[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5622-5631]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business 
for debate only be extended until 8 p.m., with Senators permitted to 
speak for up to 10 minutes each, and the majority leader to be 
recognized at 8 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I came over here at this very precarious 
moment, hours away from a possible shutdown, to basically say there is 
absolutely no reason to shut this government down, absolutely no 
reason. Why? Because both sides agree that we need to cut the budget. 
Both sides agree that we need to reduce the deficit. When the debate 
got started, the Republicans put out a number and, guess what. We came 
to their number. We came all the way to their number.
  Then they said, whoops, no, we don't like that, we are going to go to 
a bigger number. We said we are worried because, as my friend from 
North Dakota said, we care about job creation, and Mark Zandi, the key 
economic adviser to John McCain's campaign, said if you do what the 
Republicans want to do, that is the Republicans in the House on H.R. 1, 
that will cost 700,000 jobs. Can you believe that? After we are finally 
coming out of this recession--thank the Lord God we had a quarter of a 
million new jobs last month--and here they are going to take a meat axe 
to this budget and according to outside experts going to destroy the 
economic recovery and set us right back into a recession.
  So we said hold off here, we believe we need to be wise about this. 
We went to your number that you originally put out there. Why do you 
keep moving the goal posts?
  They said: Well, that is the way it is. We moved the goal posts. Take 
it or leave it.
  We said all right, we are going to go back and we are going to go as 
far in your direction as we possibly can do and not jeopardize jobs. We 
went back and here is where we are. We went 78 percent of the way to 
the Republican new number.
  Here is the deal. I want the American people to be the judge of this. 
There was an election in 2010. The Republicans won big in the House and 
they took it over, so they run the House. The Democrats retained 
control of the Senate. I know very much about it because I was one of 
those seats that was being watched. We kept control of the Senate and 
of course the President is a Democrat and he is there for a couple of 
years. Of course some of us hope for a lot longer, but here is the 
deal: Out of the three parties to the negotiations, Republicans control 
one-third of the government and Democrats two-thirds. We did not look 
at our Republican friends and say we control much more than you do, so 
we will only go a third of the way to you. We were willing to give and 
give and to look at expenditures that we believe are key, and we said 
we are willing to give some of this up, and we marched over to their 
side 78 percent of the way.
  If I stopped someone in the street, a person who maybe did not have 
much experience about beltway politics, and I said if you were 
negotiating with two of your friends and they saw something their way 
and you saw it your way and they came 78 percent of the way to what you 
wanted, what would you do? I think the average person would say: 
Hurray, let's get this done.
  Well, that is what I say tonight. Let's get this done. There is no 
reason to shut down the Federal Government when we have come--the 
Democrats have come, by way of cuts, 78 percent of the way to our 
Republican friends.
  But let me tell you the bad news. It turns out this is not what the 
fight is about at all. At the eleventh hour, our Republican friends are 
holding this country hostage to an agenda which is about cutting 
women's health care.

[[Page 5623]]

  Now, you may say: Could you say that again, Senator Boxer. What?
  Yes, this debate over the budget, where we have come 78 percent of 
the way and made painful cuts, is not about budget cutting; it is about 
women's health. Let me tell you specifically what it is about. It is 
about a women's health care program known as title X.
  I am sure people are saying: What is that?
  It is very simple. In 1970, a Republican President named Richard 
Nixon signed this bill. And do you know who voted for it in the House? 
President George Herbert Walker Bush. We are talking about a bipartisan 
bill to give women the health care they need. And the Republicans, to 
date, have moved so far away from their own legacy, from their own 
history, that they are off the charts in extreme land somewhere.
  I want to share one reason women use these title X clinics as their 
first line of health. And by the way, millions of women do--and men--
because they get help for high blood pressure, diabetes checks, they 
get help for breast cancer screening, they get help for pelvic exams, 
they get help for sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS testing, 
referrals for additional medical screening and diagnostic testing, 
blood screening, smoking cessation, cholesterol screening, infertility 
counseling, and, if asked for, birth control, which, when it is 
counseled in the right way, birth control will prevent unwanted 
pregnancies and therefore bring down the number of abortions.
  Somebody explain to me how our country is better off when our 
American families are shut out of health care, health care that is so 
cost-effective, that for every dollar that is spent through the title X 
health care program, which goes to local clinics--and 75 percent of the 
funding does not go to Planned Parenthood. Can we be clear here? 
Planned Parenthood gets 25 percent and does a fabulous job. But the 
fact is, not one penny can ever be used for abortion or people could go 
to jail. There is no money in here for abortion, period, end of quote. 
It is because of the Hyde amendment--I know this because I was in the 
House of Representatives when we dealt with the Hyde amendment. We said 
there ought to be an exception for rape and incest, OK? So I personally 
know the Hyde amendment is the law of the land. So if anyone tells you 
they are closing down the government because of abortion, it has 
nothing to do with abortion. It has to do with mainstream health care 
for women and their families.
  So here we are. We have come 78 percent of the way to them on cuts. 
By the way, they announced last night that was it. We agreed that was 
fine. But now we don't have an agreement.
  I have my fingers crossed that at 8 o'clock, the majority leader will 
say that we have overcome our problems; that he will say we go back to 
agreeing on the number that was agreed to last night. It is well above 
$70 billion. Remember, we cut that out in just the next 5 months or so. 
That is a big bite, but we all know we have to reduce the deficit. But 
I hope our Republican friends have backed off from this, backed off of 
them completely shutting down and eliminating a women's health care 
program used by their families, and men, 5 million of them. It is cost-
effective. It provides $4 of benefits for every dollar invested. Mr. 
President, 4,500 clinics, 75 percent of them non-Planned Parenthood, 25 
percent of them Planned Parenthood; none used for abortion, all used 
for health care. I hope they will back off and say: You know what, we 
have reflected on this. We have read this. We know the health care our 
people are getting at home. We checked it out. We called our district. 
We called our State. And we have decided to come off of this crazy 
idea, and we will stand with Richard Nixon and we will stand with 
George Herbert Walker Bush, who supported title X.
  I can't imagine how our Republican friends would rather shut down the 
government than to continue this health care program. I cannot imagine 
why they would rather take paychecks away from our hard-working men and 
women in uniform and others who are cleaning up Superfund sites, who 
are working to deliver veterans' benefits, who are working to keep our 
parks open. Why would they take paychecks away from those people 
because they do not want to continue breast cancer screening to women?
  Speaking of paychecks, you have to know that the Senate unanimously 
passed a bill that said that if we fail to keep the government open, we 
do not get paid because, guess what, Members of Congress get paid by a 
special statute. Everybody else does not get their paycheck, but we get 
our paycheck. We sent this offer to Speaker Boehner. Do you know what 
happened to it? I do not know what happened to it. I do not know what 
happened to it. It would take him 2 minutes right now to bring it up. 
So if he is watching this--I guess he is not, but if he were, I would 
say: Just take 5 minutes and go to your Rules Committee and bring this 
bill up and let America know that you, Mr. Boehner, and your colleagues 
who are ready to shut this government down will not get a paycheck.
  I am so tired of the hypocrisy around this place. I really am. One of 
the comments from a Congressman over there--he was complaining. He 
said: I do not make enough. Mr. President, $174,000. He does not make 
enough. I cried for him. But I have to say this: Where are his tears 
for his staffers? Where are his tears for the military who are not 
going to get paid? Where are his tears for his people cleaning up 
Superfund sites and for the guy out here on the Mall?
  There is the biggest day for our national park, the biggest week, the 
biggest month--April. Some 800,000 people come from all over the world 
to go to our national park, many for the Cherry Blossom Festival. Some 
people already may be here for that--kids, families. These hotels are 
booked. The restaurants are booked. Where are this Congressman's tears 
for the people whose family vacations were destroyed? Maybe they can't 
get back their airfare. Neighborhood restaurants here may lose money 
this week, and the hotels.
  In my State, we have Yosemite National Park. If you go there, you 
will be transformed into another world and another place. I tell you, 
the first time I ever stepped out there in that valley, my heart almost 
dropped from the beauty from what God has given us. That experience 
could be shut down in this shutdown.
  I am not making a choice between Yosemite and the 46 clinics in the 
Central Valley who get title X funding, 46 clinics that see hundreds 
and hundreds of patients in need of health care. I am not going to 
choose. I am going to say: Keep this government open. What is your 
problem with women? What is your problem with giving women the health 
care they deserve? What happened in your life that you do not 
understand that a woman who gets an early breast cancer screening can 
have her life saved? What is wrong with you over there? A Pap smear. I 
am sure that if it were your daughter, if it were your wife, oh my God, 
you would do anything to get them to the doctor to make sure they were 
healthy. Where is your voice for these 5 million women? I have to say 
that I am baffled on this one. This is not about abortion. I already 
said that. Not one dollar goes to abortion.
  I have to say that the Republicans would rather close all of our 
national parks and they would rather suspend tax refunds for hard-
working Americans than give cervical screenings to women and provide 
HIV and STD testing for men and women.
  You know, they are going to close the Small Business Administration, 
and that hurts our small businesses and that hurts jobs.
  They are going to close down the mortgages from FHA, which backs 
about a third of new mortgages. So if you are finally coming out of 
this mess and you have bought a house, about a third of new mortgages 
are backed by them, so you are stuck in your tracks. If you are trying 
to sell a house and you thought you had it done, you now have to put it 
off. I have to say that to do this at any time is ridiculous, but to do 
this because you do not want women to get health care is a sin. To do 
this in a time of three wars makes no sense at all.

