[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 51 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2334-S2338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. PRYOR. My understanding is we have other Senators who may be on 
the way to speak, so I ask unanimous consent the period for morning 
business, for debate only, be extended until 9 p.m., with Senators 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority leader 
to be recognized at 9 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, while we are awaiting other Senators, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, throughout this day a lot of our constituents 
back home have been watching the debate. I wonder maybe if they are a 
little frustrated. I talked earlier this morning about throwing rotten 
apples at each other. There has been a lot of that today. I am not 
going to do that tonight. I suggested this morning one of the things we 
could do while we are waiting to see whether an agreement can be 
reached to fund the government over this fiscal year is to try to shed 
some light on the process which undoubtedly is a bit confusing to 
people: What exactly is it that we are arguing about, how did we get 
here, and what do we have in the future.
  We talked a little bit this morning, and what we are talking about 
today, and what we are hoping to achieve tonight, is an agreement that 
would determine how much we will spend to fund the Federal Government 
for the next approximately 6 months through the end of September, which 
is the end of the fiscal year that begins each October 1.
  That is an important proposition. It is important enough that there 
has been a lot of very difficult debate about that, as people have seen 
over the last several days, and certainly today. It appears there is 
still a bit of a deadlock over exactly how much money should be saved 
in the last 6 months of this fiscal year.
  But when we have concluded this particular debate and determined how 
much we are going to spend to fund the government through the end of 
September, we are going to turn to some even more important issues, and 
they are going to require our concentration, our reaching across the 
aisle to talk to each other, to the other body, and both bodies of the 
Congress to speak to the President. We are going to have to listen to 
the American people and try to reach important understandings because 
then we are talking about funding the government for the entire fiscal 
year for 2012 and also trying to figure out what to do with the 
President's request to extend the debt ceiling.
  As I mentioned this morning briefly, extending the debt ceiling is a 
little bit like going to your credit card company and saying: All 
right, I have used up all of my available credit, but I want to buy 
something else. Will you let me spend a little more on the credit card? 
That is what the President has asked Congress to do, to extend the debt 
ceiling. We will have a robust debate about that.
  Let me see if I can put what we are doing here in this context. At 
least for the year 2011, which we are halfway through, we will have 
reduced spending by a pretty dramatic amount, somewhere in the 
neighborhood of $40 and $50 billion. I don't know exactly how much 
until we are done, but when we add that to what we call around here the 
baseline, and multiply it by 10 years, we get substantial savings. Just 
on the $10 billion we saved earlier this morning, over 10 years that 
$10 billion equates to $140 billion saved over the 10-year period. So 
we are talking about substantial money.
  But that probably pales in comparison to what we are going to need to 
save in the entire budget for the fiscal year 2012. There is no 
shortage of problems that have attracted our attention--for example, 
the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities coming from the 
mandatory spending side of our ledger, in addition to the way that we 
are trying to save money just to keep the government running. By 
mandatory we mean the programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security, some veterans spending, and so on.
  I talked about the estimate of hitting our debt limit. The Treasury 
Secretary estimates we will hit that debt limit--in other words, the 
amount we borrowed on our credit card and cannot exceed; that is the 
total amount of the U.S. legal debt--no later than May 16 of this year. 
So May 16, the President says we need to address the debt ceiling. If 
you are not keeping track, the current debt limit is about $14.3 
trillion. So we are going to be pressing up against $14.3, in other 
words, and we are going to have to borrow more money if we are going to 
spend more in the next year.
  Republicans have offered a variety of ideas. I want to alert my 
colleagues to what some of these ideas are so we can begin thinking 
about them and hopefully acting on them in the runup to

