[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15592-15607]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      DEFAULT PREVENTION ACT OF 2013--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
6 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees, and that the Democrats be limited to 10 minutes each. 
Basically, the reason is we have lots of speakers on this side. I need 
not say more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we are hearing a lot of discussion right 
now about the role of government and the role of the public sector.
  We know there is a minority in the House of Representatives who ran 
on shutting the government down and think they have achieved something 
as we see the economy teetering now, as we see people who have been put 
out of work, who have mortgages, car payments, and concerns about their 
children and so on, and all the services that are in jeopardy, from 
food safety to law enforcement to what happens in the case of an oil 
spill and all of the things in between.
  I found it interesting with our colleagues who have embraced the idea 
that in the greatest country in the

[[Page 15593]]

world and in the greatest democracy in the world there is no need for 
the public sector. No one else is having this debate around the world. 
They are embracing every tool of the public sector to embrace their 
private sector to try to beat us by outeducating and outinnovating us 
in a global economy, as the distinguished Presiding Officer 
understands. So we are in a global race where everybody understands it 
is all in. We use all the tools that we have.
  We have the greatest private sector, the most robust private sector 
entrepreneurs that can beat anybody in the world. But we also have a 
public sector that creates the framework and support for that by having 
a rule of law, by having basic protections in place for the public.
  As I had the opportunity to listen to our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, particularly in the House, it seems every time there 
is a story--a salmonella outbreak--gosh, we had better bring some folks 
back. We have veterans hurting so we had better bring something back. 
We have women and children not getting baby formula through the WIC 
Program so we should do something about that. We have concerns about 
national safety so we should do something about that. It is almost as 
if we are educating these Members about the role of government in this 
process as they go. I didn't realize we did that. So maybe that 
function ought to be working. It is a chaotic way for the greatest 
democracy to operate, but that seems to be what is happening right now.
  I remember in my times traveling to China, the last time I was there, 
where they said to me: Oh, you are here in Beijing on a great day; you 
can see across the street.
  We are lucky. We can see across the street almost every day because 
we collectively have decided that one of the things we need to do to be 
able to breathe the air is to have certain rules, certain protections 
and standards in place so we can breathe the air. That is important to 
do through the public sector. We can't say: I will do the air in front 
of this desk, and you do the air in front of this desk, and somebody 
else will protect the air over here. It doesn't work that way. We do it 
together. So we don't have to worry about saying: I am in D.C. on the 2 
days a year we can breathe the air and look across the street. We have 
the confidence of knowing that we have a quality of life, including the 
ability to see across the street and breathe the air, because in a 
civilized society, the greatest democracy in the world, we have made 
sure that those standards are there for our citizens.
  I remember on a trip to Russia a few years ago they were talking 
about wanting to get more private sector investment into Moscow in 
Russia. I came home talking to our businesses and they said: The 
problem is they don't have a rule of law. We don't trust how we can 
invest there because we are not confident in their government, their 
rule of law. We don't have that problem here. We have the epitome of a 
system with checks and balances, a rule of law. Up until all of this 
had begun, we have had the confidence available in the private sector 
on how to invest and know that there is a system in place.
  I had the opportunity, with my agriculture hat on a few months ago, 
to be in Haiti where we see a great desire, meeting with the Haitian 
president, to bring in more business and investment from the United 
States. The problem is, you bring a shipload of cargo into the harbor, 
and you can't get it off the ship without paying bribes. They have no 
law enforcement system, judicial system, rule of law.
  That is not true in our country. We do it through something 
collectively that we call government, that creates a way for us to make 
sure we can drink the water, breathe the air, see across the street, 
drive on the roads, have the opportunity for education for all of our 
children, and know that we can walk into a restaurant and have some 
level of confidence that the food is safe or go into the grocery store 
and know that.
  We have research institutions that suddenly, after our colleagues in 
the House have been saying--and for years I have had personal debates 
with folks who said: We don't need a National Institutes of Health. Let 
the private sector do it. Yet we know collectively we are willing to 
share a risk of basic research to try to find cancer cures, to go over 
and over again on research until they get that one that may be able to 
move forward and be successful, in which case the private sector comes 
in and takes it from there. But we have done it together and shared the 
risk because we know it is in all of our interests to save lives--in 
our own, our family members, and others--whether it is Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, cancer. All of those things are done 
collectively through this thing that we call government. That is why we 
have the best standard of living in the world. We are the wealthiest 
country in the world. We are the envy of the world. People want to come 
here and invest. They want to be a part of the opportunities in this 
country. And now we are debating whether or not, literally, there 
should be a public sector. Should we fund the police and the 
firefighters and the judicial system? There are those on the other side 
of the aisle who would say: We don't mean that. Every time we bring up 
something: We didn't mean that. I am not sure what they mean then in a 
civilized society.
  We know we have challenges around issues of finance and debt. As 
chair of the Agriculture Committee, I am proud of the fact--and I have 
said so many times on the floor--that we are the only committee on a 
bipartisan basis that has actually brought a deficit reduction bill to 
the floor that has passed in the Senate. So I take a backseat to no one 
when we are looking at ways to cut duplication, to cut things that 
aren't important, to strengthen those things that are, and to save 
money.
  But we do not do it by destroying our economy, by shutting down the 
services we all count on to protect us as consumers, to make sure our 
children have opportunities, to make sure we are safe and secure in 
this country. Obviously, that makes no sense. It is totally 
irresponsible.
  What we are not talking about enough is that we have begun to see 
things happening in terms of the debt and deficit. We can continue to 
do that. In fact, the yearly deficit has been cut in half. I don't hear 
people talking about that, but the numbers say that.
  A few years ago we set a goal of $4 trillion in debt reduction over 
10 years. We are more than halfway there--not all the way there, but we 
have put in place a mechanism through cuts, through new revenue, 
through interest savings yielding $2.5 trillion in debt reduction out 
of the $4 trillion.
  What is happening by shutting down the Government and threatening a 
default? That debt is going to go back up. We are going to undermine 
the work we have already done by adding increased costs through 
interest payments and delays that will actually increase the debt. We 
saw that in the last go-around in 2011. Even though there was not 
actually a default on the full faith and credit of the United States of 
America, we saw it because of exactly what is happening now. We had a 
lot of talk--in my judgment some very irresponsible talk--and posturing 
back-and-forth instead of working together in a reasonable way. We saw 
the markets affected, a drop of 2,000 points in the market, $800 
billion in retirement savings of folks who worked hard all their lives 
and maybe are still working and cannot figure out why in the world we 
cannot work together in a reasonable, rational way to solve problems. 
There was $800 billion retirement savings gone. During that time in 
2011, that summer, July and August, anyone who was signing up for a new 
mortgage is paying on average $100 more a month in payments because the 
interest rates were higher.
  Instead of building on what we have already done together or even 
acknowledging it--it may not make good politics to acknowledge folks on 
the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately, it seems they certainly do 
not want to give credit to the President or give credit for anything we 
have actually been doing together. But the reality is the deficit has 
been cut in half and we are more than halfway to the goal that was set 
for savings over 10 years.

[[Page 15594]]

  There is nothing that has been happening in the last few days--
shutting down the government, threatening possible default on the full 
faith and credit of the United States--that is helping us reach that 
goal. It is actually going in the opposite direction. As interest rates 
go up, billions of dollars will be added to the debt.
  We have tried to figure out over the last number of months how to 
continue bringing down the debt and tackling long-term challenges 
while, by the way, creating jobs. The best way to get us out of debt is 
to create jobs so people can go back to work and be part of the 
economy. That is the best thing, and we are sure not hearing enough 
talk about that.
  I am very proud to come from a State that makes things and grows 
things. It is manufacturing that is bringing us back, that is driving 
the economy, and it is agriculture where we have the biggest exports, 
in terms of export surpluses, in the country. We need to make things 
and grow things, focus on that. That will bring down the debt as we 
create more opportunities and more jobs.
  In the last 6 months we have tried to go to a conference committee, a 
negotiating team, a formal negotiating process between the House and 
Senate on a 10-year budget that will bring down the debt, create jobs, 
do things in a fair and balanced way that puts middle class families 
first. We have tried to do that, as of today, 21 times. In fact, the 
chair of the Budget Committee has come to the floor and moved that we 
get to that process 21 times, joined by distinguished Members of the 
Republican caucus in the Senate who have come to say the same thing, 
let us go to a budget negotiation, a formal budget negotiation. Over 21 
times the same folks who shut down the Government, the same folks who 
say it doesn't hurt anything if we default as a country, even though 
every economist, every business leader is begging and pleading and 
providing facts and information as to why it would be a complete 
disaster--the same people who are saying defaults don't matter, 
government doesn't work, except when they are reading something in the 
paper and somebody is saying there is a problem--they, those same 
people have, 21 times been able to block the Senate from going to a 
formal negotiation with the House on the budget.
  We are in this crazy place where, on the one hand, when we step back 
we are actually seeing the economy slowly moving forward--of course 
until now, when it is beginning to be stymied by all of this. But the 
economy has been moving forward. The yearly deficit is coming down. We 
have been tackling the long-term debt. We are coming out of this. Then 
we have a group of folks who have decided in the big picture that there 
is no value in a democracy, in the greatest country in the world, in 
government. They don't seem to care about what it takes to provide an 
economy and so on.
  Now they are saying they are willing to jeopardize the faith and 
credit of the United States of America, have America default on our 
bills and potentially send us not only and probably into a great 
recession similar to the one we just came out of, but economists tell 
us it could send us back even further, into the thirties or forties. 
They just do not know.
  We are in a global marketplace right now where we don't know what 
happens when we default on our bills, when we lose the confidence of 
the world to invest in America or to even purchase our debt. We don't 
know what happens when small businesses see all their capital dry up 
and people are not able to get mortgage loans again or they cost much 
more than they did before and all the other ramifications of our not 
paying our bills.
  There are colleagues who say the Secretary of the Treasury--who, by 
the way, came down and did an excellent job in the Finance Committee 
today. It was very serious. It was very sobering, but I thought he was 
clear and he was factual and I very much appreciate his coming to the 
Senate Finance Committee. But there are those who say he says October 
17 is the last time extraordinary measures can be used to stop us from 
falling off the cliff and going into default and losing the full faith 
and credit of the United States--except, no, it could be the next day, 
it could be the day after.
  Coming from a car State it reminds me of someone who is driving in 
their car and they look and it is on empty. You may have a little bit 
more. Sometimes they say you have 5 miles more, you have 10 miles more, 
maybe you have 30 miles more, but you are on empty and you are going to 
stop--the car is going to stop. The question is how often do you want 
to risk that and play that game when you know the car is going to stop.
  That is, in my judgment, the kind of absurd and irresponsible debate 
going on right now--about whether the car stops immediately or in 2 
miles or 3 miles or 30 miles. Why in the world would you want to put 
yourself in that position? Lord knows, defaulting on the full faith and 
credit of the United States of America is much more serious than 
running out of gas in your car.
  There is no reason for this--none, zero. This is a manufactured 
crisis. Do we need to continue to work together to tackle the long-term 
debt of this country? Absolutely. Count me in. Do we need to focus on 
what is happening to middle-class families who are getting squeezed on 
all sides and have a hard time just holding on? Do we need to focus on 
jobs in this country, making things and growing things and outeducating 
and outinnovating the world? Absolutely. Count me in. Count me in at 
the head of the line on that.
  We in Michigan right now, in terms of our hard work and ingenuity, 
take a backseat to nobody. But to find ourselves in this craziness is 
beyond my understanding. I know people at home are going: What in the 
world is going on here? Can't you guys just come together and figure 
this out and quit making up crises and quit creating artificial 
deadlines and get things done?
  I think it is important at this point in our history that we remember 
President Ronald Reagan said: ``Never before in our history has the 
Federal Government failed to honor its financial obligations.''
  We are the greatest country in the world. Others look to us. They 
want to be like us. They want a vibrant middle class like America has 
had. We need to fight hard to keep ours and keep it growing. We need to 
make sure we do not fail to honor the financial obligations of this 
great country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I just listened to my colleague from 
Michigan talking about the need to reopen the government and the need 
to deal with the debt. Of course, I agree with that, as do my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle. We also heard discussion about 
the fact that we should not be manufacturing crises. Unfortunately, we 
have a crisis on our hands; that is, the crisis of debt at record 
levels, so I wish to talk about that a little today and talk about why 
this discussion is so important, particularly on extending the debt 
limit because that would be the place naturally for us to deal with the 
problem that faces this generation and certainly future generations 
reaching this historic level of debt.
  In a matter of days, we are told, our Nation is going to be reaching 
this debt limit which is $16.7 trillion. Think about that. That is 
sixteen thousand billion dollars. It is impossible to comprehend that 
number, but let's try: $16.7 trillion would produce a stack of $1 bills 
1 million miles high. That is enough, by the way, to go to the Moon and 
back. It is now bigger, by the way, than our entire economy. Only once 
in our history have we had debt as a percent of our economy so large 
and that was after World War II. We were able quickly to address that. 
We didn't have the long-term liabilities we have now, and we had very 
high defense spending from World War II we were able to reduce. But 
other than that, we have never been here before. I would say we are in 
uncharted territory.
  By the way, it is not just that we have this huge level of debt and 
deficit

