debt limit, which is $16.7 trillion. you think about that. i think that's about $16,000 billion. it's impossible to comprehend that number. but let's try. $16.7 trillion would produce a stack of $1 bills a mile -- about a million miles high, a million miles high. that's enough, by the way, to go to the moon and back. and it's now bigger than the size of our entire economy. only once in our history we had debt that as a percent of the economy was so large. that was right after world war

ii. and we were able to quukly address that. we -- and we were able to quickly address that. we had very high defense spending from world war ii that we were able to reduce. but other than that, we have never been here before and i would say we're in unchartered territory. and by the way, it is not just that we have this huge level of deficit and debt and the overhang on the economy, but it's the fact that the economy is also weak. i think they're related. i think this huge level of debt and deficit is like a wet brain cet over the economy. this chart shows that the debt limit is growing twice as fast as the economy has grown in the last two years. thstheets pro be that we are trying to face here. it is a lot of back and forth. and i know for some people it looks like this is politics. it is novment it is about a fundamental issue.

and there are fundamental disagreements and i respect those disagreements. but we have to address this problem, and we have to do it in the context of the debt limit and if we do not, we will simply be kicking the can down the road again and letting down the people we represent. if you divide that debt among the american people, each of us, every man, woman and child in america owes around $50,000. by the way, of course that's far more than the average annual per capita income for that man, woman and child in america. think about that, about $140,000 per household on average. that's where we've gotten to. and i don't think it's constructive to be pointing fingers or blame because, frankly, for decades republicans and democrats alike have spent more money than the government takes in. more promises have been made than can be kept.

and we have gone through a process of mortgaging the future for our kids and grandkids as a result. but here we are. i would say in some respects, you can say the greatest single act of bipartisanship here in the united states congress has been the overspending. so the question is not how we got here, but what are we going to do about it? where are we going? the president yesterday said that raising the nation's credit limit by another $1 trillion really pays for last year's deficit spending, not next year's. i guess we could have that debate. i would say it's about the future because we're borrowing more money to pay the bills of the country going forward, and that's what many of us want to talk about, is how going forward we can reduce those bills. but the truth is whether you say you're paying for the past or

paying for the future, it really doesn't matter to the american people. and it doesn't matter to our children and grandchildren who end up paying the bill. because long after we're gone, this huge level of debt and deficit is going to be something that they're going to have to deal with. we all know the consequences if you don't raise the debt limit. without a debt limit increase the federal government is unable to borrow to meet its expenses. and because we're currently borrowing about 20 cents of every dollar the federal government spends, the government would be unable to meet all of its obligations. there's been discussion about meeting the interest on the debt. that's only about 8% of revenue come in. i assume that could be met. but it's true that there are other obligations that frankly can't be met if the government can't borrow because the government is borrowing more than -- it's spending more than it takes in and needs to borrow to make up the difference. the deficit, some have said,

including some of my colleagues on this side today, is lower now and somehow that's an indication that we're okay in terms of the deficit. i would just remind folks that the deficit this year is the fifth-largest deficit in the history of our country. our entire history. it's over $640 billion. and more significantly, the congressional budget office, which is the nonpartisan group around here analyzes this stuff says it's temporary it's below $a trillion. they say within a decade it gets back up to $1 trillion. whether it's $640 billion or $1 trillion, it's way too high. entitlement spending will push these annual deficits up to the equivalent of $3.4 trillion a year, five times what they are today, within a few decades. that's based on the congressional budget office. at that point, by the way, the

national debt would be two and a half times as large as the entire economy. again, today it's about the size of the economy. it's a little bigger, but it would be two and a half times as large as our whole economy and there's one c.b.o. report i saw that stops calculating the interest costs at that point because they cannot foresee our economy functioning under those kinds of conditions. think about your own family budget or think about your business. you couldn't function either. the bank wouldn't be able to lend you any money. both of these outcomes -- default today and bankruptcy in the future -- are unacceptable. that's why it's time for us to work together to try to do something about them. as the debt ceiling is raised, it's time to address the underlying problem. that's what we're saying. by the way, the american people are saying that too. based on the polling i've seen

this week by better than a two to one margin, the american people are saying don't raise the debt limit without doing something about the spending. and they get it, because for them, it is like the credit card. you know, when you reach the limit, you realize you have to do something about the underlying problem, which is how much you're spending. the president says pass the debt limit increase now and we'll address the spending later. i wish it were that simple, but i think he knows as well as everyone in this chamber and every person who is watching at home today that congress simply doesn't reduce spending unless it's forced to do so. and if you don't think that's true, let me remind you of what the history is here. in the past three decades i've gone back and looked at all these deficit-reduction plans that did get through congress -- there aren't ph-pl but there are some -- there aren't many but there are some.

every single instance where there is significant deficit-reduction it came as a result of what? a discussion about the debt limit because that's the time at which there is some pressure here in congress to actually do something about it. i found one in 2005, a relatively small reduction of spending. but otherwise every single of them -- the gramm-rudman rescissions in the 1980's, 1990 andrews air force base agreement that first president bush conducted with democrats, the 1993 balanced budget talks, the 1997 balanced budget agreement that bill clinton negotiated with newt gingrich. democrat president, republican speaker. and of course the pay-go rules that many democrats are fond of. those paygo rules came out of a debt limit discussion. we have to look to a couple of years ago to the budget control act where, yes, as my colleague has said on the other side of the aisle, there have been some successes in reducing spending

on the discretionary side of the spending. that's about a third of the budget that is appropriated here every year. that came out of the budget control act which is the result of what? the debt limit. in other words, members listening to the folks back home, and i'm listening to my constituents back home in ohio right now on this are saying don't max out on the credit card again and go over the limit unless you do something about the problem. so it's little wonder that the american people by this margin of two to one that i talked about are saying don't do it without the spending reductions. they know that's the only way these cuts are likely to happen. why is it that any increase in the debt limit should also include progrowth provisions? well, because one way you get at the debt and deficit of course is spending restraint. and we talked about the discretionary spending being about 35% of the budget. we've made progress there.

