[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 129 (Thursday, September 26, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6933-S6956]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014--Continued

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am trying to move this along as quickly 
as possible. I am going to come here a little later and ask consent 
that we move forward very quickly.
  Each day that we don't complete the CR is a day closer to the 
government shutting down. I want no excuses from anyone about time. I 
don't want anyone to say that the majority controls the Senate and that 
we are doing anything to slow down this bill. I think we should move as 
quickly as we can. It is to everyone's advantage. If the House wants to 
take a look at what we have done, let them do that and get back to us 
as quickly as possible. We have to avoid this shutdown. The American 
people are afraid of what could happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I know we have been involved in a very 
intense debate, long speeches, time consuming, with an opportunity to 
bring up issues that are very important, particularly as we see that 
the executive branch of government has made decisions to delay so many 
aspects of health care reform. It is very appropriate at this time that 
we delve into the shortcomings of that great change in health care that 
the health care reform bill exemplifies.
  I was here yesterday, hoping to enter into the colloquies that were 
going on at that time led by Senator Cruz and time ran out, so I am 
here to state some points I wanted to make at that particular time. I 
will start by quoting our second President, John Adams:

       Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, 
     our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot 
     alter the state of facts and evidence.

  The rhetoric surrounding this vote and the underlying issue has 
become all too hysterical. I would like us all to step back a little 
bit from the hysteria and focus on the facts.
  We have all taken to calling this legislation ObamaCare. Sometimes 
even the President does. For some people, attaching the President's 
name to this issue prevents people from paying attention to the facts. 
But personalizing this issue should not deter us from looking at those 
facts.
  I am not going to talk about shutting down the Government. So much 
time and effort is being devoted to discussing a government shutdown 
that people are not paying attention to the facts that we ought to be 
looking at. Instead, I would like to set aside the hyperbolic rhetoric 
for a few minutes and focus on those facts. Let's talk about the real-
world effects of this Affordable Care Act.
  I will start with a few comments directly from my constituents in 
Iowa. My colleagues yesterday referred to constituents in their 
respective States. I am only going to refer to three constituent 
letters.
  The first one:

       I just want to share with you another downside caused by 
     the Affordable Care Act. Besides teaching for my School 
     District I also work as an adjunct instructor for various 
     community colleges. Currently I am scheduled to teach four 
     online classes at a community college in the summer. I just 
     received notice that because of the Affordable Care Act I am 
     only allowed to teach two classes because more than that 
     would put me over the 75 percent load of a full-time 
     instructor. So because of ObamaCare I will lose $4,200 of 
     income this summer. It will also affect me at another school 
     I teach at during the regular school year. I know there is 
     not much you can do until the Republicans can regain control 
     of the Senate but I just wanted you to be aware of another 
     example of our current administration's lack of foresight of 
     the impact of this law on the average hard-working American.

  The second letter:

       As superintendent of schools, I would like to express to 
     you the impact of the Affordable Care Act on our local 
     schools. The increase in cost, due directly to the Affordable 
     Care Act will be approximately $180,000 to offer single 
     health insurance to our non-certified staff. We are a 
     combined school district of 750 students. The affected staff 
     members are essentially, part-time, hourly employees who work 
     6.5 hours each day, 180 days per year. The only other option 
     is to reduce hours for employees working directly with our 
     highest need students.
       Additionally, we are planning on being required to pay an 
     additional $17,500 in additional fees and taxes associated 
     with the Affordable Care Act in the first year.
       Schools in Iowa can't pass that increase cost on to 
     consumers, like private industry. We are budget restricted, 
     so any increase in employee cost means an equal dollar amount 
     reduction in staff, classroom materials/supplies, curriculum 
     materials, field trips, all areas that strike pretty close to 
     the child.
       This cost increase associated with the Affordable Care Act 
     will most definitely result in reduced educational 
     opportunities and increased class size.

  One final letter:

       I am a para-educator. I am writing in regards to President 
     Obama's healthcare initiative.
       I've been told by my employer that next year my hours will 
     be cut from full time to 29 hours a week because if I work 
     more than 30 hours a week, they will be required by the new 
     healthcare plan to provide me with insurance.
       This bothers me a great deal for a number of reasons: it 
     causes stress, instability, and disruption to the special 
     needs students I work with, I get a smaller paycheck, and 
     it's very unfair. In addition, I'm bothered by the lack of 
     foresight that went into making this law. It seems grossly 
     unfair to me. I do my job well, I'm committed and invested in 
     it, and I want to work, but am now being told that I can't 
     work as much because of a law I didn't ask for and that won't 
     benefit me. I'm sure my employer is not the only one that is 
     cutting hours because of the insurance requirement. It seems 
     that the people that this law was intended to help are being 
     hurt instead.
       Please consider any actions you can to stop this law.

  My constituents are feeling the impact of this law. This is real. It 
is not some made-up political stunt. It is happening all over this 
great country of ours.
  Let's start with the grocery store chain, Trader Joe's.
  After extending health care coverage to many of its part-time 
employees for years, Trader Joe's has told workers who log fewer than 
30 hours a week that they will need to find insurance on the exchanges 
next year.
  Then there is Five Guys, the national restaurant chain that started 
here in Washington, DC. The prices of burgers and hot dogs are going to 
rise to cover

[[Page S6934]]

the President's mandated insurance coverage.
  Earlier this year, the medical device manufacturer Smith and Nephew 
announced they were laying off 100 employees. They cited a new Medical 
Device Tax, a provision of the Affordable Care Act, as the primary 
cause.
  SeaWorld is reducing hours for thousands of part-time workers, a move 
that would allow the theme-park owner to avoid offering those employees 
medical insurance under the Federal Government's health-care overhaul. 
The company operates 11 theme parks across the United States and has 
about 22,000 employees--nearly 18,000 of whom are part-time or seasonal 
workers.
  It has more than 4,000 part-time and seasonal workers in Central 
Florida. Under a new corporate policy, SeaWorld will schedule part-time 
workers for no more than 28 hours a week, down from a previous limit of 
32 hours a week. The new cap is expected to go into effect by November.
  With the reduced hours, those employees would not be classified as 
full-time workers under the Affordable Care Act.
  Much has been said on the floor by different Members about the 
Cleveland Clinic. The Cleveland Clinic said it would cut jobs and slash 
five to six percent of its $6 billion annual budget to prepare for 
health reform.
  The clinic is Cleveland's largest employer and the second largest in 
Ohio after Wal-Mart.
  It is the largest provider in Ohio of Medicaid health coverage for 
the poor, the program that will expand to cover uninsured Americans 
under the Affordable Care Act. The cuts are necessitated by the lower 
reimbursement they are anticipating.
  There is no doubt; the Affordable Care Act is affecting the way 
business look at their employees.
  As one recent report notes, U.S. businesses are hiring at a robust 
rate. The only problem is that three out of four of the nearly 1 
million hires this year are part-time and many of the jobs are low-
paid.
  Faltering economic growth at home and abroad and concern that the 
Affordable Care Act will drive up business costs are behind the 
wariness about taking on full-time staff, executives at staffing and 
payroll firms say.
  Employers say part-timers offer them flexibility. If the economy 
picks up, they can quickly offer full-time work. If orders dry up, they 
know costs are under control. It also helps them to curb costs they 
might face under the Affordable Care Act.
  It is not just employers. Let's look at the way major unions view the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Let me quote from a letter from the heads of the Teamsters, Food and 
Commercial Workers, and UNITE-HERE. This letter was addressed to 
Representative Pelosi and Senator Reid.

       When you and the President sought our support for the 
     Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the 
     health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that 
     promise is under threat.
       Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an 
     equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned 
     health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour 
     work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.
       Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-
     line workers in the American economy. We have been strong 
     supporters of the notion that all Americans should have 
     access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been 
     strong supporters of you. That means the President and the 
     Senator and the Congresswoman. In campaign after campaign we 
     have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out 
     the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this 
     vision.
       Now this vision has come back to haunt us.
       Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for 
     you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended 
     consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are 
     already creating nightmare scenarios.
       On behalf of the millions of working men and women we 
     represent and the families they support, we can no longer 
     stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care 
     Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our 
     members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.
       We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but 
     the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans 
     including the members of our respective unions. We are 
     looking to you to make sure that these changes are made.

  That letter was sent to Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi to 
explain why things very definitely need to be done to this legislation. 
Those are not people with known conservative credentials. They are 
known for their views of being progressives, liberals, and people 
looking out for the middle class. They find much fault with this 
Affordable Care Act, and then some wonder why there is so much concern 
being expressed by Members of the Senate about why this should be 
defunded. All of this adds up to what is being said by the people who 
supported the passage of the health care reform act, which is 
constituents, employers, and even unions.
  Let's take this a step further. Let's look at the economic 
researchers. In March the Federal Reserve said the 2010 health care law 
is being cited as a reason for layoffs and slowdown in hiring.

       Employers in several districts cited unknown effects of the 
     Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and 
     reluctance to hire more staff.

  Here is another one: A recent National Bureau of Economic Research 
study examined the Affordable Care Act's taxes and its impact on labor. 
Basically, if we want employment to go back to prerecession levels, we 
must end the Affordable Care Act. The marginal rate increase due to the 
phaseout of premium subsidy and other implicit taxes in the Affordable 
Care Act result in a ``massive 17 percent reduction in the reward to 
working--akin to erasing a decade of labor productivity growth without 
the wealth effect--that would be expected to significantly depress the 
amounts of labor and consumer spending in the economy even if the 
elasticity of labor supply were small (but not literally zero). The 
large tax increases are the primary reason why it is unlikely that the 
labor market activity will return even near to its prerecession levels 
as long as the ACA's work disincentives remain in place.''
  Isn't it something to have an organization as respected as this 
organization say that after all the work that went into the Affordable 
Care Act, its very existence is a disincentive to productivity and 
employment?
  With all of these concerns from constituents, employers, unions, and 
even the Federal Reserve, we would think that would cause people to 
pause. But it is also a legitimate reason for all the discussion we 
have had this week on what is wrong with the Affordable Care Act and 
the defunding thereof.
  On top of that, we keep hearing concerns about the readiness to move 
forward with the law at all.
  In August the Government Accountability Office noted that testing of 
the government's ``data service hub'' to support new health insurance 
market places was more than a month behind schedule. The report said:

       Several critical tasks remain to be completed in a short 
     period of time, such as final independent testing of the 
     Hub's security controls, remediating security vulnerabilities 
     identified during testing, and obtaining the security 
     authorization decision for the Hub before opening the 
     exchanges. CMS's current schedule is to complete all of its 
     tasks by October 1, 2013, in time for the expected initial 
     open enrollment period.

  It is unclear whether national health insurance plans, which were 
supposed to give consumers choice and help drive down costs, will be 
available next year.
  Under the health care law, the Office of Personnel Management is 
supposed to oversee the rates and contracts for at least two national 
plans in every State. According to news reports, the White House says 
there will be a national health plan in at least 31 States. Now, that 
is 31 States, that is not 50 States.
  Perhaps the most telling sign that the Affordable Care Act as enacted 
isn't working is how much the administration has rewritten the law on 
its own--a highly dubious proposition. The Congressional Research 
Service recently noted that President Obama has already signed 14 laws 
that amend, rescind, or otherwise change parts of his health care. He 
has also taken five independent steps to delay, which he has been able 
to do on his own. So the Congress has passed or the President has 
signed into law 14 changes. I say that again for emphasis. Again, the 
CRS report noted that President Obama--totally separate of Congress--
has delayed implementation of parts of the health care law five 
separate times.
  Congress should be focusing our efforts on creating jobs and 
improving

[[Page S6935]]

the economy. Yet the Affordable Care Act is having the opposite effect. 
Our economy cannot handle any more job-killing regulations from 
Washington. It has been 4 years since the end of the recession. For a 
lot of Americans, it is as if the recession never ended.
  While the unemployment rate now stands at 7.3 percent, which is bad 
enough, that only tells half the story. The fact is that this economy 
is so sluggish that only 63.2 percent of working-age Americans remain 
in the workforce. The labor force participation rate is at its lowest 
in 35 years. The unemployment rate is dropping primarily because people 
have simply given up finding work.
  What we should be doing is supporting policies that lead to economic 
growth and job creation. We should be supporting things like the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. The initial permit for this job-creating energy 
project was submitted over 5 years ago. Despite overwhelming support in 
the Congress for the pipeline, the President has delayed the project 
for years to appease the extreme left. We have similar job-killing 
regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency. We 
should be working to create an efficient progrowth Tax Code, one that 
rewards success rather than hinders it. We should be focusing on our 
long-term fiscal problems. We all know we are on an unsustainable path. 
Yet the longer we delay and kick the can down the road, the harder the 
job will become. All of the tax, health care, and fiscal uncertainty is 
acting like a headwind against our economy.
  So I will support funding our government and avoiding a shutdown. I 
will support any effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I will 
support any effort to defund the same act. I will support any effort to 
delay implementation of that same act. I will support the Vitter 
amendment and any other amendment that puts 8,000 executive branch 
employees in the exchange. As I have said again and again, the people 
responsible for this law should have the opportunity to experience it 
just as the American people will. Perhaps then they, including this 
Senator, will then finally pay attention to the facts surrounding the 
implementation of the Affordable Care Act. I do so not out of personal 
animus for the President. I do so not to tear down the so-called 
signature achievement of the administration. I do so because I am 
looking at the facts. I do so because I am looking at what is happening 
in health care and with our economy.
  Let's not stop thinking simply because someone uses the word 
``ObamaCare.'' Let's not talk about shutting down the government. Let's 
turn down the hysteria and look at what is really happening with the 
health care and its impact upon the economy.
  Just this week a Member of the Senate described our efforts to stop 
ObamaCare as ``insanity.'' I disagree. A vote to barrel ahead as though 
everything is just fine strikes me as far closer to the definition of 
``insanity.'' A reasonable person can and should conclude that we 
should stop moving forward on ObamaCare, and that is how I will be 
voting this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I see Senator Sessions is on the floor. 
It is my understanding Senator Grassley used some Democratic time that 
was yielded to him for the beginning of his speech, and I ask that the 
Parliamentarian recapture that time for the Democratic side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. If Senator Sessions is prepared to speak now, I will 
wait.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank Senator Durbin and appreciate 
his leadership and courtesy.
  I want to speak for a few moments about the impact of the President's 
health care law, the Affordable Care Act. Although the law hasn't been 
fully implemented yet, this massive overhaul--Federal takeover, 
really--of the health care system is already proving to be anything but 
affordable.
  My team on the Budget Committee, where I am the ranking member, did 
some research on this issue, and we want to know what the real costs 
would be and how it will play out in the end. So what I will share with 
everyone now are some very important facts that all of us need to know.
  The President has repeatedly said we have a health-spending problem, 
but what he hasn't said is that this law will make that problem worse.
  Last week actuaries from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services--those are our top Federal health care people, CMS--issued a 
report, and its findings were unequivocal. This law will lead to higher 
health care costs. By 2022 the law is projected to increase cumulative 
health spending by $621 billion. That is the report from CMS. They 
basically work for the President of the United States.
  Next year growth in the private health insurance premiums--the 
increases in our own private insurance premiums--is expected to 
accelerate to 6 percent from 3.2 percent this year, 2013. So the 
increase in premiums, CMS projects, will go up from 3.2 percent to 6 
percent.
  The Congressional Budget Office, CBO--they work for us here in the 
Congress--also released its annual long-term budget outlook last week. 
It concluded, 1, that Federal health care spending will ``grow 
considerably in 2014 because of changes made by the Affordable Care Act 
. . .'' They says the health care law is by far the single biggest 
factor driving the growth in Federal health care spending over the next 
decade--accounting for 53 percent of projected growth.
  So our own government agencies are finding--which most Americans 
knew, despite promises to the contrary that were repeatedly made when 
it passed on Christmas Eve after it was rammed through this Senate--
that this bill can't be done without increased costs, and government 
agencies are making that statement today. It is not my opinion, it is 
what our own agencies say.
  Democrats have repeatedly complained that the law would bend the cost 
curve. The President said it would slow the growth of health care costs 
for our families, our businesses, and our government. That is what he 
promised. He said it would ``slow the growth of health care costs for 
our families, our businesses, and our government.'' Democrats--pushing 
the law, against the wishes of the American people, in 2009--claimed 
the law would not add to our deficit and would improve our Federal 
balance sheet, our budget situation. The President promised he would 
not sign a plan that ``adds one dime to our deficits now or any time in 
the future.'' That is an unequivocal promise. It sort of reminds me of 
the promise ``read my lips, no new taxes.'' Surely a colossal 
misrepresentation of the debt impact of a gargantuan government 
takeover of health care is a serious matter.
  The nonpartisan actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services, CMS, project that this law will increase health care spending 
as a share of our total economy. In other words, the law bends the cost 
curve in the wrong direction. It bends it alright, but in the wrong 
direction.

  We need to understand how the Democrats were able to assert that 
their plan was financially sound, which they insisted on repeatedly, as 
we went through weeks of debate on this matter. This is how. This is 
very important, I say to my colleagues. Senators do not understand this 
fully and Congressmen do not understand this, and I don't think the 
American people fully understand it. The Democrats' claims about the 
fiscal impact of the health care law were based on monumental 
accounting maneuvers and multiple other gimmicks.
  Before the law passed, the Congressional Budget Office warned that 
the law would ``maintain and put into effect a number of policies that 
might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time.''
  That is careful language from our accountants at the Congressional 
Budget Office. I am sure they were pressured not to say that. At that 
time, both Houses of Congress were controlled by our Democratic 
colleagues, with 60 votes in the Senate. They warned us that the law 
would ``maintain and put into effect a number of policies that might be 
difficult to sustain over a long period of time.'' Isn't that true.
  CBO and the CMS Actuary also highlighted that hundreds of billions of 
dollars in Medicare savings were double counted.

[[Page S6936]]

  We need to understand this. This is a key point we need to 
understand. I made an inquiry to them. I made an inquiry to them late 
in December 2009. I got the letter from them the night before the 
Christmas Eve vote in the Senate to pass ObamaCare--on December 23--and 
I wanted and insisted that we get a clear answer on the question 
involving approximately $500 billion in Medicare savings, which I 
contended was double counted.
  They were claiming they were going to use this money to strengthen 
Medicare and they were also claiming the money was available to fund 
ObamaCare. Can we do both with the same money? If we are confused about 
that issue, if we can't understand that issue, now we can begin to 
understand why this country is in such disastrous financial shape.
  This is what the CBO responded by saying on the night of December 23:

       The key point is that savings to the HI trust fund--

  that is Medicare--

     under PPACA--

  that is the Affordable Care Act--

     would be received by the government only once, so that they 
     cannot be set aside for future Medicare spending and, at the 
     same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the 
     legislation or on other programs.''

