[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 202 (Friday, December 21, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8007-S8011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2017

  The Chair lays before the Senate the following message from the 
House:
  Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the Senate to the 
amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
695), entitled ``An Act to amend the National Child Protection Act of 
1993 to establish a national criminal history background check system 
and criminal history review program for certain individuals who, 
related to their employment, have access to children, the elderly, or 
individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes.'', with an 
amendment.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. Vice President and colleagues, here where we are. 
It is now clear there are enough votes to proceed to the pending 
legislation on government funding, disaster relief, and border 
security.
  Within the Republican conference, there is strong support for the 
President's reasonable request for more resources to tackle the urgent 
situation at our southern border. Republicans support the House-passed 
bill, which includes additional border security funding. We are also, 
however, eager to complete the remaining appropriations bills that the 
Senate has already passed.
  However, obviously, since any eventual solution requires 60 votes 
here in the Senate, it has been clear from the beginning that two 
things are necessary: support from enough Senate Democrats to pass the 
proposal at 60 and a Presidential signature.
  As a result, the Senate has voted to proceed to legislation before us 
in order to preserve maximum flexibility for a productive conversation 
to continue between the White House and our Democratic colleagues. I 
hope Senate Democrats will work with the White House on an agreement 
that can pass both Houses of Congress and receive the President's 
signature.
  Colleagues, when an agreement is reached, it will receive a vote here 
on the Senate floor.


                            Motion to Concur

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment 
to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
to H.R. 695.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion is pending.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as we said to President Trump a week ago, 
his wall does not have 60 votes here in the Senate, let alone 50 votes. 
That much is now clear.
  The Democrats have offered three proposals to keep the government 
open, including a proposal offered by Leader McConnell that passed the 
Senate unanimously only a few days ago. We are willing to continue 
discussions on those proposals with the leader, the President, the 
Speaker of the House, and the leader of the House. All five are 
necessary to get something done.
  I yield the floor.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the two leaders for what they have 
done today.
  Even though I know some people who are tuning in may not understand 
what just happened, the understanding that has been reached--and I 
thank Senator Flake and Senator Jones and others--is that we are not 
voting on anything else in this Chamber relative to this issue until a 
global agreement has been reached between the President and these two 
leaders and the leader of the House. There will not be test votes, and 
there is not going to be a tabling vote. The Vice President has been 
over here with his members, negotiating already.
  What this does, I think, is to push this ahead to a negotiation that 
will yield a result, and we will do the best we can to keep from 
shutting down the government, or if it does shut down, it will shut 
down very briefly.
  I thank the two leaders for agreeing to go forward in this manner. It 
allows us to move forward in a positive way, yet keeps the negotiations 
alive. Only a bill can pass this Chamber now that has all of their 
agreement.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I thank the two leaders of this agreement, 
the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Alabama--Mr. Jones--and 
others who have worked to ensure that the next vote we will have in 
this Chamber will be on an agreement as Senator Corker said--not a test 
vote, not a cloture vote.
  What I wanted to do with not proceeding is to demonstrate that not 
all Republicans would be for the House bill either. There is no path 
forward for the House bill. The only path forward is to a bill that has 
an agreement between the President and both Houses of Congress. The 
next time we vote, it will be on the agreement. It will not be another 
test vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
my remarks, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, be recognized.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Corker, Senator Flake, 
and the leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, for their 
discussions. I thank the Vice President for his presence here today.
  In my own view, government shutdowns ought not to be a part of budget 
negotiations any more than chemical weapons should be a part of 
warfare. We were elected to make the government run for taxpayers, not 
to shut it down. My hope is that this will put us on a path toward a 
result and will recognize the President's desire for increased border 
security, which we support and many Democrats support, and we can 
finish our appropriations process.
  What I would like to do now is to say a few words about what was 
described in a very famous movie in which Jimmy Stewart played, ``Mr. 
Smith Goes to Washington,'' as democracy's finest show--the right to 
talk your head off in the legislative filibuster. Lest someone says, 
``Well, Senator Alexander, you just announced you are not going to run 
for reelection in 2 years, so you are going to change your tune,'' I am 
not changing my tune.
  The remarks I made in 2011 at the Heritage Foundation about the 
tradition of the legislative filibuster--perhaps the best known part of 
the U.S. Senate--can be found at https://www.alexander.senate.gov/
public/index.cfm/speechesfloorstatements?ID=23BE8F64-7708-4E5D-86AD-
F1F8C7EE6F30.
  You can also find Senator Susan Collins' letter regarding the 
legislative filibuster on April 7, 2017, at https://
www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senators-collins-coons-lead-effort-
preserve-60-vote-threshold-legislation.
  I would like to tell a story, Mr. Vice President.
  In 1978, a young Utah Senator came here. He was conservative. He 
didn't know what he could not do, so he took on the Democratic 
establishment on its most important issue. Orrin Hatch was the Senator. 
He is our longest serving Republican Senator, and he is