[[Page 15595]]

and the overhang on the economy, but it is the fact that the economy is 
also weak. I think they are related. I think this huge level of debt 
and deficit is akin to a wet blanket over the economy.
  Here is an interesting chart. It shows the debt limit rising twice as 
fast as the economy has grown in the last 2 years so the debt increase 
has gone up by about $2.4 trillion and unfortunately our GDP increase 
has been less than half of that. That is the problem we are trying to 
face. It is a lot of back-and-forth.
  I know for some people it looks as if this is politics. It is not. It 
is about a fundamental issue. There are fundamental disagreements, and 
I respect those disagreements, but we have to address this problem and 
we have to do it in the context of the debt limit. If we do not, we 
will simply be kicking the can down the road again and letting down the 
people we represent. If you divide that debt among the American people, 
each of us--every man, woman, and child in America--owes around 
$50,000. By the way, of course, that is far more than the annual per 
capita income for that man, woman, and child in America. If you think 
about that, it is about $140,000 to $150,000 per household on average. 
That is where we are today.
  I don't think it is constructive to be pointing fingers of blame 
because, frankly, for decades Republicans and Democrats alike have 
spent more money than the government takes in. There have been more 
promises made than can be kept, and we have gone through a process of 
mortgaging the future of our kids and grandkids as a result. Here we 
are. In some respects, the greatest single act of bipartisanship here 
in the Congress has been the overspending. The question is not how we 
got here but what we are going to do about it. Where are we going?
  Yesterday the President said that raising the Nation's credit limit 
by another $1 trillion really pays for last year's deficit spending, 
not next year's spending. I guess we could have that debate. I would 
say it is about the future because we are borrowing more money to pay 
the bills of the country going forward, and that is what many of us 
want to talk about--how, going forward, we can reduce those bills.
  The truth is that whether you say you are paying for the past or 
paying for the future, it really doesn't matter to the American people 
and it doesn't matter to our children and grandchildren who end up 
paying the bill. Long after we are gone, this huge level of debt and 
deficit is going to be something they are going to have to deal with.
  We all know the consequences if we don't raise the debt limit. 
Without a debt limit increase, the Federal Government will be unable to 
borrow to meet its expenses. We are borrowing 20 cents of every dollar 
the Federal Government spends, so the government would be unable to 
meet all of its obligations.
  There has been discussion about meeting the interest on the debt, and 
that is only about 8 percent of revenue coming in. I assume that could 
be met, but it is true that there are other obligations that can't be 
met if the government can't borrow because the government is spending 
more than it takes in and needs to borrow to make up the difference.
  The deficit, some have said--including some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle today--is lower now, and somehow that is an 
indication that we are OK in terms of the deficit. I would remind folks 
that the deficit this year is the fifth largest deficit in the history 
of our country--in our entire history. It is over $640 billion. More 
significantly, the Congressional Budget Office, which is the 
nonpartisan group around here that analyzes this stuff, says it is 
temporarily lower than $1 trillion. In other words, they say that 
within a decade it will get back up to $1 trillion. Whether it is $640 
billion or $1 trillion, it is way too high.
  Entitlement spending, by the way, will then push these annual 
deficits up to the equivalent of $3.4 trillion a year--five times what 
they are today--within a few decades. That is based on the 
Congressional Budget Office. At that point, the national debt would be 
2\1/2\ times as large as the entire economy. Today it is about the size 
of the economy; it is a little bigger. It would be 2\1/2\ times as 
large as our whole economy. I saw one CBO report recently that simply 
stops calculating the interest cost at that point because they cannot 
foresee our economy functioning under those kinds of conditions. Think 
about your own family budget or think about your business. You could 
not function either. The bank would not be able to lend you any money.
  Both of these outcomes--default today and bankruptcy in the future--
are unacceptable. That is why it is time for us to work together to try 
to do something about them. As the debt ceiling is raised, it is time 
to address the underlying problem. That is what we are saying.
  By the way, the American people are saying that too. Based on the 
polling I have seen this week, the American people by better than a 2-
to-1 margin are saying: Don't raise the debt limit without doing 
something about the spending. They get it because for them it is like 
the credit card--when you reach the limit, you realize you have to do 
something about the underlying problem, which is how much you are 
spending.
  The President says: ``Pass the debt limit increase now and we will 
address the spending later.'' I wish it were that simple, but I think 
he knows, as well as everybody in this Chamber and every person who is 
watching at home today, that Congress simply doesn't reduce spending 
unless it is forced to do so. If you don't think that is true, let me 
remind you of what the history is here. In the past three decades--I 
have gone back and looked at all of these deficit reduction plans that 
did get through Congress, and there were not many, but there were some. 
In every single instance where there was any significant deficit 
reduction, it came as a result of what? A discussion about the debt 
limit because that is the time in which there is some pressure here in 
Congress to actually do something about it. I found one in 2005, which 
was a relatively small reduction in spending, but otherwise every 
single one of them--the Gramm-Rudman rescissions in the 1980s; the 1990 
Andrews Air Force Base agreement that the first President Bush 
conducted with Democrats; the 1993 balanced budget talks; the 1997 
balanced budget agreement Bill Clinton negotiated with Newt Gingrich--a 
Democratic President and a Republican Speaker; and, of course, the pay-
go rules that many Democrats are fond of. Those pay-go rules came out 
of a debt limit discussion; and finally, we only have to look back a 
couple of years ago to the Budget Control Act. As my colleague has said 
on his side of the aisle, there have been some successes in reducing 
spending on the discretionary side of spending--which is about one-
third of the budget that is appropriated every year--that came out of 
the Budget Control Act, which is a result of what? The debt limit. In 
other words, Members listening to the folks back home.
  I am listening to my constituents back home in Ohio right now, and 
they are saying: Don't max out the credit card again and go over the 
limit unless you do something about the problem. It is little wonder 
that the American people, by this margin of 2 to 1 that I talked about, 
are saying: Don't do it without the spending reductions. They know that 
is the only way the spending cuts are likely to happen.
  Why is it that any increase in the debt limit should also include 
progrowth provisions? Well, because one way to get at the debt and 
deficit is spending restraint. We talked about the discretionary 
spending being about 35 percent of the budget, and we made progress 
there. The other 65 percent of the budget is the mandatory spending 
side, and we have not made progress there. The other part would be 
revenue, and on the first of this year taxes were raised by $620 
billion. What we have not done is deal with the mandatory side.
  Finally, of course, economic growth helps. As we are extending the 
debt limit, we should also look at how we can help give the economy a 
shot in

