[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5399-5417]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I didn't get a chance to elaborate on the 
subject that was covered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. I think 
it is very important when we are faced with the shutdown of the 
government. I happened to be here in 1995, and I remember, frankly, it 
wasn't as bad as everybody said it was going to be. This is something 
that is totally avoidable now. We have an opportunity to do a 7-day 
extension that would take care of the military's needs, and I think it 
is important to do so.
  I wish to also mention the vote that took place yesterday--the last 
vote; we had four--having to do with the overregulation, I will call 
it, of the Environmental Protection Agency. The first three amendments 
before they came to mine were offered by Democrats for whom I have a 
great deal of respect. In each amendment, they made it clear that the 
author--all Democrats--thought it was not the place for the 
Environmental Protection Agency to do what Congress is supposed to be 
doing in terms of regulation of greenhouse gases.
  The votes were overwhelming in terms of the fact that they didn't 
have Democrats supporting them because they were temporary fixes. The 
only real vote that took place was on mine.
  I introduced legislation several weeks ago, in concert with my 
colleague over in the House of Representatives, Fred Upton, to take out 
from the Environmental Protection Agency the jurisdiction of regulating 
greenhouse gases. We all know how it happened. We know that since 2003, 
Members of this Senate have introduced legislation to call for cap and 
trade under the assumption that catastrophic global warming is taking 
place from anthropogenic gases, and we have been able to defeat all of 
those.
  So while there has been a real effort by this administration to 
regulate greenhouse gases and do it by legislation, when they finally 
realized that wasn't going to happen, that they were not going to be 
able to garner sufficient votes to pass a bill that would allow for a 
cap-and-trade system--by the way, the cap-and-trade system would have 
amounted to between $300 billion and $400 billion a year as a tax 
increase, which would have been the

[[Page 5400]]

largest one in the history of this country.
  When President Obama decided--in the wisdom of both the House and 
Senate--we were not going to pass anything that would be a cap-and-
trade bill, he said: That is fine, we will do it through regulation.
  That is how this whole thing started. So the effort was for the EPA 
to come up with an endangerment finding which would say that greenhouse 
gases--anthropogenic gases, methane--were dangerous to health. Well, 
this has to be based on science.
  I remember asking the Director of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, whom I 
respect--I said: If you are going to have an endangerment finding, it 
has to be based on science. What would that be? Well, it was the IPCC, 
which, for the edification of anybody who is not aware, is the United 
Nations. They are the ones who started this whole thing, and they are 
the ones who would be in a position to try to force the regulation.
  Anyway, the time has gone by now, and since that time, we have almost 
unanimity in this body and in the other body, also, that we don't think 
the EPA has the ability or the authority to regulate greenhouse gases 
and to do administratively what we refuse to do through our own bills 
we pass.
  That is where we are today. One of the things I am thankful for is 
that my amendment got 50 votes. It was 50-50, pretty much down party 
lines. But the people who are voting against my amendment are saying: 
We want to have the EPA have this authority--the authority of 
overregulation of not just the oil and gas industry but all other 
industries also. The primary target for them would be fossil fuels.
  The fact that we have oil, gas, and coal--by the way, there is a 
fairly recent finding by the Congressional Research Service that we 
have the largest reserves in the United States--recoverable reserves--
of oil, gas, and coal of any country in the world. This is not 
something you hear on the other side.
  We have heard President Obama say several times that we only produce 
3 percent of the oil and yet we use 25 percent or whatever it is. Those 
are proven reserves. The difference is that a proven reserve means you 
have to drill and prove it is there. But the government won't let us 
drill. I am talking about the east coast, the west coast, the gulf, the 
northern slope--83 percent of our public lands are off limits. If we 
were to open that up, we could be completely independent of the Middle 
East for our ability to run this machine called America. That is why 
this issue is very important.
  I have already served notice, but I will do it again to make sure it 
is clear. While we needed 60 votes, we only had 50 votes. I am going to 
put that amendment on as many bills as come up so we have an 
opportunity for people to know the seriousness of this problem.
  I suggest to you--and I will not name names--that if people, prior to 
this vote, would have called different individuals, the staff would 
have responded: Well, we don't know how our Senator will vote, but he 
will certainly take your comments into consideration.
  Now we know because we have the votes in so that we can say which 
ones did vote for it, and anybody who didn't vote for my amendment is 
saying they believe the EPA should have that total control that we 
refuse to give it through legislation.
  Anyway, it is not over yet. In fact, I think that was a major 
milestone, a victory. We now know who is for it and who is against it. 
I know there will be another 10 Members who will see the light and 
realize that we still--it is fine, I am for all of the above, for the 
renewables--wind, sun, thermal--as well as the fossil fuels. We need 
all of the above to become totally independent and be able to run this 
machine called America. That is what is coming up. I am happy we have 
taken the next step, and I look forward to making another step after 
that.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise at this late hour in the 
afternoon to join many of my colleagues who have come to the floor 
today to express growing frustration with the politics as usual in the 
Capitol. I say ``politics'' not ``policy'' because I think we should be 
focusing on policies that will get our country back on track.
  I have to say, people who are watching the debate are witnessing 
potentially an impending government shutdown that I think is needlessly 
being forced on the American people. That is whom we are, after all, 
here to serve. I know the Presiding Officer feels that strongly. I am 
not the first person to highlight how disturbing our long-term fiscal 
picture has become, but what is equally frustrating is the disservice 
being done to the American public by this current debate on our 
budget--a budget, by the way, for the second half of 2011. It is not a 
budget debate we need to have on 2012 or the longer term challenge the 
Simpson-Bowles Commission pointed out.
  We ought to be focusing on supporting economic development and job 
growth. While we are doing that, I believe the Senate and some Members 
of the House of Representatives continue to seek sustained 
confrontation and seem to me to be interested in shutting down the 
government as a misguided statement that they are serious about debt 
reduction. It seems they want to pick a fight for a fight's sake while 
our people, the U.S. citizens, will be left to pick up the pieces from 
a shutdown.
  The latest demands have not been about funding the government at all. 
I think we have common ground on what the number ought to be. The fight 
now seems to be on controversial abortion and climate change issues. I 
do not understand it. We have this tentative agreement to cut billions 
from current spending levels, but the Speaker of the House seems to 
continue to demand we ought to focus on controversial climate change 
issues.
  These are hot-button issues. Why we would insert them in an unrelated 
budget debate when there is so much at stake is beyond me. I understand 
we want to show the American people we are serious about deficit 
reduction. I am. I know the Presiding Officer is.
  In Colorado, people see straight through this latest ploy. What do 
abortion and climate change have to do with finding a compromise on 
keeping our government running? Nothing. They have nothing to do with 
that. It strikes me the debate has become increasingly ideological and 
increasingly about sending a partisan political message, one that 
leaves the American people paying the price.
  We have had 13 straight months of private sector job growth. We have 
added 1.8 million jobs in that time. But our economy is still fragile, 
and way too many Americans, way too many Minnesotans, way too many 
Coloradans are struggling. I have no doubt a government shutdown at 
this time would create a counterproductive effect on our economic 
recovery.
  Do not just take my word for it. I am a Senator from Colorado. Listen 
to what top business leaders of all political persuasions are saying. 
The Business Roundtable president, John Engler, a former Republican 
Governor of Michigan, said businesses would face the dangerous 
``unintended consequences,'' where interest rates could rise because of 
a shutdown, and there could be turmoil in our financial markets. 
Forecasters at Goldman Sachs have warned that a shutdown could shave 
off growth in our GDP every single week. CEOs of all stripes have 
warned about a shutdown's impact on confidence in the U.S. economic 
recovery. The Presiding Officer and I know and Senators from across the 
country know confidence is what we need to build. That is what is 
lacking in many respects.
  A setback of this nature, a shutdown would actually prevent the 
growth we tangibly need to address our long-term

[[Page 5401]]

growth and fiscal balance--in other words, get the economy growing 
again. We will have more tax revenues and we will see the gap between 
what we are spending and bringing in narrow.
  I cannot help but think, in the context of this debate, about my 
Uncle Stewart Udall, the father of Senator Udall from New Mexico. He 
wrote a book called ``The Forgotten Founders'' that focused on the 
settling of the West. I should add he focused on the people who were 
there at the time the Europeans arrived.
  The theme of the book was on how the West was settled, how it was 
built. It made the strong case that people coming out to the West--I 
think the Presiding Officer's home State, which is in the near West, 
might fit this characterization--people coming to the West were not 
looking to get into gunfights or range wars. They were looking to start 
their lives over to pursue the American dream.
  Stewart pointed out that in reality, particularly when we watch those 
Hollywood movies, people standing on the board sidewalks watching the 
gunfights were the people who built the West, and they built the West 
working together, solving problems, looking out for one another. It did 
not matter what your political party was. It seems to me the American 
people are standing on one of those board sidewalks watching the same 
senseless gunfights and range wars right here in Washington, DC.
  I know I was sent to Washington to work together and solve shared 
problems. I suggest this spirit I described is in stark contrast to 
this new kind of divisive politics that is brewing away in America. It 
is the kind of politics that furthers disagreement. It draws 
ideological lines in the sand, and it sows disrespect at the expense of 
shared interest and collective prosperity. The American people are 
seeing a disappointing example of that this week.
  While a vocal minority seems to favor acrimony and combativeness 
which, in the end, will further slow our economy, many of us are doing 
what we can to do the people's business and try in good faith to 
prevent a government shutdown.
  As the American people look on in amazement at this spectacle, I 
stand with them wondering if Members of Congress will finally settle 
down, act like adults, and work collaboratively toward a real budget 
solution.
  Yes, we have to reduce our government deficit and debt. One would be 
hard-pressed to find a Senator more committed to that cause than I am. 
Let's reach that goal. Let's reach it in a way that protects our senior 
citizens, our students, our veterans, our border security--I could go 
on with a long list. Let's do it in a way that slashes spending but 
does not harm our fragile economic recovery or divert our attention on 
divisive social issues.
  We cannot afford a government shutdown. I will be disappointed, to 
say the least, if the bipartisan deal that is before us is undercut by 
contentious, unrelated issues such as abortion and climate change.
  I wrote a letter 2 days ago to the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, 
whom I know well, in which a large number of my fellow Senators joined 
me to suggest to him and urge him to work with us to avoid a Federal 
Government shutdown. I will stay here all day, all night, whatever it 
takes. I am here to urge my colleagues in both Chambers--I served in 
the House and I now have the great privilege of serving in the Senate--
let's sit down together, let's reason together, let's be commonsensical 
together. Let's find a compromise. That is the American way. I know 
that is what propelled me to the Senate, my willingness to work across 
party lines. I think the Senate of the United States could set an 
example. There are colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have 
worked together, and we know the stakes are high.
  That is the reason I came to the floor, to urge Senators of both 
parties to work together to find a commonsense compromise to keep this 
government moving forward and make sure our economy is focused upon and 
we produce as many jobs as possible. That is job one.
  Mr. President, I thank you for your attention and for your interest. 
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time because we are now only 
literally hours away from a potential shutdown of government. I must 
tell you that my constituents are angry about this, and I join them in 
saying this should never happen. There is no reason why we should have 
a government shutdown.
  We know the financial issues, and there have been good-faith 
negotiations. It is my understanding we have pretty much resolved the 
financial issues. And, remember, we are dealing with 12 percent of the 
Federal budget. We need to get to the 2012 budget and get a credible 
plan to deal with the deficit. We all understand that. We are talking 
about the 2011 budget--the budget that started on October 1 of last 
year and will end on September 30 of this year. We are over halfway 
through that budget year.
  There are differences between where the Democrats were and where the 
Republicans were. Everyone understood it couldn't be what the 
Republicans wanted or the Democrats wanted; that we needed to have 
good-faith negotiations. Those negotiations have taken place, and it is 
my understanding we have pretty much agreed on the dollar amounts and 
we are prepared to move forward.
  But let me talk a little about what will happen at midnight tomorrow 
night. I have the honor of representing the people of the State of 
Maryland. There are almost 150,000 active civilian--civilian--Federal 
employees who live in the State of Maryland. I happened to bump into 
one of those Federal employees today who asked me a question. She asked 
me: What am I supposed to do if we have a government shutdown and I 
don't get a paycheck? I don't have any savings. How am I going to pay 
for my mortgage?
  We already have too many people whose mortgages are in jeopardy 
because of the weakness of our economy, and now 150,000 Marylanders are 
in jeopardy of losing their paycheck as a result of the inability to 
resolve this year's budget.
  I also happened to talk to people who run our Metro system here, and 
they told me if we have a government shutdown it will mean $1 million 
less in the fare box, possibly every day, because of the number of 
people who won't be taking the Metro because they are not going to be 
going to work. A lot of Federal workers are not going to be going to 
work.
  Guess what. They are not going to stop at the coffee shop to buy 
coffee or buy that lunch. They won't be patronizing the shops. It is 
going to hurt the small business owners who depend upon that business; 
depend upon the people who use their paychecks to do their cleaning or 
go to the different shops. It is going to hurt our economy. It is going 
to hurt innocent small business owners, just at a time that our economy 
is starting to recover.
  I will give another example. A person contacted me today, one of my 
constituents in Maryland who happens to have an issue concerning the 
need for a passport to be issued. It needs to be issued rather quickly. 
We are going to try to accommodate that person to get it done by 
tomorrow. But suppose that call would have come in next week after 
there is a government shutdown and that person has travel plans that 
now may be disrupted because we cannot issue that passport. The list 
goes on and on of people who are going to be hurt as a result of a 
government shutdown.
  We know a government shutdown will actually cost the taxpayers more 
money. A shutdown costs taxpayers money, More money than the 
differences in our negotiations in the last