[[Page S8008]]

retiring this year. What he decided to do was to challenge the 
Democratic leadership that wanted to pass organized labor's major 
objective of the time. It was something that would have changed the 
relationship between employers and employees for years to come.
  Now, at that time in 1978, there was a Democratic President, Jimmy 
Carter. There were 62 Democrat Senators--more than enough to pass a 
bill. There were 292 House Members. So, if Orrin Hatch had not been new 
and young and if he had known more about what he had been doing, he 
probably wouldn't have even tried this, but he did try it.
  He won. He offered 1,200 amendments. Senator Byrd, who was the 
distinguished majority leader of the Senate, tried six times to cut off 
debate--we call that cloture here in the Senate--and he didn't get 60 
votes. Six different times, he tried to cut that off. The end result 
was that the minority view--the Republican view at that time--prevailed 
against a Democratic President, a Democratic House, and a Democratic 
Senate. That happened before.
  It happened in the 1960s. Everett Dirksen was the Republican leader 
of the U.S. Senate, sitting right over there. He had even fewer 
Republican Senators. When Orrin Hatch did his work in 1978, there were 
38 Republican Senators, and Dirksen had fewer than that. Lyndon Johnson 
and George Meany and the American labor movement decided that they 
wanted, in effect, to make it illegal for any State to have a right-to-
work law. That is what they wanted to do, and they thought they could 
do it except that the legislative filibuster was in place. At that 
time, it took 67 votes. Everett Dirksen toured the country, and he was 
able to defeat a measure that was supported by overwhelming Democratic 
majorities.
  Now, why do I tell those stories? It is because the shoe is on the 
other foot right now. The Republicans are in charge.
  We hear many people, including the President say: Get rid of the 
filibuster. Get rid of the legislative majority. Let's do it our way.
  We should not do that. We have never done that in the U.S. Senate. 
The Senate has always been different.
  One Senator said to me a few minutes ago that it is the whole reason 
he came to the Senate from the House. It was so that every time the 
majority got an idea, it wouldn't be like a freight train running 
through the Senate. One of the major purposes of the legislative 
filibuster is to protect the minority in this country.
  A young Frenchman wandered through America in the 1830s. His name was 
Alexis de Tocqueville. He wrote a book, entitled ``Democracy in 
America,'' that is, maybe, the best book on democracy in America that 
has ever been written. It was very perceptive. He said that he saw, 
looking ahead, two potential problems for the American democracy. One, 
he said, was Russia. That was prescient. The other, he said, was the 
tyranny of the majority. Alexis de Tocqueville said in the 1830s that 
one of the great problems for our country might be the tyranny of the 
majority, and it is the U.S. Senate that is a bulwark to prevent the 
tyranny of the majority in the American democracy. It has been from the 
beginning, and it is today.