  How simple is that?
  They go on:

       To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as 
     both improving the government's ability to pay future 
     Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of 
     Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of 
     those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the 
     government's fiscal position.

  Right before the vote, they said, in effect, you are double-counting 
this money and you can't use the money simultaneously to benefit 
Medicare, which is where the money is, as well as use the money to fund 
ObamaCare, or a new health care plan, or any other policy. This is so 
basic.
  The next spring, in March of 2010, CBO estimated that without this 
double counting, the health care law increases the deficit over the 
first 10 years and the subsequent decade. Under the conventions of 
accounting, it would appear we could have this health care plan, at 
least for 10 years, and it would appear that it reduces the Federal 
deficit, but that is because of the conventions of a unified budget 
accounting. The money that comes into Medicare--the money that is saved 
by cutting Medicare providers--is Medicare money. It is not the 
Treasury's money to spend on a new health care program. It is 
Medicare's money.
  So because it looks as though in the short run we have an advantage, 
they were able to count it and say, Well, money coming in is equal to 
the money going out, but they forget that all of the people paying into 
Medicare off their FICA and off their checks each week are going to 
draw that out in the long run from this trust fund. Everybody who is 
paying in is going to draw out all of that money, and more, because it 
is unsound actuarially.
  If my colleagues want to see other gimmicks, look at the CLASS Act 
Program which they counted on to produce $70 billion in premium revenue 
over its first ten 10 years as enrollees began paying premiums into the 
system. The program was so actuarially unsound that the Secretary of 
HHS had to notify Congress, as she was required to do, that there was 
``no viable path forward'' to implement the CLASS program. With that 
decision, and a lot of pressure from some of us in Congress, nearly 60 
percent of the Democrats claimed deficit reduction in the first 10 
years disappeared. We had to eliminate that. So that amounted to 60 
percent of the so-called surplus that would be produced by the 
legislation. Those savings from the CLASS program were not real and 
should never have been counted in the first place.
  The Wall Street Journal called the CLASS Program ``a special act of 
fiscal corruption.'' One of our Democratic Members--actually, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee at the time, Kent Conrad--said it was 
a Ponzi scheme. In the first 10 years, the numbers looked good, but 
over a period of time the money drawn out was going to be far greater 
than ever was put in. They claimed to produce $70 billion in assets for 
America when over the lifetime of the program it was a devastating, 
unsound program that if a private insurance company had tried to offer 
it and promote it in that fashion, I am sure someone would have gone to 
jail. Absolutely unsound financially.
  Eventually, Congress had no choice but to repeal the CLASS Act, this 
bankrupt entitlement program, as part of the fiscal cliff bill at the 
end of last year. But the case of the CLASS program is but a sign of 
what is to come under the rest of the health care law.
  While the American people always knew this health care bill would 
never pay for itself, they did not fully understand how the President 
and his supporters could insist otherwise. I wish I had been able to 
better explain at the time. I tried, but at the time I was not 
successful in penetrating the media and the administration's view that 
the bill would create a surplus for America. Maybe we could have 
stopped the legislation from being rammed through Congress if we had 
been more effective on that point. But the facts are crystal clear now.
  A report issued by the Government Accountability Office--that is our 
independent GAO--in February of this year, at my request, revealed that 
under a realistic set of assumptions, the health care law is projected 
to increase the Federal deficit by 0.7 of the entire GDP over the next 
75 years, an amount that is equivalent to $6.2 trillion in today's 
dollars. So it would add $6.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the 
United States of America over the lifetime of the program, over the 
next 75 years. This estimate excludes debt service or interest on the 
debt caused by the shortfall.
  This is an enormous sum, $6.2 trillion. Let's put it into context. We 
all know Social Security is financially unsound. We are in a desperate 
effort now to figure out ways to find the money to make Social Security 
sound so retirees can know they are going to get their benefits in the 
future. We all know it must be fixed. At the time this health care law 
was enacted, the 75-year unfunded liability for Social Security was 
$7.7 trillion. In passing this bill, we add almost as much unfunded 
liabilities over the next 75 years to the U.S. Government as Social 
Security. Instead of putting Social Security on a sound path, this bill 
added another $6.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities to our debt that is 
almost as large as Social Security's liabilities.
  It is a monumental problem we have created for ourselves. We have dug 
the hole deeper financially, which is the worst thing we could be 
doing. The first thing we should do is stop digging.
  This finding seems to strike a nerve with some supporters of the law, 
so much so that they tried to attack me and argue with the GAO, but 
attacking the messenger doesn't change the facts. The GAO report is 
crucial. It clearly answers the question. It sank any validity to the 
President's claim that his plan would not ``add one dime to our 
deficits now or at any time in the future, period.''
  Health care economist Christopher Conover at Duke University 
explained that the Government Accountability Office's report did not 
``cook the books'' or use ``wacky assumptions.'' According to Professor 
Conover, GAO's assumptions in this more plausible scenario are a 
``carbon copy of those used by the Congressional Budget Office, the 
Medicare trustees, the Treasury Department, and the Medicare Actuary in 
their own independently derived long-term budget projections.''
  Independently derived long-term budget projections are the techniques 
that were used in the GAO report, and they found $6 trillion added to 
our debt.
  So despite what we were told by the proponents of this law, the truth 
is that the President's health care law will further increase the cost 
of health care, it will add to our already unsustainable deficits and 
debt, and, if fully implemented, would forever alter the relationships 
not only between patients and their doctors but between the American 
people and their government. Period.
  It has been 3\1/2\ years since its passage, and every day we learn 
more about how the law is harming Americans. Here are some of the 
important facts: Jobs. Part-time is the new normal. Seventy-seven 
percent of the jobs that have been created over the last year have been 
part-time.
  The Investor's Business Daily has kept a running list of employers 
who

[[Page S6937]]

are cutting hours and staff levels because of ObamaCare. Currently, the 
IBD tally of businesses, including large firms, affected by ObamaCare 
is 313. This list includes the University of Alabama, which announced 
it was capping the number of hours students could work for the 
university because of ObamaCare.
  Remember, I just indicated 77 percent of the jobs created this year, 
since January--and it hasn't been that large a number--are part-time 
jobs, and every economist tells us without any doubt that the 
President's health care law is driving those decisions by businesses. 
It is unprecedented. We have never seen this kind of trend.
  The president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Joseph 
Hansen, an original supporter of the law, recently said that ObamaCare 
would have a ``tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced 
and their incomes reduced.''
  ObamaCare penalizes hard work.
  According to a new paper by Casey Mulligan, an economics professor at 
the University of Chicago--a premier economics department--the marginal 
tax hikes included in ObamaCare add up to a 17-percent reduction in the 
reward for working for median income families. This penalty American 
workers will take will essentially, he says, erase all gains in labor 
productivity made over the last decade.
  This health care law has also led to the loss of health insurance 
coverage.
  On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the largest 
security guard provider in the United States--Securitas--will stop 
offering health insurance because of ObamaCare.
  We hear that over and over again. This report is in addition to other 
major companies that employ millions of Americans. These companies 
include Darden Restaurants--owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster--Home 
Depot, and Trader Joe's.
  Small businesses and their workers will be penalized.
  Democratic colleagues have claimed that most firms are not subject to 
ObamaCare tax penalties because they have less than 50 workers and are 
therefore not subject to the employer mandate penalty. But it is not an 
accurate statement. ObamaCare includes a nondeductible fee on insurance 
providers that the CBO has warned will get passed back to small 
business owners who pay for the health insurance of their employees. It 
is another tax on companies that provide health care to their 
employees.
  I recently received a letter from a small business owner in Wetumpka, 
AL, Leesa Williams of Lee's Auto Repair, to let me know she is already 
being subjected to this tax even though her business has only 11 
employees. She wrote to warn me that if the fee continues, she will be 
forced to reevaluate the offer of insurance to the small number of 
people at her repair company.
  Costs are increasing, premiums are rising, and millions of Americans 
will lose the coverage they have today. Workers are having their 
hours--and their paychecks--reduced. Its countless regulations are 
stifling job creation and adding uncertainty to the already fragile 
economy.
  The State director of NFIB/Alabama--a small business group in 
Alabama--says that Washington is doing a ``lousy job'' of keeping small 
businesses informed about the law and it will do real damage to them.
  So where will it end? When will we save ordinary Americans and the 
American economy from this oncoming train wreck?
  The administration has taken five steps already to delay the 
implementation of important parts of this law pertaining particularly 
to powerful interest groups that are pushing for delays and changes and 
relief. Many of them are getting it--but not John Q. Citizen. Big 
businesses unilaterally have been given a break from the law for at 
least 1 year. The Administration is considering a carve-out for Big 
Labor.
  We need to be considering the overall impact of the law on our 
economy, on jobs, on the length of hours that Americans are working. We 
need to consider that.
  The President's health care law will worsen, not improve, our fiscal 
outlook. That is clear. It is hurting our economy right now. It is 
clear. It is harming millions of Americans right now, and it is growing 
the size and scope of government in a huge leap forward.
  Congress must permanently repeal this unworkable law and start over 
with health care reform that will actually reduce costs and not hurt 
everyday Americans in a way that is in the classical American tradition 
of responsibility and limited government.
  I wish through this budget and continuing resolution process we could 
have forced a real debate on this health care law. It is absolutely 
clear that the leadership in this Senate is stonewalling and refusing 
to even acknowledge these problems, will not allow amendments or 
legislation to be brought up and voted on that would fix this law and 
make it better and help the American economy.
  So this has been an effort by Senator Cruz and others, and I think 
everybody on our side is committed to engage in this and to force 
changes because it will not be, it looks like, accepted voluntarily. 
There is no consensus that we should even talk about it. Indeed, it is 
the position of the majority that we will not allow a full and open 
debate about the way to fix the problems with this law.
  So the American people, I hope, will continue to relay their views to 
the Members of this body, and as time goes by we are going to confront 
this legislation. We are going to be able to force the ability of the 
American people to have their voices heard in this body.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, as I have indicated for the entire week, 
each day that goes by, each hour that goes by, each minute that goes 
by, we are that much closer to a government shutdown. I have been told 
that the House needs more time to work on this. They are saying that 
maybe what we need is an extension of the CR.
  The stock market, the financial community, the Business Roundtable, 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--all of America--80 percent of the 
American people, including 75 percent of Republicans, think what is 
going on, not taking care of the finances of this country, is 
absolutely wrong. There is no reason to stall this.
  So I ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m. today there be 1 hour of 
debate, with the first 40 minutes equally divided between proponents 
and opponents of the motion to invoke cloture and the last 20 minutes 
reserved for the two leaders, with my having the final 10 minutes, and 
Senator McConnell would speak before me, if he so chooses; that upon 
the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on H.J. Res. 59; that if cloture is invoked, 
all postcloture time be yielded back; the pending Reid amendment No. 
1975 be withdrawn; that no other amendments be in order; that the 
majority leader be recognized to make a motion to waive applicable 
budget points of order; that if a motion to waive is agreed to, the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Reid amendment No. 1974; that 
upon disposition of the Reid amendment, the joint resolution be read a 
third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint 
resolution, as amended, if amended; finally, that all after the first 
vote in this sequence of votes be 10-minute votes and there be 2 
minutes equally divided between the votes.
  I will alert everyone, if we get this agreement, it means we would 
have up to four votes starting around 7:30 this evening. The House 
would get the bill probably tonight or in the morning, as soon as it 
can be processed.
  There would be a vote on cloture on H.J. Res. 59, a motion to waive 
budget points of order, the Mikulski-Reid amendment No. 1974, and 
passage of H.J. Res. 59, as amended, if amended.
  That is my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, if we were 
to vote tomorrow, if we were to have these votes tomorrow, that would 
represent the product of waiving two separate 30-hour periods--one in 
connection with the motion to proceed, the other in connection with the 
cloture vote on the bill.
  The American people are paying attention to this. The American people

[[Page S6938]]

are watching this. A lot of them have expected this might occur Friday 
or Saturday.
  So I ask the question, would the majority leader be willing to modify 
the request slightly, with the same provisions in place but with the 
votes to occur during tomorrow's session of the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader so modify his 
request?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate my friend's request to modify 
my unanimous consent request. But my response to that--reserving the 
right to see if I would accept that--is this: Everyone in America--
everyone--knows what the issues are before this body.
  The Mikulski-Reid amendment we are going to be required to vote on is 
pretty simple. It says there will be nothing dealing with ObamaCare. We 
have changed the date to November 15 from December 15, and we have 
gotten rid of the ``pay China first.'' That is it. These so-called 
anomalies--I have met with the Republican leader. Staffs have gone over 
that--no problems with that.
  So this is an effort to stall, and I do not know why--an effort to 
stall. It is absolutely unfortunate because, I repeat, every minute 
that goes by is 1 minute closer to a government shutdown. Because when 
we finish this, we then have to have the American people focus on 
whether we are going to have a debt ceiling, whether we are going to 
again crash the economy, as we did the last time that threat came.
  Maybe someone thinks they can come with their great speaking ability 
tomorrow and change people's minds. Everybody in this body knows how 
the votes are going to go. This is going back to the House of 
Representatives. The House of Representatives has said--they have said 
publicly and they have said privately--they are going to send something 
back to us.
  I want to make sure, if they do that, we have time to process it. 
Stalling until tomorrow means they are not going to get it until 
Sunday. We would try our utmost to get it to them tonight, Friday, 
rather than sometime late Saturday or even maybe--well, we could get it 
to them sometime Saturday. They need time. Is this some kind of a 
subterfuge to close the government, because that is what is going to 
happen. We are not the House of Representatives. We have rules here 
that take a while for us to get places. I understand my friend from 
Utah says that we have two 30 hours and now we are moving this more 
quickly than the rules require.
  Madam President, what the American people see in the Senate--this new 
Senate--is everything is a big stall: Never do your work now. Wait 
until tomorrow. Maybe I will give this great speech that will turn the 
world around.
  This is senseless. How many times do we get the American people--80 
percent of them--agreeing on anything? They think what is going on in 
this big stall is bad for the country--and it is.
  So I do not accept the modification. If there is an objection to 
this, if there is an objection to my request, I will work it out with 
the Republican leader as to what time we are going to do this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, we have been willing to compromise. The 
offer that was made by my colleague, the junior Senator from Texas 
yesterday, from the floor represented a significant compromise. 
Significantly, I believe it was the Senator from Nevada, the majority 
leader, who objected to a unanimous consent request made yesterday by 
the Senator from Texas to proceed with having these votes tomorrow.
  This still represents a significant compromise offer--a compromise 
offer that consolidates, collapses two separate 30-hour periods 
required by the rules. This is not an unreasonable request. Moreover, I 
am not understanding what it is about having a vote tomorrow morning 
instead of tonight that would make a difference between being able to 
get something to them tomorrow, if we pushed it out, versus Sunday.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am not going to dwell on this because I 
want to yield to the Senator from Tennessee, but I do wish to say this. 
It is as obvious to me--and it is as obvious to me as it is to a 
kindergarten student--they did not want a vote yesterday. The big 
speeches we heard about how if you voted for cloture, you would vote to 
extend ObamaCare--they turned around and voted for it.
  This is a big charade that is not getting them where they need to go. 
They want to stop ObamaCare. They want to do everything again. They did 
not even want a vote on cloture yesterday. Of course, they wanted to 
skip that and just go a couple days so they could talk longer.
  People are tired of talking. They want us to get something done. The 
government is near the time that it will close. As I said this morning, 
a woman who works for the U.S. Park Service came to an event I had. She 
lives in Boulder City, NV. She and everybody who works there are afraid 
they are going to lose their jobs. They know what happened last time. 
They were laid off for 29 days and did not get paid for it.
  So I yield to my friend from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I wonder if it would be appropriate if I 
were to ask the Senator from Utah a question, if he would take a 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORKER. This has been a rather confusing week, I know. I do not 
think ever in the history of the Senate have we had a 21-hour 
filibuster and then the persons carrying out the filibuster voted for 
the issue that they were filibustering.
  I do not think that has happened in the history of our country. I 
just want to make sure I understand. I was just over at the House. I 
talked to Members of leadership there. They would like to get the piece 
of legislation from the Senate over there as quickly as possible so 
they could respond.
  I think all of us on this side would like to see some changes to the 
CR, changes that we believe to be good policy. Over on the House side, 
we have a majority of Republicans. I know they would like to send back 
to us some changes that I think many of us would support.
  In talking earlier with the Senator from Texas, it is my 
understanding that the reason he does not want to send the bill over to 
the House, which could possibly put in place some very good policies 
for us here, is that he wants the American people and the outside 
groups that the Senator has been in contact with to be able to watch us 
tomorrow.
  I am just asking the question: Is it more important to the Senator 
from Texas and the Senator from Utah that the people around the country 
watch this vote or is it more important to us that we have a good 
policy outcome from our standpoint and actually have a body that has a 
majority of Republicans to be able to react and send back something of 
good policy?
  This is confusing to me because I know the leadership there wishes to 
be able to respond as quickly as possible. But I am understanding the 
reason we are waiting is the Senators have sent out press releases and 
e-mails and they want everybody to be able to watch. It does not seem 
to me that is in our Nation's interest, nor is it, candidly, in the 
interests of those who want to see good policy on the conservative side 
come out of the CR. I wondered if the Senator would respond to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Since the Senator from Tennessee has made reference to me, 
I ask unanimous consent that I might engage in a colloquy with the 
Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. We need a reasonable time. I would be happy to, but this is 
not going to be another long performance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. How long do the Senators wish to engage in a 
colloquy?
  Mr. CRUZ. I cannot imagine it would extend beyond 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator

