[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 126 (Monday, September 23, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6674-S6680]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

   Sergeant Jamar Avery Hicks and Sergeant First Class Ricardo Young

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, earlier this month we marked the 12th 
anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the 
Pentagon that killed more than 3,000 people.

[[Page S6675]]

  Our fight against terrorism continues today. We can be proud of all 
that America's military personnel and the veterans of the global war on 
terror have accomplished, as well as the ongoing efforts.
  Many brave Americans put their lives on the line every day to defend 
this country because terrorists remain committed to harming the United 
States. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. We must 
honor the sacrifice of the men and women who laid down their lives for 
us.
  Arkansas has a proud history of its citizens serving this country in 
the military. Many brave Arkansans, including two recently, have given 
their lives defending our country on the battlefield. We continue to 
honor the men and women who have given their last full measure of 
devotion to protect our Nation.
  SGT Jamar Avery Hicks sacrificed his life for this country in support 
of Operation Enduring Freedom. Sergeant Hicks graduated from Hall High 
School in Little Rock, AR, in 2009. One of his former teachers 
described him as a student who didn't mind going out of his way to help 
others and never looked for anything in return. She says she would have 
taken a whole classroom filled with students like Jamar. Those closest 
to Sergeant Hicks describe him as a quiet, gentle, and unassuming man 
with an infectious smile who always had a positive outlook on life.
  Sergeant Hicks joined the Army in November of 2009. His friends say 
he loved the Army, and his military service drove him to continue to 
improve himself. Sergeant Hicks was assigned to Headquarters and 
Headquarters Battery, 4th Battalion, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 
101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY, as a vehicle driver. He 
gave his life on August 11, 2013, his 22nd birthday, after enemy forces 
attacked his unit with indirect fire in the Paktia Province of 
Afghanistan.
  I ask my colleagues to keep his family, including his wife Debra, his 
son Jamar, Jr., and friends in their thoughts and prayers during this 
very difficult time.
  Most recently the Natural State honored the life of SFC Ricardo Young 
as State flags flew at half-mast. Sergeant First Class Young graduated 
from Nevada High School in Rosston, AR, in 1997. His family and friends 
describe him as fun-loving, caring, and always full of life. Sergeant 
First Class Young joined the Army in September 1997. He trained at Fort 
Benning before his first assignment at Fort Campbell, KY. In his 15 
years of military service, Sergeant First Class Young was deployed to 
two tours in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, in addition to other missions 
around the globe.
  Sergeant First Class Young was assigned to the 738th Engineer Support 
Company, 307th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade, 18th Airborne 
Corps, Fort Bragg, NC. On August 28, 2013, he gave his life in support 
of Operation Enduring Freedom in Farah Province, Afghanistan.
  On behalf of a grateful nation, I humbly offer my sincerest gratitude 
for the patriotism and selfless service of Sergeant First Class Young 
and Sergeant Hicks.
  Let us never forget the sacrifices of our troops, and let their 
legacies be an inspiration for all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized to speak on 
a few issues.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. In the course of the next few weeks it is going to be 
white-knuckle time. Here, coming up next week, October 1, begins a new 
fiscal year, of which all appropriations funding of the Government, 
save for those programs that automatically flow such as Medicare, 
Social Security--all others will cease to have funding unless we can 
continue to fund through appropriations bills coming up. That is next 
week.
  As you know, there are a number of people on that side of the aisle 
who are threatening to shut down the government unless they get their 
way. In this particular case a lot of them in the House of 
Representatives are saying their way or no way; that they want to 
defund the implementation of the law that has been in existence for 3 
years, setting up a reform of the health care system.
  But the white knuckles--assuming we can get over that little hurdle--
the white knuckles will continue because shortly thereafter we are 
going to get to the day of reckoning about whether the U.S. Government 
can pay its bills because of the artificial debt ceiling set in statute 
that says that above a certain level the U.S. Government cannot borrow 
any more money. These are obligations that have already been incurred.
  Just think how many of us own U.S. bonds. A bunch of those bonds are 
coming due. That is in large part how we finance the debt of the United 
States, by selling securities with the full faith and credit of the 
strongest financial government on the face of planet Earth. Therefore, 
if that debt ceiling, that artificial ceiling set in statute, is not 
raised, the government cannot go out and borrow any more money--in 
other words, issuing new bonds. That is when the knuckles completely 
turn white.
  Listen to what a respected economist, the chief economist for Moody's 
Mark Zandi told the Joint Economic Committee last week. He says the 
financial markets of this country, indeed the international markets as 
well, will start to get jittery starting next week if there is no clear 
path to a deal on raising that artificial, statutory debt ceiling. He 
says then that jitteriness is going to turn into panic once the U.S. 
Treasury cannot make its payments. He further went on to say: ``If you 
don't do it in time, confidence will evaporate, consumer confidence 
will sharply decline, businesses''--I hope the American people, by the 
way, can understand this, what are the consequences of this--`` . . . 
businesses will stop hiring,'' he says, ``consumers will stop 
spending--'' listen to that, shopowners--``and the stock market will 
fall significantly in value:'' and how about this, small business 
owners--``borrowing costs for businesses and households will continue 
to rise'' significantly.
  Do you know what he told us, the same economist told us 2 years ago 
when we were getting right up to the precipice on the debt ceiling? He 
said:

       At the end of the day if we don't raise the debt ceiling, 
     the economy is going to go back into a recession. Interest 
     rates are going to spike.

  In the State of the Presiding Officer, the housing market is 
recovering, as it is in my State. People are excited about buying a new 
house or selling their old house and moving into a new house. Interest 
rates are still relatively low. But in a State such as Virginia or my 
State of Florida, where housing is such a critical component of the 
economy, just think what is going to happen if the interest rates 
suddenly spike and now the cost of getting into a new house is double 
what it was before because of the interest rate spiking and because 
they are less inclined, if the interest rates spike, to get that new 
mortgage. Then the houses are not selling and the values of the houses 
that have been recovering, out of the deep recession, instead of going 
this way are starting to go that way.
  The American people have not focused on the consequences if these 
guys on that side of the aisle and down there at the other end of the 
Capitol in fact cause the U.S. Government to go into default.
  Let's listen to some more experts. Martin Feldstein, former Chairman 
of the Council of Economic Advisors--for whom? For a Republican 
President, President Reagan:

       The debt ceiling is a very dangerous thing to play with.

  How about the respected Bob Rubin, Treasury Secretary under President 
Clinton? Remember the 1990s, how the economy was surging, how people 
were feeling good? Let's see what he says.

       Defaulting on our commitments is unthinkable and dangerous, 
     and the debt ceiling should be raised now without conditions.

  That is what the President has said. He is not going to negotiate on 
the debt ceiling because of all of these consequences. Yet they are 
saying if they

[[Page S6676]]

do not get their way to take away the funding for the implementation of 
the part of the health care bill that is supposed to go into effect--a 
lot of it has already gone into effect--they want to take away the 
funds.
  Let's listen to another respected economist. After all, he has 
shepherded us out of the recession because he is the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke. He says:

       But I do hope that Congress will allow the Government to 
     pay its bills, not raise the possibility of default which 
     would be very, very costly to our economy.

  That is a little bit of understatement, as the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve always does, but it is a zinger.
  Mark Zandi, the one we quoted before, says:

       This dark scenario is so dark I can't imagine it.

  How about another former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan 
Blinder:

       In short, the consequences of hitting the debt ceiling are 
     too awful to contemplate. . . . A sane Congress wouldn't even 
     think about it.

  Let me quote another Republican, Bruce Bartlett, deputy assistant 
secretary for economic policy at Treasury under President George H.W. 
Bush. This is what he said:

       A potential debt default is far more than a domestic 
     consideration; it is a matter of foreign policy.