[[Page S2335]]

the debate about what to do about the debt ceiling.
  There is very little enthusiasm around here for increasing the debt 
ceiling if we do not also do something to constrain future spending, 
because we do not want to come up against the debt ceiling every few 
years or months. We need to decide this is going to be it, we are not 
going to incur any more debt. In fact, we are going to begin to lower 
the debt. But to do that, we will have to constrain ourselves in some 
ways to rein in our appetite for spending.
  One of the ways to do that almost passed about--well, a few years ago 
in the Senate here; I have forgotten the year. But it failed by one 
vote. That is the balanced budget amendment. A lot of people think that 
would be a good way for Congress to tie our hands so we cannot spend 
more than we take in. Every single Republican has cosponsored a 
balanced budget amendment. We hope we will get a lot of support from 
our friends on the other side of the aisle as well, because it clearly 
would require the Federal Government to live within its means each 
year, as most American families have to do.
  There is also something that I believe is also a very good idea, and 
that is a constitutional spending limit. In other words, you do not 
have to require that the budget is balanced if you limit spending to, 
in this case, 18 percent of the gross domestic product. The advantage 
of that is there will be a desire on the part of everyone who wants to 
spend more money to have a more robust economy, because every 
percentage of growth or every dollar of growth in the gross domestic 
product means more money you can spend at the Federal Government level. 
So I would imagine if we wanted to spend more money at the Federal 
Government level, we will be supporting regulatory policies that do not 
wipe out whole industries such as the coal industry, we will support 
tax policies that promote growth, that try to keep tax rates at a lower 
level, and do not punish companies here in the United States so they 
have to move operations abroad, and so on.
  In other words, these are things we can do to promote economic growth 
that mean we have a bigger GDP. If you have a bigger GDP, then you can 
spend more money at the Federal Government level. But if you do not 
have a bigger GDP, then you cannot; we can only spend 18 percent of the 
GDP under this proposal.
  And that, by the way, is about the historic average of what we have 
spent. In the last year and a half, unfortunately, we have gone way 
above that. We are spending around 22 percent of GDP. It is going up to 
24 or 25 percent. That is not sustainable, and almost everyone agrees.
  Another idea that is sponsored by Senators Corker and McCaskill, a 
Republican and a Democrat, is the--they call it the CAP Act. That CAP 
Act would cap both mandatory and discretionary spending. It would put 
all government spending, in other words, on the table. It would not 
just take the discretionary spending we are talking about tonight to 
keep the government funded, we would also include all of the other 
spending.
  Beginning in the year 2013, the CAP Act would establish Federal 
spending limits that, over 10 years, would reduce spending to 20.6 of 
the gross domestic product. Calculated a little differently, that is an 
average of the last 40 years of spending. What it would do is create a 
glide path by which we could gradually reduce the spending so you do 
not have to do it all at once.
  I mean the reality is, if we try to be too strong here in the way we 
are going to reduce spending, we are not going to be successful because 
people will not stand for it. Have you already seen the debate 
yesterday and today: Oh, my goodness, you are going to cut money from 
this and that? We cannot do that.
  There will always be resistance to reducing spending.
  So it has got to be done, in my view--I think both Senators Corker 
and McCaskill agree--it has to be done in a way that Members also agree 
to each year, rather than simply deciding this is too hard, we are 
going to give up. And, of course, since it is only statutory, we could 
give up. We can waive it by 60 votes and say: Too hard. We are going to 
give up. So it has to be at levels that are tough, but over a 10-year 
period gradually we can reduce.
  It is a little bit like going on a diet. You did not get the weight 
you have overnight, and you are not going to lose it overnight. It 
makes more sense to do it in a way that keeps you healthy, keeps a 
consensus around here, but for sure gets us to the goal we want to 
achieve so that our kids and grandkids do not have to pay for all of 
the things we have purchased.
  This CAP Act, by the way, has a lot of good provisions, such as a 
definition of emergency spending so we cannot game it every year when 
we decide we want to spend more. If we just say, well, this is 
emergency spending, then we do not have to count it in our 
calculations.
  I would like to see more dramatic reductions. I know other people 
would too. But, as I said, this is the kind of Main Street proposal 
that should attract a lot of attention on both sides of the aisle.
  These are three ideas: the balanced budget amendment, the 
constitutional spending limit, and the statutory CAP Act. There are a 
lot of other good ideas. And we, frankly, are going to have to have a 
good debate about these ideas, because I will predict there is no way 
the debt ceiling will be increased without Congress adopting some of 
these constraints and the President signing those into law so we will 
know that in the future we do not have to keep raising the debt 
ceiling.
  The last point I wish to make is there are two big reasons why we are 
trying to reduce the deficit. First, we all know we cannot keep 
spending what we are spending. The interest on the national debt, in a 
little over 10 years, is going to approach $1 trillion a year. It is 
over $200 billion this year. It will be close to $250 billion next 
year. It keeps going up about $60, $80 billion a year, to the point 
that in the tenth year, it is $900 some billion. Think about that. You 
want to spend money on education. You want to spend money on health 
care. You want to spend money on defense. Sorry, we have to spend it on 
interest on our national debt. This is money we are paying to the 
Chinese or to anybody else who happened to purchase American debt. But 
it is going to crowd out spending in other areas that we want to spend 
money on. That is not good. And as a result, we have got to get this 
spending under control while we still have an opportunity.
  But there is a second reason it is so important, and that is, the 
more money, in effect, that is sucked up by governments--that includes 
the Federal Government--the more money out of the economy the Federal 
Government demands, the less money there is for private sector growth 
and investment. And it is, of course, in the private sector where most 
of the new jobs are created. That is why we need to leave more money in 
the private sector. We are not reducing Federal spending in order to 
engage in some big austerity program to try to punish people by 
providing less for them, and so on. We are doing it to create more 
prosperity. The whole idea is prosperity.
  I ask unanimous consent for a couple more minutes of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. In other words, the idea here is to spend less money at the 
Federal Government level, thereby allowing more for the private sector 
to invest in job creation, thereby growing the economy, making us a 
more wealthy nation, and helping our families and job creators in the 
process.

