which both the 7 and gateway, if done correctly, could meet. it needs to allow people once they get to new york city to get to someplace else. the arc tunnel was going to the basement of macy's, eight floors below, $2 billion just on the terminal was going to be spent, and the cost overruns were $3-$5 billion. and here's the worst part, the deal negotiated by the corzine administration made new jersey solely responsible for all the cost overruns, not the federal government, not the state of new york. in fact, the state and city of new york paid nothing towards the arc tunnel. now, listen, i'm all for a tunnel that goes to new york city, but not one that's paid for solely on the backs of the people of new jersey. if new york wants to partner with us, we're ready to do it. >> senator buono, did you have a plan, and could you be specific if what you might support? buono: absolutely. this governor's plan to pull out of the arc tunnel is just another example of his putting his national ambitions ahead of what's good for new jersey.

the conservative base of the republican party does not like big infrastructure plans. and so you don't have to wonder why we have the highest unemployment in the region. this would have provided 40,000 permanent jobs, not to mention 6,000 construction jobs. you know, the governor didn't have a new cost estimate. the government accounting office came out after he gave his reasons, he said there was a new cost estimate that showed that new jersey was going to have to pay for cost overruns. well, that was shown not to be true. the transportation secretary, ray lahood, came to new jersey at least twice to try and allay new jersey's fears, but this governor was convinced that he needed to do this, pull the plug on the arc tunnel, to preserve his viability as a candidate for republican governor, and we all know it. >> moderator: chris mays, cbs-3 news anchor, has our next question. >> governor, there have been serious questions about the competence of rutgers university president robert barci in the wake of a scandal. the forced resignation of the

athletic directer and the hiring of a director who many believe in retrospect is not suited for the job. what is behind your unwavering support of a man who some say has mishandled several scandals under his watch? christie: because he was the best man for the job, and he continues to be the best man for the job. he has shepherded this university through the large public institution merger in the history of the united states. in one year he brought forward the merger of rutgers and umd and j to take it from 55th in research dollars in the country to 32nd. bob barci is a bright man, a brilliant professor and a great leader for rutgers university. most of these problems that you referenced happened before he even got there. and when he did get there, he dealt with it in a forthright way. and so i support bob because he's the best man for the job, and he's leaving rutgers -- leading rutgers from good to

great. >> senator? buono: i couldn't disagree more. i lost confidence in barci when he admitted that he didn't look at the video that showed this athletic director abusing, abusing these students. you know, i'm a proud alumna of rutgers law school, and i think that, unfortunately, rutgers' reputation was dragged through the mud. it was headline after headline. if i were governor, i would have had them all in my office, we would have settled it from the get go, and it wouldn't have gone on for as long as it has. but barci has shown the lack of -- a leader? no, he's the opposite of a brilliant leader. this is a man who has fallen down on the job time and time again and, unfortunately, rutgers' reputation has suffered and, hopefully, that's just in the short term. >> moderator: governor, 30 seconds. christie: listen, the fact is very simple. when bob barci had an athletic director who he put in charge of supervising in this coach, he left it to the athletic director

to handle it. it's called delegation of responsibility. and president barci relied upon the athletic director's judgment, the director made a judgment, and when that judgment was proven to be wrong, that athletic director resigned, and the coach was terminated. and now we've moved forward. by the way, i think julie herman's going to be an outstanding athletic director for rut rutgers. >> moderator:s asbury park press. >> senator, the opiate problem ranging from oxycontin to heroin is exploding in the new jersey suburbs and cities. what strategy do you think stem it, and what are you committed to doing about it? buono: you know, i used to be a public defender, i know -- i've been involved in, many criminal cases and, yes, you're right, the misuse of prescription drugs is endemic. it's even, i think, in our suburbs each more so. we need to hold doctors accountable for overprescribing it, and i think that we need to insure that pharmacies, i think

we need to have oversight over pharmacies to make sure that people don't go to multiple pharmacies and try and get these drugs that are incredibly addictive. so we need to have a whole plan. we really need to have a comprehensive plan to address it, because it's not going away. >> moderator: governor christie, you do have one minute. christie: john, this is another area of our record that i'm extremely proud of. i was a prosecutor for seven years before i became governor, and what i know is that drug addiction is an illness. it's a disease. and we need to treat the disease. and that's why i put forward a plan to end mandatory prison sentences for first-time nonviolent drug offenders and instead make treatment mandatory. we're phasing in that plan over five years. we're two years into it, and every county in the state will have the opportunity for first-time nonviolent offenders to go to treatment. $24,000 a year to have them in

jail. no life is disposable, john, and what we need to do is be on the treatment side of this to make sure that those people who have these problems can be given the tools to deal with them and become better fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. that's the way you deal with the drug problem in this state, make treatment more available, and that's what we've done in a bipartisan way, and i'm proud of it. >> moderator: we have another student here at william patterson university that would like to ask both of you a question. her name is megan can murray, she's majoring in business administration and marketing. her question will go to the governor first. megan? >> good evening. as of august, 2013, the unemployment rate for the state of new jersey was at 8.5% compared to the national average which was at 7.3%. what do you propose to do about jobs in the state, especially for graduating college students such as myself? christie: well, what we've done is have the unemployment rate go down over 1.2% just in the last year. in 2012 new jersey had the