  That leads me to briefly comment. We suddenly have in the 
international arena a whole bunch of new things that might be 
optimistic signs. If the Russians follow through and if President Assad 
does in fact open--and those are two big ``ifs'' but at least it has 
happened thus far in the first week--if Assad does in fact open his 
chemical weapons, then there is the possibility that not only would the 
ability to disperse chemical weapons in Syria have been eliminated but 
those entire weapons would have been eliminated.
  That is a pretty good first step.
  We are also hearing the new President of Iran--as a result of an 
election in Iran--start to sing a new tune and have more of an outreach 
to the West. Should we be skeptical? Of course. I talked to the new 
Foreign Minister of Iran, who was a former Iranian Ambassador to the 
United Nations, last Friday. I talked to him about what a gesture of 
good will it would be if they could find the missing retired FBI agent 
who disappeared 6\1/2\ years ago, Bob Levinson, from the tourist island 
of Kish off the Iranian coast--if they could find him and return him to 
his wife and seven children after having been gone for 6\1/2\ years. We 
have had proof of life twice--one with a video and the second time was 
2 years ago in a photo. What a gesture of good will it would be if they 
were sincere about having a new relationship with the West.
  So if intrigues are real and they happen, would we want to undermine 
so much of that--to put it in the words of a Republican adviser of the 
Treasury to President George H. W. Bush--that a potential default is 
far more than a domestic consideration, it is a matter of foreign 
policy. Would we want to weaken the U.S. Government as it negotiates 
over these critical matters?
  I will conclude by saying there is some movement and discussions 
underway about a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians 
with security safeguards for both. Again, if there is any reality to 
these new messages that are flowing around and which our Secretary of 
State and our former colleague John Kerry is trying desperately to 
bring about--just think of what that does to improve the world 
situation, of which the enormous beneficiary is the United States of 
America.
  Yet would we be threatening again, pulling the economic underpinnings 
out from all of our negotiators on these three main negotiated topics 
that are now in front of us that affect the national security so 
desperately of the United States and the security of our allies? I 
don't think so. That is why I think there are a bunch of folks over 
here who have tried to get the Members in the House of Representatives 
to come to their senses.
  We have seen this brinkmanship before. I hope cooler and more 
rational heads will prevail.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have a very serious problem with the 
new health care law. Costs are surging. We now have a projection from 
the Government Accountability Office. Under a realistic set of 
assumptions, the health care law will add over $6 trillion to the 
unfunded liabilities of the United States of America. Private health 
insurance premiums are going up. Unions are in full rebellion. Congress 
is in rebellion with regard to our staff. Doctors are rebelling. Many 
of them are giving up practices. They didn't get the one thing they 
really needed, which is a fix to their Medicare reimbursement. The 
President has had to delay the employer mandate. This law is nowhere 
close to workable. It is not good. There are many more bad things I 
could say about the status we are in today.
  The only person who apparently is stuck with this, who doesn't have 
power to influence the process, is John Q. Citizen. Businesses are 
getting their employer mandate delayed because it just won't work.
  In fact, this law is clearly, indisputably savaging job creation and 
economic growth. Seventy-seven percent of the people who got jobs this 
year got part-time jobs, and every expert says ObamaCare is a big part 
of the reason--a big part of that. Businesses are staying below 50 
employees so they feel as though they are not so bound. Wages are down 
again this year. Unemployment is high. The percentage of the American 
people who are actually working is down--the workplace rate--and it is 
at the lowest point since 1975. This health care law is a big part of 
it. It just is, and everybody knows it. Talk to any businessperson, and 
they will say that the uncertainty, the costs, the problems that are 
entailed with it are impacting what they do. That is just a fact.
  So this year the Senate has done nothing--absolutely nothing. Every 
attempt to confront the serious problems with this law has been blocked 
by the Senate Democratic majority led by Senator Reid. That is just a 
fact. The House has passed repeated bills to confront this problem, and 
they have now sent over a bill from the House that funds the Government 
of the United States but defunds this unworkable health care law. 
Republicans in the House and Senate have put forward serious proposals 
to improve health care in America.
  We ought to understand the posture we are in here. The Senate 
Democrats have refused to consider any reform. The House has passed a 
number of bills to deal with this in a responsible way, and they have 
now passed a bill--a continuing resolution--to fund the Government of 
the United States, but defund the President's health care law.
  What does he say? He says: Well, I will talk with Putin, negotiate 
with him. I will negotiate with Assad. I will negotiate with Iran. But 
I will not even talk to anyone in the U.S. Congress about this health 
care law that is clearly unworkable and, as one of our Democratic 
Members said, a train wreck. No chance. Not one jot, not one tittle of 
my health care law will be changed.
  What is he saying there? I will shut down the government before I 
allow a change in my ``perfect'' health care law.
  So I want to raise the question, Who is causing the problem in this 
country? Who is the one who is refusing to fix an obviously failed 
health care law that needs major reform? It is the President of the 
United States and a majority in the Senate. I express my deepest 
concern about it, as a member of the Budget Committee, and we will talk 
more about it in the days to come, but this law is financially 
unsustainable. It is not what it was sold to be.
  The American people have never believed you can have a huge expansion 
of health care and not have an impact on the U.S. budget. They are 
absolutely right, as the GAO has already told us.
  I know others are prepared to talk. I just want to say that we need 
to understand what has happened. It is time for

