[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 8, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7282-S7293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS


                              Quorum Call

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain 
the presence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the following 
Senators

[[Page S7283]]

entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                             [Quorum No. 3]

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Durbin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Murphy
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Warner
     Wyden


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S7283, October 8, 2013, in the first column, the 
following appears: 

 [Quorum No. 
3]Alexander, Ayotte, Baldwin, Barrasso, Baucus, Begich, Bennet, 
Blumenthal, Blunt, Boozman, Boxer, Brown, Burr, Cantwell, Cardin, 
Carper, Casey, Chambliss, Chiesa, Coats, Coburn, Cochran, Collins, 
Coons, Corker, Cornyn, Crapo, Cruz, Donnelly, Durbin, Enzi, 
Feinstein, Fischer, Flake, Franken, Gillibrand, Graham, Grassley, 
Hagan, Harkin, Hatch, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Heller, Hirono, Hoeven, 
Isakson, Johanns, Johnson (SD), Johnson (WI), Kaine, King, Kirk, 
Klobuchar, Landrieu, Leahy, Lee, Levin, Manchin, Markey, McCain, 
McCaskill, McConnell, Menendez, Merkley, Mikulski, Moran, 
Murkowski, Murphy, Murray, Nelson, Paul, Portman, Pryor, Reed, 
Reid, Risch, Roberts, RockefellerRubio, Sanders, Schatz, Schumer, 
Scott, Sessions, Shaheen, Shelby, Stabenow, Tester, Thune, Toomey, 
Udall (CO), Vitter, Warner, Warren, Whitehouse, Wicker, WydenThe 
PRESIDENT pro tempore.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: 

 [Quorum No. 
3]Baldwin, Baucus, Begich, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, 
Cardin, Casey, Durbin, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Johnson (SD), Kaine, 
King, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin, Markey, McCain, McCaskill, Menendez, 
Murphy, Murray, Pryor, Reed, Reid, Schatz, Tester, Udall (CO), 
Warner, WydenThe PRESIDENT pro tempore.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum is not present.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed 
to request the presence of all absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 214 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Alexander
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Heller
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inhofe
     Udall (NM)
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. As soon as I finish my remarks, we will enter into an 
agreement on how the speakers will go forward.
  The shutdown of the Federal Government is now affecting some families 
more than others. It is affecting families who are the most vulnerable, 
denying them the benefits to help with the funeral expenses of loved 
ones killed while serving our country.
  This part of my presentation is not something I got from my staff; 
this is in the press right now:
  The families of five U.S. servicemembers who were killed over the 
weekend in Afghanistan have been notified that they won't be receiving 
their benefit, normally wired to relatives within 36 hours of the 
death. The death gratuity is extended to help cover funeral costs and 
help with immediate living expenses until survivor benefits typically 
begin. The money also helps cover costs to fly families to Dover Air 
Force Base to witness a return of their loved ones in a flag-draped 
coffin.
  ``Washington may be shut down, but it's still asking people to go to 
war,'' says the head of the Council on Foreign Relations, Gayle Lemmon. 
``When people realize that they can serve and fight for their country, 
but that their families will get an I.O.U. until the shutdown is over, 
I think they're just shocked.''
  I know I am.
  For example, LCpl Jeremiah Collins, 19 years old, was a marine who 
died Saturday while supporting combat operations in Afghanistan. He was 
one of the five killed, including four troop members who died Sunday by 
an improvised explosive device.

       A law passed last week to continue paying civilian members 
     of the military during the shutdown, but does not allow for 
     payouts of the death benefit to the families of the fallen, 
     officials told Andrea Mitchell of NBC.

  One senior official said he was disgusted by the predicament.
  That is where we are.
  I have asked each Senator to come to the floor today because it is 
important that we have an opportunity to talk about the crisis facing 
this great Nation. This government shutdown is an embarrassment to our 
Nation--not only to the people of America but around the world. An 
economic conference in the Far East that President Obama was to 
attend--he couldn't because of the government shutdown. So who is there 
pontificating about how bad things are in America? The President of 
China. And that is what he is talking about--America can't pay its 
bills.
  The families who lost five loved ones--it is an unbearable loss, but 
now they are being denied death benefits because of this senseless 
shutdown. It is shameful and embarrassing. There are no words to 
describe this situation that at least I am capable of expressing, that 
America could fail the families of our fallen heroes. Appalling, 
frightening--everyone can come up with their own description.
  It is time for us, Members of this august body, to stand before the 
American people and publicly discuss the path forward. Democrats stand 
unified, asking the Speaker to reopen the government--the whole 
government, not bits and pieces of the government. It is bad enough 
with all of the sequestration that has cut, for example, the National 
Institutes of Health this year by $1.6 billion, and add to that the 
government shutdown, add to that the second year of sequestration, 
which will be another $2 billion for the National Institutes of Health. 
This premier search we have in America for cures for disease, there has 
never been anything like it in the world; the Library of Congress, 
there has never been anyplace like it in the world. The great library 
in Egypt didn't compare to the Library of Congress. But there has been 
nothing ever in the history of the world like the National Institutes 
of Health. We are mindlessly going forward and cutting these scientists 
by billions of dollars.
  We need to reopen the whole government--not in some piecemeal fashion 
that further demonstrates to the world that we are unable to find real 
solutions. Open the whole government so we can get back to work. Allow 
the government to do its duty by our military families and by every 
American family.
  Quickly--I have said it before--in July of this year the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives and I sat down in his office. I was there, 
my chief of staff was there, and his chief of staff was there--the four 
of us. The Speaker wanted to figure out a way to go forward. We talked 
about a number of things. The one thing he was firm in, he said, it has 
to be at 2013 levels. I said: I can't do that; it is $70 billion less 
than the budget we passed just a short time ago. So the conversation 
continued. In September we talked and talked.
  I spoke to Chairman Murray and to Chairman Mikulski. It was really 
hard. They had worked so hard to get regular order back in the Senate. 
But, like the good soldiers they are, we decided to try to talk to the 
rest of the caucus and swallow really hard because we had the 
assurance--I had the assurance that we would have a clean CR now, in 
September. That didn't work. The Speaker didn't deliver on what he said 
he would deliver.
  So the government closes and we have one thing after another coming 
over here and we send it right back.

[[Page S7284]]

