[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 133 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7078-S7084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to continue the discussion on 
the situation in which we find ourselves, which is that the entire 
Government of the United States of America has been shut down, and 
those Federal employees who are working are working without pay.
  This is a terrible situation. I implore the House to pass a clean 
short-term continuing funding resolution that the Senate sent over to 
them 4 days ago so we can reopen the government. Let's reopen the 
government. Let's reopen the Government of the United States of 
America. The way we reopen the government is to pass the Senate 
continuing funding resolution.
  What would it do? It would fund the government at fiscal 2013 levels. 
That doesn't mean it adds new money; so there is no new money. It is 
keeping us at current spending levels. We would have a short-term 
continuing resolution until November 15 while we work out other issues, 
and then we can get over the speed bump of raising the debt ceiling. I 
believe that is the path forward.
  Where we are now has terrible consequences. It has terrible 
consequences for our economy. It has terrible consequences for our 
standing in the world. It has terrible consequences for the functioning 
of our government.
  We are speaking now about a shutdown of the government. Right now, 
there are hundreds of thousands of men and women who work for the 
Federal Government who signed up to do a job in the service of their 
Nation. They have literally, with the passing hours, had to either take 
a furlough--and a furlough means we have essentially laid them off; we 
have laid them off--or they are working because their work is 
essential, such as an FBI agent, but they are not getting paid. We are 
paying them with IOUs. This is not the United States of America.
  I am thinking about those people who are working every single day. 
Let me paint a picture for my colleagues. In my own State, we are the 
headquarters to the National Weather Agency. People who watch TV think 
they get their weather news from either the Weather Channel or they get 
it from their local TV or radio station through doppler radar. It is 
terrific. But guess where they get their information. They get it from 
their Federal Government. They get it from the weather forecasters at 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who work hard every 
day predicting the weather and getting out the information that news 
people can use in their own community. So if a person is a farmer, he 
is getting that information. If a person is a waterman who works on the 
Chesapeake Bay and he has to make sure the storm is not coming while he 
is out there crabbing or oystering to keep his business going, he needs 
to know the weather. Whether a person is a county executive or a mayor, 
people need to know what their weather is going to be. So they have 
been on the job, whether they have been predicting hurricanes or 
tornadoes or giving us the basic day-to-day information. The weather 
forecasters are at their duty station, but what are we saying to them 
now? Guess what. Be there, but we are not going to pay you except 
through IOUs.

[[Page S7079]]