[[Page 5402]]

couple of days will be lost. So don't tell the taxpayers of this 
country that we are having a government shutdown to save money. It will 
not save taxpayer money, it will cost them additional moneys. It will 
jeopardize our recovery, and individual people will get hurt as a 
result of the government shutdown.
  What is the issue? We have already said the money issues--this is a 
budget debate--have been pretty well resolved. It is not the dollars. 
It is not the differences you heard--and the differences, frankly, were 
quite small compared to the size of our budget deficit and the gap 
between spending and revenues. The issue that is now being raised by 
the Republicans has nothing to do with dollars. It has to do with their 
social policies. It has to do with family planning. It has to do with 
the Environmental Protection Agency being able to enforce our 
environmental laws, the Clean Air Act. Does that sound familiar? It 
should because we debated those issues on the floor of the Senate 
yesterday, and we took votes on these environmental issues yesterday on 
the floor of the Senate, as we should do, debating these issues on 
their own individual merits.
  It should not be included in the budget resolution for the remainder 
of this year. That is not the appropriate place for it. We are not here 
to debate the social agenda. Those issues should be done on the bills, 
the substantive bills that come forward.
  You sort of get a little suspicious as these issues are being raised 
as to whether, in fact, those who are negotiating on the Republican 
side are sincere in trying to reach an agreement to prevent a 
government shutdown or whether they continuously move the goalposts and 
change the rules in order to bring about a government shutdown.
  I must tell you, I was disappointed, as I heard Republican after 
Republican in the last couple of weeks talk about a shutdown might be 
good for the country; if we have a shutdown, so be it. Let's do it. 
Even some Republicans calling for a shutdown.
  I understand there is a problem the Speaker of the House has in 
dealing with the members of the Republican caucus who belong to the tea 
party, and they are insisting he not compromise; they don't want to see 
any compromise. I understand that, but those Members do not control the 
process. We have a majority of the Members of the House and a majority 
of the Members of the Senate who are prepared to move forward with this 
compromise that will not only keep government functioning but will 
allow us to get on to the real issues of dealing with the deficit of 
this country by looking at the 2012 budget. There we will be 
considering more than just the discretionary domestic spending cuts, we 
also can take a look at the other programs, including military and 
mandatory spending and revenues, and get a credible plan to deal with 
the deficit.
  We have enough votes among the Democrats and Republicans to pass this 
compromise. We do not have to yield to the extremists on the Republican 
side in the House who do not want to see any compromise whatsoever, but 
what worries me is that perhaps the design is to close the government; 
that is what the Republicans want. I know Speaker Boehner got a 
standing ovation when he informed his caucus to begin preparing for a 
possible shutdown.
  These are serious issues--like that Marylander I talked to today who 
may, in fact, lose her home if there is a government shutdown or that 
constituent who had planned a trip and found out that because their 
passport will expire shortly, they need to get it renewed before they 
are permitted to enter a foreign country and will need to get that 
passport tended to or lose the opportunity to travel, perhaps, for a 
family event or perhaps for business or the taxpayers of this country 
who are scratching their heads saying: What are you doing adding to the 
cost of government when I thought this was a debate about reducing the 
cost of government.
  It is not about the dollars. If we have a shutdown of government--and 
I really hope we do not have a shutdown of government, but if we have a 
shutdown of government, it is not the dollar difference, it is the 
social agenda that the Republicans are trying to push through this 
document, that should not even be on this document, that they are now 
using as a reason to deny a compromise. It is the extreme elements 
within the Republican caucus who are saying let's have this government 
shutdown who will be getting their way.
  There is still time remaining. I hope common sense will prevail. I 
hope people understand how serious a government shutdown is to our 
country, to our image internationally, to our ability to conduct 
business internationally, as well as our ability to provide the 
services to the people of this Nation who expect those services. We 
still have time. This is a democracy. Let the majority rule. I think we 
have the majority of Democrats and Republicans alike who want to bring 
this issue to conclusion, who know that we have a good compromise done 
right now that compromises the differences between what the Democrats 
would want and what the Republicans would want. That is how the process 
should work.
  Yes, I am here--representing the people of Maryland, including a 
large number who work for the Federal Government and a large number who 
depend upon those who work for the Federal Government and a large 
number who depend upon the services of the Federal Government--to say 
let's get this done, not yield to the few on the Republican side in the 
House. Let's get this job done for the people of Maryland and for the 
people of this Nation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, tomorrow night at midnight, unless steps 
are taken, we will be facing a government shutdown. When I say steps 
are taken, steps are taken to avoid that. That can happen one of two 
ways: That could be an agreement that funds the government through the 
end of the fiscal year, which would be September 30 of this year, and 
there are negotiations that continue on dealing with that issue, or 
there could be a short-term continuing resolution that would take us 
through the next week that would enable those who are negotiating a 
longer term agreement to continue their discussions and hopefully to 
conclude a successful outcome to those discussions.
  I want to remind my colleagues--and I believe I have been on the 
Senate floor a number of times speaking to this issue, but I think it 
bears repeating--why we are here, why we are in the middle of the sixth 
continuing resolution. This is the sixth short-term continuing funding 
resolution that we have had to live with since the end of the fiscal 
year, which was September 30 of last year.
  The reason we are here is because last year the Democratic majority 
in Congress failed to pass a budget and failed to pass a single 
appropriations bill. They didn't fulfill the most fundamental 
responsibility that we have to the American taxpayers; that is, put 
together a budget that funds their government. So we have funded the 
government through these successive continuing resolutions. As I said 
before, we are now in the middle of the sixth short-term funding 
resolution which expires tomorrow night at midnight.
  My colleagues on the other side have been coming to the floor and 
attacking the Republicans for wanting to shut down the government. I 
would say to my colleagues that nothing could be further from the 
truth. I think everybody here recognizes that no one benefits from a 
government shutdown. Frankly, the effort has been made in the House of 
Representatives to pass a long-term funding resolution that would take 
us through the end of the fiscal year, through September 30 of this 
year, but that failed in the Senate. We had a vote on that. It failed 
and

[[Page 5403]]

there has not been, since that time, any meaningful effort made on the 
part of the Democrats in the Senate to put forward a proposal that 
might, in fact, be able to pass the Senate and ultimately pass in the 
House of Representatives.
  So we triggered these discussions between the White House and the 
leadership in the House of Representatives and the leader of the 
Democrats in the Senate. My understanding is those discussions 
continue. I hope they will reach a conclusion, a successful conclusion, 
but until that time happens we need to do something to make sure the 
government stays open beyond tomorrow night at midnight. So we will 
receive from the House of Representatives a piece of legislation that 
they passed earlier today, a continuing resolution that actually 
reduces government spending by about $13 billion, discretionary 
spending, all cuts that have been agreed to by both parties, and also 
extends funding for the military through the end of the fiscal year.
  There has been a lot of discussion about we need to provide some 
certainty for our military so they can plan. I agree with that 
absolutely. I met with members of our military, with our military 
leadership. It is important that we take care of the funding needs that 
they have through the end of this fiscal year.
  So what did the House of Representatives do? They took a series of 
spending reductions which had been agreed upon, as I said, by both 
parties; they funded the military through the end of the fiscal year, 
through September 30; and they added a couple of provisions to that 
legislation that had been widely supported by both parties in the 
Congress.
  There is a ban on abortion funding in the District of Columbia which 
has been supported by the Democratic leader, the Democratic whip on 
countless occasions. They included a provision that would prevent 
funding being used to bring detainees here and try them in the United 
States instead of at Guantanamo Bay. That is something widely 
supported. In fact the last time it was supported was when the Defense 
authorization passed late last year in December, and it passed by 
unanimous consent. So many of my Democratic colleagues are on record 
supporting all the elements that are in this continuing resolution that 
will be coming over to us from the House of Representatives.
  The question then becomes, Who is it that is trying to trigger a 
government shutdown?
  I am not here this evening to play the blame game. I do not think 
that serves anybody's interest, nor do I believe a government shutdown 
serves anybody's interests very well. I think the American people 
expect us to find solutions. They expect us to work out our differences 
but eventually to agree. I think that has certainly happened in the 
form of this continuing resolution that is coming over from the House 
of Representatives.
  In fact, it passed the House today with 247 votes, including a number 
of Democrats. There were a number of Democrats who voted with the 
majority of Republicans in the House to pass a continuing resolution 
that takes on the issue of out-of-control Washington spending, which 
has been very clearly documented. We need to get spending under 
control.
  We are adding to the Federal debt at a rate of $4 billion every 
single day, which means by tomorrow night at 6:30--it is 6:30 tonight--
tomorrow night 6:30 on Friday, we will have added another $4 billion to 
the debt. That is the debt meter we are running. Every single day we 
add $4 billion to the Federal debt that we pass on to future 
generations.
  We are borrowing over 40 cents out of every single dollar the Federal 
Government spends. We cannot continue to do that. We will take in $2.2 
trillion this year, spend $3.7 trillion. That is $1.5 trillion in 
deficits in a single year. Add that up year after year after year and 
we end up with a $14 trillion debt, which is where we are today. It is 
growing at $1.5 trillion every single year.
  So we have to get spending under control. I understand there is not a 
lot of appetite on the other side of the aisle for taking on Federal 
spending. In fact, many of my colleagues on the other side thought it 
was an ambitious proposal when they put forward an alternative to the 
Republican-passed bill that cut discretionary spending by $61 billion. 
They put forward an alternative that cut $4.7 billion.
  That is the equivalent of the Federal debt we will add in the next 24 
hours. That was their, I guess, idea about a serious effort to 
meaningfully address deficit spending and debts. The fact is, we have 
to deal with the issue of out-of-control spending.
  Clearly, the continuing resolution, the short-term continuing 
resolution that passed the House, is coming to the Senate, takes on 
that issue, but does it in a way that cuts spending--spending cuts 
that, as I said, both sides have agreed to. It is a mystery to me as to 
why our colleagues on the other side would reject a proposal that 
includes spending cuts that have been agreed upon by both sides.
  Frankly, if, in fact, it is true, in the reports I have read, that 
Democrats would accept somewhere on the order of $43 billion in cuts 
for the balance of the fiscal year, this represents about $12 or $13 
billion. So we are still considerably under what they have agreed to in 
terms of a total number, but with regard to the actual cuts that are 
suggested by the House-passed legislation, they are, by and large, cuts 
the Democrats have agreed with.
  So we have agreement on these reductions in spending, we have a 
general agreement that we ought to fund the troops through the end of 
the year, and we have an agreement on the so-called riders--at least 
there has been agreement in the past, broad bipartisan support. I would 
argue that the two particular provisions on this bill are provisions 
that are supported by probably 70 percent of people across this 
country.
  So we have a piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan support, 
that has come over to us from the House of Representatives, and that 
would prevent a government shutdown at midnight tomorrow night. It is a 
great mystery as to why our Democratic colleagues would not accept that 
and do what I think is in the best interests of the American people; 
that is, at least get us into next week, where a final negotiation on 
the longer term continuing resolution can be concluded.
  We have a problem in this country. We have a government that is 
spending way beyond its means. We have to start living within our 
means. We cannot continue to spend money we do not have. The efforts 
that are being made to reduce spending are long overdue. I hope they 
can conclude a successful agreement on a longer term resolution that 
would get us through the end of this fiscal year.
  But I think it is important to point out, right here right now, that 
we have an opportunity to prevent a government shutdown, to fund our 
troops through the end of the fiscal year, and to reduce, in a 
meaningful way, spending, with spending cuts that have been agreed to 
by both sides in the form of this continuing resolution that was passed 
in the House this afternoon, with a large number, not a large number 
but a significant number of Democrats supporting it.
  I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side, and I hope they 
will work with us to make sure we avoid a government shutdown, that we 
fund our troops and that we make a meaningful dent in out-of-control 
Washington spending. I would, again, as we approach that time tomorrow 
night at midnight, hope the leadership on the other side will take up 
that legislation that was passed by the House of Representatives, give 
us an opportunity to vote on it. I will submit there will be a large 
bipartisan vote in the Senate. If we do not have a large bipartisan 
vote, it will suggest that there are a lot of people who have changed 
their positions on the issues that are included in this piece of 
legislation because they are all things that many of us on both sides 
have supported and I suspect continue to support.
  That will avoid that witching hour tomorrow night at midnight, where 
the government shuts down. They have

[[Page 5404]]

