[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15322-15326]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I want to thank 
the Senator from Illinois for his kind words, and I certainly support 
the appointments, and I am glad we were able to get that legislation 
passed on a bipartisan basis to help American industry.
  On Friday last, it was thrilling to read the United States is now No. 
1 in the world when it comes to energy production--not Saudi Arabia, 
not Russia, but our country. It was a particular source of such 
satisfaction because, after all these years of the American people 
hearing about how we are dependent on foreign sources of energy, at the 
top of our papers Friday last the energy experts said the red, white, 
and blue was at the top in terms of energy production.
  This good news story about the energy boom is, obviously, as the 
Presiding Officer knows, absolutely essential to creating more high-
skilled, high-wage jobs. I saw it, along with my colleague, when I was 
in his State, and we see it all across the country. This energy boom, 
for example, has been key to triggering a manufacturing renaissance--
the lower cost of natural gas in particular being a magnet to bringing 
companies that had gone overseas back to the United States again and 
employing our workers with good-paying jobs. It has been key to the 
falling imports of foreign oil. Of course, wind and solar farms are 
adding tremendously to the power mix. In our part of the country, 
Shepherds Flat in eastern Oregon is our country's biggest wind farm, 
and we are especially proud of it.
  The current senseless government shutdown is putting this good news 
story at risk. When it comes to causing problems, unfortunately, this 
shutdown has something for everybody. If you care about oil and natural 
gas development, Federal agencies now cannot approve drilling permits 
either on Federal land or offshore. If you care about renewable energy, 
wind and wave energy permitting is now at a standstill. It is at a 
standstill because of the shutdown. Environmental reviews for solar 
farms on Federal land have stopped. The Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission has canceled a meeting about implementing two hydropower 
bills that passed this Congress on overwhelming votes.
  In my part of the country we are especially proud of this 
legislation. Hydropower is responsible. It is actually the biggest 
source of clean power in the United States. Industry estimates it could 
generate perhaps as much as 60,000 megawatts of additional clean power. 
These hydropower bills--there were two of them--were the first stand-
alone energy bills to become law since 2009. Now they languish because 
of the shutdown.
  All of these developments--the developments I have described with 
respect to natural gas development, solar and wind energy, the 
hydropower laws that passed overwhelmingly in both the Senate and the 
House--are now, in effect, languishing. What it means is less new 
energy, fewer new jobs, and less revenue--less revenue that we are 
going to need in both the public and the private sector.
  I might also add this shutdown harms the important safety work that 
needs to be done by blocking work that is going to speed up the 
response to oilspills and accidents offshore. Of particular concern to 
me, and I know to so many others in the Senate--I see my colleague from 
Alaska is here--are the people who get hammered, who get hit hardest by 
these consequences who live in our rural communities, the ones who 
depend upon producing energy, timber, and recreation. They are the ones 
who feel the biggest hit from the shutdown.
  I am going to talk about what this means in terms of recreation and 
hunting and fishing. The hunting season starts at different times in 
different parts of the country, but between recreation and hunting and 
fishing we are talking about something in the vicinity of $646 billion 
a year which goes just to the recreation sector, and another $140-
billion-plus in terms of hunting. I am going to describe the 
consequences there, but we are talking about policies with enormous 
impact for our rural communities.
  I mentioned the thrilling news of last Friday, about how we were tops 
in terms of energy production, but I got some additional news that 
wasn't exactly thrilling last Friday when I was called by the Chief of 
the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, who called to report the Forest 
Service had canceled 450 timber sales on 120 national forests across 
the country. What that means is loggers, such as the hardworking folks 
I represent in Oregon, who want to do a hard day's work, are being 
benched because of this shutdown.
  The shutdown comes at a particularly ominous time because winter is 
at hand, in effect putting an end to logging operations for the year in 
many parts of our country. That means workers won't be able to make up 
for this lost time and money this year. Those loggers will simply have 
to get by with less. So again, rural communities are the face of what 
this means. They are the ones that are going to get walloped because of 
a handful of Members of Congress--a handful of Members of Congress--who 
won't fund the government.
  So logging, energy, recreation, I mentioned the hunting season, the 
sort of flip side of the coin with respect to recreation. While the 
hunting season for ducks and geese is starting in my home State and 
across the country, the government shutdown here is closing hundreds of 
wildlife refuges where those waterfowl are normally fair game. 
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, hunting, fishing and 
wildlife-related activities generate about $144 billion per year. 