greatest year of private sector job growth since the year 2000. and 143,000 new private sector jobs have been created. now, we have more work to do. we have to make the tax structure in the state more affordable so people have more money to be able to help create jobs in the state. we need to make sure we invest in higher education as we're doing with our $1.3 billion dam investment so that our children in our state when they go to college can now wind up being better trained and better prepared for the new jobs of the 21st century, and this rutgers merger that we did is already showing that we're going to get more research dollars into the state which will create more jobs as well. that's what we need to do, make the taxes more affordable, more investment in higher education and more partnerships with the private sector. >> moderator: senator, you do have one minute. buono: 400,000 out of work, the highest unemployment and the lowest job creation in the renal. new jersey actually dropped in rankings as a good place to do business. we are now one of the ten worst

states to do business in. our middle class has shrunk, poverty is at a 52-year high. you know, what we need to do is we need to take a different course, chart a different course from this governor's failed romney-style, trickle down economics of giving tax credits to corporations. it hasn't worked. we've landed at the bottom of the barrel, so we have to chart a different course. my economic plan recognizes that we have to grow an economy from the middle class out. what does that mean? that means that we invest in our students and our schools and small businesses, that we direct some of those tax credits and help to small businesses that are so many of them are small and minority owned. and we need to fund our infrastructure needs. we need to fund our infrastructure because we know that a strong infrastructure means -- >> moderator: senator, you're out of time. our clock is ticking down, our next question is from alfred doblin. >> and i would ask both of you

to limit this to 30 seconds in response. senator buono, if new jersey would allow parents to obtain vouchers to send their children to any public or private school, would this undermine our system of public education, or would it force the needed improvements in underperforming districts? buono: it would certainly undermine it. i am a proud graduate, and this governor's overreliance on vouchers, his support of vouchers reflects that he believes public schools aren't worth fixing, and he couldn't be more wrong. i believe that you build up our public schools by funding them according to the school funding reform act and by you also close the achievement gap by investing in preschool. we know that that's what works -- >> moderator: i've got to give it over to -- i apologize for the interruption. christie: alfred, listen, it's very clear to me. we have 200 failing schools in new jersey, and there's only one candidate on this stage who said that's not a bad percentage, and it's senator buono. we need to try to change what's

going on in our failing schools, and i'm asking for vouchers in failing school districts to create competition, but most importantly, to give those parents and children a choice to walk out of those failure factuallies. children -- factories. children should be put before the interests of adults. >> moderator: believe it or not -- i'm sorry, but believe it or not, it's time for closing statements already. [applause] by coin toss, governor citiesty, you go first. christie: folks here at william patterson, thank you for sponsoring tonight. i am, i'm a proud, proud new jerseyian. i remember growing up in livingston, my mother used to tell my brother and sister and i, be yourself, because then tomorrow you won't have to worry about trying to remember who you pretended to be yesterday. for four years i've been myself to the people of new jersey. i've told them the truth about the problems that we had, inheriting a $13 billion deficit and balancing it without raising taxes on anyone, making sure

that we have the most education funding ever and reaching across the aisle in a bipartisan way to bring solutions. that's why i'm endorsed by 49 democratic elected officials. that's why we've been able to get things done in trenton compared to what's going on in washington d.c. what i promise you if you give me root four years -- another four years, is i will be myself, i will tell you the truth, i will work as hard as i can because there's no greater honor that be on to be the governor of the state i was born. >> moderator: senator buono, your -- [applause] audience? we'll start it again. buono: my father came to this country when he was 3 years old. his parents doesn't speak any english, but they knew in the united states their son would have opportunity. and so today the daughter of james buono, an italian immigrant butcher, is running for governor. now, that's the american dream. the belief that no water what

your circumstances, your children can have the hope for a better tomorrow. that fight is why i'm running. four years ago we had the highest unemployment in the region. today with 400,000 out of work, we still do. you know, it's time to put new jersey first, to bring good jobs back to new jersey and put new jersey first. you know, and i'm going to be the kind of governor that will do that. i will lift up the middle class, i will put new jersey back on the road to prosperity, and the way i'll do that is the way that has always worked, by building up a strong middle class. thank you very much. [applause] >> moderator: and we would like to thank the candidates for being here this evening. i also want to thank alfred, chris and john for being here with me alongside at this table. i also would like to thank william patterson university for hosting us here this evening. a reminder to everyone here, election day is tuesday, november 5th. your vote does count. for now, i'm christine johnson, join us on cbs-2 in new york and