[[Page 5624]]

  Food and drug inspections. We know what happens when particularly our 
kids get sick because there is some kind of foodborne illness. No more 
inspections. Closed down.
  So I am saying once again, to sum it up in the best way I can, yes, 
no question, we had an election, and the Republicans won the House. And 
there are three parties to this agreement: the Senate, controlled by 
Democrats; the White House, controlled by Democrats; and a Republican 
House. So the Republicans control one-third of the government that is 
making this decision. We have come 78 percent their way because we know 
we have to make painful cuts. We are mindful of that. We are not 
standing in our corner with our blankie and our teddy bear with our 
finger in our mouth saying: Please, leave us alone. We are willing. We 
are willing to go their way. And they have not--well, they have moved 
the other way. In other words, we met their number, and then they made 
a new number. We met that number, and then they made a new number. Now 
we are 78 percent to the new number.
  Please, we do not have to shut down this government. What a waste. 
What a ridiculous waste. In my State, I would urge my Republican 
friends who want to shut down the title X women's health program, visit 
the St. Johns Well Child and Family Center in Los Angeles. Find out 
about their work. Find out about the good work they do for the people 
there. Call Our Savior Center in El Monte, CA. They receive title X 
funds too. Find out about the work they do. Call the Good Samaritan 
Family Resources Center in San Francisco. Find out about the good work 
they do with title X funding.
  Think about your legacy as a Republican--Richard Nixon signing this 
proudly, George H.W. Bush voting for it in the House. This is a 
bipartisan women's health care program. There is no need to shut down 
the government because you want to stop funding a program that helps 
our people, that is cost-effective, that stops the spread of disease. 
How they could do this is beyond me.
  I ask the people of America who may be watching this debate and 
hearing about these issues--it is time now. There are a few hours. 
Let's flood Speaker Boehner's phones. Let's e-mail all the leaders, 
Democratic and Republican, and say: OK. It is time to end this 
standoff.
  The last thing I want to bring up is this: I have been in politics a 
long time. I love public service. It is in my bones. I have watched 
sometimes what I call an overreach. It sometimes happens by Republicans 
and sometimes by Democrats. What I am seeing across this country is an 
overreach by the far right of the Republican Party which is driving the 
Republican Party agenda. We saw it in Wisconsin. There we had a 
Governor who came to the microphone with tremendous support, newly 
elected. He said: We have a budget problem, and we are going to have to 
make some tough decisions.
  Everyone nodded and said: Yes.
  He said: These unions that represent the workers, they better come to 
the table because if they don't, I am going to have to take some steps 
to reduce their salaries and all the rest.
  The unions said: OK. We will come to the table.
  The unions came to the table. Guess what they said. We will give up 
on every dollar you have asked us to do.
  The Governor said: Really? Really? Then he said: Fine. I will make 
those cuts, and I am taking away your bargaining rights forever.
  That was an overreach. What we are doing is responding to Republicans 
who said: We have a deficit problem, and we need your help.
  We said: Yes. And we came to the table. We met them at their number. 
Then they increased their number. We said: OK, we will come a little 
more. As of last night, we came 78 percent of the way. They agreed last 
night. Now it turns out, just like in Wisconsin, it wasn't about the 
numbers. It was about some kind of an agenda that would throw women 
under the bus.
  I am here to say that isn't going to happen. There isn't one Democrat 
in our Democratic caucus, male or female, from one side of our party to 
the other--and, believe me, we have a big range of philosophies--not 
one of them is willing to say this program ought to go because they 
know it is saving women's lives.
  As Harry Reid, our leader, said today at a press conference: Someday 
I may not be around to help my kids and my grandkids. I will not be 
here forever to help them. What if things go wrong and they have to go 
to a clinic and they have to get that mammogram. There is only one 
clinic that does it, though, and that is the one in Texas. But they 
have screenings. What if you have to have that Pap smear. What if you 
need that referral for further testing? What if you need to get help 
because you have diabetes and you don't have health insurance and you 
go to that clinic and they help you.
  Harry Reid said: We are here today not only about today but about 
tomorrow.
  Here is a program that has lasted since 1970. Count the decades, 
folks. We are not going to end a program that has its roots in 
bipartisanship, that has its roots in caring about our fellow human 
beings. It isn't necessary. A budget is about a budget is about a 
budget. It isn't about somebody's political vendetta.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 12 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, still at this late date, I want to remain 
optimistic that we will reach a final deal on Federal spending. At 
least the dueling press conferences are continuing as I speak. I hope 
the negotiations are continuing by someone somewhere. Hope springs 
eternal. Under the banner of hope and change, I would hope the majority 
leader would change his mind and at the very least bring the House-
passed measure to the floor for a vote to fund the military through the 
end of the fiscal year and avert a shutdown of the federal government, 
and make a significant reduction in spending. Anything less is 
irresponsible.
  Kansans are now calling my office. They have been all day, all week, 
all year. Their message is clear. It is time to stop spending money we 
don't have. The House-passed measure is but a small step in this 
direction and would keep the government from shutting down, a goal I 
think everybody would like to see happen.
  Let's clarify the facts. The national debt is over $14 trillion and 
growing daily. Some now say it is $14.6 trillion. We are fast 
approaching the debt ceiling and another very serious decision. I know 
the majority leadership remembers the last time the debt ceiling was 
raised. It was four times in the last 2 years.
  By the way, the majority spent twice as much in 2 years as was spent 
the last 4 years of the previous administration. If this continues, 
then by the year 2014 interest payments on the debt alone will be 
greater than all discretionary spending outside of defense. The debate 
or fuss about which programs must not be cut will not be debated on the 
floor of this distinguished body because they will all be cut. There 
won't be any money. The money will go to pay interest on the debt.
  The House of Representatives is doing what its majority pledged to 
do, what it was elected to do--reduce Washington spending.
  As a logical consequence--and it should not be a surprise to any 
member of the majority of this body or the minority in the other--the 
House passed a bill to bring government spending back down to 2008 
levels. That is what they said they would do, and that is what they are 
doing.
  In March the majority in this Chamber rejected these modest cuts in 
spending, and we have been operating under a series of short-term 
continuing resolutions ever since. All of us know that government by CR 
is no way to govern. The leadership of the previous Congress failed to 
pass a budget last year, failed to pass even a single appropriations 
bill. We are still dealing with that abdication of responsibility.
  But we are where we are. The House passed another measure to keep the