[[Page S6939]]

from Tennessee supporting the majority leader.
  Mr. CORKER. I am supporting the House of Representatives.
  Mr. CRUZ. I know the Senator from Tennessee is learned on Senate 
procedures. I know he must have made a misstatement when he, moments 
ago, suggested that those of us who participated in the filibuster the 
other day somehow changed our position in voting for the motion to 
proceed.
  A reason I know the Senator from Tennessee is mistaken is because 
during the course of that filibuster, I explicitly stated I support the 
motion to proceed. I stated that 1 week before the filibuster, 
repeatedly. I have always stated that the vote on the motion to 
proceed, the vote on cloture to the motion to proceed was going to be 
unanimous. Indeed, I would note I offered a unanimous consent request 
during that filibuster that we vitiate the cloture and all agree to 
proceed because everyone in this Chamber--I said I expect the vote to 
be unanimous--everyone in this Chamber wants to proceed to this bill.
  The Senator from Tennessee being learned in Senate procedure knows 
that there is a big difference between that vote on Wednesday, which I 
might note, when the vote tally was done there for Republicans, I put 
my--not only did I vote yes early, but I put my recommendation for 
every Republican to vote yes because, of course, we should get on the 
bill.
  The vote tomorrow on cloture on the bill is a very different bill. I 
know the Senator from Tennessee is quite aware of that. The vote 
tomorrow is a vote to cut off debate on the bill. So as I said during 
the filibuster 2 days ago, as I have said for weeks, it is the vote 
tomorrow, cloture on the bill, that matters because anyone voting 
tomorrow in favor of cloture is voting in favor of granting the 
majority leader the ability to fund ObamaCare.
  I know my friend from Tennessee understands that. So I am sure his 
statement suggesting that the vote on the motion to proceed meant 
anything other than what it obviously meant, I know that was a 
statement in error.
  Mr. CORKER. Actually, I appreciate this opportunity. What we have 
before us is a bill that defunds ObamaCare. It is the bill the House 
has sent over. So the Senator is right. Tomorrow's vote is a vote to 
end debate in support of exactly what the House of Representatives has 
sent over. That is confusing to a lot of folks, but you are exactly 
right. The House has sent over here policy that I actually support; 
that is, defunding the health care bill because of the damage it is 
creating to our country.
  I wish the CR number was a little number. I wish it was at 967 
instead of at 988. But that is exactly right. So we are going to be 
cutting off debate on a bill that the House Republicans have sent over 
to us. So the Senator is exactly right. That is an important vote. That 
is a vote in support of the House. Something in addition. Supporting 
the House would be getting whatever we are going to do back over to 
them so they are not jammed. But it is my understanding again, relative 
to this vote tonight happening tomorrow instead, is that my two 
colleagues whom I respect have sent out e-mails around the world and 
turned this into a show, possibly, and, therefore, they want people 
around the world to watch maybe them and others on the Senate floor, 
and that is taking priority over getting legislation back to the House 
so they can take action before the country's government shuts down and, 
by the way, causing them possibly to put in place again some other good 
policy.
  Mr. CRUZ. I appreciate the comments of my friend from Tennessee. I 
would note that he suggested this is confusing. I guess I do not think 
it is all that confusing. The Senator from Tennessee says a vote in 
favor of cloture is a vote in favor of the House bill and in favor of 
defunding ObamaCare. If that is the case, then the question I would 
pose to my friend from Tennessee: Why is majority leader Harry Reid 
going to vote the same way you are proposing to vote? Why is every 
Democrat in this Chamber going to vote the way you are proposing to 
vote? If this is a vote in favor of defunding ObamaCare, is it the 
suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee that the majority leader and 
the Senate Democrats are confused about this vote?
  Mr. CORKER. I would respond that after a 21-hour filibuster 
yesterday, the Senator voted in favor of the thing he is filibustering 
and Senator Harry Reid joined the Senator in that too. So it seems to 
me they are very similar.
  Mr. CRUZ. Does the Senator from Tennessee dispute that the vote 
Wednesday was a vote to take up the bill; whereas, the vote tomorrow 
will be a vote that will do two things--if there are 60 votes. If 
enough Republicans cross the aisle and join majority leader Harry Reid 
and the Democrats, it will, No. 1, cut off all debate, and it will--No. 
2, what makes the vote tomorrow so significant is the majority leader 
has already filed an amendment.
  That amendment guts the House continuing resolution and funds 
ObamaCare in its entirety. Given that that amendment is pending, and if 
cloture is invoked that amendment can be passed with 51 votes. Does the 
Senator from Tennessee disagree that once cloture is invoked, Harry 
Reid, the majority leader, will be able to fund ObamaCare with 51 
votes?
  Mr. CORKER. I agree the Senate rule that is in place allows 
postcloture votes. That 51-vote majority has been there for decades and 
generations. It is the same rule we have operated under for decades.
  Let me just ask this question: We have a bill before us that I 
support, I think the Senator from Texas supports, the Senator from Utah 
supports, I think. So my question is: We have a bill that we support. 
The rules of the Senate have been here for decades, for generations, 
and for centuries, in many cases. Is the Senator thinking the House of 
Representatives would like for us to vote against cloture on their 
bill?
  If you think that is what they wish for us to do, why is it that they 
are already developing language and legislation to send back over? It 
seems to me they have already indicated they view this strategy as a 
box canyon because they understand the Senate rules. It looks to me as 
if they are already developing language to send something back over 
because even though we are in the Senate--I know all three of us are 
relatively new--somehow or another they knew the Senate rules before 
they sent it over.
  So I am a little confused. Tell me what happens if the Senate were 
not to invoke cloture on a bill that we support? What then happens? I 
would like to understand.
  Mr. CRUZ. I appreciate that question from my friend from Tennessee. 
There are several pieces of it. One, he asked: Would the House 
Republicans like for us not to invoke cloture? I can tell the Senator 
this morning I spoke to over a dozen House Members who explicitly said: 
It would be fantastic if Senate Republicans could show the same unity 
we did and vote against cloture because Majority Leader Reid has filed 
an amendment to gut our language.
  I would also note the Senator from Tennessee keeps expressing 
confusion. I have to admit, I do not think the American people are 
confused. I would ask the Senator from Tennessee, you agreed a moment 
ago, if I understood you correctly, that if 60 Senators vote in favor 
of cloture, majority leader Harry Reid will be able to fund ObamaCare 
in its entirety.
  Let me ask the counterpart. If 41 Republicans stood together and 
voted against cloture, because we said we do not support the amendment 
that Majority Leader Reid has filed to fund ObamaCare--when we told our 
constituents we opposed ObamaCare we meant it. So we are not going to 
be complicit in giving Harry Reid the ability to fund ObamaCare.
  Would majority leader Harry Reid be able to proceed and fund 
ObamaCare if 41 Republicans stood together against cloture?
  Mr. CORKER. The thing is, I think the Senator from Texas may be 
confused. We are not going to be voting on the amendment. We have the 
chance to vote on the amendment after the vote on cloture. The vote on 
cloture tomorrow is a vote on ending debate on a bill we support. The 
amendment that the Senator is talking about----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the colloquy has expired.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent offered by the majority 
leader?
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I requested 
to

[[Page S6940]]

modify the request made by the majority leader and he turned that down. 
In light of the fact that he turned it down, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what we just witnessed was an effort by 
Senator Harry Reid to move the votes--the critical votes--on keeping 
the government open to this evening. What we have just heard from the 
Republican side of the aisle is they want to stall and delay this even 
more.
  It is not just a matter of losing a legislative day in the Senate----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is still under the control of the 
Republicans.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time--I know there was time yielded by Senator 
Reid to the Republican side for Senator Grassley. How much time is 
remaining at this point on the Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The alternating time occurs at 4:30 p.m.
  Mr. DURBIN. At 4:30, then the Democrats are recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. What time is it now? Would the Chair take notice?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 4:29. Senators are reminded to address 
each other in the third person, not by their first and last names.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, if I could, I would just like to say in 
response to my good friend from Illinois, it is not the Republican side 
asking to stall. We only have two Republican Senators who are wanting 
to push this off.
  So I do not want that to be mischaracterized. If I could, I wish to 
say it is my understanding that the reason we are putting this off is 
because they would like for people around the country whom they have 
notified to be able to watch. So it is that process of making sure 
everyone watches that I think is slowing this down. It is not the 
entire Republican side. I think most Republicans--I know all 
Republicans other than two would actually like to give the House the 
opportunity to respond in an appropriate way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next hour is controlled by the majority.
  The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me start by acknowledging what the Senator from 
Tennessee just said.
  I have worked with Senator Corker on so many issues, bipartisan 
issues, and I salute him for his efforts to try to find bipartisan 
solutions. What he said is indicative of the problem we face now.
  Two Senators--and it is their right under the Senate rules--the 
Senator from Utah and the junior Senator from Texas, have decided that 
they wish to delay this another day. They want to stall this another 
day. It isn't only losing a legislative day; it is more.
  Look how long it took us to bring up the House continuing resolution. 
If I am not mistaken, they voted on it last Friday. We are thinking 
about voting on it tomorrow, 7 days later.
  It tells you that the Senate rules, even at their best, with one 
Member objecting, can mean that measures take a long time. Ordinarily, 
it means we waste time, but this time it is critically more important 
because the government will not be funded.
  Tuesday morning, all across America we will not fund the government 
because of the actions just taken on the floor of the Senate by Senator 
Cruz of Texas and Senator Lee of Utah. They are trying to slow this 
down and create a political crisis.
  They are playing high stakes poker with other people's money. The 
victims of this political crisis will not be the Senators and House 
Members. It will be a lot of innocent people, a lot of workers across 
America, who only want to get up and do their work for the government 
to make this the greatest nation on Earth.
  Some of them are risking their lives in uniform. They will be paid, 
but their paychecks will be delayed. What it means is they have to 
contact their wives and spouses back home Tuesday--if this delay by 
Senator Cruz and Senator Lee continues--they will have to contact them 
and say: Honey, it may be a little difficult this pay period. It 
doesn't look like we are going to get a paycheck because Congress has 
shut down the government.
  There are others too, all across America, thousands of them, doing 
their work for this government at the FBI and at intelligence agencies 
that will go dark. Why have we reached this point? Why do these two 
Senators--two Senators--think this is in the best interests of the 
United States of America?
  We have heard reports from economists, this cannot help our Nation, 
shutting down the government and failing to extend the debt ceiling. We 
are going to find ourselves in a position where this economy is going 
to start to stall.
  People will start searching their savings accounts and notice their 
investments are going down in value. Why? Because two Republican 
Senators insisted that we couldn't speed up this vote and move this 
process forward to solve this problem.
  The best explanation they can give us is they have notified their 
friends in the media and those on the e-mail to stay tuned for Friday. 
Friday is going to be the big day, their big day in the Sun. So they 
are delaying our actions here for a full day so that they can get 
adequate publicity for what they are about to do.
  This is not in the best interests of the Senate and it is surely not 
in the best interests of the United States of America.
  I listened to Senator Reid. He made an effort to come forward and 
expedite this process. There are people outside this door who warned us 
not to do that. They said: If you send this back to the House, it gives 
them time to do something.
  Senator Reid has said from the start: We will not be party to 
delaying this critically important decision. There is too much at 
stake. We are going to move this through as quickly as we can, and we 
have.
  At this point now, it is on the shoulders of those two Senators, 
those two tea party Republican Senators, who have decided that they 
want to close down the government or at least come closer to running 
the risk of closing down this government.
  That isn't in the best interests of dealing with the issues that face 
America.
  My job on the Senate Appropriations Committee is to be the chair of 
one of the most important subcommittees, the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee. I never dreamed I would have this responsibility. But 
with the passing of a genuine American hero, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, 
this mantel fell on my shoulders. Almost 60 percent of all domestic 
discretionary funds spent by the Federal Government go through this one 
subcommittee.
  There is a lot of hard work involved in putting the appropriation 
together. But when you consider the responsibility we have, it is even 
more substantial. This appropriation supports our men and women in 
uniform and the Nation's intelligence agencies that keep our country 
safe.
  I wish to state what a government shutdown is going to mean to them. 
A government shutdown is going to mean a lot of hardship. I mentioned 
earlier uniformed troops calling their spouses to say: We are not going 
to get our paychecks on time this month. Try to make do if you need it.
  This is something totally necessary and something brought on by an 
action on the floor of the Senate just minutes ago by Republican 
Senators.
  There are more than 700,000 civilian employees in the Department of 
Defense, and half of them will be sent home immediately Tuesday 
morning--sent home.
  Men and women who work at military installations and in the Pentagon 
will be sent home from work. Over 80 percent of Department of Defense 
civilians work outside of the Pentagon, including 12,000 of them who 
work in my State. They will be given notice on Tuesday morning: You 
have to go home. Why? Because there was a promise made for some 
publicity on Friday by a couple of Senators.
  That is unacceptable.
  A substantial number of these hard-working men and women are going to 
be furloughed. They already face furlough because of a sequester. If we 
allow this government to shut down, once again, they will have to 
figure out

[[Page S6941]]

how to make ends meet. Men and women who were trying to keep us safe in 
this country, many of them risking their lives, are now going to be 
pawns in this political game. It is an unconscionable breach of faith.

  The risk to national security imposed by a shutdown is not confined 
to the military. It will cripple our intelligence community. These men 
and women serve as our country's first line of defense. We rely on 
these agencies to warn us of threats, to prevent terrorist attacks, and 
inform leaders making critical, national security decisions.
  The intelligence community workforce, overwhelmingly made up of 
civilians, the greatest portion of them will be furloughed because of a 
government shutdown, a government shutdown that is totally unnecessary 
brought on by the House Republicans and two Senate Republicans. This 
shutdown will be quick, and the principal agencies will largely go dark 
within 4 to 8 hours of a shutdown order.
  In America, these intelligence agencies that keep us safe are going 
to go dark because of this political strategy. If the government shuts 
down, all DOD work will stop on weapons and equipment maintenance not 
directly related to war. Bases will not be maintained, but you will see 
a degradation of facilities. We will see massive disruptions all across 
the country.
  The Rock Island Arsenal in my State is a critical arsenal that 
supports more than 54,000 Active, Reserve, and retired military. The 
arsenal is the largest employer in the Illinois-Iowa region with more 
than 7,500 employees and more than 70 Federal and commercial tenants. 
The facility adds $1 billion to the local economy, supporting 14,000 
jobs in the region.
  A government shutdown will throw production schedules at Rock Island 
into chaos as orders get cut back and civilians sit at home under 
furlough. I cannot imagine going to these men and women and saying: The 
reason you have had this furlough and can't come to work is because two 
Senators decided they needed some publicity on Friday. Putting the 
arsenal's capabilities at risk degrades the defense industrial base. It 
jeopardizes our national and local economy.
  The same thing is true at Scott Air Force Base. In a shutdown, its 
5,000 civilian employees would experience the same loss of pay as 
everybody else. Scott's 5,500 active duty military personnel and their 
families would have to get by on savings and reserves while they wait 
for reimbursement with later paychecks.
  When we go through these lists--and the lists are long--one thinks 
how totally unnecessary it is. Senator Reid has come to the floor 
repeatedly to tell you what the American people think. Eighty percent 
of the American people think this is foolish and wasteful. Seventy-five 
percent of Republicans have given up on this strategy.
  Yet a handful of willful Members of the House and Senate decided they 
are going to keep going down this road. I hope they will have some 
revelations in the next few minutes or hours, maybe overnight. I hope 
they will reconsider what they have done, the risk they are putting 
this country in.
  It is not appropriate, it is not fair. I have listened to them try to 
explain how they can have a filibuster for 21 hours and then turn 
around and unanimously vote for the next item up on business. It may be 
an argument that the Senator from Texas thinks he understands clearly. 
Most Americans don't understand what he was saying for 21 hours and 
then turning around and voting overwhelmingly to move forward on the 
bill.
  I wish to make one thing clear before we go any further. ObamaCare as 
we know it is already funded. Senator Harry Reid is not going to be 
funding ObamaCare; it is already funded, and it will be. It will be 
under appropriations bills that we pass in CRs. This notion that he is 
going to somehow do something sinister--let me remind critics that we 
brought this to a vote in the Senate, one of the most historic votes, 
painful votes.
  Senator Reid may remember when our colleague Senator Ted Kennedy was 
brought here on the floor of the Senate to vote for the Affordable Care 
Act. The man was literally dying of cancer, but this meant so much to 
him that he came down here for the vote at great personal risk and 
sacrifice. It was great to see his smiling face come through that door 
again, but we knew we would never see him again and we didn't.
  That is the kind of sacrifice that was made. The votes were taken. 
Then in the next presidential election there was a referendum for 
ObamaCare. The American people were clear. They reelected President 
Obama. They rejected Governor Romney's promise to repeal ObamaCare.
  These Members, at least two of them, can't accept the verdict of 
history. They continue to want to fight this battle. As I have said, 
they are fighting it at the expense of a lot of innocent people across 
America, at the expense of some of the best workers in the world. Those 
in military uniform and those in the civilian capacity do a great job 
for us every single day.
  Picking on them, deciding to make them the object of this political 
exercise, is beneath us as a great institution.
  Let me close by saying this. I will give credit to Senator Cruz when 
he was doing his 21 hours. I asked him point blank: So you want to 
eliminate the protection in ObamaCare that says that health insurance 
companies can't discriminate against children and families that have 
preexisting conditions?
  He said: Yes, I do. I want to eliminate all of them.
  I said: You want to eliminate the provision that says you can't limit 
the coverage in health insurance policies so people will have enough 
money for serious illness, cancer therapy and surgery?
  I want to eliminate it all, he said.
  You want to eliminate that protection for families to keep their kids 
on their own health insurance policies up to age 26--young people 
looking for jobs who may not have health insurance--you want to 
eliminate that too?
  I want to eliminate every bit of it.
  He was consistent--consistently wrong--because he fails to understand 
what working families across America face every single day, what 50 
million uninsured Americans face with no protection, no peace of mind.
  God forbid he ever spends a moment as the parent of a sick child 
without health insurance. I have been there. You never want that 
experience in your life for yourself or anybody else.
  I asked Senator Cruz to tell us about his own personal health 
insurance since he decided he is going to be the arbiter on health 
insurance for the rest of America and for Congress. He won't give me a 
straight answer on how he has his own health insurance for his family. 
I think he owes that to us. He has told us a lot about his great 
family--and there are some wonderful stories--but when it comes to this 
issue, he ought to tell us.
  Where does he get his health insurance? Who pays for it? What is the 
employer's contribution? What is the tax deduction taken by your 
employer, if any, for your health insurance? These are legitimate 
questions.
  He has raised these questions about millions of families across 
America. He said: They are just fine. We can do without ObamaCare.
  Let us hear his explanation of how he protects his family when it 
comes to health insurance. I don't think that is an unreasonable 
question. After all, he is the one who raised the issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. I wish to speak for a moment about manufacturing. As you 
know, I am passionate about manufacturing, about the good-quality jobs 
manufacturing brings to our communities.
  What I am also passionate about is that this body needs to stop 
manufacturing crisis.
  What we just heard in the last few minutes was an exchange between my 
friend, the Senator from Tennessee, and two of his colleagues, the 
Senators from Texas and Utah, that summarized that what has happened in 
this Chamber today is the extension of a manufactured crisis, a purely 
artificial extension that is continuing, as the Senator from Illinois 
said in great detail and with great insight, to put at risk our 
recovering economy, our men- and women-at-arms, and our Nation's 
standing in the world. This is a wholly manufactured crisis without 
purpose.
  It seems to me in the 3 years I have been here in the Senate--it 
feels an awful lot like Groundhog Day. I was

[[Page S6942]]

sitting in that very chair presiding over this body as we were closing 
in on a government shutdown when I had only been here for a few months.
  I have never forgotten getting a message from a constituent at home. 
Her husband was at that very moment serving our Nation flying Medevac 
missions in Afghanistan. I got a simple note:

       Is it possible that because you all can't do your jobs that 
     my husband and I won't be getting a paycheck next week while 
     he does his job for our Nation overseas?