also on cbs-3 in philadelphia for the news at 11:00. have a good evening. [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ >> every weekend since 1998 c-span2's booktv has shown over 40,000 hours of programming with top nonfiction authors including dee dee meyers. >> i thought that, wow, you know, that's the answer, if there were more women in politics, if there were more women across public life, more women in power around the world, things would change. so i called my editor and said i'm going to write a book, and she basically say said, okay. >> all of us in the working class are subjected to punitive taxes, being ignored by the elite media, not getting any

kind of special interest help in washington like the fat cats get. we're all in that same boat no matter what color we are, and that's the real problem. >> we're the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books. throughout the fall we're marking 15 years of booktv on c-span2. ♪ ♪ >> we want to know how the government shutdown is affecting you. please send us your touts. >> make your short video message about the shutdown and upload it from your mobile device at tout.com/c-span. see what others are touting about. >> well, the u.s. senate is about to return to session after their weekly party meetings today. senators likely spent time discussing not only the bipartisan proposal to end the government shutdown, they also probably considered the unexpected counterproposal crafted this morning to address the shutdown and debt ceiling

deadline. cnn now reports that senate talks are on hold as, actually, senate talks on their plan are on hold as they wait for the details of the house bill. and now live to the senate. the presiding officer: senate will come to order. mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise to encourage the hoition house -- the house of representatives to consider and pass what they seem to be focused on a compromise resolution to the crisis before us which includes no washington exemption language regarding obamacare. i strongly support, of course, that language and i strongly support that discussion and i effort in the house. and i really encourage all of our house colleagues to look hard at that and act on that and particularly i'd encourage my louisiana colleagues to do that. madam president, i've purnd thid

this issue ever since we got back from the august recess. as you know, madam president, right as we went into that august recess, the obama administration issued a rule, an illegal rule, in my opinion, without statutory authority contrary to the obamacare statute that lives members of congress and congressional staff special status, a special exemption or a special subsidy, if you will, not in the law and one not enjoyed in that way by any other american. and this no washington exemption language, which i've been an advocate of with many others here in the senate, with many house colleagues, would end that special elite status. and that's what we need to do. madam president, i think we need to do it for two crucial reasons. first of all, just on principle. i think it should be the first rule of our democracy that washington is treated like the

rest of america. and what's go for america and what congress and the administration, what washington pooses americapasses on americah itself with no special status, no special rules, no special exemption or subsidy. that should be true across the board. it should certainly be true regarding obamacare. that should be the first rule of american democracy. but washington doesn't want that, madam president. it wants to impose these new rules on the rest of america. it doesn't want to live by them itself. it's sort of like when you walk into a restaurant and hear that the chef never, ever eats at that restaurant. never, ever has a meal out of that kitchen. makes you wonder. well, the same thing is true here on a number of fronts, including obamacare. so the first point is a pure

principle, madam president. washington should be -- should live under the same rules as it imposes on america across the board, including under obamacare. and so washington, congress, all congressional staff, the president, the vice president, their political appointees should have to go to the same fallback option under obamacare as is there for all america, the so-called exchanges and it should do that with no special rules or special deal or special core subsidy or special exemption. it should do that the same way ordinary americans do who in many cases -- 8 million plus -- are forced out of good health care coverage they have now through their employment and forced on to the obamacare exchanges. the second reason, madam president, i think this

language is so important is a very practical one, because, madam president, the sooner we make washington live by those same obamacare rules as the rest of america, the quicker washington will change obamacare in substantial ways, will fix it, not just for washington as it did for the special illegal obama administration rule on this summin subject but for ame. we need to align policy-makers' personal interest in wacial in n along with the interests of the american people and the way you do that is mike maic them live by exact -- is make them live by exactly the same rules, make them walk the walk as those americans who have to go to the obamacare exchanges, in many cases against their will, 8 million-plus, who were satisfied with the health coverage they had prior to obamacare and then who realized that under this law, that

promise by president obama "if you like the health care coverage you have now, you can keep it," who realize th the had way that that promise was a lie. so there are two crucial reasons we must pass this language into law. first, the principle. second, the practicality. first, the principle that washington should live under the same rules, the same way as america. second, the practicality that we need to visit upon washington all of the burdens and challenges that face america under obamacare, including those 8 million-plus americans going to the exchanges against their will. so again, madam president, i encourage the house to include this no washington exemption language in any compromise they put together with regard to these issues, fiscal issues

we're dealing with now. i think that would be enormously important. i think it would show leadersh leadership. i think it will resonate with the american people. the american people get this issue and they resent, rightly so, washington getting a special exemption or a special subsidy under obamacare that no other american in that situation gets. so, again, madam president, i urge the house to act on that important language. that would show leadership, that would align our personal interests with the folks we represent. that would honor what should be the first principle of american democracy -- washington lives under the same rules as the rest of america on obamacare, on everything else. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. we still remain hopeful, as the hours unfortunately click down -- tick down towards what could happen in this country if we don't pay our debts. it's never happened in american history before. i know that when we woke up this morning, when america woke up, they saw leader reid, the democratic leader, the majority leader, and leader mcconnell coming together in discussion, the republican leader from kentucky, senator mcconnell, coming together on a plan, and they are pretty close to agreement. we know that there are still problems in the house of representatives, and i think that some of di -- some of new s