  I have cited a Wall Street journal op-ed many times. I will close 
with this: It is an op-ed that was written by Gary Becker, George P. 
Schultz--he was Secretary of three things including Treasury--and John 
Taylor, who is a Stanford economics professor. The three wrote an op-ed 
in the Wall Street Journal. I will quote two short paragraphs. They 
start out by saying:

       Wanted: A strategy for economic growth, full employment, 
     and deficit reduction--all without inflation. Experience 
     shows how to get there. Credible actions that reduce the 
     rapid growth of Federal spending and debt will raise economic 
     growth and lower the unemployment rate. Higher private 
     investment, not more government purchases, is the surest way 
     to increase prosperity. When private investment is high, 
     unemployment is low.
       Above all, the federal government needs a credible and 
     transparent budget strategy. It's time for a game-changer--a 
     budget action that will stop the recent discretionary

[[Page S2336]]

     spending binge before it gets entrenched in government 
     agencies.

  And they conclude by saying:

       We need to lay out a path for total Federal Government 
     spending growth for the next year and later years that will 
     gradually bring spending into balance with the amount of tax 
     revenues generated in later years by the current tax system. 
     Assurance that the current tax system will remain in place--
     pending genuine reform in corporate and personal income 
     taxes--will be an immediate stimulus.

  I think this is an excellent strategy for a long-term growth policy. 
It is predicated on the fact that Congress will work in the short term, 
i.e. tonight, to reduce the spending for the remaining 6 months of this 
fiscal year.
  We will then begin work on a budget that will reduce spending over 
the course of the next 12 months and, in the context of the debt 
ceiling debate, will also act on other programs to constrain government 
spending. It could be a balanced budget amendment, a constitutional 
spending limit, the CAP Act I talked about, or any other idea people 
can bring to the Senate and House floors and get passed here, to begin 
to constrain the spending, not just so we will have the money to spend 
in the government on the things we want to do, but also so we can free 
up the great energy of the private sector so investment can once again 
flow, people can be hired, we can have economic growth and a real sense 
of prosperity in this country in the years to come.
  That is the challenge we face after the agreement is reached tonight. 
I know you share my hope that an agreement will soon be announced and 
we can then move on to the other items I am talking about here this 
evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise tonight, as so many of 
my colleagues have through this long day, to urge all of us to join to 
prevent a government shutdown.
  We have all expressed a growing amount of frustration here with what 
I would characterize as politics as usual under the dome of this great 
Capitol, in which we are so fortunate to serve. But it sure seems like 
these are the kind of politics where the goal posts get continually 
moved, and no amount of civility can seemingly overcome the impasse 
that is unfolding down the corridors in the House of Representatives.
  I know the Presiding Officer operates in this way, and the American 
public operates in this way, and they expect us to work together. They 
expect us to pass an appropriations bill that funds our government. But 
it appears as though some unrelated policy riders that are not about 
appropriating money but are about setting policy are leading to an 
impasse that could lead to an unnecessary and costly shutdown of 
government operations and services.
  Last night--I do not know where the Presiding Officer was--my 
colleague Senator Bennet was down here. He highlighted how petty the 
situation has become. He pointed out if you and I went to Applebee's 
for dinner tonight, and we had a $20 dinner for two, and then we had a 
fight over the bill, we would be fighting over 4 cents.
  Well, I have some news. It looks like today we got an agreement that 
we reached on the actual numbers, but now the House wants to add some 
controversial policy riders into the mix. It is as if that same check 
arrived when we were at Applebee's and after finally agreed on who is 
going to pay the 4 cents, but we are now arguing over whether the 
waitress, who is a hard-working American, should receive health care.
  I have to say, I think people watching this are scratching their 
heads. I sure am. We all are facing an impending government shutdown. 
As I have said, some Members seem to want to inject very controversial 
