[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15527-15537]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, yesterday the Veterans Affairs 
Administration announced it would furlough 7,000 Veterans Benefits 
Administration employees, and as a result activities and services in 
the following areas would be suspended: The education call center, 
personal interviews and hearings at regional offices, education and 
vocational counseling, outreach programs including at military 
facilities, the VetSuccess Program on campuses.
  But this announcement is only the beginning of the contraction in the 
services and activities of the VA. In fact, VA also announced that at 
the end of the month it will run out of funding for compensation, 
pension, educational and vocational rehabilitation, and employment 
benefits.
  What does that mean for America? What are the consequences of the VA 
saying this shutdown means we are shutting our doors to processing and 
paying the claims of men and women who have served this country, who 
have been disabled as a consequence of that service, who have earned 
educational benefits so they can come back and continue to contribute 
to this

[[Page 15528]]

country? What that means to America is we are in effect defaulting and 
failing on a core obligation this country has to men and women who 
serve and sacrifice. America is failing to keep faith with its 
veterans, and America is failing on one of its most essential 
obligations.
  We ought to be ashamed and embarrassed that 7,000 men and women, who 
want nothing more than to help their fellow veterans--in fact, half of 
those 7,000 men and women at the VA are themselves veterans--have been 
told: Go home. In fact, at the end of the month the benefits, pensions, 
and educational benefits that are received by veterans will have to be 
suspended because the VA is running out of money. Right now it is in 
effect continuing on the leftover money, which will last only through 
the end of this month.
  I spoke this morning to a veteran named Jordan Massa, a native of 
Bridgeport, who served for 6 years in the U.S. Army as an infantryman, 
including two tours in Iraq. Jordan Massa was injured in an IED 
explosion, a roadside bomb, that left him severely disabled with ear 
and back wounds as well as posttraumatic stress. Jordan Massa waited 
for 2 years after he applied for the benefits he needs and deserves, 
until October 1--just days ago--when he heard the good news that he 
would be receiving the disability benefits to which he is entitled--not 
as an act of charity or beneficence; he is entitled to those disability 
benefits. Now Jordan Massa is on the verge of being denied the benefits 
he needs and deserves because of this shutdown. A Connecticut native, 
awarded the Purple Heart, he has been a student at Tunxis, and has 
sought to help other veterans as a counselor--giving back to this 
country even after his service in uniform.
  I spoke also to Aaron Jones, who works at the South Park Inn Shelter, 
which serves homeless veterans in Hartford. That shelter is full.
  There are thousands of homeless veterans in Connecticut and millions 
across the country who also are a mark of shame and embarrassment for 
this country. The greatest Nation in the history of the world is 
failing to provide for men and women who have worn the uniform and now 
are homeless.
  He is telling me the government shutdown has created an additional 
obstacle to those veterans who want to leave that shelter to find 
permanent housing. Some are there for emergency, about 7; some are 
there in transitional housing, about 10; and they want to resume 
productive and constructive lives. This shutdown has created an 
additional obstacle to their doing so. In fact, for Aaron himself, who 
is a veteran and served in the National Guard, a tour in Bosnia, a tour 
in Iraq, this shutdown is a horrendous obstacle.
  At this moment as I speak on the floor there is a House hearing. The 
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs has, as its principal witness, the 
head of the VA, General Shinseki, who has served this Nation with 
distinction and dedication and has sought valiantly to reduce the 
backlog in disability claims and to provide benefits more efficiently 
and effectively to our veterans.
  Rather than using General Shinseki as a political punching bag, the 
House should simply have a vote. They should vote on a simple, 
straightforward, no-strings-attached funding resolution that would 
enable those 7,000 VA employees to come back to work and serve the 
people they love. It would provide for other essential services, 
whether at NIH serving cancer victims or the other agencies that work 
with the VA to help serve our veterans, such as the Department of Labor 
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The piecemeal 
approach the House is taking, a ``cause du jour'' approach to 
governing, is simply inadequate and irresponsible. The bill they have 
sent to us, while it deals with the VA, would not provide for those 
other agencies that are essential to the VA's work, whether in training 
or housing or processing claims.
  This Nation should by embarrassed and ashamed. This legislature ought 
to be embarrassed and ashamed that it is failing to keep faith with 
Jordan Massa, with the folks who live at the South Park Inn Shelter, 
and countless other veterans in Connecticut and across this country who 
are entitled to benefits, pensions, and processing of their disability 
claims so they can receive what they deserve and need. If the House 
votes it will pass a simple, straightforward funding resolution, if the 
House is permitted to simply say yea or nay to that very 
straightforward, simple measure, this Nation will keep faith with 
Jordan Massa, with Aaron Jones, and with the countless millions of 
other veterans who at the end of this month will lose the benefits and 
pensions they are entitled to receive as a result of their service and 
sacrifice to this Nation.
  I ask the Speaker of the House to simply allow a vote. Let the House 
vote so we can open government, pay our debts, and then reach a budget 
that is comprehensive and responsible and meets the needs of those 
veterans and many other Americans who are harmed and handicapped, 
enduring hardship as a result of the failure of that body. It is a 
small minority in one branch of the legislature, one branch of our 
government that is failing our Nation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I understand we are in morning business. I ask consent 
to speak for 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I wish to talk a little bit about the 
government shutdown--what else. It is my understanding that my 
colleagues across the aisle, I understand I will not have the 
opportunity to speak to any one of them, but should they come out on 
the floor--they are out on the Senate Capitol steps exhorting the House 
to send something they prefer over or to simply end the shutdown with a 
clean bill. I however would have suggested they would go over to the 
House steps as a gesture of good will. I am not sure any Member of the 
House--I know when I was in the House, I am not sure I would have 
appreciated either party getting on the Capitol steps and urging me to 
doing something when I was in the House. But be that as it may, perhaps 
it is a good will effort as opposed to further demands.
  I want to make sure everybody in Kansas is aware--and I know I speak 
for everybody on our side--the Republican side of the aisle did not 
want to shut down the government. As everybody knows, we have the 
current continuing resolution. I am sorry we have to continue to go 
through continuing resolutions. This is where we bundle up everything 
from appropriations bills, some of which have already been worked 
through, and then simply meld them together into a continuing 
resolution. We do not do appropriations bills anymore. That would be 
called regular order. I truly resent this. I find this most 
unfortunate.
  So here we are, trying to consider how to fund the government. Many 
of us believe this funding measure should do everything possible to 
also control spending. That seems to be the real issue. Chief among 
these proposals would be to defund or at least delay the health care 
reform law. My colleagues and I have supported multiple measures to try 
to avoid a shutdown.
  In the past few weeks Republicans have offered no fewer than three 
solutions to avoid the government shutdown, and I voted to keep the 
government open every single time. Most recently, the House is passing 
mini-CRs to open the government piece by piece because we cannot come 
to an agreement on a continuing resolution. Most people, if they pay 
attention to the media--or if the media even covers this--understand 
what the House is trying to do, which is to open the government piece 
by piece. The first item