body are fans of abr abraham lincoln. lincoln used to talk about when his staff wanted him to stay in the white house and win the war and free the slaves and preserve the union, he said, i have to go out and get my public opinion bath. and i think some of my colleagues in the house could learn something from going out and listening to real people, not just going on talk radio, not just going to their country clubs, but to listen to people talk about their lives and what this government shutdown has meant. it's meant more than 50,000 jobs in my state. people are furloughed. 97% of nasa employees in cleveland and sandusky, ohio, in northern ohio, have been furloughed. we know what it's meant to battelle memorial institute, one of the great research facilities in the country. they run the energy labs. we know what it's meant to people who depend on meals on

wheels and food stamps and depend on food safety and meat inspections and all the things that government does. we know long term what this shutdown, or a repeated shutdown in the future. that's why these etion goes are so important that -- that's why these negotiations are so important that majority leader reid is insisting, you don't repeal the law every time somebody says they're going to shut the government down. if you're a research scientist and funded by an n.i.h. grant at case university in cleveland or at wright university or you're doing aeronautics research at nasa glenn, you -- and if they see these interruptions, if they're furloughed for three weeks in october 2013 and then again sometime next year and again people, some of the most talented researchers, are going to walk away. and we're going to lose so much of the edge we have in this country.

we're still the leading economy in the world, the greatest country in the world because, as you know, madam president, in wisconsin, because we have -- we have built the kind of intellectual and physical infrastructure the world that is never seen, whether it is the university of wisconsin, a great university, not quite as great as a slightly larger one in columbus, but whether it is a great university, the medical research, whether it is building highways and public transit and aeronautics and all we do as a nation -- and we've done together -- we can't lose that edge. and these government shutdowns and threats are damaging not just to the economy today but to our long-term future as a nation. that's why i'm hopeful, as senator mcconnell and senator reid have worked together and come close to an agreement, that the house of representatives will understand how important this really is to the future of of our nation. all we're asking is for speaker boehner, once we get this agreement in the senate, that speaker boehner sumly go along.

otherwise it really is a betrayal of our values and our future and us as a great country. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, may the call of the quorum be vacated? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, what is the pending status on the senate floor? the presiding officer: the senate is on the motion to proceed to s. 1569. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise then to speak for approximately ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, we're 33 hours away from the possible default of the united states of america on its debt obligations. we are 33 hours away from the possibility of the united states of america becoming a deadbeat

nation, not paying its bills to its own people and other creditors. we are 33 hours away from our t bills becoming a junk bond. mr. president, it is unacceptable that our t bills, our treasury bills should move to a junk bond status. we have got to get rid of that and we've got to get rid of the junk talk that's going on around here. the congress of the united states must have a sense of urgency and come together on a program that ensures that the united states of america pays its bills and open its government to serve its own people and to serve the role that we play around the world. i say to my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle let's pass the framework that was originally suggested yesterday by the leadership of senator reid, our democratic leader, and by senator mcconnell, our republican leader. it's not maybe something we all would have written, but it is something we all do. it means that when the president would sign it, the government would reopen, we could extend the debt ceiling and we could be working on both our budget and our senate appropriations. and i say, as the chair of the appropriations committee, i am eager to go to work. i am eager to fashion that bipartisan compromise, both within the senate in terms of what our spending should be, how we could make sure it's affordable, that it's frugal, that it's good investments in

the american framework to make sure we have our national security, physical infrastructure, meet compelling human need and do research and development. that's not -- we can do it, and i have talked with my house counterparts. we are eager to go to work, but in order to negotiate, we must have this agreement. i am really adamant that before we can get to appropriations and our budget, we have to raise the debt ceiling. if we fail or falter to address this crisis, the united states of america will irrevokably be affected. and, mr. president, this is a manufactured crisis. it is a manufactured crisis because it's a self-inflicted crisis. this is not what our global competitors are doing to us. this isn't what russia is doing to us.

this is not what china is doing to us. this is what the house of representatives is doing to us. i thought we had an agreement here, arrived at by two mature leaders, willing to be statesmanship rather than brink man ship. that became -- rather than brinkmanship. that became the mantra of the day, statesmanship over gamesmanship. we all felt pretty good about it last night when we went home. it was going to take give, certainly it was going to take give from we appropriators, but that's okay, that's the american way. now we're on the verge of being a deadbeat nation. how humiliating is this, that the federal government already shut down for two weeks could be heading for a default. the full faith and credit of the united states has always been the international standard for investment in the world, and now it's a question mark.