given us an opportunity to vote on legislation that would do that. I 
hope we will take them up on that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I think there are times around here 
that we lose sight about what real people are doing in our home States. 
I think we lose sight of the struggles, their daily struggles, how they 
live their lives with integrity and honor every day and go to work.
  Yesterday, we got a call in my office from a young lady. She was on 
her cell phone. She is a nurse, a nurse's aide at the VA hospital in 
St. Louis. She was on her break, and she was on her cell phone.
  She talked to the young lady who answers our phone and said: I want 
you to tell the Senator that I have got kids, and I bring home the 
paycheck. The way I feed my kids is with my paycheck I get working here 
at the VA hospital, and I am scared. I am scared about what is going to 
happen if all of a sudden I quit getting my paycheck. I have no place 
to turn. I am a single mom, and I am very worried.
  Then, she said: Would you hold on a minute? Then she handed her cell 
phone to someone else in the break room at John Cochran VA Hospital, 
and then that woman handed the cell phone to another woman. By the time 
this conversation was over, the young lady who answers the phone in my 
office had talked to half a dozen women who do not make a lot of money, 
who go to work every day caring for our veterans in a veterans 
hospital.
  You know what they all said? Why is this happening? Why is this 
happening? If Latonya and her friends were here right now, I would say: 
You know what, that is a darn good question, why this is happening. 
This is not a game. This is not a game of ping-pong, where we are 
hitting the ball up and down this hall from the House to the Senate, 
fighting over divisive social issues that, frankly, our country has 
struggled with for decades and will continue to struggle with.
  This is about running our government and about the money it takes to 
run our government. That is all it should be about. It should not be a 
time for us to argue about Gitmo. It should not be a time for us to 
argue about women's reproductive health. It should be about funding our 
government. We have many other occasions we can debate those issues and 
disagree. And reasonable people do disagree.
  But now is not the time to debate those issues at the 11th hour, when 
Latonya is not going to get a paycheck to feed her kids. I am for cuts. 
I have been the odd man out many times in caucus fighting for cuts. I 
worked on spending cuts last year with Senator Sessions from Alabama. I 
continue to work with Senator Corker about cuts.
  I am somebody who said the original proposals that my caucus made 
were way too little. But you know what I am beginning to feel like? I 
am beginning to feel like I have been duped, because I thought that was 
what this was about. I thought it was about cuts.
  Let's review the facts. The chairman of the House Republican Budget 
Committee and the Speaker of the Republican House said we need to cut 
$32 billion out of the remaining budget this year. I have to tell you 
the truth. I did not think that was unreasonable. I will admit, I am to 
the right of much of my caucus on some of this cutting stuff. But I did 
not think that was unreasonable. So I was glad when we went to the 
Republicans and said: You know what, we will cut. We will cut what you 
wanted to cut. In fact, we will cut more than what the House Speaker 
and the chairman of the House Budget Committee wanted to cut. That is 
where we are today. We have put more cuts on the table than they 
initially recommended.
  I am beginning to realize this is not about cuts. This is about a 
much more extreme agenda that has to do with social policy, not about 
money. They keep moving the goalpost. What is the number? They keep 
moving the goalpost. We have gone more than halfway. In my neck of the 
woods, that is called a compromise.
  We have the Republicans controlling the House, the Democrats control 
the Senate. That is why compromise is so important. What is wrong with 
a compromise? Let's do the compromise, fund the government, and get on 
with it, so Latonya can get her paycheck and the other women who work 
with her at the VA hospital can get their paycheck.
  They will not take yes for an answer on cuts at this point. They want 
to make it about something else. Was the CR today just about military 
pay? No. No, it was not. I did notice one thing they did not put in the 
CR today. Why will the House Republicans not pass the bill we had asked 
them to pass to cut our pay if the government shuts down?
  I will certainly not take a paycheck, and no one should take a 
paycheck. Why is that not being passed by the Republican House of 
Representatives? Why was that not put on the CR today? They want to, 
once again, pass something about moving people out of Gitmo, which has 
nothing to do with the budget for the rest of the year. When they were 
doing the Gitmo thing, why did they not put the pay for Members in 
there? Why did that not occur? I know the talking point is that--this 
is one of the talking points we are hearing from the other side: Well, 
you should have gotten this done last year. We can get it done today--
we can get it done today.
  We have gone more than halfway on a compromise. This is no longer 
about the cuts. This is not about the money; this is about an extreme 
agenda.
  Latonya's paycheck and the paychecks of her friends in the break room 
at the VA hospital hang in the balance. Let's review what happened last 
year on the budget. The Republican Party participated in every 
Appropriations Committee in the Senate, and every Appropriations 
Committee passed a bill.
  At the end of the year, that bill was brought to the floor because 
the appropriators believed the Republican appropriators were supporting 
the bills they helped write. In fact, those Republican appropriators 
stuffed that bill full of earmarks for Republicans. Hundreds of 
earmarks for Republicans were stuffed in that bill.
  It was brought to the floor. I remember the night it was brought to 
the floor. It was in the lameduck. Then the Republicans decided they 
did not want to support it anymore. By the way, it was not as if 
passing anything around here was easy last year. If anybody was paying 
attention, it was about: Let's drag this out. Let's be stubborn. Let's 
make sure they have to get 60 on everything.
  Is there blame to go around that the budget did not get done last 
year? Sure. There is blame that can go on both sides of this aisle. I 
am not here to say it was the Republicans' fault or the Democrats' 
fault. But certainly it takes a lot of nerve to say the only reason we 
do not have a budget is because the Democrats were not willing to pass 
a budget last year.
  It was a little more complicated than that, if people will remember 
the facts as they occurred at the time. So it appears to me now that 
there are certainly a lot of people down the hall who want the 
shutdown. I was interested when I saw in the paper that when Speaker 
Boehner announced to his caucus they were preparing for a shutdown, he 
got a standing ovation.
  Well, I can assure you, there are no standing ovations in our caucus. 
There are no standing ovations. I will tell you what, when I go to 
sleep tonight, I am going to be thinking about Latonya. I am going to 
be thinking about her kids and what she is telling them tonight and 
what not getting one paycheck means to that family. Just one paycheck 
can make the difference, can send a family down the path of getting 
behind on the mortgage, behind on the bills, and then not having a way 
to catch up. That is what we should be thinking about right now, not 
about those social issues that we disagree on and that we can debate 
and disagree on for many years, as we have for the last 40. But really, 
can we get a number? Can we make the goalpost quit moving? Can we agree 
on the cuts and then get on to the hard work? How embarrassing is it 
that we are fighting over

[[Page 5405]]

literally a few billion dollars in difference.
  If this is so much about cutting the debt--for another day, I want to 
talk about this, but, really, the Republican budget was released this 
week. Guess what it adds to the deficit over the next decade. The Ryan 
roadmap adds $8.2 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. That is 
how serious they are getting about the deficit. It cuts taxes for a lot 
of wealthy people. It doesn't do much on the deficit.
  I am all for cuts. I have stood for cuts. I will continue to stand 
for cuts. This government has to shrink. But what is going on right now 
is a political game. It is shameful. It should stop. We should make an 
agreement on the numbers, move on, and make sure Latonya gets paid.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise as someone who lives in a State 
where we balance our budget every year, where the citizens of Wyoming 
and families all across the State live within their means, balance 
their budgets. They know what it means to have to live within a budget. 
That is why our State is one that currently today does not have a 
deficit, does not have a debt, a State where every year, by 
constitutional mandate, we balance our budget. It is time for 
Washington to take a lesson from Wyoming and balance its budget. This 
irresponsible spending must stop.
  Here we are, a day from when it looks as if we may be dealing with a 
government shutdown, and I am ready to vote. I am ready to vote for a 
bill that already passed the House of Representatives early today. I am 
ready to vote to keep the government open and functioning, to make sure 
services are there. The bill passed the House. People who have studied 
civics in school realize that is how we make a law in this country. It 
passes the House, the Senate, goes to the President, who signs it into 
law. The bill has already passed the House. It is coming to the Senate. 
I don't know where other Senators are, but I am ready to vote.
  I heard my colleague talk about a shutdown and who was rooting for a 
shutdown. It is no surprise to people who may be watching at home that 
it is former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean who is 
rooting for a shutdown. The former chairman of the Democratic National 
Committee says:

       I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a 
     shutdown. He is the spokesman for the party of the other side 
     of the aisle. That may be what he wants. I don't want to do 
     that. I want to vote for the bill that passed the House. It 
     is the only proposal that is out there. I haven't seen the 
     Democrats offer anything. Even the New York Times said of the 
     President that he was ``silent for too long.''

  We have heard our previous speaker talk about the social issues. 
Let's remember that it is convenient amnesia for Democrats to talk 
about that specific issue because the President voted for and signed 
into law spending bills that included similar--actually the identical 
social issue in the past, the one he is opposing today. So did 49 
current Senate Democrats. They also voted for a spending bill that 
dealt with that social issue. Why all of a sudden today it is 
different? I believe it has to do with what the former chairman of the 
Democratic National Committee said:

       I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a 
     shutdown.

  Republicans are proposing solutions. What do we see from the other 
side of the aisle? We see the senior Senator from New York saying, ``I 
always use the word `extreme.''' It doesn't matter what is proposed. He 
says, ``I always use the word `extreme.''' There are tape recordings of 
him saying this. He then said, ``That is what the caucus instructed me 
to use this week.'' Regardless of how reasonable a proposal may be, 
regardless of the solutions that may be proposed, ``I always use the 
word `extreme.' That is what the caucus instructed me to use this 
week.''
  I travel back and forth to Wyoming every weekend, visit with people 
and sit around at different locations, sometimes a morning breakfast 
group, sometimes it is people at lunch, dinners, community meetings.
  I ask them: How many of you believe you have a life that is better 
than your parents had?
  Every hand goes up.
  Then I ask: How many of you believe your children will have a better 
life than you have right now?
  Very few hands go up. That is the problem.
  I ask them: What is the concern? Why do you believe you have a better 
life than your parents did but your children will not have as good a 
life as you?
  The answer they give is the debt, the reckless spending in 
Washington--reckless, irresponsible, unsustainable. Yet, when we want 
to go ahead today, do cuts in spending, keep the military going, deal 
with the issue at hand, keep the government functioning so we can come 
back and continue to work on the debt and the spending, this body is 
not ready to vote.
  I am ready to vote. I am ready to vote for the only proposal on the 
table--the one the Republicans in the House of Representatives passed 
today. That is real leadership. It is a plan. It will work. It is what 
the American people are asking for.
  I have people from Wyoming coming to Washington all the time. They 
say: We realize things are tough this year. They come and explain a 
program that is good for people in the community, good for children, 
good for seniors--I met with six or seven groups like that today--good 
for students in school. They say: We know that all of us are going to 
have to deal with the realities of the facts, that we can't continue 
with this unsustainable spending where 40 cents out of every dollar we 
spend is borrowed, significant amounts from overseas. Our No. 1 lender 
is folks in China. I say: Is that your concern? That is absolutely the 
concern I hear around the State of Wyoming.
  They see that the President of China comes over and tells America a 
few weeks ago that he wants the Chinese currency to be the currency of 
the future and the dollar to be the currency of the past. That is 
because he knows we have an addiction to spending, and it must stop. 
That is what I hear from people from Wyoming who come here as well. 
They say: We need to make sure we get the spending under control.
  It seems reasonable to get back to the level of 2008 spending. That 
is the level many American families are living under. They balance 
their budgets. It is time for Washington to do the same.
  I know the people in Wyoming. I have visited with a number through 
the week and in many communities last weekend--in Worland, Caspar, 
Laramie. What they are saying is, get the spending under control, and 
do it in a reasonable manner. But for someone to come from the other 
side of the aisle and say he thinks the best thing in the world to do 
is to have a shutdown and for another person to say he always uses the 
word ``extreme'' because that is what his caucus instructed him to use 
this week--that doesn't solve the problem. That doesn't let us find a 
solution. There is a solution on the table right now. It is a solution 
that has been proposed. This Senate ought to be voting on it tonight.
  For the President to say he is going to veto it shows that the 
President is truly not engaged in this process. He has been silent too 
long, according to the New York Times. His budget that he has proposed, 
the Economist, a world-renowned, respected publication, called 
``dishonest.'' That is not the kind of leadership we need. We need 
someone in the White House fully engaged, taking an active role, and 
making sure we get back on a course that is responsible, that allows us 
to live within our means, as families know, because we have to stop 
spending money we do not have. Stop spending money we do not have. That 
is the way for Washington to behave in a responsible way, to make the 
difficult decisions necessary for the future of the country, to focus 
on the issues that affect families and their needs. Families who are 
trying to deal with kids and bills and a mortgage know what it means to 
have to live within their means.

[[Page 5406]]

  When we see policies coming out of this administration that are ones 
making the pain at the pump even worse, as families are noticing they 
are paying $700 on average more for gasoline this year than last year, 
that is money that is not available for other bills or for a mortgage 
or to help with their kids. Those are the issues they are facing, 
people trying to pay for their own health insurance, realizing the 
increased cost of the insurance because of the Obama health care law 
that passed way over the objections of the American people, crammed 
down the throats of the American people by the other side of the aisle.
  The American people are saying: This is absolutely wrong. That is why 
I think we saw last November the election results we did across the 
country. That is why we see people continuing to stand up and speak out 
across the country. That is why people continue to go to townhall 
meetings and share their views about the problems happening in this 
country.
  It is interesting. When I think of the great Presidents through the 
history of our country--we all have our favorites--I think of Ronald 
Reagan. He said that you can't be for big government and big spending 
and big taxes and still be for the little guy. We have on the other 
side of the aisle people who are for big government, big spending, and 
big taxes. They are not for the little guy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I have been listening to the remarks 
of my friend from Wyoming. I noticed that he repeatedly indicated that 
what we needed to do in this building was to keep the military funded, 
to deal with the deficit, and to cut spending. It is my firm belief 
that if we were sent a bill that kept the military funded, that dealt 
with the deficit, and that cut spending, it would pass in the Senate 
very readily. Indeed, we have already agreed to $73 billion in spending 
cuts. As Senator McCaskill said earlier, the problem is that the 
Republicans won't take yes for an answer.
  The issue dividing us at this point is not the need to keep the 
military funded. We completely agree on that. It is not the need to 
deal with the deficit. We agree on that. Indeed, the last time we 
successfully dealt with the deficit, it was under the Democrats. 
Clearly, we have gone way more than halfway by agreeing to cut $73 
billion in spending. So as to those three points, the answers are yes, 
yes, and yes. So what is the problem?
  The problem is two riders that are being insisted on in the 
negotiations, one of which would eliminate funding for Planned 
Parenthood and the second of which would gut the Clean Air Act--Planned 
Parenthood and the Clean Air Act. I thought this was about the deficit. 
I thought this was about solving our fiscal situation. The facts are a 
little different.
  Here we are, mere hours away from the first government shutdown since 
Newt Gingrich forced one during President Clinton's first term. We are 
facing some 800,000 Federal workers being furloughed; millions more, 
including men and women in uniform, who will begin working without pay. 
Projects will grind to a halt. People working under government 
contracts will stop. There will be a real danger to our fragile 
economic recovery that is just starting to gain steam. Why take that 
risk?
  In front of cameras all week, Republicans have been saying that 
despite these dangers, they will threaten a government shutdown because 
we need to tackle the deficit. The story behind the scenes is quite 
different. Even though the tea party has focused 100 percent of its 
cost-cutting fury on only 12 percent of Federal spending--only the 
nonsecurity, so-called discretionary spending--we agreed to the level 
of cuts Republicans wanted. Nothing on the revenue side, everything on 
the spending side, and only from 12 percent of the budget, and yet we 
were still able to come far more than halfway to where the Republicans 
are, virtually within single-digit billions of dollars of agreement. 
Yet we still find ourselves without funding for the government beyond 
tomorrow night.
  We have heard today that it has to do with the fact that we did not 
pass a budget last year. Well, we did not pass a budget last year, but 
we tried. As Senator McCaskill pointed out, she and I were on the floor 
when the omnibus spending bill came to the floor. It had been 
negotiated in a bipartisan fashion. It had come through all the 
different appropriating committees. It would have funded the government 
through September 30. We thought we had an agreement, and at the last 
minute all of the Republicans who had agreed to it changed their minds, 
literally while we were on the floor. The bill went down. One 
Republican Senator even took to the floor to gloat about the end of 
that bill.
  So it is a little bit of crocodile tears to blame the Democrats for 
not having an appropriations and budget bill at this point from the 
side of the Chamber that took that bill down, that pulled their 
individuals who had participated in that bipartisan bill out of the 
deal, that filibustered it, and that shut it down. That is why we are 
here today. The minority party used its filibuster power, walked away 
from a deal it had already signed off on, and took down the spending 
bill. So here we are. It is important to stay somewhat close to the 
facts.
  So now the Republicans are using the deficit concerns, which I think 
Senator Barrasso said very clearly: Keep the military funded, deal with 
the deficit, and cut spending. That is what we are prepared to agree to 
do. But the bill we are being asked to agree to now is a Trojan horse. 
It is a Trojan horse that looks like a deficit bill, but inside it is 
filled with tea party ideology. It is filled with an extremist 
rightwing political agenda to do things like eliminate Planned 
Parenthood and give America's polluters free reign in violation of the 
Clean Air Act as it has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to 
apply. This is no longer about the deficit; this is about trying to 
force a very radical agenda down America's throats in a Trojan horse 
that looks like it is about the deficit.
  What is it really about? Well, you do not have to go very far from 
this building. Just a few days ago, outside, you had the tea party 
ralliers, and what were they chanting outside of the Capitol? They were 
chanting, ``Shut it down. Shut it down. Shut it down.'' That is what 
the tea party wants. That is why we are here. And, sure enough, when 
the Speaker went to his caucus on the Republican side and announced to 
them--to the people who are actually here making decisions in this 
Congress--that he was notifying the administrative staff on the House 
side to prepare for a shutdown, what was the reaction? It was a 
standing ovation supporting the Speaker in that.
  So on the outside of the building, you have the tea partiers 
chanting, ``Shut it down. Shut it down. Shut it down.'' You have the 
extreme Members of the House Republican caucus out there with the tea 
partiers, egging them on, ``Shut it down. Shut it down. Shut it down.'' 
They come back into the building. The Speaker says: We have to get 
ready to shut it down. They give him a standing ovation. They could not 
be happier about this. They load the bill up with things that have 
nothing to do with funding the military, nothing to do with cutting the 
deficit, nothing to do with bringing down spending, but instead 
accomplish ideological missions that the Republican Party has been on 
for years.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Absolutely. I yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First, I thank him for his outstanding remarks. My 
question is this: Isn't it true we have had many, many Republicans in 
the House, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, some Presidential candidates, 
erstwhile potential Presidential candidates, as well as even some of 
our colleagues here, Republicans, saying they want to shut down the 
government?
  My question to the Senator is, I cannot recall a single Democratic 
elected official saying they want to shut the government down. My 
second question