The last thing they sent over a week ago was to say let's go to 
conference. So last Tuesday I sent him a letter, and in the first 
letter I talked about a very decisive time in my life when I voted for 
the Iraq war. Within weeks of that I felt I had been misled. But 
regardless of that, that is how I felt. So I became an opponent of that 
war, and I did everything I could to focus on that war, which was 
having our military subjected to violence, and that is an 
understatement. Thousands were being killed, tens of thousands wounded. 
The number of Iraqis who were being killed is really hard to 
demonstrate adequately.
  There was a time that came in my life when we had an opportunity, 
under my direction, to shut the government down. How? By not funding 
the war. I made a decision--and that is in my letter to the Speaker--
not to do that.
  (Ms. BALDWIN assumed the Chair.)
  I, frankly, received a lot of help from around the country. But that 
is what I did. And I do not look back at all. So I was trying to tell 
the Speaker: Do not do this. However, I said: You have done it, and you 
have asked for a conference. We will go to conference on anything you 
want to go to conference on. We don't care. But first you have to open 
the government and allow us to pay our bills. That is in the letter of 
last Tuesday.
  Forty-five minutes after he got the letter, I called him. He said: 
No, I can't do that. So for someone to suggest we have not negotiated 
is just absolutely wrong.
  Madam President, $70 billion--it is the biggest compromise I have 
ever made in my career as a Member of Congress--some 31 years. It may 
not sound like much to some people, but it was really big. My caucus 
remembers what I asked them to do. So for someone to suggest to any of 
my Senators that we have not negotiated is simply unfair, and to say 
that we will not negotiate is unfair. I put it in writing. We are happy 
to go to conference. But you have to open the government. This is 
unfair--just like these five soldiers killed. So open the government, 
let us pay our bills, and we will negotiate on anything you want to 
negotiate.
  I have spoken to the President. I am certainly not name-dropping. I 
have told my caucus this several times over the last 2 days. He cannot, 
as President of the United States, negotiate on paying the bills of the 
country, the debt ceiling. I think there are Senators over here who he 
has sat down with and talked to individually and as groups to talk 
about a budget deal. There were many conversations in the Oval Office 
that I attended to talk about a budget deal. He has put in writing 
things that he would be willing to do that, quite frankly, our base is 
not excited about. But he put it in writing. He is still waiting for 
the first sentence from the people he invited to dinner and met with--
the first sentence--as to what they were willing to do.
  As said late last week by Haley Barbour and Ed Gillespie, former 
chairs of the national Republican Party, Republicans--now, they said 
this, not me--there is a time now when Republicans have to start being 
for something, not against everything.
  So I do not come here to argue and badger people. I am happy to talk 
about anything. Senator Murray will deliver a presentation in just a 
little bit. We know how hard she has worked. She has the respect of 
both Democrats and Republicans. But I repeat, when the Speaker said he 
wanted to go to conference last week, we said: Good. We will do that. I 
am not a one-man show over here. I clear everything with my caucus, 
with rare exception, before I go marching off into the blue.
  So I repeat, we are ready to go to conference as soon as the Speaker 
reopens the government and removes the threat of default. He has to 
take yes for an answer. You folks have to take yes for an answer. We 
are just as willing to sit down and talk today as we were in the spring 
and as we were this summer. In the meantime, let's open the government 
and live up to our obligations as a country.
  To that end, I will introduce a bill to allow the United States to 
pay it bills with no preconditions or strings attached. I will do that 
later today and start the so-called rule XIV process.
  We may have our differences, Democrats and Republicans, but we should 
not hold the full faith and credit of this great country hostage while 
we resolve it. At a later time Senator Baucus will talk, and I hope he 
repeats here on this Senate floor what he told us in our caucus that we 
just completed: Great nations are not guaranteed greatness. There have 
been books written about it, and he will talk about one author, a 
famous author, who recently wrote a book about how great nations have 
to meet expectations. We are great today. That does not mean we will be 
forever. How is this country going to look to the world community if we 
no longer have the full faith and credit of the United States meaning 
anything?
  I hope we can get Republican cooperation to move this bill quickly; 
that is, the debt ceiling bill. If not, the process could take us right 
up to the deadline--one day before.
  I am optimistic, however, that my Republican colleagues here in the 
Senate will not filibuster this bill. I am cynical by nature. That way 
I am not disappointed as much as those who are optimistic. My friend, 
Senator Schumer, and I have ongoing issues. He is optimistic about 
everything. I am cynical about everything. But I am optimistic, even 
though that is against my nature, that Republicans are not going to 
hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage. I hope I 
am right.
  We need to reopen the Federal Government now--not 10 minutes before 
the debt ceiling is gone. We need to get back to the business of 
protecting American families, back to the job of legislating. We are 
not doing anything in this body anymore. It is our job to legislate. 
That has always been our job; it always will be our job. Open the 
government, pay our bills, and let's negotiate.
  It is my understanding that this consent request has been cleared. We 
will hear from the Republican leader. Then we will hear at that time 
from Senator McCain for 15 minutes, followed by Senators Durbin, 
Schumer, and Murray. I ask unanimous consent that be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell be 
recognized, which we really do not need consent for him. He has time 
under his leader time. Following his statement I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator McCain be recognized for 15 minutes, then Senator Durbin 
for 10, Senator Schumer for 10, Senator Murray for 10.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would ask the distinguished majority 
leader if he would consider modifying his consent request so that we 
could alternate back and forth across the aisle. With that 
modification, I have no objection.
  Mr. REID. Well, after we get this out of the way, you mean?
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the majority leader asked for a number 
of Democratic Senators to speak without any intervening speeches or 
remarks by Republicans. All I am suggesting is, after he and the 
Republican leader speak----
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend from Texas----
  Mr. CORNYN. And after Senator McCain speaks and a Democrat speaks, 
that a Republican gets to speak and so forth. That is all I am asking.
  Mr. REID. I say, Madam President, through the Chair to my friend: 
three Democrats, two Republicans. It does not sound too outrageous to 
me. So would the Senator object to that?
  Mr. CORNYN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. OK. So following Senator McConnell, I will call upon 
Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my good 
friend, the majority leader. I might say, however, that as much as I 
appreciate his comments to all of us, the real challenge is his 
relationship with the House and whether or not we can begin the 
discussion process to get to an outcome.
  Nobody is happy with the government shutdown, certainly not anybody 
on this side, and not anybody on the other side. But I would remind 
everybody on both sides of the aisle that

[[Page S7285]]

Democratic Senators have said repeatedly ObamaCare is the law of the 
land and, basically, we should get used to it.
  We have suggested various modifications, some of which enjoy 
bipartisan support. But, obviously, so far that is not something our 
friends on the other side are willing to do.
  But let me also point out to all of you that the Budget Control Act 
is also the law of the land. It was negotiated on a bipartisan basis, 
signed by the President of the United States, and the Budget Control 
Act is the law of the land.
  When my good friend the majority leader says he was negotiating with 
the House over the CR level, my view was that was not a negotiation, 
that was current law, in place, passed on a bipartisan basis, signed by 
the President of the United States--current law.
  So I think I can pretty safely say that nobody on this side believes 
that we ought to revisit a law that has reduced government spending for 
2 years in a row for the first time since the Korean War, at a time 
when we have a debt the size of our economy which makes it look a lot 
like a Western European country.
  So as we go into whatever discussions we end up having to solve the 
shutdown problem, I would say to my friends on the other side, 
revisiting a law negotiated by the President, passed on a bipartisan 
basis, that is actually reducing government spending ought not to be a 
part of the final outcome.
  But talk we should. The American people have given us divided 
government. And when you have divided government, it means you have to 
talk to each other. This is not 2009 and 2010 when our friends on the 
other side had a total hammerlock on all the government. We now have 
divided government. It means we have to talk to each other and get to 
an outcome.
  I think it is far past time to get that done. I hope, given where we 
are today, there is adequate incentive to get those talks started, 
principally between the majority leader and the Speaker, to get us to 
the outcome we all want, and to get us there soon.
  But let me just conclude by saying the Budget Control Act is the law 
of the land. If you believe in reducing government spending, it is 
working. My Members and the American people think reducing government 
spending is a good idea. So we have a law in place that is achieving 
those kinds of results. That is not something at a time when we have a 
debt the size of our economy that we ought to lightly walk away from.
  So I hope my good friend, the majority leader, will, in addition to 
talking to us, which we appreciate, talk to the Speaker because that is 
how we resolve this crisis.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, since the beginning of this great 
Nation, 1,948 men and women have served in the U.S. Senate. That 
service is a singular honor and carries with it an important 
responsibility. James Madison said the ``use of the Senate is to 
consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and 
with more wisdom, than the popular branch.''
  Throughout our history it was this Senate, many times in this very 
room, that took on the most difficult challenges facing America: the 
creation of the Federal judiciary, the abolition of slavery, decisions 
to go to war, and the advancement of civil rights.
  At each of those moments, skeptics questioned whether there were 
Senators capable of resisting political pressure and whether there were 
Senators prepared to lead a divided nation.
  My colleagues, this is our moment. This is our chance--our chance--to 
bring this Nation back from the precipice. We should agree to restore 
the functions of government, not in a piecemeal fashion but in an 
orderly process befitting a great nation. We should spare America's 
workers and businesses the tragic consequences of a first-ever default 
on our Nation's debt. And we should restore the time-honored process of 
legislating--legislating--by adopting a bipartisan budget with the 
House, by considering spending bills on the floor of this Chamber, and 
passing appropriations bills in an orderly process.
  We can vote today, this afternoon, to go to conference on the budget 
and begin to resolve our differences with the House. If we fail, we 
know we will have diminished this great body and our great Nation--a 
nation which we have all taken a solemn oath to serve and protect.
  So let's agree to restore the functions of government--all of it. I 
have spoken with many of my colleagues and friends--and they are my 
friends--on the Republican side of the aisle. We have shared our 
frustrations at the current situation. To a person, each one of you has 
said to me: We have to bring this impasse to an end.
  Waiting for the House of Representatives to save us is beneath the 
U.S. Senate.
  We have our own responsibility and our own opportunity. We can come 
up with bipartisan Senate solutions. We can show the House of 
Representatives the path to end this crisis. Why are we waiting for 
them to show us? Let's begin to restore the confidence of the American 
people in this institution, in the Senate. We can fund the government, 
we can go to conference on a budget, and we can extend our debt 
authority.
  I see my friend Senator McCain on the floor. I know he is going to 
speak in just a moment. Over the last year I have seen moments in the 
Senate where we have defied our cynics and our critics: our successful 
bipartisan effort to pass a comprehensive immigration bill, a historic 
farm bill with far-reaching reforms, and a bipartisan extension of the 
Student Loan Program.
  We came together and we found common ground. We led as the Senate. 
Now we need to summon the political courage and purpose to find a 
bipartisan way to meet this challenge. I know it will not be easy, but 
I know we are up to the job. I know we have an opportunity that comes 
once perhaps in a political lifetime.
  But I wish to say this: What we are dealing with in the Senate is not 
just another political dustup. This confrontation is of historic 
proportion. Let's not wait on the House to find a solution. It is our 
responsibility as elected Members of the Senate to find that solution.
  The solution I think is clear. Summon the political courage and the 
sense of purpose that comes down to us in the Senate, and throughout 
our Nation's history it always has.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the order now before the Senate is 
Senators be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator McCain be recognized for 15 minutes. Everyone else 
will continue on the other order of 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to return to the normal one side 
and then the other side as far as speakers are concerned.
  Mr. REID. That is fine. That is our plan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I say to my colleagues, I bring to your 
attention two events today that I think deserve our attention. The 
first one is a story entitled, ``Grand Canyon food shortage turns 
dire.'' The St. Mary's Food Bank is set to deliver food boxes to Grand 
Canyon National Park today as a Federal shutdown strands thousands of 
employees inside the park without work and pay.
  The Grand Canyon, thousands of people inside the park without food or 
pay. This great Nation, we are having to have charities deliver food to 
people who are trapped in the Grand Canyon.
  Also today, ``Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to 
families of fallen troops.''