  We have, in the 3 years I have been here, seen needless fights, a 
near default on our Nation's debt, a near defunding of our Federal 
Government's operation. Today we see not a difference of meaning but a 
difference purely of substance and style--purely of superficial style.

  As the Senator from Tennessee pointed out, the objection to the 
majority leader's request that we proceed now to a vote was purely for 
the convenience of two Senators who have sent out a lot of press 
releases and who want more attention. We can't continue to play chicken 
with the American people, the American economy, and continuing the 
services of the Federal Government.
  I know my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, who is one of the 
leaders from the Appropriations Committee, is here to offer some 
insight and comments about the value of appropriations, about the great 
work our chair Senator Mikulski has led us in this year.
  There are so many other ways that this manufactured crisis is just 
the latest in a series of disappointing failures to lead by a few of 
our colleagues. The chair has allowed us to go through subcommittee 
markups and full committee markups on 11 appropriations subcommittee 
bills. If those bills could be taken up and passed on this floor, we 
could fix a lot of the things that challenge our Nation.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Louisiana so she might inform 
this body about some of the important work that she, in her 
subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee, on which I am honored to 
serve, has been able to do this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for yielding for a question. I 
appreciate his leadership as an appropriator.
  Senator Mikulski was on the floor earlier today, the leader of our 
committee and the debate about how much to spend and what we should 
spend our money on. Does the Senator understand that that could be done 
and it is done in the appropriations process? And if we could just get 
past this manufactured crisis we could actually accomplish what many 
Senators want to do, which is to discuss the level of spending? We 
can't even get there because we are stuck in a manufactured crisis by 
the Senator from Texas.
  Is that the sense of my colleague as to where we are?
  Mr. COONS. That is absolutely my understanding. My friend the Senator 
from Louisiana knows better than anyone that the role of the 
Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees is to perform oversight, 
to weed through programs in the Federal Government, and to strengthen 
and support those that are effective and making a difference, but to 
narrow or shut down or trim those that aren't. If we continue to lurch 
from crisis to crisis, from short-term continuing resolution to 
continuing resolution, we will never get that good work done.
  Madam President, I welcome any further comments my colleague would 
like to make about what the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the 
Appropriations Committee has made possible, and why that matters, what 
difference that makes to the people of Louisiana and of our country.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator, and let me, if I could, Madam 
President, say a few words about the bill I have the privilege and the 
responsibility of chairing--the Homeland Security bill. This is a $42 
billion appropriations bill. I am very proud to say I have worked with 
my Republican colleague, the Senator from Indiana Dan Coats over the 
last 6 months to draft and fashion a bill.
  In many public meetings, in public forums at the appropriations 
subcommittee level and at the appropriations full committee level, our 
bill was negotiated in good faith--Republicans and Democrats 
compromising over important issues such as: How many border agents 
should we have, how many security agents should we have on our border, 
how many detention beds can taxpayers afford, how many do the 
Republicans want, how many do the Democrats want, what are some of the 
important aspects of immigration reform and how do we build a 
technologically superior border that allows trade and commerce but 
keeps out terrorists and people who are undocumented and who do not 
have the proper certification to come into the country.
  That is what we, who ran for public office, wanted to get here to 
work on, not to sit in an empty Chamber with people who, because they 
can't get their way 100 percent of the time, all the time, want to shut 
down the process.
  So as chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I most 
certainly can add my voice to the appropriators and to Members who say: 
It is time to move on. So let us do so.
  But before I get into the specifics, I wanted to say a word about an 
issue that is critical to Louisiana and to States such as Texas--
Senator Cruz's home State. You would never know this, because I don't 
think he said a word about this issue in the 22 hours he was on the 
floor, but I know a little something about Texas, my neighboring State. 
I know a lot about Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, from the gulf 
coast. I have represented my State for now almost 18 years in the 
Senate and grew up along the gulf coast.
  I want to make sure everybody understands that in 14 days there are 
going to be over 1 million people in the United States--many in Texas, 
many in Louisiana, many in Florida, some in Massachusetts, et cetera, 
et cetera, et cetera--who are going to basically see the value of their 
home, the equity in their home, go poof--poof. Whether their equity 
might have been $200,000 this week or $400,000 or $600,000 or $2 
million, this is an equal opportunity destroyer.
  This is because last year Congress passed the Biggert-Waters bill, 
which was supposed to fix the National Flood Insurance Program. It was 
supposed to fix it--make it sustainable, make it go from the red to the 
black, make the deficit go away, help the program to be more 
sustainable. I understand that. The problem is the way the bill was 
passed it is going to, in a few days, literally go poof for people who 
thought they had equity in their home because of a provision in the 
Biggert-Waters flood insurance bill.

  That provision basically says this: When you put your home up for 
sale--when you sell your home--the grandfathered rate that was attached 
to your home for flood insurance is immediately dispensed with. So 
anyone selling their home who happens to have a subsidized flood 
insurance rate, which is lower than the private market, for good 
reason--which I will explain in a minute--their house becomes 
valueless.
  Let me repeat this. This is not about flood insurance going up, this 
is not about losing your job, it is not about not being able to show up 
for work because the government shuts down, which is a big problem. But 
this is a real big problem for 1 million families because the house 
they have paid for, that they have lived in and thought they had some 
equity in so they could retire on that equity or send their kids to 
college is, poof, gone.
  I would like to focus on fixing that problem. I know there are many 
people in Texas who would like it fixed as well, because when I go over 
there, I hear from them. When I go to Louisiana, and Mississippi, and 
Florida, I hear from people. But we can't even get to a flood insurance 
bill because we are on the floor talking about an issue that is 
completely manufactured.
  This is not manufactured, ladies and gentlemen. The flood insurance 
issue is real. The flood insurance bill is a bill that actually passed 
and we have only 14 days to fix a part of it.
  At 5 o'clock, in 5 minutes, I am going to a meeting in Senator 
Merkley's office, who is chair of a subcommittee, and we are going to 
try and work on this. But to do this we need cooperation. We need 
cooperation from all of our Members to say: Well, that might not be a 
problem in my State, but I can understand what Senator Landrieu is

[[Page S6943]]

saying and I can understand what some of the Republicans are saying. 
Let's see what we can do to fix this so people's equity does not vanish 
into thin air and cause lots of pain and suffering.
  But as I say, we can't even talk about real issues because we have to 
talk about a manufactured crisis.
  I see some of my colleagues on the floor, and I know they understand 
the chairman asked us to come and talk for a few minutes about our 
appropriations bills, so I will try to do this in 4 minutes, because 
when Senator Mikulski asks you to do something, you need to go ahead 
and do it. So I need to put this in the Record for my Homeland Security 
bill.
  As I understand it, this government shutdown could happen because, as 
has been explained, we have two or three or four or five--not many--
Senators who have decided to manufacture a crisis about the continuing 
resolution and paying our bills, which we owe.
  Every responsible, nondeadbeat person in the world pays their bills, 
and I don't know why we can't. But anyway, because of that, the 
Homeland Security bill we have worked on, which has been negotiated, 
may I say, without disagreement--I mean, this is kind of unheard of. 
Let me say, we had disagreements, but we worked them out. There were 
different views but we worked them out. We had big things to work out, 
such as this big new project being built in Kansas. I was not very 
supportive of it, but I had to listen a lot, I had to think, I had to 
negotiate, and I ended up putting a big project in this bill that I 
didn't 100 percent go along with, but I was convinced by colleagues for 
different reasons--and the White House weighed in, and others--to 
compromise.
  The bottom line is I have a $42 billion bill that supports our 
borders, that keeps commerce going, and that keeps FEMA going. We have 
a terrible flood to deal with in Colorado, and I see the Senator from 
Colorado and the Senator from Minnesota are both here, and they 
absolutely know what floods are all about. FEMA is trying to operate 
there. What do we tell people there on Monday? Sorry, we can't come 
help you get back into your home, get your children in school, get this 
hospital built again?
  We have phones to answer, we have people to serve, we have borders to 
secure, we have trade to move next week, and shutting down the 
government is simply not what we should be doing. We should be fixing 
it, making it more efficient, saving money where we can, and serving 
the 350 million people in this country and around the world who depend 
on the American government to function.
  In conclusion, let me say this. I had Marriott Corporation tell me 
today--Marriott, an excellent company, but conservative leaning from 
their top--Senator, would you please say, when you can, that the 
government is our biggest customer? When people think of government, 
they think only of government jobs. The Federal Government is the 
largest customer of Marriott Corporation, one of the largest 
corporations in the country. We buy a lot of goods and services from 
them. When we shut down, when we hesitate, when we don't operate with 
confidence, it affects every business in the world. If Marriott is 
going to take a big hit, imagine the hit smaller companies take, that 
can't take that hit or that break?
  So on behalf of Marriott and on behalf of other companies that are 
going to get hit, please realize the government has a lot of impact on 
the private sector, and it is not fair to hurt our economy or any 
business--large, small, conservative, liberal, or moderate.
  Last week, Mark Zandi of Moody's testified that a 3-4 week shutdown 
would reduce real GDP by 1.4 percent. This would be a devastating step 
backwards. In the second quarter of 2013, our GDP grew by 2.5 percent, 
more than doubling the 1.1 percent growth in GDP in the first quarter 
of 2013. And numerous studies have reported that, based on past 
experience, ``turning out the Federal government's lights'' would cost 
us $100 million each day. The hostage-taking approach of the House 
majority threatens such a shutdown and puts our economic viability at 
risk. We must do better.
  A government shutdown would have devastating consequences on hundreds 
of thousands of people in Louisiana. Of the 31,000 Federal employees in 
my State, 18,000 would be temporarily furloughed by a shutdown. That is 
58% of the Federal employees in my State that would be out of the job. 
More than 24,000 active Louisiana military and civilian personnel and 
320,000 Louisiana veterans could see much needed paychecks and benefits 
delayed.
  Social Security services would also be significantly disrupted, which 
would have major implications for the 860,000 social security 
beneficiaries in Louisiana. New claims wouldn't be processed and the 
social security help line, which many of our seniors rely on, would not 
be able to take calls.
  In just 4 days during the 1995 shutdown, 112,000 claims for Social 
Security retirement and disability benefits were not taken and 800,000 
callers were denied service on the Social Security Administration's 800 
number. Constituents of mine, like Susan Crandall, rely heavily on the 
Social Security Offices in Louisiana. Ms. Crandall uses the Social 
Security Office in Alexandria as a lifeline. A government shutdown 
would force her to search for help elsewhere. For her and others living 
in my State, this just isn't feasible.
  A shutdown would also harm Louisiana students. More than 7,800 
Louisiana students rely on work-study programs and 4,600 receive 
Federal loans to help pay for school. If there is a government 
shutdown, colleges and universities across Louisiana would not be able 
to disburse these funds to students.
  The Small Business Administration would stop processing new loans, 
preventing nearly 420,000 small businesses in Louisiana from getting 
the credit they need.
  The Federal Housing Administration has helped almost 10,000 mortgage 
holders in Louisiana thus far this year. If we allow a shutdown to 
happen, the FHA would not be able to process new loans, leaving 
aspiring homeowners out in the cold. Many potential homeowners in 
Louisiana are already hesitant to purchase because of the fear of flood 
insurance going up, and this will only add to their stress.
  One of the core missions of the Appropriations Committee--and of 
Congress at large--is to make sure our Federal government continues to 
operate soundly. By adopting the continuing resolution that the House 
passed last week, with its poison pills that defund the Affordable Care 
Act and play favorites with which bills we pay, we would be failing the 
American people. We need to do our work to make sure the Federal 
government remains open and continue to fund implementation of the 
Affordable Care Act. It is the law of the land. Anything less is ill 
conceived.
  And let me just say this. Operating the government on continuing 
resolutions is a failure in itself. I am disappointed, as I know 
Senator Mikulski is too, that we find ourselves in this position. When 
we pass CRs, we put the Nation on autopilot and fly blindly. Instead of 
passing the 12 appropriation bills that set priorities and invest in 
America's future, we fund yesterday's priorities instead.
  As the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, 
I hear every day * * * firsthand how important it is to keep our 
country safe and secure are at stake. Within the past year, our Nation 
has experienced a substantial rise in diverse attacks. If DHS continues 
to be funded at the 2013 post sequester level, we would not be able to 
adequately address or respond to these events. For example:
  While we were all horrified by how simple, homemade explosives could 
wreak such havoc at the Boston marathon this year, we saw how critical 
it was that law enforcement and first responders have the proper 
training and equipment to respond to these incidents.
  Years of robust grant funding for our first responders paid off in 
this instance. However, under sequester, grant funding would be at the 
lowest level since DHS was formed 10 years ago. If a government 
shutdown were to occur, all activity intended to help build State and 
local resiliency would cease.
  Our cyber networks are under constant attack. There are 6 million 
probes or attacks on U.S. government networks each day, and among the 
attackers are 140 foreign spy organizations. Let me share some recent 
examples. Earlier this month the Syrian

[[Page S6944]]

Electronic Army defaced the Marine Corps website and hacked into 
numerous print media websites. We also heard news reports of large-
scale espionage acts perpetrated by a group of highly sophisticated 
hackers for hire operating in China. Cyber attacks breach our 
government, military, and private networks to steal information, 
including valuable corporate secrets. All of our combined Federal 
resources are needed to strengthen safeguards on our data and detect 
these malicious efforts before they can disrupt critical government and 
financial networks. Without the $108 million increase requested in 
fiscal year 2014 for cybersecurity, DHS would defer implementation of 
the intrusion detection system for civilian Federal programs, known as 
Einstein, by 1 year; and delay expansion of cyber-attack information-
sharing with States, leaving 19 without access to timely data. A 
shutdown or continued sequester will threaten progress in this area.
  In the wake of serious chemical plant incidents in West, TX and in 
Ascension Parish, LA, this summer, we are reminded that chemical safety 
and security is imperative, for citizens and first responders. In the 
hands of terrorists, chemical attacks could cause widespread 
devastation and loss of life. The DHS inspection program to prevent 
wrongdoers from gaining access to harmful chemicals has reduced risk by 
40 percent. But there are still 4,300 facilities for which DHS has the 
responsibility to ensure a security program is completed and 
maintained. We cannot afford to delay this important work by 
underinvesting in it, but that is exactly what would happen under a 
sequester level.
  The existence of thousands of poorly secured commercial radioactive 
sources globally poses an ongoing challenge to our national security. 
We continue to face the threat of a weapon of mass destruction or dirty 
bomb being detonated in one of our cities or ports. A radiological 
attack would incite mass panic, shut down our major transportation 
systems, and cause severe economic damage. We cannot afford to stand 
meekly by. The Department of Homeland Security program called Securing 
the Cities, which is a partnership with State and local governments, is 
designed to detect and prevent a nuclear attack in our highest risk 
cities. New York has been the test bed for this program over the past 
few years; but it is now expanding to other major cities--Los Angeles 
being the next location. We need to ensure that this expansion is 
funded, not suspended.
  For 4 years in a row, the Department of Homeland Security has had to 
tighten its belt and operate with reduced funding. The impacts 
of sequestration have made it worse. Let me highlight just a few 
examples of why sequestration has been harmful and why it will be 
particularly damaging to DHS under a long-term continuing resolution:

  The Coast Guard has operated its surface and air assets 25 percent 
below planned levels under sequestration. This has resulted in 35 
percent reduction in drug seizures and a 22 percent reduction in 
interdiction of undocumented migrants.
  Customs and Border Protection would not be able to hire any of the 
new officers for our air, land, and sea ports of entry requested in the 
fiscal year 2014 budget. This is bad for travel and trade. Travel 
volume to the U.S. is up 12 percent since 2009, and is expected to grow 
4-5 percent in each of the next 5 years. In 2011, international 
travelers to the U.S. generated a trade surplus of $43 billion--that 
set a U.S. travel and tourism record. Without these new officers, we 
could once again see spikes in wait times during the spring at gateway 
airports such as New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, Dallas, and 
Miami. In fiscal year 2013 under sequester, wait times for arriving 
passengers at these airports rose over 4 hours on multiple occasions. 
We must ensure the United States is open for business, or else 
travelers will take their business elsewhere.
  Similarly, CBP would not be able to sustain current operations in 
fiscal year 2014 because the agency will not have access to $110 
million in fees collected under the Colombia Free Trade agreement. 
Without these funds, CBP would have to, No. 1, rely on furloughs of up 
to 16 days per employee to close the gap; No. 2, likely be forced to 
commence an agency-wide hiring pause for front-line personnel; and No. 
3, fall below the Congressionally mandated staffing levels for CBP 
officers and Border Patrol agents. This will have the negative impact 
of longer lines at our ports, slower processing and inspection of food 
and other products entering our country, and fewer illegal aliens being 
apprehended and removed at our borders.
  DHS would not be able to implement safeguards to prevent unauthorized 
release of classified information. Vulnerabilities in the existing 
system were highlighted in the Wikileaks releases and the more recent 
disclosures by Edward Snowden. There was no funding in fiscal year 2013 
for this type of activity so DHS's classified data will not be 
adequately protected without fiscal year 2014 funding.
  Critical infrastructure protection efforts would be hindered. For 
example, without the $34 million above the fiscal year 2013 sequester 
level, inspections of chemical plants to prevent weaponization by 
terrorists will be delayed. Funding to better coordinate Federal 
chemical programs--in the wake of the West, Texas facility explosion--
will not be provided. Increases to prevent catastrophic impacts to 
critical infrastructure during manmade or natural disasters will be 
eliminated.
  And lastly, on the administrative side, just last week DHS 
Undersecretary for Management, Rafael Borras, testified in front of the 
House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight and Management about 
the difficulties of managing multiyear acquisition programs under a 
never-ending string of continuing resolutions. While I agree that is 
challenging, what is worse than a short-term spending bill at sequester 
levels, would be a government shutdown. Even a short lapse in funding 
has the potential to drive up costs across the entire DHS acquisition 
portfolio.
  Because of these impacts, it is critical that we conference our 
fiscal year 2014 Senate bills with our House counterparts that we can 
address the weaknesses that continuing to operate at sequestration 
levels would entail. A conference would also ensure a necessary delay 
to flood insurance rate increases since the House and Senate Homeland 
Security bills contain identical language on this issue. Time and time 
again, Senators have heard from their constituents about the 
skyrocketing increases in flood insurance rates. Many homeowners 
throughout the United States will see their rates rise to unaffordable 
levels. For example, up to 2.9 million policies nationwide could see 
their previously grandfathered rates become absolutely unaffordable. 
While data for each homeowner is still incomplete, one resident in my 
State of Louisiana could see rates increase from $633 to over $20,000 
per year. That makes homeownership unachievable for many Americans and 
traps others in houses that they cannot sell.
  Exacerbating the damage caused by irresponsible funding levels under 
the sequester is the looming threat of a politically-motivated Federal 
government shutdown. While most--about 84 percent--Department of 
Homeland Security employees are deemed mission-essential during a 
shutdown, because they are military or law enforcement personnel or 
deal with critical safety or security issues, DHS like all other 
Federal agencies would be operating at a greatly reduced capacity. For 
example:
  The Department of Homeland Security would not be able to maintain and 
operate E-Verify, the Internet-based system that allows employers to 
voluntarily determine the eligibility of prospective employees to work 
legally in the United States.
  Vital research and development would be delayed. For example, funding 
to develop next generation screening technology for TSA would dry up. 
This means funding for the development of technologies to improve 
detection, lower false alarms, and decrease wait times at airports 
would end. Funding would also end for the development of 
countermeasures to biological and nuclear threats.
  Preventative measures and pre-emptive planning efforts with State and 
local governments for natural and man-made events with FEMA and 
critical infrastructure experts will cease. This leaves communities 
less able to respond to catastrophic events in the middle of hurricane 
season, not to mention for no-notice events like