there is a lot of confusion about the debt ceiling and what it means. debt ceiling doesn't mean permission to acquire new spending. it means to acquire funds to pay bills that we have acquired in the past. the debt ceiling determines how much the government can borrow to pay for the programs it has already enacted. let me repeat that it allows the united states to pay the bills that it has already incurred. now, opponents of raising the debt ceiling say that by blocking an increase, it's going to save the united states money. mr. president, it's simply not true. you don't save money by not paying your bills. you know what happens when you don't pay your bills? you get a lousy credit rating. you know what happens when you get a lousy credit rating? you have to pay more for what you want to buy. if you have a terrible credit

rating -- it's like we're moving into payday loans here. this is the united states of america. you don't just erase the debt by not paying your bills. in fact, you end up owing more money, as i said, because your interest rates go up. the consequences of a default are significant and severe. for the house of representatives to say no, and just want to say no to what we were working on in the senate is the height of dangerous behavior. the treasury department warns that default could create a worse economic crisis than 2008 and could cause more damage that might last over more than a generation. a generation's 20 years. i don't want children that are

now 6 and 7 and 8 years old to end up growing up in a country that's viewed as a -- an international deadbeat. i don't want to derail our economic recovery. economists predict we could lose over 600,000 jobs. 401-k's would be hit hard. now, the president also would have to decide who gets limited government money. we will operate only over existing limited government revenue. should we pay our troops, continue social security checks? what should we do? mr. president, this isn't only about let's squeeze government programs. this is going to put the squeeze on medicare and social security. i lived through this in the 1995 government shutdown. the consequences are really severe to social security.

each month, social security pays about $70 billion in benefits to 63 americans. most payments are made to retirees and people with disability. october 16 -- that's tomorrow -- we have a bill due of $13 billion. when october 23, the next round of social security checks go out, that's $13 billion. november 1 another $27 billion. another $4 billion in s.s.i. benefits. if we have default, we might have to delay benefits. they could be delayed until there's enough revenue in the treasury to cover the payments due that day. let me paint the picture. within the next four weeks, we have $70 billion worth of benefits due in social security.

jack lew, the secretary of the treasury, says that on october 17, he's going to have $30 billion. well, just in social security alone, you have got a $40 billion decline and a gap. the bipartisan policy center estimates that not raising the debt ceiling could delay the november 1 payment by two weeks. we're talking about delaying social security. mr. president, that's an earned benefit, that's an earned benefit. let me tell you what it also means to medicare. on medicare, if the government fails to pay, if we have the medicare payments would be delayed. now, what does medicare pay? it pays providers and also covers the prescription drug

benefit. let's go to the prescription drug benefit. gee, it's meant a lot to a lot of people. if you need prescription drugs like to control your blood pressure, to control your blood sugar, whether you need to take an anticoagulant to avoid a heart attack or a stroke, you need your med occasion. about 52 -- excuse me, about $5.2 billion worth of medicare payments to private insurance companies for the drug coverage is due november 1. on november 1, the united states government is supposed to make -- pay its share to private insurance companies to cover the prescription drug benefit. if it doesn't do that, what's a private insurance company going to do? they're supposed to help administer this medicare part-d benefit. will the insurance companies continue to provide prescription

drugs if they don't get paid by us? what happens to the seniors? i don't know. let's go to providers. medicare pays doctors and hospitals who treat medicare patients. under the law, they are supposed to be paid within 14 days. every day, five million claims are paid to either hospitals or doctors worth about $1 billion. now, if we don't have money to pay that hospital or to repay that doctor for services rendered, will they continue to treat medicare patients? will hospitals continue to admit them? i'm sure they would do it in an emergency. but the whole idea of being able to see your doctor is to avoid an emergency. doctors are already hesitant about medicare because of the

spartan reimbursement, but now we're talking about maybe no reimbursement at all for weeks at a time, and why? not because of a natural disaster but because of politics, politics, politics. now, the other -- particularly the other side of the dome, the house, might not like obamacare. there are those on the other side of the aisle here who don't like obamacare, but i think everybody likes medicare. no matter what you think about obamacare -- and i do believe obama does care, that's a good thing to call that health care program, but i do believe that everyone likes medicare, and i know no senator, no member of the house of representatives who would like to end the medicare program. but if we default, we could be ending medicare as we know it.

we will shake the very confidence in the provider system. we will shake the very confidence that we have in a partnership between medicare and private insurance and the people who need health care. what is it that we're doing? and again, this is a self-inflicted, manufactured crisis. i say to the house of representatives listen to the framework of the senate bill. let's not add a lot of other issues that you might like to bring up. let's pass the framework that was discussed by senators reid and mcconnell yesterday. lots of give and take, that we would reopen government, that on -- by december 15, the budget committee will have met, that by january 15, we would have produced our spending bill for