[[Page 15529]]

of business would be to certainly fund the Veterans Administration. We 
have all seen what is going on down at the World War II Memorial and, 
unfortunately, at the Marine Corps War Memorial as well, where we have 
yet to break the barrier. Being the senior marine in the Congress, I 
may lead a charge at the memorial sometime later this week. I have not 
made up my mind yet.
  At any rate, that is just not reasonable. There are a lot of things 
being done, including no death benefits for people who have paid the 
ultimate sacrifice recently in the current wars that continue to go on. 
That is abhorrent. Why that decision was made by the Department of 
Defense I do not know.
  At any rate, the House is trying to target these particular items, 
most of which have been identified by the President. So these mini-CRs 
by the House mirror what the President says in regards to the hurt that 
is being caused by the shutdown. What the President identifies, the 
House is trying to fix and then send over to the Senate. It is very 
unclear whether the majority leader will even allow a vote in regard to 
these measures. Senator Cruz spoke to this in regards to a plan A, when 
we were discussing this in the Republican conference.
  At any rate, the majority leader has refused to consider a single 
one. So this debate is not about shutting down the government, it is 
actually in part to protect Americans from what I call the disastrous 
health care law that is damaging our economy, raising taxes, and 
costing people their jobs. It is about a President who is unwilling to 
lead, unwilling to even come to the table to negotiate.
  The President is now indicating he might want to negotiate on a 
short-term continuing resolution, but we do not have an agenda. We have 
had quite a few people offer plans. The distinguished Senator from 
Maine, Susan Collins, has a plan--it should be a bipartisan plan--that 
calls for a short continuing resolution, repeal of the medical device 
tax, and then fixing the sequester so the different agencies would have 
the authority to pick and choose how to meet the guidelines with regard 
to the Budget Control Act. Then it allows oversight responsibility to 
the Appropriations Committee to take a look at what the various 
Secretaries would do and make sure that is all right. This would be 
plan B.
  We have a plan C by Paul Ryan that I just read about in the Wall 
Street Journal. So we are not lacking in plans. What we are lacking is 
a room. We don't have a room, we don't have a table, we don't have 
chairs, and we don't have anybody in the chairs, they don't want 
anybody in the chairs. By the way, I would just as soon not have 
another supercommittee that turned out to be not very super, selected 
by leadership. We could have the Finance Committee, which has 
jurisdiction, and the Ways and Means Committee in the House, which has 
jurisdiction, and I will bet we could come up with something that would 
be reasonable. At any rate, it is still about the majority leader 
insisting, no, he is not going to consider something like this. Unless, 
of course, the President would change his mind--and I hope he does.
  My colleagues across the aisle have refused to consider even the most 
moderate proposals such as repealing the medical device tax as 
recommended by Senator Collins and ensuring that Members of Congress 
and their staff are treated the same as the average American in the 
ObamaCare exchanges.
  Let me repeat that: that Members of Congress and their staff are 
treated the same as average Americans in the ObamaCare exchanges. When 
that came up in the Finance Committee, long before ObamaCare was passed 
or, for that matter, before it left the Finance Committee to go behind 
closed doors, in the majority leader's office--where I think he was 
singing with Mr. Rich, in terms of singing behind closed doors, but 
that is another story--at any rate, that first time I think it was 
Senator Grassley who said he thinks it is only right that Members of 
Congress and their staff live under the same rules. He proposed that 
amendment. I voted for it then and I would again. It did pass then and, 
of course, now it is defeated by those across the aisle.
  After failing to pass a budget last year and the 3 years prior to 
that or to pass a single funding measure this year, the Federal 
Government has been operating under a stopgap measure, as I mentioned 
before, called a continuing resolution. This is not what the people of 
Kansas expect from their government.
  Despite multiple disruptions and critical delays, the exchanges 
became active as of October 1, about a week ago. However, since then we 
have heard feedback that the exchanges are off to a rocky start, are 
unusable or totally disappointing, fraught with frequent error and 
messages from a failure of a major software component. That is also not 
what people expected from any government program, and certainly not 
what has been sold as the President's signature domestic achievement.
  Unfortunately, this was not unexpected for those of us who have 
opposed the law since the beginning, but it does bring up an issue. If 
you watch the news media--and for that matter, the comedy shows that 
follow later in the evening--there is always somebody who is trying to 
sign up on a computer and following the instructions given by the 
Department of Health and Human Services.
  After you log on, the first page shows a smiling face, and then you 
get maybe three questions. I was interested in one of the questions I 
heard had been asked: What do you eat? What is your favorite food?
  If that's true what on Earth does that have to do with signing up for 
ObamaCare? Maybe they are concerned with somebody they feel might be 
obese or something like that, and maybe that is the person who ought to 
be signing up. I just don't know.
  I know when I went through the first 16 pages--when I was reviewing 
as a member of the Finance Committee--of the draft on how you sign up, 
I got to page 3, and must say I would not give any database that kind 
of personal information. I think part of the delay is probably caught 
up on that. But you can't even get past page 3, and then it says you 
must wait.
  I don't know how long we are going to wait. I know the President has 
called it simply glitches and bumps in the road. I think the front page 
of the Washington Post saying that many people had warned the 
administration that this was not going to work is certainly pertinent 
with regards to this discussion. I would offer up that these are system 
failures as opposed to bumps and glitches. I don't know when this is 
going to be worked out.
  Despite a government shutdown, my colleagues across the aisle will 
not even consider solutions which acknowledge the widespread concerns 
expressed by the American people have with ObamaCare.
  Let me also point out something else. The nominee to be the new head 
of the IRS--I asked him first why on Earth he would want to take on 
that job. He said, I am Mr. Fix-it, and that is what his resume says. I 
asked him a couple of questions, and I wished him well. I said: How are 
you going to implement and enforce this fine that is going to be on 
everybody if they don't sign up? I understand, from the administration, 
that nobody has to submit their eligibility requirements with regards 
to income. This is going to lead to fraud, abuse, and scamming. Second, 
you can't even sign up to begin with, and third, how on Earth is the 
IRS going to find anybody when they do not have the information or 
capability to do that?
  I asked the distinguished nominee, who will come before the Finance 
Committee, where I will ask him again: How are you going to do that? He 
said: I need 8,000 more people. I said: What do you think the chances 
of that happening are around here? They would have to be trained, 
right? He said: Right.
  They don't even have the people to enforce this if, in fact, they are 
going to enforce the fine. So why not just tell the American people: I 
am sorry, but we are not ready to fine people. We are not ready to have 
people declare their eligibility with regards to income, and we are not 
ready to sign people up yet