the other 65% of the budget is the mandatory spending side. there we have not made progress. the other part would be revenue, and the first of this year taxes were raised by $620 billion. what we have not done is deal with the mandatory side. but then finally, of course economic growth helps. so we should also, as we are extending the debt limit, look at how we can help give the economy a shot in the arm. tax reform is the way to do that. and there's a consensus here in this body, i think, that we need to do it. that would seem to make sense here as well. so, we have already made progress on one of the three legs of the stool, which is dealing with the discretionary spending. pretty much been flat the last couple of years. for the first time since the 1950's a reduction in spending for two years in a row but that's only 35% of the budget. the fastest growing part, 65% of the budget, we have not dealt

with. that 65% grows to 76% of the budget in the next ten years based on the congressional budget office. on the tax side, by the way, the same congressional budget office tells us that starting in 2014 -- that's next year, around the corner -- taxes as a percent of our economy will be above its historic level. so, in other words, there will be more taxes coming in from the tax increases, pa part that we passed earlier this year, but the part that we have not dealt with again is mandatory spending. it's the biggest part of our spending, it's the fastest growing part of our spending, and it's politically difficult to deal with. let's face it. but that's what we're hired to do. that's what we were hired to do. and that's what the president was hired to do in terms of providing leadership. with obamacare, of course, we've added a new health entitlement

program to this part of the budget, the 65%. already, by the way, these health entitlements were growing more quickly than the rest of the budget, even the rest of mandatory spending. in fact, the congressional budget office tells us that in the next ten years the health entitlement programs grow by over 100%. these are vital programs: medicare and medicaid. but they've got to be reformed so they are sustainable into the future and they're there for our kids and grandkids. with 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day and health care costs continuing to rise, we've got a real problem here. we have to address it. air force know that. -- all of us know that. all of us. democrat, republican alike. the president, the congress. and again, history tells us the best way is to link this with the debt limit because that's the opportunity and it has traditionally been the opportunity to make progress here. by the way, over the long term.

overall revenues projected to increase, discretionary spending is projected to be flat. the entire increase in our deficit, these huge debts and deficits going forward that i talked about are due to the mandatory spending. again, that's the congressional budget office. not me. a good place to start, of course, would be some of the mandatory spending reforms the president himself has proposed. that would seem to be less controversial if they're in the president's budget, that means he supports them. and the president sent a budget up this year, and he included over $700 billion of spending reforms over here on the mandatory side of the budget. this is why what i've been advocating is let's start there. let's look at the president's own proposals. these are not the proposals that all republicans support. but after all, we should have a negotiation. this notion that the president says he refuses to negotiate,

that's never been true. every president has negotiated. and i think the american people are confused by this. how could the president of the united states say in the context of this debt limit discussion that he refuses to even talk to the other side, that makes no sense. president bush 1 rolled up his sleeves. we talked about the 1990 agreements. president clinton rolled up his sleeves. we talked about the 1997 budget agreement he negotiated with then-speaker of the house newt gingrich. this is what presidents do. we need them to lead, particularly on these tough issues. as we talked about earlier, these are politically tough issues. the president says he doesn't want to be held hostage over the debt limit. he's not. he's being given the opportunity to lead using his own proposals. at least that's my suggestion. we can also take a very simple step as we're going through this

to be sure that this newest health care entitlement, which is what the affordable care act, obamacare, is. it's a new entitlement program, doesn't become even more of a deficit driver than many of us on this side fear it will already be. the affordable care act includes a provision that requires when you get your subsidies under the exchanges that you have to verify your income. it makes sense. you have to verify your income between we know you should verify your income. that's what the law says. we will give you another year to do it, not until 2015. obviously the concern there is that would be an invitation for

fraud and for waste and for big new expenses. as a result, the federal government body in charge of this the c.m.s. came out and said we'll do it for federal exchanges. we'll require people to verify their income but not for state exchanges. well, there are about 17 states and the district of columbia that had state exchanges. and they said to them, you guys can wait. in fact, not just until 2015, but there is no date certain on that. so that certainly should be something that we as united states congress here should deal with. the democrats in the chamber here who voted for the affordable care act certainly should support because the intent of the bill when they signed up for it and when the president supported it was, of course, that you would verify your income. so that's an example of a simple step we could take to prevent the distribution of subsidies until we have a system to verify that those subsidies are going to the right people. finally, let's give the economy

a shot in the arm. and as part of this process let's do step forward and say let's reform the tax code. we're going to differ about the details, but let's get started on it. so, i propose it will be as we have a vote on extending the debt limit, let's do these important reforms we talked about on the mandatory side but let's also commit to tax reform. let's force the process. let's facilitate it. let's expedite it, because the american people are not looking just for us to get the spending under control, they want to see this economy growing. again, they're not happy with this, with the debts increasing at twice the rate of the economy. what they want to see is opportunities for their kids to get a job. what they want to see is the opportunity to have the dignity and self-respect that comes with the job. and we know that tax reform done properly will be pro growth, it will create jobs. again, if we're going to differ on some of the details, that's

okay. let's get started on it. now, perhaps the president doesn't think that spending and the deficits are a real problem. if he thinks that, he should say it. he says just the opposite. he has said he does think that it's necessary for us to address these problems. in fact, in his own budget, he has sent proposals forward. so what we need to do is get together and negotiate and talk and deal with this underlying problem. a debt that's nearly $17 trillion is unacceptable to everybody, i hope, and i would think you would walk on the sign that republicans are giving now that we want to negotiate, we want to talk. negotiations, by the way, i don't think are a sign of weakness. i don't think coming to the table is a signal of a failure of leadership. i think just the opposite. i think that shows strength and shows leadership. again, i can promise you

republicans don't support all of president obama's suggested savings in his budget, and a purely republican debt limit agreement would look different from whatever plan might emerge from bipartisan negotiations, but again the american people sent us here to get stuff done. using president obama's own proposals, let's take that first step toward entitlement and pro-growth tax reform and some common ground to break the gridlock in d.c. and finally do something about that underlying problem that we all acknowledge. yes, we face serious problems, real challenges, but we also have an opportunity here to do something positive, to deal with a problem we all acknowledge, something that will not only prevent a debt limit crisis today but a debt crisis tomorrow. mr. president, i hope we'll move forward on that important project. i think we owe it to the people we represent. i yield back my time.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: october 1 was a significant day. two things happened to the constituents of my state. the first we talk a lot about here, and that is basically the shutdown of government, the failure to pass a continuing resolution that would keep the doors of government open for the thousands and thousands of americans and north dakotans who depend on government services. that horrible impact continues to have horrible impact, continues to have consequences that people didn't really foresee, but the second thing that happened that hasn't gotten a lot of attention is the expiration of a long-term farm bill. we had been negotiating this body in a large bipartisan vote was able to accommodate the concerns, come together, negotiate, come up with a package that had real reform,

eliminated direct payments, did real reform in the snap program, streamlined conservation programs and basically offered $25 billion of debt relief to the country. great package, sent it over to the house, waited for the house to pass their farm bill, initially couldn't pass a farm bill. then they decided to divide the farm bill, passed part of the farm bill, pass the other part of the farm bill with nutrition. now had a vote to bring them back together and we're patiently waiting the appointment of a conference committee. mr. president, the passage of the farm bill has never been a partisan issue. in fact, it's a regional issue. things that are good for north dakota may not be good for mr. president's state, delaware, but we all work together and we all compromise and we all come together. this past weekend, south dakota, southwestern north dakota were hit with a terrible snowstorm.