  Yesterday I spoke about the National Institutes of Health and the 
Food and Drug Administration in my State. There is another major agency 
which is not in my State but very important to the functioning of our 
country: the Centers for Disease Control. Right now, they are working 
down there in Georgia. What is the Centers for Disease Control? What is 
their job? Their job is exactly that: disease control. When veterans 
and other people were ill and getting sick in a hospital in 
Philadelphia, they were called in because they are our top biosleuths 
in America. They are our own bioforensic scientists, our own bio-CSI 
team. They were the ones who found out about something called 
Legionnaires' Disease, and they helped those people who got sick in 
that hotel, and were able to put out that information. They are the 
ones who are standing sentry to make sure there is no emerging surprise 
or pandemic in the world. They are the ones who are gathering 
information now to know the latest threats to the health and safety of 
the United States of America.
  What is it they are doing? If a person is a pediatrician, they are 
watching the CDC to see what are the latest causes of ear infections 
that could be infecting children and the right treatment to help them, 
the right treatment for their doctors to be able to know. That is what 
they do. When their labs are being closed, it leaves States on their 
own--State health departments--to be able to look out for antibiotic-
resistant viruses and other infectious diseases, and a variety of other 
kinds of things. We need the Centers for Disease Control. They employ 
thousands of people in Atlanta, GA. Yet we are telling them: Well, 
maybe not the way we need you.
  Yesterday, the President passed a bill to guarantee military 
personnel be paid on time. We support that. But what is missing from 
the bill is important. The intelligence community, made up mostly of 
civilians, will not be covered. It means that over 72 percent who work 
in our intelligence agencies will either face furloughs or will be 
working with IOUs.
  Who else involved in our national security is not covered? We didn't 
cover border security. We didn't cover FBI. We didn't cover DEA. We 
didn't cover the U.S. Marshals. What are the marshals doing? It is not 
like Wyatt Earp. Marshals aren't just out there like cowboys in a Wild 
West movie when we watch a miniseries. The Marshals Service is very 
important. Do my colleagues know what they are doing in Maryland right 
now? First of all, they provide security in the courthouse. They do the 
security to protect the judges. We have some of the most violent gangs 
and criminals coming in and the marshals need to protect those who are 
enforcing the law through the judicial system.
  They are also going after the sexual predators. They are the ones who 
track all of the evidence and go after sexual predators to make sure 
they are not loose in the neighborhoods, and they are working with 
local law enforcement.
  They also go after missing fugitives. We know about the big signs 
that say ``Ten Most Wanted.'' Well, guess who goes after them. The 
Marshals Service. That is one of their primary responsibilities. That 
is what Federal law enforcement is. These employees are also critical 
to national security.
  Trying to do this piecemeal--oh, we have looked out for our troops. 
We should look out for our troops. But while we look out for our 
troops, we should look out for those who come back home.
  I know the Presiding Officer and others have been strong supporters 
of our veterans. I am a strong supporter of our veterans. Many of the 
services being performed by the VA are open, such as VA health care, 
but there are other services where we have to delay the backlog on 
veterans' cases, veterans' disability benefits. Through appropriations, 
we have actually put money in the Federal checkbook to deal with more 
training, more overtime to reduce this backlog.
  When we speak about shutdowns, I want to take a moment to talk about 
my own office in relationship to veterans. I am the longest serving 
woman in Senate history. It is a great honor. In my 25 years as a 
Senator and after 25 years as the senior woman here, I have only closed 
down my office twice: once in 1995 and this morning. I cannot express 
to my colleagues the heavy heart I had when I talked to my staff. My 
staff is a great staff. Whether they are working in Maryland or whether 
they are working here in Washington, we are a local phone call away to 
6 million Marylanders. Of those people who work for me, one is a young 
lady. I hope I don't embarrass her if she is watching TV. Her name is 
Denise. Denise has worked for me for 30 years, back when I was in the 
House of Representatives and now as a Senator. She is a caseworker, a 
constituent service worker. For 30 years she has specialized in helping 
me respond to the needs of veterans. Veterans all over Maryland love 
her. They depend on her, and I depend on her so that I can help those 
veterans.
  I know my time has expired, but Denise's time on the job shouldn't 
expire. I want to make sure Denise is on her job. I want to reopen my 
office. I want to make sure we reopen government. We can do that if we 
pass the Senate continuing resolution.
  Hello to the House. Don't send us piecemeal. Let the House vote on 
the Senate bill. No gag rule in the House. Free the House, open the 
House, open government, and let's get the job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to quickly begin by saying 
that last night at the stroke of midnight the government faced its 
first partial shutdown since 1996. There has been a lot of partisan 
talk back and forth about who is to blame, but our constituents are 
demanding action and rightfully expect us to resolve this situation. We 
need to act swiftly to get the government up and running again.
  Let me turn to another matter. Today's date is October 1, 2013. Since 
the passage of the so-called Affordable Care Act in 2009, millions of 
people have looked forward to this day, probably with more dread than 
anticipation. That is because today is the day the ObamaCare health 
insurance exchanges--where millions of Americans will be required by 
law to purchase health insurance--are open for business.
  Perhaps I should say they are supposed to be open for business. 
President Obama, in his futile effort to sell his health care law to 
the American people, has been trying to paint a rosy picture about what 
will happen starting today. He has claimed that today will mark the 
first step in a process that will provide health coverage for millions 
of Americans. Sadly, now that we are here, the picture is much cloudier 
than the President would like to admit. Indeed, as the exchanges begin 
to go live, we have more questions than available answers. We know the 
exchanges have been met with significant delays--delays for large 
businesses, delays for small businesses, and even some delays for some 
of the State exchanges themselves. We know about other technical and 
logistical problems facing the exchanges. I will talk more about those 
in a few minutes.
  What we don't know is what will happen to the average American trying 
to sign up and navigate his or her way through the ObamaCare exchanges. 
I wish to take a few minutes to talk about that today and, in doing so, 
I wish to talk about someone we met during the 2012 election campaign. 
Her name is Julia. We all remember Julia. She was the faceless 
character created by the Obama campaign to symbolize the cradle-to-the-
grave support women would receive under President Obama's 
administration, including under ObamaCare. She was supposed to be the 
embodiment of President Obama's compassion for women and his opponent's 
lack thereof.
  Unfortunately, President Obama's ``Life of Julia'' outline was short 
on some details, particularly when it came to Julia's efforts to obtain 
and keep health insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges. Today I will 
try to fill in some of those details. However, it will be difficult 
because, as I said, there is still much we don't know about how the 
exchanges are going to work.
  As we follow Julia into the exchanges, the first question that comes 
to mind is: What brought Julia to the exchange in the first place? Is 
she one of the millions of Americans who will

[[Page S7080]]