[[Page 15596]]

the arm. Tax reform is the way to do that, and I think there is a 
consensus in this body that we need to do it. That would seem to make 
sense as well.
  We have already made progress on one of the three legs of the stool, 
which is dealing with the discretionary spending. It has been pretty 
much flat for the last couple of years. By the way, for the first time 
since the 1950s there has actually been a reduction in spending for 2 
years in a row, but that is only 35 percent of the budget. The fastest 
growing--again, 65 percent of the budget--we have not dealt with. That 
65 percent grows to 76 percent of the budget in the next 10 years based 
on the Congressional Budget Office.
  On the tax side, the same Congressional Budget Office tells us that 
starting in 2014--that is next year, around the corner--taxes as a 
percentage of our economy will be above the historic level. In other 
words, there will be more taxes coming in from the tax increases that, 
in part, we passed earlier this year, but the part we have not dealt 
with is mandatory spending. It is the biggest and the fastest growing 
part of our spending. Let's face it. It is politically difficult to 
deal with, but that is what we were hired to do, and that is what the 
President was hired to do in terms of providing leadership.
  With ObamaCare, of course, we added a new health entitlement program 
to this part of the budget--the 65 percent. These health entitlements 
were already growing more quickly than the rest of the budget, even the 
rest of mandatory spending. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office 
tells us that in the next 10 years the health entitlement programs grow 
by over 100 percent. These are vital programs--Medicare and Medicaid--
but they have to be reformed so they are sustainable in the future and 
are there for our kids and grandkids. With 10,000 baby boomers retiring 
every day and health care costs continuing to rise, we have a real 
problem, and we have to address it. All of us know that--Democrats and 
Republicans alike, as well as the President and the Congress. Again, 
history tells us the best way is to link this with the debt limit 
because that is the opportunity and has traditionally been the 
opportunity to make progress.
  By the way, over the long term, overall revenue is projected to 
increase and discretionary spending is projected to be flat. The entire 
increase in our deficit--these huge debts and deficits going forward 
that I have been talking about--is due to the mandatory spending. 
Again, that is the Congressional Budget Office, not me.
  A good place to start, of course, would be some of the mandatory 
spending reforms the President has proposed. That would seem to be less 
controversial. If they are in the President's budget, that means he 
supports them. The President sent up a budget this year, and he 
included over $700 billion of spending reforms on the mandatory side of 
the budget. That is why what I have been advocating is, let's start 
there. Let's look at the President's own proposals. These are not the 
proposals that all Republicans support, but after all we should have a 
negotiation.
  This notion that the President says he refuses to negotiate has never 
been true. Every President has negotiated. I think the American people 
are confused by this. How could the President of the United States say 
in the context of this debt limit discussion that he refuses to even 
talk to the other side? That makes no sense. The first President Bush 
rolled up his sleeves; we talked about the 1990 agreements. President 
Clinton rolled up his sleeves; we talked about the 1997 balanced budget 
agreement he negotiated with then-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. 
That is what Presidents do. We need them to lead, particularly on these 
tough issues.
  As we talked about earlier, these are politically tough issues. The 
President says he doesn't want to be held hostage over the debt limit. 
He is not. He has been given the opportunity to lead using his own 
proposals--at least that is my suggestion.
  We can also take a very simple step as we are going through this to 
be sure that this newest health care entitlement, which is the 
Affordable Care Act, which is a new entitlement program, doesn't become 
even more of a deficit driver than many of us on this side fear it will 
already be. The Affordable Care Act includes a provision that requires 
that when you get your subsidies under the exchanges, you have to 
verify your income. That makes sense. You have to verify your income 
between 100 percent of poverty and 400 percent of poverty. Below that 
it would be Medicaid, and above that it would be the subsidies under 
the exchanges.
  Under a final regulation the administration put out, they said: We 
know you should verify your income, and that is what the law says, but 
we are going to give all of the exchanges another year to do it--not 
until 2015. Well, obviously the concern there is that will be an 
invitation for fraud, waste, and for big new expenses.
  As a result, the Federal Government body in charge of this, the CMS, 
came out and said: No, for Federal exchanges, we will require people to 
file their income, but not for State exchanges. There are about 17 
States and the District of Columbia that have State exchanges. They 
said to them: You guys can wait--in fact, not just until 2015, but 
there is no date certain.
  That is something we in the Congress should deal with. The Democrats 
here in the Chamber who voted for the Affordable Care Act certainly 
should support that because the intent of the bill when they signed up 
for it and when the President supported it was, of course, that you 
would verify your income. That is an example of a simple step we could 
take to prevent the distribution of subsidies until we have a system to 
verify those subsidies are going to the right people.
  Finally, let's give the economy a shot in the arm. As part of this 
process, let's take a step forward and say: Let's reform the Tax Code. 
We are going to differ about the details, but let's get started on it.
  So my proposal would be, as we have a vote on extending the debt 
limit, let's do these important reforms we talked about on the monetary 
side, but let's also commit to tax reform. Let's force the process. 
Let's facilitate it. Let's expedite it.
  The American people are not looking for us to just get the spending 
under control; they want to see this economy grow. Again, they are not 
happy with this, where the debt is increasing at twice the rate of the 
economy. They want to see opportunities for their kids to get a job. 
They want to see the opportunity to have the dignity and self-respect 
that comes with a job.
  We know that tax reform, done properly, will promote growth, it will 
create jobs. Again, we are going to differ on some of the details, and 
that is OK. Let's get started on it.
  Perhaps the President doesn't think that spending and the deficits 
are a real problem. If he thinks that, he should say it. He says just 
the opposite. He has said he does think it is necessary for us to 
address these problems. In fact, in his own budget, he sent proposals 
forward. So what we need to do is get together and negotiate and talk 
and deal with this underlying problem. A debt that is nearly $17 
trillion is unacceptable to everybody, I hope, and I would think we 
would welcome the sign that Republicans are giving now that we want to 
negotiate, we want to talk.
  Negotiations, by the way, I don't think are a sign of weakness. I 
don't think coming to the table is a signal of a failure of leadership. 
I think just the opposite; I think it shows strength and shows 
leadership. Again, I can promise my colleagues Republicans don't 
support all of the President's suggested savings in his budget, and a 
purely Republican agenda would look very different from whatever might 
emerge from bipartisan negotiations. But, again, the American people 
sent us here to get this done.
  Using President Obama's own proposals, let's take that first step 
toward entitlement and progrowth tax reform and onto some common ground 
to break the gridlock in DC and finally do something positive about 
that underlying problem we all acknowledge.
  Yes, we face serious problems, real challenges, but we also have an 
opportunity to do something positive, to

[[Page 15597]]

deal with the problem we all acknowledge--something that will not only 
prevent a debt limit crisis today but a debt crisis tomorrow.
  I hope to move forward on this important project. I think we owe it 
to the people we represent.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, October 1 was a significant day. Two 
things happened to the constituents in my State. The first we talk a 
lot about here, and that is basically the shutdown of the government, 
the failure to pass a continuing resolution that would keep the doors 
of government open for the thousands and thousands of Americans, and 
North Dakotans, who depend on government services. This horrible 
impasse continues to have a horrible impact and continues to have 
consequences that people didn't foresee.
  The second thing that happened, which hasn't gotten a lot of 
attention, is the expiration of a long-term farm bill. After 
negotiating in this body, and with a large bipartisan vote, we were 
able to accommodate concerns. We came together after negotiating, and 
we came up with a package that included real reforms, eliminated direct 
payments, included real reform in SNAP, streamlined conservation 
programs, and basically offered $25 billion of debt relief to the 
country. It was a great package.
  We sent it over to the House and waited for the House to pass their 
farm bill. They initially couldn't pass a farm bill. Then they decided 
to divide the farm bill, pass part of the farm bill, pass the other 
part of the farm bill with nutrition, now have a vote to bring them 
back together, and we are patiently awaiting the appointment of a 
conference committee.
  The passage of the farm bill has never been a partisan issue. In 
fact, it is a regional issue. Things that are good for North Dakota may 
not be good for the Presiding Officer's State of Delaware, but we all 
work together, we all compromise, and we all come together.
  This past weekend South Dakota and southwestern North Dakota were hit 
with a terrible snowstorm. Over 2 days that region was blanketed with 
anywhere from 2 feet to 7 feet of snow and contained winds over 70 
miles an hour. Because of the early storm, tens of thousands of cattle 
died because they were suffocated, mired and drowned in stock dams or 
dropped in exhaustion. The pictures and the stories are devastating.
  This image is one that is all too common after the recent blizzard in 
the Dakotas. These cattle that died over the weekend near Hettinger, 
ND, were owned by the Christman family. As is the case with many North 
Dakota ranchers, this hard-working family lost many cows and calves 
during this surprise fall storm.
  What people may not understand about the cattle industry is they 
might think one cow is like the next cow; people can just replace them. 
These herds are the product of years and years of selective breeding, 
years and years of working to improve the quality of their herd and to 
meet different specifications in the market. They are more than cows. 
They contain an intellectual property component that is not easily 
replaced.
  This is where the crisis of the dysfunction that is Washington, DC, 
meets natural disaster. When livestock die from a natural disaster, 
farmers report the number of cattle that died to the Farm Service 
Agency--the FSA. However, because the doors are closed on the Federal 
Government, North Dakota ranchers, South Dakota ranchers, anyone who is 
experiencing livestock losses, have no place to report those losses. 
And even worse, they have no one at USDA to consult with about the 
information they need to collect to eventually report their claims. 
This is critical information. If farmers aren't collecting the 
information they need to make disaster claims in the future, the safety 
nets put in place to provide some support to these hard-working 
ranchers may be denied simply because of a paperwork error.
  Unfortunately, this is an avoidable problem. As has been the case 
with so many in recent years, it is the product of congressional 
dysfunction. Because we haven't passed a new farm bill, the livestock 
program that helps ranchers withstand losses to livestock herds due to 
extreme weather events--the Livestock Indemnity Program--has expired, 
and the emergency assistance for livestock and honeybee producers 
program, which is in the stalled farm bill and which helps producers 
stay in business after they experience significant losses because of 
natural disaster, isn't available to the ranchers and the beekeepers 
who were hit the hardest by the storm. Until Congress passes a farm 
bill, livestock producers are in danger of losing their business, and 
they will not be eligible for support.
  These ranchers and the farm bill are more collateral damage of the 
government shutdown. Because we are debating whether to fund the 
Federal Government, Congress isn't able to work on a farm bill. We have 
been waiting and waiting and waiting for the appointment of conferees. 
The chairwoman, I think, intends to make a floor speech about the farm 
bill yet today. She has been working very hard to encourage the 
collection of information and to encourage the appointment of conferees 
to the conference committee and get focused on this issue. 
Unfortunately, it is not happening until next week, if it even happens 
then.
  In addition, the lack of assistance for ranchers in the aftermath of 
this devastating storm as a result of the shutdown is hurting farmers 
and agricultural industries, which is a key piece of North Dakota's 
economy.
  Here are some additional examples of where the shutdown is hurting 
our farmers. Frequently, because farmers who use FSA loans have a joint 
obligation with FSA, when they receive their checks after they sell 
their products, the checks are frequently made out to both the Farm 
Service Agency and the farmer. Consequently, the farmer cannot cash the 
check unless he can get an endorsement from the Farm Service Agency. 
Guess what. They go, knock on the door, and no one is there to cosign 
their check. So that money in their hand that they need to make the 
investments for next year, that they need to pay the person who maybe 
supplies the feed, that they need to pay the fuel bill--that money is 
not available to them, even though they have earned it and they have 
sold their products. So the government shutdown prevents FSA from 
cashing these checks and from signing these checks. This is money the 
farmers have earned and they deserve, and denying them their income is 
outrageous.
  What is worse, farmers and ranchers enrolled in the loan programs are 
new and beginning farmers, farmers who are just starting. It is a great 
thing that is happening in the Dakotas and all across farm country as 
we look at the increasing commodity prices and we look at a farm 
program that for the last 5 years has been stable and provided risk 
management. As a result, our farmers are getting younger and younger. 
The people who are going to feed the world and continue to develop our 
rural areas are younger and younger. They cannot withstand cashflow 
problems. They cannot withstand this loss.
  Another impact of the shutdown: Agricultural reports from the 
National Agriculture Statistics Service aren't available to farmers. 
These reports are crucial resources that farmers need to make decisions 
such as how to price crops, which commodities to grow, and when to sell 
those commodities, and the reports enable farmers to track cattle 
auction prices. Not only has NASS stopped putting out new reports about 
demand and supply, exports, and prices, but all Web sites with past 
information have been taken down because of the government shutdown.
  Farmers aren't receiving assistance from farm programs. The 
Department of Agriculture's local farm services offices have been shut 
down because of the shutdown and, as a result, farmers can't apply for 
new loans, sign up acreages for farm programs, or receive government 
checks for the programs they are already enrolled in. Devastating to so 
many of our people living on fixed

