[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 124 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6614-S6616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            FACING DEADLINES

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the news out of Washington is not 
encouraging. It looks as though we are facing a government shutdown and 
the possibility of even a default on the debt. These are totally 
unnecessary. There is nothing that is forcing this, other than the 
political will of some people, and both are disastrous.
  Shutting down the government, of course, runs the risk of disrupting 
Social Security payments, veterans' checks. It, of course, is damaging 
to our economy. At a time when we are recovering, but slowly, and we 
need to create jobs, it does not make any sense.
  We are facing a deadline, obviously, of October 1 for a new fiscal 
year. We passed a budget in the Senate back at the end of March, if I 
remember correctly. Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the chairman of 
the Senate Budget Committee, worked through a budget that passed. We 
then asked for the obvious: Let's have a meeting with the House. It is 
controlled by Republicans. We have a Democratic majority here. Why 
don't we sit down now and work out our differences? The difference 
between the two budgets, about $92 billion--substantial for sure but 
something that is at least worth sitting down and discussing.
  We came to the floor of the Senate repeatedly asking for a chance to 
sit down and work it out. Sadly, three or four Senators on the other 
side of the aisle continued to object. They would not let us sit down 
and talk. They would not let us try to find a bipartisan solution to 
this challenge, and it brings us to this moment.
  Not having agreed on a budget resolution, we have been unable to pass 
appropriations bills--though they are ready in the Senate. I know a 
little bit about this because my new responsibility in the 
Appropriations Committee is the largest single bill. The bill I have 
worked on, with Senator Cochran, Republican of Mississippi, is a bill 
that covers all of the Defense Department and all of the intelligence 
agencies. I will tell you, it is the largest and a huge portion of our 
national discretionary budget--almost 60 percent.
  We are ready. We prepared the bill. We want to bring this bill before 
the committee on the floor and have the debate that it deserves so our 
men and women in uniform are well served, our intelligence operations 
continue, and we acquire the necessities for the protection of America. 
Unfortunately, the same group that opposed sitting down with the House 
Republicans and finding a compromise has objected to taking up any 
spending bill on the floor of the Senate.
  Where does that leave us? We have no budget, and we cannot take up a 
single spending bill because of the objections from the other side of 
the aisle. They are being guided by a few Members over there who are of 
a certain political faith that I cannot even describe who believe that 
chaos is the best. I do not.
  I have been here for a little while. I have found good-faith efforts 
by Members on both sides of the aisle. Many Republican Senators--
conservative, yes, but sensible--are willing to sit down and try to 
find answers to these issues.
  That is the right thing. Sadly, what has happened over in the House 
is hard to explain. I read press reports. There are about 40 of the 
House Republicans who are so-called tea party Republicans who insist on 
shutting down the government and insist as well on defaulting on our 
national debt. They happen to believe that is a good way to push their 
position opposing health care reform, ObamaCare. They happen to believe 
that is the way to convince the American people they are right.
  I think they are completely wrong. I never thought I would ever come 
to the floor of the Senate to quote Karl Rove. But in this morning's 
Wall Street Journal, for goodness' sake, he wrote a long article to his 
fellow Republicans saying: Wake up to reality. Independent voters, 
those who do not declare for either political party across America, 
think the tea party Republican strategy is disastrous.
  He warned the Republican Party: If you are not careful, you are going 
to push those Independents over onto the Democratic side.
  Far be it for me to not want to see that happen politically, but I 
certainly have to tell you that if it takes shutting down the 
government and shutting down the economy, I do not want it to happen. 
What Karl Rove has said to his follow Republicans is: Look at the 
reality of what you are doing to this party. You are destroying this 
party for the next election--this morning's Wall Street Journal.
  I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  Most people do not even understand what a debt ceiling is. It is kind 
of hard for the average American to understand. Let me try to put it in 
simple terms. We spend more money than we raise in taxes. When we do 
that, we have to borrow money. The good news is that the amount each 
year is coming down dramatically, so our annual deficits are reducing, 
are coming down.
  But when there is a difference, when we spend more than we have, we 
have to borrow it. In order to borrow it, there needs to be an overall 
authorization of the government. It is called the debt ceiling. So as 
we, for example, fund our military and borrow, say, 40 percent or 30 
percent of what it takes to fund our military, as we borrow that, we 
need an authorization to do it.
  There comes a point where we have used all our authority to borrow 
and