[[Page 5407]]

is, Doesn't that show something about who is itching for a shutdown or 
at least thinks they can use the shutdown to accomplish an agenda?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I agree with the Senator from New York. I cannot 
recall a single Senator expressing any desire for a shutdown. I have 
been present in our caucus meetings. Not one person has once said there 
is anything good about a shutdown.
  We are all gravely concerned about what a shutdown would do to our 
fragile economic recovery. This is still about jobs, ultimately. We 
still have to grow an economy in this country. And when we shut down 
every government contract and put those people out of work, when we 
shut down every government project and put those people out of work, 
when we take paychecks away from government workers and when we 
furlough government workers, what does that do to the economy? Any 
economist will tell you it strikes a terrible blow. We recognize that, 
and that is why no elected Democratic official has said one good word 
about a shutdown.
  That is very different from what we are seeing from the other side, 
where standing ovations, where chanting mobs, egged on by sitting 
Members of Congress, where public statements by candidates for 
President and by Members of Congress have all said that the shutdown--
--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. My time has expired. I thank the Senator from New 
York for his question.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and would share a few 
things.
  If my Democratic colleagues would prefer not to shut the government 
down, then do not do it. The House, the Republican House, has passed a 
bill to fund the government, to fund the Defense Department, and the 
Senate, the Democratic Senate, has passed nothing. Indeed, the 
Democratic leadership proposed a bill that they said was worthwhile 
that would have reduced spending by $4.6 billion. Ten Democratic 
Senators defected from the leadership position--a pretty gutsy thing to 
do on an issue as important as this.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to yield for a question, although my 
time is limited.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Senator for his courtesy in yielding for 
a question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. All right. Go ahead.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If, in fact, this is really about the deficit and if, 
in fact, this is really about reducing spending and if, in fact, this 
is really about ensuring the military remains funded, why is it 
necessary to have it be a nonnegotiable condition of the bill that 
Planned Parenthood be zeroed out and that the EPA be prevented from 
enforcing the Clean Air Act? I do not see that there is any connection 
between those two requirements and the deficit, and I think, if the 
party were willing to give up those two demands, we could solve this 
very quickly. It is those two demands that are fouling things up and 
forcing a shutdown.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, I appreciate the Senator's comment. I would like 
to respond to that. The House has sent over a bill that does not have 
those provisions in it--a 1-week extension, and it funds the military. 
It is available to be passed, also, and would allow further discussions 
and negotiations on how to complete the last of the year without 
affecting the military.
  I just have to tell you, I have no desire to fund Planned Parenthood, 
the largest abortion provider in America. Maybe that is what you think 
Federal taxpayers ought to spend their money on, but I do not. But that 
is not the critical issue.
  The critical issue is how much we spend. I certainly agree with that. 
The House has sent over legislation, both for the whole fiscal year and 
for a short term, to continue it. If this government is shut down, it 
will be because of the Democratic Senate and the threat of President 
Obama to veto this legislation if it were passed. Why don't they bring 
it up for a vote? Perhaps it is because a number of Democrats who are 
uneasy about this reckless spending might feel that voting for this 
would be a good way to continue the negotiations and work through it 
and it might pass. So the President has now jumped into the middle of 
it and proposed to shut the government down.
  And I do not appreciate my colleague--who is fine; we serve on the 
Judiciary Committee together--talking about that this is all extremist 
rightwingers. Give me a break. He said: They really have this secret 
agenda. They pretend it is all about the deficits. It is not about the 
deficits. It is about some extremist rightwing agenda.
  He then launches into a full-fledged attack, as has Senator Schumer, 
on the tea party, some of the best people in our country who got 
terribly afraid for our Nation and went out and marched all over 
America--millions, tens of millions--who had never before done anything 
like that. I talk to them all the time. Are these bad people?
  And let me tell you, Erskine Bowles, former Chief of Staff to 
President Clinton, chosen by President Obama to head his debt 
commission, came before the Budget Committee just 2 weeks ago, and he 
and Alan Simpson, his cochairman, issued a written statement: We are 
facing the most predictable economic crisis in our Nation's history. 
``Predictable crisis'' means we could be thrown back into another 
recession or a depression. When asked by Chairman Conrad, our 
Democratic chairman, when this might happen, what did President Obama's 
chairman say? Two years, maybe a little before, maybe a little later. 
Alan Simpson piped up: I think 1 year.
  Hopefully this is not so. Hopefully, we are not going to have a debt 
crisis in a year or 2 years. But these people who took testimony for 
weeks and months and provided their opinion on how to fix our debt, 
they say we are facing a debt crisis that could put us into a recession 
and surge unemployment, even though it is just beginning to come down a 
little bit. This is not a Republican-Democratic squabble. These are 
Democratic leaders who warned us.
  Alice Rivlin headed the other commission with Pete Domenici, our 
former chairman of the Budget Committee. Pete Domenici, now retired 
from the Senate, said: I have never been more afraid for my country--
one of the most eloquent orators I have ever heard in the Senate--never 
been more afraid for my country. When you have deficits--this year, we 
take in $2.2 trillion and spend $3.7 trillion--borrowing 40 cents of 
every dollar we spend, we are creating a nation at risk. That is what 
we are talking about.
  So this past election, it was a big issue. All over America, 
candidates ran for office, and the ones who were the big spenders, who 
were in denial about the danger the Nation faces, got shellacked. 
Sixty-four Republicans got elected to the House--the biggest Republican 
victory in 80 years--over one issue, really. Spending, that is what it 
was.
  When we came into the Senate they had only passed, when they had this 
supermajority in the House and in the Senate, a 5-month continuing 
resolution. The Democrats didn't pass a budget nor did they pass a 
single appropriations bill. So everybody knew that after this election, 
the funding level was going to be reduced. The American people had 
spoken.
  He walks in, our majority leader, Harry Reid, and says, We will cut 
spending by $4.6 billion out of $3,700 billion we spent. Give me a 
break: $4.6 billion out of $3,700 billion that we spent is somehow 
significant? The House only recommended $61 billion in the last 7 
months, but that makes a difference. When you reduce the baseline, $61 
billion--and the interest you save--$61 billion plus interest, it adds 
up to $860 billion saved over a 10-year period. That is coming close to 
$1 trillion in savings, by that one act. But when you

[[Page 5408]]

spend on the upswing, likewise, you end up raising the baseline and 
surging spending and debt. That is why we have to get responsible, and 
when we do, we can make a bigger impact than a lot of people think.
  I remain unhappy and stunned that my Democratic colleagues are in 
full-fledged attack on the good and decent people who stood up and 
complained about what was happening in Washington and now don't 
hesitate to attack the tea party as extremists. I object to that. I 
think it is wrong.
  We are in a serious problem. I think many of my colleagues--I know 
many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed to 
me that we need to do better, that we have to change the trajectory we 
are on. I think there is a real possibility for bipartisan action, but 
it is only a possibility. I actually have been fairly hopeful, but--we 
have had a lot of talk on the other side of the aisle, but I haven't 
seen anything moving--nothing--except the President's budget.
  The Senator from Wyoming said ``The Economist Magazine'' called it 
dishonest. It is. What they said about it was it has been found false 
by five different fact checks. They say it calls on us to live within 
our means. The budget director said it will allow us to pay down our 
debt, when the lowest single deficit we are projected to have under the 
budget the President submitted to us is $748 billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Thank you very much, Mr. President. We are on the verge of 
a possible government shutdown, which is extraordinarily regrettable.
  Controlling the deficit and paying down the debt is a critical 
priority of this country and must be done. It is a difficult challenge, 
but not insurmountable. We have done it before. In the 1990s I was a 
Member of the House of Representatives under President Clinton. We were 
able to push through an economic program that did not focus exclusively 
and entirely, as the Republican proposal does, on domestic 
discretionary spending. It looked across the board at not only domestic 
spending but defense spending. It looked on the revenue side. It also 
looked at some of our entitlement programs. The result from the 1993-
1994 action of the Democratic Congress was that by 2000, when President 
Bush was sworn in with a Republican Congress, there was a projected 
multitrillion-dollar surplus. We were looking at robust employment.
  I think it is sometimes difficult to listen to some of my colleagues 
talk about the deficit and President Obama when recognizing, under 
their leadership, President Bush and a Republican Congress, a surplus 
was turned into a huge deficit. In fact, President Bush doubled the 
national debt in 8 years. It had taken almost more than 200 years to 
accumulate a debt he doubled.
  So we are here and prepared to make those reasonable and responsible 
decisions that will lead us forward to a balanced budget and, 
hopefully, to what we accomplished under Democratic leadership and 
President Clinton in the 1990s--hopefully--even some surpluses going 
forward. But it can't be done in 2 weeks. We can't undo what has taken 
place since 2000 in 2 weeks or 2 months. It is going to take a 
concerted, collaborative effort.
  One of the problems we have had, frankly, is that the goalpost has 
been continuously shifting in terms of Republican proposals. My 
recollection is that last year the Republicans on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee insisted on a cut of roughly $20 billion from 
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2011. Then, this year, 
the House Appropriations Committee, under Republican leadership, 
proposed initial cuts of $33 billion from the fiscal year 2010 level. 
Days later, the Republican leadership decided that was not enough, so 
then it became more than $60 billion, with cuts in everything from EPA 
water and sewer grants to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
to Head Start--programs that are critical to working families and 
communities. Also, these investments are critical at a time when our 
economy is just beginning to regain some of the economic traction it 
had before. We are seeing some encouraging employment numbers. We are 
seeing some increase in consumer demand. This Draconian approach to 
cuts could very seriously undermine the emerging--not yet complete--but 
emerging recovery.
  In addition to the numbers that keep moving around, the proposal of 
the Republican House is studded with special interest riders--social 
policies, not fiscal policy. In fact, there is the impression sometimes 
that the deficit reduction claims are an excuse to try to advance not 
through the legislative process but through the appropriations 
process--through the threat of a shutdown--very conservative social 
policies. These policies should be debated. They should be voted upon. 
But to try to present them as nonnegotiable demands with the penalty 
for failure to heed to their demands the shutdown of the entire U.S. 
Government is, I think, inappropriate.
  The President and Leader Reid have been meeting with House Republican 
leadership continuously. There was a sense that a proposal of about $33 
billion in cuts from the appropriate baseline could be accomplished, 
but then that seems to keep moving again. This is unlike 1995 when we 
saw the last shutdown of this government by a Republican Congress. 
Again, this is becoming almost ritualistic. A Republican House is 
elected, and then within months there is a shutdown of the government. 
The 1995 shutdown lasted about 26 days. It cost about $1.4 billion in 
essentially dead weight lost to the economy and to the government. We 
are on the verge of repeating that mistake.
  Back in 1995, we weren't engaged in two conflicts with American 
service men and women engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were not 
participating in a very volatile NATO operation involving Libya. We had 
yet to see the threat of international terrorism unleashed so 
dramatically on our shores as it was on 9/11. Again, if this government 
is shut down, there are thousands of civilians and civilian contractors 
who are part of our intelligence services that are at least in limbo as 
to whether they can continue to provide us the information and the 
insights we need to protect ourselves against a still existing and now 
clearly obvious threat. These are much more challenging times.
  Indeed, for months now, in terms of a response to why the economy 
isn't growing, many of my colleagues have said, Well, it is the 
uncertainty of the Obama policies. That was the argument last year for 
the extension of the income tax cuts not only to middle-income 
Americans but to the wealthiest Americans. That uncertainty would breed 
a lack of investment, a lack of focus on job recovery. What could be 
more uncertain than shutting down the Government of the United States 
without any plan to bring it back and, indeed, without any clue as to 
what is the critical issue that must be addressed? At one point it is 
deficit; at another point it is social policy. That uncertainty I think 
could lead--I hope it does not--to a lack of confidence in our capacity 
to govern which will ripple through economic markets worldwide, and 
which also I think could challenge perception of the United States as a 
coherent world leader.
  There are some things that would unfortunately result from such a 
shutdown. We know military Federal pay will be delayed. In fact, 
uniformed military will be required to come to work, as they do, so 
dedicated to the service of this Nation, but their pay will cease the 
moment we shut this government down. Literally, there will be soldiers 
on the ground--sailors, marines, airmen in Iraq and Afghanistan--
fighting and they will not be paid and their families at home will not 
receive those benefits. The Federal Housing Administration will not be 
able to endorse any single-family mortgage loan. So if you are ready to 
close on your loan next week, you have the downpayment and you are 
ready to go, because the FHA will be out of business. SBA-