  Now, some of our Republican friends and conservative friends and 
sometimes our Presidents say: Well, let's get rid of it. We might think 
about the fact that we Republicans, we conservatives, are usually the 
ones in the minority. We are usually the ones needing protection. Since 
World War II--nearly 70 years--Democrats have had complete control of 
the U.S. Government--they have had the Senate, they have had the House, 
they have had the Presidency--for 22 years, and Republicans have had it 
for 8 years. Democrats have had control 22 years, and we, 8 years. So 
democracy's finest hour--the right to talk your head off, the 
opportunity for extended debate--has benefited our side, Democrats 
could say, more than their side. So why should we be the ones who are 
trying to change it? In fact, we weren't.
  In 1995, after the big Republican sweep--you know, we have these. One 
of us is in charge, and then the people get tired of us, and they put 
the other ones in charge. So in 1995, after the big Republican sweep, 
Republicans were in charge of the Senate, and a Democratic Senator 
said: Let's get rid of the legislative filibuster--at least change it. 
Every single Republican, even while the Republicans were completely in 
charge of the Senate, voted no.
  The essence of the Senate is the right to extended debate, the right 
to talk our heads off, America's finest hour, and then we will vote 
when we think we are ready to stop debate. It used to be 67; now it is 
60.
  For a long time, there wasn't any limit on it; it just went on 
forever. President Wilson got mad about it a century ago, and so the 
Senate said: OK, we will debate until 67 of us think we should stop. 
Then we changed that, and now it is 60.
  Some of the most eloquent defenses of the legislative filibuster came 
from the late Senator Byrd. I remember hearing his last speech he made 
in the Rules Committee where he said that the legislative filibuster is 
the necessary fence against the excesses of the popular will, the 
excesses of the Executive. It was the necessary fence, he said, and we 
should keep it.
  This fractured Nation needs a consensus-building institution, and 
requiring 60 votes to pass major legislation is the discipline that 
forces us to come together.
  I saw the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, on the floor a little 
earlier. We worked on the legislation to fix No Child Left Behind. That 
wasn't easy to do. Everybody has an opinion about kindergarten through 
the 12th grade. We are all experts on education. Yet we worked and we 
worked and we worked, and finally we probably got 85 votes for that. 
You know what. We made some big changes, but people accepted it. It is 
a lasting solution. Teachers at 100,000 public schools don't have to 
worry about our zigging and zagging and changing Federal education 
policy for the next several years because we talked about it until we 
came to a conclusion about it and accepted it.
  An example of the other way to do it is ObamaCare. Eight years ago, 
Democrats had the majority, so all the Democrats voted for it, and all 
the Republicans voted against it. What has happened? We have been 
trying to repeal it ever since it passed. It is just a constant state 
of agitation and a stalemate of debate.
  The tradition has been different for nominations, and sometimes 
people get confused about that. The legislative filibuster is one 
thing; nominations are another thing. Until recently, they have always 
been decided by a majority vote. Now, they could have been decided by 
60 votes, but they weren't--at least ever since a century ago.
  I am not interested at this time in assigning blame to Democrats or 
to Republicans for what has happened on nominations, but the fact is 
that even though a Senator could have required 60 votes, there never 
has been a Cabinet member who was required to be confirmed by more than 
51 votes. There never has been a Federal district judge who had to get 
60 votes to be confirmed, and there never had been a Supreme Court 
Justice, with the exception of Justice Fortas.
  I see the majority leader, and I would be glad to suspend.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I expect my friend from Tennessee is going to make 
this point in a moment, but if ever there were a stressful moment for 
the tradition that even though it was possible to filibuster the 
Executive Calendar, it was not done, would my friend agree that it 
would have to be the Clarence Thomas nomination for the Supreme Court?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I would agree with that. And we could 
get into a lively dispute among us about who shot John and who 
scratched whose back and whose fault it all is, whether the Democrats, 
who in 2003 began for the first time to require 60 votes for circuit 
judges, or the Republicans, who stopped a couple of President Obama's 
judges, are at fault. The fact is, I believe--I know for a fact that 
most of us believe we should keep the legislative filibuster.
  How do I know that? Because Senator Collins, who is presiding at the 
moment, and Senator Coons, who will speak following my remarks, offered 
into the Record on April 7, 2017, a letter from 29 Republicans and 32 
Democrats that said: We are mindful of the unique role the Senate plays 
in the legislative process. We are steadfastly