end up losing employer-provided health insurance as a result of 
ObamaCare? Is she now a part-time worker after her employer had cut her 
hours to avoid the employer mandate? Perhaps she was laid off so her 
employer could keep their number of employees below the threshold 
required to be considered small business under the law.
  In any event, Julia has come to the exchange looking for health 
insurance because that is what the law requires her to do. The next 
question is, Who will explain to Julia how she is to sign up for 
insurance under the exchange? What we know is that she will be assigned 
to a navigator, a person employed by a private organization tasked with 
assisting the uninsured in determining what type of coverage they 
qualify for. This person, who is not a government employee, will have 
access to her personal information, including her Social Security 
number and household income data.
  Sadly, there is no telling whether this person will steal that 
information and use it for nefarious purposes. That is because the 
administration, in the drafting of the rules for the certification of 
navigators, cut corners on things such as training and background 
checks, putting consumers and patients at increased risk for fraud and 
identity theft.
  I came to the floor to discuss this a couple of weeks ago. This was 
something that Members of Congress warned the administration about 
months ago. Sadly, our warnings have been ignored. So the bottom line 
for Julia is that before she even enters the exchange, an unqualified 
navigator or perhaps an imposter posing as a government counselor may 
have easy access to her private personal information, allowing them to 
steel her identify and create a nightmare for Julia to fix. Somehow, I 
do not think the authors of ObamaCare had this in mind when they 
created the navigator program.
  The next question Julia will face is whether the exchange in her 
State will be ready. This, of course, will depend on where Julia lives. 
Not all of the State exchanges will be ready to launch today. Idaho, 
Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, and the District of Columbia have already 
announced they will be delaying the launch of their exchanges.
  The New York Times ran an article about the delays and glitches 
facing the exchanges this past weekend. According to the article, 
``Many of the 16 directors of State-run exchanges are describing 
October as a soft launch period when Americans can start exploring 
their coverage options--but on Web sites that may be incomplete, 
vulnerable to glitches, and perhaps not ready for an onslaught of 
customers.''
  In other words, Julia, depending on where she lives, may not even be 
able to sign up for insurance today because of the problems and 
delays--problems and delays many of the exchanges are now facing. But 
for the sake of discussion, let's assume Julia is able to sign on to 
the exchange and select a health insurance plan. Now that she has 
picked a plan, the question is, Will her personal information be 
secure?
  In order to sign up and purchase an insurance plan, Julia will have 
to hand over a virtual mountain of personal information, including her 
Social Security number, her tax return, and the like. All of this data 
will be entered into the Federal services data hub, a new information-
sharing network that allows State and Federal agencies to verify her 
information.
  The problem with the data hub is that it has not gone under any 
independent review to determine if the data that is entered is secure. 
The administration announced that the data hub had passed internal 
testing on September 10, a mere 3 weeks before it was set to go live. 
Sure, they may claim the data hub is operational and ready to go, but 
no independent watchdog such as the Government Accountability Office, 
for example, has had a chance to verify the security operations or make 
recommendations to better safeguard the privacy of consumers.
  Absent an independent review, there is simply no way of knowing 
whether the exchanges have adequate safeguards in place to protect 
enrollee's personal information. For Julia, this means her personal and 
financial records may be at serious risk of becoming available to data 
thieves or just plain crooks. Obviously, this is not something the 
Obama campaign mentioned about Julia when they planned out her life for 
her.
  The next question for Julia is whether she will be eligible for 
premium or cost-sharing subsidies. Depending on her income, Julia may 
be eligible for a tax credit designed to defray the cost of purchasing 
health insurance on the exchange. These credits are both advanceable 
and refundable, meaning that the IRS will pay them first and verify 
them later.
  My gosh, what a system. This is what some have referred to as ``pay 
and chase.'' The problem with this method of determining the 
eligibility for the subsidies is that there is an increased likelihood 
that applicants will receive larger subsidies than they actually 
qualify for. For Julia, that could mean, if she receives a subsidy, she 
could end up owing the IRS money next tax season. That is not a highly 
advertised element of the exchanges or the subsidy program, but that is 
the reality people such as Julia will be facing.
  Once Julia's plan and potential subsidies are in place, the question 
then becomes will she have the same quality of health care she had 
before that she was promised by the President. The Obama administration 
has made some misleading claims on this front. According to the White 
House, consumers and States with Federal exchanges will have an average 
of 53 plans to choose from. However, this number does not tell the full 
picture. According to an analysis undertaken by my staff on the Senate 
Finance Committee, 75 percent of States with Federal exchanges will 
have fewer plans available than the average touted by the White House.
  In addition, there will be fewer provider networks in the exchanges, 
because in an effort to keep the cost of premiums down, insurers are 
reducing the number of doctors and hospitals covered by the plans in 
the exchanges. For example, there is only one insurer in the New 
Hampshire exchange. Their plan will exclude--get that word 
``exclude''--10 of the 26 hospitals in the State.
  Another example is Blue Cross Blue Shield of California. Their 
exchange plan also covers only 53 percent of the doctors and 74 percent 
of the hospitals that are included in their broadest nonexchange plan. 
According to the New York Times `` . . . many insurers are 
significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available 
to consumers. . . . from California to Illinois to New Hampshire and in 
many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by 
restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their 
new health plans.''

  In short, this means that on the exchanges, Julia may very well have 
fewer choices for health care providers, potentially leaving her with 
limited access to quality care.
  The final question Julia will face on the exchanges is perhaps the 
most important. I call it the final question, but I am sure there are 
others. Will Julia have to pay more for her health insurance under the 
exchanges than she did before this wonderful ``Affordable Care Act''?
  This, once again, depends on the specifics of Julia's situation. If, 
like most Americans, Julia previously had employer-provided health 
insurance, she will likely be paying more for her insurance on the 
exchange than she did through her employer. While some enrollees may be 
able to find cheaper insurance through the exchanges, the majority of 
Americans will pay more for health insurance under the exchanges than 
they do now.
  The Manhattan Institute found that individual market premiums will 
increase 99 percent for men and 62 percent for women nationwide with 
the exchanges in place. The bottom line for Julia is that depending on 
her plan, she may very well end up paying more out of pocket for her 
health care than she did before ObamaCare was in place.
  As you can see, the reality of Julia's experience on the health 
insurance exchanges does not resemble the pretty picture President 
Obama painted for her during the campaign. She will almost certainly 
face a number of difficulties just navigating the process. I do not 
blame President Obama. He was just told what to say by so-called 
experts on health care. Those experts have been wrong, wrong, wrong too 
many times.