       At least five families of U.S. military members killed . . 
     . in Afghanistan over the weekend were given a double-whammy 
     by federal officials. Not only have your loved ones died, but 
     due to the government shutdown, you won't receive a death 
     benefit.

  The approval rating of Congress we joke about, about being 12 percent 
or 11 percent. I have a line I use all of the time: We are down to 
blood relatives and paid staffers. But should not we as a body, 
Republicans, Democrats, no

[[Page S7286]]

matter who we are, should we not be embarrassed about this? Should we 
not be ashamed?
  What do the American people think when they see that for those who 
served and sacrificed in the most honorable way, their families are not 
even eligible for death benefits? I am ashamed. I am embarrassed. All 
of us should be. The list goes on and on of people, of innocent 
Americans who have fallen victim to the reality that we cannot sit down 
and talk as grownups and address this issue.
  I am not going to take the full 15 minutes because I frankly get a 
little bit emotional. But we started with a false premise on this side 
of the aisle that somehow we were going to repeal ObamaCare. That is 
after 25 days of debate, including up until Christmas Eve morning 
fighting against ObamaCare, and that is after a 2012 election where I 
traveled this country with passion, the first thing saying that the 
first thing we are going to do when Mitt Romney is President of the 
United States is repeal and replace ObamaCare. The American people 
spoke.
  So somehow to think we were going to repeal ObamaCare, which would 
have required 67 Republican votes, of course, was a false premise and I 
think did the American people a grave disservice by convincing them 
that somehow we could.
  Now, 70 percent of the American people, according to a Washington 
Post poll this morning, disapprove of Republicans, but they disapprove 
of Democrats as well. They disapprove of the President of the United 
States as well. Meanwhile, the Chinese, great role models of democracy, 
are now criticizing us because of a looming failure by the American 
Government to pay its debts, both domestic and abroad.
  I say to my friend the majority leader, and he is my friend--we use 
that word with great abandon around here, but he and I have known each 
other now for 30 years--let's find a way to allow the adversary--I ask 
my good friend from Utah who is a history major, the words of Abraham 
Lincoln, ``Charity toward all, malice toward none.''
  Let's find a way out of this. Let's find a way that we can sit down. 
I do not care if it is appointing people. I do not care if it is the 
informal conversations that we have been having back and forth. But 
there should be a way out of both of these dead ends that we are in.
  How is this going to end? We know how it is going to end. We know how 
it is going to end. Sooner or later the government will resume its 
functions. Sooner or later we will raise the debt limit.
  The question is, How do we get there? If there is anybody who 
disagrees that we are not going to reach that point, I would like to 
hear from them. So why don't we do this sooner rather than later? Why 
doesn't the Senate lead? I have great respect for the other side of the 
Capitol, but I understand the contradictions that are there and the 
difficulties the Speaker has. I am in great sympathy there.
  So why don't we get together? Why don't we sit down and--look, this 
body voted 70 to 29, I think it was, to repeal the medical device tax. 
Do my colleagues want to renounce that vote they took on the budget? 
Why don't we use that as one of the areas where we could reach 
agreement? What about the issue out there the American people believe 
that we are under a different health care system than they are and ours 
is a better deal than theirs?
  There are a number of issues that we could sit down and negotiate 
within an hour if we will stop--stop attacking each other and impugning 
people's integrity and honor. So all I can say is let's start this 
afternoon. I do not care who it is or how it is shaped, but let's sit 
down and get out of this, so that these families whose loved ones just 
died--just died--will receive the benefits at least that would give 
them some comfort and solace in this terrible hour of tragedy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those on the 
Democratic side be in this order: Schumer, Murray, Baucus, Mikulski, 
Warner, Cardin, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise because we are getting very close 
to a time of crisis, perhaps one of the greatest economic crises this 
country has known. I have many good friends on the other side of the 
aisle. I do not doubt for a moment their motivation, their desire, and 
their love of country. It is every bit as strong as those of us on this 
side of the aisle.
  So I make a heartfelt plea: We must come together and avoid a default 
of the United States. Many have said, I heard some even say on the 
other side, that default does not matter or it does not mean much. Let 
me explain the danger. There is a very real chance that if we default, 
there will be a recession greater than what occurred in 2008 and all 
too real a possibility it could put us into a depression.
  Let me explain why. What happened in 2008 was simple. Mortgage 
securities declined in value immediately--dramatically they declined in 
value after Lehman and AIG went down. Banks' balance sheets instantly 
flipped from black to red. Loans were frozen, not only long-term loans 
but even overnight loans, lines of credit. The economy came to a 
screeching halt. We had to offer huge rescues or bailouts to overcome 
that. But even so, interest rates climbed.
  If that happened with mortgage securities, the likelihood of it 
happening with Treasurys is all the more frightening because Treasurys 
are more widely held, more internationally held, the currency of the 
land, of the world. If Treasurys were to dramatically drop in value the 
day we defaulted or, make no mistake about it, it could happen a day or 
two before, here is what would happen: The economy would decline 
dramatically. Things would freeze. Interest rates would go way up. The 
cost of a mortgage, the cost of a car loan, dramatically increasing, 
hurting every middle-class family. Home sales would decline. Auto sales 
would decline. Hundreds of thousands, millions would be laid off.
  Why risk that? We all have political goals. They differ. That is 
reasonable. There is a time and a place, as the Scriptures say, ``A 
season for everything.'' There is a time and a place to debate these 
things. It is not while our government is shut down and while our debt 
hangs in the balance, risking default. There is a simple and logical 
solution which good men and good women on both sides of the aisle can 
come to.
  Let's open the government. Let's pay our bills. Then let's debate 
every issue you wish to debate. Nothing should be off the table. We are 
happy to go to a committee, a conference committee. The Senator from 
Washington has asked, I believe it is 18 times--will ask again in a few 
minutes. Of course we want a conference committee where we can discuss 
things but not at the price of keeping the government closed, hurting 
millions of families in every way, not at the price, even worse, of 
defaulting on our debt.
  I would say, with all due respect to my colleagues in the House, they 
have it backward: First, go to conference and then decide whether to 
open the government or default. No one--liberal, conservative, 
Democrat, Republican--could say that is a rational strategy if you care 
about the country and worry about the risk of doing these things.
  I understand the frustration with ObamaCare. We would argue there was 
an election in 2012. We would argue that every Democratic incumbent had 
to debate that issue over and over, as did President Obama when 
Governor Romney made it a major issue. The electorate decided they 
didn't want to get rid of ObamaCare. But we understand how passionately 
people feel, and we understand you will continue to try and do that. 
But again, there is a time and a season, and now is not the time and it 
is not the season when the government is shut down or default hangs in 
the balance.