[[Page S6677]]

us to make some fundamental changes to this law, and all we are hearing 
from the White House is this: No, sir. Not one change will they accept. 
We will not even have serious negotiations about it. That is 
unacceptable. It needs to change. I hope in the next few days the 
American people will become engaged, and perhaps our colleagues will 
see it differently.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 20 
minutes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have no objection whatsoever to the 
Senator speaking, but it was my understanding he was going to ask some 
consent requests. I understand he has great persuasive talents in 
speaking, but I am not going to be able to do that. I interrupted my 
schedule today, which I was happy to do, at the convenience of the 
Senator from Texas. So I will be back in 20 minutes, and the Senator 
can ask his unanimous consent requests at that time. Is that OK?
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I would be happy to ask the unanimous 
consent requests at the outset if that would be preferable to the 
majority leader.
  Mr. REID. OK. And if the Senator would do that, I would really 
appreciate it. And he has my word that I will watch what I can, and if 
I cannot, I will read every word of it tonight.
  Mr. CRUZ. And I am hopeful my remarks will be persuasive when the 
Senator watches them.
  Mr. REID. My friend is always persuasive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. The first unanimous consent request that I would put 
forward: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree 
to the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 59; that no debate, amendments, 
or motions to the resolution be in order; that any and all points of 
order be waived; that the resolution be read a third time and passed 
and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table, without any intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Yes. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, my 
friend went right to the point, and I appreciate that. I understand 
that the junior Senator from Texas asks consent to pass the House-
passed continuing resolution by consent without any amendments. I 
understand that. As I said, he came right to the point.
  The House-passed resolution, as we know now, would defund ObamaCare. 
It would block not only the administration of the program but all 
related benefits as well, and that is untoward.
  Second, it includes so-called debt prioritization language, or what 
has been called the ``pay China first'' policy. This would leave us 
vulnerable to default on our obligations to everyone else besides 
bondholders and Social Security--everyone from veterans, to small 
businesses, to Federal employees and contractors, to doctors and 
hospitals and Medicare patients generally.
  Mr. President, the President would veto this continuing resolution, 
so it is not going to become law anyway, and I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the second unanimous consent request that I 
would put forward: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate agree to the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 59; that any and all 
points of order be waived; that during consideration of H.J. Res. 59, 
adoption of any amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote 
threshold; and that upon disposition of all amendments, the resolution 
be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, without any intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object I again 
understand the Senator from Texas in his request, which would create a 
new 60-vote hurdle where the Senate rules do not require one at the 
present time. I really try to follow the Senate rules. Sometimes they 
are obnoxious and I wish they were different, but I try my best, in 
leading us in this difficult Senate sometimes, to live up to all the 
rules as they exist. The Senate rules set up a lot of hurdles. That is 
the way the precedents have been developed over the years, and I 
understand that. Sometimes Senators like these, sometimes they do not. 
I would guess that most would say the Senate has enough--enough--60-
vote hurdles, that the Senate has enough of these really arbitrary 
hurdles as it is, that we do not need to add even more barriers to 
getting things done.
  We should be careful about adding new barriers. The American people 
are really fed up. I travel the country, and it is rare that I go 
someplace where they do not say: What are you going to do to change the 
rules? They know what the rules are and how difficult they are. I would 
bet the vast majority of Senators--Democrats and Republicans--would 
like them changed. The problem is that we have tried that recently. We 
were able to make a little headway but not a lot. So I think most 
Americans would rather we work in ways to agree to work together rather 
than disagree. I almost would bet, although I am not a betting man, 
that most Americans would rather we avoid shutting down the government.
  Mr. President, I know the sincerity of the Senator from Texas. I 
understand that. I disagree with him I hope as sincerely as he 
disagrees with me, but I do not take away from his sincerity. But 
having said that, I am in a position now to object, and I must do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, at this time I now ask unanimous consent 
that I be allowed 20 minutes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, these two unanimous consent requests have 
the virtue of clarifying this debate the Senate will face this week. I 
am going to suggest to the Presiding Officer that the Senate has not 
faced a more important debate in the short time he and I have both 
served in this institution. No American wants a government shutdown. I 
do not want a government shutdown. No one on this side of the aisle 
wants a government shutdown. The House of Representatives does not want 
a government shutdown.
  Five minutes ago the Senate could have acted to prevent a government 
shutdown. The requests I promulgated to the majority leader were to 
pass the continuing resolution the House of Representatives passed. If 
that had happened, there would be no government shutdown. A government 
shutdown would be taken off the table. The specter the Presiding 
Officer and I see on the television screen every day--the countdown 
clock that has started to appear--would disappear. But unfortunately 
the majority leader chose to object--to object and to say, no, he would 
rather risk a government shutdown than act to prevent it. Why? Again, 
the majority leader was quite candid: because he supports the law 
called ObamaCare.
  I would note that a component of that also--one of the pieces the 
House of Representatives passed--is a law that has been called the 
Default Prevention Act. The President of the United States has been 
doing a fair amount of public speaking, raising the prospect of a 
default on our debt. The House of Representatives acted boldly to 
include in their continuing resolution language that would say the 
United States will never, ever, ever default on its debt, that in the 
event the debt ceiling is not raised, we will always pay our debt 
first.
  I suspect every Member of this body has spoken publicly about the 
calamity that would come from a default on the debt. I think it is 
quite revealing that the majority leader explicitly referenced and 
objected to by name taking a default off the table. I think that is 
unfortunate.
  There is a tendency in this town toward brinkmanship, toward pointing 
to