Hunters contribute $5.4 billion in State and local taxes each year. 
Because the waterfowl season is only 3 months long in Oregon, if you 
lose 1 week, every lost week is a huge bite out of the benefits that 
hunting brings to our local economy.
  What Senators may also not be aware of is the shutdown also means our 
government is less prepared to respond to these fires, these rapidly 
developing dangerous infernos in our national forests. The fires have 
lessened in some parts of the West, but there are areas of high to 
extreme danger in California, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, South 
Dakota, and other States. While many firefighters are considered 
essential, others, such as our off-duty firefighters, have been 
furloughed. Public safety on Federal lands is also impacted by these 
furloughs. Although law enforcement continues, without rangers and 
other agency employees on hand, the conditions are ripe for visitors to 
find their way into severely understaffed forests and pose a safety 
risk. And, of course, thousands of hardworking employees at these key 
natural resource agencies are now out of work.
  As we speak, there are 24,000 furloughed at the Forest Service, more 
than 10,000 furloughed at the Bureau of Land Management. If they are 
not working, Bureau of Land Management employees can't issue permits 
for grazing on Federal lands. Energy Department workers and contractors 
can't clean up nuclear waste sites, such as that at the Hanford 
Reservation that threatens the Columbia River and the million people 
who live downstream.
  Our committee, recognizing the situation, recently had to cancel a 
hearing on the Columbia River Treaty, which is vital to the energy and 
environment of the Pacific Northwest. It is vital to our

[[Page 15323]]

relations with Canada. This treaty is about managing a river that is 
the lifeblood for the Pacific Northwest. It is our lifeblood for 
transportation, for electricity, for fish, and there isn't much time 
for our two nations to come together to decide the treaty's future.
  I have tried to describe what the shutdown means in terms of our 
status as No. 1 in energy production, what it means with respect to 
logging and forest fires, hunting and recreation, and it is all 
happening because a small group of Members in the other Chamber is 
demanding negotiations with the American economy tied to the train 
tracks. It is especially ironic that in many cases the districts of 
those Members are the ones that are going to bear the brunt of the 
impasse, those rural communities. They are the ones that are going to 
bear the consequences of stalled energy production and stalled logging.
  I hope we can quickly come together and pass this budget without all 
the various additions that have made it impossible for Congress to go 
forward. It is time to reopen the government. I have spent a lot of 
time working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on these other 
issues, and I will continue to do so, and I know a lot of Senators 
will. Right now it is time to reopen the government and end the 
shutdown.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, if the Senator will stay on the floor for 
a moment, one of the bills mentioned by the Senator from Illinois was 
the helium bill. Within that there is an important Alaska priority. I 
know my colleagues worked with the Senator--important to my State--on 
cleaning up those legacy wells that have been on Federal land for years 
with oil literally seeping out of those wells. And now there is money 
for the first time in I don't know how many years to actually clean up 
these wells. But from what I just heard, and correct me if I am wrong, 
what the Senator just indicated is that the Bureau of Land Management 
doesn't have the capacity to do permitting and other staffing. So there 
is no work to be done even though we finally passed a bipartisan bill 
in both Houses, signed by the President--something that has been 
waiting for decades to be cleaned. Am I correct on this, that BLM now 
can't do the work we want them to do? And Alaskans have been 
desperately waiting for decades.
  Mr. WYDEN. I say to the Senator, we know for certain that 10,000 
individuals have been furloughed at the Bureau of Land Management. And 
I tried to describe particularly getting these new permits. I guess if 
we are already out there with something--and I talked to Chief Tidwell 
about how we would try to stabilize operations that have, in effect, 
been put in place now. But we are not going to be able to go forward 
with new operations like the Senator from Alaska is describing.
  Mr. BEGICH. I know the Senator came to Alaska a few months ago and 
had an opportunity to see some of the great ability of our energy 
companies and what we are trying to do. Today I got an important 
announcement from Exxon and ConocoPhillips about building an LNG plant 
in an area the Senator had a chance to see. I didn't want to tell them 
yet, but I wanted to say thank you for the announcement, the 
multibillion-dollar investment in our State, something we have been 
doing already for 40 years--exporting to Japan. But now if there are 
any Federal Government permits they will need, the odds of them getting 
them in a timely manner are now delayed. Is that a fair statement?