[[Page 5625]]

Federal Government open for another week, funded our military men and 
women and their families for the next 6 months, and cut government 
spending by $12 billion while we negotiate a long-term solution. 
Hopefully, we could continue to negotiate a long-term solution.
  I know tempers are frayed. What is bothersome is that the leadership 
refuses to bring this measure to a vote. They have the votes to defeat 
it. They also refuse to put forth an alternative proposal to cut 
spending. It is one thing to blame the majority in the other body and 
say you simply can't support it. If that is the case, bring it to the 
floor. Let's vote on it, and let's see what kind of an alternative the 
leadership here offers.
  The media is referring to this impasse as a shutdown of the Federal 
Government, but we need to be careful before we call this a government 
shutdown. The people of Kansas and all of America are rightly outraged 
that funding for our troops and their families is at risk, funding for 
most customer service support at the VA is at risk, and that funding 
for a wide range of economic development and agriculture programs is at 
risk. But that is not true with regard to one segment of our 
government. Just as the Army sings ``as these caissons keep rolling 
along,'' so does the perpetual motion machine of Federal regulation. 
The Federal regulation machine is such that even a government shutdown 
can't stop it.
  Earlier this week, I came to the floor to talk about the concerns I 
am hearing from our community bankers in Kansas. According to a summary 
of the Dodd-Frank act by Davis Polk, the act mandates that 11 different 
agencies create at least 243 more regulations, issue 67 one-time 
reports or studies, and 22 new periodic reports. Financial regulators 
have already issued more than 1,400 pages of regulatory proposals, and 
5,000 pages of regulations are expected. These will create additional 
and significant compliance costs that will impact the ability of every 
bank to serve its community. They come on top of existing regulation, 
including 1,700 pages of consumer regulations and hundreds of pages of 
regulations regarding lending practices and operations that banks are 
already required to comply with, and they do in good faith.
  Some folks might think--and naturally so--if the government is shut 
down, regulators won't be on the job either. Wrong. Apparently nothing, 
absolutely nothing can or will stop regulators from regulating. In the 
case of some financial regulators, agencies not funded by taxpayer 
dollars, they will be on the job, and we can anticipate that the 
burdensome regulations will continue.
  Well, what about implementing the costly and controversial health 
care reform bill? Will a government shutdown slow this hugely unpopular 
program chock-full of regulations? Well, the answer, of course, is no.
  In the Secretary's contingency plans for HHS, under a list of what 
will remain open during this shutdown, she believes that ``operations 
of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight''--its a 
mouthful, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, the 
regulating agency under the Department of Health and Human Services 
that is working to issue regulations to implement health care reform--
``could continue as funding was provided through the Affordable Care 
Act.''
  Well, this is just another example of full steam ahead with 
ObamaCare, just like during the health care reform debate. The 
regulatory overreach that has become a hallmark of this administration 
is not stopped by even a shutdown of the Federal Government. For 
example, regulations like the one issued just recently, days ago, by 
the Department of Health and Human Services on something called 
accountable care organizations, also known as ACOs--ACOs used to be 
HMOs; didn't like HMOs too much, so we have something like HMOs, but 
now we call them ACOs--turned 6 pages of ObamaCare into 429 pages of 
regulations--429 pages in just 1 regulation. These new regulations 
empower Dr. Berwick, the man in charge, and CMS, the Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services, to make decisions about how medical care 
will be delivered in this country.
  So a government shutdown or not, under a cowering business community, 
the incredible Federal regulation machine goes on like a giant creature 
from a video game, belching fire, smoke, fines, and regulations. 
Nothing, not even a shutdown of the Federal Government, can slay the 
regulating dragon.
  This debate should not be about party politics. It should not even be 
about regulation, except I discovered the regulation is going on 
despite the government shutdown, which I think is most unusual, to say 
the least. This is really about reducing spending and finally trying to 
tighten our Federal belt. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we 
spend. I said that by 2014 all discretionary funds would be used to pay 
off the interest on the national debt.
  The House has now passed a bill to keep our military families whole 
and the government running at 2008 levels while we try to work out a 
long-term solution. A Federal shutdown does not benefit anyone except 
regulators who under a shutdown will continue to regulate, now 
unchecked.
  I urge the majority leader to at least bring the House-passed bill to 
the floor for a vote. I thank all the people who have worked so 
terribly hard on the negotiations. I hope they are successful, even 
though ``tempus is fugiting''--time is running out.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, well, we are less than 6 hours away from a 
potential government shutdown. I take this time to sort of bring people 
up to date in Maryland as to where we are. I say that because in 
Maryland we have about 150,000 civilian active Federal employees. 
Obviously, they are directly affected if we have a government shutdown. 
They will not get a paycheck. Whether they work or not, they will not 
be getting their paychecks. I just want everyone to think about what 
that means. If you have a car payment that is due and you do not have a 
paycheck or a full paycheck, you still have to make that car payment. 
You might not have the money to do it. If you have certain 
responsibilities on a student loan, you may not be able to come up with 
the money to deal with it. So it is going to cause real problems for 
those Federal workers who had nothing at all to do with the problems we 
are confronting in passing a budget. They are not at fault. But yet 
they will be the first ones who will be suffering as a result of a 
government shutdown.
  But it does not end with the Federal workforce because the Federal 
workforce, with their salaries, buys goods and services. Literally 
thousands of small businesses in Maryland are going to be adversely 
affected, and many around the country, because of the impact of the 
Federal workforce being on furlough, not getting their checks, the 
impact that is going to have on our businesses and on our economy.
  But it does not end there. Federal contractors who depend upon the 
Federal contracts, whether to help us with national security or 
homeland security or to deal with health care issues, are going to be 
affected also because these contracts are not going to go forward.
  So I really want to continue to underscore that a government shutdown 
will have a major negative impact, not just on our Federal workforce, 
not just on the businesses that are going to be hurt as a result of it, 
but on our entire economy. All of us will suffer.
  But I really take this time to try to bring people up to date on 
where we are on the negotiations because I have heard many of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle say: Gee, if we could only 
balance the budget, if we could only bring up a short-term CR. That is 
not the problem. It is not the problem we are confronting right now 
because, quite frankly, the negotiators have agreed on the dollar 
amount of a budget from now to the end of the year. That number has 
been agreed to. So this is not about the Federal deficit any longer. It 
is about whether we can