[[Page S7081]]

  In the end, it will likely end up costing Julia more to buy insurance 
on her exchange. Of course, Julia is not a real person. Her problems 
are imaginary. However, the problems that real Americans, including 
people from my State of Utah, will be facing as the exchanges open 
today are very real, as I have described them. Put simply, these 
exchanges are going live today with too many unanswered questions and 
too many unsolved problems.
  We should have never gotten to this point. The Obama administration 
should have acknowledged the ample warnings, signs and problems in the 
exchanges and heeded the many calls for delay. The administration was 
all too willing to delay the pain businesses will suffer under 
ObamaCare. Sadly, the American people got no such special treatment.
  All I can say is that those of us in Congress will be watching these 
exchanges closely. The American people will be watching them too. They 
will be experiencing them, which may not be very pleasant, in light of 
the promises that were made to them. If what we have discussed or 
witnessed so far is any indication, I do not think we or they or Julia 
will like what we see.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I come to the floor this afternoon as the chairman of 
the Intelligence Committee in order to speak about the effect the 
government shutdown starting to have on the community and what effect 
it will have if the shutdown continues.
  Let me give the most important figure up front. Across the 
intelligence communities, 72 percent of the civilian workforce is being 
furloughed. This means that with the exception of a few intelligence 
agencies that have a significant number of military personnel, the 
lights are being turned off and the majority of the people who produce 
our intelligence, analyze that intelligence, and provide warning of 
terrorist attacks or advise policymakers of major national security 
events will be prevented from doing their jobs. Simply stated, this is 
unacceptable. The failure of this Congress to perform its most basic 
functions means that our country is at heightened risk of terrorist 
attack.
  Intelligence provides this Nation with its first line of defense 
because long before a threat makes it to our shores, the men and women 
in our intelligence community learn about it, sound the warnings, and 
often take the steps to neutralize that threat. Before the President or 
the Secretary of State makes decisions on U.N. Security Council 
resolutions, such as a resolution to end Syria's chemical weapons 
program, they review the intelligence and they seek the advice of 
intelligence analysts.
  Finding Osama bin Laden in a house in Abbottabad and removing a bomb 
from an Al Qaeda operative in Yemen aren't things that just happen. 
They require the dedicated work of a huge array of professionals. Good 
intelligence requires the following: CIA officers on the ground and 
around the world meeting with sources; technical wizards who collect 
signals and imagery information; engineers who put together the systems 
to bring the information back to Washington and who convert the ones 
and zeroes of computer code into meaningful, actionable intelligence. 
Today, 72 percent of the civilian workforce will not be doing these 
jobs. Our shutdown is the biggest gift we could possibly give our 
enemies.
  I understand and I support continuing to pay our military men and 
women, operating both at home and abroad, including tens of thousands 
still deployed to Afghanistan. By furloughing our intelligence 
workforce, we put our uniformed men and women at risk as they, too, 
rely on the intelligence agencies to tell them where the next assault 
may take place or where the next IED is hidden.
  We have Ambassadors in threatened capitals. I can guarantee that our 
Ambassadors in Kabul and Baghdad and Sanaa and Islamabad rely on their 
intelligence briefers and the tactical intelligence support to their 
security teams as much as they rely on the marines who guard front 
gates.
  I met earlier this spring with Ambassador Anne Patterson in Cairo. I 
saw the gates and walls of our modern Embassy that had been overrun by 
the same crowds protesting down the street in Tahrir Square. I met with 
the CIA, NSA, and other intelligence officers who give the Ambassador 
and her team warning when the extremists are looking to try to attack 
our Embassy again.
  Some of these intelligence professionals will obviously remain on 
duty and are absolutely essential, but by furloughing the majority of 
the intelligence civilian workforce they rely on, we are preventing 
them from effectively doing their job.
  I spoke yesterday with Director James Clapper, the Director of 
National Intelligence. At my request, he sent me a short report on how 
the shutdown will affect the largest intelligence agencies. In addition 
to the 72 percent overall figure, his report lists how the shutdown 
will cripple the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the 
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance 
Office, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to 
include the National Counterterrorism Center.
  Every single agency I listed will lose the majority of its civilian 
workforce. Many of them don't have a sizable military component that is 
exempt from the shutdown. The numbers are still classified, but any 
Senator who wants to see how our failure to fund the government is 
harming the intelligence community is welcome to find out and read this 
report. It is in the intelligence office on the second floor of Hart. 
The intelligence agencies at the Departments of State, Treasury, 
Energy, and Homeland Security are hit even worse.
  I wholly regret that we are in this situation. I regret that across 
the country national parks are closed and Federal safety inspectors are 
sidelined. For 4 years we have squeezed the discretionary 
appropriations levels to the point that every part of the Federal 
Government has had to cut back and make do with less. What we are doing 
now puts American lives at risk. It is an abdication of congressional 
responsibility.
  I wanted to come to this floor to make clear to every Member of this 
body that what we have done directly damages our national security.
  I also would like to take the opportunity to speak on some of the 
cutbacks that are in process in the area of energy and water.
  Since 2001 I have served as chairman of three different 
Appropriations subcommittees: Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs, the Interior Department, and today the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Water Development. Over the years I helped make a lot of tough 
choices on which programs to fund, which not to fund, et cetera, but 
never have things been as bad as they are today. The cuts we are making 
to our appropriations bills under sequestration are strangling programs 
that must be funded. These are programs that are vital to our country, 
vital to public safety, and programs that promise to deliver the next 
breakthroughs in energy research.
  I will speak about some of the negative effects a shutdown and 
continued sequester would have on my subcommittee.
  The agency within my subcommittee that may have the most direct 
impact on the public is the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps 
safeguards our dams, our levees, and our drinking water. It keeps our 
harbors open for cargo ships, and it maintains more than 4,000 
recreation sites. Most people don't know that. Simply put, a government 
shutdown would mean the termination of a wide range of Army Corps of 
Engineers activities.
  Let me mention flood control for a moment. Work is stopping on 
virtually all construction projects, studies, and activities related to 
flood control and navigation across this country. These projects 
protect tens of millions of Americans. A shutdown may mean the Corps 
stops work on improving dam safety projects, including the dam at 
California's Isabella Lake, which is the dam most at risk of failure in 
our State.