[[Page 15598]]

incomes in North Dakota, who have engaged in and basically put their 
land into the conservation reserve program, is conservation reserve 
checks are not being issued. That has a huge impact, particularly on 
those ranchers and those landowners who use CRP payments to supplement 
their Social Security.
  The list goes on and on. As time continues, this list will only get 
longer and longer.
  I understand the strategy, perhaps, in the House is to--whatever is 
the headline of the day, whatever becomes the issue of the day, we will 
simply write a little mini CR to take care of that, and say, see, we 
are dealing with that issue. But we know it is only a slice. It doesn't 
take care of those small businesses that have applied for small 
business loans and maybe got this close to being able to realize their 
dream and now have it delayed. It doesn't deal with the critical 
functions of government in its entirety. Instead, it picks and chooses 
the winners and losers. Let me tell my colleagues, these ranchers who 
have experienced this loss are the losers under this system.
  It is time for this Congress to begin to do the responsible thing, 
which is open government, fund all of government, and start telling the 
American people that their interests are paramount. Start telling 
farmers and ranchers in the Dakotas who have experienced this 
tremendous loss that we care about their loss, that these programs have 
to work for them, and we have to do everything we can to make sure 
America is working again.
  I wish to close with one thought. In the great recession, one place 
where we have experienced a tremendous amount of opportunity and 
support has been in agriculture. Those States that had a good 
agricultural base had some of the lowest unemployment numbers in the 
country. Sixteen million jobs depend on agriculture in this country, 
and all they ask for in return is a little bit of help, a little bit of 
a safety net for guaranteeing a food supply in this country. But we 
can't seem to even deliver that obligation. We can't seem to deliver 
that promise. We have to tell the American people that their interests 
are ahead of any petty or partisan interest in this body and in this 
Congress. We have to get the Congress back working for the American 
people, particularly for the hard-hit ranchers and farmers of 
southeastern North Dakota and West River, SD.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Here we are again at the same crossroads. We know the 
landmarks. We know the signs. We have been here before. We negotiated 
in good faith to avert the last shutdown, the last default threat. We 
opposed the sequester, but that wasn't enough. So here we are, once 
again, and here we will be again in a week, a month, 6 months, a year, 
being asked for more concessions to a minority of extreme Republicans 
who seem to have forgotten that we operate under the rule of law. They 
simply have chosen to ignore it.
  The fact is we passed the Affordable Care Act. It went through the 
legislative process, was signed by the President, tested in the Supreme 
Court, but so what, they say. It does not count. Similar to the 
schoolyard bully, they want a do-over or they will take over your lunch 
money.
  The rightwing Republican minority claims to love the Constitution, 
adheres to the strictest interpretation of its tenets but apparently is 
not interested in living by it or by the rule of law that this Nation 
stands for and lives by.
  They say Democrats have failed to negotiate in good faith and voted 
against trying to reach a compromise. The fact is for 6 months Senate 
Republicans have stood in the way of budget negotiations--what they 
want, negotiations--by blocking requests for Budget Committee members 
to conference with the House of Representatives. They have objected 
over 20 times to those budget negotiations.
  The Senate followed regular order and passed a budget resolution for 
fiscal year 2014 on March 23 of this year. Our budget resolution 
provides just over $1 trillion by replacing the irresponsible 
sequestration cuts while following the spending limit imposed by the 
Budget Control Act. The House wants to keep sequestration cuts by 
funding the government at $976 billion or about $80 billion less than 
the Senate. The fact is we have already compromised with the House by 
agreeing to a continuing resolution at a level of $986 billion--much 
closer to their numbers than to ours. If you ask me, that is more than 
$70 billion in compromising. But they simply will not take yes for an 
answer.
  What the past weeks have shown us is that this is not even about 
budget numbers. They just want to make a political point, and they are 
holding the country hostage in order to make it. They simply do not 
want either the Affordable Care Act or, for that fact, this President 
to succeed. But that train has left the station. The President is 
already turning the economy around from the massive deficits he 
inherited when he took office, and the Affordable Care Act is the law 
of the land.
  Make no mistake, it is not a coincidence that we are here again doing 
the same thing much like ``Groundhog Day.'' Mark my words, we will be 
here again tomorrow and in the future if the Republican shutdown 
strategy continues.
  We are being asked to capitulate yet again at the threat that 
Republicans will keep the government shut down, that they will force 
America to default on its obligations and risk a global consequence and 
America's leadership role in the world.
  It is a deliberate, if fatally flawed, Republican strategy. One might 
go so far as to call it a conspiracy--adopted to achieve through 
bullying what they cannot achieve at the ballot box.
  We know it is a deliberate effort hatched many months ago. In fact, 
it goes back to 2010 when the House Republicans threatened to push the 
Nation into defaulting on its obligations and shut down the government 
unless we agreed to aggressive and deep structural cuts that met their 
political objectives in the midst of one of the deepest recessions in 
our history, a recession President Obama inherited when he took office.
  Then, in November of 2010, the antitax, antigovernment, antispending, 
antiprogress side of the Republican Party exercised their newfound 
power and hamstrung their leadership into rejecting any kind of 
compromise, forcing the House Speaker and majority leader to reject any 
grand bargain proposed by the Democrats. They did it gleefully. It was 
part of their strategy to block any successful effort to actually 
govern. They chose instead to fuel the rightwing flames, burn down the 
house, and bring government to a halt until they achieved their 
objectives.
  From December 2 to December 21, 2010, we enacted four separate 
continuing resolutions to keep the government open--four of them--to 
keep the government functioning until March 4. Let's not forget that 
these appropriations actually cut the Congressional Budget Office's 
projection of discretionary spending from 2013 through 2022 by $400 
billion. But that was not enough. They wanted more.
  On March 2, 2011, as the new deadline approached, we passed another 
short-term CR, taking us to March 18--just 16 days--that cut spending 
by yet another $4 billion. Still not enough.
  On March 16, the deadline approaching once again, we passed another 
continuing resolution, taking us to April 8, with another $6 billion in 
spending cuts. Was it enough? Of course not.
  On April 4, House Republicans applauded the Speaker's announcement to 
begin preparations, for what, yes, a shutdown of the government. 
Clearly, nothing is enough.
  On April 14, just before midnight, the Speaker agreed to the seventh 
short-term extension with more cuts that analysts said would amount to 
an additional $350 million in that year alone.
  All in all, we agreed to $40 billion in total cuts, and we have cut 
even more

[[Page 15599]]

since then, including the current Senate-passed clean funding bill that 
would reopen the government today if the House would just pass it.
  They say we have not taken votes. We have taken a bunch of votes on 
what they have sent us. They have not taken one vote on the one 
resolution we have sent them.
  It is a clear pattern, a clear strategy. They will not stop. They 
will not take yes for an answer, and they clearly will not govern until 
they achieve their political and ideological goal to end government as 
we know it. That has been their plan all along.
  In fact, last Sunday the New York Times reported that after the 
President was sworn in to his second term, a coalition of top 
conservative activists, including former Attorney General Ed Meese, 
along with the Koch brothers, devised a take-no-prisoners legislative 
strategy to derail health care by shutting down the Federal Government. 
Now we are being blackmailed again. As further proof of this take-no-
prisoners strategy, Jonathan Chait of New York magazine recently 
reported on something called the Williamsburg Accord. Mr. Chait wrote:

       In January, [this year], demoralized House Republicans 
     retreated to Williamsburg, Virginia, to plot out their 
     legislative strategy for President Obama's second term. . . .

  They called it the Williamsburg Accord. He said:

       If you want to grasp why Republicans are careening toward a 
     potential federal government shutdown, and possibly toward 
     provoking a sovereign debt crisis after that, you need to 
     understand that this is the inevitable product of a conscious 
     party strategy. . . .

  His article goes on to say:

       The way to make sense of it is that Republicans have 
     planned since January to force Obama to accede to large 
     chunks of the Republican agenda, without Republicans having 
     to offer any policy concessions of their own.

  That is not negotiation. We saw the implementation of that strategy 
beginning early in the spring when we did exactly what Republicans 
wanted. We passed a budget in the Senate, and the House passed a 
budget, and we attempted to go to conference to work out the difference 
between the two. Actually, we have attempted to do that more than 20 
times now, and every single time Republicans have blocked action.
  For 6 months they have refused to talk, they have refused to 
negotiate, they have refused to have a conversation. As we now know, 
this all was planned out from the beginning, going back to their 
January Williamsburg Accord.
  They have intentionally driven us to the edge of the cliff to serve 
their own political interests at the expense of the Nation's economy, 
the jobs of working families, and the retirement savings of our 
seniors.
  Now the GOP's solution to get us out of this Republican shutdown is 
the equivalent of Whac-A-Mole. It is their form of governing. Whatever 
issue pops up that they see a problem with as a result of their 
shutdown, they draft a bill to address a single issue. Last week it was 
national parks. This week it was death benefits for soldiers. What will 
it be next? Anyone who has ever been on the boardwalk and has played 
that arcade game of Whac-A-Mole knows you can never quite get ahead of 
those pesky moles that keep popping up. How long do they plan to govern 
in this way?
  Bill Moyers recently wrote in an essay:

       Despite what they say, Obamacare is only one of their 
     targets. Before they will allow the government to reopen, 
     they demand employers be enabled to deny birth control 
     coverage to female employees; they demand Obama cave on the 
     Keystone pipeline . . . they demand the watchdogs over 
     corporate pollution be muzzled and the big bad regulators of 
     Wall Street sent home. Their ransom list goes on and on. The 
     debt ceiling is next. . . .