policy issues into the debate. These issues have divided us for too 
many years.
  We ought to have that debate elsewhere. It is forcing this shutdown 
on the American people. Some people who are standing their ground think 
they are doing something about the deficit. I am often the one 
highlighting how disturbing our long-range fiscal picture has become.
  But what is equally frustrating is the disservice being done to the 
American public by the current debate. Not only are we taken off the 
beat from addressing our real fiscal imbalances, which would be the 
debate we need to have on the 2012 budget or on the longer term 
challenges the Simpson-Bowles commission pointed out, but we are now 
focusing on women's health issues. I don't understand. We have a 
tentative agreement to cut billions from current spending levels, but 
the Speaker of the House seems to continue to demand that we ought to 
focus on nonbudget issues. These are hot-button issues. Why we would 
insert them into an unrelated budget debate when there is so much at 
stake is beyond me.
  I understand we want to show the American people we are serious about 
deficit reduction. I am, I know the Presiding Officer is, and I know 
the American people are. But in Colorado, people see straight through 
this latest ploy to inject nonbudgetary issues into the debate. It is 
politics as usual.
  I know we have felt a little better recently. We have had 13 straight 
months of private sector growth. We have added 1.8 million jobs during 
that time. But our economy is still very fragile. Way too many 
Americans, way too many West Virginians, and way too many Coloradans 
are struggling.
  I have no doubt that a government shutdown at this time would have a 
counterproductive effect on our recovery.
  Don't take my word for it. Listen to what top business leaders of all 
political persuasions are saying. The Business Roundtable president, 
John Engler, former Governor of Michigan, a Republican Governor, said 
businesses would face the dangerous ``unintended consequences,'' where 
interest rates could rise because of a shutdown and we would have 
turmoil in our financial markets. Forecasters at Goldman Sachs have 
warned that a shutdown could shave off growth in our GDP every single 
week. CEOs of all stripes all over the country have warned about a 
shutdown's impact on confidence in the U.S. economic recovery. The 
Presiding Officer and I know that confidence is what we need. That is 
what is really lacking in many respects.
  A shutdown would actually prevent what we need to address our long-
term growth and fiscal balance. In other words, if we get the economy 
growing again, we would have more tax revenue, and we would see that 
gap between what we are spending and bringing in narrow.
  I can't help but think in the context of this debate about my uncle 
Stewart Udall. I have talked to the Presiding Officer about the effect 
men like his father had on his upbringing and his values, his public 
service commitment. But Stewart Udall, my uncle, father of my cousin, 
Senator Tom Udall, wrote a book called ``The Forgotten Founders'' that 
focused on the settling of the West. I bet it would apply as well to 
West Virginia. The theme of the book was on how the West was settled, 
how it was built. He made a strong case in his book that the people who 
came out West were not looking to get into gunfights or range wars, 
regardless of what the Hollywood movies suggest. They wanted to start a 
new life and in a new country, pursuing what we now call the American 
dream.
  My uncle Stewart pointed out that when we watched those Hollywood 
movies, it was the people standing on the sidewalks watching the 
mythical gunfight who were really the people who built the West. They 
were looking to work together. They weren't looking to get into fights. 
They were looking out for each other. It didn't matter what one's 
political party was.
  To me, the American people today are standing on those board 
sidewalks watching the same senseless gunfights and range wars. These 
are the people who matter. These are the people who will ultimately be 
hurt and affected by a shutdown.
  I know I was hired by the people of Colorado and sent to the Senate 
to come here and work together and solve some very difficult challenges 
facing this country. That is why today I introduced the Preventing a 
Government Shutdown Act of 2011. This bill was originally a Republican 
idea. It is meant to ensure that the American people are not unfairly 
subjected to the effects of a government shutdown simply because some 
Members of Congress want to make a political point and pursue 
persistent squabbling over the budget. The bill would ensure that 
Federal appropriations continue at last year's funding levels as a 
bridge to