[[Page S6678]]

events that can cause instability and uncertainty and using them to try 
to get your way. I wish the majority leader had been willing to step 
forward and say: I agree, No. 1, that the government should be funded; 
we should not have a government shutdown; and, No. 2, that we should 
never ever even discuss a default on the debt.
  Had the majority leader simply said, ``I consent,'' a default on the 
debt would have been taken permanently off the table. Why didn't he? We 
all know why he didn't. Because the majority leader embraces ObamaCare. 
I am going to suggest that this body a little over 3 years ago passed 
ObamaCare. It passed on a straight party-line vote. In the time since 
it has passed, America has learned it is not working. Americans all 
over this country are suffering because of ObamaCare. It is the single 
biggest job killer in America. Every day we are seeing more and more 
evidence that ObamaCare is killing jobs; that it is hurting American 
workers who are struggling; that it is causing people to be forcibly 
put into part-time work, 29 hours a week; that it is jacking up their 
health insurance premiums. It is causing more and more people, who are 
struggling, to lose their health insurance altogether.
  Today the New York Times reported that because of ObamaCare, 
``Insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and 
hospitals available to consumers.'' That is today in the newspaper.
  USA Today reported on a new ``family glitch'' that could cause up to 
a half million children to go without insurance coverage.
  A headline in the Washington Post today read, ``One week away, 
ObamaCare's small business insurance exchanges not all ready for 
launch.''
  Even the labor unions that once championed ObamaCare are now publicly 
decrying it as a threat to the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of 
the American middle class. That is in the words of organized labor.
  This law is hurting the American people. It is why there is 
bipartisan consensus outside of Washington, DC, that we need to step up 
and stop it. That would be the responsible thing for Senators on both 
sides of the aisle to do, to say: The same rules should apply to hard-
working American families that apply to big corporations and that apply 
to Members of Congress.
  We have seen the President unilaterally put in place exceptions for 
giant corporations and Members of Congress. I would submit, hard-
working American families deserve that same exception. So I think it is 
unfortunate the majority leader chose to object to continuing 
government, to preventing a shutdown, to taking a default off the 
table. But I do think it is clarifying to make clear, as the majority 
leader just did, that he is willing to risk a government shutdown. He 
is willing to force even a government shutdown in order to insist that 
ObamaCare is funded.
  That leads to the second unanimous consent request I put forward, a 
simple request that every amendment on this continuing resolution be 
subject to 60 votes. Everyone in this body knows that is not an unusual 
request in the Senate. Amendments in this body are routinely subjected 
to 60-vote thresholds. Indeed, a few months ago when this body was 
debating the issue of guns--a contentious issue, an emotional issue, an 
issue of great moment for this country--the majority leader agreed with 
the minority that every single amendment on the floor would be subject 
to a 60-vote threshold. Those were the terms under which every aspect 
of the gun debate was debated.
  I would note that one amendment that was submitted during that gun 
debate was the Grassley-Cruz amendment. It was the law enforcement 
amendment that put real teeth in going after felons and fugitives who 
try to illegally buy guns. It put real teeth into forcing States to 
report mental health records so we can prevent those with serious 
mental illnesses from illegally purchasing firearms.
  I would note that the Grassley-Cruz amendment received a majority 
vote in this institution. A majority of Senators voted for it, 
including nine Democrats. It was the most bipartisan of the 
comprehensive gun amendments voted on in this body. Yet it did not pass 
into law because the majority leader set a 60-vote threshold for every 
amendment.
  I would suggest that ObamaCare is no less important. ObamaCare is no 
less controversial. ObamaCare, likewise, should be subject to the same 
threshold. If the majority leader believes ObamaCare is good for 
America, if the Democrats in this body believe ObamaCare is good for 
America, then I would encourage this body, let's debate--not in the 
artificial sense in which we debate, one or two Senators talking to an 
empty hall, but in the real sense of making the case to each other and 
the American people about whether this law is working or whether it is 
not. Because everywhere I travel in the State of Texas and across the 
country, Americans come to me and raise the single biggest challenge 
they are facing: ObamaCare. It is killing their jobs. It is taking 
their health care. It is not working.
  We all know that 3\1/2\ years ago ObamaCare was forced into law on a 
strict party-line vote, by straight, brute force. But it should not be 
funded that way. That is not the way a government should proceed. That 
is not the way this institution should proceed. A 60-vote threshold 
does not require that the majority leader get a great many Republican 
votes, but it does require that he get a few, that he cannot simply do 
it with the votes of only the Democrats in this body.
  This country will be better off if we work together to restore 
economic growth and to stop the incredible job loss that is coming from 
ObamaCare. In fact, regarding a 60-vote threshold, here is what the 
learned majority leader has had to say:

       For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have 
     protected the American people and rightfully so. The need to 
     muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally 
     frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am 
     sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of 
     majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this 
     requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of 
     the Senate and the American people and our country.