  At least let's name this for what it is: sabotage of the democratic 
process.
  Kevin Drum of Mother Jones wrote:

       How do you get across how insurrectionary this is? Raising 
     the debt ceiling isn't a concession from Republicans that 
     deserves a corresponding concession from Democrats. It's the 
     financial equivalent of a new nuclear bomb.

  Warren Buffett used equally stark terms when he said in Fortune 
magazine:

       It ought to be banned----

  Referring to defaulting on the Nation's obligations----

       It ought to be banned as a weapon. . . . It should be like 
     nuclear bombs, basically too horrible to use.

  Clearly, in the name of some misguided allegiance to an extreme 
ideology, a handful of ultraconservative extremists in the Republican 
Party are putting at risk the rule of law. They are putting at risk the 
full faith and credit of the United States, America's influence--as 
well as our obligations--around the world, and our national security, 
embassy security, intelligence collection apparatus, and American 
diplomats, Foreign Service officers, and contractors serving in posts 
around the world.
  This is not a game. Real people are already being hurt by these 
tactics. I find it pathetic that some Republicans are willing to risk 
the full faith and credit of this Nation and inflict unnecessary harm 
on hard-working families and put the very principles of this democracy 
on the line all just to show how ideologically pure they are.
  It is one thing to come to Washington wanting to destroy your 
government. It is quite another to destroy our economy in the process.
  If you want to negotiate, let's negotiate. Let's do it 
constructively, in good faith, and without threats. Let's try, as we 
have tried over 20 times, to get to that moment. Let's reopen the 
government, let's pay our bills, and then we will negotiate.
  It is time to reject the schoolyard bully political strategy that 
Republicans hatched months ago, ratchet down the rhetoric, and do the 
hard work of solving problems together.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I heard the previous speaker plead for a 
solution. I think we are all pleading for that. We are now in our 10th 
day of a government shutdown--quite frankly, one that did not have to 
happen.
  To some extent, it seems that this administration--meaning President 
Obama's administration--is going to great efforts to inflict as much 
pain through this shutdown as possible.
  Mr. President, the administration went to great lengths to try to 
keep World War II veterans from viewing the memorial dedicated to their 
service, the World War II Memorial. It is an open-air memorial. It 
likely took more effort and personnel to close and barricade the 
memorial than it does to keep it open. It is one of those memorials 
where 24/7/365 you can go there. There is no reason it could not have 
been the same way during this recent period.
  The government could be open and fully operating today but for the 
majority and its unwillingness to engage in legitimate debate over 
proposals to amend ObamaCare or any other legitimate issue of dispute. 
With regard to ObamaCare, not to defund or delay it is something that 
is not right in a body that is a deliberative body. You ought to 
consider all issues.
  Instead of wasting a lot of time being in quorum calls or days of not 
voting, there could be legitimate discussions of pieces of legislation, 
and in the process maybe reach some sort of conclusion through what we 
call ``regular order.''
  The House has passed and the Senate has defeated three different 
continuing resolutions. Each one of those would have kept the 
government open and prevented a shutdown. That looks like that is 
something that was debated here and decided here. But it was decided in 
a manner that was not debatable, a motion to table the House 
amendments. These three offers from the House of Representatives were 
rejected by the Senate majority. We are in this position because the 
Senate majority refused to give the American

[[Page 15600]]

people relief from the individual mandate and treat President Obama and 
his political appointees the same as all other Americans when it comes 
to Federal employees and officials being covered by health insurance.
  In addition to negotiating an end to the government shutdown, 
Congress now needs to deal with the approaching debt limit. This will 
be the sixth debt limit increase in President Obama's 5 years in 
office. During President Obama's term in office thus far, the United 
States has added $6 trillion to our national debt.
  We had 4 consecutive years with annual deficits above $1 trillion. 
Federal debt held by the public is now 73 percent of our gross domestic 
product. The historical average has been about 40 percent of GDP. This 
unsustainable debt path is threatening our economic growth and our 
stability.
  This administration is quick to point out that the deficits have 
fallen faster than at any point since World War II. They fail to 
mention, however, that the deficit remains over $600 billion this very 
year from highs near $1.4 trillion. Remember to compare the $600 
billion for this year with the largest annual deficit under President 
Bush of $458 billion.
  Much of the recently improved deficit picture is also due to the 
spending cuts imposed by the Budget Control Act of August 2, 2011, that 
was enacted as part of the last debt ceiling increase. There is no 
better time to negotiate policies to address our fiscal problems than 
when debating debt ceilings.
  But the President and the Secretary of the Treasury maintain that 
they will not negotiate on the debt limit. There happen to be families 
all over this country which, because of the slow economy and 
unemployment, are being forced to make tough decisions to make ends 
meet.
  A lot of those families are looking at their budgets, looking right 
now trying to determine which expenses can be cut. Maybe they will try 
to reduce their cell phone bill or perhaps they will cancel a newspaper 
or a magazine subscription or perhaps eat at home instead of eating at 
restaurants.
  The point is, when families face tight budgets and increasing debt, 
they look for ways to cut spending and get their fiscal house in order. 
That is the prudent thing to do. When bills come due, families make 
tough decisions on where to trim the budget. That is a family example 
of the Federal Government's legitimacy for looking at our spending.
  At the very same time we are trying to increase the debt limit, we 
need to consider possibilities and make compromises to get our budget 
deficit down. Why can't the Federal Government then do the same? Why 
can't we use this opportunity to put our Nation on a sound fiscal 
course? Why can't we work right now to enact policies that will 
hopefully then negate the need to take on more debt.
  This seems to be a reasonable proposition, to do this when you are 
talking about increasing the federal debt. Treasury Secretary Lew and 
his boss, President Obama, have repeated the talking points that 
negotiating deficit reduction policies on a debt ceiling increase is 
unprecedented. They claim that now is not the time to negotiate our 
budget and fiscal problems.
  The President stated last month:

       You have never seen in the history of the United States the 
     debt ceiling or the threat of not raising the debt being used 
     to extort a President or a governing party and trying to 
     force issues that have nothing to do with the budget and 
     nothing to do with the debt.

  The President just does not understand history or even recent history 
when he makes such a statement. President Obama and Secretary Lew can 
make this claim as much as they want, but it does not make sense. It is 
not true. The Washington Post fact checker gave this exact quote from 
President Obama four Pinocchio's, which rates the statement as a 
``whopper.''
  The Post indicated that since 1953, Congress at times has used the 
debt limit as a way to force concessions by the executive branch on 
spending. It also states that the Congress has used the debt limit on 
many occasions to force changes in unrelated laws.
  At least four major pieces of deficit reduction policies were enacted 
as part of a debt limit increase: Gramm-Rudman, 1985; the Budget 
Enforcement Act, 1990; the Balanced Budget Act, 1997; the Budget 
Control Act, 2011. So the facts are very clear. The debt limit has been 
used in the past as a means to enact different deficit reduction 
policies and other reforms. Surely the President knew these facts when 
he made that statement that the Washington Post fact checker rated as a 
``whopper'' with 4 Pinocchio's.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, since 1978, Congress 
has voted to raise the debt ceiling 53 times: 27 of those times or 51 
percent of the time the debt limit increase was tied to reforms. I 
questioned Secretary Lew on this point this morning during our Finance 
Committee hearing. Unfortunately, I got the same tired talking points 
that have been proven time and again to be wrong.
  It is difficult to understand how an administration can expect us to 
take them seriously on the offer of future negotiations when they 
misrepresent such simple facts. The President and Congress must come to 
the table and negotiate policies to get our fiscal house in order. Does 
that put everything on the shoulders of the President of the United 
States? Absolutely not. It is just a fact that in this town, with our 
form of government, for over 225 years Presidential leadership is a 
very important part of the legislative process.
  We have taken steps to address discretionary spending. We did that in 
2011 with the Budget Control Act. Now it is time to tackle 
entitlements. Without reform, entitlement spending will continue to 
consume our budget. They will begin to squeeze out spending on 
discretionary spending, such as defense, education, and infrastructure. 
According to the CBO, spending on entitlements will double as a 
percentage of GDP from the historic average of 6.9 percent to 14.2 
percent by 2038.
  What does this mean for our economy? It means we will need to borrow 
more and more to fulfill our obligations. That will crowd out money 
that would otherwise be loaned in the private sector. This will lead to 
slower growth, less prosperity. It means that future generations may be 
less well-off than previous generations. The longer we kick the 
entitlement can down the road, the bigger the fiscal problems become 
and the harder the solutions will be.
  It is time to make tough decisions and once and for all strengthen 
and secure these programs for future generations. These reforms will 
not take place without presidential leadership. The President must now 
demonstrate courage and the political will to put our Nation on a sound 
fiscal course.
  That is not just the President's responsibility. That is a shared 
legislative responsibility between that end of Pennsylvania Avenue and 
this end. But it requires leadership that will bring people together. 
It requires compromise. It requires concession. Most of all, we need to 
get back to basics. We have to be sitting at a table across from each 
other negotiating. We will not be able to address those looming fiscal 
problems if President Obama is refusing even to sit across the table 
from Members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.
  So I hope he will reconsider his ``no negotiation'' strategy so that 
we can reopen the government, deal with the debt ceiling and begin to 
address our unsustainable long-term fiscal challenges.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
7 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, 
with Senators on the majority side limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I have heard a number of speeches from my 
colleagues on the floor today, both while presiding and in the last few 
moments, that call on President Obama for Presidential leadership to 
help us