[[Page 5409]]

guaranteed loans for business working capital, real estate investment 
or job creation--for those things that are trying to move the economy--
stopped, dead in their tracks. So if you are a small business man or 
woman, you are ready to expand your company and hire more people, 
sorry, the SBA is closed until further notice. The IRS cannot process 
tax refunds for those who are filing paper returns and are depending 
upon their tax refunds, as so many working families do, to get through 
the next several months.
  We didn't get here overnight. In 1993, Democrats saw these same 
problems: a deficit that was prolonged and gnawing at the economic 
fabric of this country. We took deliberate action. It took several 
years, but within those several years, by the end of President 
Clinton's administration we saw a surplus, a robust employment 
situation, and the future looked very good to working families.
  In 2001, as I indicated, President Bush came into office with a 
surplus, but after tax cuts that were unpaid for, two costly wars that 
were unpaid for, and an unpaid-for extension of our entitlement program 
in terms of Part D Medicare--the largest, by the way, expansion of 
government entitlements in many decades--we are now looking at a huge 
deficit.
  President Obama came into office at a time when unemployment was, in 
my State, reaching beyond 12, almost to 14 percent. He was, I think, 
required to take appropriate action. With the Recovery Act, we were 
able to begin to restore some of the jobs. We have seen over the last 
year growth in civilian jobs, the private sector workforce, that we 
didn't see under President Bush. In fact, recent reports suggest over 
200,000 jobs. Those are the kinds of numbers that have to be sustained, 
not undercut, and you don't sustain them by shutting down the 
government and shutting down agencies such as SBA and the Federal 
Housing Administration.
  We are and have to work diligently. I hear my colleagues talking 
about reaching out, collaborating, and I hope that is the spirit we 
embraced in the last several hours. But we have heard many other 
statements coming, particularly from across the Capitol in the other 
Chamber, about how we have to shut this government down, how we have to 
go ahead and make a point, not make sound policy. That is not going to 
lead us to a better future for American families.
  I believe we have to be responsible. We have to recognize the 
problems before us will take months, if not years, to fully resolve, 
because it took years, not days or weeks, to accumulate. We have to 
respond to the troops in the field, not only to order them into battle 
but to support their families at home.
  We have to be responsible to families all across this country and 
give them a chance to use their talents to contribute to this country. 
I urge responsibility at this moment, not a shutdown of the U.S. 
Government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that of the 10 
minutes allotted to this side, I be allowed to have 3 minutes and 
Senator Moran 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on the question of funding the Defense 
Department, it is a very serious matter. We need to handle that 
correctly. I will just recall for my colleagues that the House has sent 
legislation to us that would fund the government for an additional 
week, with a reduction in spending of $12 billion, but that would fund 
the Defense Department for the rest of the fiscal year and take that 
matter off the table, guaranteeing there would be no disruption of the 
Defense Department.
  We should do that. We should have already done that. Senator 
McConnell, our leader on the Republican side, has said he will not 
support any more CRs unless we do fund the Defense Department. I have 
to suggest, however, that it appears to me our colleagues are using the 
Defense Department as a hostage and as leverage to the threat of 
shutting down, or partially shutting down, the Defense Department; the 
threat of that is used to sort of say that we are not going to cut 
spending anymore. So that is a fight we are in.
  We have heard the discussion about riders, but the new CR the House 
sent to us today doesn't have those riders on it, and it is not a 
problem in that regard. I do think it is irresponsible for the 
President of the United States--the Commander in Chief--to threaten to 
shut down the government.
  The Republican House has sent a bill over that funds the government 
and funds the Department. The threat to shut down the government is 
coming from the Democratic side. I don't think the people are going to 
be fooled. I do believe the American people's voices will be heard. The 
amount of reduction in spending makes a difference in how much is saved 
over a decade.
  Nobel Prize laureate Gary Becker; a superb economist, John Taylor; 
and former Secretary of State, George Schultz did a Wall Street Journal 
article recently, noting that under our spending--spending now is 24 
percent of GDP--if the House bill that cuts spending by $61 billion 
were passed, we would be spending 20.0 percent of GDP--a one-tenth of 1 
percent reduction in spending from another calculation.
  I yield to my colleague from Kansas. I am delighted to have him in 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. President, I come here tonight one more time. I am a very short 
term Member of the Senate--only about 3 months. Every time I have 
spoken on the Senate floor, I have talked about the importance of 
reining in spending. With the crippling nature of our national debt and 
the belief that if we don't resolve these issues, the future of our 
country is at stake, it is really one of the primary motivations I have 
for serving in this Congress: to see that we turn this country around 
for the benefit of our children and grandchildren.
  I think Kansans would say it is time for all Members of Congress to 
come together and fund the government. A shutdown demonstrates once 
again how we lack the ability or the desire to just use some common 
sense and reach a common goal. A primary function of Congress is to see 
that we appropriate the necessary funds to provide for government.
  Today, it seems to me we have come to the point at which this issue 
needs to be rapidly resolved. We are down to just a few billion 
dollars--and certainly a billion dollars is a lot of money to Kansans 
and to me, but we need to resolve this issue so we can move on to the 
more dramatic and important issue we face as Members of the Senate, as 
American citizens--that being next year's budget and the future of 
additional spending down the road.
  Tonight, in addition to saying let's resolve this issue, let's 
continue to fund the government, let's not pursue the strategy of a 
shutdown, I am here to express my genuine concern about the tactics 
that seem to be ongoing today, in which we, as the Senator from Alabama 
suggests, are holding hostage our service men and women and their pay.
  We have had a lot of discussion in Washington, DC, about who is an 
essential government employee. I will tell you there could be no 
questioning the fact that our service men and women are essential 
government employees, and they will be working regardless of the 
consequences, regardless of the decision made here about the so-called 
shutdown.
  From my view, it makes absolutely no sense--in fact, it is immoral--
to ask our service men and women to serve in harm's way and have to 
worry about the paycheck that feeds their families--and, in fact, most 
of them live month to month, live paycheck to paycheck. The idea that 
while they are serving and sacrificing away from family, they would 
have the additional concern about whether the paycheck is going to 
arrive and be deposited in their accounts seems to me to be something 
beyond the pale, something we could never expect from a Congress of the 
United States of America.

[[Page 5410]]

  So I am here one more time to say, yes, absolutely; let's get 
spending under control. The idea that we cannot go back to 2008 
spending levels plus inflation--we can do that. Nobody should believe 
that we cannot accomplish that goal, and nobody should be using the 
service men and women's paychecks and their service to our country as a 
hostage or the idea of whether this government is shut down. Resolve 
this issue now and make certain we resolve it in a way that no member 
of our Armed Services, or their families, is harmed by the decisions we 
make.
  This is an important decision. It is about the future of our country. 
The immediate concern is whether our service men and women understand 
that we value their service and that we will take every step to make 
certain they are not harmed by political inaction--the inability of us 
in Washington, DC, to resolve the issue of the continuing resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a meeting at the White House. There 
will be no more votes tonight. We hope that we are able to have some 
good fortune at the White House. We are going through these issues.
  As I indicated outside the door, I am not as confident as I was. The 
last 24 hours have not been kind to the American people. This is not a 
debate between Democrats and Republicans, it is a debate between 
Republicans and Republicans. They cannot determine how many social 
issues they want. The funding is pretty well taken care of, but that is 
not where we are.
  We are here trying to fund the government at the end of the fiscal 
year based not on money but on social issues, some of which have been 
in this country for 40 years. We have not settled the issues in 40 
years; we will not do it in a few hours. I am not optimistic. I hope 
things are better when I get to the White House and we can work it out.
  What is going on is really too bad for the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to share my deep concern that we 
are careening toward a shutdown of the government. Just a little more 
than 24 hours from now--tomorrow night--our government will shut down 
if this Chamber and the House Chamber cannot come together and put a 
simple continuing resolution on the President's desk.
  There is a lot that we should be proud of. One is to be a nation that 
has been a light for the world, presenting the ideals of democracy in 
action and advocating for and defending human rights. We should be 
deeply pleased that we have fought for fair working conditions and 
economic opportunity for Americans across this great land. We should be 
proud of the tradition of public education that gives children an 
opportunity to fulfill their full potential. We should be deeply 
pleased of our history, advocating for freedom of speech, freedom of 
association, and freedom of liberty. All of these things are part of a 
legacy for our Nation, a part of what this Chamber has been about.
  But we should not be pleased and we should not expect that this 
Chamber is now engaged not in those great and lofty ideals but in a 
very small argument over an extension of the budget for 6 months, and 
that we are so dysfunctional that we are risking shutting the American 
Government down for one of the few times in its history. That is not 
the model we wish to show to the world.
  I am deeply frustrated by what has transpired since 2000. The first 
11 years of this century--indeed, the first 11 years of this 
millenium--have not been kind ones for the United States of America. In 
2000 we were running huge surpluses. I was back in Oregon as part of 
the legislature and very excited by the fact that we were paying down 
our national debt.
  Economists were starting to debate whether we should pay it down in 3 
years or 5 years; do we need to keep a substantial debt for some 
strange economic reason or should we pay the whole thing off. I was 
thinking, isn't that a great debate to have, because we are going to 
hand a debt-free nation to our children.
  Mr. President, I think we all share the thought that there will be 
discussions tonight and we will not shut the government down. That is 
what this debate is about right now.
  It goes back to the point that in 2000 we had a new President come in 
who decided that paying off the debt wasn't that important. No, 
President Bush said we should have bonus breaks, big giveaways to the 
wealthiest Americans, and he did so without paying for them in any 
other manner. Then we had a war launched in Afghanistan.
  Instead of the President coming forward and saying we must sacrifice 
and pay for this war, it is important to our national security, he came 
forward and said: American citizens, please keep spending a lot of 
money in retail stores. That is the way you can participate in this. So 
the debt was greatly increased to pay for that war.
  Then we had the President launch a war in Iraq--the same President, 
President Bush--and he proceeded to give away the Treasury to the 
wealthiest Americans. He decided not to pay for the war in Afghanistan. 
President Bush decided to launch a war in Iraq, on completely false 
premises, and to do so without paying for it.
  Then we had Medicare Part D, which happened in that same 8-year 
period--a huge expansion of a government program that has and will 
indeed help many Americans, but it was not paid for.
  Those four decisions doubled the debt from $5 trillion to $10 
trillion, but doubling it was not enough. Indeed, the Bush 
administration did something else; they created a house of cards out of 
the most important financial document for every American family, the 
home mortgage. By deregulating retail mortgages, they allowed liar 
loans, undocumented loans. They allowed teaser rates, 2-year really low 
rates that mortgage agents used to talk people into subprime loans when 
they qualified for prime loans--steering loans that were regarded as 
such for steering families from prime loans into subprime loans.
  Then they took all of those faulty subprime mortgages and packaged 
them into securities and allowed a new, unregulated form of insurance 
to back up those securities. Those were called swaps or derivatives. A 
$50 trillion unregulated industry came upon the American scene, and 
those securities ended up in every financial institution around this 
Nation. This great house of cards, which corrupted the fundamental 
value of primary wealth for most Americans, and the humble fully 
amortizing prime mortgage--subprime mortgage--was turned into an 
instrument of mass financial destruction.
  That financial destruction that was brought down on our house in 2008 
and 2009 added another $4 trillion to the debt. We went from $5 
trillion to $14 trillion. That process continued this last December 
with a compromise that added another $500 billion to the debt, a 
compromise I could not support because it added $500 billion additional 
to the debt.
  I had a lot of hope in January, 3 months ago, that we had a new group 
come in and we had a new Congress, the 112th Congress, and we were 
going to proceed to create jobs and do so by ending some of those 
frivolous giveaways, those massive oil and gas giveaways that line the 
bottom line of some of the deepest pockets in our Nation, those rules 
that prevent us from negotiating drug prices which results in our 
seniors on Medicare paying higher prices for drugs than seniors 
anywhere in the world, even though those drugs were invented right 
here, a potential savings of $6 billion per year; those bonus breaks 
for billionaires, on top of $100,000 per taxpayer, up to a million more 
for many taxpayers. Taking those bonus breaks away is a savings of $50 
billion a year; ending duplicative Pentagon programs identified by the 
Secretary of Defense, a savings of $75 billion--all of these 
opportunities, and so many more, to bring our financial house into 
order.
  But those hopes were soon dashed because the new team in the other 
House