2014, and we would lift the debt ceiling until february 7. i think that would be a good way to go. now, one might say well, shouldn't the budget committee meet anyway? you bet you. senator murray passed our budget bill on may 23 by almost 70 votes here in the united states senate, but she could not go negotiate with paul ryan because six senators on the other side of the aisle objected. so now we have to pass legislation mandating following the law. we're now passing a law to tell them to follow the law. so if we have to pass a law to tell them to follow the law, i'm willing to do that, because in order for me as the chair of the committee, working with my vice

chairman, senator shelby, a really rock-ribbed fiscal conservative, we have a lot of negotiating back and forth, but we have an atmosphere of civility, candor and an interest in the good of the country. we can get it done. and we know we've got to give and take, and i know as a democrat i have to and i'm willing to do it. i called him this morning and just reaffirmed my commitment to work in a spirit of compromise. so let's get on with it. 33 hours to go. now it's 32 hours and 45 minutes to go. the clock is ticking. the clock is ticking on the united states of america. and it's standing -- its standing in the world. mr. president, i really urge that we come together, that the senate is able to move the framework that was discussed by our leadership, that the house

take it up, that we pass it, and we get on to doing the governance that we were elected to do. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, it's now been two weeks since the launch of the insurance exchanges that were created by president obama's health care law.

after two weeks of delays, error messages, things that the president calls glitches, the american people are united in saying that this is what a train wreck looks like. a recent poll by the associated press found that only 7% of americans say that this roll-out has gone either very well or extremely well, and the obama administration continues to say that the problems were just because of too many people trying to check out the web site the first day. so i bring to the floor, mr. president, the front page of sunday's "new york times," sunday, october 13, now 13 days into the exchange, with the headline above the fold, front-page sunday, "from the start, signs of trouble at health portal. many deadlines missed. web site problems may imperil finances of insurance market." this goes o on.

this is a front-page story, continues on inside the paper, and it talks about how in march, henry chow, the chief digital architect of the obama administration's new on-line insurance marketplace, told industry executives that he was deeply worried about the web site's debut. and he was quoted at the time saying, "let's just make sure it's not a third world experience." that's what he told them. as i read for the paper, "two weeks after the roll-out, few would say his hopes were realized." and they say, a system costing -- and they say it cost the taxpayers more than $400 million and billed by the president and this administration, billed as a one-stop shop for citizens seeking health insurance, has thwarted the efforts of millions to simply log on. simply log on. the growing national outcry has deeply embarrassed the white house, which has refused to say how many people have enrolled through the federal exchange.

they're refusing to answer the questions. even some supporters of the afford -- the so-called affordable care act worry that the flaws in the system, they say, if not quickly fixed, could threaten the fiscal health of the insurance initiative which depends on throngs of customers to spread the risk and keep prices low. and even though the president has called it glitches, quote here is, "these are not glitches, said an insurance executive who has participated in many conference calls on the federal exchange. like many people interviewed for this article, this executive spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he did not wish to alienate the federal officials with whom he works but he said the extent of the problems is pretty enormous. at the end of our calls, people just say, it's awful, just awful." so the president of the united states -- and he and i talked about this directly face to face on friday at the white house -- he said, well, we just have a

problem with the cash register. i would say that this is a web site with major flaws. it goes way beyond the cash register. one on-line database programmer told cbs news that he said -- quote -- "it wasn't designed well, it wasn't implemented well, and it looks like nobody tested it." that's from a computer expert who says he supports the law but that the web site, he said, needs a complete overhaul. he told the network, i'd be ashamed and embarrassed if my organization delivered something like that. and remember, mr. president, they spent $400 million of -- of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. this guy says he'd be ashamed and embarrassed to deliver something as bad as the obama health care exchange. well, i think the obama administration should be embarrassed about the whole law. this health care law wasn't designed well, hasn't been implemented well, and it looks like nobody tested it. the problems that we've seen are not just first-day glitches.

the problems have continued. people still can't sign up easily. it's still not easy to use, as amazon -- remember the president of the united states promised it would be as easy to you're as amazon.com -- and why are there still problems two weeks later? the c.e.o. of that insurance company said yesterday -- yesterday -- this is now almost two weeks into it -- he said, there's on so much wrong, he said, you just don't know what's broken until you get a lot more of it fixed. so we still have no idea how many people have been able to enroll successfully. so what is the obama administration continuing to hide? wolf blitzer came out last week on cnn and said, if they weren't fully ready, they should accept the advice of republicans at giving them delay of a year. get it ready. make sure it works. even john stewart was asking why the obama administration gave a one-year delay to big business but not to the american people. i would tell you, mr. president, if the obama -- if you're the

obama white house, when you've lost john stewart, you know things are not going well. the problem don't end with the media or professional comedians. a democrat member of the house, who actually voted for this health care law, called the launch of the exchanges extriewsh aightly -- excruciatingly frustrating. robert gibz, th gibbs, the press former press secretary, said "i hope they fire some people who were in charge of making sure this thing was supposed to work." so the biggest cheerleaders for the president's health care law are now turning against it, the american people do not like it, people are not buying the administration's excuses for why it's failed. well, this is, of course, bad for the president but the american people have even bigger problems and that's what we should really be focused o. the white house is worried about how this looks from a p.r. standpoint but we should also be talking about the real harm that this health care law is doing for hardworking americans and their families and their jobs and their paychecks.