[[Page S2337]]

keep the government running until a compromise could be reached for the 
remainder of the fiscal year. Once Congress is able to reach a 
bipartisan agreement to fund the government for that fiscal year, then 
the automatic funding under my proposal would stop and it would be 
replaced by the enacted bill.
  I know there are some who say: Wait a minute, the Congress is charged 
with passing appropriations bills that reflect strategic planning, 
current functional needs, and create stability. What I am suggesting is 
that the Preventing a Government Shutdown Act would create a safety 
valve that would ensure that partisan shutdown politics don't punish 
the American people and destabilize the economy going forward.
  It seems as though a vocal minority wants to be combative, almost for 
the sake of being combative--let's fight for the sake of fighting. But 
in this case, in these delicate and fragile economic times, that is not 
a helpful thing to do, to put it mildly. I think the mature thing to do 
would be to have a piece of legislation in place that would eliminate 
that kind of irresponsible behavior moving forward.
  As I come to a close, I have to think the American people are amazed 
at this, if they have time because they are busy providing for their 
families. We have to settle down here. We have to act as adults. We 
need to work collaboratively toward a budget solution. We have to 
reduce the debt and the deficit. The Presiding Officer has been on 
point on that as well as on this. But you won't find anyone more 
committed than I to that cause. Let's reach it in a way that protects 
our senior citizens, veterans, students, and border security--I could 
go on with a long list of important functions the Federal Government 
provides--and let's do it in a way that slashes spending but doesn't 
harm our fragile economic recovery or divert our attention on divisive 
social issues.
  We can't afford a government shutdown. We just flatout can't afford a 
government shutdown. I will be disappointed, to say the least, if the 
bipartisan deal that is before us--it is in our hands--is undercut by 
contentious, unrelated issues that only serve to divide us rather than 
to bring us together.
  One thing we can agree on is that our military personnel deserve 
better than this. We have young people fighting in two wars as I speak. 
We have young men and women serving all over the globe in over 50 
countries. The last thing our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
need is to worry about whether they will be able to pay their bills. 
Military families have already done more than their share. Now we are 
asking them to do even more. That is simply unacceptable.
  I know we can find a solution to this particular situation. We worked 
together in the Senate with Senator Hutchison and a bipartisan group of 
Senators to introduce the bipartisan Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act. 
This bill, S. 724, would ensure that our military servicemembers would 
not have interrupted pay in the event of a shutdown. We need to pass 
that bill if we don't get the job done tonight.
  Three days ago, I wrote a letter, joined by close to 18 of my 
colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, to Mr. Boehner. I know 
Speaker Boehner well. He and I served in the House together. I urged 
him to work with all of us to avoid a shutdown. I will stay here the 
rest of this day, all night, whatever it takes. I am here to urge all 
of us, both Chambers, let's sit down together. Let's reason together. 
Let's use common sense together. Let's find a compromise. That is the 
American way. I know that is why I was elected to the Senate. People in 
Colorado know I work across party lines. The Senate could set that 
example right here tonight. We have numerous examples of us working 
together across party lines.
  I had to come to the floor tonight. I know the night is growing on. I 
had to come down here and urge Senators in this great body, the world's 
greatest deliberative body, to find a commonsense compromise to keep 
our government funded, keep our economy focused upon, and move our 
country forward. That is job 1.
  I thank the Chair for his attention and his willingness to work with 
me and the spirit with which he serves West Virginia.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, when I was Governor of West Virginia, we 
grappled over the budget like every State, every Governor and every 
legislature, every senator and every delegate. But when the deadline 
arrived, people came together and we did our job--Democrats and 
Republicans, business and labor, progressives and conservatives--and we 