[[Page 15530]]

because of the glitches, bumps, or failures in the system. So just 
delay it. Maybe they could delay it--as one prominent newscaster has 
proposed--and just say: Look, if you want it, sign up for it, do. If 
you don't, you don't have to. You won't have to anyway because you are 
not going to get fined because the IRS has no capability to fine 
people. How are they going to do that? Are they going to cut your 
rebate check? Most of the people don't even get rebate checks. This is 
a mess that is just falling apart.
  I, for one, am going to do everything I can to not let this stalemate 
stand. I am a senior member on the Finance Committee. I would encourage 
my colleagues basically that we meet, and that we discuss a continuing 
resolution that would extend funding out and allow us to try to work 
together on the systemic problems that face us with regards to the 
national debt.
  I want to work toward a solution. I am going to do everything in my 
power to bring my colleagues to the table. I think they want to come to 
the table. We have a lot of responsible and good people interested who 
want this to end just like this side wants it to end. But we race 
headlong into another debt ceiling debate with the President in the 
exact same position as he is in the shutdown--unwilling to lead, 
unwilling to even come to the table, and we still have the majority 
leader saying no. We have White House officials running to the media 
declaring that we will default on our debt, the sky will fall, and this 
will be the fault of Republicans. These claims of inevitable default 
are false given the operation of the government and the cash flowing 
into the Treasury each month. They are clearly posturing--and 
dangerously posturing at that. No one wants a default or a shutdown by 
shotgun. Nobody wants a default--least of all me. It is the height of 
irresponsibility to make these claims and all along the way refuse to 
negotiate.
  What we are asking for, and what we must do, is very simple: Consider 
a debt limit extension and budget changes at the same time, which would 
allow us to address our debt problem. Contrary to what Secretary Lew 
and other administration officials say, this is how these issues are 
handled. This is regular order. The debt limit, for at least the last 
27 years, except for one small extension, has been attached to larger 
spending cuts and budget reforms. This is not unprecedented. This is 
how we do business. This is regular order.
  The President's position is at odds with the stance taken by his 
predecessors from both parties. They saw the common sense of coupling 
deficit reduction with the extension of the debt limit. It is hard to 
figure out the President's thinking on this. Maybe now that a huge 
portion of Federal spending is on autopilot, he simply wants a blank 
check to fund the government with automatic increases in the debt 
limit. I want to mention something else that bothers me. I would like 
to go into negotiations with at least certain things that are 
guarantees, things which have been guaranteed before. I am talking 
about guarantees in the Budget Control Act, and I am talking about the 
so-called fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff protected 99 percent of 
Americans from a tax increase and had an estate tax reform that made 
sense and some real progress on capital gains.
  The Budget Control Act, as we all know, led to the sequester. Again, 
Senator Collins has a plan that would fix the sequester and would give 
people more flexibility on how to do it, but also with oversight by the 
appropriations committees to make sure it is done right.
  In meeting with the President--and he indicated in a press conference 
the other day that maybe he would invite more people to the White 
House. I appreciated being invited to the White House about 6 months 
ago. The subject came to a grand bargain. We were asking how this would 
work out.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes if I 
may have it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Madam President. I will try to wrap up. I 
appreciate the courtesy of the Senator who wishes to speak. I will try 
to get this done.
  We were meeting with the President. I was bringing up the issue of 
regulations, but the rest of the people were talking about a grand 
bargain and what could happen. The President said on tax reform: Why 
can't we start with a clean page? Basically everybody agreed. And then 
he said we could also take mortgage interest, charitable giving, 
retirement, and we can means-test those and start from there. I 
thought, oh boy, here we go again--income redistribution. That is not 
the answer.
  I would just say that before we enter into any negotiations, we ought 
to make sure that the Budget Control Act and the fiscal cliff bill, 
which were negotiated in good faith with the Vice President and which 
have resulted in lower spending, in the first actual decreases in 
spending by the Federal Government since the Korean War. That is 
unbelievable.
  So in going to negotiate, I don't want to give up in regards to those 
decreases, and I don't want a situation where the President has said: I 
gave to you on CPI so I need $800 billion in revenue. The distinguished 
majority leader has said it is $1 trillion. So if we are going to raise 
$1 trillion in revenue, then here we go again and whatever negotiations 
come down the pike are going to be more spending and more taxes. People 
are just figuring out what their tax bill is going to be with 
ObamaCare. We don't need a situation where we sit down and negotiate 
simply for more taxes and spending. Without going into the 
constitutional implications of granting any authority on autopilot to 
the President, I would say I am adamantly opposed to giving any 
President that much control over the budget.
  Why does all of this matter? Why am I making this speech? Why is my 
friend across the aisle going to make her speech? The debt limit is 
currently $16.7 trillion. The debt has increased about $6 trillion 
since the President took office--more than any other President in our 
history. The main source of this tremendous growth in our debt is 
entitlement spending, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Paul Ryan 
has a plan to fix that. It ought to at least be on the table, and that 
way we can see a path for where we can go with it.
  Without changes, spending on these programs is expected to grow by 79 
percent over the next 10 years. In fact, by law, there is no upper 
limit on how much we spend on these programs. This spending--added to 
interest payments on the debt--will make up close to 65 percent of the 
budget in 10 years. By then we won't have any discretionary spending.
  The Congressional Budget Office reports that we remain on an 
unsustainable path. All we are asking--prudently, I hope--is that any 
increase in the Federal debt limit needs to be coupled with real, 
tangible cuts in discretionary spending and meaningful, structural 
reform to entitlement spending. We need to get this done to rein in our 
unsustainable debt and to ensure that these programs are there for our 
children and our grandchildren.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Thomas 
Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution from Stanford 
University be printed in the Record at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                [From the Standard Times, Oct. 6, 2013]

                 Who Shut Down the Federal Government?

                           (By Thomas Sowell)

       San Angelo, TX.--Even when it comes to something as basic, 
     and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question 
     of who shut down the federal government, there are 
     diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk 
     to Democrats or to Republicans.
       There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The 
     Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the 
     money required to keep all government activities going--
     except for Obamacare. This is not a matter of opinion. You 
     can check the Congressional Record.

[[Page 15531]]

       As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or 
     withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You 
     can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending 
     bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which 
     means that congressmen there have a right to decide whether 
     or not they want to spend money on a particular government 
     activity.
       Whether Obamacare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter 
     of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the 
     House of Representatives have a right to make spending 
     decisions based on their opinion.
       Obamacare is indeed ``the law of the land,'' as its 
     supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its 
     constitutionality. But the whole point of having a division 
     of powers within the federal government is that each branch 
     can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, 
     regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the 
     powers specifically granted to that branch by the 
     Constitution.
       The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have 
     been laid off are not idle because the House of 
     Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their 
     salaries or the other expenses of their agencies--unless they 
     are in an agency that would administer Obamacare.
       Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who--if anybody--
     ``wants to shut down the government.'' But we do know who had 
     the option to keep the government running and chose not to.
       The money voted by the House of Representatives covered 
     everything that the government does, except for Obamacare. 
     The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be 
     spent, because it did not include money for Obamacare.
       Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a 
     ``clean'' bill from the House of Representatives, and some in 
     the media keep repeating the word ``clean'' like a mantra. 
     But what is unclean about not giving Reid everything he 
     wants?
       If Reid and President Barack Obama refuse to accept the 
     money required to run the government, because it leaves out 
     the money they want to run Obamacare, that is their right. 
     But that is also their responsibility. You cannot blame other 
     people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a 
     fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did 
     vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the 
     government.
       When Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for 
     those who control the money to try to change government 
     policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a 
     baldfaced lie. You can check the history of other examples of 
     ``legislation by appropriation,'' as it used to be called.
       Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a 
     bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal 
     and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
       Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government 
     will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, 
     creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the 
     treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the 
     interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
       Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means 
     that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that 
     does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on 
     existing debt.
       None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans 
     get their side of the story out--and articulation has never 
     been their strong suit--the lies will win. More important, 
     the whole country will lose.