many of them are going to lose their doctors. doctors who aren't included in the insurance plans sold in the exchanges. many are already seeing that their premiums are going up because of all the washington mandates. remember the president and the promises in passing this health care law? that's not what the people are seeing today. one mother told a tv station in allentown, pennsylvania, that when she went to sign up on the web site, she was told her premium would be almost $950 for her family. she said, that's $765 more than she pays now. she told the station, "it would take food out of our mouths to be able to afford this coverage." this is what the president of the united states and democrats in this body have foisted on the american people. people are finding that not just the premiums are going up, many of their other health care costs are also higher. the "chicago tribune" had this headline on sunday. they said, "obamacare deductibles may cause stic sticr

shock. they requiring higher out-of-pocket costs to comply with the rules. expenses to keep you healthy or comply with the rules or not to prevent injury or illness, expenses to play for complying with new rules. that's the "chicago tribune," the president's hometown newspaper. as if all that weren't bad enough, the administration is still insisting it's going to fine people who don't have insurance, even though people can't even sign up in the obamacare web site successfully. the administration was saying that this is a long process and people have until the end of march of next year to enroll. but even that changed last week. now turns out people will actually is to sign up six weeks earlier than that by volume entine's day, or pay the tax penalty. so, what we're looking at a is tax penalty, 1% of $95, whichever is greater that first year. so that could be a sizable

amount of money for some feamtiofamilies who thought thee going to get affordable health insurance because that's what the president promised them. he told the american people that. he stood in front of groups all around the country and the american people feel misled and deceived. all of this frustration and expense and stress and pain, it was all avoidable. democrats in congress and president obama need to swallow their pride, they need to admit that the problems with the health care law are not limited to a bad web site. the problems with the health care law run much deeper, and they're only going to get worse. we must do something to stop this terrible law from doing more damage to people's jobs, their care, and our country. the president will be held to the promises he's made as recently as two and a half weeks ago. if they like their doctor, they will be able to keep their doctor. the cost will be less than a cell phone bill. and the -- what we're seeing as

well is he said that it will be easier to use than amazon.com. this health care law has failed miserably. we needed health care reform so people could get the care that they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. they have not gotten it. it is time to repeal and replace this terrible health care law. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i would ask that myself and the senior senator from south carolina and the senator from georgia, the senior senator, if he comes in as well, that we be permitted to enter into a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you. i believe up to 20 minutes? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ayotte: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about something that is fundamental to all of us, and that is the safety and security of our country.

on october 5, our special forces did an excellent job in conjunction with our intelligence community, and i commend the administration for ordering the raid that captured a key al qaeda terrorist whose name is abu anas al libi. what they did when he when they captured him is they put him on a ship and about a week ago my colleague from south cearld and my colleague from georgia, who is the ranking member of the intelligence committee, we stood up and we said, why when we gather -- and we capture successfully, which is as a result of the great work done by our special forces and our intelligence agents, one of the most important al qaeda captures that we have made in our country in years, why are we putting him on a ship for purposes of

interrogation instead of bringing him to the guantanamo bay die tension facility, which is a top-rated detention facility where we can do a lengthy interrogation of someone who has been associated with osama bin laden, who has been associated with the current head of al qaeda, anwar a al awac can i, someone who is charged with participated and being involved in the tanzania bombing at the embassies that killed 224 people including 12 americans, someone who's been described as a potential treasure-trove of information about the activities of al qaeda, their plans and the information we have that's been released publicly is he's someone that an way al awlaki

may have sent to libya to try to make sure they have the al qaeda network in libya. let's not forget what happened on september 11, a year ago in libya where our ambassador and three brave americans were murdered. does mr. al libi know anything about that? we will never know full what i mr. al-libi knows because after a week -- a week -- on the ship where our intelligence officials were given an opportunity to speak to him, he was transferred to federal district court and today in federal district court he pled not guilty to the bombings, the 1998 bombings at the embassy. he was given a lawyer, and we know when these terrorists are given a lawyer, it gives them an

opportunity to say "i won't talk to anyone anymore because i have a lawyer." they're told they have the right to remain silent. it's irresponsible for our nation to capture a top al qaeda terrorist and tell him, here's your lawyer, a week later. here's your right to remain silent, because the most important piece we have to protect our country is information to prevent future attacks, information that our intelligence officials can use is abouabout the al qaeda netwoo protect americans, to protect our allies, and that information was given up because this administration is so worried and so concerned about political points, about closing guantanamo bay, that they would rather transfer someone after a week who is a key al qaeda operative to federal district court in new york, give them a lawyer instead of a cleanin lengthy interrogatn

designed to find out everything he knows. it took years to get the information that led to the bin laden raid, that captured and killed osama bin laden. and yet a key al qaeda operati operative, only a week of interrogation because they're so worried about, we don't want to add anymore people to those who are present at guantanamo bay, that they would rather put that political goal above gathering information to make sure that america is protected. it's wrong, and we will never know what we lost for information that could have protected americans by only allowing this interrogation to go a week in military custody instead of a lengthy interrogation in a top-rate detention facility. now, one of the reasons that the administration has given is that he had medical issues. and if he did have medical issues, guess what?