  I agree with Majority Leader Reid. I agree that 60-vote thresholds 
ensure that we behave not just in a partisan manner but in a way that 
brings us together. Given the challenges coming from ObamaCare, I 
believe nothing is hurting the American people more, nothing is hurting 
the economy more, nothing is damaging jobs more, than ObamaCare.
  Given the majority leader's objection raised today, the path the 
majority intends to go down is now clear. It is clear to Democrats, it 
is clear to Republicans, it is clear for the world to see: The majority 
leader has stated it is his intention to force a vote to fund 
ObamaCare, and do so using just 51 votes, to do so on what could be a 
straight party-line vote, in all likelihood would be a straight party-
line vote.
  I would suggest that is not a responsible course of action. It is not 
a course of action that I think Republicans should acquiesce to. If it 
is the majority leader's intent to fund ObamaCare using just 51 votes, 
then I would submit to every Republican in this body it is our 
obligation to our constituents to do everything we can to prevent the 
majority leader from funding ObamaCare with 51 votes. Any Member of 
this body who votes for cloture on this bill will be voting to allow 
the majority leader to fund ObamaCare on 51 votes. I think that vote is 
a mistake. I think that vote disserves our constituents. I think that 
vote hurts the people of America.
  So 232 Members of the House of Representatives came together and said 
explicitly: Do not fund ObamaCare. I would note that included two 
Democrats who came together with Republicans in a bipartisan manner to 
say: This law is not working. Maybe we thought it would work, but the 
facts, the evidence, have proven it is not working.
  The Senate should do likewise. The House acted last week because the 
House listened to the American people. I would suggest that every 
Member of this body should do exactly the same: Listen to the American 
people. Because if we listen to the American people, we will, No. 1, 
keep the government running. I wish the majority leader had agreed to 
my request to take a government shutdown off the table by passing the 
House continuing resolution.
  If we listen to the American people, we will, No. 2, take any default 
on the debt off the table. I wish the majority

[[Page S6679]]

leader had not objected to doing so right now. I wish the majority 
leader had not said he intends to continue to use the threat of a 
default to engage in brinkmanship to try to force ObamaCare on the 
American people.
  If we listen to the American people, we will recognize that this law 
is not working. That is why big corporations asked for and received an 
exception. That is why Members of Congress asked for and received an 
exception. That is why unions have recently come forward and asked for 
an exception. They have not yet been granted it, but I will venture a 
prediction now that if Congress votes to continue funding ObamaCare, 
that union exception will not be far away. Then we will be left in a 
world where the burdens of ObamaCare, the job-killing consequences of 
ObamaCare, fall on hard-working American families, not on big 
corporations, not on Members of Congress and, in the near future, I 
predict not on union bosses, only on hard-working American families, on 
single moms, on young people, on people struggling to climb the 
economic ladder.
  I would suggest that is getting it exactly backward. This body should 
be not be granting special rules, special favors for the ruling class, 
for those with power and privilege. We should be fighting for those who 
are struggling. Those are the people who are getting hurt the most by 
ObamaCare.
  I believe this week will be a critical week for the Senate, where 
every one of us--and I hope to see Republicans and Democrats stand 
together and to say, setting aside partisan differences, we have an 
obligation to the people of our States. ObamaCare is not working, so we 
are going to step forward and recognize the simple reality that it is 
the biggest job killer in this country and we should not affirmatively 
fund it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Civilian National Service