over two days, that region was blanketed anywhere from two to seven feet of snow and contained winds over 70 miles an hour. because of the early storm, thousands -- tens of thousands of cattle died because they were suffocated, mired and drowned in stock dams and dropped from exhaustion. the pictures and the stories are devastating. this image is one that's all too common after the recent blizzard in the dakotas. these cattle that died over the weekend near heddinger, north dakota, were owned by the cristman family. like many north dakota families, this hardworking family lost many cows and calves during this surprise fall storm. what people may not understand about the cattle industry is you might think one cow is like the next cow. you can just replace them. these herds are the product of years and years of selective breeding, years and years of

working to improve the quality of their herd and to meet different specifications in the market. they are more than cows. they contain an intellectual property component that is not easily replaced. now, this is where the dysfunction, the crisis of the dysfunction that is washington, d.c., meets natural disaster. when livestock die from a natural disaster, farmers report the number of cattle that die to the farm service agency, f.s.a. however, because the doors are closed on the federal government, north dakota ranchers, south dakota ranchers and anyone who is experiencing livestock losses have no place to report those losses. and even worse, they have no one at usda to consult with about the information they need to collect to eventually report their claims. this is critical information.

if farmers aren't collecting the information that they need to make disaster claims in the future, the safety nets that were put in place to provide some support to these hardworking ranchers may be denied simply because of a paperwork error. unfortunately, this is an avoidable problem. like so many in recent years, it's the product of congressional dysfunction. because we haven't passed a new farm bill, the livestock program that helps ranchers withstand losses to livestock herds drew to extreme weather events, the livestock indemnity program, well, that's expired, and the emergency assistance for livestock and honey bee producers program, which is in the yet-stalled farm bill which helps producers stay in business after they experience significant losses because of natural disasters isn't available to the ranchers and the beekeepers who were hit the hardest by the storm. until congress passes a farm

bill, livestock producers are in danger of losing their business, and they will not be eligible for support. these ranchers and the farm bill are just more collateral damage from the government shutdown. because we're debating whether to fund the federal government or not, congress isn't able to work on a farm bill. we have been waiting and waiting and waiting for the appointment of conferees. we were told the chairwoman, i think she intends to make a floor speech about the farm bill yet today. the chairwoman has been working very hard to encourage the collection of information and to encourage the appointment of conference committee and get focused on this issue. unfortunately, it's not happening until next week, if it even happens then. in addition, the lack of assistance for ranchers in the aftermath of this devastating storm, the shutdown is hurting farmers and structural industries -- and agricultural industries, which is a key piece

of north dakota's economy. here are some additional examples of where the shutdown is hurting our farmers. frequently, because farmers who use f.s.a. loans have a joint obligation with f.s.a. when they receive their checks, when they sell their products, the checks are frequently made out to both the farm service agency and the farmer themselves. consequently, you can't cash th check unless you can get an endorsement from the farm service agency. guess what? they go to knock on the door and no one's there to cosign their check, so that money in their hand that they need to make the investments for next year, that they need to pay the person who maybe supplies the feed, that they need to pay the fuel bill, that money's not available to them, even though they have earned it and they have paid and they have sold their products. so the government shutdown prevents f.s.a. from cashing these checks and from signing these checks. this is money that the farmers have earned and they deserve and

denying them their income is outrageous. what's worse, farmers and ranchers enrolled in the loan programs are new, beginning farmers, farmers who are just starting out. a great thing that's happening in the dakotas and all across farm country as we look at the increasing commodity prices and we look at a -- a farm program that for the last five years has been stable and provided real risk management, our farmers are getting younger and younger. the people who are going to feed the world and continue to develop our rural areas are younger and younger. they cannot withstand cash flow problems. they cannot withstand this loss. another impact of the shutdown. agricultural reports from the national agriculture statistics service aren't available to farmers. these reports are crucial resources that farmers need to make decisions, such as how to price crops, which commodities to grow and when to sell those

commodities and the reports enable farmers to track cattle auction prices. not only has nass stopped putting out new reports about demand and supply, export and prices, but all web sites with past information have been taken down because of the government shutdown. farmers aren't receiving assistance from farm programs. the department of agriculture local farm service offices have been shut down because of the shutdown, and as a result farmers can't apply for new loans, sign up for acreage for farm programs or receive government checks for the programs they are already enrolled in. devastating to so many of our -- our people living on fixed incomes in north dakota who have engaged and basically put their land into the conservation reserve program is consequencevation reserve checks are not being issued. that has a huge impact, particularly on those ranchers and those landowners who use

c.r.p. payments to supplement their social security. the list goes on and on, and as time continues, this list will only get longer and longer. and i understand the strategy perhaps in the house as to whatever is on the headline of the day, whatever is -- becomes the issue of the day will just simply write a little mini c.r. to take care of that and say see, we're dealing with that issue, but we know it's embarrassing a slice, it's only a slice. it doesn't take care of those small businesses who have applied for small business loans and maybe got this close to being able to realize their dream and now have it -- have it increased. it doesn't deal with the critical functions that -- of government in its entirety. instead, it just picks and chooses the winners and losers. and let me tell you, these ranchers who have experienced this loss, they're the losers under this system.

it is time for this organization and this congress to begin to do the responsible thing, which is open government up, fund all of government and start telling the american people that their interest is paramount. start telling farmers and ranchers in the dakotas who have experienced this tremendous loss that we care about their loss, that these programs have to work for them, and we have to do everything that we can to make sure that america's working again. i want to close with one thought. in the great recession, one place where we have experienced a tremendous amount of opportunity and support has been in agriculture. those states that had a good agricultural base had some of the lowest unemployment numbers in the country. 16 million jobs depend on agriculture in this country. and that -- and all they ask for in return is a little bit of help, a little bit of a safety net for guaranteeing the food

supply in this country, but we can't seem to even deliver that obligation. we can't seem to deliver that promise. we have got to tell the american people that their interest is ahead of any partisan issue in this body and in this congress. we have got to get the congress back working for the american people, particularly for the hard-hit ranchers and farmers of southwestern north dakota and of west river, south dakota. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. menendez: mr. president, here we are again at the same crossroads. we know the landmarks. we know the signs. we have been here before.