  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield back any time I may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, as my colleague from Kansas said, I 
also came to the floor today to talk about the unnecessary government 
shutdown that is continuing and is having widespread ramifications in 
New Hampshire and across the country.
  I would like to respond to some of what he said about the Budget 
Control Act and about the current state of the deficit. The fact is the 
deficit, under this President, has been reduced by more than 50 percent 
since he took office. It is on course to reach a little over 4 percent 
of GDP by the end of 2015, I believe. By 2023 it is expected to get 
even lower--down to a little over 2 percent. There is no doubt that we 
need a plan to deal with the long-term debt and deficits of this 
country.
  Most of us who supported the Budget Control Act thought that was what 
we had done. We put a committee in place that was actually going to 
come up with an agreement on how we could get to a long-term plan to 
deal with this country's debt and deficits. It is really unfortunate 
that some of the people who were appointed to that committee didn't 
share in that commitment.
  I think it is important to remind us all where we are. We have made 
significant improvements on reducing the deficit in this country. We 
have been willing to look at a long-term agreement to deal with the 
debt and deficit, and I think that is what we ought to do. I would hope 
that as the result of this government shutdown, we can get some 
agreement from both sides of the aisle to actually do this.
  My main purpose in coming to the floor today is to talk again about 
the impact of the shutdown on too many people who were caught in the 
middle between this unnecessary inflicted crisis that we are seeing in 
Washington and the impact that it is having on families, small 
businesses, the economy of New Hampshire, and the country.
  We are now in the ninth day of the shutdown. In New Hampshire we have 
seen hundreds of Federal workers who have been furloughed. Some of 
those workers are back to work. Fortunately, at the Portsmouth Naval 
Shipyard most of those people are back to work, and that is very good 
news. We still have people at the Forest Service, and we have people 
who work for the Federal Government in other capacities all over the 
State who have not been fortunate enough to be called back to work.
  I would just remind everybody that even for those people who are back 
at work, they are not being paid. They are working without pay.
  In New Hampshire Small Business Administration loans have been 
halted, and that is true across the country. The Federal Housing 
Administration and VA loans have been slowed down. At the White 
Mountain National Forest, which is a Federal forest that hosts more 
visitors than Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks combined, people 
who are traveling through our beautiful White Mountain National Forest 
at this time of the year so they can look at the foliage are not even 
able to use the restrooms because of the shutdown.
  This morning I wanted to speak about some of those businesses I have 
heard from who are being hurt by the shutdown. New Hampshire is truly a 
small business State. Ninety-six percent of employers in the Granite 
State are considered small businesses and they are the backbone of our 
economy. They are also where most of the new jobs are going to come 
from.
  Two out of every three new jobs in the United States is created by a 
small business, but the shutdown is hitting them hard. I heard this 
morning from two of our businesses that have been established in the 
State for a long time. They have national reputations.
  Titeflex, which is an aerospace company in the lakes region, does a 
lot of business for the Department of Defense and they also provide 
supplies to larger companies. They told me their inventory is piling up 
on their docks now because they don't have anybody to inspect it, 
because those Federal officials who do that are not working. They are 
furloughed. They said it is really going to be a problem in 10 days if 
they don't get this resolved, when they have to report to the 
corporation their bottom line numbers, which will show on their 
reports, and that will affect their company.
  Then I also heard from some representatives of Smith Tubular, which 
is a medical device equipment company that does business with the VA 
and with the military, and they also do a lot of work with the FDA. 
They said they are seeing their contracts affected, and they have heard 
from FDA that they couldn't provide the payments they normally provide 
to them because there is nobody at FDA to process those payments. So 
that is having an effect on the ability of businesses to innovate, to 
provide the products that are needed.
  We have seen an impact on lending in New Hampshire. The Small 
Business Administration has reported that loans are not being 
originated. One does not need a Ph.D. in economics to understand that 
if small businesses can't access capital and credit, there are real 
economic consequences. One of our largest SBA lenders in New Hampshire 
is a company called the Granite State

[[Page 15532]]

Development Corporation. Twenty of their loans are on hold already 
because of the shutdown.
  Then this morning I heard from a community bank in New Hampshire 
called Provident Bank that it has about half a dozen SBA loans being 
held up right now. One of those loans is for a newly starting up 
entrepreneur who wants to open an Orange Leaf Frozen Yogurt franchise 
in New Hampshire. All the paperwork is ready to go, but Provident Bank 
can't get the final approval for the loan until the SBA is up and 
running again. So if the shutdown continues, Provident Bank is 
concerned that interest rates are going to rise, and if interest rates 
rise, the cost of borrowing for small businesses is going to go up.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, because her State is much like New 
Hampshire with a lot of small businesses, access to credit is the 
lifeblood of those small businesses. Right now, we are preventing them 
from getting the help they need.
  Then we have small businesses in New Hampshire that rely on consumer 
demand. I heard from Charles Moulton, who is the owner of a New 
Hampshire maple syrup company called New Hampshire Gold. This is the 
time of year when people are coming to see the foliage and sample our 
maple syrup in New Hampshire. He has four employees and his maple syrup 
company has a storefront in New Hampshire, but it also sells one of 
their signature products, their maple syrup, to Zion National Park in 
Utah--kind of an unlikely location for a New Hampshire maple syrup, but 
New Hampshire Gold sells to tourists who come there from all over the 
world during the summer and early fall. But now, because Zion National 
Park is shut down, as are all of our national parks, New Hampshire Gold 
sales have dried up. While they continue to sell in Concord, NH, in 
their retail store, much of the cushion they needed to get through the 
winter into next year comes from that location at Zion. They can't 
afford to lose those dollars as they are thinking about how to get 
through the rest of this year.
  New Hampshire Gold is just one of the thousands of small businesses 
that have been hurt by the shutdown of our national parks. Visitors to 
the parks spend nearly $13 billion a year in regions within 60 miles of 
the parks. This shutdown is hurting not just visitors to those parks; 
it is hurting small businesses such as New Hampshire Gold and all of 
the other small businesses around our parks who depend on that tourism 
business.
  There is no doubt this shutdown is hurting our economy. Economist 
Mark Zandi projected that a 3-to-4-week shutdown would reduce gross 
domestic product by 1.4 percent during the fourth quarter. He noted 
that the projection likely underestimates the economic fallout, since 
it doesn't fully account for the impact of such a lengthy shutdown on 
consumers, businesses, and investor psychology.
  The bottom line is clear: The shutdown is bad for our economy, it is 
bad for middle-class families, and it is bad for the country.
  As we look at the looming deadline for when we need to raise the debt 
ceiling so we can pay the bills this country has incurred, there is 
potentially even greater fallout for America. Holding the economy and 
critical services hostage to score political points is irresponsible. 
We need to open the government. We need to raise the debt ceiling so we 
can pay our bills. With the economy finally showing signs of 
improvement, the last thing we should be doing is what is happening 
right now.
  I am hopeful the House will do what is right. I am hopeful they will 
pass a short-term funding bill. That action will get our government 
running again, and then we can continue to negotiate on what we need to 
do to address the long-term debt and deficits in the country, as well 
as talk about where we need to invest to make sure this country stays 
competitive in the future.
  I yield the floor.