[[Page S6945]]

earthquakes or bombings such as those at the Boston marathon. A lack of 
preparedness will cost the Federal government more money in recovery 
efforts and lead to unacceptable and unnecessary loss of life.
  Under a shutdown, law enforcement training would cease, including 
training conducted through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
and the Secret Service's J. Rowley Training Center. This would impact 
CBP, ICE, Secret Service, the Federal Air Marshal Service, and would 
delay their ability to bring new officers and agents into operational 
service.
  And as I noted earlier, while the majority of the frontline law 
enforcement personnel such as CBP's Border Patrol, Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement's investigative and detention officers, 
Transportation Security Administration aviation passenger screeners, 
FEMA disaster response personnel, and the U.S. Coast Guard will 
continue working under a shutdown, many of these employees live 
paycheck-to-paycheck. Since their biweekly paychecks would be stopped 
during a Federal funding hiatus, these women and men may not be able to 
pay their rent or mortgage or may have to reduce purchases of food or 
medicine for their families. An unnecessary government shutdown breaks 
faith with our heroes on the front lines, adversely impacting their 
morale and distracting them from their important and often dangerous 
duties. No one wants that.
  We need to get our work done. We need to pass a clean continuing 
resolution that keeps the Federal government open and fully funds the 
Affordable Care Act. After that is done, we need to move to the harder 
task at hand--agreeing on a budget for fiscal year 2014 and finalizing 
bills so that our agencies have the appropriate funding for their 
critical missions--instead of lurching from one funding crisis to the 
next.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Louisiana for her leadership of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security.
  We just heard a detailed description of how the Senator has worked in 
a bipartisan, thoughtful, and in a detailed and decent way--in a way 
that crafted a bill where there was compromise, where there was give 
and take, and where ultimately the bill that has moved through that 
subcommittee and full committee and should be ready for action on this 
floor meets the real needs of our Nation, of our homeland.
  That bill provides resources and support whether for the State of 
Colorado, the State of Minnesota, the State of Delaware, or all over 
this country. And shutting the government down over a needless 
manufactured crisis between now and Monday is the height of 
irresponsibility.
  Madam President, if I might, I will now yield for the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I will be brief. I want to thank the 
Senator from Louisiana while she is here, not just for her words and 
for reminding us this isn't about who can scream the loudest on cable 
television, it is about the work that actually needs to get done in the 
Senate on behalf of the American people, but I also want to thank her 
for all the work she has done over the years with FEMA. It has made a 
big difference in my State already. They are working well with our 
local and State officials. We have a long way to go, and the last thing 
we need to worry about is whether the government is going to shut down.
  Fortunately, because of the work the Senator and others did around 
here, the emergency part of this is going to continue to carry through, 
even if there is a shutdown. But there is a lot of uncertainty that is 
related to that. So while Senator Landrieu was here, I wanted to thank 
her for that.
  I am sorry the Senator from Delaware has left the floor for a moment, 
because he has been holding it down and I wanted to ask him a question 
about his previous work. He was a county executive in Delaware before 
he was here. I was a superintendent of schools. I worked for the mayor. 
Senator Klobuchar, who is here from Minnesota, was a district attorney. 
I think every one of us is completely perplexed by the hostage taking 
that is going on around this place.
  I ask the Senator from Delaware, he was the county executive of a 
county in Delaware?
  Mr. COONS. I was.
  Mr. BENNET. I say through the Chair, does the Senator think that any 
county executive or mayor or local official in the Senator's State 
wouldn't be run out of town if they threatened the credit rating of 
their community for politics?
  Mr. COONS. Absolutely. I might say to my friend from Colorado, I had 
direct experience with this. In the State of Delaware, folks expect us 
to balance our budgets and pass them on time, to deliver good services, 
but also to defend our credit ratings. The city and county and State in 
which I lived and served all enjoyed triple-A credit ratings. The folks 
in my communities understood that meant we could borrow money for 
building sewers, building roads, and building schools less expensively 
and sustain the quality of our community. Our business leaders and 
civic leaders understood that to put that at risk was reckless and 
irresponsible.
  Yet for a manufactured crisis by a few Senators, we are facing the 
shutdown of this Federal Government a few days from now--and, I am 
afraid, just a few weeks later the possible default on the sovereign 
debt of the United States. No responsible elected official where I am 
from would do that.
  Mr. BENNET. That is my point. I think we are dealing with something 
that is so far outside of the mainstream of what political actors, at 
least in my State who are elected who are Republicans or Democrats, 
would support. I think it is important for us to call attention to that 
because that is what we are dealing with.
  I see the Senator from Minnesota is here, so my last observation. If 
one of us represented a State government that opened and closed its 
doors or threatened to open and close its doors every single year, I 
can assure you that businesses would look to do business in some other 
State, not in the State in which we work.
  That is what we are doing to the United States of America right now. 
We have so much going for us. The innovators are out in the economy 
innovating. Natural gas is cheaper than it has ever been. We could 
build this economy if only a few actors in Washington would get out of 
the way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would first like to acknowledge 
Senator Coons of Delaware for his leadership, and Senator Mikulski, the 
powerful head of the Appropriations Committee, who has put together a 
group this hour to talk about public safety and infrastructure, and 
what a government shutdown would mean and what sequestration means when 
it comes to the progress of this country.
  We heard from Senators from different parts of the country. Senator 
Landrieu from the great State of Louisiana talked about the importance 
of FEMA. No one knows better than she does after Katrina what a 
government shutdown would mean for Louisiana.
  Senator Bennet of Colorado was here, where right now they are 
experiencing the horrible aftermath of these floods.
  Then we look at what happened in the State of Massachusetts with the 
Boston Marathon. What would have happened there if we were in the 
middle of a government shutdown and didn't have the resources we 
needed?
  Do we want the head of the FBI worried about who he can lay off and 
who he can't? Or the head of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that 
investigated that bombing in Boston--do we want them off looking at 
what are we going to do if we have a shutdown in the middle of that 
bombing? That is not what we want happening. That is not how this 
country runs.
  I sat and watched the last hour of this debate, and I saw Senator 
Corker come to the floor and do a fine job of explaining that it is not 
every Republican in this Chamber who is trying to slow this vote down 
so we don't even have it today. He focused on two Republicans who were 
doing that, and I think it is very important for the

[[Page S6946]]

American people to know that the Senate has tended to work in a 
bipartisan way. We want to move forward, we want to get this bill voted 
on, and we want to give a chance for the House to come back. No more 
delays. We need to get this done.
  Much of the focus has oftentimes been: I want to shut down 
Washington. But my job today is to talk about what it means in our 
States. As someone who spent 8 years as the chief prosecutor for 
Minnesota's largest county, I know the pain of this shutdown would be 
felt by State and local officials, by State and local people, right 
down the line, and, not least of all, by the first responders and law 
enforcement officers who rely on Federal funding for everything from 
crime prevention to community corrections programs to drug courts, and 
to simply keeping cops on the beat.
  There are some who are willing to hold these first responders 
hostage, there are some who are willing to hold our country hostage, to 
score political points. The fact is a government shutdown would be 
painful and it would be expensive. These men and women go to work every 
day protecting the people. While most people may run away from 
disasters, calamities, and tragedies, they bravely run toward them, and 
they do it selflessly--not because they are looking for fame or glory 
but because they are simply doing their jobs.
  We in Washington have a responsibility to do our jobs. We have a 
responsibility to ensure that our cops and firefighters and EMTs have 
the tools to protect the public safely and effectively. We have a 
responsibility to pass a resolution that prevents the government from 
shutting down.
  We simply can't afford another self-inflicted wound to our economy, 
as Senator Bennet was pointing out, especially not at a time when 
things are finally turning around. At 7.3 percent, our national 
unemployment rate is at its lowest point since December of 2008. In my 
State, it is at 5.1 percent. The housing market is bouncing back. 
Retail sales are up. So far this year we have added 1.5 million private 
sector jobs. We are not where we need to be, but we are headed in the 
right direction and we need to keep moving forward and not move 
backward. Yet here we are again, facing another manufactured crisis 
that threatens to shut down the government.
  Last week, House Republicans sent us a continuing resolution they 
knew had zero chance of passing the Senate. When House Republicans 
passed a budget tied to defunding the Affordable Care Act, they decided 
they were willing to risk shutting down the government just to 
relitigate a law that both the House and Senate passed, the President 
signed, and the Supreme Court upheld.
  Will there be changes to that law going forward? I am sure there 
will. There always are with large bills. But the answer is not to 
defund it on a must-pass bill.
  Even Members of their own party agree this is the wrong thing to do. 
Senator McCain has called defunding the health care law as part of the 
CR the height of foolishness and not rational. Even a poll conducted by 
the conservative Crossroads GPS, headed by Karl Rove, found that 
Independents overwhelmingly oppose shutting the government down to 
defund ObamaCare on a margin of 58 percent in opposition to 30 percent. 
That is Independent voters in a poll conducted by Karl Rove's group.
  In the short term, a government shutdown lasting more than 1 week 
would have an immediate effect on economic growth, as the Federal 
Government would suspend all nonessential spending. Shutting down the 
government for 3 or 4 weeks would reduce real GDP by 1.4 percentage 
points in the fourth quarter. And a shutdown longer than 2 months would 
likely precipitate another recession.
  My colleagues in the House like to talk a big game about reducing the 
deficit and doing what is fiscally responsible. Yet they are willing to 
mortgage our economy on a political gamble? Pardon me, but that is not 
how we define fiscal responsibility in my State.
  Here is something else Minnesotans don't call fiscally responsible: 
closing our national parks, which generate billions of dollars in 
tourism revenues every year. If the government shuts down, so will all 
368 National Park Service sites.
  And how about the visa processing centers? During the 1996 government 
shutdown, more than 500,000 visa applications and 200,000 passport 
applications were put on hold. We might say, why would that affect me? 
It does. It affects jobs in the United States of America. In a State 
such as Minnesota where tourism is our fifth largest industry and the 
source of 11 percent of our private sector jobs, we simply can't afford 
to let that happen. We simply can't afford for this critical industry 
to be hamstrung by political posturing on the other side of the aisle 
in Washington.
  In addition to the impact on our tourism sector, a government 
shutdown would also have serious repercussions for industries such as 
medical technology, something that Minnesota and Massachusetts share.
  Without funding to keep the lights on at the Food and Drug 
Administration, the process for approving medical devices and other 
biotech products would grind to a standstill.
  These are just a few examples of the industries that would be hurt by 
a government shutdown.
  If we use the 1996 impasse as a guide, we can also expect to see 
delays in the Small Business Administration financing, a suspension of 
Federal Housing Administration insurance for people buying new homes, 
new patients denied access into clinical research trials at the 
National Institutes of Health. You heard correctly. If we can't reach a 
compromise, we will all feel the negative results.

  Now I want to get back to the focus of my earlier remarks, and that 
is law enforcement programs. We must be willing to do the right thing 
for the safety of our people. When it comes to homeland security, 
counterterrorism, and Federal law enforcement, rest assured those 
protections will continue. But in the event of a shutdown, the Federal 
officers who continue going to work protecting the public from violent 
crimes, gangs, and terrorists won't be getting a paycheck. Instead, 
they will be getting an IOU. Basically what we will be saying to these 
people is: Thanks for putting your lives on the line. We can't pay you 
right now. And if you are lucky, maybe you will get backpay when 
Congress sorts this all out. Is that what we want to say to the people 
who showed up first at that Boston Marathon bombing, We have an IOU for 
you? I don't think so.
  The strain on a shutdown on law enforcement would come at a time when 
agencies are already struggling to make ends meet in the wake of 
sequestration.
  The new head of the FBI just talked about how sequestration would put 
him in a position to lay off 3,000 FBI agents. I don't think that is 
where we want to be in this country. These are cuts to some of the most 
successful crime prevention and crime-fighting programs out there.
  Even more frustrating is that Chairman Mikulski and the Senate 
Appropriations Committee worked across party lines to draft spending 
bills for 2014 that would provide additional resources for grant 
programs important to law enforcement.
  Under sequestration, the COPS Program has been reduced by $22 million 
compared to the funding level the Senate approved. Funding for drug 
courts has also been slashed, despite the fact that drug courts 
actually save money to the tune of $6,000 per person. For every $1 
spent on drug courts, more than $3 is saved on criminal justice costs 
alone. And when you factor in other things such as costs to victims and 
health care, they can save up to $27 per person.
  Local law enforcement also relies on Byrne grants, which have been 
cut by $20 million due to sequestration.
  As a former prosecutor, I have always believed that the No. 1 job of 
government is to protect people. It is to keep people safe. It is to 
have safe roads and bridges. If we continue to cut, to delay, and deny 
critical funding for programs such as COPS and Byrne grants, we will be 
failing in this most basic duty, and I refuse to let that happen.
  Instead of threatening critical services and our economy with poison 
pill partisanship, we need to focus on real solutions. This means 
agreeing to go to conference committee on the budget. For many months 
Senator Patty Murray, the head of the Budget Committee, has been asking 
permission to

[[Page S6947]]

simply bring our Senate-passed budget to conference committee, where it 
can meet up with the House budget and where we can at least try to work 
out a long-term solution. Senator McCain and Senator Collins have 
joined us in this call to be allowed to bring a long-term budget to a 
conference committee, but we have been met every step of the way with 
opposition from the other side. That is where we should be working 
these things out. Instead, we are on the floor today to try to end the 
brinkmanship on simply keeping the government going.
  Secondly, we have another problem, and that is that our country will 
hit its legal borrowing limit as soon as mid-October. When this 
happens, we will be asked to do what Congress has routinely done 70 
times over the past 50 years, and that is to pay our country's bills.
  Let me be clear. This is about making good on commitments we have 
already made. This is about doing what regular Americans do every month 
when they pay their credit card bills.
  As vice chair of the Joint Economic Committee and the chair on the 
Senate side, last week I held a hearing and released a report examining 
the economic impact of this brinkmanship. The results aren't pretty and 
they are based on history. Let's remember what happened the last time 
when we had a showdown on the debt ceiling in the summer of 2011: The 
United States experienced the cost of protracted brinkmanship on the 
debt ceiling. As Congress struggled with this issue, the Dow Jones 
dropped more than 2,000 points, and Standard & Poors downgraded the 
U.S. credit rating. Consumer confidence fell, and we were out over $1 
billion in borrowing costs. That is on the backs of the taxpayers of 
this country. That is what happened in 2011.
  If we face another impasse this year, there could be very real 
ramifications for businesses and for people. Interest rates could rise 
on everything from credit cards and home mortgages to borrowing costs 
for businesses, putting a real strain on families and small business 
owners, and stalling the economy just as we are at a time when we can 
expand it, just when we are at a time when we are starting to see that 
stability grow to real growth.
  Our country cannot afford to keep lurching from crisis to crisis. It 
is time for both parties to come together and focus on real solutions.
  Do you know what I learned the last 24 hours, the last 2 days, 
watching what was going on on this floor? That there are a few of my 
colleagues who see this place as a battleground. I see it as a place to 
look for common ground, and that is what we are supposed to be doing on 
behalf of the American people. The battleground has to give way. We 
need to do the work for the American people, find that common ground, 
work together. We are going to pass a good, clean bill so that we can 
continue the U.S. Government and move on to work out the details of the 
budget. That is what we need to do for our first responders, for our 
police, for our firefighters, for those people who put their lives at 
risk every day. That is what we need to do for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, any discussion of the 
national security impacts of a long-term continuing resolution or a 
potential government shutdown would be incomplete without including the 
potential impact on America's 22.3 million veterans.
  The good news is that under any scenario, veterans would still be 
able to receive health care thanks to advance funding for 2014. The bad 
news is that most other VA programs would be shortchanged under a CR 
and crippled by a government shutdown. The VA budget would be impacted 
by the funding shortfalls or stoppages, but America's veterans would be 
the victims.
  VA advance funding does not extend to such important programs as 
disability claims processing, hospital and clinic construction, or VA 
cemetery operations, to name but a few examples. Given the gravity of 
backlogs in the VA claims processing program, the Senate CR includes a 
provision funding claims processing at the 2014 budget request level. 
But it does not include a package of reforms and initiatives in the 
2014 Senate MilCon/VA bill intended to improve productivity, accuracy, 
and accountability. For claims processing, a CR is less than optimal. A 
government shutdown could be catastrophic.
  The current backlog of VA disability claims stands at 435,000, an 
improvement over the high water mark of 632,000 just 6 months ago.
  But the strides VA has made in addressing the backlog problem would 
suffer a severe setback under a government shutdown. Currently, the VA 
processes 5,500 to 6,000 claims a day, a massive improvement in 
productivity that would be stopped in its tracks by a government 
shutdown. The longer the shutdown, the more severe the impact.
  Think of a fender-bender in the middle of a busy freeway. Traffic 
behind the accident backs up quickly, and the backup extends farther 
and farther as cars pile up behind it. Once the cars are towed away, 
the backup does not magically disappear. It takes time for traffic to 
return to normal.
  The same holds true for an interruption in VA claims processing. The 
VA estimates that for every week that claims processing would be halted 
under a government shutdown, it would lose a month of progress in 
processing claims. Our Nation--our veterans--cannot afford this delay.
  Claims processing would not be the only VA program imperiled by a 
government shutdown. If the government shuts down, funding for payment 
of mandatory VA compensation, pension, and education benefits would run 
out by the end of October, denying a lifeline of support to thousands 
of veterans.
  For anyone who cares about America's veterans, the notion of forcing 
a government shutdown is unthinkable.
  Passage of a clean CR through November 15 is imperative to give 
Congress time to negotiate a way forward to fund government operations, 
agency by agency, through 2014.
  My subcommittee also funds the Defense Department's military 
construction program. A government shutdown would have serious 
consequences in this area. The furloughing of civilian personnel 
overseeing construction contracts could not only disrupt and delay 
ongoing projects, but could provoke contract interruption and increase 
project costs. A CR prevents new starts so regardless of the level of 
funding, no new MilCon projects could be undertaken in 2014 under a CR. 
A CR and government shutdown would bring DOD's MilCon program to a 
screeching halt.
  The CR before the Senate today buys time, without any extraneous 
riders or political histrionics. There is a time and a place for 
everything. The place for political statements is elsewhere. The time 
for keeping the government operating until a comprehensive 
appropriations bill can be crafted is here. I urge my colleagues to 
support the clean CR pending before the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am sorry that we are going to have to vote 
tomorrow and not today. The House is waiting for us to do something, to 
finish this, but we have two Senators who will not allow us to do that. 
We established that an hour or two ago. That is unfortunate.
  I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on Friday, 
September 27, the time until 12:10 p.m. be equally divided between the 
proponents and opponents of the motion to invoke cloture on H.J. Res. 
59; that the time from 12:10 p.m. until 12:30 p.m. be reserved for the 
two leaders, with the final 10 minutes under the control of the 
majority leader; that at 12:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the 
motion to invoke closure on H.J. Res. 59; that if cloture is invoked, 
all time postcloture be yielded back; that the pending Reid amendment, 
No. 1975, be withdrawn; that no other amendments be in order; that the 
majority leader be recognized to make a motion to waive applicable 
budget points of order; that if a motion to waive is agreed to, the