  I plead with my colleagues to allow us to come together. We want to 
negotiate. We want to sit down and talk to you. We are eager to do it. 
But first let's open the government, pay our bills, and then let's 
negotiate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my understanding is we were going to go

[[Page S7287]]

back and forth, and if the Senator from Texas wishes to go, I will 
yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
impassioned remarks today, and all of us weep for those service men and 
women who have lost their lives in defense of this great Nation.
  I would note this Senate can right now, today, move to correct the 
problem the majority leader described. The House of Representatives has 
passed eight separate bills funding vital priorities of the government. 
All eight of those bills now sit on the majority leader's desk. This 
Senate has not voted on those bills. To date, the majority leader has 
not allowed the Senate to have even one vote on the bills that would 
fund vital government functions. One of those bills is a bill that 
funds the VA--funds the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  It seems to me we are going to have political differences, and those 
political differences are not going away anytime soon, but we ought to 
be able to say, regardless of what happens in the battle over the 
shutdown, that our veterans should be beyond politics. We should have 
bipartisan agreement on standing for our veterans.
  Right now veterans disability payments are not funded. The House has 
passed legislation to fund that. That was bipartisan legislation, with 
a number of Democrats in the House, and yet the majority leader has not 
allowed the Senate to vote on it. The only thing in the way of funding 
the VA today is the Senate voting to do so--is the objection the 
majority leader has raised to funding the VA.
  Let me note that the bill the House passed funding the VA is a clean 
CR on the VA. It doesn't mention ObamaCare. It doesn't say a word about 
ObamaCare. It simply says our veterans should be beyond partisan 
politics, regardless of the shutdown.
  Let me also note this body has already engaged in bipartisan 
cooperation. Earlier in the course of this debate, the House of 
Representatives passed a bill to fund the men and women of the 
military--to pay their paychecks. For weeks there had been politicians 
suggesting if there were a government shutdown the men and women of the 
military would not be paid. The House passed a bill, a clean CR, that 
said we will fund the men and women in the military. I commend my 
friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, and I commend the majority 
leader, because the 54 Democrats in this body made the right decision 
to act in a bipartisan way and cooperate with the Republicans in this 
body and with the House of Representatives, and in 24 hours the bill 
funding the men and women of our military became law, went to the 
President and was signed into law. That is the way we are supposed to 
operate.
  So I would ask: If we could work together in a bipartisan manner to 
say we are not going to hold the men and women of the military hostage, 
why can't we work together in a bipartisan manner to say we are not 
going to hold our veterans hostage; that regardless of what happens in 
the shutdown, let's fund the VA now?
  Likewise, the House of Representatives has passed a bill funding our 
parks and national memorials. We have seen day after day our World War 
II veterans coming to the World War II Memorial and facing barricades 
the administration has put up. The administration has expended money to 
keep them out. The House has passed a bill to fund our parks and our 
memorials. Let me suggest if the Senate would only vote, we could open 
every park and memorial in the country.
  The House has passed a bill to fund FEMA. If the Senate would only 
vote, FEMA could be funded.
  The House has passed a bill to fund the National Institutes of Health 
so we can provide vital cancer research. The majority leader spoke 
quite passionately just moments ago about the need to fund the National 
Institutes of Health. I agree with the majority leader, and I would ask 
the majority leader to withdraw the objection he has raised to funding 
the NIH.
  Let me note, some have disparaged the House's approach as a piecemeal 
approach. Yet that is the traditional means of appropriating and 
legislating that for centuries this body has done. The VA is usually 
funded--just the VA--not connected to anything else. Why would the 
Senate want to hold veterans hostage because of disagreements over 
ObamaCare? I don't think we should. I think we should fund the VA right 
now.
  Why would the Senate want to hold our parks and memorials hostage?
  Why would the Senate want to hold the National Institutes of Health 
hostage?
  Why would the Senate want to hold Federal workers hostage?
  On Saturday, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill 
to provide back pay for Federal workers who had been furloughed. Every 
House Democrat who voted voted in favor of that. Yet the majority 
leader has not allowed this body to vote. I am going to say right now I 
agree with those House Democrats, and I urge that Senate Democrats 
stand with House Democrats who voted unanimously in favor of back pay 
for Federal workers.
  We can work together with bipartisan compromise, but we can only do 
so if both sides come to the table. Right now the House of 
Representatives is working constructively to fund vital priorities and, 
unfortunately, President Obama, the majority leader, and Senate 
Democrats are refusing to negotiate, refusing to compromise. That is 
not a reasonable approach. It is not a path that will lead to resolving 
this.
  I hope we come together, resolve this, fund our vital priorities and, 
at the same time, respond to the millions of people who are hurting 
because of ObamaCare--who are losing their jobs, who are pushed into 
part-time work, who are facing skyrocketing insurance premiums and who 
are losing their health insurance.
  We need to answer the call of our constituents. We need to answer the 
call of Teamsters president James Hoffa who put in writing that 
ObamaCare right now is destroying the health care of millions of 
working men and women. ``Destroying'' is the word Mr. Hoffa used. I 
think the Senate should respond to the concern Mr. Hoffa raised, and we 
should stand with millions of working men and women and we should 
protect their health care so the hundreds of millions of Americans who 
have health care right now don't lose it.
  People all across this country are getting letters in the mail 
telling them they are losing their health care because of ObamaCare. We 
need to listen to them. So let's fund our government, let's fund our 
vital priorities, and let's listen to the American people and stop the 
No. 1 job killer in this country that is ObamaCare.
  I urge this body to work together in a bipartisan manner to listen to 
the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I think there is one thing every one of 
us can agree on: There are innumerable problems across our country--
families who have been challenged, sad stories that should be taken 
care of in every part of our country, in each of our States, with 
families we know who are hurting because of this government shutdown. 
There is one answer to that, and it is an easy one. It is for the House 
of Representatives to simply take up the bill that is in the House 
today and pass it. We know there are enough Members of Congress who can 
pass that today and every problem we have heard about or haven't heard 
about yet will be solved. Republicans simply need to end this 
government shutdown so Americans stop hurting.
  Our families also need to know they are not going to be threatened by 
a catastrophic default. And when that happens, we will be waiting at 
the table, as we are today, to negotiate a long-term deal in the budget 
conference that the other side has spent months blocking.
  We have been trying to work with Republicans toward a fair, long-term 
budget deal for years. Since 2011, Democrats from the Senate to the 
House to the administration have sat in rooms, we have negotiated, we 
have talked, we have discussed, and we have offered compromise after 
compromise. We have tried regular committees, we have tried 
supercommittees. If there was a room where Democrats and Republicans 
could sit and talk, we found it and we got to work. But no matter