                              Quorum Call

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll and the following Senators 
entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                             [Quorum No. 4]

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Franken
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Warren
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum is not present.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to 
request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

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

                                NAYS--18

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Heller
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Moran
     Risch
     Roberts
     Scott
     Sessions
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Begich
     Inhofe
     Paul
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum is present.
  The senior Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when a house is on fire, the reasonable 
thing to do is put it out and then figure out what happened to prevent 
the next one.
  When a ship is headed toward rocks, the reasonable thing is to steer 
away and then work on charting a better course.
  When a government is shut down and is headed toward a default that 
economists would say is catastrophic, the reasonable thing to do is end 
the crisis, steer away from the next one, and work together on a long-
term plan to avoid these crises in the future.
  We are now in the second week of this absolutely unnecessary 
government shutdown. Every day we are hearing more and more about the 
tremendous impact this is having on our families and our communities 
across the country. It is only going to get worse.
  We can end this today. It does not have to continue. We are holding 
the door open for our Republican colleagues to join us in putting a 
stop to this madness. All they need to do is come in. Senate Democrats 
have spent the past 6 months trying to get Republicans to join us at 
the table in a budget conference. We knew there were two options: 
conference or crisis--working together toward a bipartisan budget deal 
or lurching separately into a completely avoidable government shutdown.

[[Page 15533]]

  A number of Republicans joined us in a push for negotiations, but no 
matter how many times we tried, we were blocked. We were pushed to this 
point by a refusal to negotiate, and now the only path forward is for 
the House to end the crisis and then join us at the table at which we 
have been waiting to sit for 6 months.
  Democrats want to negotiate. We want to have this conversation. We 
think the only way out of this cycle of constant crisis is for the two 
sides to work together, to make some compromises and get to a fair and 
responsible long-term deal. But it does not make sense to do that while 
our families and our communities are being hurt by this government 
shutdown and while the threat of a default hangs over their heads.
  I served on the supercommittee. I worked with my colleagues to write 
and pass our budget here in the Senate. I know Democrats and 
Republicans have some serious differences when it comes to our budget 
values and our priorities, and I absolutely believe we owe it to the 
American people to try to bridge that divide and to find common ground. 
But are we really going to ask them to wait patiently, continue 
suffering through this shutdown, keep watching as we cruise toward an 
economic calamity while another supercommittee gets together and has a 
conversation? That does not make sense. Let's have those conversations, 
let's have those negotiations, but let's end this crisis and get to 
work.
  Yesterday I heard something from the Speaker. He said he didn't want 
to end the shutdown or address the debt limit now because that would be 
``unconditional surrender to the President.'' Have we really come to 
the point where simply allowing the government to open is considered by 
one party to be a political loss? Are we really in a place where the 
majority of one Chamber in one branch of government believes allowing 
the United States of America to pay its bills is a major concession?
  I say to my Republican friends who are here today, imagine if our 
roles were reversed. For example, I have been working very hard this 
year to write an early childhood education bill that I am passionate 
about, and I believe it will really help our children and our families. 
I suspect there are a few people in this Chamber today, including 
several on the Republican side, who could one day see themselves in the 
White House. If that day were to come, what would my Republican 
colleagues do if I said to them that if they did not pass my bill to 
expand pre-K, I would get all the Democrats together and we would 
refuse to pass any spending bills until we got what we wanted? And if 
that led to a government shutdown because they refused to let my bill 
pass, what would they do if I demanded a supercommittee to discuss ways 
to invest in our children before I allowed a vote to open the 
government again? I would humbly suggest that my Republican colleagues 
would say exactly what Democrats are saying now: This is not a 
legitimate way to negotiate, and the only path forward is to end this 
crisis and then have a conversation.
  The great American system we hold so dear--our democracy that is the 
envy of the world--simply cannot work if a minority of Members can 
threaten to shut down the government or devastate the economy if they 
do not get their way on an issue--any issue. That is not what Democrats 
did when we were in the minority, and it is not what we should do 
should that day come again. Our system was designed to push both sides 
toward negotiations in a divided government, to encourage negotiation 
and movement toward common ground. It breaks down when one side refuses 
to negotiate in advance of a crisis, and it falls apart when a minority 
refuses to allow the basic functions of our government to perform 
unless their demands are met.
  I know all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, came here to 
fight for their constituents, to solve problems, to make this country 
work better. I know there is nobody here today--not a single Senator--
who was sent here to shut the government down or to push this country 
toward an unprecedented default on our loans. And I know so many of my 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, are sick of the constant crises. 
They hate seeing their constituents get hurt.
  As my friend the Senator from Arizona said yesterday, I think we 
should find a way to sit down and find a way out of these dead ends. 
That is what I am here today to offer--a way out, a path forward. It is 
not a defeat of one side or the other, it is certainly not any kind of 
surrender, but it would allow us to get out of this mess that has been 
created and open a path to negotiations so we can avoid the next one. I 
am going to ask consent once again to start a budget conference as soon 
as the current crisis has ended. Democrats have made it clear we want 
to negotiate. We couldn't have made it more clear. We will sit down and 
negotiate over anything the Republicans want, and we pledge to work as 
hard as we can for as long as it takes until we get a fair long-term 
budget deal to end these constant crises. But first this current crisis 
needs to end and the threat of the next one needs to be lifted.
  Republicans don't need a hostage. There are plenty of things 
Democrats want out of a long-term deal for which we are very interested 
in making some compromises. So I urge my Republican colleagues to 
please consider taking us up on this offer. We can end this today. We 
can do the right thing for our families and the communities we 
represent, and we can get back to work helping people, solving 
problems, and working together.


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

  I respectfully ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives a 
message from the House that they have receded from their amendment and 
concurred in the amendment of the Senate with respect to H.J. Res. 59, 
the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. 
Con. Res. 25; that the amendment at the desk, which is the text of S. 
Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in 
lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that 
the Senate proceed to vote on a motion to insist on its amendment, 
request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses, and authorize the Chair to appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate; with all of the above occurring with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Is there objection?
  The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, on this 
side of the aisle we agree it is good to negotiate, and we should. I 
would only hope the President of the United States would be a part of 
that negotiation in order to make it successful.
  But I would ask my friend why the request is contingent on passage of 
the House continuing resolution. The Democrats have already rejected 
the House's request to go to conference on the CR, seemingly in 
contrast to what they are now asking for, which is a negotiation.
  Hopefully, we will pass H.R. 3273, the Deficit Reduction and Economic 
Growth Working Group Act, which will create a bicameral, bipartisan 
group to address the CR and the debt limit situation.
  But on the Republican side, again I would say to our friends that we 
have a longstanding request to make sure reconciliation instructions 
are not in order in a budget conference so that the debt limit can be 
increased on a strictly party-line vote.
  We happen to think it is a problem if the debt ceiling is raised as 
the Democrats are requesting, that we would see the debt go up by 68 
percent under this President--more than all other Presidents in 
American history who preceded him. We think that is a bad idea.
  So I would ask the distinguished Senator from Washington whether she 
would consider an amended unanimous consent request, and we would ask 
that the Senate, by way of amendment to her request, proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment 
at the desk,