[[Page 5626]]

reach an agreement on a budget for the remainder of this year--not the 
dollar amount.
  We are now tied up on what we call the policy riders. But we are not 
even talking about all the policy riders; we are talking about one 
policy rider which my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, I think 
outlined very clearly.
  I wish to take this time on behalf of my wife, on behalf of my 
daughter, on behalf of my two little granddaughters, because it is 
about women's health care issues. That is what we are talking about, 
and we are talking about whether we are going to be able to allow those 
programs to move forward during the next 6 months. It does not affect 
the dollars, the types of programs that we allow. So to make it clear, 
we are talking about women's health care issues that deal principally 
with preventive health care--the cancer screenings to keep women 
healthy. Not one dollar of those funds can be used for abortions. So 
let's make that clear from the beginning. This is not part of the 
abortion debate. This is talking about whether we should allow this 
type of policy rider to be on this bill. It is not appropriate. I think 
all of us understand it is not appropriate.
  But I even go further than that. I am not even sure it is about that. 
It appears to many of us that you have an element in the House of 
Representatives on the Republican side that really wants to see a 
government shutdown. They have said that. They applauded the Speaker 
when the Speaker said: Let's get prepared for a government shutdown. 
They gave him a standing ovation. They said, over and over again, maybe 
a government shutdown will be good. Well, a government shutdown will 
not be good. I think we all can agree on that. If this is about the 
budget, as it should be, a government shutdown costs more money.
  Then I hear a lot of my colleagues come to the floor and say: Look, 
we have to get rid of all this red ink and all these deficits. We could 
go back to the fact that we did balance the budget in the 1990s. We did 
it without a single Republican vote. We took a deficit and we balanced 
the budget.
  When George W. Bush became President, he had a large surplus--only to 
see the policies of that administration, which went to war and did not 
pay for it, and we ended up with large deficits and an economy that was 
losing 700,000 jobs a month when Barack Obama became President.
  We could go back and start talking about how we got here, but the 
question is, How are we going to get the budget back into balance? 
There, I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We 
need to do that. But remember, the debate tonight on preventing the 
government from shutting down has nothing to do with that. The dollar 
amounts are in agreement. It is the policy issues concerning women's 
health care or whether, in fact, there is a group on the other side 
that represents the tea party that does not want to enter into an 
agreement. Remember, they said: Don't compromise at all. ``No 
compromise'' was their position, where they controlled the day.
  But I must tell you, we have to come together and deal with the 
budget deficit. There are 64 of us--32 Democrats, 32 Republicans--who 
have signed a letter saying we are prepared to consider all the issues 
of balancing the budget, whether it is domestic spending, military 
spending, mandatory spending, or revenues. That is what we are going to 
have to do. We are going to have to get together and put the Nation's 
interests first. I believe we can do that. I believe we can get this 
budget into balance.
  But it starts with a little good-faith effort here tonight, a good-
faith effort. When we have already reached the agreement on the dollar 
amount, let's not let a minority in the House of Representatives 
prevent us from keeping the government operating--that is what it comes 
down to--so the Federal worker in Maryland or that person who happens 
to be in Rhode Island tonight, and tomorrow recognizes he needs his 
passport renewed in order to take a trip, can find the passport office 
open or whether it is that potential homeowner who is going to need an 
FHA loan and is told that if there is a government shutdown, that loan 
cannot go forward or whether it is that family who was planning to come 
to the Nation's Capital and enjoy the Smithsonian and is going to be 
told the Smithsonian is now going to be closed. Let's not use those 
individuals as a target for the extreme actions in the other body.
  I am convinced we still have time to get this done. We know offers 
have been made in good faith. We know we have the dollar amounts. So I 
hope that within the next couple hours we can prevent a government 
shutdown because it absolutely makes no sense.
  My constituents are angry about this, and so am I. I hope we will see 
reason prevail, and then we can move on and deal with the real budget 
problems of this country. We cannot deal with it in only 12 percent of 
the budget, and that is all we are talking about here in this budget 
for the rest of this year. Hopefully, we will be able to get together 
and figure out how we can move forward. But it starts with keeping 
government functioning. It starts with honoring the types of 
commitments we have all talked about here to negotiate in good faith.
  I have said this many times: It is not going to be the budget the 
Democrats want. It will not be the budget the Republicans want. That is 
what negotiations are about. But when you have some on the other side 
who say: Look, it is going to be our way or no way, that is not the way 
the process works.
  I hope the majority in the House of Representatives is listening to 
this debate and listening to the American people and will act in the 
best interests of the American people and allow the process to move 
forward so we can keep government functioning.
  With that, Mr. President, 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President we have come to the end of a long 
process that has had some signal moments to it. Clearly, one signal 
moment was a few days ago when the tea party activists came to the 
Capitol--came to this building--gathered outside, and were led by 
Republican House Members in chanting about the U.S. Government: ``Shut 
it down! Shut it down! Shut it down!'' Shortly after that, there was a 
discussion between the Republican Speaker and the Members of the 
Republican caucus in which the Speaker indicated that they were to 
prepare for a government shutdown, and the response was a standing 
ovation, as reported by the Washington Post.
  As the distinguished Senator from Maryland knows, we sit through our 
caucus meetings, and there has never been anything like an ovation on 
our side for the concept of a government shutdown. There is silence, 
maybe an occasional groan of disappointment, when we have heard about 
how the goal posts have been moved yet again to keep an agreement from 
being reached.
  Recent polling shows there is a reason for this difference between 
the parties here, or the different attitudes and desires with respect 
to a government shutdown. Democratic voters prefer compromise to a 
shutdown by better than 3 to 1. By better than 3 to 1, Democratic 
voters would prefer us to work this out than to shut down the U.S. 
Government. On the other side, Republican voters actually favor 
shutting down the government. So it should come as no surprise that 
these public demonstrations demanding ``shut it down'' take place; that 
the Republican caucus on the House side gives standing ovations to the 
notion of shutting down the U.S. Government, and that we are now at the 
brink of a U.S. Government shutdown as a result.
  There was a time when this appeared to be about the deficit. Clearly, 
we have had to make progress on the deficit, and we have made 
significant