[[Page 15601]]

reopen the government, address our serious long-term fiscal issues, and 
move us forward.
  I want to note for the folks who might be watching that the President 
is at this very moment sitting with the leadership of the Republican 
caucus in the House of Representatives. Tomorrow morning, I believe, he 
has invited the Republican Members of this body to the White House for 
conversation.
  I think we agree. One of the core challenges we face as this Federal 
shutdown goes into, I believe, its 10th day is discerning exactly why 
the Federal Government is still shut down. When initially taken over 
the cliff into the shutdown, it was to prevent the implementation of 
the Affordable Care Act. That is what a number of Senators said on this 
floor was their purpose. Now, many days and many unintended and 
unexpected harmful consequences later, we are told what this was really 
all about was to force the President to negotiate.
  I serve on the Budget Committee. We passed, more than 200 days ago, 
more than 6 months ago, a budget on this floor, and we have tried to go 
to conference on that budget now 21 times.
  Yet each time it was blocked, objected to by a small number of 
Senators from the other party.
  Frankly, my expectation, my hope is that we will return to a rational 
rules-following process here, reopen the government, not default on our 
national debt, and begin those serious negotiations, those Budget 
Committee negotiations that are long overdue to deal with the very real 
challenges that are facing our country.
  I wanted to speak today about one of the consequences of shutting 
down our Federal Government. We see new ones every day, and we hear 
about them on the Senate floor. As the days drag on, we hear more and 
more about the impacts of the shutdown, sometimes with surprise, 
sometimes with regret, sometimes with outrage.
  There is a lot on the line, and we have heard a lot about what the 
shutdown means for the various functions of the executive branch and of 
the legislative branch. I have heard colleagues come and speak about 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, about the FDA, about its impact on 
higher education, its impact on families, and its impact on small 
businesses. I have heard many folks come to this floor and comment on 
how the executive branch and its functions that affect communities and 
families all over this country are affected by the shutdown.
  We have heard from our constituents who are trying to reach Senators 
and are trying to seek our help with a variety of Federal services. 
They are frustrated that the legislative branch is largely shut down, 
but there is another branch to our three-branch coordinate government. 
Absent from this debate and discussion is how the shutdown is affecting 
the judicial branch of our government.
  When the Federal Government shut down 10 years ago, the Federal court 
system was initially seemingly largely unaffected because they had 
enough funds in reserve to remain open for 10 business days--a period 
that will come to an end early next week.
  On Tuesday the Federal judiciary of the United States will run out of 
the reserve funds it has been using to stay open. The big question is, 
What happens then?
  The chief judge of the bankruptcy court for the District of Delaware, 
my home State, told me:

       We are really in an uncertain situation, particularly when 
     it comes to employees. I am fearful for them and how they are 
     going to be able to pay for rent and mortgages, and provide 
     food and day-care for their families.

  This is uncharted territory for our Federal judiciary. When the money 
runs out, Federal, circuit, and district courts will each be on their 
own, much like each Senator who has to choose which of his employees or 
her employees are essential, deemed vital, and need to stay, and which 
should be furloughed and stay home, uncertain whether they will be 
paid. Each district court and circuit court will figure out on its own 
how to keep the lights and which employees will keep working without a 
salary.
  As the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and 
the Courts, I have heard from a number of Federal judges this week who 
are frustrated by the amount of time they are spending trying to figure 
out what the shutdown means for their courts and their employees rather 
than doing the job for which they were confirmed, which is to judge 
cases.
  This is an enormous distraction, a profound waste of time. This is 
not advancing our core objective, which should be growing our economy, 
strengthening our country, confronting the fiscal challenges in front 
of us, and working together to achieve some principled compromises in 
the Congress of the United States. In my view, Federal judges should be 
deciding cases, not deciding how to keep their courthouses running 
during this Federal Government shutdown. This needs to end. It could 
end literally today in a matter of minutes if Speaker Boehner would 
bring to the floor and allow a vote on a bill sent over from this 
Senate more than 10 days ago that would allow the Federal Government to 
reopen.
  The judicial branch is not another Federal agency. It is not a 
program that can be suspended or a benefit that can be delayed. It is a 
branch. The Federal court system was created in our Constitution as the 
third pillar of our democracy. It is an independent branch of 
government whose fundamental mission is being undermined by folks, some 
of whom claim to love and to rigidly interpret the Constitution. Yet 
the consequences for our constitutional order of this senseless 
shutdown, I am afraid, will soon become clear in the days ahead.
  The subcommittee has heard from a number of Federal judges and clerks 
this week. I must warn you there are a lot of unanswered questions 
there. The path forward is murky. The central question in the courts--
as it was here in Congress and in the executive branch--is who is 
considered ``essential.'' Is it the people directly involved in the 
resolution of cases or are the staff who support that process also 
expected to work without pay?
  Here is the type of question our judiciary was dealing with today 
instead of resolving disputes or working on long-term cost-saving 
measures. Evidence in our Federal courts these days is typically 
presented electronically to jurors rather than handing out photocopies, 
which is great as long as the technology is working in the courtroom. 
Case files are processed electronically these days as well. But what if 
there is a problem? What if the technology doesn't work and a trial is 
disrupted? At what point does a technological glitch become a 
legitimate due process issue? If the courtroom technology can't get an 
upgrade to fix a bug, will it result in a costly mistrial? The 
Constitution and the Sixth Amendment guarantee criminal defendants a 
right to a speedy trial. What happens when our courts can't live up to 
that Sixth Amendment guarantee because of this ongoing Federal 
shutdown?
  The problem is equally severe in civil and bankruptcy matters. With 
the DOJ's Office of the U.S. Trustee in shutdown status, the number of 
trustee attorneys in Delaware has been cut from seven to two. This can 
dramatically slow the bankruptcy process and leave real jobs and real 
lives hanging in the balance as cases are unresolved and as resolutions 
don't move forward.
  This raises another fundamental question. At what point in this 
ongoing senseless shutdown does our civil justice system fail to live 
up to America's promise as a free market economy grounded in the rule 
of law?
  When an investor anywhere in the world looks to make a bet on a new 
company, a new idea, that investor will obtain certain rights in 
exchange. Those rights may include a share of equity or a priority 
right in the event of liquidation. What gives those rights meaning is 
ultimately a highly functioning, impartial, and reliable court system. 
That historically has been one of our great advantages competitively in 
the world economy. Our courts, even while plagued by persistent 
vacancies, lack of new authorized judgeships, and the sequester, 
continue to perform this vital function. Without these courts, these 
rights mean nothing. Without

[[Page 15602]]

the reliable enforcement of these rights, there is no more new 
investment, no more new job creation, and no more new ideas 
successfully brought to market. We are not the only country in the 
world competing for investment capital and for ideas. When we undermine 
our civil courts, we are being hostile to those very investors who 
could help get our economy back on track.
  The Federal shutdown is already slowing the resolution of civil cases 
involving the Federal Government. Clerks at district courts around the 
country have confirmed to my subcommittee that the Department of 
Justice is requesting continuances broadly and across-the-board and 
trying to juggle the demands of their caseloads with the constraints of 
this reckless shutdown. Think about it. Social Security appeals, civil 
forfeiture cases, business disputes, consumer protection cases, 
Medicare fraud cases, incidents of employment discrimination--they are 
all being pushed to the background. This shutdown is bringing new 
meaning to Dr. King's famous words: ``Justice too long delayed is 
justice denied.''
  Only this morning I heard from the head of Delaware's district court, 
chief judge Gregory Sleet. He said, in essence--no insult intended, but 
his observation was that Congress is letting our country down. The 
subcommittee also spoke with a district court clerk yesterday who 
said--and I thought this was particularly striking--he was glad he was 
nearing retirement so he could escape the dysfunction of the Federal 
Government and our ongoing, seemingly routine manufactured crises.
  This shutdown is exacerbating what is a more profound problem--a 
disregard for the upkeep of our Federal judiciary. More than 90 Federal 
judgeships are vacant. There are 39 vacancies that are deemed 
``judicial emergencies.'' We need to do more to support and sustain the 
staffing, quality, and future investment that is required to make our 
Federal courts work as well as they possibly can.
  I wish to make a point or two in conclusion. First, one of the 
essential questions every district court and circuit court will face is 
which of its employees are essential. After all of the cuts of the 
sequester and all of the burdens and challenges facing our Federal 
Government, aren't all the employees of our Federal judicial system, 
this separate branch, essential? The chief judge for the Third Judicial 
Circuit of the United States believes so, and I agree with him. This 
morning he announced that nearly ``all functions, with few limited 
exceptions, are essential . . . .'' I join the chief judge of the Third 
Judicial Circuit and urge other circuits to follow suit and to 
recognize that this independent third branch of our constitutional 
order is essential.
  Last, this shutdown has dragged morale in our courts and our court 
system to a new low. We in Congress are blessed with a record number of 
attorneys who serve in Congress. It is my hope that this body 
recognizes the unique value of our Federal court system. Our democracy 
cannot afford to furlough justice. We cannot shut the doors to our 
courthouses. It is my hope that Speaker Boehner, following the 
conversation unfolding at the White House, will come back and put to 
the vote an action that will allow the courts and this country to get 
back to work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I understand that the order of the day is that time is 
divided equally until 7 o'clock, with the majority setting a limitation 
of 10 minutes but no limitation on the minority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COBURN. I rise to speak about the issue in front of us. I want to 
spend a few minutes putting things in context. I won't repeat things I 
have said routinely on the floor, but I think it is important for the 
American people to understand where we are in our country.
  Using generally accepted accounting principles--these aren't my 
numbers--we have almost $126 trillion in unfunded liabilities and we 
have $17 trillion worth of debt. We have a lot of obligations in front 
of us. If we add up every asset in the United States--all the bank 
accounts, all the lands, all the possessions, everything we own, plus 
what we own outside of the United States--it comes to $94 trillion. In 
essence, we are almost $50 trillion in the hole. That is called a 
negative net worth.
  I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Delaware. I have the 
greatest admiration for him. I am not one of those who think we should 
be in shutdown. I also am not one of those who think we should just, 
without any solution to our problem, raise the debt limit.
  I would also note that we don't have to have a budget right now in 
the Senate because we agreed to the Budget Control Act, which sets the 
discretionary spending levels for the next 10 years in this country. 
They are set by law. What is important is that appropriations bills 
come through the committees--the House first and the Senate second--so 
that we can address the issues. We didn't do that in the Senate. They 
did about half of them in the House. We wouldn't have a continuing 
resolution--which, by the way, I think all of us agree is very 
difficult for our Federal employees to operate under.
  But I wanted to make a couple of points. One is that in July of 2011, 
after 7 years of oversight, I put out $9 trillion of what I think are 
commonsense eliminations and changes we could make that today would put 
us at a $200 billion surplus instead of a $750 billion deficit. Those 
savings were $3 trillion total in discretionary spending, $1 trillion 
in defense spending, $2.7 trillion in terms of modernization of our 
health entitlement programs, and $1 trillion from the Tax Code. We 
actually have earmarks in the Tax Code for those who are well-heeled 
and well-connected--a benefit--and the average American gets nothing. 
There are interest payment savings of $1.3 trillion and a 75-year 
solvency for the Social Security. That was put out 2\1/2\ years ago. 
Very little of it has been used. As a matter of fact, most people 
haven't read it. It was put out in a binder. We didn't print many 
binders because I am so tight, I don't want to print that many binders, 
but this is what it looks like. It is online. People may read it and 
see if it makes common sense. Most people won't.
  I am going to spend some time outlining some of the things that came 
from that and some of the excesses of the Federal Government.
  Most Americans know we are not efficient. They understand that we are 
not doing a good job spending their money, but they have no idea how 
bad it really is. I have actually spent the last 9 years in oversight 
of almost every segment of the Federal Government. None of us can be 
proud of the way we spend the money. Most of it is very well 
intentioned, honorably intentioned, with minimal oversight, minimal 
control, with over $150 billion of fraud every year, and I am talking 
pure fraud, and with $250 billion of real duplication--programs that do 
exactly the same thing, run by different agencies, with no 
consideration to streamline those. None of those things have been 
considered.
  We won't even do tax reform to get rid of unemployment for 
millionaires. What people don't realize is we paid $60 million out over 
the last 2 years to people who were making $1 million a year. We are 
paying them unemployment. They hardly need the unemployment check. Yet 
we won't even regulate those kinds of things.
  I think we have failed to do our job, and that is a Republican and 
Democratic thing. That is us. That is not a partisan statement.
  The last time the President signed an individual spending bill into 
law--an individual appropriations bill--was 4 years ago. Four years ago 
was the last time he signed an independent appropriations bill into 
law. That tells you Congress hasn't done its job. We haven't passed 
them.
  According to studies, if you poll the American people in terms of the 
sequester, less than one in four felt any impact at all from the 
sequester. And I think the sequester is a terrible way to determine 
spending. I voted against the Budget Control Act for that very reason, 
because we are not responsible