[[Page 15534]]

which is the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by 
the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25 be 
amended, be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table; that the Senate proceed to a vote on the 
motion to insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House 
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and authorize the Chair to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; with all of the above 
occurring with no intervening action or debate; and I would further ask 
unanimous consent that it not be in order for the Senate to consider a 
conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise 
the debt limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Washington so modify her 
request?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Reserving the right to object, let me make one 
observation, which is that sometimes I think those who have been 
objecting now 21 times to our request to go to conference have 
forgotten whom I would be conferencing with, which is the Republican 
House majority. What they fight so adamantly and strongly for here in 
the Senate will be well and ably represented in a conference committee. 
That is the point of a conference committee. That is what our democracy 
was set up to do in a divided government, where we have the opportunity 
to do that.
  Having a conference committee to work out our budget agreement is 
exactly what I have asked for, but I will object because what the 
Senator's request does is simply say: We are going to keep our 
government closed. We are not going to allow people to do the functions 
that are so desperately needed. We are going to stay closed, and we are 
going to hold that hostage.
  As I said so clearly when I spoke before, we need to open the 
government, we need to pay our bills, and we need to negotiate. That is 
what our request does, that is what the Republican request does not do, 
and so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modified request.
  Is there objection to the original unanimous consent request?
  Mr. CORNYN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
her 21st time in coming to the floor of the Senate and asking the 
Republicans to join us in a conference committee to resolve budget 
differences between the House and the Senate. Twenty-one times Senator 
Murray has come to this floor simply asking to negotiate, and the 
Republicans, who have been arguing that we don't negotiate, turned her 
down 21 times--the latest by the senior Senator from Texas. The junior 
Senator from Texas shut down the government over the notion of 
defunding ObamaCare, and now the senior Senator from Texas has said he 
objects to going to a conference committee to resolve our differences, 
Republicans and Democrats, between the House and the Senate.
  If we are going to restore this Senate to the orderly process, what 
the Senator from Washington has asked for is very basic--open the 
government.
  This morning the Chaplain of the Senate started by acknowledging the 
five families who were notified, after they had lost a military 
member--a son, a husband, a brother in Afghanistan over the weekend--he 
noted that in their bereavement they were being denied the basic 
benefits this government gives to these grieving families after they 
have lost someone in uniform. The Chaplain of the Senate said it this 
morning: Enough is enough.
  This notion that closing down our government and keeping it closed is 
somehow acceptable political conduct is outrageous. We just left a 
press conference where Maryland Senators Mikulski and Cardin, and 
Senator Kaine and Senator Warner of Virginia, spoke about the impact to 
their local economies and the loss of these jobs with this government 
shutdown. I can tell stories of Illinois, with 50,000 Federal workers 
who have either been furloughed or their checks are being withheld for 
the most part. This is unnecessary, and it is unacceptable.
  We were in the midst of a terrible accident last week, right before 
October 1. A train ran into one of our Metro trains coming back from 
the airport, and 30 people were sent to the hospital. The National 
Transportation Safety Board went out to investigate the accident to 
find out what led to this terrible thing. They had to leave at midnight 
on October 1, after having collected what evidence they could, because 
the government was shut down. The investigation was suspended. That is 
one small example. There are the five families who are grieving. And it 
goes on and on.
  What we hear from the Republicans is we will take care of each of 
these as it arises. We will pick out the vital functions of government. 
So far, all of the bills passed by the House of Representatives 
combined represent only 18 percent of the domestic discretionary budget 
of the United States.
  So each day, as another tragedy occurs, as another embarrassment to 
this Republican strategy emerges, they will try to find a way to fix 
that story, to fix that problem. It is time for us to fix our sights on 
a solution that is befitting the great Nation of America: Open the 
government and pay our bills while we negotiate.
  That is the only responsible way to approach it. I am sorry that for 
the 21st time the Republicans have come to the floor and denied the 
request by the Senate Budget Committee chair, Senator Murray of 
Washington, to sit down and negotiate. Twenty-one times Republicans 
have refused to allow us to enter into a bipartisan negotiation. That 
is why we face the problems we do today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is a good thing that Democrats for 
the first time in 4 years passed a budget--at least brought one to the 
floor and passed it on a strictly partisan basis. Before that, they not 
only didn't pass one, they didn't bring one to the floor for 4 years 
and refused to do so, even though a specific provision of the United 
States Code actually required them to do so. It was a stunning 
development.
  Senator Conrad, then the Democratic chair of the Budget Committee, 
wanted to bring up budgets, fought to bring up budgets, and one time 
said he was going to bring up a budget. But Senator Durbin and others 
in the leadership apparently had a vote, and they voted against him. 
Senator Murray, to her credit, has gotten a budget through. The 
Presiding Officer is a member of that committee, and they got a budget 
through this year, which was a good thing. I am not sure, but I suspect 
Senator Murray was one of those who blocked Senator Conrad from even 
bringing up a budget for 4 years. So I think it is a bit aggressive to 
say Republicans are blocking a budget when the history is they haven't 
even voted on one.
  Secondly, there are Members on this side of the aisle who simply say 
the legislation necessary to raise the debt ceiling again should be 
passed--like legislation should be passed--on the floor of the Senate, 
and it would require a 60-vote point of order where you have to have 60 
votes to pass.
  In conference, a raising of the debt ceiling would be put on the 
budget which only requires 51 votes for passage. We have simply said we 
would allow the budget to go to conference and agree to conference, but 
we want a commitment that our Democratic colleagues will not try to 
sneak through raising the debt ceiling on the budget--which doesn't 
require but 51 votes. Our colleagues have flatly refused. If they would 
make that agreement, we would go to conference.
  I think our Democratic majority should agree to that. They have 
indicated they don't intend to put it on the budget. One time Senator 
Durbin said he didn't think it was appropriate to put it on the budget. 
If so, let's make clear we are not going to gimmick it up and add that 
to it.
  The reason we have had such contention at this point in history is 
that we are facing fundamental challenges relevant to the whole future 
of America