  Mr. WYDEN. Again, the Senator is right, because in Alaska, like 
Oregon, there is an extraordinary level of Federal ownership. In my 
State the Federal Government owns more than half of the land. The 
Senator is absolutely correct. With the shutdown, Federal agencies 
cannot approve drilling permits either on Federal land or offshore, and 
I saw both when I was in Alaska.
  The point is that these are issues we can work on in a bipartisan 
way. As soon as the government gets reopened, we will go about the task 
of getting those permits out and coming together on a bipartisan basis, 
as we have done on so many issues. But we can't do it if the government 
is shut down. We can't do it if we can't pay our bills. That is what we 
are going to have to deal with.
  Mr. BEGICH. I think this is more of a question/comment. One of the 
statements at the end talked about how this was held up. We passed a 
bill out of here--a continuing resolution--in which we cut, on an 
annualized basis, $70 billion. We didn't compromise. We took their 
number. Let's make sure we are clear. We negotiated starting back in 
July, reduced and reduced, and then we went with their number, a $70 
billion annualized reduction. The body passed it, and nothing passes 
out of this body unless we get a motion to proceed with some sort of 
unanimous consent or bipartisan, and that was 99 to 0--people forget 
that--to move us to the bill. Then we moved it and sent it over to the 
House, where it has sat since the day we sent it over there. That would 
have kept this budget operating. Again, it had a $70 billion annualized 
reduction.
  I think that was the point toward the end of the Senator's comment, 
that a simple vote over there would put everyone back to work--these 
permits we just talked about, cleaning up the legacy wells.
  The timber we have in southeastern Alaska is now in jeopardy because 
our Federal lands are now at risk. Is that a fair assessment?
  Mr. WYDEN. It is. And I am sure the Senator was involved in this as 
well, where, after all these years about hearing that the Senate hadn't 
passed a budget, we stayed up one night until the wee hours and passed 
a budget. We had scores of votes. Then a lot of us simply wanted to 
have a conference with the other body. After hearing that there hadn't 
been a budget, we thought we would be able to get that conference 
going, and we haven't been able to do that either.
  Mr. BEGICH. And they have passed their budget too. So we have two 
budgets ready to go to conference; is that fair?
  Mr. WYDEN. It was there for the doing. I remember coming to the floor 
and asking unanimous consent to go to conference. I knew there had been 
some conferencing. But there was an immediate objection. At that time I 
pointed out that Republican and Democratic economists were saying look 
to the long term. I talked about it that day, saying that Senator 
Isakson of Georgia--a very able Member of the Finance Committee--and I 
have some new ideas on Medicare that we think can protect the Medicare 
guarantee and hold costs down. But we can't get at those kinds of 
issues unless, as the Senator says, we first reopen the government with 
that simple vote.
  Mr. BEGICH. I appreciate the comments, and I thank the Senator for 
answering these questions. I think it is important again to point out 
that budget was passed back in April-May. We did ours, and they did 
theirs. We have tried 18 times to bring the two parties together. We 
have tried unanimous consent, as the Senator noted, here on the floor 
18 times.
  Then we went to this continuing resolution. That debate and 
negotiation started in July. The House had one number, and we had one 
number. As time progressed, we took their number--a $70 billion 
annualized reduction. Some would not call that a compromise, but we 
will call it a negotiated compromise because we wanted to get it done. 
We again sent it over there. It has sat idle. One person--the Speaker--
could put it on the floor. I heard him on the radio or TV this weekend 
explaining how the votes aren't there. Well, if the votes aren't there, 
put it on the floor and it will fail. But the reality is that the votes 
are there.
  Just as we have taken every one of their items, brought it to the 
floor--we have voted on every single item over here. They haven't 
prevailed, but we voted because that is the process. But for whatever 
reason, it has gone over there and sat idle.
  So if the Speaker doesn't think the votes are there, put it up. His 
side will win then. But there are clearly Republicans and Democrats 
over on the

[[Page 15324]]

House side who want to put the government back in operation so we can 
get on to these bigger issues.
  Is that a fair chronology of events?
  Mr. WYDEN. It is. And what I was struck by over the weekend with 
respect to those comments is, why not at least try that? If we add up 
all the Members on both sides of the aisle who said they would vote, 
for whatever----
  Mr. BEGICH. House Members.
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes, the House Members who said they would vote for it, it 
sure looks as though the votes are there. And if they are trying to 
break the gridlock, why not try?