we negotiated in good faith to avert the last shutdown, the last default threat. we imposed the sequester, but that wasn't enough, so here we are once again and here we will be again in a week, a month, six months, a year, being asked for more concessions to a minority of extreme republicans who seem to have forgotten that we operate under the rule of law. they simply have chosen to ignore t. the fact is we passed the affordable care act. it went through the legislative process, it was signed by the president, tested by the supreme court. but so what, they say? it doesn't count. like the schoolyard bully, they want a do-over or they'll take over your lunch money. the right-wing republican minority claims to love the constitution, adheres to the strictest interpretation of its tenets but apparently is not

interested in living by it or by the rule of law that this nation stands for and lives by. they say democrats have failed to negotiate in good faith and voted against trying reach a compromise. well, the fact is for six months, senate republicans have stood in the way of budget negotiations -- what they want, negotiations -- by blocking requests for budget committee members to conference with the house of representatives. they've objected over 20 times to those budget negotiations. the senate followed regular order and passed a budget resolution for fiscal year 2014 on march the 23rd of this year. our budget resolution provides just over a trillion dollars by replacing the irresponsible sequestration cuts with following -- while following the spending limit imposed by the budget control act. the house wants to keep sequestration cuts by funding the government at $976 billion,

or about $80 billion less than the senate. the fact is, we've already compromised with the house by agreeing to a continuing resolution at a level of $986 billion, much closer to their numbers than to ours. so if you ask me, that's more than $70 billion in compromising but they simply won't take "yes" for an answer. what the past weeks has shown us is that this isn't even about budget numbers. they just want to make a political point and they're holding the country hostage in order to make t. the -- make it. they simply do not want either the affordable care act, or, for that fact, this president, to succeed. but that train has left the station. the president is already turning the economy around from the massive deficits he inherited when he took office, and the affordable care act is the law of the land.

so make no mistake, it's not a coincidence that we are here again doing the same thing much like groundhog day. and mark my words, we will be here again tomorrow and in the future if the republican shutdown strategy continues. we are being asked to capitulate yet again at the threat that republicans will keep the government shut down, that they will force america to default on its obligations and risk a global consequence and america's leadership role in the world. it is a deliberately -- deliberate, i should say, if fatally flawed republican strategy. one might go so far as to call it a conspiracy adopted to achieve through bullying what they cannot achieve at the ballot box. we know it is a deliberate effort hatched many months ago. in fact, it goes back to 2010

when the house republicans threatened to push the nation into defaulting on its obligations and shut down the government unless we agreed to aggressive and deep structural cuts that met their political objectives in the midst of one of the deepest recessions in our history, a recession that president obama inherited when he took office. then in november of 2010, the antitax, antigovernment, antispending, antiprogress side of the republican party exercised their newfound power and hamstrung their leadership into rejecting any kind of compromise, forcing the house speaker and majority leader to reject any grand bargain proposed by the democrats. and they did it gleefully. it was part of their strategy to block any successful effort to actually govern. they chose instead to fuel the right-wing flames, burn the

house down and bring government to a halt until they achieved their objectives. from december 2 to december 21 of 2010 of that year, we enacted four separate continuing resolutions to keep the government open, four of them to keep the government functioning until march the 4th. and let's not forget that these appropriations actually cut the congressional budget office's projection of discretionary spending from 2013-2022 by $400 billion. but that wasn't enough. they wanted more. on march the 2nd of 2011, as the new deadline approached, we passed another short-term c.r. taking us to march 18, just 16 days, that cut spending by yet another $4 billion, still not enough. on march 16, the deadline approaching once again, we passed another continuing

resolution taking us to april 8 with another $6 billion in spending cuts. was it enough? of course not. on april the 4th, house republicans applauded the speaker's announcements to begin preparations for, what? yes, a shutdown of the government. clearly, nothing is enough. on april 14, just before midnight, the speaker agreed to the seventh short-term extension with more cuts that analysts said would amount to an additional $350 million in that year alone. all in all, we agreed to $40 billion in total cuts. and we've cut even more since then, including the current senate-passed refunding bill that would reopen the government today if the house would just pass it. we've taken a busmg of votes on the things they've -- bunch of

votes on the things they've sent us. they haven't taken one vote on the resolution we have sent them. it's a clear pattern, mr. president, a clear strategy. they won't stop. they won't take "yes" for an answer, and they clearly will not govern until they achieve their political and ideological goal to end government as we know it. and that has been their plan all along. in fact, last sunday, "the new york times" reported that after the president was sworn into his second term, a coalition of top conservative activists, including former attorney general ed meese, along with the koch brothers, devised a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy to derail health care by shutting down the federal government. now we are being blackmailed again. as further proof of this take-no-prisoners strategy, jonathan shade of "new york magazine" recently reported on something called the williamsburg accord.

mr. shade wrote in january this year, "demoralized house republicans retreated to williamsburg, virginia, to plot out their legislative strategy for president obama's second term. they called it the williamsburg accord." he said -- and i quote -- "if you want to grasp why republicans are careening toward a potential federal government shutdown and possibly toward provoking a sovereign debt crisis after that, you need to understand that this is the inevitable product of a conscious party strategy." his article goes on to say -- and i quote -- "the way to make sense of it is that republicans have planned since january to force obama to accede to large chunks of the republican agenda without republicans having to offer any policy concessions of

their own." that's not negotiation, mr. president. and we saw the implementation of that strategy beginning early in the spring when we did exactly what republicans wanted: we passed a budget in the senate and the house passed a budget and we attempted to go to conference to work out the difference between the two. actually, we've attempted to do that more than 20 times now, and every single time republicans have blocked action. for six months they have refused to talk, they've refused to negotiate, they've refused to have a conversation. as we now know, this all was planned out from the beginning, going back to their january williamsburg accord. they've intentionally driven us to the edge of the cliff to serve their own political interests at the expense of the nation's economy, the jobs of working families, and the retirement saving of our seniors. now the g.o.p.'s solution to get us out of this republican shutdown is the equivalent of

whack-a-mole. it's their form of governing. whatever issue that pops up that they see a problem with as a result of their shutdown, they draft a bill to address a single issue. last week it was national parks. this week it's death benefits for soldiers. what will it be next? and anybody who's played the artificiallycaid game of wha -- the arcade game of whack-a-mole, you can get it all. how long do they plan to govern this way? "despite what they say, obamacare is only one of their targets. before they will allow government to reopen, they demand employers be enable to deny birth-control coverage to female employees, they demand that oh became ma cave on the keystone pipeline, they demand the watchdogs over big business be muzzled, and their ransom

list goes on and on. the debt ceiling is next." at least let's name this for what it is -- sabotage of the democratic process. kevin drum of "mother jones" wrote -- quote -- "how do you get across how insurrectionary this is? raising the debt ceiling isn't a concession from republicans that deserves a corresponding concession from democrats. it's the financial equivalent of a nuclear bomb." and warren buffett used equally stark terms when he said in "fortune magazine" -- quote -- "it ought to be banned, referring to defaulting on the nation's obligations" -- "it ought to be banned as a weapon. it should be like nuclear bombs, basically too horrible to use." clearly in the name of some misguided allegiance to an extreme ideology, a handful of ultraconservative extremists in the republican party are putting

at risk the rule of law. they're putting at risk the full faith and credit of the united states, america's influence, as well as our obligations around the world, and our national security, embassy security, intelligence collection apparatus, american diplomats, foreign service officers, contractors serving in posts around the world. mr. president, this is not a game. real people are already being hurt by these tactics. and i find it pathetic that some republicans are willing to risk the full faith and credit of this nation and inflict unnecessary harm on hardworking families and put the very principles of this democracy on the line, all just to show how ideologically pure they are. it's one thing to come to washington wanting to destroy your government. it's quite another to destroy our economy in the process. if you want to negotiate, let's negotiate, let's do it