[[Page S6615]]

we have to increase our authority to borrow, lift the debt ceiling to 
cover our new debt for money already spent, money spent by Congress. 
Now we have a position being taken by some tea party Republicans, who 
may have voted for the spending but now do not want to vote for the 
borrowing. They cannot have it both ways.
  What happens if we do not increase the debt ceiling? What it means is 
that for the first time in the history of the United States of America, 
we will default on our national debt--the first time. What does a 
default mean? Families understand this and businesses understand this. 
If you do not pay your debts as you are supposed to, bad things can 
happen: foreclosure, legal proceedings, but at a minimum it destroys 
your credibility as a borrower.
  When your credibility as a borrower goes down, what happens? Interest 
rates go up for you. Translate that to America. If we default on our 
debt, if we fail to raise the debt ceiling for the first time in the 
history of the United States, interest rates go up. The dollars paid by 
American taxpayers to build roads, educate children, defend the United 
States are diminished because we have to pay more and more for interest 
on the money we borrow.
  Can we avoid this? Of course, we can. This is a self-imposed problem, 
a problem that has been imposed by the tea party Republicans on the 
Congress and on the Nation that is totally unnecessary.
  Let me say a word or two about the underlying issue of ObamaCare. It 
has been a little over 3 years now since we passed ObamaCare. The 
Supreme Court took up the bill, found it constitutional. It is 
underway. Certain provisions of this bill are already underway. The 
goal of it, of course, is to deal with the cost of health care and the 
availability of health insurance in America. This is important to 
individuals and families and businesses. It is also important to our 
government. Sixty percent of our national deficit, 60 percent of our 
national debt projected for the next 5 or 10 years is associated with 
the cost of health care.
  We buy a lot of health care as a Federal Government: Medicare, for 
the elderly and disabled; Medicaid for those who are low income; 
veterans, to make certain we keep our promise to them for good medical 
care; Indian health care; a variety of others. So as health care costs 
go up, the costs to the government go up, and they squeeze out all 
other spending, spending on medical research, education, helping 
students have the money they need to go to college.
  When we talk about the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare, we are 
talking about dealing with a health care issue that directly impacts 
the debt of the United States of America. We passed this bill to try to 
start to reduce the cost of health insurance and to make health 
insurance more available.
  We changed some critical aspects of health insurance. Does anyone 
following this debate know of a person with a preexisting condition--
somebody in your family who maybe has high blood pressure, high 
cholesterol, asthma, diabetes, a history of cancer? All of those things 
can disqualify you--or could before this bill passed--from even having 
health insurance.
  We said: That is the end of it. Health insurance companies have to 
take everybody--everybody. They cannot exclude a person for a 
preexisting condition. Take them all. Do not cherry-pick the healthy 
people. Take them all.
  The second thing we said was: Do not put a limit on the amount of 
money a health insurance policy will pay--for obvious reasons. You go 
to the doctor tomorrow, some member of your family gets a terrible 
diagnosis, a need for cancer treatment, and the bills start stacking 
up. If your health insurance policy has a cap or limit of, say, $50,000 
or $100,0000, when you reach that limit, there goes all of your 
savings. You are finished.
  So we eliminate the limits on coverage in health insurance policies. 
That is ObamaCare. When the Republicans come to the floor and say: We 
want to abolish ObamaCare, they are abolishing these protections in 
health insurance. They are abolishing the provision which says you 
cannot discriminate because of preexisting conditions. They are 
abolishing the provision that says there cannot be limits on your 