[[Page 15535]]

financially. It is a time of great importance. The American people 
understand this. The American people want us to take action to place 
this country on a sound financial path.
  So we are heading to the debt ceiling. By law we limit the amount of 
money Congress can borrow and how much money we can spend above our 
current level. We are now spending about $3,500 billion a year and we 
are taking in about $2,800 billion a year. Think about it. That is what 
we are doing every year, and it is unsustainable.
  In August of 2011 we faced a debt ceiling, and the American people 
told Congress: We want to clip back on your credit card. You are not 
going to continue to borrow this much money every year. Before you 
raise the debt ceiling, we want you to show that you are going to be 
more frugal and are going to manage our money better.
  Republicans dug their heels in and said, Mr. President, we are not 
going to raise the debt ceiling until you agree to some financial 
constraints and that you are not going to keep spending recklessly 
every year.
  After a tense time, a committee was formed and an agreement was 
reached, and this is what we agreed to: First, we would raise the debt 
ceiling $2.1 trillion. Then, over the next 10 years we would reduce the 
projected growth of spending by $2.1 trillion--one for one, as Speaker 
Boehner said.
  So it gave Congress 10 years to find cuts. But in a little over 2 
years, we have already borrowed another $2 trillion. We have hit the 
debt ceiling cap again, and we have not yet come close to saving the $2 
trillion we promised to save.
  And by the way, these are not really cuts. When you look at the U.S. 
budget, the budget was projected to increase spending from $37 trillion 
over 10 years to $47 trillion over 10 years. With the Budget Control 
Act, spending would increase from $37 trillion to $45 trillion over 10 
years. That is not really a cut in spending, is it?
  Yes, the way it has been carried out hits some departments more than 
others--particularly the Defense Department--and we need to adjust 
that. But fundamentally, the reduction in the growth of spending that 
was part of the BCA last year was not extreme, not irresponsible, and 
should and must be preserved.
  But colleagues, the President of the United States, after signing 
that agreement in August--the sequester is part of the BCA. It was all 
part of the same deal that created the $2.1 trillion in savings. In 
January, after that August, he proposed a budget that would increase 
spending another $1 trillion and would raise taxes $1 trillion. That is 
basically what our colleagues passed in their budget this year: to 
spend $1 trillion more than the Budget Control Act said we should spend 
and raise taxes another $1 trillion over 10 years.
  This is a total abdication of the promise we made to the American 
people. We said, OK, American people, we are going to vote to raise the 
debt ceiling. A lot of people didn't like any raising of the debt 
ceiling. Phone calls to my office were against any raising. People 
said, It is time for you guys to live within your means like I have to 
do in my house.
  So we raised it. But we promised we wouldn't spend so much. We 
promised we would reduce spending by $2.1 trillion, but over 10 years. 
Do you know what a lot of cynics around here said? They said, Congress 
won't adhere to that. That is just a bunch of baloney. They promise 
that all the time, and then they breach their promises all the time. 
That is why the country is going broke.
  That is exactly what the President did in January of 2012, 6 months 
after the agreement--he proposed to spend another $1 trillion above the 
amount of money we agreed to spend 6 months before. Why?
  I didn't really want to sign that agreement. I didn't really want to 
cut that much money. So I am not bound by it. I didn't make a promise 
to the American people. I forgot all about that. That was 6 months ago. 
Oh, a 10-year promise, that we are going to contain the growth of 
spending for 10 years? Forget that. I don't want to do that. I want to 
spend more. I have investments I want to make. I have taxes I want to 
increase.
  This is fundamentally what is occurring here. So we have got to stand 
firm and adhere at least to the containment of growth in spending in 
the Budget Control Act. We have to. Failure to do that is a 
capitulation in our promises to the American people, a total 
abandonment of any pretension that we will be fiscally responsible in 
this body. It is just unthinkable that we would abandon the limits we 
had in the Budget Control Act.
  The sad truth is the Budget Control Act reductions in the growth of 
spending do not come close to putting us on a firm financial footing. 
We are still on an unsustainable debt course, as our Congressional 
Budget Office has told us.
  Yes, we have seen a reduction in the deficits this year of $600 
billion. People say that is great.
  George Bush has been called profligate, and sometimes he was. The 
highest deficit he ever had was $470 billion. The year before his last 
year in office was $167 billion.
  President Obama in his 6 years will have averaged almost $1 trillion 
a year in deficits. We have never, ever come close to that kind of 
deficit before in the history of the Republic.
  So what does a budget say that says we want to tax people $1 trillion 
more and spend more money under these circumstances? I will tell you 
what it says.
  From the President and the majority here in the Senate, it says: It 
is not our problem. We can't find any more ways to reduce the growth of 
spending. We can't save another dime. You people just don't understand. 
There is no way we can save any more money. We have a problem, though. 
And do you know who is responsible for it? You, the American people. It 
is your fault. You won't give us enough money. If you would just send 
more money, another $1 trillion, another $2 trillion, another $600 
billion which was passed in January, just another few hundred billion 
more or a trillion here and a trillion there in taxes, why, we could 
solve all of the problems. Send us more money. And by the way, we will 
use that money to create government programs and government 
bureaucracies that impose great costs on the American economy and have 
in fact resulted in the declining wages of American workers to a degree 
that is not acceptable.
  We need a growth-oriented, lean government--a lean government that 
serves the people for the least possible cost and reduces these 
deficits. Deficits themselves are pulling down the economic growth in 
our country. The size of our debt is so large, we have never had 
anything like it, it is already beginning to diminish the prospects for 
growth in our economy and reduces job creation and reduces wages.
  I know we are in a tough time now. We certainly need to work our way 
out of this. But the President negotiated over the debt ceiling in 
August of 2011, and we made at least a step forward. In fact, it was 
the most significant fiscal step this country has taken, maybe in 
decades, and for the last 2 years we have actually spent less money 
than the year before. Think about it. To hear people talk, they would 
think the country is going to collapse.
  But we have had a modest reduction in spending, and that has been 
good. It has been good. But it is not nearly enough to put us on a 
sustained path.
  We need to save Social Security, we need to strengthen and save 
Medicare, we cannot afford the Affordable Care Act. We have witnessed a 
total misrepresentation on the Affordable Care Act with regard to its 
cost. The Government Accounting Office, an independent auditor, has 
told us it is going to add at least $6 trillion to the debt of the 
United States over the long term under its likely set of assumptions. 
It does not pay for itself--nowhere close. It is as unstable 
financially as Social Security is over the long term.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Let's keep working. Maybe we can develop some ways to 
confront our financial problems. It is absolutely critical that we do 
that. We have a moral responsibility to do that and we have to start 
working together to achieve it. I think the President

[[Page 15536]]