constructively, in good faith and without threats. let's try, as we've tried over 20 times, to ge get to that mom. let's reopen the government, let's pay our bills and then we'll negotiate. it's time to reject the schoolyard bully political strategy that republicans hatched up months ago, ratchet down the rhetoric and do the hard work of solving problems together. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, mr. president. i heard the previous -- i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from iowa is recognized. mr. grassley: i heard the previous speaker plead for a solution. inning we're ali think we're all pleading for that. we're now in our 10th day of government shutdown. quite frankly, one that didn't have to happen. to some extent, it seems that

this administration, meaning president obama's administrati administration, is going to great efforts to inflict as much pain through this shutdown as possible. the administration went to great lengths to try to keep world war ii veterans from viewing the memorial dedicated to their service, the world war ii memorial. it is an open-air memorial. it likely took more personnel to close and barricade the memorial than it does to keep it open. it's one of those memorials where 24/7, 365 you can go there. there's no reason it couldn't have been the same way during this recent period. the government could be open and fully operating today, but for the majority and its unwilling misto engage in legitimate debate over proposes to amend

obamacare or any other legitimate issue of dispute. and in regard to obamacare, not to defend or delay it is something that isn't right in a body here where we're a deliberative body and you ought to consider all issues. and instead of wasting a lot of time being in quorum calls or days of not voting, there could be legitimate discussions of pieces of legislation and, in the process, maybe reach some sort of a conclusion through what we call "regular order." now, the house has passed and the senate has defeated three different continuing resolutions, each one of those would have kept the government open and prevent a shutdown. now, that look like that's

something that was debated here and decided here. but it was decided in a manner that was not debatable, a motion to table house amendments. and these three offers from the house of representatives were rejected by the senate majority. we're in this position because the senate 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 when it comes to federal employees and officials being covered by health insurance. in addition to gork negotiatingn end to the government shutdown, congress now needs to deal with the approaching debt limit. this will be the sixth debt limit increase in president obama's five years in office.

during president obama's term in office thus far, the united states has ha added $6 trilliono our national debt. we had four consecutive years with annual deficits above $1 trillion. federal debt held by the public is now 73% of gross domestic product. the historical average has been around $1 trillion -- no, the historical average has been about 40% of g.d.p. this unstaw unsustainable debt s threatening our economic growth and our stability. this administration is quick to point out that the deficit has fallen faster than at any point since world war ii. they fail to mention, however, that the deficit remains over $600 billion this very year,

from highs near $1.4 trillion. remember, to compare this $600 billion for this year with the largest annual deficit under president bush of $458 billion. much of the recently improved deficit picture is also due to the spending cuts imposed by the budget control act of august 2, 2011. and that was enacted as part of the last debt ceiling increase. there is no better time to negotiate policies to address our fiscal situation than when debating debt ceiling. but the president and the secretary of treasury maintain that they will not negotiate on the debt limit. now, there happens to be families all over this country which because of the slow

economy and unemployment are being forced to make tough decisions to make ends meet. a lot of those families are looking at their budgets, looking right now trying to determine which expenses can be cut. maybe they'll try to reduce their cell phone bill or perhaps they'll cancel a newspaper or magazinescription or perhaps eat -- magazine subscription, or perhaps at at home instead of at restaurants. the point is, when families face increasing budgets and tight debts, tea look for a way to get their house in in order. when bills come due, families make tough decisions on where to trim the budget. that is a family example of the federal government's legitimacy for looking at our spending now at the same time you're trying to increase the debt limit as

possibilities to make compromises to get our budget deficit down. so why can't the federal government then do the same thing? why can't we use this opportunity to put our nation on a sound fiscal course? why can't we work right mao to enact policies -- right now to enact policies that will hopefully then negate the need to take on more debt? this seems like a reasonable proposition to do this when you're talking about increasing the national debt. treasury secretary lew and his boss, president obama, have repeated the talking points that negotiating deficit-reduction policies on debt ceiling increase is unprecedented. they claim that now is not the time to negotiate our budget and fiscal problems. the president stated last month -- and this is his quote -- "you

have never seen in the history of the united states the debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt being used to extort a president or a governing party and trying to force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and nothing to do with the debt." now, the president just does not understand history or even recent history when he makes a statement like that. so president obama, as well as secretary lew, can make this claim as much as they want, but it doesn't make sense, and it isn't true. "the washington post" fact checker gave this exact quote from president obama -- for pinocchios, which rates this statement as, in their words, "a

whopper. requestings "the "post" indicated that since 1953 congress has at times used the debt limit as a way to force concessions by the executive branch on spending. it also states that the congress has used the debt limit on many occasions to force changes, even in unrelated laws. at least four major pieces of deficit-reduction policies were enacted as part of a debt limit increase -- gramm-rudman in 1985, the budget enforcement act 190, the balanced budget act, 1997, the budget control act 2011. so the facts are very, very clear. the debt limit has been used in the past as a means to enact deficit-reduction policies and other reforms. now surely the president knew these facts when he made that

statement that the "washington post" fact checker rated as a whopper, four pinocchios. according to the congressional budget research service, since 1978 congress has voted to raise debt ceiling 53 times. 27 of those times or 51% of the times the debt limit increase was tied to reforms. i questioned secretary lew on this point this morning during our finance committee hearing. unfortunately, i got the same tired talking points that have been proven time and again to be wrong. it's difficult to understand how an administration can expect us to take them seriously on the offer of future negotiations when they represent -- misrepresent such simple facts.

the president and congress must come to the table and negotiate policies to get our fiscal house in order. now, does that put everything on the shoulders of the president of the united states? absolutely not. it's just a fact that in this town, with our form of government, over 225 years, presidential leadership is a very important part of the legislative process. we've taken steps to address discretionary spending. we did that in 2011 with the budget control act. now it's time to tackle entitlements. without reform, entitlement spending will continue to consume our budget. it'll begin to squeeze out spending on discretionary spending, like defense, education, infrastructure. according to the c.b.o., spending on entitlements will double as a percent of g.d.p.

from an historic average of 6.9% to 14.2% by 2038. what does this mean for our economy? it means we'll need to borrow more and more to fulfill our obligations. that will crowd out money that would otherwise be loaned in the private sector. this will lead to slower growth, less prosperity. it means that future generations may be less well-off than previous generations. the longer we kick the entitlement can down the road, the bigger the fiscal problems become and the harder the solutions will be. it's time to make tough decisions and once and for all strengthen and security these programs for future generations. these reforms won't take place without presidential leadership.