[[Page S7082]]

  Halting these projects endangers citizens and ultimately increases 
the cost to complete this work. What is more, these projects actually 
reduce overall costs to the Federal Government. Damage prevented by the 
Corps' projects--this is only damage prevented--exceeds $25 billion a 
year. It is indeed a big deal.

  Other Corps projects interrupted by the shutdown includes the 
strengthening of levees and flood walls to reduce the risk of loss of 
life and economic loss from flooding and coastal storms.
  Work could stop on improvements to flood protection levees along the 
Mississippi River, levees that experienced record flood levels in 2011.
  Projects in Boston, Kansas City, and Seattle could be suspended. Even 
worse, these construction delays would come at a time when severe 
storms are causing damage with greater frequency.
  Even dam safety projects could be affected by a shutdown.
  One example is California's Folsom Dam, where the Corps and the 
Bureau of Reclamation are working to increase dam safety. A shutdown 
would likely cause the Corps and Reclamation to suspend contract 
activities, delaying this vital project.
  The Folsom Dam is a major component of the Central Valley Project, 
which provides clean water to more than 20 million Californians, and 
should not be put at risk by a government shutdown.
  A shutdown will also have dramatic impacts on water-borne commerce.
  More than 2.3 billion tons of cargo moves through our marine 
transportation system. Improvements to channels, harbors and waterways 
ensure this vital traffic flows without pause.
  Projects at Oakland Harbor in California, Savannah Harbor in Georgia, 
and Charleston Harbor in South Carolina could be impacted by the 
shutdown, meaning higher construction and transportation costs.
  The country's vast system of inland waterways could also suffer from 
the shutdown.
  More than 600 million tons of cargo move through our inland waterways 
on commercial ships. A shutdown means this cargo could be slowed, and 
the use of locks would likely not be available at all to recreational 
boaters.
  While facilities on lakes that combine flood control and hydropower 
should continue to operate because of safety issues, hydropower 
operations will likely be curtailed.
  This means 353 hydropower units operated by the Corps--which provide 
roughly one-quarter of the country's hydropower--would operate at 
reduced capacity. This would cut into the $1.5 billion in payments the 
units generate each year.
  There are also major permitting and operational impacts that will be 
immediately noticeable.
  Processing of regulatory permits under the Clean Water Act, which the 
Corps handles, will be suspended.
  In a typical year, the Corps processes more than 80,000 permit 
actions. This means anyone from an individual building a dock to a 
community planning a major development would not be able to move 
forward because they won't be able to secure a permit.
  The Corps will also be unable to provide enforcement actions on 
existing permitted activities, which could harm sensitive environmental 
or aquatic resources.
  Another visible effect will be the shuttering of recreation areas.
  The Corps of Engineers is the largest provider of outdoor recreation 
among all federal agencies. They maintain more than 4,200 recreation 
sites at 422 projects in 43 States, with more than 370 million visits 
each year.
  Those visitors spend more than $18 billion annually and support 
350,000 full-time or part-time jobs. All this will be impacted by a 
government shutdown.
  The Department of Energy could also face severe limitations under a 
shutdown.
  Research grants to national labs and universities could be suspended. 
These grants fund important clean energy challenges related to 
biofuels, supercomputing, and materials research.
  The output of world-class science facilities on cutting edge research 
and product development may be significantly reduced. With U.S. 
leadership in science threatened by China, Japan and Europe, now is not 
the time to suspend major scientific research.
  Regarding the national security missions of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, a government shutdown may delay important 
nuclear modernization activities.
  A government shutdown may disrupt and delay efforts to replace aging 
components in every single nuclear weapon in the stockpile. For 
example, delays in replacing aging components in the W76 submarine--
launched warhead--which makes up more than 50 percent of the Nation's 
nuclear deterrent--would have serious impacts to the Navy's nuclear 
deterrence mission.
  Upgrades to aging infrastructure related to uranium, plutonium and 
high explosives capabilities would also be delayed. Delays of just days 
can add millions of dollars to a project's bottom line.
  A government shutdown may also delay the design of a new nuclear 
reactor for the Ohio-class submarine. A shutdown may also delay 
refueling one of only three training nuclear reactors for sailors, 
which is critical for supplying sufficient numbers of sailors to man 
the U.S. submarine fleet.
  Lastly, on this matter, the shutdown will delay and increase costs to 
clean up and remediate nuclear contamination at former nuclear weapons 
and nuclear energy research sites. These activities should be completed 
as quickly as possible to protect human health.
  Finally, Madam President, I just wanted to say a couple of things 
about the much-beleaguered health care plan and what is happening so 
far.
  During the first 3 hours today, the Federal health care Web site--
healthcare.gov--with information about exchanges across the country 
logged 1 million visitors. As of 9:30 this morning, in Kentucky, the 
health exchange had 24,000 visitors and processed more than 1,000 
applications.
  I am anxious to provide the west coast numbers, although not able at 
this time due to the 3-hour time delay.
  There were 2 million visits to New York's health exchange during the 
first 2 hours of the launched site. Even at 11:30, Connecticut had 
10,000 visitors and 22 people enrolled.
  Let me just end with this one story. Paula Thornhill, a mother of 
seven who lives in Virginia, was the first to apply for coverage today 