[[Page 5411]]

of the Congress did not decide to fight for jobs, did not decide to 
fight to get rid of frivolous programs. Instead they decided to lay out 
a plan that attacks the very communities that have been most hurt by 
the previous disasters because that meltdown, that mortgage meltdown 
that haunted us in 2008 and 2009, destroyed the wealth of basic 
Americans of their homes, homes lost enormous value, it proceeded to 
destroy jobs that those families counted on, huge job losses, it 
proceeded to wipe out their retirement savings. No wonder so many 
families today do not have confidence that their lives, the lives of 
their children will be better than their lives. For so many families--
in fact, their current life is not better than their parents' life was 
because of these kinds of devastating decisions.
  The new arrivals said: No, we are going to increase the harm. We are 
going to attack the community development grants that build community 
organizations. We are going to attack the heating programs that keep 
people from freezing. We are going to diminish the food programs that 
keep people from starving. We are going to attack women's health 
programs, programs that have nothing to do, by the way, with abortion, 
but preventive programs, screenings, Pap screenings, breast exams. We 
are going to wipe those out because of misguided ideological opinions. 
And now we find a bill that says we are going to dismantle Medicare. We 
find an attack on housing for veterans. These are not the things that 
will bring jobs to America. These are not the things that will rebuild 
America.
  On top of all of these attacks on specific programs, my colleagues in 
the House decided to create a whole long list of ideological riders to 
add to the budget debate. I have a copy, 4 pages, of policy riders to 
H.R. 1. It goes on and on, everything one can imagine, from Job Corps 
centers to training for our unemployed Americans. It is a huge list. It 
defunds the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that will guard 
against the corruption of mortgages I was discussing earlier. It 
attacks the EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act. And so on. It 
is an unbelievable list all Americans should see to see what the true 
agenda is on the other side of Capitol Hill.
  Now is the time to set aside these games, these ideological riders. 
Now is the time to set aside these attacks on the core programs that 
strengthen our communities. We are past the time to have the ability to 
do a simple 6-month extension of our programs in the United States of 
America so we can go on to debate fiscal year 2012. But not everybody 
is ready for that serious debate.
  We have been hearing a lot of chanting at rallies that they do want 
to shut down the government over these ideological riders. Indeed, on 
April 5, the Washington Post reported Republicans gave the Speaker--
that is on the House side--an ovation when he informed them to begin 
preparations for a possible shutdown. They want the shutdown because 
they want this ideological fight.
  After proceeding through devastating mistake after devastating 
mistake that increased our debt $5 trillion in 2000--remember, it was 
heading down toward zero--to nearly $15 trillion, we still cannot have 
a serious discussion. We have folks who want to shut down this 
government over these ideological riders.
  We must return to understanding our role in the Senate and in the 
House in terms of the broad and challenging and important issues facing 
America--the issue of providing fundamental services, the issue of 
creating jobs, and the lofty goals of advancing democracy and human 
rights and civil rights around this planet.
  Now is the time to set aside those shallow ideological games, focus 
on rebuilding our economy, and putting America back on track.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise first to salute my colleague from 
Oregon for his eloquent words and his passion. I know he has dedicated 
his life to making the lives of people better. That is why he feels 
strongly about how badly a government shutdown would affect average 
folks.
  I agree with him. Simply put, there is no reason for a government 
shutdown--absolutely no reason at all. A genuine bipartisan compromise 
with significant and responsible cuts in government spending is in 
hand, but it is being vetoed by an extreme minority of the Republican 
Party. The tail is wagging the dog. The most extreme, the people least 
likely to compromise, the people, in general, with less experience in 
government and at least from their statements little respect for views 
not their own are dominating the House of Representatives.
  Speaker Boehner is somebody for whom we all have a great deal of 
affection and sympathy. But the hour is nigh and leadership is called 
for. To allow this small group--relatively small group when we look at 
the expanse of our government--to dominate everything that is happening 
and hurt millions of innocent people is not leadership.
  When the Speaker says there is no agreement on the numbers or the 
cuts, he means he is not ready to say so publicly. It is true I have 
not been inside the negotiating room, but I have heard all the details 
from my friend and colleague Harry Reid. I have heard the details from 
those who have been negotiating.
  The bottom line is, the number and what composes that number of cuts 
is virtually agreed to. The only reason there is not a handshake is 
Speaker Boehner and his representatives do not want it to appear the 
numbers are signed off on, for two reasons, in my opinion. One, they 
are afraid what these hard-right colleagues would say, and two, then it 
would focus everything on their true casus belli, which is the riders.
  This is no longer about spending. The hard right in the House of 
Representatives wants to make this about ideology, injecting last 
minute ideological add-ons, such as limiting preventive health for 
women. We have a fiscal crisis in this country, not a social crisis.
  Let's not gloss over what is going on. Republicans do not care about 
reducing the deficit; otherwise, they would not have paraded out a 
budget this week that ends Medicare for our seniors but protects 
trillions in tax breaks for corporations and millionaires. Care about 
deficit reduction, yes, you would want to cut Medicare, but you would 
also want to make millionaires pay their fair share of taxes because 
every dollar from the millionaire goes just as much to reducing the 
deficit as a dollar from Medicare cuts. When you do one and not the 
other, you do not care about deficit reduction. You may care about 
shrinking the government. You may wish there is no government at all. 
That is a perspective of some. But you do not care about deficit 
reduction.
  One of the things that has not been made apparent is cutting 
government programs to many on the other side of the aisle is not in 
sync with reducing the deficit, and those two are too often confused.
  Why are we here? Why are we on the eve of a shutdown of government 
which will hurt millions? It is because this hard right in the House of 
Representatives--some of them members of the tea party, others allies 
of the tea party--want to satisfy the agenda of the extreme rightwing. 
And if they do not get everything they want, they have made their 
desire clear. We do not have to make this up.
  Here is Mike Pence, one of the leading Republicans in the House of 
Representatives, one of the leaders of the tea party caucus. What does 
he say? ``Shut it down.'' That is what he wants. Either he thinks he is 
going to get his way by shutting it down--I grew up on the streets in 
Brooklyn and there were people who thought that just by bullying they 
could get their way. Shut it down if you do not do it all my way. 
Bullying does not work, and we will not be bullied. We will not hurt 
millions of people. We will not abandon our principles because the 
other side believes we will do whatever they want--falsely believes we 
will do whatever they want--because otherwise they will shut the 
government down.

[[Page 5412]]

  We do not want to shut the government down. I have not heard a single 
Democrat say what Mike Pence has said. But I have heard lots of 
Republicans--I heard Sarah Palin talk about the shutdown being a good 
thing. I heard Newt Gingrich talk about a shutdown being a good thing. 
I heard some of Mr. Pence's colleagues, probably a dozen or so in the 
House of Representatives, saying ``shut it down'' is a good thing.
  Have you heard a single Democratic elected official say it? No. That 
alone should tell you who wants to shut the government down or who is 
willing to shut the government down and who is fighting strongly 
against it.
  They want to shut the government down if they do not get their way. 
As I said, I have seen people do things like that growing up on the 
streets of Brooklyn. You know what you learn? If you keep giving in and 
giving in, they ask for more and more. The way to deal with someone who 
is attempting to bully you is to stand up to them. We have gone so far 
in their direction. President Obama said to Speaker Boehner, it is 
reported: You have gotten three-quarters of what you want. Why don't 
you declare victory and go home?
  We know why Speaker Boehner cannot do that. It is very simple. 
Because then there would be a rebellion among a key part of his 
constituency--the hard right, many of them, but not all of them 
freshmen in the House of Representatives. Most of them have very little 
experience in government. I daresay most of them do not know the 
consequences of a government shutdown or the kinds of cuts they are 
suggesting. But they come in with an ideological narrowness.
  When either party lets the extremes dominate, they lose. When 
Republicans let the hard right dominate, they lose. Frankly, we learned 
our lesson as Democrats. When we let the hard left dominate, we will 
lose too because most Americans are somewhere in the middle.
  This idea of shutting the government down or of applauding, a 
standing ovation when the Speaker informs them to begin preparing to 
shut the government down, I guarantee you it will backfire on the 
perpetrators, just as it did on Newt Gingrich in 1995. But that is 
political consolation, small consolation for the damage that will be 
done to individual people who will lose jobs, to the economy. Just one 
fact: FHA will not be able to issue any guarantees on new mortgages. 
FHA issues 80 percent--guarantees 80 percent--of our mortgages, 
including mortgages for the middle class, the bulk of mortgages. 
Middle-class people will not be able to take out mortgages. What does 
that do to our economy and the housing sector?
  The Internal Revenue Service will not be able to mail out a good 
percentage of refunds. What does that do to the economy, when the money 
is stuck in Washington instead of going back to people who rightfully 
own it and who will spend it in the stores and shops and on vacation?
  There are other irresponsibilities. We have American troops fighting 
abroad. We want to make sure they are fully funded. A government 
shutdown will not do that. Colleagues on the other side are coming up 
with an unbalanced, short-term extension that funds the troops. Well, I 
say to my colleagues, if you want to fund the troops--not for 1 week--
don't shut the government down. That is the best way to support our 
troops.
  It is time for Republicans to be responsible. It is time for the 
majority of Republicans--whom I don't agree with on so many issues, but 
whom I know are mainstream and don't like this government shutdown--to 
stand up to those on the hard right, to accept the compromise we are so 
close to working out and drop the ideological riders so we can move 
forward.
  We are at a crucial time in this country. We have had a rough few 
years. We are beginning slowly to climb our way out of it. This is 
risky. A government shutdown is risky. The shame of it all is that it 
is so easily avoided. All we need, again, is a little bit of strength 
and courage from the Speaker to tell the hard right in his party, yes, 
he will try to accommodate some of their needs, but he will not shut 
the government down; tell them, yes, we do have to cut government 
spending. And we Democrats--the vast majority of us--agree with that. 
We don't believe in cutting things such as cancer research or loans 
that go to students who are going to college, but there is a lot of 
waste in the government, there is a lot of excess, and we can wring 
that out without hurting people and reduce our deficit. We agree.
  The proposals we have made, including $73 billion below the 
President's proposal for this year, show we have put our money where 
our mouth is. But every time we come close to an agreement, Speaker 
Boehner--not on his own, in my judgment, but pulled by the tea party--
pulls the goalposts back. He pulls them back on the numbers. Although 
we have gone so far, it is hard for him to do that any longer. But he 
also does it with these ideological riders.
  We are at a sad moment. We are at a time when the continuation of 
this government--with the hard-working people who compose it--is right 
on the edge of closing, with untold damage to innocent people. I would 
ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and in the other 
body--I would plead with them--let's stop the political games, let's 
stop the ideological posturing, let's stop thinking it has to be only 
my way and no one else's. Let's come meet in the middle with a 
reasonable agreement, keep the government going and move forward to do 
the things the American people have asked us to do.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I came to the floor the other night to 
talk about what I had learned in 2 years of townhall meetings in 
Colorado regarding our deficit and regarding our debt. What I said the 
other night was that people in our State, whether in red parts of the 
State or blue parts of the State, have a commonsense way of approaching 
this, and they have a three-part test they want to apply.
  The first test is they want to make sure we actually come up with 
something that materially addresses the problem we face. They are tired 
of gimmicks. They are tired of tricks. They want us to sort this out. 
They know it will not be fixed overnight, but they want us to get 
started on it.
  The second test is that we are all in it together. They are tired of 
the us-against-them conversation that happens in Washington. They are 
tired of hearing that one person's ox is going to be gored or one group 
of people's ox is going to be gored and everyone else will be left 
alone. Everybody wants to contribute to solving this problem.
  The third test is they want it to be bipartisan. Because, frankly, 
they do not have confidence in either party on this issue and they want 
to see us working together.
  That is it. We should be working toward that as a Senate and as a 
House. We should be having a serious conversation about how not to 
leave our children stuck with a bill of $15 trillion in debt and a $1.5 
trillion deficit. I feel that keenly, as the father of three little 
girls myself.
  But I think it is very important for the American people to 
understand the debate we are having right now. The threat that we are 
going to shut the government down has nothing to do with the broader 
conversation about our deficit and our debt. In fact, shutting the 
government down is going to make matters worse.
  I said the other night that there is not a superintendent of 
schools--I used to be one in Colorado--there is not a city council or a 
mayor in Colorado, from the largest city to the smallest town, who 
would dream--who would dream--of saying to their constituents: We can't 
work this out, so we are going to close the government next week. We

[[Page 5413]]