  So I hope that kind of thinking will set in here in the next few 
hours because that would be the fastest way, as the Senator from Alaska 
has made clear, to get the government open.
  Mr. BEGICH. I thank the Senator for allowing me to ask some 
questions.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, we are in day number 7 of this government 
shutdown. As was pointed out by the Senator from Alaska and the Senator 
from Oregon, we started with a continuing resolution of $1.058 billion. 
That was compromised down, with the expectation that there would be a 
clean CR, to $986 billion--over a $70 billion reduction. That wasn't 
good enough because there were some who wanted to add different 
amendments to deal with the affordable health care act. The bottom line 
is that we are in the throes of a governmental shutdown.
  It is interesting that since the government was shut down--midnight 
tonight will be a solid week--we have seen bills come over from the 
House that would fund the VA and the National Park Service. The Senator 
from Alaska is on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We both work very 
hard for rural veterans in this country, but we both know the VA can't 
do their job unless the IRS has funding and CMS has funding. So it is 
great to put that political gesture out there, but the truth is that 
they can't do their job until we have more than just the VA funded.
  Then there was a story of childhood cancer, so the House came across 
and said: Maybe we ought to fund the National Institutes of Health.
  Then there was the terrible scene last week where Capitol police 
officers--who are actually working without pay--had to address a lady 
who drove up here by the Hart Building. Since those officers responded, 
maybe we should pay them. So they came across with a bill for them. 
They should be paid all the time, I might add.
  Then there is the issue of Hurricane Karen, so we need to fund FEMA. 
So they came across to fund FEMA.
  Then they thought, all these furloughed Federal employees, we should 
pay them. And I agree, we should. The fact is that they do a great job 
and they should be back here working, and every one of them wants to be 
back here working to get that backpay.
  Then they decided to fund things such as food inspectors because they 
understand our food security is at risk.
  These guys can't see past their political noses. The bottom line is, 
as the previous speakers talked about, if the Speaker of the House put 
the clean resolution up with $986 billion, it would pass the House. He 
said it wouldn't this weekend. OK. So if it doesn't, put it up anyway. 
Prove us wrong. The bottom line is that it would pass and this 
senseless shutdown would be over.
  There are plenty of things out there that continue to hamper this 
country's moving forward economically due to this economic shutdown. We 
have talked about Head Start. We have talked about the Forest Service 
suspending logging contracts. The Senator from Alaska talked about 
drilling permits. Montana is an outdoor State, and people live for this 
time of year. It is called hunting season. Access to a lot of the 
hunting, camping, and fishing sites has been severely restricted. This 
weekend the National Guard furloughed its drill for 3,500 guardsmen. 
Communities around our national parks are being severely impacted, 
losing literally millions of dollars, which is real money.
  So how do we get out of this? It is pretty simple: If the Speaker 
would put the bill on the floor, it would pass. He refuses to do that. 
I think he refuses to do it for another reason, and that reason is that 
I think a lot of his Members want to cater to the tea party movement 
but go back home and want to appear as if they are moderates. If they 
had that vote, it would certainly point out who stands for what in that 
body. That is why he needs to have the vote.
  As was said by the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Alaska, 
we have had votes on everything they sent over here, just about. The 
fact is they need to do the same. We sent a clean CR to them. Unless 
they want this shutdown to go on and on for some unknown reason, they 
would vote on that clean CR.
  Then we are rapidly approaching the debt ceiling, which puts the full 
faith and credit of this country at risk if we do not increase it. I 
might add this is not money that is yet to be spent, this is money that 
has been spent. It is not unlike the mortgage on your house or your 
credit card bill. If you do not pay them, interest rates will go up. If 
we do not increase the debt limit, interest rates and our national debt 
will go up. Those who are concerned about the debt and the deficit, as 
I am, and others on both sides of the aisle, we will see our national 
debt increase, not decrease, by doing something as silly as not 
increasing the debt ceiling.
  I know there are some in this body who would love to put issues on 
the debt ceiling, and they are playing with fire. We saw what happened 
in 2011 when our credit rating was downgraded because some were just 
talking about not increasing the debt ceiling.
  The truth is I will be the first to work with anybody in this body to 
try to reduce the debt and deficit by reducing spending, by removing 
tax loopholes in the code. We need to do that at the front end, not the 
back end. The debt limit is dealing with the issue at the back end. If 
we do not do it, if we do not increase the debt ceiling, we will see 
the economy spiral down out of control, potentially even putting us 
into a depression.