[[Page S8009]]

committed to ensuring this great American institution continues to 
serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. Therefore, we are 
asking you to join us in opposing any effort to curtail the existing 
rights and prerogatives of Senators to engage in full, robust, and 
extended debate as we consider legislation before this body in the 
future.
  That is 61 Senators on record about the legislative filibuster. So 
one reason the legislative filibuster is going to stay is because there 
are not the votes to change it.
  As I come to a conclusion, let me offer a better reason not to change 
it and a reason why we should change it if we consider it in the right 
way. We have rules in this body. In order to change a standing rule of 
the Senate, it takes at least 60 votes to get cloture. It has been 
proposed--and both sides have before--to use what we call the nuclear 
option, which is a parliamentary maneuver that allows the Senate to 
change a rule without getting 60 votes.
  This is a country that prizes the rule of law. I have heard President 
Trump say that. I have heard President Obama say that. I have heard 
most of us say that. I would ask, if we don't follow our own rules, why 
would we expect the American people to follow the rules we write? We 
are the main rule-writing organization in the United States of America. 
We ought to follow our own rules.
  When we didn't and used the so-called nuclear option in 2013, a 
Democratic Senator who is greatly respected, Senator Levin, said that 
``a Senate in which a majority can always change the rules is a Senate 
without any rules.'' A Senate in which the majority can always change 
the rules without following the rules is like a football game where the 
home team can say: If you gain 9 yards, that is a first down; or if 
they make a three-point shot and they need four, they count it as four. 
That is not the rule of law.
  I make these remarks--and I hope the Senator from Delaware is still 
here and willing to stay--I make these remarks just to remind the 
country and to remind the Members of the Senate that 61 of us have 
already signed a letter saying that the legislative filibuster--the 
right to extended debate, the opportunity to talk your head off in 
defense of what you want, the ability of this body to function as a 
bulwark against the tyranny of the majority and, in this fractured 
country, as an institution that can produce a consensus that is lasting 
and accepted by most people--is the most valuable part of this body, 
and we ought not to trifle with it whether we are in the majority or in 
the minority, and we ought to make that clear.
  If we ever do decide we want to talk about it and change it, we 
should follow the rules. We have rules. It takes at least 60 votes to 
change a standing rule.
  I want to put a stop to this talk about breaking the rules to change 
the rules of the Senate. I will not vote to turn the Senate into a 
rule-breaking institution, and I hope that if that opportunity ever 
arises, my colleagues will vote the same way, as 61 of them did in the 
letter Senator Collins and Senator Coons signed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, the remarks just concluded by my friend 
and colleague from Tennessee help make it clear why many of us do not 
look forward to his departure at the end of the upcoming Congress to 
the better vales of retirement. We are so grateful for the balance and 
the measured leadership of the Senator from Tennessee. He reminds us of 
the best of our history and what it is that the Senate has stood for 
and the role that we play in our constitutional order. I will simply 
briefly thank him for his remarks.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for her hard work to make sure this 
letter was presented to the leaders of both caucuses with 61 
signatures. We frankly could have gotten more, but in the press of the 
work of that day, April 7, 2017, we thought it important to get on the 
record, in signature, individual Senators saying that we are committed 
to not change the rules of the Senate on the Senate filibuster rules 
regarding legislation. I am committed to never voting to change the 
legislative filibuster.
  I will simply conclude by saying to my friend, my colleague from 
Tennessee, that I think there is important work for us to do here to 
strengthen our role. A number of the retiring Members gave floor 
speeches in recent days where they talked about the ways in which this 
body--we do not listen to each other enough, we do not debate each 
other enough, and we do not work across the aisle enough. If we are to 
play the role the Founders intended, we must do more of that, not less.
  The agreement just reached here that will allow us to negotiate in 
good faith towards a resolution of the impending shutdown--the fiscal 
standoff between the White House, the House, and the Senate--is exactly 
the kind of example I would like to point to where Members listen to 
each other and work out the kind of resolution that allows us to skip 
dozens of intervening test votes and move right to the resolution.
  This body has a critical role to play. As my friend and colleague 
from Tennessee pointed out, rule of law is at the very foundation of 
our constitutional Republic. We are at a moment in our history where 
many question the stability of our commitment to the rule of law. 
Nobody will play a more important role in reassuring our markets, our 
communities, our society, and the world that democracy--the 
deliberative, respectful resolution of disputes, not through violence 
but through debate and through votes by the elected representatives of 
our people--is the best system for the governance of societies on 
Earth. No better proof of that can be given than by this body 
conducting itself in the sort of disciplined, reasonable, appropriate 
way that the rules of the Senate allow for. Thus, I will not vote and I 
will suggest that the signature of the Presiding Officer also 
reinforces that she and many others here, on a bipartisan basis, will 
not vote to take the rash step of changing the rules of the Senate to 
turn us into the House and to remove the last bulwark, as my friend and 
colleague said, that ensures that we have the right to talk our heads 
off whenever we might so choose.
  I yield to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. JONES. Madam President, let me also thank my colleagues from 
Tennessee and Delaware.
  I will tell you I wasn't here when that letter circulated; however, 
if you want to do an addendum, you have my permission to add my name to 
that letter because it is that important. I appreciate so much your 
comments.
  I have been here almost 1 year now. What I have seen is, it is often 
so easy, in our polarized political climate we have, that when issues 
we have faced like today come up, people go to their corners and it is 
the proverbial line in the sand and everybody wants to talk at each 
other and not to each other.
  So I appreciate very much Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer, who 
worked with my colleagues Senator Flake and Senator Corker in trying to 
make sure a motion to proceed is simply a motion to proceed to talk, to 
have those dialogues, so we can go about the business of government as 
we leave for the holidays at some point.
  I believe what has happened here late this afternoon is an important 
step, and it is especially an important step going into the next 
Congress to tell folks who are coming in and those of us who are coming 
back that we want to make sure we were put here to get something done, 
not just retreat to our corners.
  I thank everyone who was involved late this afternoon trying to make 
sure this agreement was reached. I am anxious for our leaders to 
proceed so we can go about the business of running this United States 
and that we can go into these holidays with the assurance we will come 
back to do things for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, when I conclude my comments, I am going 
to ask consent that I can allow Senator Van Hollen to speak, and then I 
will speak after him for the purposes of a unanimous consent request.
  There is no such thing as a good shutdown. I certainly was encouraged