[[Page S6948]]

Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Reid amendment, No. 1974; 
that upon disposition of the Reid amendment, the joint resolution be 
read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the 
joint resolution, as amended, if amended; finally, that all after the 
first vote in this sequence be 10-minute votes and there be 2 minutes 
equal divided between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. This agreement means we will have four votes tomorrow 
beginning about 12:30: cloture on H.J. Res 59; motion to waive budget 
points of order; amendment No. 1974; and passage of H.J. Res. 59, as 
amended, if amended. I think we will come in tomorrow about 9:30, and 
the time will be allocated from that time until 12:10.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of the millions of 
middle-class families across America who feel they have been left 
behind. Too many of these people are decent, hard-working folks who are 
unemployed or underemployed. Too many have adult children stuck living 
at home because, despite graduating from college, they are struggling 
to find work. And now, because of ObamaCare, these same young adults--
many of whom are older than 26--will be forced to pay more taxes or 
purchase costly government-defined health insurance.
  In spite of the administration's best salesmanship, the law remains 
extremely unpopular. A poll conducted by the Omaha World-Herald last 
fall showed 55 percent of registered voters still favored the full 
repeal of ObamaCare. Recent national polls indicate a similar 
disapproval rating for the law all across the country. Part of the 
reason for the public's continued opposition is the harm that ObamaCare 
is causing our economy.
  Let me share a story of one woman, a small business owner named 
Eileen Marrison. I had the pleasure of meeting Eileen in August when I 
was traveling my State, and I visited with her in Papillion, NE. The 
Marrison family owns and operates Two Men and a Truck. Those are 
franchises in Omaha and Lincoln, NE. They have 30 employees in Lincoln 
and 76 in Omaha. The Marrisons provide paychecks for local families, 
and they have earned the respect of their communities.
  Eileen Marrison, the matriarch of the family, presently offers health 
insurance to full-time employees--36 individuals working 35 to 45 hours 
per week. She foots more than half the cost of that coverage. Since 
ObamaCare changes the definition of a full-time employee, lowering the 
threshold to 30 hours per week from 40 hours, Eileen now employs 76 
full-time equivalents, triggering the employer mandate. Now she must 
offer affordable coverage as defined by ObamaCare. She has to offer 
that to all of her employees working 30 hours or more.
  Eileen has been taking care of her employees for years, and she wants 
to continue to do so. However, ObamaCare's mandate is now placing 
additional burdens on this family business which will require Eileen to 
make tough decisions or incur those harmful costs.
  I received thousands of phone calls, e-mails, and letters echoing 
Eileen's concerns and urging me to repeal all or pieces of the law.
  Another constituent, a 61-year-old retired schoolteacher from 
Beatrice, NE, recently wrote me to share that he had just received a 
letter from his insurance carrier. The news was that premiums were set 
to spike 60 percent, to $939 a month. That is half of his monthly 
pension check. He says, ``We are dismayed and disappointed.''
  Another Nebraskan, Roger from Hartington, NE, wrote:

       I just wanted to let you know I got my letter from Blue 
     Cross of Nebraska. My premium went up $160 per month and my 
     total out-of-pocket risk increased from $5,000 to $12,700.

  Roger continued:

       On the positive side, my menopausal wife and I now have 
     maternity, drug, alcohol, pediatric, dental, and vision care!
       President Obama promised our costs would go down and we 
     could keep our insurance if we liked it. I liked my old plan. 
     I want it back!

  We no longer have to rely on these testimonials to prove that 
ObamaCare is driving up the price of insurance premiums.
  Yesterday, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services 
released its long-awaited report on ObamaCare premium prices offered on 
the exchanges. The numbers for Nebraska proved that premiums will rise 
dramatically. In its analysis of the data, Forbes magazine published an 
article noting there was a 279-percent increase when comparing the 
cheapest plans offered to Nebraska men. For Nebraska women, there was a 
227-percent increase when comparing the cheapest plans. That is more 
than triple the current rate. Those numbers are absolutely staggering. 
The average premium for a 27-year-old for the most basic plan, the 
bronze plan, is $159 before tax credits. Currently, that same 27-year-
old can find a premium for $68 in Nebraska. So we are looking at a 
significant increase in costs.
  Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the report:

       ObamaCare will increase underlying insurance rates for 
     younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for 
     younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Despite 
     these rates, the plan includes fewer in network doctors and 
     hospitals than current plans. And many of the lowest-cost 
     plans will likely carry high deductibles.

  One insurer found that ``for the cheapest bronze plans, the average 
deductible was $5,000.'' How is that possibly affordable?
  In August the administration announced another major delay, this time 
to the part of the health care law limiting patients' out-of-pocket 
expenses. Rather than capping costs for individuals and families, as 
required by the law, the delay of this key provision guarantees 
ObamaCare will be anything but affordable.
  Of course, there are many other problems with the law beyond the 
increases in premiums, which is why I have been promoting the complete 
repeal of the law, and I support defunding it.
  For example, there are serious concerns about possible identity theft 
for those participating in the new health exchanges. Why? Because the 
administration failed to independently test the security for its 
Federal Data Services Hub, which will store huge amounts of people's 
private, personal information.
  The report released by the Department of Health and Human Services 
inspector general stated:

       Several critical tasks remain to be completed in a short 
     period of time, such as the final independent testing of the 
     hub's security controls, remediating security vulnerabilities 
     identified during testing, and obtaining the security 
     authorization decision for the hub before opening the 
     exchanges.

  The administration has until this Tuesday to complete these critical 
tasks. I, for one, remain skeptical that these tasks will be completed 
in time, opening up security risks for individuals who do participate 
in the exchanges.
  Today the administration tacitly admitted once again that ObamaCare 
is not ready for prime time when it announced another delay. This time 
they are postponing online enrollment in some of the small business 
exchanges scheduled to open on Tuesday.
  The irony, of course, is that news of this latest delay broke as the 
President was delivering a speech criticizing Republicans for their 
effort to defund or delay the law altogether. It seems reasonable to 
ask: Where is the delay for the American people? Where is the delay for 
middle-class citizens such as the 61-year-old retired teacher from 
Beatrice, NE? Is that an extreme position? I certainly don't think so.
  In short, this law remains fatally flawed. The American people 
deserve better than selective delays, unfair treatment, and broken 
promises.
  For me, the fight over ObamaCare has nothing to do with politics or 
with ideology. It has to do with standing for small business owners 
such as Eileen Marrison. It is about standing for middle-class families 
who aren't asking government for a hand up, they are just asking that 
the government stop holding them down.

[[Page S6949]]

  We are a country that looks to build a brighter future for our 
people. We are a country that looks to help and lift up people. That is 
what America is all about. It is about giving voice to millions of 
Americans--those middle-class families who are feeling left behind--who 
would rather have the Federal Government focusing on ways to create 
jobs so they can bring home a decent paycheck.
  Let me be perfectly clear: I have no intention of standing down in 
this fight. It is why I was sent here, and it is what Nebraskans expect 
from me. It is the only way we will ever be able to turn our economy 
around and build that brighter future for all Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I come here this evening with no notes, so 
hopefully I will be able to communicate my feelings and concerns from 
the heart and from the brain about the tasks we are about. We have been 
focused so much on the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, and 
rightfully so. I consider it one of the most damaging pieces of 
legislation ever to pass a Congress and be signed by a President.
  I want to start by pointing out something that is receiving, in my 
view, inadequate attention. We are back on the Senate floor with a 
continuing resolution. It is almost as if passing a continuing 
resolution has become the norm, and has almost become a way of life.
  I have the privilege of serving on the Appropriations Committee. Our 
task--and what I would consider a very basic task--is to pass a budget. 
This is the first time the Senate in 3--almost 4 years--has passed a 
budget. The House passed a budget. Yet there is no reconciliation and 
no success in the effort to conference that bill, and so we have no 
budget framework to go by. The other requirement--again, one that ought 
to be so basic--is to pass appropriations bills within that budgetary 
framework.
  We are here--almost on September 30--and I would remind my colleagues 
that not 1 appropriations bill out of the 13 appropriations bills that 
should be passed by September 30 has passed the Senate. It seems to me 
that it is important to highlight the fact that this place, once again, 
is failing to do its job. There has not been 1 appropriations bill out 
of 13.
  Why is passing a continuing resolution important? Without it--or if 
we just do it at will--the Appropriations Committee and the Senate, on 
behalf of the American people, are never required to prioritize our 
spending. Does anyone not think the priorities of this Congress should 
have changed from last year to this year? Have things not changed in 
our country, in which, if we were doing our work, we would decide how 
much money each program should receive based upon its effectiveness, 
its efficiency, whether it is a proper role for the Federal Government, 
the changing nature, the economic environment of our country? Yet, no, 
one more time we are here to pass a continuing resolution.

  The thing that troubles me perhaps the most about this topic is that 
it is just a given. We are not complaining about the passage of a 
continuing resolution; we are focused on a very significant provision 
in that continuing resolution that very well may be removed tomorrow 
when the Senate acts.
  The Appropriations Committee needs to work. Just as we always raise 
the debt ceiling every time the debt ceiling is met, if we always agree 
to raise the debt ceiling, what is the effect of a debt ceiling? If we 
always, every year, pass a continuing resolution, why have an 
appropriations process in which we are to establish priorities on 
behalf of the American people as far as how their tax dollars are 
spent? We are failing miserably, once again, the American people, and 
it is just happening as if it is of no consequence.
  I want the appropriations process to work. I want to eliminate 
funding for some programs that aren't our business, that the Federal 
Government should never have been involved in in the first place. I 
want us to establish the amount of money we can afford to spend on 
programs within the Federal agencies and departments. It may be true 
that there are some things on which we might want to spend more money.
  I would remind our colleagues that, in my view, the primary 
responsibility of the Federal Government is to defend our country, and 
what we do in regard to defense spending has a huge consequence upon 
our ability to fill that vital mission, that constitutional 
responsibility. We take on too much to deal with.
  I have always believed the view that if the 10th Amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution had ever been enforced in the way I or most Kansans 
would consider its words to mean, our Federal Government and our 
lives--more importantly, our lives--would be so much different in the 
United States. The 10th Amendment says that all those powers not 
specifically granted to the Federal Government are hereby reserved to 
the States and people. Yet government continues to grow, and we have an 
appropriations process that has failed to do anything about curbing 
that spending.
  The issue that is front and center is the President's health care 
reform measure that passed 3 years ago and is being implemented on 
October 1, when many of its provisions will kick in, become viable, and 
the American people will begin to feel the consequences even more so 
than they have to date. There is no question the Affordable Care Act, 
as I said earlier, is the most damaging piece of legislation passed, 
certainly in my time in Congress. Not a surprise: I voted against it. 
Perhaps not a surprise: I offered the first legislation to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act after it was passed.
  The House is often criticized for time and time again passing 
legislation to repeal or to defund the Affordable Care Act. Yet, if one 
believes it is so damaging to the country, isn't it our responsibility 
to do everything within our power to change the policies of Washington, 
DC?
  We have before us tomorrow the opportunity to defund the Affordable 
Care Act. Those who count votes around here say that is not going to 
happen, that it is a lost cause. But it is important for us to do 
everything we can to make certain the consequences that are so damaging 
to America and to Americans are avoided.
  For most of my time in the House of Representatives and now the U.S. 
Senate, I have chaired the Rural Health Care Coalition. I care about 
the access to health care by citizens across our country who happen to 
live in rural areas and core centers of cities and urban centers of our 
country--high Medicare populations, high Medicaid populations. Yet I 
have no doubt that with the passage and implementation of the 
Affordable Care Act, hospitals who serve rural communities will be 
greatly damaged and we will lose many hospitals. When we lose a 
hospital, we lose the doctor, the pharmacy; we may lose the nursing 
home or the assisted living center--huge consequences to people who 
have paid taxes all of their lives through their employment to support 
Social Security and Medicare. Yet, because they choose to live in a 
rural community, the chances of them being able to access the health 
care that to a large degree they pay for disappears.
  It seems to me that the stories being told on the Senate floor--and I 
listened to the Senator from Nebraska moments ago talk about examples 
within her State and her constituents, describing the problems created 
by the Affordable Care Act. We all have those examples. I have no doubt 
that Democrats hear the same stories Republicans hear. Yet we can't 
seem to be responsible enough to make the changes. We will have the 
opportunity to repeal--to defund, I guess is the better way of saying 
it--the Affordable Care Act, and we ought to do it.
  The focus today and yesterday and the day before has been on 
Republicans and the strategy of how to defund the Affordable Care Act. 
It is pretty irrelevant in the overall scheme of things how we do it; 
it is whether we get it done. And we ought to be expecting Democratic 
Senators, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, to be just as 
helpful in trying to change, defund, repeal, alter the Affordable Care 
Act on behalf of our country.
  The focus ought not to just be on how we do it among Republicans; it 
ought to be on questioning my colleagues about whether they are willing 
to step forward and admit there are problems with legislation they 
supported. It is

[[Page S6950]]

not just a Democratic problem. I remember legislation that I voted 
against that was supported by Republicans overwhelmingly--in fact, 
broadly supported. After it passed--I was on the losing side, a very 
small minority--I spent my next few years trying to get it amended. No 
one likes to admit it when they vote for a bill and then it is a 
problem. But who would be surprised? What American would not think--
Americans have great common sense and judgment. What American wouldn't 
think that the passage of a bill with thousands of pages late at night 
by the slimmest of margins, with no bipartisan support, wouldn't have 
some problems that need to be addressed?
  I talked about how our process here is dysfunctional when it comes to 
the appropriations process. I heard colleagues earlier this afternoon 
saying we ought to work together and come to the floor and offer 
amendments. Here is the problem: There will be no opportunity for any 
amendment to be offered other than the amendment offered by the 
majority leader. So we are saying that we could maybe cooperate to find 
some solutions to the problems that come from the Affordable Care Act, 
but, oh, by the way, the only amendment that is really going to be made 
in order is changing the expiration date of the continuing resolution 
and removing the provision that provides for no funding for ObamaCare.
  This is one of the most important votes I will ever face--or one of 
the most important issues, is probably a better way of saying it, I 
will ever deal with as a Member of the Senate. How we deal with the 
health care of millions of Americans has a huge consequence--economic, 
their health, their well-being, their family, their ability to get a 
job. Yet we are going to dispense with this issue in a matter of 
minutes tomorrow with one vote on an amendment to remove the defunding 
of the Affordable Care Act.
  Wouldn't the Senate and wouldn't America be better served if we were 
given the opportunity--again, if there are Senators on the Democratic 
side who agree there are problems, aren't there issues we could raise 
that would allow us to have a debate and a vote and determine where we 
could find some way to get rid of the ominous, threatening nature of 
the Affordable Care Act?
  The Senator from Nebraska talked about her examples. Time and time 
again we hear about the amount of money the Affordable Care Act is 
going to cost, about the premiums going up. We have seen the numbers 
that have just been released. For my State of Kansas, there will be 
significant increases in the premiums for anyone who is participating 
in the exchange.
  I have talked to business folks. I am certainly a rural Kansan, and I 
care a lot about rural America. I have always tried to explain to my 
colleagues that where I come from, whether or not there is a grocery 
store in town determines in many ways the future of the community. Many 
of my urban colleagues have their issues and don't necessarily 
understand what happens in a rural community if we lose a grocery 
store. But the conversation with the grocer just within the last month 
or so was this: The neighboring town is losing its grocery store. They 
have asked me to come in and buy it. I have looked at it. I could make 
money. It would work. I could save the grocery store in the neighboring 
town, but I am not going to do that because that would put me over 50 
employees and the Affordable Care Act would kick in.
  A competitor who is across the street decided to in a sense quit 
competing--at least in one aspect of their business--and share 
employees so that people now work part-time at one business and work 
for the competitor the other half of the day to avoid the consequences 
of the Affordable Care Act.
  Educators, our teachers, our school superintendents, our enterprises 
that come together and create co-ops for our schools to provide special 
education to our students, funding is very difficult in education 
across our country. State legislatures struggle with their budgets. Yet 
the amount of money necessary to comply with the Affordable Care Act 
means there are going to be fewer paraprofessionals in the classroom 
assisting students with disabilities because they no longer can afford 
to have an employee considered a full-time employee and provide their 
health care.
  This legislation is damaging to the country. It is damaging to our 
country's future. It is damaging to the American people. It reduces the 
opportunity that I believe Americans always have had to get the best 
health care among countries in the world.
  The Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, needs to be defunded. I would say 
to my Republican colleagues, we then have a responsibility to have a 
solution, a plan. Our health care system is not perfect. We have the 
opportunity to present better ideas, but that can't happen in a Senate 
that doesn't allow an amendment to a bill that deals with health care 
because of the House amendment. We won't have the opportunity to 
present our ideas or offer amendments that will make a difference.
  One could say: Well, this isn't the place. The continuing resolution 
is not the place to have a debate about health care and how to replace 
the Affordable Care Act.
  OK. I ask my colleagues, the leaders of the Senate, when is? When is 
the last time we have had a bill on the floor that would give us the 
opportunity to offer an amendment, to have a debate, to offer ideas 
about how to fix health care? It hasn't happened. I predict, based upon 
the Senate's schedule in the time I have been here, we are not going to 
have that opportunity. We ought to as Republicans. We ought to as 
Senators. It doesn't have to be partisan. There ought to be commonsense 
solutions. There are. It is not that there ought to be; there are. We 
all have ideas about how to fix our health care system as it was before 
the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and we need to defund the 
Affordable Care Act to give us a chance to go back and do it right, do 
it better.
  Again, I would encourage my colleagues, the next time we have the 
opportunity, and perhaps that will--I hope this is not true, but 
perhaps it is only true if we have Senators who are different from the 
Senators we have now. One would think that regardless of one's party 
affiliation, a U.S. Senator ought to be willing to deal with this most 
significant, important issue--the lives of Americans. It doesn't matter 
about one's party affiliation. If one cares about people--well, in this 
Senate, apparently, if the vote counters are right and no Democrat will 
vote to defund ObamaCare, then there will be no opportunity for us in 
the future to put our ideas, their ideas, all of our ideas on the floor 
for consideration by Senators and by the American people.