needs to back off his statements that he will not negotiate on the 
continuing resolution or the debt ceiling.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask my colleague from Alabama, if he 
has a moment or two more, after I read an official consent request, if 
he might stay for a moment and answer a question about how that budget 
conference committee works?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I have a moment.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, through the Chair, I want to pose a 
question about the budget conference committee. I think it is something 
that has puzzled a lot of people across America.
  We hear some folks standing and giving speeches saying for 6 months 
we have been trying to get a conference committee and we have other 
folks who are standing and saying we will be glad to go to conference 
as long as there is a deal beforehand on exactly what is done in the 
conference committee.
  In that regard, I thought it would be useful to have a little bit of 
perspective here. My understanding is that anything that comes out of 
the budget conference committee would have to have agreement of both 
the team of delegates from the House side and the team of delegates 
from the Senate side. That is a question I ask of the ranking member of 
the Budget Committee, to clarify that process?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. Of course that is correct. I 
understand the Speaker has indicated there is no guarantee that the 
increase in the debt ceiling would not be a part of a conference report 
that came out of conference committee. We have independent Senators in 
this body who simply said we do not think we should be subjected to 
having the debt ceiling increase without a full debate and the normal 
processes of 60 votes in the Senate. That is where the disagreement 
lies. People can have disagreements about the validity of their 
concern, but it is a legitimate concern. If there is no intention to 
move a debt ceiling increase at 51 votes, why wouldn't my colleagues 
agree not to do it? That is the disagreement I think that now exists.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, might I ask about a couple of other 
pieces to this puzzle. Why not, with that concern--I pass this question 
through the Chair to my colleague--why not, with that concern, simply 
ask the House delegates to carry that concern, rather than blocking the 
start of the conference committee?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I say to my colleague, through the 
Chair, it is very simple. Senators have rights. They have a right to 
assert those privileges on the floor of the Senate. We have Senators 
who say you should not do this, you should not raise the debt ceiling 
on the budget and we do not want to go to conference unless you do 
agree not to sneak that through without a full debate and 60-vote 
threshold on the floor of the Senate. Attaching it to a bill that is a 
budget deal that is huge and would have a lot of interest in it would 
make it even more difficult to separate that question out. Rightly or 
wrongly, that is their view.
  I say I don't see any problem and I am amazed at the intransigence of 
the majority of not just accepting that. I don't think it is likely, as 
the Senator indicated, that the House would add that to it, frankly. I 
am not too worried about it. But some are and that is causing the 
disagreement right now. I think it would be great to go to conference. 
I would like to see a conference occur, frankly. I think it is an 
unusual and positive development that after 4 years of not even 
bringing a budget to the floor, that we now have the majority here 
passing a budget so we can try to do something with it in conference--
although I have to tell you, all of our colleagues, there is a big 
difference in the budgets. The budget passed out of the Senate with our 
majority that every Republican opposed completely busted the Budget 
Control Act. It is nowhere close to what was agreed to in that Act 2 
years ago.
  I think we have a huge gap to cover in conference. It is not 
impossible and it would probably be a healthy thing to start that 
process. I wish my colleagues would relent and commit not to try to 
sneak the debt ceiling increase in on the budget.
  I thank the Chair. I appreciate my colleague, a member of the Budget 
Committee, who contributes ably and works hard to try to do the right 
thing around here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, the thing that puzzles me, if my 
colleague would still consider responding, is that there is a process 
on the floor of giving instructions to a conference committee.
  My colleague has left the floor, but the question I would have 
followed up with is, given that there is a specific process in the 
Senate for doing budget instructions to a conference committee, why not 
utilize that specific process, hold a vote on the conference committee 
instructions, rather than blockading the conference committee from 
starting?
  I guess I will have to rhetorically answer the question, that there 
is no good explanation for why not go through the normal process and 
propose a Budget Committee instruction for our conferees.
  Then the question becomes, couldn't we resolve this today? Couldn't 
we resolve this today, have a proposal put forward to instruct the 
conferees, vote on it on the floor of this Senate, and it either passes 
or it does not? Isn't the whole budget process designed specifically to 
be a simple majority process under the Budget Act so we can indeed get 
the job done and not be paralyzed?
  I think--I believe the story--and I would have liked to have had the 
perspective of my colleague--but I think the story is a determination 
to not allow a majority determination of the budget instructions, to, 
instead, allow a minority to do so. I believe also that is an 
absolutely unprecedented situation, but I wanted to clarify that and 
understand whether there was in fact precedent for this type of 
determination that in a simple majority budget process, a minority 
would blockade a budget conference.
  It is very strange that this should become such a central issue. But 
I want Americans to understand that essentially it boils down to this: 
For 6 months we have been trying to start a budget conference 
committee. A small group, a couple of individuals have wanted to 
instruct that Budget Committee but to do so without going through the 
normal process on the floor so they could do it as a minority rather 
than as a discussion and decision of the Senate as a whole. It is that 
precedent that seems unacceptable. I think if the tables were turned it 
would be felt strongly on the other side.
  I hope to keep exploring these questions, because this 6-month 
obstruction of being able to get the budget that provides a framework 
for spending is deeply damaging. This body absolutely has to be able to 
do its fundamental work in determining the budget, getting a budget 
conference, getting a budget number, doing the spending bills, all 
appropriations bills--because otherwise we are careening from crisis to 
crisis.
  I am going to shift gears here. I am going to step back from what is 
going on immediately with the shutdown and ask where did the seeds of 
this come from? If we turn back to about April of 2009, shortly after I 
first came to the Senate, there was a memo put out by an individual 
named Frank Luntz. Frank Luntz was providing a roadmap on how to block 
any sort of improvement in our health care system. Frank Luntz said, 
and he was specifically instructing my colleagues across the aisle--he 
said it doesn't matter what is in the health care bill. It doesn't 
matter what good it does. Whatever it is, let's attack it and call it a 
government takeover.
  This was long before anyone even knew what was going to be in the 
bill. So this strategy of poisonous partisanship rather than problem 
solving has been with us since at least April of

[[Page 15537]]

2009. Therefore, a series of myths were generated. As the process 
proceeded, those who were behind the myths kind of doubled down on 
them. For example, we have in the health care reform a process by which 
small businesses can join together and get the marketing clout of a 
large group to negotiate lower rates and get a better deal. But under 
the Frank Luntz ``let's demonize and deceive'' strategy, instead of 
honoring the fact that the small businesses will be able to get a 
better rate, there has been an assertion this would hurt small 
businesses.
  In the health care reform bill we have a process by which individuals 
who have no market clout can band together and get a much better deal. 
We are seeing significant drops in rates for individuals across this 
country under the marketplaces that are just now opening for signup. 
But indeed, under the Frank Luntz ``deceive and demonize'' strategy, it 
became: Let's tell people insurance rates will go up instead of down.
  We have a bill before us--not a bill but a health care reform law 
coming into effect--that ends abuses in the insurance industry. There 
was a situation where you could not get a policy if you had a 
preexisting condition; the sort of situation where if you had insurance 
and you got sick you would be thrown off the policy; the fact that your 
children were not able to stay on your policy until they were able to 
get health care insurance of their own.
  These bills of rights are reforms that are deeply sought by Americans 
across this country, urban and rural. But under the Frank Luntz 
``deceive and demonize'' strategy, there was simply an assertion, 
unfounded, that this would destroy the insurance system.
  You have a process whereby, under the marketplaces, insurance 
companies will have to compete, private insurance companies. Yet under 
the Frank Luntz strategy adopted by some of my colleagues across the 
aisle, they decided to say this would hurt competition even though it 
strengthens competition. It puts before people, apples to apples, 
companies having to lay out their rates and benefits under these 
different levels of insurance. We are seeing that competition from 
private companies proceed to lower rates.
  Let's fast forward. We had that phase of the ``demonize the plan'' 
even though we have to mischaracterize it and deceive and delude 
Americans about what is in it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I will wrap up with a sentence or two 
and yield to my colleagues. Thank you for coming to the floor to 
continue the conversation.
  I think it is so important that we proceed to put our government back 
on track and quit careening from crisis to crisis, doing damage to 
communities and families across our Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________