[[Page 5627]]

progress on the deficit, as was announced from last night's meeting 
between the Senate leaders, the President of the United States, and the 
House leaders that they had agreed on a $78 billion number out of the 
$100 billion number that had been the Republican goal. It is hard to 
say that we have not gone the extra mile when we are settling on a 
point of $78 billion out of the $100 billion that was requested.
  As we have looked at the actual cuts that the other side has pushed 
for, there has appeared to be a pretty strong overlay between the cuts 
themselves and the political agenda of the other party. Things such as 
focusing 100 percent of their cost-cutting energy on only the spending 
side of the budget and only 12 percent of the pie. A slice of the pie 
that is only 12 percent was where they focused 100 percent of their 
attention. A tax on programs such as Head Start that help poor children 
get a head start in life and prove exceptional outcomes, to the point 
where the mayor of our capital city, Providence, RI, is a child who got 
his start in life in a Head Start Program. From there he went through 
the public school system and ended up at Harvard University. He became 
a lawyer, and he is now the mayor of Rhode Island's capital city. That 
is the kind of story that Head Start starts. Yet it was the focus of 
terrible cuts.
  City Year and Teach For America--programs that take bright young 
Americans and put them into our schools to help younger kids learn to 
be better students and have more productive futures--catastrophic 
wipeout cuts were driven at those programs.
  National Public Radio: Catastrophic wipeout cuts.
  The Environmental Protection Agency was singled out for the worst 
treatment of all, reflecting the long relationship that has existed 
between the other party and corporate interests that do considerable 
damage to our air and water.
  So if we look at what they are doing there, there were a number of 
people who became suspicious and concerned that the Republican cost-
cutting agenda was a Trojan horse. We remember the Trojan horse. Troy 
was in its walls, the Greeks were outside. They couldn't get through 
the walls of Troy, so they built a horse. The Trojans thought it was a 
gift and they allowed it in, but the Trojan horse contained within it 
Greek soldiers who came out in the night and were able to open the 
gates and the attack came on Troy. That is the legend of the Trojan 
horse.
  So there is a pretty good case I think some of us could make that a 
lot of what these cuts were was a Trojan horse to bring in, through the 
deficit-cutting agenda that we all agree on, a different ideological 
agenda that has long been associated with the Republican Party and that 
is not very popular. Indeed, at this stage, the tea party has less than 
one-third public support. So the notion of driving their agenda through 
isn't fair play. But if you know you are that unpopular, you want to 
attach yourself to something essential. You want to force your 
ideological agenda. I think that is where we are right now. It has been 
made clear by what has happened. Because once a number has been agreed 
to in a budget, clearly, the fight is no longer about the budget. A 
number has been agreed to: $78 billion. Yet, the fight persists and the 
fight persists over women's health care.
  I wish to share a few stories from Rhode Island, first about the 
title X family planning program, which is the target here. It was 
signed into law in 1970 by President Richard Milhous Nixon, a 
Republican. He said at the time that ``no American woman should be 
denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic 
condition.'' Representative George H.W. Bush strongly supported the 
enactment of the program.
  Title X clinics provide reproductive health services to low-income 
women and young adults. It is an essential element in our American 
strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies. Notably, Federal law 
prohibits any title X funds under the Hyde amendment from being used 
for abortion services--none, zero, not permitted.
  So the effort to zero out funding for title X is not about Federal 
funding being used to support abortion services. It just isn't. 
Instead, it is about denying access to health care programs that serve 
over 5 million low-income individuals every year, and it is available 
to them because no one can be refused service based on the fact that 
they don't have the ability to pay.
  We have a medical student who wrote in from Rhode Island who works at 
a community health center. He said he has been able to perform cervical 
cancer screenings and prescribe birth control for hundreds of women who 
would otherwise not have had access to these services, all thanks to 
title X. He described his patients: ``Most of my patients worked hard 
at low-wage jobs that did not provide adequate health coverage.'' 
Indeed, they may not have provided any benefits at all. He concluded: 
``These women would not have been able to afford such vital health care 
without the support of Title X.''
  In Rhode Island, title X goes to 17 different community health 
centers and clinics, from the Northwest Community Health Center up in 
Pascoag, RI, to the Chaffee Health Center in Providence, to the Tri-
Town Community Health Center in the Johnston area. It is across the 
State. One of those recipients is Planned Parenthood. Planned 
Parenthood would appear to be the real reason--although they take the 
whole program out, it is probably because Planned Parenthood is in it. 
They have overtargeted here.
  The proposed budget would also prohibit Planned Parenthood from 
receiving any Federal funding. It is remarkable, because Planned 
Parenthood provides primary and preventive health care to 3 million 
Americans each year, and in rural or medically underserved areas, 
Planned Parenthood health care providers are often the only source of 
health care in the community. They are often the only source of health 
care for women in the community. Ninety percent of the care that is 
provided at Planned Parenthood health centers is primary and preventive 
health care: cancer screenings, Pap tests to identify women at risk of 
developing cervical cancer, mammograms to help detect breast cancer, 
routine gynecological exams and annual physicals, immunizations, and 
tests and treatments for STDs. They are cost effective and accessible.
  Let me read some of the things that have come in from Rhode Island. 
Here is Rebecca from Cranston, RI, telling her story:

       After I graduated college, I found myself without health 
     insurance for the first time in my life. While uninsured and 
     job hunting, I had no doctor or gynecologist, and I turned to 
     Planned Parenthood for my basic health care needs.
       This lasted for almost 4 years because I couldn't get a job 
     with health insurance. If Planned Parenthood had not been 
     there while I was getting on my feet, I would not have 
     received cancer screening, breast exams, or have had a health 
     care professional to answer my questions.
       My mother had breast cancer twice and Planned Parenthood 
     providers gave me peace of mind. If the Federal funding is 
     cut from Planned Parenthood, other young women will find 
     themselves with nowhere to go and put off lifesaving tests. I 
     plan on doing everything I can for this amazing, caring 
     facility that stood by me when I needed them.