  I don't say that to scare people. I say that to make the point that 
we should not be fooling around with this issue. We are adults here. We 
need to get together and realize that the debt ceiling is too important 
to play politics with. I know since I have been here--and this 
government shutdown issue is a prime example--politics has trumped 
policy nearly every time. It is time to endorse the right policy and 
get a long-term comprehensive deal that is not a patch, that doesn't 
add to the uncertainty, yet gets us by the continuing resolution, gets 
us out on the debt ceiling so we do not have to deal with this every 45 
or 90 days and do not have to deal with the debt ceiling just about 
every year.
  I think if we were to do that and cooler minds prevailed, we could 
see this country start to grow economically. We would see unemployment 
drop even more than we have seen previously. We would see this country 
go on to have an opportunity to pay down our debt and deficit in a way 
that makes sense for our kids and grandkids.
  I do not know where this is going to end. I can tell you the folks 
back home see it for what it is, and they are tired of foolishness and 
they want to see it stopped. I can tell you what makes it particularly 
frustrating for me is that as I see businesses start to expand, as I 
see entrepreneurs ready to take chances, they look at what goes on in 
Washington, DC, and: Whoa, this is not worth it. We don't know what the 
future is to bring because of the uncertainty of not only the 
continuing resolution, keeping the government open, but also the talk 
that has been revolving now around the debt ceiling talks.
  I hope this body will do the right thing, and that it would push the 
House to do the right thing; that is, put the clean resolution on the 
floor in the House. Let's get the debt ceiling behind us. Let's talk 
about debt and deficit reduction in a meaningful way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

[[Page 15325]]


  Mr. BEGICH. Could the Senator from Montana stay for a second so I can 
ask for a clarification of one of his beginning statements?
  Mr. TESTER. Yes.
  MR. BEGICH. The Senator had at the beginning some good numbers there. 
If I do the math right, when the Senator from Oregon was here and from 
what I saw, we hear over and over there are not negotiations or 
compromise going on. But if I hear my colleague's numbers right, there 
were negotiations, there was compromise. As a matter of fact, there was 
so much compromise we went to the House number--not our number, we went 
to their number. We actually reduced the budget on an annualized basis 
$70 billion. Isn't that what the Senator's numbers are? He is on the 
Appropriations Committee, I am on the Appropriations Committee. There 
is one thing we do know a lot about and that is numbers.
  Mr. TESTER. It is. It is a much lower number. I will tell the good 
Senator from Alaska this: That is what happened in the negotiations. 
The upshot of all that is that we would get a clean CR coming back if 
we would negotiate it back down to that figure; there would not be a 
bunch of games being played.
  Mr. BEGICH. Not a lot of stuff added on later that wasn't necessary. 
We would debate that later but----
  Mr. TESTER. Absolutely. And we should debate them later. But the 
bottom line is it is important that we keep our government open. Why? 
Because we are wasting a ton of money the way it is being done now, and 
this piecemeal funding, trying to get a political advantage, is crazy. 
People see it for what it is: Political gamesmanship.
  Mr. BEGICH. Isn't it odd they pass ``let's pay everybody,'' 435 to 0, 
they pass it but they only want to have some of them come back to work? 
If you are a fiscal conservative--I think I am; we are from Montana, 
Alaska, you know, conservative States--I want them working if we are 
paying them. Doesn't that make sense?
  Instead, it seems as though we are given a couple of agencies, but 
they still want to pay everybody. I don't know what the logic is there.
  Mr. TESTER. Why don't we have them come back? We know the value of 
work to their self-esteem.
  Mr. BEGICH. Absolutely.
  Mr. TESTER. We know those folks are important to my office. If they 
were not important to my office, they would not be working for me. They 
tell folks what is going on, help constituents when they have problems 
with some of the agencies around.
  But the bottom line is they are sitting at home. These are not rich 
folks. A lot of them are hand to mouth. They don't know how long this 
government shutdown is going to go on and they want to go back to work.
  Mr. BEGICH. I guess I have one more. The Senator said something I 
thought was very interesting on the budget deficit. The Senator is 
older than I am. I came here 2 years after the Senator. When we came 
in, we dealt with the debt ceiling, which is about paying the bills. We 
have to pay the bills that were racked up for a period of time before 
we got here.
  In 2009, I think the deficit per year was $1.4 trillion. This year--
which just closed out because we are still not done--it was about $630 
billion. That is almost a 60-percent reduction in the deficit. We are 
headed the right way. But this is not helping.