in her county, which is Prince William. She is quoted as saying: ``I am 
relieved that they did come out with this affordable health care. I am 
relieved.''
  So far so good today, and I am hopeful that this tyranny of the 
minority will end shortly.
  I thank the Senator from Louisiana, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come back to the Chamber to urge the 
following. I hope as we try to resolve this important spending bill 
that a key part of that resolution is to live by existing law under 
ObamaCare and make sure that Members of Congress and our staff aren't 
treated far differently and far better than the American people.
  That is what the congressional portion of my ``No Washington 
Exemption'' bill and amendment is all about. It is a pure and simple 
principle. I think it is a first principle of democracy, and American 
democracy should work by that first principle: What is good for America 
is good for Washington. And what Washington imposes on America, it must 
live with itself: No special exemptions, privileges, subsidies or 
rules. The same rules. I think that should be the rule across the board 
for whatever part of law we are talking about. It should certainly be 
the rule under ObamaCare.
  Indeed, it is the rule under ObamaCare under the statute. What I have 
been fighting is an illegal regulation promulgated by the Obama 
administration to get around the clear language and the clear intent of 
the statute. As the Chair knows, during the ObamaCare debate this issue 
came up, it was debated, and language was passed here in the Senate and 
put into the statute. That language says, pure and simple, every Member 
of Congress and all official congressional staff have to go to the 
ObamaCare exchanges for their health care, the same as other Americans 
who are going to the exchange. No special treatment, no special 
exemption or rules or subsidies. That is the clear language and that 
was the clear intent.

[[Page S7083]]

  Amazingly--and I was happy to see it at the time--that language, 
which I fought hard for, along with many, many others, led on the 
Senate side by Senator Chuck Grassley--was adopted. That became part of 
the statute that passed into law. But, apparently, it was an example of 
that old Nancy Pelosi quote--we have to pass the law to figure out what 
is in it--because that language that did pass as part of the ObamaCare 
statute, when lots of folks on Capitol Hill started reading the details 
and they got to that section, they said: Oh, you know what. We can't 
live with this. We can't have this. This is a crisis. This would 
actually apply--the exchanges--to Members of Congress and our staffs, 
just as they are applied to millions and millions of other Americans--
8-million plus who are losing their previous employer provided health 
care, against their will, and being forced to go to the exchanges.
  So when that happened, after the passage of ObamaCare, furious 
scheming and lobbying started going on behind the scenes. This included 
lobbying of the administration. Harry Reid and many others got involved 
in asking the President to get personally involved to bail Congress 
out, to prevent this clear statutory language from having its clear 
force and effect. And sure enough, that worked. President Obama, 
according to numerous press reports, got personally involved. He 
literally picked up the phone, had conversations personally with folks 
in his administration about this rulemaking--pretty unprecedented--and, 
sure enough, a rule was issued conveniently right after Congress left 
town at the beginning of the August recess to flee the scene of the 
crime.
  That rule, the so-called OPM rule--completely illegal, in my opinion, 
because it is contrary to the statute--does two things. First of all, 
the rule says: Yes, the statute says all Members of Congress and all 
official congressional staff go to the ObamaCare exchanges for health 
care, but we don't know who official staff is. We have no idea. We 
can't figure that out, so we are going to leave it up to each 
individual Member of Congress to figure out who among their employees 
is official staff for purposes of this section, and we are never going 
to second-guess any decision by any Member of Congress, even though 
this could result in up to 535 different applications of the law.
  I think we should all be able to agree that is flat-out ridiculous. 
The law is written. It is written clearly. It uses the words: Official 
congressional staff. For OPM to say, through this rule, we can't figure 
that out, we will leave it up to each individual Member of Congress, is 
ridiculous, particularly since that would allow a Member saying no one 
who works for me is ``official staff'' for purposes of this section. 
What? They can completely get around the law with regard to staff that 
way. That is just flat-out ridiculous.
  The second thing this illegal OPM rule does is to say that even for 
Members of Congress and their staff who do go to the exchange for their 
health care, they get to take with them something that no other 
American from a big employer in that sort of situation gets to take--
they get to take with them their previous Federal Employee Health 
Benefit Plan subsidy--a huge taxpayer funded subsidy that no other 
American at that income level would get. That is completely separate 
treatment not envisioned by the statute in any way, and not mentioned 
in the statute in any way. In fact, there are plenty of parts in the 
statute contrary to that. But they get to take that with them to the 
exchange.
  Is that available to any other American in that situation at that 
income level? Absolutely not. So again, that is flat-out ridiculous and 
flat out at odds with the clear statutory language and intent of that 
provision of ObamaCare.
  Ever since we came back into session after the August recess and had 
the opportunity to correct this egregious illegal OPM rule, I have been 
fighting alongside others to do just that. I have been fighting along 
with a number of Senate colleagues, and I thank them all for their 
active involvement. I have also been fighting alongside Congressman Ron 
DeSantis of Florida, who is leading the House effort, and many, many 
other House colleagues who are all for this measure.