  Common sense tells us that we would fix the health care system a 
piece at a time and do it with commonsense, free market principles that 
would create a greater opportunity for more Americans to be able to 
afford health care. Health care is expensive. Health care insurance is 
expensive in this country, no doubt about it. The issue of preexisting 
conditions needs to be addressed. It affects people in their lives and 
in their jobs on a daily basis. But, no, we are going to cast one vote 
that gives us no opportunity to solve, to address, to deal with piece 
by piece the broken system that now the Affordable Care Act provides 
us.
  The implementation of this act has been a disaster. No one can 
objectively look at what has transpired and think this is the way it 
should be done. No one could look at the consequences of the Affordable 
Care Act and say: This is a great thing. It is perfect. We don't want 
to make any changes.
  Every Republican will vote tomorrow to defund--at least if the 
prognosticators are true; I expect it to be the case--every Republican 
will vote to defund the Affordable Care Act. We are united in that. We 
need colleagues from the other side of the aisle to join us in the 
effort to make sure Americans have access to affordable health care and 
the Federal Government operates within the limits of the Constitution 
in providing the environment in which that occurs. These are serious 
issues. The Affordable Care Act needs to be defunded. And the Senate 
needs to operate in a way that then allows all of us to come together 
in a manner that allows us to help Americans better afford health care 
for themselves and their families.

  This system is broken. The Senate does not function right. Mostly 
what I

[[Page S6951]]

knew about the Senate before I came here was what I read in history. 
This place does not work the way it has for centuries during the life 
of our country.
  The issues we face are serious. It is not about politics. It is not 
about posturing. It is about whether every American is going to have 
the ability with the Affordable Care Act to take care of themselves and 
their families in the way they want to.
  Promises that were made--easily forgotten, apparently; certainly not 
kept. You will be able to keep your health care insurance if you want. 
I have seen so much evidence to the contrary. Your premiums will not go 
up. We know that is not true. Time and time again, the promises that 
were made about the Affordable Care Act are broken. Yet there is no 
will on the part of the U.S. Senate to change course.
  It is time to admit it was a mistake. It is time to admit the bill is 
significantly flawed. It is time to admit the Federal Government is 
involved in issues that are not well-handled by the Federal Government 
in one broad sweep. It is time to admit that not one sized solution 
fits all problems, that not everyone in the United States is the same, 
that my colleagues who come from other places are different and their 
constituents are different and their health care delivery system is 
different than it is in my home State of Kansas.
  I would make the appeal on behalf of most Kansans to give us the 
chance to set the record straight, to do it right, to begin again. I 
ask my colleagues tomorrow to vote to defund the Affordable Care Act. 
It is time for ObamaCare to come to a conclusion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. President, I rise to speak to an 
amendment I filed on H.J. Res. 59, the continuing resolution. It is a 
pretty simple amendment. It simply prohibits that funds be used for a 
government contribution for the health insurance of Members of Congress 
and their staffs under ObamaCare.
  Now, you might ask, well, why would I, as a former employer, want to 
prevent an employer from contributing to health plans for Members of 
Congress and their staffs?
  Well, the simple reason is, because of the passage of ObamaCare, it 
expressly prohibited funds from being contributed by the Federal 
Government to Members of Congress and their staff's health care plans.
  I do not believe the President has any legal authority and I 
certainly do not believe the Office of Personnel Management has the 
authority to circumvent the Affordable Care Act.
  I am exactly on board with Senator Moran in certainly wishing that we 
could repeal the health care law in its entirety, that we could defund 
it, that we could do anything we could to limit the damage. But the 
fact is, it is the law of the land, and we need to respect the law of 
the land.
  I have looked through the legislative history of the passage of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It seems very clear what 
the intent of Congress was.
  Back on September 29, 2009, as this was being debated by the Senate 
Finance Committee, Senator Grassley offered an amendment that was 
adopted without objection that would require Members of Congress and 
their staff to ``use their employer contribution . . . to purchase 
coverage through a state-based exchange, rather than using the 
traditional selection of plans offered through the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Plan.''
  Again, that amendment was adopted without objection. Apparently, 
Members of Congress at that point in time thought that the State-based 
exchanges were going to offer such fabulous health care that they 
wanted to make sure that Members of Congress and their staff could 
avail themselves of that opportunity.
  So on October 19, 2009, that Grassley provision was incorporated into 
the Finance Committee's America's Healthy Future Act. But there was an 
addition to that amendment made that basically provided for an employer 
contribution. Section (B)(ii) says:

       the employer contributions may be made directly to an 
     exchange for payment to an offerer.
  So at that point in time it was the express will of Congress that the 
employer--the Federal Government--could actually contribute to the 
health care plan purchased through the exchange.
  The problem arises, however, that when Senator Reid actually offered 
the language for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on 
November 18, 2009, it specifically said:

       the only health plans that the Federal Government may make 
     available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with 
     respect to their service as a Member of Congress or 
     congressional staff shall be health plans that are one--
       (l) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this 
     Act); or
       (ll) offered through an Exchange established under this Act 
     (or an amendment made by this Act).

  There was absolutely no provision made whatsoever for an employer 
contribution to those health care plans.
  On December 24, 2009, Christmas Eve, the Senate passed that bill 
making no provision for an employer contribution to those plans 
purchased through an exchange. It was passed on pure party lines, 60 to 
40.
  On March 21, 2010, the House passed the exact same legislation. But 
then there was a debate in terms of reconciliation, and Senator 
Grassley once again offered an amendment that would have provided an 
employer contribution to those plans purchased through the exchange. It 
was explicitly stated that employer contribution could be made. But 
that amendment was voted down. It was voted down. The vote was 43 to 
56. All but three Democratic Senators voted no. In the end, the health 
care law was passed. That reconciliation was passed on March 25, 2010.
  Now, it happened recently--on July 31, 2013--that President Obama 
came over here to the Hill and met with Democratic Senators because, as 
Nancy Pelosi famously stated, we have to pass this health care law 
before we can figure out what is in it, before we know what is in it. 
Well, once Senators found out what was in it--that they were going to 
have to purchase their health care through an exchange and the Federal 
Government could not make any payment for those health care plans--they 
panicked and they asked President Obama to please correct that. So 
President Obama heard their plea and directed his Office of Personnel 
Management to propose a rule that would allow the Federal Government to 
pay or make a contribution to those State-based exchange plans.
  Now, I would argue that the OPM--President Obama--has no legal 
authority whatsoever to make those contributions, which is the purpose 
of my amendment. There will be millions of Americans who will lose 
their employer-sponsored health insurance for various reasons but 
because of the passage of the health care law. Once they have lost that 
coverage, they--every other American--will have to purchase insurance 
either in the open market or through a State-based or Federal exchange. 
Their employers will be barred. They will not have the opportunity to 
make an employer-contribution to help pay for those health care plans.
  The only way a normal American gets to have any subsidy in those 
exchanges is if their income qualifies them for a subsidy under the 
Affordable Care Act. The only Americans who now--because of this OPM 
ruling--will actually have their employer be able to make a 
contribution are Members of Congress and their staffs. That is simply 
wrong. That is special treatment. It really should not stand.
  So my amendment basically acknowledges that this is the law of land; 
that President Obama--the Office of Personnel Management--has no legal 
authority to have that contribution take place. So it simply prohibits 
funds to be used for a government contribution for the health insurance 
of Members of Congress and their staffs under ObamaCare.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the House-
passed continuing resolution now pending before the Senate.
  Once again the Senate is considering a last-minute continuing 
resolution rather than regular-order appropriations bills. Handling the 
annual appropriations process in this way is a bad

[[Page S6952]]

deal for the American people, and it is a deal we have gone through for 
the last 4 years now without passing appropriations bills and having to 
deal with a continuing resolution or an omnibus, which is simply a 
terrible way to run this government.
  Congress should be passing appropriations bills in regular order 
instead of waiting until the eleventh hour. I know the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and the ranking member are very much in favor 
of doing that and are ready to come to the floor to do that. But yet 
once again we are seeing the majority leader not let them come to the 
floor with those bills. This only creates uncertainty in the financial 
market and hampers America's economic recovery.
  Unless we come to an agreement, the government is going to shut down 
Monday night because Congress failed to pass a bill that would fund the 
government for only a few months. And to what end? We will find 
ourselves back in this position in either November or December, when we 
will have to pass yet another continuing resolution. This is a foolish 
way to run the U.S. Government.
  I was here in 1995 during the last government shutdown. It cast a 
pall on the American people, seeded distrust of government, and 
unnecessarily harmed our economy. It was not a pretty sight from either 
a political standpoint on either side of the aisle or from the 
standpoint of the American people or the government employees. No one 
wins when the government is shut down, least of all the American 
people.
  We are all aware of the issues that have thus far slowed down the 
progress of this bill. While there may be differences of opinion on our 
side of the aisle about tactics, let me tell you--let there be no 
doubt--we are all unified in believing that ObamaCare should be stopped 
and should be defunded.
  I was here on this floor a few years back when we fought tooth and 
nail to stop passage of ObamaCare. I believed it to be the worst piece 
of legislation I had seen in my now going on 19 years of serving in the 
U.S. Congress. And it still is the worst piece of legislation and the 
most damaging piece of legislation to the American people that I have 
seen in those 19 years.
  As the October 1 enrollment date nears, President Obama's signature 
law continues to face several significant problems. Employers are 
cutting jobs and slashing employees' hours; businesses and labor unions 
are unhappy and want to be exempted from the law; families are 
confused, and insurance premiums for people who cannot afford them in 
the first place are now skyrocketing. In my home State of Georgia 
alone, our insurance commissioner has warned us that we could see 
premium increases as high as 198 percent on middle-income families. 
Other States have reported similar increases. So it is no surprise that 
a majority of Americans believe ObamaCare should be repealed and should 
be replaced.
  I remain as committed as ever to dismantle and defund this law before 
it has a chance to further damage our economy and to replace it with a 
meaningful reform of our health care system.
  The continuing resolution delivered by the House of Representatives 
to the Senate funds the government while defunding ObamaCare. It is 
what the American people want, and it is a bill I support. I will 
oppose any attempt by Majority Leader Reid to strip defunding language 
from this bill.
  However, while I believe ObamaCare is a serious threat to the future 
of our Nation's economy, allowing a prolonged government shutdown would 
be counterproductive. My priority has always been the well-being of 
Georgians, as well as the American people, and I cannot support a 
strategy that could cause Americans to suffer unnecessarily. Further 
harm to our already fragile economy is not a course we should pursue, 
nor should it be a price our friends on the other side of the aisle are 
willing to pay just to uphold the President's signature law.
  This fight is long from over. It is something Republicans have been 
fighting since 2009, since we first tried to stop ObamaCare from 
becoming law. I am grateful that this debate has brought the problems 
with this law back into the spotlight and look forward to repealing and 
replacing this law at the end of the day.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PRYOR). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, a lot has been said in the last few days. I 
guess the issue is not everybody has said it. I am not sure that two 
people have been closer to the progress and the process of the 
Affordable Care Act than Dr. Tom Coburn and myself. We were in it in 
committee along with other Members.
  The fact that I am not embracing a strategy to close down the 
government is real important. It is because at the end of the day and 
we open the government, the way the statute is, there is the Affordable 
Care Act. It is still there. I did not come to Washington to embrace 
strategies that do not achieve solutions. I came to find solutions to 
big issues so the next generation can benefit from them.
  Do not misunderstand me. There is no bigger critic in Washington, DC, 
than the Senator from North Carolina. As a matter of fact, in the 
committee, I counted 58 votes on 58 amendments where we voted to kill 
the health care bill. I think my record stands for being opposed to 
this legislation.
  Senator Coburn and I have introduced more health care proposals than 
the rest of the Congress combined--options, replacements. We have stood 
on this floor hour after hour on the Affordable Care Act and shared 
with the American people why this was a bad move. We have quoted 
individuals who lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
  Their Chief Actuary told us, before we passed this bill in this body, 
that this will close community hospitals, it would increase premiums, 
it would deprive people of health care. But the Congress of the United 
States and the President of the United States signed this law into 
statute.
  There is only one way to kill a law once a law is in statute; that 
is, to pass a bill that is signed by a President that reverses that. To 
some degree, this is civics 101. It is an understanding of the 
legislative process. It was not the first time I disagreed with 
something this body had done. Let me assure you, it will not be the 
last time. But I also understand the way that we change this. It is not 
the way we are attempting to do it right now.
  So what have we seen in the short period that we have gone through 
this? As we move up to October 1 and these new exchanges are rolled 
out, we have seen premiums go up. We have seen doctors retire. We have 
seen health care professionals move from rural America to urban areas. 
We have seen the health care infrastructure scared to death of what is 
around the corner. We have seen premiums rise.
  If there is anything that is wrong, it is the title of the bill, the 
Affordable Care Act. We have made health care less affordable for more 
Americans. Let me say that again. This act has made health care less 
affordable for more Americans. It has tripled, at a minimum, the cost 
of a health care premium for somebody 30 years or under--tripled, at a 
minimum.
  This is a group who is targeted for enrollment. They would not enroll 
when the premium was one-third of the cost it is today. We have heard 
people say that Members of Congress are trying to protect their own 
subsidy. Members of Congress are not going to take the subsidy. We 
passed legislation, but at the end of the day, the public pressure will 
be such that no one up here will take the subsidy.
  But if we are going to treat Federal workers one way, then treat all 
of them the same way. Do not pick and choose who--the ones who work on 
the Hill, the ones who work in our offices, not ones who are in 
committees, not ones who work at the FDA, the EPA or whatever. Let's 
include everybody.
  If we want an exchange to work, then we have to enroll as many people 
and we have to have robust competition. The way this is set up we are 
going to have low enrollment. The way insurers have responded to the 
exchanges--in my State, we have one insurer that has

[[Page S6953]]