[[Page S7288]]

what we did, no matter how much we offered, we were unable to come to a 
place that we could agree was a fair and balanced approach that the 
American people deserved.
  So this year, our Republican friends on the other side of the aisle 
asked us to return to regular order. That was the most important thing 
they said--for us to get to a place where we could find a budget deal 
that could be agreeable and we could move forward. That is exactly what 
we did. In the Senate we passed our budget more than 6 months ago. The 
House of Representatives did the same. Since that time we have asked 19 
times to go to conference to work out our differences. Nineteen times 
we have come to the floor to say let's have regular order, let's work 
out our differences in a conference committee.
  We wanted to get in a room with the House Republicans to sit at a 
table and do everything possible to bridge the divide between our two 
budgets. We knew it would not be easy. There are significant 
differences between the House and Senate budget. But the American 
people expected us to try and we were committed to doing that. 
Importantly, we wanted to make sure we had enough time to bridge that 
divide and get to this difficult deal so we would not be here today 
where we have lurched into another manufactured crisis.
  Republicans rejected our attempts to sit down and negotiate. Every 
time we asked to go to a budget conference, we were shot down. 
Democrats came to the floor again and again, along with, I would add, a 
number of responsible Republicans who agreed. Even though they did not 
support the budget that was passed here, they agreed we should go to 
conference with the House Republicans and work out our deals. But each 
time we asked, a handful of Republicans objected and said: No 
discussions. They refused to allow us to go to a table. They had no 
interest in any discussions or negotiations or talk, and they pushed us 
until they got exactly what those few Republicans here wanted, and that 
was an avoidable--completely avoidable--government shutdown.
  After spending 6 months rejecting talks, causing this crisis, now all 
of a sudden some of our Republican friends seem desperate to make it 
look as though they are the ones interested in negotiating. They know 
it is clear to families across the country the only reason this crisis 
continues is the House Republicans' refusal to take up the bill and 
pass it right now--a bill that will get our government open and running 
again.
  And, by the way, they are now trying to do everything they can to 
distract their constituents from that simple fact. But the American 
people are smarter than that. They know the world did not begin the day 
of the government shutdown. They know it is not possible for 
Republicans to have just discovered negotiations 20 minutes before a 
shutdown, when all they need to do is take up the bill and vote.
  The latest gimmick the House seems to be considering is to start 
another supercommittee to debate this issue. Instead of simply taking a 
vote to end this crisis, they want a repeat of 2011. They want another 
supercommittee. Well, as everyone here knows, I cochaired that 
supercommittee, the Senator from Montana worked for hours and hours and 
days on end with me on that committee, and it failed. For reasons that 
we believe in and they believe in, which could be debated, the 
supercommitte did not come up with a resolution. I think House 
Republicans are going to have a lot of trouble explaining to those 
families who haven't seen a paycheck since this shutdown started that 
they should wait for another supercommittee to go to work.
  Here is what should happen. House Republicans should end this crisis. 
They should simply allow a vote on our bill to end the shutdown, which 
would pass with bipartisan support.
  They should stop threatening an economic catastrophe if they don't 
get their way, and we are happy to sit down and negotiate. We know on 
our side that negotiation on a budget deal is not going to make us 
happy. We know the House Republicans won't be happy. But that is how a 
democracy works--by working out our differences. Democrats are here 
today to say we are willing to negotiate and we are willing to work 
with our Republican counterparts to find a path forward. Of course we 
want to negotiate. We have tried to start a budget conference for 6 
months.
  I know the vast majority of my Republican colleagues came here to 
help our families and to help our communities. I know they came here to 
solve problems. The vast majority came here to work across the aisle to 
make the country better. So I urge our Republican colleagues here in 
the Senate today to support the unanimous consent we are about to offer 
to end this crisis, take the threats off the table, and sit down and 
work with us toward a balanced and bipartisan budget deal that I know 
so many of us in this room want.


              Unanimous Consent Requests--H. Con. Res. 25

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives 
a message from the House that they have passed H.J. Res. 59, as amended 
by the Senate, the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar 
No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment at the desk, which is the 
text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be 
inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed 
to; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table; that the Senate proceed to vote on a motion to insist on its 
amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes 
of the two Houses, and authorize the Chair to appoint conferees on the 
part of the Senate, with all of the above occurring with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think 
we should all note that this unanimous consent agreement essentially 
asks the Senate to direct the House on what to pass and to pass the CR 
the Senate desires. There won't be any need to, in effect, deal in that 
fashion. That won't work.
  I would also note in response that there is a unanimous consent 
request agreement I could agree to and I think Members of this side 
would agree to, and that is that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 33, 
H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment at the desk, which is the text of 
S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted 
in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that 
the Senate proceed to a vote on a motion to insist on its amendment, 
requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the 
two Houses, and authorize the Chair to appoint conferees on the part of 
the Senate, with all of the above occurring with no intervening action 
or debate. I further ask consent that it not be in order for the Senate 
to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation 
instructions to raise the debt limit.
  That is the reason there has been an objection over here--because, 
under the way we believe we should proceed, raising the debt limit is a 
legislative act that should be subject to 60 votes. The concern from 
Members of our conference who have objected is that if we put the debt 
limit on the budget, then we would only have to have 51 votes. They 
have insisted they would approve going to the House and having 
conference on the budget, but they want an agreement that they are not 
going to attempt to slip that through. And if it is not a problem, why 
won't they agree?
  So for these reasons, we are not able to agree, and I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, responding to the unanimous consent 
request the Senator from Alabama propounded, I reserve the right to 
object. We may have just reached the heart of the matter. While we hear 
day after day that our House Republican friends want to negotiate on 
the debt limit, the Senator from Alabama asked us now to specifically 
preclude ourselves from talking about that very subject. I respectfully 
suggest that perhaps the real problem here isn't that Democrats aren't 
talking to Republicans; it is that Republicans aren't even talking to 
each other.
  I also would note that this modification the Senator from Alabama is 
asking would leave us in a shutdown facing hundreds of thousands of 
families

[[Page S7289]]