[[Page S8010]]

to hear the progress we made about half an hour ago, when the majority 
leader and the Democratic leader talked about discussions that are 
taking place. We hope that later this evening we will have an agreement 
that can pass the Senate and the House and be signed by the President.
  I want to make this clear. Any government shutdown is unacceptable. 
It costs the taxpayers money. It inconveniences the public, and it is 
certainly not fair to our Federal workforce. This particular shutdown 
would affect 800,000 of our employees, our Federal workforce. About 
half would be asked to work but would not get a paycheck, and about 
half would be furloughed without compensation.
  I am very proud and Senator Van Hollen is very proud of the Federal 
workforce that live in the State of Maryland, but my colleagues should 
recognize that 85 percent of the Federal employees live and work 
outside of the Washington, DC, area. This affects each one of our 
States and people who are working in each one of our States.
  I also wish to point out that over 30 percent of the Federal 
workforce are veterans who have already served our country in uniform 
and are now serving their country as public servants in the Federal 
workforce.
  Let me tell you what they are in for and the reason why we are going 
to be asking a unanimous consent request. Without legislation being 
enacted, the individuals who are going to be required to work will have 
to work without getting paid, and then when government restarts, they 
can get a paycheck for the work they have done. Those who are on 
furlough would never receive any funds, even though it was not their 
fault or responsibility that they couldn't work. Those who have leave 
time would lose that leave time as a result of the government shutdown.
  The legislation for which we are going to ask consent in a few 
minutes would make it clear to these Federal workers that as soon as we 
can after a shutdown--again, I hope there is not a shutdown, but if we 
have a shutdown, as soon as the shutdown ends--the next available time, 
our Federal workforce would receive their compensation. So they know 
that at least they are going to get their salary when the government 
reopens and that anxiety can be removed, because right now they don't 
know if they are going to be able to get their compensation when the 
government shutdown ends. They recognize that we will do the fair way 
with their leave time so they don't lose their leave time.
  When we have opened government in the past, when we have had 
shutdowns, as part of the reopening process, we have included this type 
of legislation. We don't know how long the shutdown would be, if we 
have a shutdown, which I hope we don't have, but it would be in all of 
our interests to tell our Federal workforce that we hope there is no 
shutdown, but if there is, they will be paid at the first available 
time when the government reopens. That is the purpose of this 
legislation. I am pleased we have been able to clear it on both sides. 
I wish to first yield through the Chair to my colleague from Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague from 
Maryland, Senator Cardin, for his leadership on this issue, among many 
others, and start by agreeing with him that, first and foremost, we 
should avoid a government shutdown. That is exactly what this Senate 
did on a bipartisan basis just a few days ago. We passed an agreement. 
None of us loved it, but we all recognized that it was a better 
alternative than shutting down the government. That, of course, went 
over to the House, and we know what happened to it there. I hope we 
will continue to work together to avoid a government shutdown.
  The proposal that Senator Cardin and I are putting forward is very 
simple. Federal employees should not be punished by the shutdown. They 
have nothing to do with the dysfunction that would cause a government 
shutdown, and they should not be the ones who have to bear the burden 
and the penalty of something totally beyond their control--a government 
shutdown. That is what this is about.
  As Senator Cardin indicated, often after shutdowns are over, the 
Congress and the White House do the right thing, and we provide 
retroactive compensation to Federal employees, but it is not 