  I want to make clear and underscore, because this is important, that 
with regard to Members of Congress and staff, this isn't demanding some 
new law. This isn't demanding some change to ObamaCare. This is saying 
let us simply live with what the law is. Let us simply live with the 
clear statutory language. That is what we need to do, and we need to do 
it because it is fair and right for the American people. We need to do 
it because Americans are sick and tired, quite frankly, of Washington 
elites treating themselves like a higher select ruling class.
  That is exactly the concept the American revolution was founded on. 
That is exactly the mindset that led to our breaking away from Britain, 
which was a monarchy and was governed by that mindset. Yet here we are, 
as in many other cases, Washington is reintroducing that principle. 
That is a thoroughly un-American principle. And the first principle of 
American democracy--and we should affirm it--is that what Washington 
passes onto America, it lives with itself. Same rules, no special 
exemptions, no carve-outs, subsidies, or bailouts. What is good for 
America is good for Washington, and it should be applied equally across 
the board. Simple concept. Basic concept.
  As I said, I would call it the first rule of American democracy, but 
it is being trampled on in this instance. It is being trampled on as 
yet again Washington sets itself apart and above the American people as 
a select elite ruling class. That is wrong, and it is as wrong as yet 
another of a number of exemptions from ObamaCare; it is wrong as yet 
another example of special treatment--a carve-out, waivers, or 
exemptions.
  The President often says: This is the law of the land. He is right. 
So why don't we apply the law of the land as it is written across the 
board, no exemptions, no waivers, no illegal rules that are contrary to 
the clear language and intent of ObamaCare. Why don't we start by 
applying ObamaCare just as it is being applied to America in 
Washington. Why don't we start by living by the letter and the spirit 
of the law in saying all Members of Congress and all congressional 
staff go to the exchanges for their health care and do not take any 
special taxpayer funded subsidy with them that is unavailable to any 
other Americans at that income level.
  That would be leadership, and that is what we need to do. That is not 
changing the law. That is living by the law. We need to do that and we 
need to do it now as part of any resolution to these spending bill 
disagreements.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to gather around this principle. 
I urge my colleagues to vote right on this issue. I assure my 
colleagues they are going to get the chance to vote one way or the 
other. I am going to continue to demand a clear, clean up-or-down vote 
on the Senate floor on this issue. We have not had it. I have fought 
for it for about 4 weeks now. But because of the extraordinary 
efforts--quite frankly, including threats and intimidation and 
bribery--of the majority leader, we have not been allowed that clear 
up-or-down vote. I will assure my colleagues we are going to get it.
  I don't know when, I don't know how, because I don't control that, 
but I am going to make darn sure we are going to get it. And not much, 
if anything, of substance is going to happen until we do. This is 
overdue because this goes into effect today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, what we have is the tea party Republicans' 
version of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief. More than 40 
years ago, Dr. Kubler-Ross laid out the five different emotions 
experienced by people when they faced what they considered to be an 
awful, unacceptable fate: Making affordable health care available for 
millions of Americans is anathema to today's tea party Republicans. 
They

