[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 136 (Friday, October 4, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7182-S7183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 3230

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the second unanimous consent request I will 
promulgate:
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 3230, making continuing appropriations during a 
government shutdown to provide pay allowances to members of the Reserve 
components of the Armed Forces, which was received from the House; I 
ask further unanimous consent that the measure be read three times and 
passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the junior 
Senator from Texas launched this government shutdown with a 21-hour 
presentation here on the floor of the Senate. It is clear from the 
actions of the House and his actions today that he is starting to try 
to reconcile in his mind all the damage which this government shutdown, 
which he inspired, is causing across the United States.
  This particular unanimous consent request relates to National Guard 
Reservists, a group which we hold in high esteem. But if the junior 
Senator from Texas is really focused on veterans and those who have 
served our country, he should take into consideration the 560,000 
Federal employees who are currently facing furlough or are on furlough, 
who are veterans, a fourth of whom are disabled veterans. So what the 
junior Senator from Texas is doing is picking and choosing who he will 
allow in the lifeboat. At this moment, it is National Guard and 
Reserve, while leaving 560,000 veteran Federal employees out in the 
water thrashing for themselves. That is not the way we should manage or 
govern this country.
  I can understand the anxiety the Senator feels about the problems he 
has created, but trying to solve them one piece at a time is not the 
American way. I object. And I ask unanimous consent, though--before I 
object, I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified, that an 
amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, that the bill be amended, 
then be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  This amendment is the text that passed the Senate. It is a clean 
continuing resolution for the entire government, including the National 
Guard, Reserve, VA, NIH--all of them. It is something that is already 
over in the House of Representatives and reportedly has the support of 
a majority of Democrats and Republicans and could pass today.
  I ask for that modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, no one 
watching these proceedings should be confused. We are in a shutdown 
because President Obama and the majority leader of this body want a 
shutdown, because they believe it is in the partisan interests of their 
party to have a shutdown.
  Four times the House of Representatives has come to us, four times 
the House of Representatives has endeavored to meet a middle ground, 
and four times the majority leader and every Democrat in this body has 
said, No, we will not talk, we will not compromise, we will not have a 
middle ground, and 100 percent of the priorities of the Democrats in 
this body must be funded or they will insist on a shutdown.
  I thank my friend from Illinois for making clear that the members of 
the Reserve components of our Armed Forces, in his judgment, are not 
worthy of being paid during the shutdown that the Democrats have 
forced. I could not disagree with that judgment more strongly. Let us 
be clear.
  This bill that has passed the House doesn't mention ObamaCare; it has 
nothing to do with ObamaCare. It simply says the exact same thing my 
friend from Illinois already agreed to, which is that the active-duty 
men and women of the military would not be held hostage and would be 
paid if it so happened that the Democrats forced a shutdown.
  Apparently, the position of the majority of this body is that we have 
a double standard, that Reserve members are not treated as well as 
active-duty members; that Reserve members will not get their paychecks.
  Let's be clear that this bill could be on the President's desk for 
signature today if my friend from Illinois would simply withdraw his 
objection. Unfortunately, in a move I think reflects a level of 
cynicism not befitting of the responsibility all of us have, my friend 
is prepared to object and to say that

[[Page S7183]]

not just veterans but Reserve members shall be held hostage in order to 
force ObamaCare on the American people; that that is the objective. I 
guess now the Democratic Party has become the party of ObamaCare, by 
ObamaCare, and for ObamaCare all of the time, and every other priority 
recedes. So veterans are told, Your concerns do not matter unless we 
can use you to force ObamaCare on the American people. Reserve military 
members are told, Your concerns do not matter unless we can use you as 
a hostage to force ObamaCare on the American people. That is cynical. 
We ought to take these individuals off the table.
  I note my friend from Illinois spoke of the great many Federal 
employees who have been furloughed. I would be very happy to work in a 
bipartisan manner to cooperate with my friend from Illinois to bring a 
great many of those Federal employees back to their vital 
responsibilities. But, unfortunately, the position the Democratic Party 
has taken is that not a one of them will be allowed to come back until 
this body agrees to force ObamaCare on the American people, despite the 
jobs lost, despite the people being forced into part-time work, despite 
the skyrocketing health insurance premiums, and despite the millions of 
people who are at risk of losing their health insurance.
  I find that highly objectionable and I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague from Texas, 
some of the language which he has used in this debate relative to 
impugning motives of Members may have crossed the line. I am not going 
to raise it at this point, but I ask him to be careful in the future.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  For the edification of all Senators, rule XIX reads as follows:

       No Senator in debate shall directly or indirectly, by any 
     forms of words, impugn to another Senator or to other 
     Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a 
     Senator.

                          ____________________