coverage. They are abolishing the provision which says 80 percent of 
the premiums you pay have to be used by the health insurance company to 
pay for medical care, not for profit-taking, not for advertising but 
for actual medical care.
  There is more. Parents who are raising children going to college--I 
went through that, my wife and I did with our kids. How many times are 
you going to ask that young person just graduating from college: 
Jennifer, do you have your health insurance, have you bought any health 
insurance, and then have them tell you: Dad, I feel fine.
  Let me tell you, as a parent, that is not a good answer. But many 
students graduating from college who cannot find a full-time job do not 
have health insurance. The Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, says 
families can keep those young people on their own health insurance plan 
until they reach the age of 26. Across America, over 1 million young 
people now have protection because of this.
  Also, in the Affordable Care Act, we start reducing the out-of-pocket 
costs of prescription drugs for seniors under Medicare. Medicare 
prescription Part D is the right thing to do. But there was a so-called 
doughnut hole, this period where seniors had to pay out of their 
pockets. We started closing that doughnut hole to make sure seniors did 
not lose their precious savings to buy the medicine they needed to stay 
healthy and independent and strong.
  So when the Republicans say: We want to abolish ObamaCare and health 
care reform, they want to abolish this provision that will allow 
families to continue to cover their young people, their kids until the 
age of 26, and they want to abolish the provisions which say, 
basically, that those who are receiving Medicare prescription Part D 
will pay less out of pocket.
  Those are just four or five parts of ObamaCare. The central part of 
it, which starts October 1--I think this is what makes some politicians 
on the Hill especially nervous. October 1 they will advertise across 
America the insurance exchanges. What is an insurance exchange? It is 
an opportunity for people to buy health insurance.
  Many of them have never, ever in their lives been able to shop for 
health insurance. Now they can. If they are low-income families, they 
may not have to pay a premium or a reduced premium under these 
insurance exchanges. Are these insurance exchanges reliable, 
trustworthy? Can we count on them? We better because we put in the law 
that Members of Congress now have to buy their insurance on these very 
same health insurance exchanges. What is good for America should be 
good for Members of Congress.
  In my State, there will be at least a half dozen plans to choose 
from. In a State such as California, when they announced their 
exchanges, they announced a reduction in premiums that people had to 
pay under those exchanges. That is what we are looking for: 
competition, opportunity. People can make their choice if they wish to 
go into the exchanges. Members of Congress and our staff people do not 
have that choice. We are in them. That is fine. I think it is going to 
be good health insurance. I have no question it will be in my State of 
Illinois.
  But to eliminate ObamaCare is to eliminate these health insurance 
exchanges, which means a lot of people, desperate for health insurance 
for the first time in their lives, health insurance they can afford, 
will not be able to do so.
  I do not think the bill we passed, ObamaCare, health care reform, is 
a perfect bill. There is hardly anything we do that is perfect or even 
close. I think it could be changed for the better. I am open to that. I 
hope Members on both sides are. But that is not the way it works here. 
In the House of Representatives, they voted 41 times--41 times--to 
destroy and eliminate ObamaCare--41 times.
  The Republican leader, Mr. Cantor of Virginia, offered one change in 
ObamaCare that he thought made it better. His own party turned on him 
and said: No, we do not want to improve this bill. We want it to go 
down in flames. We do not want this law to go forward. It is not a 
positive view.
  A positive view is to take this measure, improve it where we can, and 
work to make it part of America's future,