guaranteed. It always could be changed. It might not happen. What we 
are trying to do is to make sure that as Federal employees watch the 
spectacle here on Capitol Hill and they are thinking about joining 
their families for Christmas or other things over the holidays, they 
don't have to have the uncertainty, if there is a government shutdown, 
about whether or not they are going to get a paycheck to pay all of the 
bills that will stack up over that period of time. Let's provide 
confidence and certainty upfront that Federal employees don't have to 
pay the penalty for dysfunction in Washington. That is what this bill 
does.
  I want to stress that if we go into a shutdown, Federal employees--
both those who are still working during the shutdown, as well as those 
who are furloughed--go without paychecks. They have bills to pay. They 
have mortgages. They have rent. They have all sort of costs that will 
pile up. No matter what, they will bear a burden from the dysfunction 
in a government shutdown, along with many other people in the country 
who will see a disruption of Federal Government operations. They will 
still bear an unfair burden.
  I also want to thank our Republican colleagues for agreeing with this 
in a unanimous consent request. What we are doing today is to say to 
people, to hard-working Federal employees: Rest assured that after that 
difficult period goes by, if there is a shutdown, you will be assured 
and you will have the certainty that you are going to be able to get 
your pay and make those payments to make sure that you don't fall 
further behind.
  It is the least we can do at this moment. Let's hope we don't have to 
use this provision that we are passing in the Senate today, but it is 
an important insurance policy, an important security blanket as the 
hours tick by and we are not sure whether or not we will have an 
agreement by midnight this evening.
  I want to thank our colleagues, and I want to yield back to the 
senior Senator from Maryland for the purposes of making the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  MR. CARDIN. Madam President, I want to thank Senator Van Hollen for 
his leadership on this issue and on so many issues that affect our 
Federal workforce. He has been a true champion. I want to underscore 
two points he made. One, the majority of our workforce depends on their 
paycheck in order to meet their monthly and weekly needs. If they do 
not get their paycheck on time, they run a real risk of being in 
default on meeting their family needs--whether it is a mortgage 
payment, food, or utility bills. They are at risk. They are at risk 
even though they will get a paycheck later. I just want to underscore 
the inconvenience and the danger.

  A recent poll by AFGE indicated that 78 percent of their members have 
been impacted in this way during a government shutdown. So this is a 
large percentage of our Federal workforce.
  The second thing I want to emphasize from Senator Van Hollen's 
comments is the fact that we don't want to see a shutdown. Quite 
frankly, I would like to see appropriations bills done and not a CR, 
not a continuing resolution.
  We did get some of the appropriations bills done on time; that is, 
October 1 for the fiscal year. But, unfortunately, 9 of the 15 Federal 
Departments and dozens of Agencies did not have an appropriations bill 
passed by October 1 and are in danger of running out of funds at 
midnight tonight. That is why it is important that, at least, we pass a 
continuing resolution in order to keep those Agencies functioning. It 
includes the Department of Commerce, NASA, the National Park Service, 
the Forest Service, the Department of Transportation, HUD, IRS staff--
and I could mention many, many others.
  So the purpose of the unanimous consent request that I will be making 
is to tell our Federal workforce that we are going to continue to fight 
to keep government functioning. We hope we can get it done in the next 
5 hours, but if for any reason we miss that deadline and we have a 
government shutdown, by this action we are telling you that when we 
have appropriations restored,

[[Page S8011]]

you will be compensated during this period of time.

                          ____________________