the president must demonstrate courage and the political will to put our nation on a sound fiscal course. again, that's not just the president's responsibility. that's a shared legislative responsibility between that end of pennsylvania avenue and this end. but it requires leadership. that will bring people together. we won't be able to -- so it does require ske consensus, it requires concession. then you get back to baifntle you have to be sitting at a table adpros each other negotiating. we won't be able to address these looming fiscal problems if president obama is refusing even to sit across the table from members of congress, both republicans and democrats. so i hope that it will he'll reconsider his no-negotiation

strategy so that we can republic the government, deal with the debt ceiling and begin to address our unsustainable long-term fiscal challenges. i yield the floor. mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. quoons cines ask unanimous consent that time from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees with senators on the majority side limited to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coons: mr. president, i've heard a number of speeches from my colleagues on the floor here today, both while presiding and just in the last few minutes, that call on president obama for presidential leadership to help us republic the government, address our serious long-term fiscal issues and move us forward. i just want to note for the folks who might be watching that the president is at this very moment sitting with the

leadership of the republican caucus in the house of representatives, and tomorrow morning or, oibl i believe, as invited the republican members of this body down to the white house for conversation. i think that we agree. and one of the core challenges we face, as this federal shutdown goes noose its, i believe -- goes into its, i believe, tenth day, is to determine why the federal government is still shut down when initially taken over the cliff end to shut down, it was to prevent the implementation of the affordable care act. at least that's what a number of senators said on this senate floor. that was their purpose. now, many days and many unintendeds and unexpected harmful consequences later, we're told what this was really all about was to force the president to negotiate. well, i serve on the budget committee and we passed more than 200 days ago, more than six months ago, a budget on this floor and have tried to go to conference on this budget now 21

time, yet each time blocked, objected to by a small number of senators of the other party. so, frankly, my expectation, my hope is that we will return to a rational, rules-following process; reopen the government, not default on our national debt and begin those serious negotiations, those budget committee negotiations which are long overdue to deal with the very real challenges facing our country. mr. president, i wanted to speak today about one of the consequences of shutting down our federal government. we see new ones every day and we hear about them here on the senate floor. as the days drag on, we learn more and more about the impacts of the shutdown, sometimes with surprise, sometimes regret, sometimes with outrage. there's a lot on the line, and we've heard a lot about what the shutdown means for various functions of the executive branch and of the legislative branch. i've heard colleagues come and speak about the nuclear regulatory commission, about the

f.d.a., about its impact on higher education, its impact on families, its impact on small businesses. i've heard lots of folks come to this floor and comment on how the executive branch and its functions that affect communities and families all over this country are affected by the shutdown. and we've heard, mr. president, from our constituents who are trying to reach senators and trying to seek our help with a variety of federal services, that they're frustrated. the legislative branch is largely shut down. but there is another branch to our three-branch coordinate government. absent from this debate and discussion is how the shutdown is affecting the judicial branch of our government. when the federal government shut down ten years ago, the federal court system was initially seemingly largely unaffected. it's because they had enough funds in reserve to remain open for ten business days, a period that will come to an end early next week. on tuesday the federal judiciary of the united states will run out of the reserve funds it's been using to stay open.

the big question is what happens then? the chief judge of the bankruptcy court for the district of delaware, my home state, told me -- quote -- "we are really in an uncertain situation, particularly when it comes to employees. i'm fearful for them and how they're going to be able to pay for rent and mortgages, provide food and day care for their family. this is uncharted territory for our federal judiciary." when the money runs out federal, circuit and district courts will be on their own, much like each senator who has to choose which of his employees or her employees are essential and deemed vital and need to stay and which should be furloughed and stay home, uncertain whether they will be paid. each district court and each circuit court will figure out on their own how to keep the lights on, which employees will keep working without a salary. as the chair of the senate judiciary subcommittee on bankruptcy and the courts, i've heard from a number of federal judges this week frustrated by the amount of time they're spending trying to figure out

what the shutdown means for their courts and their employees rather than doing the job for which they were confirmed, which was to judge cases. this is an enormous distraction. a profound waste of time. this is not advancing our core object skwreuf, which should be -- objective which should be growing our economy, strengthening our country, confronting the fiscal challenges in front of us, working together to achieve some principal compromises here in the congress of the united states. mr. president, in my view, our federal judges should be deciding cases, not deciding how to keep their courthouses running during this federal government shutdown. this needs to end and it could end literally today, in a matter of minutes if speaker boehner would bring to the floor and allow a vote on a bill sent over from this senate more than ten days ago that would allow the federal government to reopen. the judicial branch is not another federal agency. it's not a program that can be suspended or a benefit that can be delayed.

it is a branch. the federal court system was created in our constitution as the third pillar of our democracy. it's an independent branch of government whose fundamental mission is being undermined by folks, some of whom claim to love and to rigidly interpret the constitution. yet the consequences for our constitutional order of this senseless shutdown, i am afraid will soon become clear in the days ahead. the subcommittee has heard from a number of federal judges and clerks this week, and i've got to warn you there's lots of unanswered questions here. the path forward is murky. the central question in the courts, as it was here in the congress and the executive branch, is who is considered essential. is it just the people directly involved in the resolution of cases or st-f that support the pro -- or staff that support the process are also expected to be, to work without pay. here is a question from today. instead of resolving disputes on working on long-term cost

savings measures, evidence in our courts are typically presented electronically to jurors rather than being handed out to photo copies which is great so long as the technology is working in the courtroom. case files are processed electronically as well. but what if there is a problem. what if the i.t., the technology doesn't work and a trial is disrupted? at what point does a technology glitch become a legitimate due process issue? if the courtroom technology can't get an upgrade to fix the bug will it result in a costly mistrial? the constitution and the sixth amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to a speedy trial. what happens when our court can't live up to that sixth amendment guarantee because of this ongoing federal shutdown? the problem is equally severe in civil and bankruptcy matters. with the d.o.j.'s office of the u.s. trustee in shutdown status the number of attorneys in delaware has been cut from seven to two. this can dramatically slow the bankruptcy process and leave real jobs and real lives hanging in the balance as cases are

unresolved and as resolutions don't move forward. this raises another fundamental question. at what point in our in, this ongoing, senseless shutdown does our civil justice system fail to live up to america's promise? as a free-market economy grounded in the rule of law. would an investor anywhere in the world, looks to make a bet on a new company and a new idea, that investor obtains certain rights in exchange. those rights include a share of equity or priority right in the event of liquidation. what gives those meaning is a reliable court system. that historically has been one of our great advantages competitively as a country in the world economy. our cords even while -- our courts even while plagued with vacancies and the sequester, our courts continue to perform this vital function. without these courts these rights mean nothing. without the reliable enforcement of these rights there is no more new investment, no new job creation that results, no new

ideas successfully brought to market. we're not the only country in the world competing for investment and ideas. when we undermine our civil courts we're being hostile to those investors who could help get our economy back on track. the federal shutdown is already slowing the resolution of civil cases involving the federal government. clerks at district courts around the country have confirmed to my subcommittee that the department of justice is requesting continuances broadly and across the board trying to juggle the demands of their caseloads with the constraints of this reckless shutdown. think about it. social security appeals, civil forfeiture cases, business disputes, consumer protection cases, medicare fraud cases, incidents of employment discrimination, they're all being pushed to the back barner. -- burner. this shutdown is giving new meaning to dr. king's famous words that justice too long delayed is justice denied. i heard from the delaware chief court chief judge sleet.