  Mr. TESTER. My last point would be this. If we are going to get the 
debt and deficit under control, one of the things we have to do is grow 
the economy. By stopping government with this continuing resolution, by 
talking, simply talking about increasing the debt limit, it does not do 
good things for our economy. In fact, it takes it in the wrong 
direction. We see businesses contract when they see what is going on 
here in Washington.
  It is time to start using some common sense. There are folks who 
claim to be business representatives out there. I talked to a bunch of 
businesses this afternoon.
  Mr. BEGICH. The Senator runs a business. He is a farmer.
  Mr. TESTER. I am. Every one of them said they ought to quit messing 
around, get to an agreement, have the debates on debt and deficit we 
need to have, because they are important, but don't hold up the debt 
limit and don't hold up the government funding in the process.
  I thank my friend from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. I thank my good friend for allowing me to take a few 
minutes and ask a couple of points.
  Mr. President, I am here to say that is what this debate is about, a 
simple question, allowing a vote on the House side. If they do not have 
the votes, because obviously the Speaker there believes he doesn't have 
the votes and he doesn't support it being voted on, let it be on the 
floor, it will fail, and we will go back to the drawing board.
  But the reality is he knows the votes are there. We would be out of 
this shutdown. The result would be people would be back to work, 
services will be provided, and businesses will not be losing the 
confidence they are losing every day or like the market once again. 
Since this debate started, the threats of shutdown, of actual shutdown, 
the stock market over the last 15, 16 days has lost almost 600 points. 
Most people do not pay a lot of attention to that. But if you have an 
education account, a 401(k) account, a retirement account, an IRA, or 
you have a little money set aside, it has a direct impact to your 
livelihood over the long haul.
  I encourage the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Speaker 
Boehner, to allow a simple vote. We have, on every bill that has come 
over here. They have not prevailed, but we allowed a vote. That is the 
process.
  But over there they refuse to do it. They keep sending back gimmicks. 
It is hard for me to understand this logic. They want to pay every 
single Federal employee, but they are only going to have some of them 
come back to work. It makes no sense. If you are paying your employees, 
have them come back and work.
  I run a small business, my wife runs a small business, I know the 
Senator from Montana, who just left here, runs a small business. You 
don't pay your people not to come to work. When you pay them to work, 
you pay them to work.
  The Presiding Officer was a Governor. He would not say one day: Oh, 
by the way, I am going to pay everyone, stay home for a month. No, he 
would have them come to work when he is paying them unless they have 
leave or vacation time. This is crazy. It passes unanimously on the 
House side.
  Then they say: But we don't want you to work.
  The taxpayers should be outraged about that. I want to vote on that 
bill. I want to vote on that furlough bill here. I want to make sure 
everyone gets paid, and then I went to follow it up with the CR and put 
everyone back to work. That is what we should be doing here, not these 
games where they bring over political statements with the items they 
are bringing over.
  Do we want to vote against veterans? I have a higher per capita 
number of veterans in my State than any other State. Veterans are 
important to our economy. They have served our country. They deserve 
every benefit. But to play this game of leveraging--the American people 
see right through this. These guys who keep bringing these little 
schemes over here are thinking they are one step ahead of the American 
people. They are absolutely wrong. The American people are two or three 
steps ahead of us. They see the show-and-tell that is going on and it 
doesn't make sense.
  Again, if you are going to fund all the employees--again, 435 to 0 
they voted to fund all the employees who get paid, but then they only 
want some of them to go to work. It makes no sense to me at all.
  I appreciate the time of the Presiding Officer allowing me the 
opportunity to engage with a couple of my colleagues here, but every 
time they spoke I wanted to explain and show kind of the farce that is 
going on over there and what is happening over there with a small group 
of the tea party--very small, 30, 40 Members over there, who decided 
they are going to run the government here.
  The government is not run by one group, it is run by compromise and 
negotiation. We have negotiated all the

[[Page 15326]]

way down to their number, we have put every one of their bills on the 
floor and voted on them. Now all we ask is one simple vote, a clean CR 
that sits in the Speaker's office, ready to be put on the floor.
  He even says it will fail. OK. Let's see. Let's see where his votes 
are. Let's see where it all is. If it fails, we will be right back to 
where we are today, no difference. What does he fear? He fears the fact 
it will pass.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BEGICH. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________