  This is Nora who wrote to me from Warwick, RI:

       Please do not let the loss of funding happen to Planned 
     Parenthood. This health care agency has been a boon to myself 
     and my two daughters for decades. If not for the availability 
     of low-cost health care screenings through Planned 
     Parenthood, we would not be able to afford regular checkups 
     or things like cervical cancer and HPV because we cannot 
     afford health insurance. Planned Parenthood provides us the 
     opportunity to have these tests done at a price we can 
     afford. I hope you will take my message to heart and vote to 
     keep the funding in place for this wonderful organization.

  Yes, Nora, I will take your message to heart.
  Saren from Coventry, RI, wrote in to tell her story:

       In 2004, I went to Planned Parenthood for a pap smear test. 
     I didn't have a regular gynecologist or even a primary care 
     doctor. Further testing revealed I had the beginnings of 
     cervical cancer. I was stunned. Never in a million years did 
     I ever expect to be told I had cancer, especially at the age 
     of 24. The doctors at Planned Parenthood told me that the 
     cancer was found early and formulated a

[[Page 5628]]

     course of action, but I was always worried that my chances of 
     having children were low because of the surgery to remove the 
     cancer.
       Seven years later, I am happy to say I have not had an 
     abnormal pap smear and I have two beautiful, healthy 
     children. I can only wonder where I would be had I not gone 
     to Planned Parenthood and had that pap smear. Those doctors 
     saved my life and gave me the chance to become a mother.

  It is getting rid of that, that is what is motivating our Republican 
colleagues to push this country into a government shutdown, and the 
price of that government shutdown is going to be high.
  We are just in the beginning of our recovery. We are still deep in 
unemployment. In my State of Rhode Island, we are at 12 percent in the 
Providence metropolitan area, over 11 percent statewide. We are just 
beginning to recover. A government shutdown would cut off funding for 
Federal employees; it would stop their paychecks, it would shut down 
government projects as their funding ran out and they ground to a halt; 
it would shut down the private businesses, the corporations, the 
consultants who are working on government contracts as that funding ran 
out and their work ground to a halt; around the country, 800,000 people 
will be off the payroll.
  That is not good for America. If we pass H.R. 1, the folks at Goldman 
Sachs--and we can say a lot of things about them, but I don't think 
anybody in this room will say they are not good with numbers about the 
economy--they have said it will drastically knock down our recovery 2 
full percentage points out of the 3-percentage point growth we are 
predicting. That is about the same number of jobs. If we were to pass 
H.R. 1, our recovery is basically gone at that point. We will be back 
to where we started when President Obama took office and turned around 
the 700,000 job-a-month crash we were in--losing 700,000 jobs every 
month. So it will slowly go back in a painful way.
  We don't want to knock that down with H.R. 1--the extreme House 
bill--and with a government shutdown that takes all that money out of 
the economy. Even more, we don't want to do it over a dispute that is 
now no longer about the budget, about the deficit, but only about 
trying to punish the program that allowed Saren from Coventry to 
discover her cervical cancer in time to be treated so she could survive 
that dangerous illness and have her dream of becoming a mother come 
true and have two beautiful children.
  I urge us to get through this moment. I hope my colleagues will, 
frankly, declare victory, gloat a little, and say: We wanted $100 
billion and we got $78 billion. We got way more than halfway.
  But don't knock this country down, don't knock our government into a 
shutdown in order to score a political point about an organization that 
is so important to women's health care.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I have been carefully listening to the 
speeches of my colleagues, including the statements of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle. I feel compelled to come to the floor to 
speak about what I believe is a red herring and a political ploy.
  This debate is not about women. As the mother of two children, one of 
them being my 6-year-old daughter, I believe it is unfair and 
inaccurate to say this is about women and their health.
  Let's be clear on how we got to this point. Last year, even though 
they had majorities in both Houses, the Democrats failed to pass a 
budget for 2011 or even a single appropriations bill. Now the House has 
passed full funding for our military for the rest of this fiscal year 
and funding for the rest of our government for 1 week to allow us to 
resolve the remaining issues. That proposal does not even cut title X 
funding. Yet we have heard from speaker after speaker from the other 
side come to this floor and mischaracterize the potential shutdown of 
our government as being about women's health.
  Let's talk about what we know to be true. We can end this potential 
government shutdown right now if the majority allows us to vote on the 
proposal that the House has already passed that fully funds our 
military for the rest of this fiscal year and gives us a week to 
resolve the remaining issues and to resolve this once and for all. Then 
we can move on to the bigger issues we face in addressing the $14 
trillion debt that threatens our economic strength, threatens our 
national security, as our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has 
told us.
  As a military spouse, I think we owe it to our men and women in 
uniform and their families who are right now making sacrifices for us 
overseas and around the world to immediately pass funding for our 
military for the remainder of this fiscal year, to pass the proposal 
the House has made. Our military deserves better than political ploys 
and red herrings.
  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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, is there a time limit in 
morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, usually by this time on a Friday, or 
even a little earlier, I have had the pleasure of going back to Iowa on 
the weekend. I would much rather be doing that. Obviously, we have 
problems that have to be worked out, and there is reason for staying 
around this weekend, particularly for those of us who do not miss 
votes, and we do not want to miss a vote, hopefully, to keep government 
functioning.
  There is one advantage of not being on an airplane going back to Iowa 
on a Friday when I do not have committee meetings and constituent 
meetings: I have been able to listen to a lot of the speeches today. We 
do not get that opportunity Monday through Thursday very often. It is 
quite a pleasure to be able to hear my colleagues speak, as they have 
on both sides of the aisle, so strongly about differently held views in 
this body about the budget issues and subsidiary issues that are being 
discussed at this time.
  Listening to the debate, I have come to the conclusion that it was 
one big mistake that we did not get appropriations bills passed last 
year. I hope people on the other side of the aisle realize if those 
appropriations bills had been passed, we would not be here today 
worrying about shutting down government and reaching some gigantic 
compromise.
  I suppose on the other side of the aisle there is a lot of ill 
feeling about not taking advantage of the fact that last year there 
were 59 Democrats and only 41 Republicans in this body. The majority 
party could do just about anything it wanted to do. Of course, in the 
House of Representatives it was overwhelmingly controlled by the other 
political party, and that control particularly where appropriations 
bills pass.
  Looking back now, I realize there was not any attempt to bring up any 
appropriations bills, which obviously is not a good way to run the 
government. I did listen to some excuses from the other side of the 
aisle when people were asked: How come no appropriations bills were 
passed? The answer from one Senator: We only had 59 votes, and 
Republicans would not let us bring it up.
  Then I was in a quandary. There was not anything stopping the 
overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party in the other body from 
passing almost anything they wanted to because it is just a political 
fact of life,