he said no insult intended but his observation was the congress is letting the country down. a clerk in the district court said he was glad he was nearing retirement so he could escape the federal government in our ongoing seemingly manufactured crisis. this shutdown was really a profound problem, a disregard for the upkeep and support of our federal judiciary with 90 federal judgeships vacant and 39 vacancies deemed judicial emergencies, we need to do more to support and sustain the quality and the staffing and the future investment required to make our federal courts work as well as they possibly can. let me, mr. president, make a point or two if i might in conclusion. first, one of the essential questions every district court and circuit court will face is which of their employees are essential. after all the cuts of the sequester and all the burdens and challenges facing our courts, aren't all the remaining

employees of our federal judicial system, this separate branch essential? the chief judge of the third judicial circuit of the united states says so and i agree with him. this morning he announced nearly all functions will be deemed essential. in my view, i join the chief circuit judge of the third circuit and urge other circuits to follow suit and to recognize this independent third branch of our constitutional order is essential. last, this shutdown has dragged morale in our courts and our court system to a new low. we here in congress are blessed with a record number of attorneys who serve in the united states congress. it's my hope that this body recognizes the unique value of our federal court system. our democracy cannot afford to furlough justice. we cannot shut the doors to our courthouses. and it is my hope that speaker boehner, following the conversation unfolding right now at the white house, will come back, put to the vote an action that will allow the courts and

this country to get back to work. with that, mr. president, thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i understand the order of the day is divided equally until 7:00 with the majority segmenting that in ten minutes but no limitation on the minority. is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. coburn: thank you. i rise to speak about the issue in front of us. and i wanted to spend a few minutes kind of putting things in context. i won't repeat things that i've said routinely on the floor, but i think it is important for the american people to understand where we are in our country. using general accepted accounting principles -- these aren't my numbers -- we have almost $126 trillion in unfunded liabilities and we have $17

trillion worth of debt. so we have a lot of obligations in front of us. if you add up every asset in the united states, all the bank accounts, all the lands, all the possessions, everything we own plus what we own outside of the united states, that comes to $94 trillion. so in essence we're almost $50 trillion in the hole. so that's called a negative net worth. and i appreciate the comments of my colleague from delaware. i have the greatest admiration for him. and i'm not one of those that thinks we should be in shutdown i also am not one of those that think we should just, without any solution to our problem, raise the debt limit again.

i would also note that you don't have to have a budget right now in the united states senate because we agreed to the budget control act, which sets the discretionary spending levels for the next ten years in this country. they're set by law. and what is important is that appropriations bills come through the committees, the house first and the senate second, so that we can address the issues. we didn't do that in the senate. they did about half of them in the house. and you wouldn't have a continuing resolution which, by the way, i think all of us agree is very difficult for our federal employees to operate under. but i wanted to make a couple of points today. one is in july of 2011, after seven years of oversight, i put

out $9 trillion of what i think are commonsense eliminations and changes that we could make that today would put us at a $200 billion surplus instead of a $750 billion deficit. and those savings were $3 trillion total in discretionary spending, $1 trillion in defense spending, $2.7 trillion in terms of modernization of our health entitlement programs, $1 trillion in the tax code. you know, we actually have earmarks in the tax code where those who are well heeled and well connected benefit and the average american gets nothing. interest payment savings at $1.3 trillion. and a 75-year solvency for the social security. that was put out two and a half years ago. very little of that has been used. as a matter of fact, most people

haven't read it. it was put out in a binder. we didn't print many binders because i'm so tight, i don't want to print that many binders. but here's what it looks like. it's online. you can go and read it and you can see if you think it makes common sense. most people won't. so i'm going to spend some time just outlining some of the things that came from that and some of the excesses of the federal government. most americans know we're not efficient. they understand that we're not doing a good job spending their money. but they have no idea how bad it really is. and i've actually spent the last nine years oversighting almost every segment of the federal government. and none of us can be proud the way we spend the money. most of it very well intentioned, honorably intentioned, with minimal oversight, minimal control, with

over $150 billion of fraud every year -- i'm talking pure fraud -- with $250 billion of real duplication, programs that do exactly the same thing run by different agencies with no consideration to streamline those. none of those things are being considered. we -- we won't even do tax reform to get rid of unemployment for millionaires. what people don't realize is we paid $60 million out over the last two years to people who were making a million dollars a year but we were paying them unemployment. they hardly need the unemployment check, and yet we won't even regulate those kinds of things. and i think we have failed to do our job, and that's a republican and democrat thing. that's us. that's not a partisan statement. the last time the -- the president signed an individual

spending bill into law, an individual appropriation bill was four years ago. four years ago was the last time he signed an independent appropriation bill into law. that tells you congress hasn't done its job. we haven't passed. according to studies, if you poll the american people in terms of the sequester, less than one in four felt any impact at all from the sequester, and i think this sequester is a terrible way to trim spending. i voted against the budget control act for that very reason, because we're not responsible enough to do the management and the oversight. most americans see no impact from it. and that's because in what we do interests there is -- what we do, there is so much waste and mismanagement. there is so much duplication, there is so much error that we could easily take that out and most people wouldn't notice it.

they haven't noticed it. now, some of our federal employees have noticed it, but the average american, 76% of them, have never felt any impact from it whatsoever. they don't even know what happened. there has been no impact on their daily life. increasing the debt limit and passing another c.r. isn't going to do a thing to eliminate government waste, fraud or duplication. and it's time we kind of reassess where we are. you know, one of the reasons i'm against the debt limit increase is because it takes the pressure off the members of congress to make the hard choices. because if we raise the debt limit, that means we don't have to make the hard choices and we will run a deficit again and a deficit again, and toward the end of this decade, this seven

years from now, the deficit started climbing well above a trillion dollars again, a trillion dollars a year. and the deficit is growing twice as fast as our economy, our debt is. twice as fast as our economy's growing. so we're going down in a hole. we ought to be about democrats and republicans holding hands and saying let's stop this nonsense. let's put some brakes on ourselves. let's put some limitation so that we don't continue to fall prey of ducking the very difficult decisions that are in front of this country. households will do that, businesses do it all the time. they assess where they are. they assess how deep the hole is, and nobody gives them the ability to say well, you don't have to make those hard choices. we'll just give you more borrowing ability. what they do is they make those hard choices. we refuse to do so. and let me -- another example.