guantanamo bay actually has top-rate medical facilities, and had we captured him and brought him right there -- in fact, these are the same types of medical services that our own men and women in uniform are able to receive. he could have been treated there, and we also could have kept him there and made sure that we prioritized getting information about al qaeda from him to prevent future attacks against america and to stop the terrorists with this information because the more information we have, the better we can protect our country. you know, since i got in the senate on the armed services committee, i have been repeatedly asking the administration, what is your detention and interrogation policy? what if you capture the head of al qaeda tomorrow? and you know what i get from the

top military leaders? i've gotten answers like, i would need lawyerly help on that one. we're still working on our detention and interrogation policy. well, while they have had years to work on this, we are left where we are; that a top al qaeda terrorist, after only a week of interrogation, would be given a lawyer so that they can accomplish their political goals instead of prioritizing, gathering information from someone who has known osama bin laden, been involved with him, knows the current head of al qaeda, and was captured in libya, and finding out what that individual knows to keep america safe. i hope that the administration will stop doing this. we can't put politics above intelligence-gathering to protect our country. and i would ask the senator from south carolina, do you believe we're still at war with

al qaeda? and how important is it that we gather information from terrorists that are captured and that those interrogations are done in a lengthy basis instead of just a short period like a week? mr. graham: well, i will i want to thank my colleague from new hampshire for being one of the strongest voices from the day you got here in the senate about the difference between fighting a war and fighting a crime. i have been a military lawyer for over 30 years. the legal systems to fight a war are different than the legal systems to solve a domestic crime. here's the problem: do i believe that al qaeda is at war with the united states and our valued and our friends? would they kill us all if they could? yes. why did 3,000 americans die on 9/11/20001. they couldn't kill 3 million of us. if they could have, they would have. if you believe that, then the goal of our generation is to marginalize this movement and

when we capture one of them, to find out what they're up to. dying is like first prize for them. when you tell somebody who's joined up al qaeda, you may die in the course of this attack, and they say good, the goal is to prevent them from hitting us. the best way to do that is through intelligence-gathering. so, when you capture someone who is determined by our military and intelligence community to be a member of al qaeda, then under the law of war, the authorization to use military force passed by congress over a decade ago, you can hold that person under the law of war to gather intelligence. now, why is that the case? war is about winning the war. enemy prisoners are valuable captured alive because they can provide you information about what the enemy is up to.

when you charge someone with a crime, you cannot spend a long time with them without their lawyer trying to figure out if they committed the crime, because of the right against self-incrimination in our criminal justice system. the military legal system and the law of war is completely different when it comes to asking questions of an enemy prisoner about future military activity or what they know about past operations. the most dangerous thing we could do as a nation is to treat a captured al qaeda terrorist as a common criminal, read them their miranda rights, and put them in civilian court before we have a chance to gather intelligence. that's exactly what the obama administration did here. to their credit, they captured al libi. here's what breaks my heart the

most. the special forces units who go into libya and somalia and go into pakistan risk their lives to capture these people alive, if possible, so that we can gather intelligence. it really does bother me that this operation, which was very successful, that we only had control of this enemy prisoner for about 10 or 11 days. you'll never convince me that in that short period of time we were able to gather the intelligence he possessed, because for 20 years he's been associated with al qaeda at the highest levels. he was a treasure-trove of information. so this was a political decision by the obama administration, not a legal decision based on the law of war. this is not what our military advises or intelligence community advised. this is what the president has chosen to do because he doesn't

want to use guantanamo bay. why was he placed on a ship? because there is no prison available in the united states other than a naval vessel to hold someone as an enemy combatant in the law of war. why? because this president refuses to use guantanamo bay. if we can close guantanamo bay and create a new prison to allow people to be held as enemy combatants, sign me up. but the idea of not having a jail available to the united states on land at a time of great stress, during a very pivotal moment in the war on terror, is an ill-conceived and dangerous policy. so i want to applaud the senator from new hampshire for bringing this issue up. and here's what we need to understand as members of congress: this policy cannot be sustained. when we capture high-valued targets, a 20-year veteran of

al qaeda, we are crazy as a nation not to use the law of war to gather intelligence. i am not for torturing anyone. i have been a military lawyer for 31 years. i believe in the geneva convention. i believe that my country is special. i believe in the international regimes about how you interrogate prisoners who you hold. i know what al qaeda does to their prisoners. i do not want to be like them. i want -- i want to be the united states, but the united states has a right under the law of war to gather intelligence. the last thing a member of al qaeda should hear when they're captured is "you have a right to remain silent. here's your lawyer." i don't want them to remain silent. i want them over time to provide us with whatever intelligence is available. why was he moved off the ship? apparently he had a medical condition that could not be treated on the naval vessel. i believe in providing