can't work this out, so we are not going to plow your snow next week or 
pick up your trash next week or educate your kids next week, not one 
local official in our State. The Presiding Officer knows this. He was a 
mayor. He would never have gone to his constituents and said: Oh, by 
the way, we are closing next week because we have a disagreement.
  It makes no sense. Nowhere on the planet would that make any sense. 
To say nothing of the fact we find ourselves at a moment in the 
country's history when we are engaged in wars all across the globe, 
when we are now involved in a multilateral effort in Libya, when we 
have thousands of people--government employees--trying to help the 
Japanese weather this unbelievable tragedy they are facing, when we 
have economic competitors all over the globe trying to seek an economic 
advantage against the United States in the 21st century. Yet we are 
saying: Well, we are going to take a time out because we can't agree. 
We are going to pause, take a rest, close the government. The American 
people must think, well, you guys must be very far apart. That is why I 
brought this chart. I don't know the exact details here. Nobody does. 
The reports on the news tonight were that several billion dollars 
separated the negotiators. I have heard it ranges from $5 billion to 
$10 billion, or somewhere in there, so I picked the number $7 billion, 
which is more than several. But that appears to be what divides the 
parties--$7 billion. Seven billion dollars.
  That is a lot of money. It is a lot of money. But look at it in the 
context of our deficit and our operating budget. Here is this line. You 
can't even see it. This line is the $7 billion, right here. This is our 
deficit, and this is our operating budget--$1.5 trillion, $3.6 
trillion.
  I apologize, Mr. President, but I couldn't fit it on one chart so I 
had to have two made in order to show what the order of magnitude of 
difference is between what we are squabbling over here in Washington, 
and what our deficit looks like and what our operating budget looks 
like. That is it. That is it. That is it.
  Do you know, this difference, if this were the city of Alamosa--and 
the former mayor is the Presiding Officer--and my State--which has 
roughly a $14 million operating budget in the San Luis Valley--if they 
were saying we were going to shut down our government based on this 
difference, that would be like Alamosa saying, we can't figure it out 
because $27,000 is what we are apart.
  Mr. President, if you and I went to Applebee's tonight and we had 
their $20 dinner for two, and then we had a fight over the bill, we 
would be fighting over 4 cents. That is what would separate us--roughly 
.19 percent of our operating budget.
  I could even understand if the parties were saying we disagree, we 
disagree, let's keep negotiating. But I can't for the life of me 
understand how on those terms anyone could threaten a government 
shutdown, especially when we confront the dangers we confront today.
  And so the answer is, it is not about our budget. The time we have 
consumed here is taking time away from the conversations that the 
Presiding Officer and I have been part of, that people on the other 
side of the aisle have been part of, that the gang of six, a bipartisan 
group of Senators--three Democrats and three Republicans led by Mark 
Warner and Saxby Chambliss--have been working on. That is what we 
should be doing. We shouldn't be threatening to close the government. I 
don't think we should be threatening to close the government under any 
circumstances, but certainly not when the economics are as thin as 
that.
  I know there are people--and it is not all Republicans--there are 
some people in the House who feel the social issues they have attached 
to this piece of budget legislation are somehow more important than 
keeping government open or that litigating those issues in the context 
of trying to keep the government open is the right thing to do. I 
disagree. I think they should have a hearing. I think we ought to have 
a floor discussion about what we want to do with women's reproductive 
health or the other issues that are there. I am glad to have that 
debate. But don't threaten to shut the government down based on that.
  So I will say again, as I said the other night, I encourage the 
leaders of both parties in both Chambers, and our President, to find a 
way to settle this, to find a way to work it out, to find a way to keep 
this government open at this moment when we have troops deployed all 
over the globe, and to live up to the standard of every single local 
elected official in my State, whether they are Democrats or whether 
they are Republicans, who are making tough choices in this budget 
situation but managing to respond to their constituents' priorities.
  This week, in Colorado, they reached a budget agreement. The Governor 
is a Democrat, the Senate is a majority Democratic, the House is 
Republican. The Speaker of the House, who is a Republican, said this is 
the first budget I have been able to vote for in years because of the 
leadership of John Hickenlooper, our Governor, and the leadership of 
the Democratic and Republican Party there. That breeds confidence in 
people's work. I think if we can find a way to work together across the 
party lines in a bipartisan way and demonstrate that we can keep the 
government open, and much more important even than that, that we can 
create a path toward fiscal sanity in this country, I think the 
American people would cheer. Right now we have not given them very much 
to cheer about.
  I see the Senator from Texas is here, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we have been talking for a long time 
today about this fiscal crisis. I don't think anyone is looking at the 
looming deadline tomorrow night as something that we want, to have 
government shut down. I hope so much that the President and Speaker 
Boehner and the Democratic leader of the Senate, Mr. Reid, can come to 
terms because we are so close to having an agreement on a continuing 
resolution until the end of this fiscal year--which is what we need. If 
anyone would run a business the way this government is being run, in 2-
week continuing resolutions and 1-week and 3-week--it is not a way to 
run anything. It is not organized and you cannot plan. Certainly, we 
know taxpayer dollars are not being the most efficiently spent if we 
are going in 1- and 2-week increments.
  The stakes are very high. I look back at the year 2000, and we had 
balanced budgets. We had a balanced budget in the year 2000. We had a 
balanced budget up until 9/11. That was only 10 years ago, and we ought 
to be able, as the U.S. Congress, working with the President, to say if 
we had a balanced budget 10 years ago, we cannot possibly be so far 
over the line that we cannot bring it back into balance. But to bring 
it back into balance we are going to have to look long term. We cannot 
do it on $30 billion of difference from now to the end of the fiscal 
year's spending. The fiscal year ends October 1. We cannot do it. We 
have to have a 10-year plan; we have to have clear cuts in spending; 
and we have to start working toward a balanced budget in a responsible 
way.
  I cannot say I agree with everything in it, but the House Budget 
Committee chairman, one of the Republicans in the House, has proposed a 
budget that would do exactly that. It would get us to nearly a balanced 
budget. Now we need to start talking about the plans he has put 
forward. The President has not been; Congressman Ryan has. We are going 
to change some of it, I hope. We should have the same goal; that is, to 
get to a balanced budget over a period of time, 5 to 10 years. But we 
certainly are not going to do it in the next 24 hours, talking about 
$30 billion or $36 billion going for the next 6 months.
  I hope we will settle this issue so we can go to the long-term 
issues. The long-term issue is going to come up in about 1\1/2\ months 
when we are going to be called on to raise the debt ceiling. The debt 
is $14 trillion. We are looking at a deficit this year alone of $1.6 
trillion. If we go with the budget the

[[Page 5414]]

President submitted, $3.7 trillion more, over $14 trillion? No wonder 
the people of this country are up in arms. We need to listen to the 
people of this country who say stop doing business in Washington the 
way it has always been done. Stop it now and start cutting back on the 
appetite for spending so we will be able to have the balanced budget 
that we can see in our future.
  What we are looking at now is the potential of a government shutdown. 
I hope it does not come to that, but there is one thing we ought to be 
able to do in this Congress, and that is at least protect our military 
who is serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and their families who are back 
home worried enough about them because of where they are and who most 
certainly should not have another burden put on them of not knowing if 
their paycheck is going to come at the normal time of the month--the 
1st and the 15th.
  I have introduced S. 724. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Sessions as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will say that makes our 46th cosponsor of S. 724. 
It is a very simple bill. It just says if there is a government 
shutdown, the military will be paid. The Secretary of Defense will have 
the discretion to also pay the civilians and those who are serving our 
military so the food service in Afghanistan and Iraq will not be 
stopped because we have a government shutdown and the paychecks are not 
going to come.
  I want to alleviate any fear on the part of any member of our 
military or one whose family is watching the debate on the House and 
the Senate floor, watching this play out and thinking: Am I going to be 
able to pay the mortgage on time? I want to alleviate that fear right 
now.
  I hope we will be able to pass this bill that is gaining sponsors 
about every 15 minutes, as people start looking at the looming shutdown 
of government that will happen a little later than this tomorrow night 
if we do not have an agreement. I think all of us should put our 
military in the front of the line and say: They are going to show up 
for work. Let's assure them their pay will not be delayed. That is not 
the message they are getting right now, but I think we can assure they 
will get it.
  I have a letter we just received from the National Association of 
Uniformed Services, which says:

       On behalf of the more than 180,000 members and supporters 
     of the National Association for Uniformed Services, I offer 
     our full support for your legislation, S. 724, the Ensuring 
     Pay for Our Military Act of 2011.

  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          National Association for


                                           Uniformed Services,

                                   Springfield, VA, April 7, 2011.
     Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hutchison: On behalf of the more than 180,000 
     members and supporters of the National Association for 
     Uniformed Services (NAUS), I would like to offer our full 
     support for your legislation S. 724, the Ensuring Pay for Our 
     Military Act of 2011, a bill to assure that, in the event of 
     a federal government shutdown, our nation's men and women in 
     uniform would continue to receive their military pay and 
     allowances.
       The Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act would make available 
     the necessary funds to prevent an interruption in pay for 
     members of the military if there is a funding gap resulting 
     from a government shutdown. The bill also includes a 
     provision to authorize the Secretary of Defense to allow 
     those who serve as DOD civilians or contractors in support of 
     our men and women in uniform to continue to be paid as well.
       The National Association for Uniformed Services thanks you 
     for introducing legislation that demonstrates our nation's 
     appreciation for those who serve in our Armed Forces. We look 
     forward to working with you and your staff and deeply 
     appreciate your continued support of the American soldier and 
     their families.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard A. Jones,
                                             Legislative Director.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I hope we come to agreement and do not 
shut down the government. We are so close to getting this temporary 
fiscal year--which we are already halfway through--finished, and let's 
take this off the books. What we ought to be doing right now is 
focusing on the 2012 budget that starts October 1, where we are having 
our hearings, and we are asking our questions, and we are trying to set 
our priorities with a lower scale of government. We are going to cut 
back way below what we spent last year and the year before, but we are 
going to prioritize our spending.
  We had FBI Director Mueller testify before our Commerce-Justice 
Subcommittee of Appropriations to talk about the law enforcement needs 
of our FBI. I want to spend my time talking about the needs of the FBI 
and the other necessary functions of government; certainly, our armed 
services bill. I do not want to be talking about shutting down 
government in the middle of the fiscal year because we are not coming 
together on $6 billion or $3 billion--I don't know exactly where they 
are now, but it is not very much in the scheme of things. What we need 
to do is get this behind us, alleviate the fears of our military 
personnel, alleviate the fears of their families that they might have a 
hiatus in their paychecks.
  We need to start thinking about the big picture, the big picture of 
what we must focus on, which is cutting spending so we can go toward a 
balanced budget and agree on a 5- to 10-year trajectory that will put 
us back in a fiscally responsible position for our country to have the 
credibility in the world we should have, for our children to be free of 
the debt for what we have used in government in this country. We don't 
need to pass that debt to our children if we are responsible stewards 
of both their lives and our taxpayer dollars.
  We need to be the leaders that people expect us to be. The people 
spoke in very loud terms last November, that they do not want more 
spending. I hear it everywhere I go. I hear it in the airports, on the 
streets, when I am talking to people in informal meetings, the grocery 
store--people are scared to death of a $14 trillion debt. It has never 
been so high in our country before.
  I don't want that to be the legacy of this Congress and our 
generation. That is not the legacy we should have as leaders of the 
greatest country in the free world.
  I implore the leaders of Congress and the President to get the 
continuing resolution behind us so we can focus on the big picture; 
that is, the $14 trillion debt that we are facing right now and doing 
the responsible cutting that will begin to cut back on the deficits, 
take down the debt, and address the issues that have not been addressed 
for all these years, once and for all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Texas on her 
bill of which I am very proud to be a cosponsor, to make sure our men 
and women in harm's way continue to receive their compensation and 
support for their families if, in fact, there is a government shutdown. 
I am certainly going to continue to do everything I can to keep that 
from happening. I am unwilling to give up, and I know others are as 
well.
  I commend the Senator, but I think this is very important. We need to 
send that message. We need to get this done and get the bill done.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I say to the Senator from Michigan, she was one of 
the first to sign on as a cosponsor of this bill. I think that is the 
right thing to do. I appreciate her leadership.
  I just got a note from my staff, and I also ask unanimous consent to 
add Senator Scott Brown and Senator Amy Klobuchar as cosponsors of S. 
724.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I think we can do 
this together if we will come together and focus on those great young 
men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq serving right now and do 
something that is right for them regardless of whether we have to face 
a government shutdown for all the rest of us.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I could not agree more that we need to

[[Page 5415]]

do this. I think it is important that the Senate take the lead as we 
did on another piece of legislation that our friend from California 
brought forward, and which was passed unanimously by the Senate, to set 
down a very important principle; that is, if we, those making 
decisions, cannot come together, then it should be Members of Congress 
not getting a paycheck. Our troops should be getting paid, but Members 
of Congress should see their paychecks stopped.
  Unfortunately, under law right now Members of Congress would be the 
only ones whose paychecks don't stop. That is something we have passed 
in the Senate, to change that. Frankly, I found that to be pretty 
embarrassing. Then it became outrageous when we found out that the 
troops' paychecks might stop.
  So it is important we send two messages: people who are responsible 
for making this decision take responsibility and their paychecks stop 
if it doesn't get done, but also we have to make sure the men and women 
in harm's way continue to have our support verbally and that we show it 
in our priorities as well.
  I hope we are not going to see this happen. There is no reason for 
this to happen. We are talking about a shutdown that would not only 
affect many people around this country--families, small businesses--it 
would affect also the markets, our international standing. This is a 
very serious issue. People of good will can solve this.
  We all know we have to be smart. We have to change the way Washington 
operates and cut the things that are not working and invest in the 
things that do. There is no question about that. We have to do that. In 
fact, we have agreed to major changes in that direction, but it is a 
challenge.
  I just wanted to take a second because I think the toughest job in 
town today is the Speaker's. It is very clear that he has a very 
difficult job when people are giving a standing ovation for him when he 
is talking about preparing for a shutdown. We do not need this. That is 
not what we need.
  What we need is to continue to have people of good will coming 
together, as we have just been talking about, in support of our troops 
and saying: We can complete this year's budget. We are halfway through 
the year. Let's just get it done.
  What happens if it does not get done? It is not about us. It is not 
about us. We will be all right. It is not about us. It is about the 
people who are affected. We know, but let's just go through what 
happened back in 1995.
  In 1995, there were 400,000 veterans who saw their disability 
benefits and pensions claims delayed--our veterans.
  Again, we are talking about our troops. But in the last shutdown, 
400,000 veterans had delays in their disability benefits and pensions. 
That ought to be a motivator for all of us to get this done. It would 
be outrageous if that were to happen again. There was approximately $3 
billion in U.S. exports that were delayed because they could not get 
the export licenses. That is jobs for us.
  As we look at a time when we want to export our products, not our 
jobs, around the world, delaying that affects our jobs. We know 
hundreds of thousands of Medicare and Social Security requests were 
delayed the last time this happened.
  For the first time in history, six States ran out of Federal 
unemployment insurance at the time, and small business loans, we know, 
could be stopped or delayed, as well as tax refunds for people who have 
been waiting for hard-earned dollars, stretching every penny to make 
ends meet.
  So it makes no sense. It makes no sense to the economy, it makes no 
sense for families, for seniors, for veterans. We need to come together 
and get this done. We also need to make sure that whatever is done and 
what we have been fighting for, the majority has been fighting for, is 
that we not one more time ask middle-class families and small 
businesses to be the ones who have to sacrifice.
  In my State, our families, middle-class families, people trying 
desperately to stay in the middle class or to get in the middle class 
have been the ones hurt over and over--their jobs, losing their jobs or 
losing their incomes, with their houses underwater, trying to make ends 
meet, not sure right now if they are going to be able to have the kids 
continue to go to college. With gas prices going up like crazy, are 
they going to be able to even just get back and forth to work? Those 
are not the folks who should be, one more time, sacrificing, carrying 
the load. The same with people sending their children, grandchildren to 
war. Our middle-class families should not be the ones continuing to be 
the only ones sacrificing in order to deal with what is a national debt 
and the need to balance the budget and change the way we fund 
Washington, reduce spending, change the priorities.
  What I am concerned about is that middle-class families and small 
businesses not continue to be the ones who get the brunt over and over. 
I think about this struggle the last couple of years in Michigan and 
what we have had to go through with our automobile industry and how 
proud I am of where we are now, but also the sacrifice that it took to 
get there.
  We are making the best automobiles. We are winning all the awards. 
Our people are smart and skilled. We have the best engineers and the 
best skilled workforce, but a couple of years ago we had a horrible 
crisis. It took sacrifice from everybody to turn that around and some 
smart thinking.
  Workers had to sacrifice--beginning pay cut in half; retirees, the 
company, shareholders, communities--everybody had to sacrifice in order 
to turn this around. But we did something else. We then said: While you 
are cutting back, we are going to invest in the future. We are going to 
invest in innovation. We are going to invest in those things that are 
going to allow us to grow and create more jobs and be successful.
  After 2 years of a tremendous amount of hard work and everybody 
sacrificing, with some smart decisions and investments, we are turning 
it around, making a profit for the first time--each of our companies--
since 1999. We are turning things around because people were willing to 
be in it together. That is what I am fighting for, because we know we 
have to change the way we do business and we have to cut the things 
that do not work and invest in the things that do. But everybody has to 
be in on this--everybody--not just some people who are being asked to 
give over and over, not just small businesses that did not cause what 
happened on Wall Street but cannot get the loans because of what 
happened with the crisis, holding on, trying to make it, trying to get 
the capital they need to keep the doors open or to expand. They did not 
cause this, and yet we seem to find the same people over and over 
having to make the sacrifices. That does not make sense. I do not think 
it is American.
  So what we are seeing now as we close in on the final decisions, 
people coming together, is a question of whether we are going to have 
everybody be a part of the solution or one more time asking the middle 
class and small businesses. We can come together and get this done if 
people want to do that. There is no question about it, that people of 
good will can get it done. I think that it is in everybody's best 
interests to do that on every single level.
  But there is no question as well that we have very different 
priorities that are being debated today in our country. We saw that 
this last week in very stark terms, which goes to the whole question 
of, again, how do we solve our problems and is everybody in? Is every 
American going to be part of turning the ship around? That goes to the 
budget proposal this week that has added, in my opinion, insult to 
injury, which relates to the proposal coming from the House Budget 
chair to change Medicare as we know it; to change Medicare from an 
insurance plan for our retirees and people with disabilities to 
something that would be a voucher for insurance companies.
  It is stunning to me, actually, in looking at this proposal, and 
extremely concerning to me, the ramifications of what is being 
proposed. Then what adds insult to injury is that the proposal is being 
made to unravel Medicare, do