who would wonder when their next paycheck would come while we do our 
work.
  So I object to the Senator's request, and I renew my unanimous 
consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama objected to the 
request from the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. SESSIONS. And I believe I understood she has renewed it, and so I 
would renew my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to all requests.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, just briefly, I appreciate Senator 
Murray having passed a budget this year in the Senate for the first 
time in 4 years. It is a budget that is far from the kind of budget we 
should have, but it was one they stood up and voted for. That is 
something of value to begin our process around here.
  I would note that the reason it is such an unacceptable proposal from 
my Democratic colleagues--very similar to what President Obama asked 
for--is that it raises taxes $1 trillion over 10 years and raises 
spending $1 trillion over 10 years. That is above the lawful Budget 
Control Act levels we agreed to on a bipartisan basis in August of 
2011.
  If we remember, the President insisted we have a debt ceiling 
increase then. He said that we couldn't negotiate on it, that the 
country would sink into oblivion if we even got close to the debt 
limit, and we all had to back down and just agree to raise the debt 
limit without any limits.
  Polling data showed the American people did not believe we should 
raise the debt limit of America without at least cutting spending and 
reducing our deficits; the credit card Congress was on was going to be 
pulled back. So Republicans stood firm. An agreement was reached, and 
the President approved it. It had no tax increases and raised the debt 
ceiling $2.1 trillion over 10 years. How much is that? We were 
projected to increase spending over 10 years by $10 trillion. This 
would reduce the increase in spending from $10 trillion to $8 
trillion--not enough to throw the government into default, disaster, 
and confusion if properly executed. And it certainly wasn't the best 
way it was done. So that was the agreement. Before the ink is dry, with 
a year or so under it, now our colleagues have already abandoned ship, 
thrown in the towel, and want to raise spending by $1 trillion over 
what they agreed and raise taxes by another $1 trillion. That is why we 
have a big disagreement.
  What do our colleagues want? They want to tax more, spend more, with 
more debt. It is not the way to run America, and the American people 
know it. So somehow, in this debt crisis, we all have to work together. 
And I respect my colleagues, but I cannot agree to doing something in 
this process that violates the solemn agreement. We told the American 
people: OK, we have raised the debt ceiling $2 trillion, but we reduced 
spending by $2 trillion. The debt ceiling has already eased up by $2.1 
trillion, but we still made a promise we have to honor--that we will 
save $2.1 trillion of growth over the next 10 years. That is our 
responsibility and duty.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two Republican 
Senators to be recognized would be Senator Collins from Maine followed 
by Senator Murkowski from Alaska and that we would continue to 
alternate between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be 
recognized at this time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator repeat 
his request.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the two Republican 
speakers on this side be Senator Collins from Maine and Senator 
Murkowski and that we continue to alternate between both sides. Since I 
just butted in as part of our budget debate, I did not intend or desire 
to take Senator Collins' time. She has been patiently waiting next in 
line.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I certainly will not object to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to underline the gravity of the 
financial condition our country is headed to at this point. I think in 
the back-and-forth we tend to overlook just how serious this matter is. 
Here in the Capitol we walk in the footprints of our forefathers. 
Walking through these halls, their presence is felt at every turn. Just 
outside this Chamber are the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, 
Lincoln, and dozens of statesmen cast in bronze and marble.
  At the end of this month a new leader will be added to the halls of 
Congress--Winston Churchill. A bust of the late Prime Minister will be 
added to the Capitol collection in the National Statutory Hall later 
this month.
  Churchill once said, ``The price of greatness is responsibility.'' We 
here in Congress have a great responsibility--a responsibility to 
conduct the business of this Nation, to represent and do what is right 
for our people and help the people we represent. That is our 
responsibility here. However, the inaction of a small group of Members 
in the House has crippled Congress and is now threatening to impede the 
ability of the United States to fulfill one of its greatest 
responsibilities--to pay the government's bills. It is completely 
irresponsible to threaten to default on the Nation's debt. Since 1789 
this country has always honored its obligations. Even when the White 
House and Capitol were burned to the ground right here in 1814, America 
still honored its debts.
  America is the greatest country on Earth. We are the leaders of the 
free world. Nations look to us as examples in democracy. We are 
supposed to be ``the shining city upon a hill,'' but unfortunately the 
shine risks being tarnished by a debt default.
  I agree with many of my colleagues that more could be done to reduce 
the deficit and promote economic growth, but, as the President said, we 
cannot negotiate under the threat of default of the Nation's debt. It 
reminds me of what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said: Never 
fear to negotiate, but do not negotiate out of fear. Failing to raise 
the debt limit and shutting down the government are two fearful actions 
that should not be on the table as we attempt to negotiate other 
matters in our Nation's fiscal policy.
  The path is clear. We need to open the government and raise the 
Nation's borrowing limit. Take away those two guns to our head as a 
country. Then and only then can we responsibly address the Nation's 
long-term budget challenges.
  Right now we need to come together to ensure that we do not permit 
another self-inflicted wound to our Nation's economy, and that is what 
defaulting of the debt is--a self-inflicted wound with global 
consequences.
  When is the X date? When is the date on which the U.S. Government can 
no longer pay its bills? We don't know exactly. It is uncertain, and 
that is part of the problem. Uncertainty creates unpredictability. 
Nobody knows for sure. The Treasury Secretary says it is October 17. 
That is as good a date as any. At that time we will have exhausted all 
``extraordinary measures'' to stay under the debt limit. I reminded my 
colleagues that we have been over the debt limit since I think it is 
May. But we have been taking extraordinary measures; that is, not 
fulfilling other obligations; that is, not making the government 
contribution to, say, the government retirement system, for example--we 
are not doing that anymore. That is an extraordinary measure. We are 
not making that contribution so we can make other payments such as 
Medicare payments and other payments the government is obligated to 
make.

  After October 17, after all extraordinary measures are exhausted, we 
would risk defaulting on payments. This is dangerous territory. As of 
next Thursday it is expected the Treasury Department will have only 
about $30 billion cash on hand, barely enough to support the government 
for 1 or 2 weeks. After that the government's wallet is empty. We are 
in uncharted waters.
  Again, this country has never in its history defaulted on the 
national debt. If the debt ceiling is reached, government would 
immediately have to slash its spending by 20 or 30 percent, driving the 
Nation back into recession.
  Make no mistake about it. Social Security payments and Medicare would 
have to be slashed, veterans' benefits

[[Page S7290]]

hit, farm payments, farm funding, Department of Defense, payments to 
the disabled--every program this government runs will be devastated by 
cuts.
  The default would also have global consequences, not just here in 
America but worldwide. Christine Lagarde, the Managing Director of the 
International Monetary Fund, warned that a failure of the United States 
to raise the debt ceiling could damage the entire global economy. She 
is right. Look at how precarious the European economy is right now, and 
the great effort the European countries have been undertaking to try to 
stabilize the southern countries in Europe, along with the creditors of 
the northern nations of Europe. She said it is ``mission critical'' 
that the debt limit be resolved as soon as possible. Mission critical, 
says Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF.
  We are the most important economy in the world. We are the reserve 
currency for the world. Our Treasury bonds are the very foundation of 
the global financial system. Default would put the global economy in 
chaos. The New York Times has an article today entitled ``Default 
Threat Generates Fear Around the Globe.''

       Five years after the financial crisis in the United States 
     helped spread a deep global recession--

  Don't forget, Lehman Brothers collapsed 5 years ago in December.

     --policy makers around the world again fear collateral 
     damage, this time with their nations becoming victims not of 
     Wall Street's excesses but of a political system in 
     Washington that to many foreign eyes no longer seems to be 
     able to function efficiently.

  We have read the article. We know it is true. The plug has been 
pulled on negotiations between the United States and Europe on their 
trade agreements. Why? Because of the government shutdown, not so much 
the debt limit but the shutdown.
  We also read articles, I am sure it is true, that President Obama had 
to cancel his trip to Southeast Asia because he had to stay here and 
try to work out this crisis. The United States is losing influence in 
Southeast Asia because he is not there. Who is there? President Xi, the 
President of China. President Xi is there, explaining to the Southeast 
Asian countries that China is their friend and he is making loans, an 
international development bank sponsored by China, tens and twenties of 
billions of dollars--not by the United States but China.
  Those countries are trying to escape the gravitational pull of 
mainland China. President Xi's presence there helps increase their 
gravitational pull. The President of the United States is not there, 
not there to show to those other Southeast Asian countries that we 
care. He is not there because we are not doing our work. That is why he 
is not there.
  His absence creates another almost deeper concern among countries, 
let's say in Southeast Asia. Where is the United States going to be 
militarily if there is some military difficulty in Southeast Asia? 
Where is the United States going to be? Can the United States be 
counted on? Can the United States be trusted?
  It seems as though there is a question there because the President is 
not in Southeast Asia and the other question is there because there is 
a question whether the United States is going to pay its debts, going 
to pay its bills. I think we eventually will, as the Senator from 
Arizona Senator McCain said. I think most Members of this body think we 
eventually will. But let's get there now, not later.
  There is a real danger here, a big danger here. The danger is we are 
going to get close to the cliff and get so close to it that we will go 
over it. We know the cliff is out there. The cliff is default. We know 
it is not too far away. We know we do not want to go over the cliff. We 
do not know exactly where that cliff is. We don't know. It may be 
closer than we think. We do not know what payments we have to make, 
when they are due. We do not know what the revenue is going to be. That 
is why the X date is so uncertain.
  In addition to that, something might happen that triggers a 
catastrophic economic global response. I don't want to overstate this 
point, but back in 1914, the Archduke of Austria was assassinated--
Serbia. That spark started World War I, that spark caused it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Very briefly, in addition, there have been other 
instances when pressure was being built up, people did not heed 
warnings, they let fate tempt them, and the result was collapse. There 
have been financial bubbles. The tulip bubble, for example. Lehman 
Brothers is another example. We knew with the mortgages being written 
that a bubble was building in that market, but we let it. We would say, 
oh, nothing is going to happen, but it eventually did.
  I plead with my colleagues here. Remember, we cannot control fate. We 
can't control it. We can do our best. We all know that we are going to 
raise the debt ceiling, we all know we are going to open the 
government, so let's do it early rather than late.
  I know it was exceeding my time a little bit, but I think it is 
important to remind ourselves.
  I know we are the greatest country in the world.
  The leader asked me to refer to a book I mentioned a couple of hours 
ago in the Democratic luncheon by Paul Kennedy, a Princeton historian. 
He pointed out in the sweep of history, civilizations and countries 
rise and fall. There is no guarantee that any country or civilization 
continues forever--Greeks, Romans, Persians, Genghis Khan, the United 
Kingdom--they rise and they fall. We are No. 1 right now. How long can 
we continue to be No. 1?
  He also pointed out, Paul Kennedy, in the sweep of history, countries 
are defeated not by external armies but by internal decay. So I am 
saying let's not decay here. Let's resolve this as adults and let's be 
responsible in the spirit of Winston Churchill.
  I apologize to my good friend from Maine for speaking on her time.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the government shutdown represents a 
failure to govern and must be brought to an end. Disabled veterans who 
have sacrificed so much for our country are waiting for their claims to 
be handled. Pregnant women and small children are at risk of their WIC 
benefits not being funded. Crucial biomedical research is being 
disrupted and the sickest of children are being turned away from 
clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health.
  The impact goes far beyond the direct consequences for Federal 
employees and the programs they administer. One has only to look at the 
impact of the closure of Acadia National Park in my State of Maine to 
see the ripple effects on shopkeepers, servers at restaurants, inn 
owners and others who depend on revenue from these disappointed 
tourists.
  That is why I have worked hard to put together a three-point plan to 
bring this impasse to a speedy end. I am very delighted that my friend 
and colleague from Alaska Senator Murkowski has joined me in shaping 
and supporting this plan. Let me quickly describe it and let me give 
credit to those who have talked about concepts that have been 
incorporated into this plan--people such as my colleagues Senator Hatch 
and Senator Toomey, and on the House side, Representative Kind and 
Representative Dent.
  The first point of the plan would fund government for the next 6 
months at the level of $986 billion, so that would allow government to 
immediately reopen.
  Second, it would repeal the tax on medical devices and equipment such 
as x ray machines and pacemakers. This tax will only serve to drive up 
the cost of health care because it will be inevitably passed on to the 
consumer, it will stifle innovation, and industry estimates that it 
will lead to the loss of some 43,000 jobs. It is a tax that does not 
make sense.
  The administration has pointed to the $30 billion that would be 
raised by this tax over the next 10 years. Fair enough. There is a way 
to replace that revenue and it is a way that has beneficial 
consequences to many employers who are struggling to make pension 
contributions in this difficult economy. It would do so without in any 
way weakening the pension obligation to their workers. It is a 
complicated issue. It is called pension smoothing. But it is one that 
this body has dealt with before in the transportation bill known as MAP 
21. We would extend that pension smoothing on the contributions which 
have been produced