[[Page 5629]]

whether you have a Republican majority in the House of Representatives 
or a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, as long as 
they stick together they can get anything done they want to get done. 
They can ignore the minority. They may not have been able to ignore the 
minority in the Senate, if 41 Republicans would stick together, but 
they hardly ever do. What a mistake it now must be for the Democratic 
Party not to have passed appropriations bills last year so we wouldn't 
be going through this. But it wasn't done.
  I think, now, looking back, it was probably because they didn't want 
discussion of budget issues before the election. They didn't want the 
public being reminded about the $1.5 trillion deficit. In other words, 
we borrow about 42 cents out of every $1 we spend, and we take in about 
$2.2 trillion and spend $3.7 trillion. That is in the neighborhood of a 
$1.5 trillion deficit. They probably didn't want that talked about. So 
come October 1, they passed a continuing resolution until December to 
get through the election, and then, when they got through the election, 
they would take care of it when we got back here.
  But the elections are supposed to have consequences, and they do have 
consequences. If they do not have consequences, representative 
government and democracy doesn't mean much. So as the President himself 
said, he took a shellacking and they couldn't get it passed before 
Christmas. So the new people came in and took over--and it was the 
biggest turnover in Congress since 1938--and with a lot of new people 
there were a lot of new things to learn and it didn't get done by March 
4. It was extended before Christmas until March 4, then 2 weeks, until 
March 18, and then 3 weeks, until this very day.
  But what a mistake, with overwhelming majorities, this didn't get 
done in the usual time when we pass 12 appropriations bills to get 
things funded. It was very clear in the election that people wanted to 
stop this deficit spending, get the spending down, and get the size of 
government down. With the biggest turnover in Congress since 1938, they 
are going to expect some changes to be made, and that is what is going 
on right now with the level of expenditures.
  We are led to believe by people on the other side that money is not 
the issue; that it is some social policy that is being debated and 
holding this up from happening. But I know this. The only possibility 
of not shutting down government, at least that is partly through the 
Congress, the Republicans are the only ones who have put forward 
legislation to reduce spending and to keep government open. It is kind 
of a commonsense approach that is used by the other body in sending us 
a bill that will fund Defense through the end of the year, and it will 
give more time for negotiation on the rest of the budget.
  In funding Defense through the end of the year, we can't fight a war 
from week to week with how much money we have to spend. When we voted 
to put our men and women in danger in fighting this war on terror--with 
our men and women in danger, we should give them as much certainty as 
we can. Even now, with the possibility of not being paid--or the 
possibility their families are not going to get the support they are 
entitled to--it is just a terrible sin, when we have asked people to 
defend the country.
  So that is the bill we ought to be taking up. But here we are, and 
there isn't any desire here to take it up, and the President says he is 
going to veto the bill. Why would the President be vetoing a bill that 
is going to give certainty to the military, the Defense Department, and 
what they can have to spend to do the job they are supposed to do, 
which is the No. 1 function of the Federal Government, our national 
security, and particularly for the families who are standing behind 
them?
  So here we are trying to preempt, as far as domestic expenditures are 
concerned, the 22-percent increase that took place in 2009 and 2010. 
When we only have economic growth of 2\1/2\ to 3 percent, we can't be 
spending money at 22 percent increases, and that is on top of the $814 
billion stimulus bill that was passed that was supposed to keep 
unemployment under 8 percent--and which, obviously, hasn't kept 
unemployment under 8 percent. So preempt that and go back to the 2008 
level of expenditures.
  I never heard people complaining in 2008 that there wasn't enough 
money appropriated to perform the functions of government. It is very 
necessary that we do that. But we can't incorporate that 22 percent up 
here and build that into the base over a 10-year budget window. There 
are hundreds of billions of dollars in difference between the 2008 
level of expenditures and the 2010 levels of expenditures, and that is 
what it is going to take. We have to be looking ahead for the next 60 
years, not just the next 6 months.
  We need to take this gradual step toward the reduction of spending so 
government stops spending money it does not have. We have to start 
making decisions that are necessary about the future of our country. To 
a great extent, Washington is responsible for some of this. We have to 
reduce wasteful government spending. We have to tighten our belt in 
Washington, as families do at home. When you have dug yourself into a 
hole, the No. 1 rule is, stop digging. This bill, sent over from the 
House, will be the first step toward doing that. But for sure the 
public has a right to know the facts. They do not want us, with the 
facts they know, leaving our children in a bankrupt situation, which is 
what we will do if we don't immediately intervene and do something 
about it.
  Also, this discussion about getting government spending down has 
something to do with simply creating an environment of certainty for 
our private sector. We have uncertainty in taxes, we have uncertainty 
in EPA regulations, and we have uncertainty from the standpoint of 
fiscal policy of the Federal Government--how much money are we going to 
continue to borrow and take away from the private sector. All these 
things lead to a reluctance of employers, large and small, in this 
country to hire people. So this debate is about creating jobs and 
putting in place a fiscal policy, along with a lot of other sensible 
policies.
  But when we use the words ``sensible policy''--people back home might 
not know this--we have to remember this city is an island surrounded by 
reality, and the only business in this town is government. People in 
government, including those of us who are elected, are in the wagon 
with somebody else pulling the wagon. So we have to go home to our 
districts and bring back some common sense. That common sense says 
government ought to live as families live--within their means.
  Those are the President's words, not mine. When we put his budget out 
in early February, he said: Government has to live within its means. 
Then what sort of a budget does he put out? A 10-year budget window 
that increases the national debt from $14 trillion to $26 trillion.
  I hope we get something agreed to tonight. I hope government does not 
shut down. It doesn't save money, like people think it should. It 
actually costs money, and it costs people the services they are 
entitled to. But if you don't remember anything else this Senator has 
said tonight, remember this: Elections have consequences, and there 
were great messages sent in this last election. The people expect us to 
let them know that we get it and that there aren't any excuses in the 
process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Troop Pay 
Protection Act. It is one of the bipartisan pieces of a very partisan 
puzzle, and it is common sense.
  We owe it to our Nation's troops to avoid their suffering from the 
consequences if the House of Representatives shuts down this 
government. If we don't pass this measure, while we still have time, 
our troops will continue to serve us overseas--they will always be 
essential to the United States--but they won't get paid. That is 
unacceptable.
  America's troops are America's heroes. They are serving us in 
difficult, dirty, dangerous conditions. They are