[[Page 15603]]

enough to do the management and the oversight. But most Americans see 
no impact from it, and that is because in what we do there is so much 
waste and mismanagement. There is so much duplication, there is so much 
error that we could easily take that out and most people wouldn't 
notice it. They haven't noticed it.
  Some of our Federal employees have noticed it, but the average 
American, 76 percent of them have never felt any impact from it 
whatsoever. They do not even know it happened. There has been no impact 
on their daily life. Increasing the debt limit and passing another CR 
isn't going to do a thing to eliminate government waste, fraud, or 
duplication.
  It is time we kind of reassess where we are. One of the reasons I am 
against a debt limit increase is because it takes the pressure off 
Members of Congress to make the hard choices. If we raise the debt 
limit, that means we don't have to make the hard choices and we will 
run a deficit again and again. Toward the end of this decade, just 7 
years from now, the deficits start climbing well above $1 trillion 
again--$1 trillion a year. Our deficit is growing twice as fast as our 
economy is--our debt is. It is growing twice as fast as our economy is. 
So we are going down in a hole.
  We ought to be about--Democrats and Republicans--holding hands and 
saying let's stop this nonsense. Let's put some brakes on ourselves. 
Let's put in some limitations so we don't continue to fall prey to 
ducking the very difficult decisions facing this country. Households do 
that, businesses do it all the time. They assess where they are, they 
assess how deep the hole is, because nobody gives them the ability to 
say: You don't have to make those hard choices, we will give you more 
borrowing power. What they do is make those hard choices. We refuse to 
do so.
  Another example. We just finished year end and there is this syndrome 
in Washington called ``use it or lose it.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article from the Washington Post with the lead-in ``As Congress 
fights over the budget, agencies go on their `use it or lose it' 
shopping sprees.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 28, 2013]

 As Congress Fights Over the Budget, Agencies Go on Their ``Use It or 
                       Lose It'' Shopping Sprees

                       (By David A. Fahrenthold)

       This past week, the Department of Veterans Affairs bought 
     $562,000 worth of artwork.
       In a single day, the Agriculture Department spent $144,000 
     on toner cartridges.
       And, in a single purchase, the Coast Guard spent $178,000 
     on ``Cubicle Furniture Rehab.''
       This string of big-ticket purchases was an unmistakable 
     sign: It was ``use it or lose it'' season again in 
     Washington.
       All week, while Congress fought over next year's budget, 
     federal workers were immersed in a separate frantic drama. 
     They were trying to spend the rest of this year's budget 
     before it is too late.
       The reason for their haste is a system set up by Congress 
     that, in many cases, requires agencies to spend all their 
     allotted funds by Sept. 30.
       If they don't, the money becomes worthless to them on Oct. 
     1. And--even worse--if they fail to spend the money now, 
     Congress could dock their funding in future years. The 
     incentive, as always, is to spend.
       So they spent. It was the return of one of Washington's 
     oldest bad habits: a blitz of expensive decisions, made by 
     agencies with little incentive to save.
       Private contractors--worried that sequestration would 
     result in a smaller spending rush this year--brought in food 
     to keep salespeople at their desks. Federal workers quizzed 
     harried colleagues in the hallways, asking if they had spent 
     it all yet.
       ``The way we budget [money] sets it up,'' said Sen. Tom 
     Coburn (R-Okla.). ``Because instead of being praised for not 
     spending all your money, you get cut for not spending all 
     your money. And so we've got a perverse incentive in there.'' 
     But, Coburn said, ``nobody's talking about it but me and 
     you.''
       Coburn said he had meant to mention it in his floor speech 
     Wednesday. Then, when he got to the podium, he forgot.
       ``Use it or lose it'' season is not marked on any official 
     government calendars. But in Washington, it is as real as 
     Christmas. And as lucrative.
       And--it appears--about as permanent. ``We cannot expect our 
     employees to believe that cost reduction efforts are serious 
     if they see evidence of opportunistic spending in the last 
     days of the Fiscal Year,'' President Lyndon B. Johnson wrote 
     to underlings in May 1965. Even then, Johnson said an end-of-
     year binge was ``an ancient practice--but that does not 
     justify it or excuse it.''
       Today, government spending on contracts still spikes at the 
     end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
       In 2012, for instance, the government spent $45 billion on 
     contracts in the last week of September, according to 
     calculations by the fiscal-conservative group Public Notice. 
     That was more than any other week--9 percent of the year's 
     contract spending money, spent in 2 percent of the year.
       Much of it is spent smartly, on projects that had already 
     gone through an extensive review.
       But not all of it.
       In 2010, for instance, the Internal Revenue Service had 
     millions left over in an account to hire new personnel. The 
     money would expire at year's end. Its solution was not a 
     smart one.
       The IRS spent the money on a lavish conference. Which 
     included a ``Star Trek'' parody video starring IRS managers. 
     Which was filmed on a ``Star Trek'' set that the IRS paid to 
     build. (Sample dialogue: ``We've received a distress call 
     from the planet NoTax.'')
       ``That is a major problem,'' acting IRS commissioner Daniel 
     I. Werfel told Congress in June, explaining the role of ``use 
     it or lose it'' in that debacle.
       Other end-of-year mistakes are less spectacular--but they 
     still cause problems. One recent study, for instance, found 
     that information technology contracts signed at year's end 
     often produced noticeably worse results than those signed in 
     calmer times.
       And late-September waste also weighs on its witnesses, 
     federal workers. After President Obama set up an online 
     suggestion box for federal workers, many asked to get rid of 
     the ``use it or lose it'' system. They suggested ``rolling 
     over'' money for use in the next year. And they listed dumb 
     things they had seen bought: three years' worth of staples. 
     Portable generators that never got used. One said the 
     National Guard bought so much ammunition that firing it all 
     became a chore.
       ``When you get BORED from shooting MACHINE GUNS, there is a 
     problem,'' an anonymous employee wrote.
       ``People want to do the right thing,'' said Dean Sinclair, 
     a former State Department employee who is crusading to change 
     the system. ``It's not that the federal workforce is filled 
     with bad people. The system sort of forces them to make bad 
     decisions.''
       He suggests giving bonuses to managers who return leftover 
     money to the Treasury at year's end. ``It takes time and 
     effort to waste money,'' Sinclair said. ``Remember that.''
       Obama, like presidents before him, has exhorted agencies to 
     plan better and avoid rushed decisions at year's end. But the 
     White House says Congress is making that job harder.
       ``Twenty-five percent of my business, right, will happen in 
     this month. Twenty-five percent of my year,'' said Art 
     Richer, the president of ImmixGroup, a contractor in Tysons 
     Corner that helps software and computing companies seeking 
     government business.
       September in Washington used to be a time for selling face 
     to face. Contractors visited the Pentagon. Small-town mayors 
     queued up in the hallways at the Commerce Department, waiting 
     to make a late-night pitch for grants.
       But those buildings are off-limits now. So you sell from 
     your desk. You sell with your voice. You sell with empathy, 
     for the poor harried bureaucrat on the other end of the line. 
     ``Answer the phone smiling,'' Richer tells his people.
       Of course, the feds were stressed.
       ``We see them in the hallway, and you go, `How much money 
     are we going to lose?''' one Army officer said this past 
     week. That officer was involved in setting budgets for future 
     years, and the meaning was clear: How much money are you not 
     going to spend? Whatever that number was, it would be taken 
     out of budgets for fiscal 2015, too.
       This is not normal math. But this was not a normal time in 
     Washington: You didn't save money to spend it later. You 
     spent now, to spend later. ``They know they're under the 
     gun,'' the officer said, who spoke anonymously to talk about 
     internal budgeting discussions.
       On Monday, Immix began bringing its sales team three 
     catered meals a day. If workers walked to Subway, they might 
     lose a sale. On that day, Immix handled $16 million in 
     business. A normal Monday is about $2 million.
       Across the government, agencies were making big-ticket 
     purchases--buying things with this year's money that could be 
     used next year.
       On Monday, VA paid $27,000 for an order of photographs 
     showing sunsets, mountain peaks and country roads. They would 
     go into a new center serving homeless veterans in Los 
     Angeles; a spokeswoman described the art as ``motivational 
     and calming, professionally designed to enhance clinical 
     operations.''
       On Tuesday, the USDA bought $127,000 worth of toner 
     cartridges (``end of year,'' the

[[Page 15604]]

     order explained). VA spent another $220,000 on artwork for 
     its hospitals.
       On Wednesday, the Coast Guard paid $178,000 for cubicle 
     furniture, replacing high-walled cubes with low-walled ones 
     to improve the air flow in a large office area.
       ``Other higher-priority projects were not able to be 
     executed, so they moved [money] to this lower-priority 
     project'' before the year's end, said Coast Guard spokesman 
     Carlos Diaz. ``The money was going to be spent anyway.''
       On Thursday, VA was buying art again. It spent $216,000 on 
     artwork for a facility in Florida. In all, preliminary data 
     showed that the agency made at least 18 percent of all its 
     art purchases for the year in this one week. One-sixth of the 
     buying in one-52nd of the year.
       On Friday, the end was in sight.
       ``I feel good. Four days, right?'' said Corey Forshee, a 
     contracting officer at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. 
     Forshee was part of a team at Andrews that had done its best 
     to beat the September rush.
       The commander, trying to avoid a last-week rush, set his 
     own deadline of Sept. 20. The pizza came early. The 
     chaplain's office visited early (``use it or lose it'' season 
     is traditionally stressful enough to get the chaplain 
     involved). The buying was nearly done.
       Now, they had to wait for the last act of the last act: the 
     ``fall-out money.''
       This was cash that other parts of the Air Force had not 
     been able to spend. It would be redistributed to this office 
     at the last minute.
       ``We're waiting for money for that,'' Forshee said, going 
     down a list of unfunded projects. A roof for the workout 
     area. A bathroom renovation. ``Just waiting for money,'' he 
     repeated.
       Across Washington, everybody had to wait.
       ``It's going to come down to Monday,'' said Richer, at 
     ImmixGroup. On Friday, he said his sales had been about equal 
     to last year's, despite worries about sequestration.
       On Monday, Richer's people will sell until midnight. Then 
     they will keep selling. ``Money rolls across the continent,'' 
     the feds say. Cash not spent in Washington might be spent by 
     federal offices in California in the three hours before it is 
     midnight there.
       When it is midnight in California--3 a.m. in Washington--
     they will keep on. There are federal offices in Hawaii, after 
     all. And it will still be three hours until midnight there.