[[Page 5416]]

away with Medicare as we know it, raise the costs, the premiums, and 
the medical costs for almost every senior in the country--according to 
the Congressional Budget Office.
  At the same time this same budget document would give over $1.8 
trillion in new tax cuts for special interests and the millionaires of 
the country--not the folks who have been working hard to try to make 
it, who have not gotten the big breaks, but one more round of big 
breaks for the people who have not felt this recession, the people who 
have gotten the special breaks, who somehow have not had to go through 
their house underwater, their income go down, worry about the kids, 
worry about the car, worry about the gas. The folks who earn over $1 
million got the special tax breaks--those interests that are doing 
extremely well in this country.
  That is not how I view shared sacrifice in order to be able to solve 
the country's problems and get us out of debt and grow the economy, 
cutting Medicare for seniors, dismantling it, at the same time giving 
one more round of tax breaks for millionaires and the major special 
interests of the country.
  That is wrong in my judgment. It is the wrong set of priorities, and 
it is worth debating, and we will debate that. It is interesting; I 
remember when we were passing health care reform, and we were focused 
on the fact that we had to make sure Medicare was healthy for the 
future and make some tough decisions so that it would be strong and 
there for seniors.
  We took a look at overpayments for for-profit insurance companies. 
There are major overpayments, and we decided to cut those back. It was 
actually causing the majority of beneficiaries, the majority of 
seniors, to see their premiums go up because of some overpayments to a 
few. We decided that we would cut back on those insurance company 
overpayments, and we would instead focus on quality in Medicare, making 
sure seniors could go to the doctor and get their cancer screenings, 
their wellness visits without out-of-pocket costs and bring down the 
cost of medicine; that we would focus on ways to streamline, focus on 
quality and streamlining the way that we cut costs.
  According to the budget gurus, we were able to save, I believe, over 
10 years, $500 billion. It did not cut any benefits for seniors, but 
the other side of the aisle said this was terrible. It was terrible 
because we were focused on cutting overpayments to insurance companies.
  Now we see this proposal that would dismantle Medicare, and it would 
cut what is the average amount a senior spends on medical care in a 
year, which is about $15,000 a year. It would, instead, cut that amount 
down to $6,000 a year and give it in a voucher to an insurance company. 
That is OK. That is a different set of priorities than I have and I 
know that you have, Mr. President.
  So these are debates we are going to have, and they are important 
debates for our country. How do we go forward? How do we solve the 
budget deficit? How do we grow the economy? How do we create jobs? How 
do we make sure what we are doing is fair for everybody and keeps what 
works while cutting what does not?
  Medicare is a great American success story. Do we need to make sure 
it is there for the next generation? Absolutely. Do we need to look at 
ways to streamline and cut costs? We have done that, and we need to 
continue to do that. Absolutely. We need to do that. But it is a great 
American success story. It has allowed a whole generation of older 
Americans to live healthy lives, play with their grandkids.
  Now that I have two beautiful grandchildren who, by the way, are the 
most beautiful grandchildren in the world, just for the record--but now 
as I have my 3-year-old and 1-year-old and I look at the fact that I 
want to be healthy for a long time so I can be there for them, and what 
a wonderful gift as Americans we have given to seniors, that gift of 
Medicaid and Social Security so that they can be healthy and live in 
dignified ways in their own homes and be able to live long lives for 
their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren, that is something we 
should be proud of.
  So as we go through this time, we have two kinds of debates. We have 
to deal with what is happening immediately, complete this 6-month--not 
6-year, 6-month CR; I am talking about a 6-month budget--in a 
commonsense way, make sure that troops get paid, make sure we do not 
have any veterans losing their opportunity for disability benefits or 
pension benefits, and small businesses are not being delayed from 
getting their loans. In my judgment, we need to put down a marker 
saying if we cannot come together, that we are the ones who do not get 
paid, not the troops. Then the next step is to debate the vision of 
this country and where we go, what is important and what is not.
  Should some Americans be asked to sacrifice in order to solve our 
problems and be stronger and compete in a global economy or should 
everybody be asked to do their part? People want to do their part, and 
they are willing to do their part. But we need to make that clear, that 
we expect everybody to be a part of the solution.
  What I find most concerning today is that when we are in a global 
economy and we ought to be talking about the United States competing 
against China, the United States competing with Germany or India or 
Korea, we are not doing that. We are standing here on the Senate floor 
on a Thursday night talking about whether people will come together to 
complete a 6-month budget and make sure our troops can get paid. That 
is not the debate we should be having. We have precious time available 
to us. The debate we should be having is about how as Americans we will 
compete in a global economy and win. That is what we need to be doing. 
That is the debate I am anxious to have.
  I hope we are not going to give up. I will not give up on what we 
need to do right now, to come together, get this done, avoid a 
government shutdown, and get on to the real business of creating jobs 
and competing in a global economy.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I rise to talk about the disastrous 
consequences if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue 
to prioritize politics and posturing over what is best for Americans 
and our fragile economic recovery. We have 27 hours to convince them 
that shutting down the government should not be treated as a gimmick, 
that shutting down the government is a serious matter with serious 
consequences for almost every American. But before I go into the 
consequences and their impact on my constituents, I want to take a 
moment to reflect on how we got here, how we are now in a position 
where a government shutdown is 27 hours away.
  One thing is certain: There is a lot of misinformation and confusion 
out there. A number of my friends on the other side of the aisle have 
been saying that the Democrats and the President refused or failed to 
pass appropriations for fiscal year 2011. This is revisionist and 
confused history.
  One of my colleagues, a new Member, said today:

       Why was it that a few months ago, after the election but 
     before the new Congress took over, when the President had 
     both houses of Congress under control of his party, why did 
     he opt not to pass a full budget for fiscal year 2011?

  The Presiding Officer knows this is just not true. This isn't true. I 
have been hearing a lot of this.
  We had appropriations legislation for the entire Federal Government 
ready to go. Democrats were in support of it. We were prepared to fund 
the government for the rest of the fiscal year. But, remember, it takes 
60 votes to pass something like that in the Senate. There were 58 
Democrats in the Senate last December, and there were 42 Republicans. 
So we needed some Republicans to pass a full budget for 2011--not many, 
but we needed two. We didn't get any. Not a single Republican agreed to 
support the bill. That is what happened.
  For a while, we were told that a number of Republicans were going to 
support it. The bill had been negotiated on

[[Page 5417]]

a bipartisan basis. But then, by all accounts, arms were twisted, and 
they were turned against the bill.
  The minority leader said:

       I am actively working to defeat it.

  And he did. He killed it. That is the truth. And my friends on the 
other side of the aisle celebrated.
  After they made clear that there would not be enough votes to pass 
the omnibus bill, my friend from Illinois engaged in a colloquy with 
Senator McCain, asking:

       For those who don't understand what just happened, did we 
     just win?

  Senator McCain responded:

       I think there is very little doubt.

  Senator Kirk concluded the colloquy by saying:

       I congratulate the Senator.

  We really do owe it in these serious times to engage in debate where 
we are being honest with the American people. There is little doubt 
about who opted not to pass a full budget for 2011. It was not the 
President or the Democrats in the majority; it was my friends on the 
other side.
  My friends on the other side protest that they do not want to shut 
down the government, and then they point the finger at us.
  Yesterday, there was a rally for the tea party on Capitol Hill. Part 
of my delegation, Michelle Bachmann, whom I like very much, said:

       Democrats are trying to make it look like we want to shut 
     the government down. We don't. They are trying to do that.

  Silence.
  That same day at the same rally, Mike Pence said to them:

       It looks like we're going to have to shut down the 
     government.

  And what did the tea party crowd do? They started chanting: ``Shut it 
down. Shut it down. Shut it down. Shut it down.''
  According to his own account, when Speaker Boehner told Republican 
colleagues in his caucus that he had taken steps to prepare for a 
shutdown, ``I got a standing ovation.''
  There have been no standing ovations on our side about a prospective 
shutdown. Come on. We are trying to keep the government working. We 
desperately want to keep the government working.
  Republicans are busy fighting ideological battles. For them, this is 
not about the deficit. It is not about the budget. It is certainly not 
about jobs. This is about ideology.
  I was presiding today, and I had the opportunity to hear some of my 
colleagues talking about the bill the House passed today to fund the 
troops. We want to fund the troops if there is a shutdown. We do. There 
was all this sanctimonious talk about how Republicans want the troops 
to be funded, and the House had passed a bill to fund it. Do you know 
what was left out? That Steny Hoyer, the minority whip in the House, 
the Democratic minority whip, had offered a bill to pay the troops if 
there was a shutdown, a clean bill, nothing attached to it other than 
that. It was voted down by Republicans in the House. What passed? A 
bill with a rider on it about abortion. I didn't hear that in all the 
sanctimonious talk.
  Let's at least have an honest debate. Really, adding abortion? Look, 
I know there are people who have very strong, heartfelt feelings, 
obviously, on abortion on both sides. This is something we have been 
talking about for decades. Why put it a rider about abortion on 
legislation to pay for the troops and then go in front of this body and 
say: Democrats don't want to pay the troops.
  This can't be about holding a gun to our heads and saying: You have 
to come down on this side of this issue that people feel so strongly 
about and have been debating for 40 years.
  The Republicans in the House talk about the Constitution. They 
started this session by reading the Constitution. They left out some of 
the embarrassing parts, that a slave was three-fifths of a person. They 
left that out. But there are two Houses, and there is a President. But 
they don't want to compromise. They just want to put a gun to our 
heads. And it is in the form of abortion and in the form of global 
warming. Look, 99.6 percent of climate scientists in the world believe 
there is global warming and it is caused by human beings. The other .4 
percent work for coal companies or oil companies or the Heritage 
Foundation. Then there might be another guy somewhere.
  Why put a rider on this that is about ideology? This should not be an 
ideological debate. This is about getting the deficit down and about 
our economy. We had 216,000 new jobs last month. It is fragile, but we 
are beginning to come out of this. This is not the time to shut the 
government down.
  What it is going to do to people in my State, to seniors--every week, 
there are hundreds of seniors--how many a day--170 a day applying for 
Social Security. They are not going to be able to do that, people who 
just turned 65. There are people who are going to try to get FHA loans 
and won't be able to. There are farmers who want to put seed in the 
ground who will not have the Farm Service open. This is not the time to 
do this. This is going to mean 800,000 Federal employees laid off. What 
is that going to do to the economy?
  Look, there are things in this that I don't like, but I am willing to 
swallow and do it.
  They want to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in hunger programs, 
$700-plus million to cut food for women, infants, and children. It has 
been analyzed, and because of that, the neediest kids will not get 
their allotted amount of fruits and vegetables that is recommended. And 
that is not just during the closing; that is what they want to do for 
the rest of the year and presumably beyond that.
  At the same time, we were here last December, and they wanted to 
extend the Bush tax cuts. They insisted on it, not just to your first 
million dollars or your second million dollars, to your tenth million 
dollars, to your 13th million dollars, or to your 300th million 
dollars. The top 400 income earners in this country average over $330 
million a year in income. They would rather those women, infants, and 
children not get food, the food they need to be healthy. I don't like 
that. Boy, do I not like that. Boy, do I not like that. But I was 
willing to swallow that for whatever is in the compromise to keep the 
government going so we could go through the year, so we could keep the 
economy going, so we continue the job growth we have had.
  They know how to keep the government going. Take the ideological 
stuff off. Let's not resolve abortion in 27 hours. We have had more 
than 27 years--37 years--since Roe v. Wade. Let's not put a gun to 
everyone's head and say we have to resolve Roe v. Wade in 27 hours. 
That is just plain inappropriate.
  I think you know how I feel. I think we know which side gives 
standing ovations when it is announced the government may very well be 
shut down. I think we know which side's crowd cheers and chants when 
they hear there may be a shutdown. I wish it were not that way. I wish 
we were working together. I hope we are working together. I hope we are 
working together on Monday.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________