[[Page 5630]]

away from their families, they are away from their homes and their 
communities, and they are risking their lives to answer the call of 
duty. Yet they still have the same financial responsibilities we all 
have here at home. They have mortgages to pay and car payments to make. 
They have families to take care of. We do our service men and women 
right by passing this bill.
  The bill simply says: If there is a shutdown, don't make our troops 
pay the price for the failures of a few extremists in Washington, DC.
  Make sure their paychecks come in on time. Delayed pay is the last 
thing the members of our military and their families should be burdened 
with.
  I know there is talk that the House is trying to push through 
something similar, in an effort to cover some bases, but their plan 
isn't as straightforward as this bipartisan bill. Their plan to hold 
our troops harmless is part of a week-long spending measure loaded with 
a bunch of extreme provisions this country cannot afford. Because it is 
part of a temporary bill, if it is passed, we will be right back here 
making the same arguments next week.
  I am always amazed at how dysfunctional this process can be. I have 
been reminded of that a lot this week. Here is an opportunity to throw 
some common sense back into the mix. I ask my colleagues to pass this 
measure and pass it now.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, one thing I would like to say is that I 
don't want a shutdown, and I don't like where we are tonight--the fact 
that we are here and our backs are against the wall on a shutdown. I 
think we, collectively, have done a great disservice to the American 
people. I think they deserve better than what they are getting right 
now from Congress.
  I know the people I represent are hardworking. They are very 
sensible, kind of like the hard-working folks from the State of the 
Presiding Officer. But they are also very patriotic and they believe in 
this country. They believe in the values and the things that make this 
country great. They understand, the people of Arkansas, that right now 
we have 90,000 troops in Afghanistan and we have more than 45,000 in 
Iraq. They are there to serve this country and to serve the interests 
of this country.
  I can take something local such as the Little Rock Air Force Base, 
and I can say we have more than 5,600 airmen and about 640 civilian 
employees who could be affected in one way or another by this shutdown. 
About 2,000 employees of the Arkansas National Guard will be affected. 
There are 956 guardsmen on Active Duty who would continue to work 
without pay; 233 Arkansas Army Reservists are deployed overseas, 
including 23 who are designated for Libya. The people in my State do 
not want to see the military affected in any way by the partisan 
gamesmanship that you see in Washington.
  In fact, I would add a note to that. It is unconscionable that we 
should add stress to our military families right now, especially for 
those who are deployed. It is just unconscionable that we would do that 
under the circumstances we find ourselves in tonight.
  Let me talk about two leaders who stepped up to try to solve this 
problem and tried to cut through all the mess that we see in 
Washington, tried to cut through the politics as usual. That would be 
Senator Hutchison from Texas and Senator Casey from Pennsylvania. As my 
colleague from Montana said a moment ago, both of them worked in a very 
bipartisan way to craft legislation that would make sure, one way or 
the other, our troops get paid on time without any disruptions.
  We have all heard the phrase ``hard-earned pay.'' How does it get any 
harder earned than by serving in combat for your country? Again, it is 
hard for me to understand how we are here talking about this tonight, 
that we have not already addressed it.
  I hope whatever bill is offered is a bipartisan bill. I am not quite 
sure at the moment who is going to be the lead sponsor. As I said, I 
looked at the legislation offered by the two Senators I mentioned 
before. In the Senate things can change for various reasons, but 
however it comes down I hope we will not only consider but that we will 
pass legislation that will protect our Active-Duty men and women and 
our Reserve Component and the Coast Guard. We cannot forget the Coast 
Guard. A lot of times they are an afterthought, but certainly they do 
great things and they serve our country just like everybody else and 
they deserve to be included in this.
  Also, we need to give the Secretary of Defense the discretion so he 
can run his department in a way that will not weaken us. He needs that 
discretion, whatever that may mean. Again, we may have some differences 
on the details. One Senator may think one thing and another think 
another, but on the bottom line we need to give him enough discretion 
to make sure nothing in that shutdown ends up weakening our ability to 
perform the missions we need performed or puts our troops in any 
additional danger.
  In conclusion, let me offer an observation. In the last few weeks, on 
more occasions than I can count, I have witnessed Senators and 
Congressmen, even those in the blogosphere--the commentators, the 
talking heads, the so-called experts--doing exactly what, in my view, 
is wrong with Washington; that is, they are playing the blame game. 
They are holding a press conference and pointing fingers at everybody 
but themselves. It is going on all over the place. I am not singling 
out one person or one party, but we have seen that way too much. The 
truth is, the folks it is hurting are the American people.
  Our democracy is designed in such a way and has a track record where 
we all know it will work, and it will work great, and it will get the 
job done. We represent people and we can get in here and debate hard 
and fight hard and have our differences, but at the end of the process 
we have votes, we make decisions, and then we move on.
  Right now, for whatever reason, this is a problem in both Chambers. 
It is not just in the Senate. Not just one party is at fault. But for 
whatever reason we are seeing a breakdown in the system. That is not 
good for the country. Tonight we are talking about our troops, and 
certainly it is not good for them.
  I could easily spend the next 10 minutes at my desk blaming the 
Republicans for where we are tonight. I know they have said we had not 
passed anything. That is not true. We passed extensions six times to 
keep the government running. But I don't want to get into all that 
because I could spend 10 minutes talking about how awful and terrible 
the Republicans are, and then I could turn right back around and spend 
the next 10 minutes talking about how terrible the Democrats are.
  If we would be honest with the American people, both are to blame. I 
cannot stand here in good conscience and blame just one person or one 
party. The fault lies with all of us.
  Right now, because of the partisan bickering, because of the 
breakdown, we are using our military as a pawn in this budget fight. 
That is something we should never do. We are not helping anyone. This 
is not good government. We are not doing our citizens and our people 
any favors by doing this.
  I hope tonight, before we go out of here, we would pass something--
again, whatever bill it is. I am not hung up on who has to be the lead 
sponsor or what the number of that bill has to be. I hope we will pass 
something that will make sure our troops get paid on time and that 
takes care of our Active Duty, the Reserve and the Coast Guard, and it 
also gives the Secretary of Defense enough discretion to run his 
department as it needs to be run. Under the circumstances, I think that 
is not even close to too much to ask. I think that is perfectly within 
the bounds of reason. I hope and pray tonight before we leave we could 
all agree to do that.
  By the way, if we did put that on the Senate floor and didn't load it 
up with lots of agenda items, if we put that on the Senate floor in a 
clean fashion, I think it would sail out of here probably

[[Page 5631]]

unanimously. I cannot speak for the House, but my guess is we would see 
the same result down there.

                          ____________________