[[Page S7291]]

by the fact that the Federal Reserve has held interest rates at a very 
low level.
  I will describe this in more detail in a written statement. It is in 
the statement that I made on the Senate floor on Saturday. But suffice 
it to say that by smoothing these pension contributions, we can replace 
the lost revenue that would result from the repeal of the 2.3-percent 
tax on medical devices and equipment.
  The third point of our plan, the Collins-Murkowski plan, includes a 
bill that Senator Mark Udall and I introduced earlier this year that 
would provide flexibility to Federal managers in dealing with 
sequestration, but it does so in a way that preserves the important 
congressional oversight. Sequestration is a flawed policy because it 
does not discriminate between essential programs and those that are 
duplicative and wasteful. But if we are to have sequestration, surely 
we should give Federal managers the ability to set priorities and apply 
common sense in its administration instead of having across-the-board, 
equal meat axe cuts for every line item in their budgets.
  But to ensure that this flexibility is not abused, we would have the 
Appropriations Committee oversee this process and have the right to 
reject the plans. It is very similar to the reprogramming requests that 
the Appropriations Committee receives now and either accepts or rejects 
when agencies want to move money from one account to another.
  This would represent a modest proposal that could bring this impasse 
to an end, allow government to reopen, give those on both sides of the 
aisle who have voted during the course of the budget resolution by 79 
votes to 20-something votes to repeal this harmful tax on medical 
equipment and devices and yet replace the revenue. I don't see how the 
administration could object to that because the revenue would be 
replaced. Yet this harmful tax would be repealed and we would give 
Federal agencies the flexibility to deal with sequestration.
  There is something in the Collins-Murkowski plan that everyone on 
both sides of the aisle can point to. Yet it would get us out of this 
impasse that is increasingly harmful to our country and its image in 
the world.
  It is past time for us to come out of our partisan corners, it is 
past time for us to stop fighting, and it is past time for us to reopen 
government. We have all made crystal clear what our positions are on 
ObamaCare at this point. Let's proceed with governing rather than 
continuing to embrace a strategy that will lead us only to a dead-end 
and whose consequences will be increasingly felt by our economy and by 
the American people. We can do this.
  I ask my Democratic colleagues to take a close look at the plan we 
are putting forward. It is a reasonable approach. I ask my Democratic 
and Republican colleagues to come together. Let's get this done. We can 
do it. We can legislate responsibly and in good faith.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to respectfully say that we in 
the Senate and we in the Congress have to do what our constituents 
elected us to do and what the Constitution requires us to do: keep the 
United States Government open and make sure the United States of 
America pays its bills. To do that, we are open to negotiation and 
examining a variety of ideas, but the main idea is to go through the 
regular order in the committee process.
  We can keep the government open and we can meet our responsibility on 
the public debt if we embark upon two solutions and they are in the 
hands of the other party. We call upon the House to pass the Senate 
continuing funding resolution that would reopen government and keep it 
going until November 15. It is not a long-term solution. If we get to 
it right now, we will fund it at 2013 levels, acknowledging the 
sequester level. That was a big compromise. I compromised, as the chair 
of the Appropriations Committee, to move that continuing funding 
resolution. It was $70 billion less than what I wanted, but in order to 
get us in a room and get the conversation going and the negotiations 
going, I was willing to compromise.
  I call upon the House to pass that. I call upon the Senate 
Republicans who have objected to going to the Budget Committee to lift 
their objection so we can take the Senate-passed budget and go to 
conference so we can get a budget.
  Why is this important? For those who say we have to control spending, 
there is nobody who disputes that, but the way we control spending is 
to go through the regular budget process. I say to many of my 
colleagues who might not understand the Budget Control Act and I say to 
the American people who are listening, the way to control discretionary 
spending is to pass a budget that sets a cap on what the appropriators 
can spend in domestic spending.
  I heard the wonderful Senator and distinguished war hero from Arizona 
John McCain ask us to get to it today. I agree. Let's get to it today 
and lift the objection for Senator Murray, the chair of the Budget 
Committee, to take appointed conferees so they can negotiate on the 
budget.
  I say to my colleagues--again, to explain the Budget Control Act--we 
appropriators are not wild spenders. We appropriators can't go rogue in 
terms of wild runaway spending. We have a budget cap imposed upon us 
through a budget process and something called a 302(a), but we can't 
get the cap on spending unless the Budget Committee is able to move. 
This is very serious.
  I have the high honor of representing the State of Maryland, and I 
see my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, on the floor. We 
represent 5\1/2\ million people and a lot of civilian agencies. I note 
also on the floor are the distinguished Senators from Virginia, both of 
whom are former Governors of Virginia.
  Between the four of us, we represent the largest concentration of 
Federal employees in the world. We represent Federal employees from the 
Department of Defense to the National Institutes of Health, to the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology. There is a rollcall of 
honor in service and duty that makes the United States a stronger 
country, a stronger economy, and so on.
  When we speak about government, we know what we are talking about, 
and we know what is going on. Many have spoken about opening NIH. I 
want to open NIH. NIH, which is a clinical hospital, is not accepting 
new patients. This week 200 people have been turned away. Children in 
the United States of America were turned away. It is not just Barb 
Mikulski talking, the Washington Post reported on a lady who has cancer 
and wants to come to NIH, but she can't get into a clinical trial 
because it is closed down. They say: Senator Barb, open NIH. But we 
have to open the rest of the government.
  Right now the Centers for Disease Control has a substantial number of 
its workforce furloughed. Having the CDC closed constitutes a danger to 
public health. Right this minute in 18 States, 278 people have been 
sickened by salmonella. Thank God there have been no deaths, but it is 
making people very sick. We don't have CDC on the job to track diseases 
and alert the public health departments around the United States of 
America so they can stand sentry to protect people against salmonella. 
Open the CDC. Open the whole government.
  Just this week, in our own metropolitan area, a worker was killed 
trying to service the Metro. This should be under investigation. There 
was one death and several injuries. There was a bus crash in Tennessee, 
but right this very minute the National Transportation Safety Board has 
the majority of their people furloughed. They can't investigate the 
Metro accident, and they can't investigate the bus crash in Tennessee.
  A few weeks ago Senator Cardin and I were informed that a person had 
a terrible accident on the Bay Bridge in which a car went over the side 
of the bridge. We asked for an investigation to make sure our bridge is 
safe. That was under way, but now it is going to be delayed.
  Let's take our FBI. Our FBI agents are on the job. They are being 
paid with IOUs. A group of FBI agents, called Voices from the Field, 
said to us, their U.S. Government: Guess what. We don't have gas for 
our cars. The FBI does not have gas for its cars. The agents' gas 
allowance is limited to 200 miles per week, and they can't even buy gas 
out of their own pocket.