enacted a balanced budget every year without failure. It is part of our 
constitution. It is who we are.
  I have only been in the Senate for 5 months, and I have never seen 
anything quite like this. I never could have imagined anything quite 
like this. But I see so much opportunity if we start talking and 
working together. We are outspending our revenues by hundreds of 
billions of dollars every month. They tell us our revenue estimates 
will be about $2.2 trillion this year, but our expenditures are 
expected to be over $3.7 trillion.
  I believe everybody we speak to, and everyone who is listening to us, 
can understand we have a problem. But yet we are grappling over this 
tonight: a budget that should have been done 6 months ago.
  This is a budget crisis. It is not a social crisis. And to put all of 
this into the mix right now is wrong. Instead of all of us coming 
together, Republicans and Democrats, with a commonsense budget 
compromise, we face a shutdown of the government not over how much to 
cut but over what social issues we agree or disagree on.
  On many of these social issues, I will be the first to admit I am 
probably more conservative than most on my side of the aisle. I am pro-
life, and I am proud of it. But this is a budget crisis, and I have 
said that. This is not the place or the time for that. There will be a 
time and a place to vote on these issues, but not when they jeopardize 
the paychecks of our brave men and women in uniform, which the 
Presiding Officer so eloquently explained is what is at risk. That is 
wrong. The Presiding Officer knows it is wrong, and we all know it is 
wrong, no matter what side of the aisle.
  Our dear friend, the Senator from Arkansas, was speaking about the 
cooperation we all should have reaching out across the aisle, not 
putting blame, because we are all at fault and we will all be looked at 
as the culprits. The bottom line is, we need to come together and fix 
this. The American people expect that from us. The people back home in 
Colorado and also in West Virginia expect that from the Presiding 
Officer and me, and it is what is right for the Nation.
  That is one of the reasons I and so many of my colleagues here have 
said we are going to give up our salary. We call it the no work, no pay 
pledge. That no work, no play pledge is pretty much universally 
understood. In West Virginia, when you do not have a good day's work, 
you should not expect a payday.
  I can say it is not my fault, and the Presiding Officer can say it is 
not his fault, and everybody could, but we are all part of this, and we 
have to put the pressure on. But I have to tell you, as my father would 
tell me all the time, he said: Joe, whatever your problems are, try it 
without a paycheck and you will compound them rapidly.
  I am going to be sending my paycheck back to the U.S. Treasury to pay 
down our debt. Many others will be donating them to charity. We will be 
standing with the American people, our military men and women, who will 
pay a heavy price for their elected government's failure to finish a 
budget, unless a commonsense agreement is reached tonight. And I 
believe it will be. As we have a few precious hours left, I still am a 
very optimistic person.
  With that, there are some of our colleagues who have talked tonight 
about passing a piece of legislation, even if we do not come to an 
agreement, that our brave men and women, who are serving all over the 
world to protect us to live in freedom, will be paid.

[[Page S2338]]

  To my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, I want to say, 
there are many instances where we might agree on social issues and some 
where we might disagree. That is the healthy part of our democracy. It 
is what makes us so unique. I assure you, there is a time and a place 
for everything. There is a time and a place for those votes. But not 
tonight. Today is not that time. Our deadline is here and rapidly 
approaching, as you can see.
  My hope and prayer is that tonight we will do what is right, we will 
come together as Americans, and we will agree to a commonsense budget 
that is the first step to putting our fiscal house back in order. That 
is why the people of West Virginia sent me here. I took that oath of 
office not just to represent the Democrats on my side of the party or 
the Democrats in West Virginia, I took that oath of office to represent 
everybody in West Virginia: Democrats, Republicans, all different walks 
of life. I am going to do everything I can to make sure they understand 
I am here for them.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________