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on September 11 we came together as a 
country on the National Day of Service and Remembrance to honor those 
lives lost on that tragic day 12 years ago and celebrated the bravery 
and commitment of our men and women in uniform. As our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and marines continue to defend our freedom and security 
abroad, Americans back home have also been stepping forward to serve 
their communities and country.
  Last week brought the 20th anniversary of the signing of legislation 
that created AmeriCorps. With that goal in mind, I rise to speak in 
honor of the men and women in civilian national service who have 
sacrificed their time and energy to serve our country by strengthening 
our communities. We honor them for their commitment and hold them as 
shining examples for rising generations.
  Over the last two decades more than 820,000 AmeriCorps members have 
quietly and selflessly given in total more than 1 billion hours of 
service to our country. In Arizona alone more than 15,000 residents 
have served more than 16 million hours and have earned Segal AmeriCorps 
Education Awards totaling nearly $37 million. They have mentored and 
tutored schoolchildren, helping students stay on track with their 
education and having a chance at a better future. They have helped 
communities recover from devastating natural disasters, supported 
military families, and helped veterans overcome the stress of a decade 
of conflict and reintegrate back into civilian life. They have worked 
in our national parks and on our public lands that preserve the story 
of America for future generations, and they have done so much more.
  For their dedication and service they receive a modest living 
allowance and an education award that can keep the dream of a college 
education within reach. They have also earned my respect and the 
admiration of citizens around the country.
  As we reflect on the dedication of those who have served, we must 
also ask ourselves what more can we do to give more young Americans the 
opportunity to follow in their footsteps. As the Franklin Project at 
the Aspen Institute has called for, we should make a year of national 
service, whether military or civilian, a right of passage for all young 
Americans. We should expand AmeriCorps service positions, as we called 
for in the bipartisan Serve America Act that we passed nearly 5 years 
ago. We should strengthen partnerships with Federal departments and 
agencies to use national service as a cost-effective strategy to meet 
their missions, and we should work with the private sector, from 
corporations and philanthropic organizations to higher education and 
faith-based institutions, to support the creation of service 
opportunities and to recognize the contributions of those who serve.
  We should also continue to remain engaged throughout the world by, 
among other things, fulfilling the promise of the Peace Corps. At its 
founding, America started with a grand notion, the recognition that all 
men are created equal and that they are endowed with certain 
inalienable rights that must be protected. But recognizing there are 
those among us and common causes greater than our own self-interests 
that require our attention and care, the Declaration of Independence 
also emphasized `` . . . we mutually pledge to one another our Lives, 
our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.'' Benjamin Franklin likewise talked 
about creating a ``Republic, if you can keep it,'' and created a corps 
in Philadelphia through which citizens could serve their community. 
John Adams likewise spoke of how the duty to serve our country ended 
but with our lives.
  Throughout history, Presidents of both parties put into place 
initiatives that put our people into productive service to our Nation. 
Examples include Franklin Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps, John 
Kennedy's Peace Corps, Lyndon Johnson's VISTA Program, Richard Nixon's 
Senior Corps, George H.W. Bush's Points of Light, Bill Clinton's 
AmeriCorps, George W. Bush's USA Freedom Corps, and, more recently, the 
passage of the Serve America Act, which reauthorizes and expands 
national service programs.
  Congress should step up. With so much division and discord throughout 
the country, national service can help bring our country closer 
together. Drawing from lessons learned from programs of the past, a 
renewed commitment to national service by this body can unleash the 
ingenuity of the American people and their desire to contribute to 
causes greater than themselves. It can channel the energy of the 
institutions of civil society to get our country moving again. Think of 
it: Passionate, engaged young people from all backgrounds and regions 
across the Nation tackling our toughest challenges in education, 
poverty, conservation, health, disaster response, reintegrating 
veterans, and more in a truly enduring way.
  In my view, nothing else binds us better and has us move forward as a 
nation more effectively than service to our Nation, particularly 
service designed to improve lives and strengthen communities. For this 
reason, my vision for civilian national service is worth more than our 
aspirations. It deserves our commitment to achieving it.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on Friday a unified House Republican 
conference sent a strong message to the American people: Let's keep the 
government open, and let's protect the American people simultaneously 
from the harmful and potentially devastating effects of ObamaCare.
  It is now time for the Senate to act. We know the President's health 
care law is not ready to implement. The Wall Street Journal recently 
reported that the government's software that runs the online insurance 
marketplaces, known as exchanges, simply is not ready. It can't 
reliably determine how much people need to pay for coverage.

[[Page S6680]]