entered the exchange to insure the entire State and one insurer that is 
representing 10 counties out of 100. That is not competition. That is 
almost a monopoly. I do not blame the one that is in all by themselves. 
I blame what we designed, where we did not empower States to actually 
design things that fit their health care infrastructure and their 
State, where individuals could buy insurance based upon their age and 
their income and their health condition.
  We said, no, if you do not buy this plan, then you are going to pay a 
penalty. We have heard a lot of debate about the process, but we have 
not heard as much debate about the specifics of this legislation. It is 
bad for the American people. Regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's 
votes, this legislation is still going to be in statute. It is still 
going to be implemented on October 1.
  I hope all of the thousands and hundreds of thousands of people who 
have responded to the request to call--and they don't always know why, 
except they do not like this health care plan--when tomorrow's vote is 
over, do not go away. The pressure has to be on this institution to 
make the changes.
  Most Americans do not know that we are going to start taxing--or we 
are already taxing the manufacturers of medical devices 1.5 percent. 
They pay a surcharge to fund ObamaCare. We are going to charge, in the 
exchanges, at 2.3 percent, I believe, a health insurance premium tax 
for every person who purchases health insurance.
  We have to ask ourselves: If we are going to tax devices and we are 
going to tax the insurance premiums, how in the world can the price of 
health care go down? It cannot. This is common sense and math matched 
up. It has to force health care costs up. That is, in fact, what every 
American sees.
  Even your employer's insurance, if you are lucky enough to still have 
an employer that is providing it, your health care premium is going up 
next year. If you are in an exchange, your premium cost is going up 
next year. Who does it benefit? It benefited maybe people who had 
preexisting conditions and they could not purchase insurance. You know 
what the first act of the Affordable Care Act was? It was to create a 
national pool of individuals with preexisting conditions and they would 
all be offered insurance.
  What happened? When about 20-some-percent of them got enrolled, the 
fund ran out of money and the one population that this bill was sold to 
protect, almost 80 percent of them, were left out in the cold with no 
options. It has failed since the first step.
  What I hope is that American people will not leave this debate and 
say we have done our best. We have not done our best. The Nation is 
betting on us to continue on this. Our children deserve whatever it 
takes for us to accomplish it.
  But as I started, let me say to the body, our strategy to get here 
was flawed. I know it sounded good, but it does not work. The only way 
to eliminate a bill that is in statute is to pass a bill and have it 
signed by a President that reverses that statute.
  I am glad we have had this debate. I am glad the American people are 
now engaged in it. I do not think this will be the last discussion we 
have on the Affordable Care Act. I will assure you that as I have been 
before, I will be again on this floor debating my colleagues as 
aggressively and fairly as I can about what is wrong with this bill and 
why it should be reversed and why it should be replaced.
  I thank my colleague from Alaska.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. To my colleague from North Carolina, thank you for the 
part about explaining the process. Some people think by tomorrow if 
there is a vote on defunding, suddenly something happens. Thank you for 
pointing out the issue of the statute. We may not agree on the total 
picture, but I have presented lots of ideas on how to fix the health 
care act. I would be anxious to work on that as we pass by tomorrow. I 
thank the Senator for his comments.
  I know in the last 48 hours or longer we have been talking about a 
lot of issues. We have been talking about health care, and I can read 
all kinds of stories about people who called me, such as the 50-year-
old male from rural Alaska who was self-employed. He had lung cancer. 
Today, because of ACHIA and the ability to get into that high-risk 
pool, he now is living a good life, healthier, and running his 
business.
  I can go through all kinds of stories, but I don't want us to forget 
the big issue that is facing us Tuesday; that is, the risk of a 
government shutdown and what that means. We can talk about health care 
for a long time. We will for generations, and they have done it for 
generations before I even got here. We need to focus on the big issue 
that faces us; that is, this shutdown that is potentially in front of 
us.
  The inability of Congress to pass a budget, pass annual 
appropriations bills, address these harmful automatic budget cuts known 
around here as sequester, because of true political brinksmanship, is 
honestly shameful and not why I came to Congress. When the budget 
passed, I didn't vote for it, but it passed.
  The House has a budget, it passed. Now for some reason we can't get 
people from the minority to sit down and let us move to a conference 
committee to figure this out. To me, it is amazing. It is a simple 
thing.
  For the time I have been here, 3 years at minimum, we have been 
hearing there is no budget passed. There is one passed. I didn't vote 
for the one that passed--it had too many taxes--but it did pass.
  Let's get on with the conference committee and figure it out. The 
Presiding Officer, my colleague from Montana, and I are on the 
Appropriations Committee. We passed bills out of the Appropriations 
Committee and most of them passed in some form of bipartisanship--not 
100 percent but in some form. Bringing those forward would be helpful. 
It would help us to do the job we were sent to do on an annual basis; 
that is, to get our budget moving forward.
  I came to get the job done. I came to Washington to represent Alaska. 
I didn't come to participate in this back-and-forth showmanship that 
has to go on in order for someone to get some highlight on TV or be 
able to get some byline on TV or whatever it might be. These games that 
are being played and played on the Senate floor are affecting our 
national homeland security.
  Think about it. What is it like for a Federal employee today as they 
watch these shenanigans that go on. If you are one of the 5,000 
dedicated Department of Defense employees in Alaska, you didn't get 
paid for 6 days already this year because of sequestration. Now you are 
wondering if you are going to get a paycheck on time or face more 
furloughs because this institution may not be able to pass a clean 
continuing resolution.
  For those who are watching, the continuing resolution says the budget 
we have is going to continue for a short time while we try to get our 
appropriations bills to the floor so we can move those forward. It is 
not complicated. It keeps the government running, and it is the way we 
move this system forward, but it is not the right approach. We need to 
have regular order for our appropriations bills and get rid of the 
sequestration issue once and for all. Don't be confused about the 
issue. I know people like to complain about the Federal Government. We 
are the largest service provider in the country. We provide services.
  We don't make widgets. We produce service. We build roads. We are out 
there taking care of forest fires when they are happening. We are 
taking care of our veterans. We are making sure we are protected in the 
homeland as well as across the world with our national defense. The 
list goes on and on. We are a service company.
  As I stand here, I am honestly stunned we are on the verge again. I 
don't know how many times we have been on the edge, just hanging over 
the edge of what might happen. Will we close down the government?
  I am not here to do that. As painful as these days are in going 
through the process, we need to move forward. We cannot delay military 
members' paychecks, leaving them wondering if they are going to get 
paid again or if they can pay their bills on time, knowing we will face 
the same situation again and again in a few months. We need to finish 
this so we can move on to the annual Department of Defense bill to 
continue to fund this Federal Government.
  Many of our military members are also wondering if they will be 
training,

[[Page S6954]]

waiting for the missions we call them out to do. Commanders can't plan 
a training exercise now, such as the Red Flag-Alaska, which is a 
critical training program, not only for our military but our allies. 
They don't know how much money they will have in the next fiscal year 
to plan. They can't just decide on a Thursday, Friday, and the next 
week we are doing a massive military mission. It takes months of 
planning, but they can't plan if they don't have the resources.
  Military leaders are not only losing sleep over the rogue nations 
such as Iran and North Korea, they are losing sleep over not having the 
funds to pay their workforce and breaking faith with their troops as we 
ask them to do so much. We are asking the one organization we rely on 
to be ready 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and to stay 
ready amidst uncertainty and potential shutdowns.
  We are asking its members to carry on without expecting pay or money 
to train. It is unrealistic, it is unreasonable, and it is risky for 
our national security.
  Our Nation's veterans--and we have 77,000 veterans in Alaska--are 
wondering what the shutdown means for the claims they are waiting for. 
They are wondering if the process will create even lengthier delays in 
an already unacceptably slow process. I know the Presiding Officer and 
I have worked to try to streamline this process to get these claims 
resolved after hundreds of days of delay.
  Our Nation's homeless veterans are wondering if they will be able to 
get their housing vouchers or lose them in budget cuts or if they will 
have to sleep on the streets after serving our country because we can't 
pass a continuing resolution and a budget.
  In Alaska, let me tell you what that is like in October, moving into 
November and into December. Sleeping on the streets is not a 
comfortable situation. Sleeping on the streets, period, is not a 
comfortable situation. But when you are in those cold situations, it is 
even worse.
  We are hurting local economies and stifling potential job growth. We 
have $202 million of military construction that will be delayed in 
Alaska because we haven't passed an annual Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs bill. We passed it in appropriations, we are ready, 
and we want to do it, but this back-and-forth of 1 week, 1 month, 2 
months, continuing resolution again delays the regular order so we can 
create certainty--certainty with our ability to provide for businesses 
in this country but also for the business community, construction 
companies. In Alaska you cannot just start a project in December and 
say, well, we are going to start doing the foundation work. It is a 
little cold. The ground is a little frozen. You have to be doing this 
in the summer. You have to be planning for this in the winter and late 
spring.
  For us to delay these projects, all we do is hurt the private sector 
jobs related to it, the families who depend on this, the veterans, and 
the military that depend on these important construction projects.
  When the funding comes too late, the project is delayed, costs go up. 
It is not complicated.
  For the Senate, I have learned over time it is almost irrelevant. 
Some people don't care about it. They don't care what it costs. They 
don't even want to know, because they know when they hear it, it will 
be an unbelievable cost that we have to bear because of this delay and 
these tactics.
  I get it. We are not going to always agree on everything, but we have 
to compromise and solve these problems.
  As an appropriator, that is what we do in appropriations. It is not 
always easy. Some things I want to have happen, we can't have. It is 
the same thing on the other side, but at the end of the day we find 
common ground.
  Sequestration also has hurt the Coast Guard. In Alaska, the Coast 
Guard is the lifeblood of our oceans for the fishing industry, oil and 
gas industry, our recreational industry, our cruise ship industry. I 
can go through the list. They have lost $200 million from their 
operating expenses because of sequestration and an inability for some 
people to come to the table to solve this problem. That means about 30 
percent fewer cutters and aircraft doing things such as enforcing 
fishing laws.
  We have a reduced presence in the Arctic. They had to cut back on 
patrols to stop drugs coming from South America into this country.
  When you think about it, the impact is significant. It spreads 
throughout this whole country. As the drugs come in and the jobs in the 
country go out, millions of Americans are watching to see what Congress 
does. We have created a situation where not only are we unable to 
budget for this country, but Americans can't budget for their future. 
They can't even budget for the holiday season. It is unbelievable.
  We need to complete this work on this short-term continuing 
resolution, move right into our annual appropriations bills, address 
sequestration once and for all, and finish the budget. We owe it to the 
American people. We owe it to them to ensure they have certainty, and 
we owe to it our business community to make sure they know. Look at 
last week in the market. It wasn't a deep slide, but it was a slide.
  If you read the Wall Street Journal today or last night, there is a 
commentary and some articles because they weren't sure what the House 
was doing. The House was playing these games back and forth: Let's tie 
this to it; let's tie that to it. They are playing with an economy that 
has come back from the depths of a great recession.
  Is it a perfect economy? No. Is it better? Absolutely. Do we have a 
fragile moment that we need to continue to build on this? Yes.
  I am not sure if those folks on the other side care about making sure 
our economy is strong. In some ways, I think they want it to falter so 
they can go into an election and say: See those guys, they caused the 
economy to go bad so vote them out. That is all this seems to be.
  I was presiding earlier and one of my colleagues on the other side 
mentioned a story about Alaska. I was appreciative that he recognized 
Alaska and understood we had some issues in Alaska. Then he mentioned 
three other Senators and their States--all the ones, to be frank with 
you, who are being targeted by groups as the ones most at risk this 
election cycle.
  I get it, but that is not what people are here to do. If you want to 
have that conversation, let's go outside this building. Run those ads. 
Do everything you need to do. Do whatever you want on the campaign 
trail. Do whatever you need to do.
  To play these games and try to pretend you are doing the government's 
business is very irresponsible. That is not what is going on. What is 
going on is picking people and trying to pigeon hole them so they can 
run commercials against them in campaigns. I get that. I think the 
American people are fed up with it. They are outraged by it. I hear it 
every time I go back to Alaska. I hear it when I talk to people around 
the country.
  We have to do the work we were sent to do. The work here is to get 
our business done. Setting policy is part of it and passing 
appropriations bills. We should be doing these on an annual basis, 
doing a budget. Again, we passed one out of the Senate. I didn't 
support it because it had too many taxes, but we passed it. The House 
passed it. Let's get on with doing the work.
  Every day I know some sit around and they say: Well, we have to do it 
this way. This is the only way it works.
  You don't understand. The Senate is complicated.
  Hey, life is complicated, get on with it. The public expects us to do 
our job. Quit using process, rules, and gobbledygook to try to get away 
from your responsibility in the Senate. It is time we sit down and deal 
with it.
  There will be some in my party, and there will be some in their party 
who--guess what--aren't going to get what they want. That is the way it 
works. Compromise, find your balance, and move forward.
  I would love 100 percent of everything. I will try it every day, but 
that is not how it ends up all the time. Compromise and try to find a 
middle ground, that is what we should be doing.
  As an appropriator, that is what I want to do. This is what I tried 
to do as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and that is what we 
should be doing on this floor.
  I get it. There are a couple on each side. It happens. We saw one who 
stood out here for 21 hours or whatever the

[[Page S6955]]

heck it was. I get it. He is passionate. It is important to him to make 
his point, but I also see what else is going on.
  Focus on your job. We are Senators. We are not candidates for some 
other office. We are Senators. We are here to do the job. It is time to 
get busy and do the job. The American people want it. Alaskans tell us 
every day they want us to do this.
  Let's figure this out and get on with the show.
  I yield the floor, and 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. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, as we inch closer and closer to 
potentially shutting down this government, I rise to remind my 
colleagues what a shutdown would mean for our constituents. I also want 
to remind my colleagues it doesn't have to be this way.
  Budget battles and debt ceiling debates are the norm in Congress 
right now, but there was a time--there was a time--when both parties 
worked together and the American people benefited.
  It hasn't always been rosy. The budget battles of the mid-1990s shut 
our government down for nearly 1 month. Personal insults here in the 
world's greatest deliberative body used to be common. And back in the 
1850s, a Senator was beaten on the Senate floor. But through it all, 
Americans trusted their government to meet its constitutional 
responsibility and keep the lights on. After all, if we couldn't agree 
on anything else, at least we could agree on keeping the lights on.
  Today, constant political brinkmanship and grandstanding replace 
commonsense compromise and actual governing. This is taking a toll on 
all Americans, and Montanans are no exception.
  With a government shutdown once again a real possibility, America's 
frustration is reaching new heights. For some folks a shutdown is 
another opportunity to shake their heads and bemoan the state of 
affairs right here in Washington, DC. They are the lucky ones. For 
others, a shutdown will hurt their health, their wallets, and their 
bottom lines.
  I am talking about a veteran--a veteran who could be anywhere in this 
country--whose disability case appeal could and probably will be 
delayed if we have a government shutdown; a senior citizen waiting for 
a Social Security check; a small business owner waiting to get a 
potential contract that could fix a decaying road infrastructure.
  Hotels and other businesses around our national parks, which would be 
closed if we have a government shutdown, are also holding their breath 
to see what we are doing here these days. If the parks close because of 
a government shutdown, the money coming in and out of the wallets of 
those businesses and those folks who not only drove to the park in 
anticipation of being able to utilize it but the businesses around the 
park would be impacted very negatively.
  Everybody knows about the Bakken oil plate that is driving the 
economic growth in North Dakota and eastern Montana. But if the 
government shuts down, the Bureau of Land Management's permitting 
office would be shut down too. That means wells would be delayed and 
the jobs that come with it.
  Since the House Republicans have been unwilling to begin negotiations 
on a new farm bill, farmers and ranchers are going to have a lot of 
questions come October 1. On that day, not only will the government 
shut down but the farm bill will expire as well. So not only could some 
folks lose critical nutrition assistance, but farmers and ranchers 
would have no place to go to get their questions answered about the 
fact there is no more farm bill for a commodity type; no more ability 
to get questions answered about conservation, which needs to be planned 
far ahead of time. Why? Because their local farm service agency office 
will be closed. Like the other government offices, nobody is going to 
be there to answer the phone.
  In Montana, Washington now is shorthand for uncertainty, Congress is 
shorthand for dysfunction, and faith in government is being eroded 
because some folks around here are more concerned about raising money 
on C-SPAN than the people of this great country and the American 
economy. It needs to stop.
  The American people expect Members of Congress to make smart, 
responsible decisions based on the best information we have. That means 
advocating for issues that matter but compromising to get something 
done. That means giving a little and getting a whole lot in return. It 
is called governing. That is a lesson some folks around here need to 
learn.
  I would have thought flirting with a government shutdown and costing 
taxpayers billions of dollars in 2011 would have been sufficient enough 
a lesson or maybe coming within a few hours of falling off the so-
called fiscal cliff in 2012 would have been a sufficient lesson. I 
would have thought that causing an unprecedented credit downgrade 2 
years ago by threatening not to raise the debt ceiling would have 
knocked some sense into some folks. And I would think the American 
people's overwhelming desire not to shut the government down come 
October 1 would cause my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
use common sense. But here we are, playing politics once again as 
regular Americans twist in the wind.
  There is a way forward, and it doesn't have to start with political 
games at the eleventh hour. It starts with working through the regular 
budgets and appropriations process and not proposing amendments just to 
slow the process down.
  But funding the government is the easy part. In less than 1 month, we 
will once again be reaching a debt ceiling--a much more serious issue. 
If we don't raise it before then, we will not be able to pay our bills 
and the economy will be devastated. Crashing into the debt ceiling will 
cause our credit rating to drop, increase the interest rates not only 
on our government debt but for anybody who has debt.
  If you don't believe a farmer from Big Sandy, MT, maybe you will 
believe a guy by the name of Mark Zandi, an economist who has advised 
Presidents, Presidential candidates, and Fortune 500 companies. He said 
that failing to raise the debt ceiling will hurt consumer and business 
confidence, force businesses to stop hiring, and raise borrowing costs 
for average Americans.
  He is far from alone. Former Republican Senator Judd Gregg says 
failing to pay our bills would ``lead to job losses and more debt.'' He 
calls failing to raise the debt ceiling a ``terrible policy that would 
produce difficult times for people on Main Street.''
  Senator Gregg, whom I had the opportunity to serve with, spent 18 
years here in the Senate. He knows as long as Congress fails to provide 
the American people with political and economic certainty by funding 
the government and raising the debt limit, we will not be able to 
tackle other important issues, such as replacing the sequester the 
Senator from Alaska talked about, and replacing it with smart budget 
cuts or striking a long-term budget agreement that will put this Nation 
on solid economic footing.
  A government shutdown would be irresponsible and it would be 
unnecessary. Congress needs to do its job by finding a way to 
responsibly keep the government running. We cannot keep holding 
businesses, seniors, working families, veterans, students, and our 
military men and women hostage to the political whims and aspirations 
of a select few.
  When I was a member of the Montana Senate, my colleagues and I knew 
what we had to get done every session. Passing a budget was at the top 
of the list. Even if we didn't agree where to cut or where to spend, we 
worked together to figure it out. And just like my former colleagues in 
Montana did this spring, we passed a budget and kept the State 
government running. Here in Washington there are a lot of pressures we 
don't face at the State level. There are news channels that give any 
Senator a chance to get on TV, and every issue has an advocacy group 
fighting for its share of the pie. But real leaders make tough 
decisions. Real leaders work together to find common ground and move 
our Nation forward. Real leaders put their constituents first.

[[Page S6956]]

  It is not too late. It is not too late for us to regain the trust of 
the American people. But it is going to take some work. We won't be 
able to do it right away, but we ought to start this week, and we can 
start by responsibly funding the government, providing our economy and 
our Nation with the confidence they need. That is what we did in 
Montana, and that is what we need to do here in Washington.
  The American people are calling for an end to the brinkmanship and an 
end to the gridlock, and it is time we start to listen to them.
  I also want to thank Senator Mikulski, the chair of the 
Appropriations Committee, for agreeing to end a special-interest 
provision that was included by the House of Representatives in last 
year's government funding bill a few months ago and the one that was 
sent over here recently.
  A few years ago the committee voluntarily agreed to match the House's 
earmark moratorium, and I think it is interesting our friends in the 
House make very serious statements about the need to get rid of 
earmarks, then stuffed a few items in the spending bill last year that 
directly benefited a couple of the biggest multinational businesses in 
this country. I spoke to Chairwoman Mikulski about this issue this 
spring and she was very gracious and listened to my concerns. I am 
pleased to see she and Senator Reid have eliminated one of those 
corporate earmarks, and I want to thank them for that. It will make 
this bill a lot cleaner.
  In closing, I know there are people in this body who want to work 
together to make this country all it can be. I also know there are 
people in this body who would love to see a government shutdown because 
they might be able to pad their own PACs or political coffers. And 
maybe it would take a government shutdown to make them understand how 
bad this would be for the American people, its businesses and its 
working families. But I certainly hope that doesn't happen. The 
American people don't deserve it. This country doesn't deserve it, as 
it comes out of one of the worst economic times since the 1930s. Quite 
frankly, being a businessman myself, I look at what goes on in 
Washington, DC, and all the challenges businesses have in this country, 
and the biggest challenge we have right now is Washington, DC.
  Let's start moving the country forward by working together. Let's 
fund the government. Let's not shut it down. And let's do what is right 
when the debt limit debate comes around.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________