[[Page S7084]]

cannot accept it. They shut down the government to try to stop it.
  The tea party Republicans cannot handle the fact that the Affordable 
Care Act will guarantee that millions more Americans are going to have 
access to quality, affordable health care coverage; that being a woman 
is no longer going to be a preexisting condition--women cannot be 
charged higher insurance rates just because of their gender; no one is 
going to go bankrupt just because they get sick.
  Before the Affordable Care Act, medical bills contributed to more 
than 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies in the United States. That 
all ends with ObamaCare, which lifts lifetime caps on insurance 
coverage. Mr. President, 6.6 million people on Medicare have already 
saved more than $7 billion on their prescription medicines. The tea 
party Republicans are in the grip of the political equivalent of the 
five stages of grief. It is the American people who are getting 
squeezed.
  The first stage, denial. The tea party Republicans refuse to accept 
the fact that the Affordable Care Act is the law. They have tried to 
repeal it more than 50 times. It has been ruled constitutional by the 
Supreme Court. They ignored last year's Presidential election in which 
the Republican candidate who promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act 
if he was elected was soundly defeated. The tea party Republicans deny 
the decision by the Supreme Court that found the Affordable Care Act 
constitutional.
  The second stage, anger. The tea party Republicans are enraged that 
the Affordable Care Act is going to work. We know it is going to work 
because we have 7 years of experience in Massachusetts, where now 97 
percent of all adults and 99 percent of all children are covered. We 
have a poll conducted in April of this year by the Massachusetts 
Medical Society. It indicates that 84 percent of Massachusetts 
residents are satisfied with their health care. They like their health 
coverage under the Massachusetts system, which is the very model of 
President Obama's plan.
  The tea party Republicans cannot stand the fact that the Affordable 
Care Act will finally make health care a right and not a privilege in 
our country, in the words of the great Ted Kennedy. The tea party 
Republicans are so angry about ObamaCare that they closed down the 
Federal Government today, sending hundreds of thousands of Federal 
workers home without pay.
  The third stage, bargaining. The tea party Republicans are doing a 
lot of bargaining these days. They are using the entire Federal budget 
and soon the full faith and credit of the United States as leverage in 
their negotiation to try to gut ObamaCare. Bargaining rarely provides a 
sustainable solution, especially in this case. That is because the tea 
party Republicans do not want to negotiate. They want to eliminate the 
Affordable Care Act and the benefits it provides to millions of 
Americans. They say they want to bargain, but they don't. They say they 
want to negotiate, but they don't. They just want elimination of the 
health care program and that is not going to happen.
  The fourth stage, depression. The tea party Republicans are clearly 
depressed that they are getting blamed for shutting down the 
government, that public opinion is sharply turning against them and 
that many Republicans are repudiating their tactics and their 
extremism. Republicans are fighting amongst themselves, struggling to 
find a way out of the mess they have made for themselves.
  Finally, the fifth stage, acceptance. The tea party Republicans have 
not yet reached this final stage of acceptance. They still do not fully 
understand the backlash that they are facing from the public, which 
will justifiably blame them for the Republican tea party shutdown. The 
tea party Republicans do not yet regret their destructive ways. They 
certainly are nowhere near acceptance.
  So I say we are witnessing the tea party Republicans in the throes of 
their grief over losing the last election and losing the battle over 
health care reform, but it is the American people who are paying the 
price for this political psychodrama that is tearing the Republican 
Party apart and hurting our country and hurting the health of millions 
of Americans in our country. Now is the time for them to get over it. 
Now is the time for ObamaCare to be the law of the land. It is not 
going away.
  Now is the time to join together to ensure that it works for the 
American people. Now is the time to move forward to pass a budget that 
funds our government. Now is the time to get our economy back on track, 
create jobs, and build a bright future together for all Americans. Now 
is the time for the tea party Republicans to accept what the American 
people have voted to make the law of our land and the person whom they 
voted to make the President of our country.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  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. NELSON. 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. NELSON. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the shutdown 
that has now occurred.
  To say I am outraged is an understatement. What we need is for the 
folks down there at the other end of the U.S. Capitol Building to open 
this government. The economy of this country is at risk and they have 
done it to advance their own narrow extremist agenda.
  All of this is due to a relatively small group of lawmakers down in 
the House of Representatives--some 40, maybe 60--who are intent on 
having their own way on a personal agenda. They are refusing to work 
with their fellow Republicans, as well as Democrats, down in the House 
of Representatives, and the result is a forced government shutdown that 
is doing a lot of damage to a lot of people. That is why it is 
important for the American people to say they have had enough and they 
want these folks to stop this nonsense.
  We ought to be keeping government open, but, we need to consider a 
couple of things. For example, the National Institutes of Health are 
now unable to bring in 800 patients they were going to start to give 
medical treatment in breakthrough medical techniques and developments. 
At the same time, the National Institutes of Health--one of the premier 
agencies in all of this alphabet soup of agencies that we talk about--
they have had to furlough 70 percent of their civilian workforce.
  A few minutes ago, we heard the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, explaining that the Director of 
National Intelligence has told her he has had to furlough 72 percent of 
the civilians in the intelligence community. That is ridiculous. We 
have terrorists who are trying to do us harm, and he has had to 
furlough 72 percent.
  Take, for example, NASA. NASA had to furlough 97 percent of its 
civilian workers in the space program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Would my friend, the distinguished Senator from Florida, 
yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. NELSON. Of course I will. I wish to thank the majority leader for 
his leadership and for standing firm to stop this nonsense.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I thank my friend. We served together in the 
House.

                          ____________________