[[Page S7292]]

  Not only is the FBI running out of gas, I think we are running out of 
gas here. The way we fuel our tanks and get America running and rolling 
again is to reopen government. The way we reopen government is for Mr. 
Boehner, the Speaker of the House, in his job as Speaker, to bring up 
the vote on reopening the government and vote on the Senate-passed 
resolution.
  We say to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to lift their 
objection to the Budget Committee going to conference so the Budget 
Committee can come up with a budget with their caps on domestic 
discretionary spending. We will cap all discretionary spending. We 
appropriators will abide by the cap. We will not have runaway spending, 
and we will not go rogue. We will follow the rules, but I think we all 
need to follow the rules. Under the statutory requirement of the Budget 
Control Act, they were supposed to bring the budget back April 15. We 
passed one on March 23 and we have been waiting and waiting.
  I wish to join with my colleague from Arizona. Let's get to it. Let's 
get the job done. Let's reopen government. Let's pay our bills. I am 
willing to negotiate. I am willing to compromise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, from what I heard from those who have 
just spoken prior to me, it sounds as if we ought to be able to get 
something done. We listened to the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, with her commitment to advancing issues through the budget 
process. I think we too need to go to conference and get that moving.
  We are sitting here in a kind of a rarefied world in the Senate 
Chamber. Some would suggest we live in a little bit of a bubble. Let me 
tell everyone about the folks who are not living in a bubble: the 
furloughed Federal employees and those who have been shut out of 
whatever it is that they had hoped they were going to be doing this 
past week and those in my State, for instance, who are looking to fill 
the family freezer.
  It is moose season in my State, but now they were told they cannot 
access any of the refuge lands because Fish and Wildlife has said they 
cannot access the land regardless of what ANILCA provides and 
regardless of the full public access to these Federal lands. Those 
folks who are feeling the real impact of a government shutdown are not 
living in a bubble.
  We just heard the chairman of the Finance Committee talk about the 
looming threat we are facing as we approach the debt limit, and he 
refers to a fiscal cliff. In fact, as a nation, we could lose our 
financial footing. We could go over that fiscal cliff.
  For a lot of folks, they are already looking at their own fiscal 
cliff. They are not waiting for us to figure out what we are going to 
do or not do when it comes to dealing with the debt limit. They are not 
getting paid. They are perhaps a small business, such as Seong's Sushi 
Bar & Chinese, which is located across the street from the Federal 
Building in Juneau. They are sitting there losing revenues on a daily 
basis because they don't have the customers they anticipate every day. 
The folks who frequent Capital Brew, which is a drive-through coffee 
shop that is also in Juneau across from the Federal Building, Bill's 
Mini Cache, which is a snack shop inside the Anchorage Federal 
building, these are folks who are looking at it, and they are feeling 
their own fiscal cliff right now, with or without the threat of the 
debt limit.

  So they are looking at us and they are saying: Wait a minute. You 
told us a couple weeks ago that we were going to avert this shutdown, 
that we would figure out how we were going to pass a continuing 
resolution.
  We didn't pass a continuing resolution. Somehow, that all gets 
wrapped up in ObamaCare. They are trying to figure out where the nexus 
is here between funding the government and what is going on with the 
Affordable Care Act. They then find out: We are in a government 
shutdown. What does that mean for me? I am sitting here in Alaska, 
4,000 miles from Washington, DC. But then they learn Fish and Wildlife 
is saying: No, you can't go out and get the moose to put in your 
freezer to make it through the winter. Or you are the crab fisherman 
who is waiting at the crab grounds beginning October 15, but the quotas 
have not yet been determined from within the National Marine Fisheries 
Service center yet, so you can't go out. The revenues the industry 
might be able to derive, about $7 million from the sale of great king 
crab that we would all love--a great market out there--but they are not 
going to be able to get out in the water because some Federal agency 
4,000 miles from home hasn't delivered to them the quota.
  So when we talk about these fiscal cliffs, it is not just waiting for 
us to hit a debt limit. It is what is happening with this government 
shutdown.
  So what they are asking me--and I know each and every one of us is 
hearing from our constituents--is: So what is your plan? And oh, by the 
way, you better get on it pretty quick, because you have my attention 
now. What is the plan? So they see some of the things coming out of the 
House. The House has these mini efforts to fund a specific section, and 
it doesn't go anywhere here. We are told: Well, we want to open the 
whole thing. So if we can't open the whole thing and we can't open a 
portion of it, nothing happens. Nothing happens. So where is the plan? 
What are we going to do?
  So I am pleased to stand with my friend from Maine Senator Collins as 
she has described a plan which I think is pretty reasonable. I think it 
is pretty sensible. When we think about those small, rational, 
reasonable steps that might get us to a place where we can stop the 
madness, if you will, break this impasse--a proposal that would pull 
back on the medical device tax, with an offset, so that we are not 
eroding, we are not undercutting the revenues that would come in for 
the Affordable Care Act, a 6-month extension of the continuing 
resolution, as well as a sequestration with a little bit of flexibility 
and, oh, let's add in some oversight, it sounds pretty rational.
  Some suggest maybe the President doesn't want to do this because it 
is a small incursion in his signature bill. Do my colleagues know what. 
Right now, what we need to be thinking about is who we work for, 
whether it is the crab fisherman who wants to get out in the water and 
who is waiting for NMFS to step it up, whether it is the family out in 
Galena who is hoping they are going to be able to get their moose 
before moose season closes, whether it is the guy at Seong's Sushi Bar 
and Chinese there in Juneau, or whether it is the Alaska family. I got 
an e-mail a couple of days ago. This family has been planning for a 
year to bring all the kids together, including boyfriends and 
girlfriends. They are going to do a great hike out in the Moab National 
Park for a week, and they are stuck. Nothing is going on, and their 
family vacation is ruined.
  What about what is going on--this is an amazing one--in the Kenai 
River, which happens to proceed through some refuge areas. People can 
still go fishing now, and there is good rainbow fishing out there. But 
when you move down river through that refuge park, you better bring 
your lines in because we are going to have enforcement action on the 
river.
  There are so many stories we can all attest to, and some of them are 
horrible. Some of them, as Senator McCain has indicated, are about 
families who are grieving the loss of their loved one--someone who has 
served this country with honor--being denied death benefits.
  The country expects us to get our act together, and they expect us to 
do it without delay. They are not interested in knowing which side is 
going to gain more leverage the further we delay. Nobody is winning. I 
tell my friends the Democrats: You are not winning. And I tell my 
friends the Republicans: We are not winning. The administration is not 
winning. Everybody is losing when we cannot come together with a plan, 
with the resolve to do the job we are tasked to do, which is basic 
governing, and keeping the government open is basic governing.
  So whether it is Senator Collins' plan, whether it is an effort that 
is yet to be created, as the Senator from Arizona challenged us, let's 
start this now. Let's not delay any further because real people--the 
people we care for, the people we are charged to help--are hurting 
right now. This goes beyond mere inconvenience. This is hurt.
  So let's do what we have pledged to do. Let's do what we have signed 
up to

[[Page S7293]]

do, which is to work together. At the end of the day, this is not going 
to be a Republican plan or a Democratic plan or a Senate plan or a 
House plan. It is going to be a plan that allows us to govern.
  With that, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

                          ____________________