[[Page S6616]]

such as Social Security, such as Medicare, such as Medicaid. These are 
programs which are critically important to millions of Americans.
  I am sorry we are facing this showdown. But I hope what will happen 
in the Senate is this: I hope the Senate does not go under cruise 
control following what we have seen from the House Republican caucus, 
this notion of doomsday scenarios and high noon scenarios and shutting 
down the government, shutting down the economy. I hope there will be 
reasonable, conservative Republicans who will stand and say that is 
unacceptable. We are going to sit down in good faith, bargain with the 
Democrats in the Senate, to resolve whatever differences we can but not 
to damage our government or our economy at this important moment in our 
history. That kind of courage will be rewarded. It may not be popular 
with some of the talking heads or screaming heads in these shows on 
television, but the American people are looking for that kind of 
leadership on both sides of the aisle.
  They do not accept the notion that shutting down the government and 
shutting down the economy is the best way to solve our political 
problems. The approval rating of Congress now is about 11 percent. I am 
surprised many days that it is even that high. I did not know we had so 
many relatives and people on the payroll--11 percent. We can do better 
if we face our problems and challenges honestly and deal with them in a 
way that does not hurt innocent people and families across America.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the mterial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From the Wall Street Journal, 
                            Sept. 19, 2013]

        Karl Rove: The GOP's Self-Defeating `Defunding' Strategy

       In 2010, Republicans took the House of Representatives by 
     gaining 63 seats. They also picked up six U.S. senators and 
     675 state legislators, giving them control of more 
     legislative chambers than any time since 1928. The GOP also 
     won 25 of 40 gubernatorial races in 2009 and 2010.
       These epic gains happened primarily because independents 
     voted Republican. In 2010, 56% of independents voted for GOP 
     congressional candidates, up from 43% in 2008 and 39% in 
     2006.
       Today, independents look more like Republicans than 
     Democrats, especially when it comes to health care. In a new 
     Crossroads GPS health-care policy survey conducted in 10 
     states likely to have competitive Senate races and in House 
     districts that lean Republican or are swing seats, 60% of 
     independents oppose President Obama's Affordable Care Act. If 
     this holds through 2014, then Republicans should receive 
     another big boost in the midterms.
       There is, however, one issue on which independents disagree 
     with Republicans: using the threat of a government shutdown 
     to defund ObamaCare. By 58% to 30% in the GPS poll, they 
     oppose defunding ObamaCare if that risks even a temporary 
     shutdown.
       This may be because it is (understandably) hard to see the 
     endgame of the defund strategy. House Republicans could pass 
     a bill that funds the government while killing all ObamaCare 
     spending. But the Democratic Senate could just amend the 
     measure to restore funding and send it back to the House. 
     What then? Even the defund strategy's authors say they don't 
     want a government shutdown. But their approach means we'll 
     get one.
       After all, avoiding a shutdown would require, first, at 
     least five Senate Democrats voting to defund ObamaCare. But 
     not a single Senate Democrat says he'll do that, and there is 
     no prospect of winning one over.
       Second, assuming enough Senate Democrats materialize to 
     defund ObamaCare, the measure faces a presidential veto. 
     Republicans would need 54 House Democrats and 21 Senate 
     Democrats to vote to override the president's veto. No 
     sentient being believes that will happen.
       So what would the public reaction be to a shutdown? Some 
     observers point to the 1995 shutdown, saying the GOP didn't 
     suffer much in the 1996 election. They are partially correct: 
     Republicans did pick up two Senate seats in 1996. But the GOP 
     also lost three House seats, seven of the 11 gubernatorial 
     races that year, a net of 53 state legislative seats and the 
     White House.
       A shutdown now would have much worse fallout than the one 
     in 1995. Back then, seven of the government's 13 
     appropriations bills had been signed into law, including the 
     two that funded the military. So most of the government was 
     untouched by the shutdown. Many of the unfunded agencies kept 
     operating at a reduced level for the shutdown's three weeks 
     by using funds from past fiscal years.
       But this time, no appropriations bills have been signed 
     into law, so no discretionary spending is in place for any 
     part of the federal government. Washington won't be able to 
     pay military families or any other federal employee. While 
     conscientious FBI and Border Patrol agents, prison guards, 
     air-traffic controllers and other federal employees may keep 
     showing up for work, they won't get paychecks, just IOUs.
       The only agencies allowed to operate with unsalaried 
     employees will be those that meet one or more of the 
     following legal tests: They must be responding to 
     ``imminent'' emergencies involving the safety of human life 
     or the protection of property, be funded by mandatory 
     spending (such as Social Security), have funds from prior 
     fiscal years that have already been obligated, or rely on the 
     constitutional power of the president. Figuring out which 
     agencies meet these tests will be tough, but much of the 
     federal government will lack legal authority to function.
       But won't voters be swayed by the arguments for defunding? 
     The GPS poll tested the key arguments put forward by 
     advocates of defunding and Mr. Obama's response. Independents 
     went with Mr. Obama's counterpunch 57% to 35%. Voters in 
     Senate battleground states sided with him 59% to 33%. In 
     lean-Republican congressional districts and in swing 
     congressional districts, Mr. Obama won by 56% to 39% and 58% 
     to 33%, respectively. On the other hand, independents support 
     by 51% to 42% delaying ObamaCare's mandate that individuals 
     buy coverage or pay a fine.
       The desire to strike at ObamaCare is praiseworthy. But any 
     strategy to repeal, delay or replace the law must have a 
     credible chance of succeeding or affecting broad public 
     opinion positively.
       The defunding strategy doesn't. Going down that road would 
     strengthen the president while alienating independents. It is 
     an ill-conceived tactic, and Republicans should reject it.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________