you know, we just finished year end, and there is this syndrome in washington called use it or use -- lose it. i might put into the record, if i might, mr. president, an article from the "washington post" on as congress fights over the budget, agencies go on their use it or lose it shopping sprees. i would ask unanimous consent to put that into the record. i would ask unanimous consent to put that into the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. coburn: so let me just give the american people a little taste of what we spent in the last week. in the last week, the state department spent $5 million on new glassware for all of our embassies. was that something we needed to do? no. was it an absolute requirement that we couldn't operate our embassies without another $5 million worth of glassware? no. the state department had $5 million that if they didn't spend it, they would be accused

of not needing all their money, so they spent $5 million on something that was not absolutely necessary. in the last week, v.a. spent more than $560,000 on artwork. as a matter of fact, the last two days. we're bankrupt, we're running a 3/4 of a trillion-dollar deficit, and we're going to buy a half million dollars worth of artwork because if we don't spend it on something, we won't get it next year? where does that fit with common sense? where does that fit with integrity? where does that fit with the honor that we'll preserve the future for our country? it's not. we haven't changed that. we haven't done things that incentivized federal employees not to spend it. we'll give you part of it next year for the budget, we'll put the rest of it against the debt our kids have. the coast guard the last day spent $178,000 on cubical

furniture rehab. they signed the contract the last day, sent the check out the door. it may needed to have been rehabbed, but they made sure they got it this year to consume the money. the agriculture department on one day spent $144,000 on toner cartridges. now, think about that. $144,000. these are all small amounts relative to washington numbers, but the principle is exactly the same. on the night before the government closed, the last day of the fiscal year, the pentagon awarded 94 contracts right before midnight. and i can't get the information on what they were yet but i will. i will find out if they were necessary, if it's something that they needed to have in light of our debt and our dysfunction.

they also spent $5 billion on robot submarines, hand grenades only hours before the close of the fiscal year. so they spent the money, not saying it was a priority other than it's a priority to spend all the money we have because we're afraid we might not get enough money the next year. the defense logistics agency spent $65 million for military helmets the last day, $24 million for traveling waive tubes to amplify radio signals. how do we think the hundreds of thousands of people who were furloughed right now feel about us spending money that way when that could be paying them and they could be working? we're sick. we need a wake-up call.

let me give you a couple others from the department of defense just to show you how parochialism plays. 12 brand-new, brand-new airplanes, c-27-j spartans were delivered right before the end of the year. guess where they are. they are in mothballs in arizona, in the best earth, because we don't need them. but we spent $567 million for something we didn't need. so what do we do? we store them in the desert because the humidity is so low. we take them right off the manufacturing line and fly them right into storage. they are not needed. we have the same problem on the c-27-a's in afghanistan. we spent $596 million on those. we finally canceled the contracts because the supplier couldn't supply the spare parts. do you know what the military is getting ready to do? rather than us bring them home

or give them to somebody else? getting ready to cut them into pieces in afghanistan. a half a billion dollars worth of airplanes. where's the common sense going on in this country? why wouldn't we think, think about maybe selling them to somebody else and getting some of our value back? but we're thinking about cutting them up. then there is the m-1, a-1 abrams tank. we had testimony from army john mchugh saying this is the most modern piece of equipment that the military has. the average age is less than two and a half years old. we don't need any more m-1, a-1 tanks, but they are still being produced this year to the tune of three billion dollars so we can keep people employed in a factory making something we don't need. isn't that wonderful? isn't that the great way to steal the future of your kids? but i'm sure the politicians where they're made are very

happy that we're continuing to buy something that we don't need because it helps the economy in their area. despite the sequester, the national science foundation is still funding hundreds of products and studies that do not fit with common sense or -- even if they fit with common sense, they don't fit the priority of where we find ourselves financially. the department of agriculture grants that were now just in the last week before we shut down, before we went to the next fiscal year and don't have a continuing c.r., let me just read this for you, just see if you think that's how we ought to be spending our money. 35 wine tasting projects. blind trail smartphone apps, so you can -- and we're going to supply the money for these. the federal government is going to supply the money for these so you can have a good time when

you go to whatever vineyard it is. we're going to take federal taxpayer. those are private businesses, and yet we're spending our grandchildren's money on that. four christmas tree initiatives. virginia christmas trees, michigan christmas trees, training seminars on how you sell christmas trees. christmas trees are in pretty good demand around christmas. i'm not sure you're going to markedly increase the demand for christmas trees by learning how to sell them better. the u.s.a.pear road show to china. social media for apples. radio advertisements paid for by the federal government for blueberries from new jersey. strawberries. organizing maple weekend in the president's massachusetts. we're spending our grandkids' money, money we're borrowing, to

do things that are not a priority. now, they may be a priority to those folks that get the money, but in terms of our national priorities, they aren't anywhere close. other examples of ongoing government waste and duplication not eliminated but instead funded by the c.r., $30 billion for 47 job training programs that aren't working. they're not working. the g.a.o. says they're not working, we know they're not working. all of them duplicate one another except for three, but we're continuing to spend $30 billion a year on it. the house has passed a skills job, skills act which consolidate all of it. we won't even take it up over here. we won't even look at it. it would save us about $7 billion or $8 billion a year. they read the g.a.o. report, they acted on it. we won't. 20 federal programs across 12 different federal agencies and offices for the study of invasive species. i think we ought to study invasive species, but i don't think we need 12 different

federal agencies involved in it, and i don't think we need 20 programs on it. i mentioned the unemployment for millionaires. that's in the c.r. we didn't do anything to fix that. $30 million for 15 different financial literacy programs at 15 different agencies. we just created a new one at the consumer financial protection bureau. rather than eliminate the ones that aren't working, we're creating more of them. $947,000 through the nasa budget to talk about foods that are -- that can be eaten at mars. we're 30 years away from going to mars, and we're going to spend a million dollars of money we don't have to think about foods that we might eat 30 years from now on mars? i don't think that's a priority for us right now. $3 billion on 209 science, technology, engineering and math programs at 13 different agencies. now, think about that. we all know we need to get it

together when it comes to our education on our technical and scientific basis, but why would we have this many, 209 programs, 209 different sets of administrators, 209 sets of reporting? billions of dollars in bonuses in federal payments to contractors who failed to pay their own taxes. we have tried to pass in here multiple times that if, in fact, you're a contractor of the federal government and you're not paying your taxes, you're going to either lose your contract or pay, that's going to be reduced from what we pay you, can't get that through. so people who are carrying their fair share are still reaping the benefits of contracting with the federal government even though they're tax cheats. now, let me -- one small one, this one really gets me.

it's bigger than you would think we have an agency that spends $66 million a year, it's the ntis, and i asked g.a.o. to study them, they studied them, and in their report this year, g.a.o. explained there is an office in the department of commerce, which is this office, that sells reports to other agencies. and when we had g.a.o. study this, what we found is 74% of the reports that they sell to other agencies can you get from this one web site for free. now, their budget hasn't gone down. it's expanded, but the need for the agency is going away. so why are we continuing to spend $66 million plus -- that's what we directly spend. that doesn't count what all the