  In the face of this and the other aspects of the law that are not 
ready--many of them by the President's own admission--if the 
administration goes ahead with this law anyway, we know ObamaCare will 
be implemented in a manner that is manifestly unfair and that is likely 
to harm hard-working Americans. Big business, unions, and other special 
interests may well all receive special treatment under ObamaCare while 
the rest of the country will be forced into ObamaCare's unfair, 
unworkable, and fundamentally unsound system.
  We know the law is unaffordable. We know it will be bad for the 
economy. At a time when we are running annual deficits approaching $1 
trillion, ObamaCare is going to cost roughly $2 trillion over the next 
10 years. The law is forcing employers to shed workers, cut back hours, 
and stop providing health insurance for employees. And we know it is 
not going to work. The Congressional Budget Office recently concluded 
that after 10 years of ObamaCare, 31 million Americans will still lack 
health insurance.
  We understand these are inconvenient facts for the President and for 
Members of this body who still support this law. But those are the 
facts, and we have a responsibility to do something about it.
  How many more people will have to lose their jobs, wages, and health 
care benefits before Congress acts? How many more States will have to 
announce that premiums are going up before we do something to protect 
the country? If the President won't act to protect the American people 
from this law and its harmful effects, Congress should.
  Last Friday a unified Republican House showed tremendous courage in 
enacting legislation, knowing full well what the media would say, what 
the President would say, and what Democrats on both sides of the 
Capitol would say. Two hundred twenty-eight Republicans responded to 
the will of the American people and overwhelmingly passed a bill that 
would fund government and protect the country from ObamaCare. Only one 
party has voted to fund the government. Only one party has voted to 
avoid a government shutdown. Right now the ball is in the Senate's 
court.
  Once the ball has reached the Senate, as has now happened, the Senate 
can respond in one of several ways. Basically, I see three options on 
the table, two of which are perfectly appropriate, one of which is 
unacceptable.
  The first option would be for this body, under the leadership of our 
majority leader, to take a vote on the House-passed continuing 
resolution--the House-passed continuing resolution that keeps 
government funded but defunds ObamaCare--and to give that an up-or-down 
vote, to vote on that bill, as is, without any modification.
  The second approach would be to open it for an open amendment 
process, to allow us to debate and discuss and consider amendments on 
the House-passed bill as each individual Senator might deem appropriate 
for this body to consider.
  Both of these first two options are appropriate. Both of these first 
two options are understandable and acceptable under the totality of the 
circumstances. Some might naturally lean toward the first option, 
moving quickly to consideration of the House-passed bill in an as-is 
condition, given the fact that we are T-minus 7 days and a few hours 
until the existing continuing resolution expires on midnight of next 
Monday night. We are a little over 7 days before that continuing 
resolution expires. So under those circumstances many of us might 
suggest the best option might be to take that first approach, for the 
Senate to open this for a vote on the House-passed continuing 
resolution in as-is condition.
  But if this body doesn't want to do that, if it wants to amend the 
House-passed continuing resolution, it would still be appropriate for 
us to have an amendment process. But that needs to be an open amendment 
process, one that is appropriate for this body--a body that many have 
described as the world's greatest deliberative body. If in fact it is 
great and deliberative, if in fact we want to continue this tradition, 
then we need to have an open amendment process when amendments are 
considered.
  The third option I referred to, the option I would consider 
unacceptable, would be an option in which the majority leader would use 
a procedural trick to allow the majority party to gut the House-passed 
continuing resolution, removing its single most significant provision 
without allowing even consideration of one single additional amendment. 
This is not OK.
  What I am saying is we need to either pass the bill as is--pass it or 
don't pass it--or we need to open the amendment process so all Members 
of this body have the opportunity to introduce and vote on amendments 
as each individual Senator deems appropriate. Those are the only two 
acceptable options.
  It would not be an acceptable option if the majority leader were to 
decide to use a procedural trick to allow only one amendment--an 
amendment that would gut the House-passed continuing resolution and 
effectively negate its single most distinguishing provision.
  The question that leaves us with is that once this bill comes up in 
this body, will we as Senators be courageous? Will we do the right 
thing for the American people or will Senate Democrats threaten to shut 
down the government in order to protect an ill-conceived, unworkable, 
unaffordable, and fundamentally unfair law?
  There is no doubt that many voices will say we can't win this fight, 
but I am not so sure. Two months ago these same voices said we could 
not and would not get this far. They said this effort would amount to 
bad politics. They said this simply would not work in the Congress as 
it exists in 2013. And they were wrong. They were wrong because what 
the House of Representatives passed on Friday is what the American 
people have been demanding, and they have been demanding it 
overwhelmingly. They have demanded that Congress act to keep the 
government open and functioning while protecting the American people 
from the harmful, potentially devastating effects of ObamaCare. That is 
why I believe we can win.
  The Senate majority may have the upper hand, but the American people 
will and always must have the last word.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 195, H.J. Res. 59, a joint resolution 
     making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and 
     for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Barbara A. Mikulski, Carl Levin, Patrick J. 
           Leahy, Elizabeth Warren, Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Christopher A. Coons, Christopher Murphy, 
           Edward J. Markey, Patty Murray, Tim Kaine, John D. 
           Rockefeller IV, Bill Nelson, Angus S. King, Jr., 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Kirsten E. Gillibrand.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________