  Mr. COBURN. Let me give the American people a little taste of what we 
spent in the last week.
  In the last week, the State Department spent $5 million on new 
glassware for all our embassies. Was that something we needed to do? 
No. Was it an absolute requirement that we couldn't operate our 
embassies without another $5 million worth of glassware? No. The State 
Department had $5 million, and if they didn't spend it, they would be 
accused of not needing all their money. So they spent $5 million on 
something that was not absolutely necessary.
  In the last week, VA spent more than $560,000 on artwork. As a matter 
of fact, in the last 2 days. I mean, we are bankrupt. We are running 
three-quarters of a trillion dollar deficit and we are going to buy a 
half million dollars worth of artwork because if we don't spend it on 
something we won't get it next year? Where does that fit in with any 
common sense? Where does that fit with the integrity or the honor that 
will preserve the future of our country? It doesn't. We have to change 
that.
  We have not done things that incentivize Federal employees not to 
spend it and we will give you part of it next year for your budget and 
the rest of it against the debt our kids will have.
  The Coast Guard, in the last day, spent $178,000 on cubicle furniture 
rehab. They signed a contract on the last day and sent the check out 
the door. It may be it needed to be rehabbed, but they made sure they 
got it in this year to consume the money.
  The Agriculture Department, in 1 day, spent $144,000 on toner 
cartridges. Think about it--$144,000. These are all small amounts 
relative to Washington numbers, but the principle is exactly the same.
  On the night before the government closed, the last day of the fiscal 
year, the Pentagon awarded 94 contracts right before midnight. I can't 
get the information on what they were yet, but I will. I will find out 
if they were necessary, if it is something that we needed to have in 
light of our debt and our dysfunction.
  They also spent $5 billion on everything from robot submarines, 
Finnish hand grenades only hours before the closing of the fiscal year. 
So they spent the money, not saying it was a priority, other than it 
was a priority to spend all the money we have because we are afraid we 
might not get enough money next year.
  The Defense Logistics Agency spent $65 million for military helmets 
on the last day, $24 million for traveling wave tubes to amplify radio 
signals.
  How do we think the hundreds of thousands of people who are 
furloughed right now feel about us spending money that way when that 
could be paying them and they could be working?
  We are sick. We need a wakeup call.
  Let me cite a couple others from the Department of Defense just to 
show you how parochialism plays into this. Twelve brandnew--brandnew--
airplanes, C-27J Spartans, were delivered right before the end of the 
year. Guess where they are. They are in mothballs in Arizona in the 
desert because we don't need them. But we spent $567 million for 
something we didn't need. So what do we do? We store them in the desert 
because the humidity is so low. So we take them right off the 
manufacturing line and fly them right to storage. They are not needed.
  We have the same problem on the C-27As in Afghanistan. We spent $596 
million for those. We finally canceled the contracts because the 
supplier couldn't supply the spare parts. And you know what the 
military is getting ready to do, rather than bringing them home or 
giving them to somebody else? They are getting ready to cut them into 
pieces in Afghanistan--$\1/2\ billion worth of airplanes.
  Where is common sense in this country? Why wouldn't we think about 
maybe selling them to somebody else and getting some of our value back? 
But we are thinking about cutting them up.
  Then there is the M1A1 Abrams tank. We had testimony from Secretary 
of the Army John McHugh saying this is the most modern piece of 
equipment the military has. Its average age is less than 2\1/2\ years 
old. We don't need any more M1A1 Abrams tanks, but they are still being 
produced this year to the tune of $3 billion so we can keep people 
employed in a factory making something we don't need.
  Isn't that wonderful? Isn't that a great way to steal the future of 
your kids? But I am sure the politicians where they are made are very 
happy we are continuing to buy something we don't need because it helps 
the economy in their area.
  Despite the sequester, the National Science Foundation is still 
funding hundreds of products and studies that do not fit with common 
sense or a priority. Even if they fit with common sense, they do not 
fit the priority of where we find ourselves financially.
  The Department of Agriculture grants that were announced in the last 
week before we shut down, before we went to the next fiscal year and 
don't have a continuing CR--let me read this and see if you think this 
is how we should be spending our money: 35 wine-tasting projects, wine 
trail smart phone apps. We are going to supply the money for these. The 
Federal Government is going to supply the money for these so you can 
have a good time when you go to whatever vineyard it is. We are going 
to take Federal taxpayer money.
  Those are private businesses. Yet we are spending our grandchildren's 
money on that?
  Four Christmas tree initiatives: Virginia Christmas trees, Michigan 
Christmas trees; training seminars on how you sell Christmas trees.
  You know, Christmas trees are in pretty good demand around Christmas. 
I am not sure you are going to markedly increase the demand for 
Christmas trees by learning how to sell them better.
  The USA pear road show to China; social media for apples, radio 
advertisements--paid for by the Federal Government--for blueberries 
from New Jersey, strawberries, organizing a maple weekend in the state 
of our Presiding Officer--Massachusetts.
  We are spending our grandkids' money, money we are borrowing, to do 
things that are not a priority. They may be a priority to those folks 
who

[[Page 15605]]

get the money, but in terms of our national priorities, they are not 
anywhere close.
  Other examples of ongoing government waste and duplication not 
eliminated but instead funded by the CR: $30 billion for 47 job 
training programs that aren't working. They are not working. The GAO 
says they are not working, we know they are not working, and all of 
them duplicate one another except for three. But we are continuing to 
spend $30 billion a year on them.
  The House has passed a skills act which consolidated all of them. We 
won't even take it up over here. We won't even look at it. It would 
save us about $7 billion or $8 billion a year. They read the GAO 
report, they acted on it, but we won't.
  We have 20 Federal programs across 12 different Federal agencies and 
offices for the study of invasive species. I think we ought to study 
invasive species, but I don't think we need 12 different Federal 
agencies involved in it. And I don't think we need 20 programs on it.
  I mentioned the unemployment for millionaires. That is in the CR. We 
didn't do anything to fix that.
  There is $30 million for 15 different financial literacy programs at 
15 different agencies. We just created a new one at the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau. Rather than eliminate the ones that are 
not working, we are creating more of them.
  There is $947,000 in the NASA budget to talk about foods that can be 
eaten on Mars. We are 30 years away from going to Mars. Yet we are 
going to spend $1 million of taxpayer money we don't have to think 
about foods we might eat 30 years from now on Mars? I don't think that 
is a priority for us right now.
  There is $3 billion on 209 science, technology, engineering, and math 
programs at 13 different agencies. Think about that. We all know we 
need to get it together when it comes to education in our technical and 
scientific areas. But why would we have this many--209--programs, with 
209 different sets of administrators and 209 sets of reporting?
  There is billions of dollars in bonuses and Federal payments to 
contractors who fail to pay their own taxes. We have tried to pass in 
here multiple times that if you are a contractor with the Federal 
Government and you are not paying your taxes, you are either going to 
lose your contract or that tax debt is going to be reduced from what we 
pay you. But we can't get that through. So people who aren't carrying 
their fair share are still reaping the benefits of contracting with the 
Federal Government even though they are tax cheats.
  Here is one small one, but this one really gets me. It is bigger than 
you would think. We have an agency that spends $66 million a year. It 
is the NTIS. I asked GAO to study them. They studied them. In their 
report this year, GAO explained there is an office in the Department of 
Commerce, which is this office, that sells reports to other agencies.
  When we had GAO study this, we found 74 percent of the reports they 
sell to other agencies you can get from this one Web site for free. 
Their budget hasn't gone down, it has expanded. But the need for the 
agency is going away. So why are we continuing to spend $66 million--
which is what we directly spend and doesn't count what they collect 
from all the other agencies--for only 26 percent of the information 
that is not available other than at Google? It makes no sense. It is 
called the National Technical Information Service, and it was 
established in 1950, tasked with collecting and distributing certain 
reports.
  GAO noticed this 10 years ago; they noticed it again now. Congress 
has done nothing. What GAO estimates is 621,917 of the 841,000 reports 
this agency puts out are available for free on the Internet. Go to 
Google and every American can find it for free. All the agencies that 
are paying can find it for free. But we haven't eliminated this agency.
  I will stop with that, and I will make a couple points.
  It is wonderful that we have a difference of opinion in the Congress, 
but we can't have a difference of opinion about where this country is 
headed. We are bankrupt. People don't like to say that word. This is 
America; we couldn't be bankrupt. But from a balance sheet standpoint 
and from an income sheet standpoint, we are bankrupt.
  So what are the American people to do about this? Are we to continue 
to spend money every year to the tune of $500 billion to $1 trillion 
and not make the tough choices or should we do something about it? 
Should there be a resolution to this addiction of spending money we 
don't have on things we don't need?
  As a physician, for every person I have ever encountered who had an 
addiction, the first step in confronting that addiction is to recognize 
the reality of the addiction. Quite frankly, Members of Congress 
haven't done that. The American people have. They are figuring it out.
  The reason I know we haven't recognized the addiction and we are not 
worried--we can say our debt can be such a percentage of GDP. We don't 
have to live within our means. We can handle it as long as we don't get 
above a certain percentage. That is the rationalization of an enabler 
in a family who allows somebody to continue to be addicted.
  Every addiction needs a 12-step program, and the first step is 
recognizing that we are addicted. And we are. So one of the things the 
American people are starting to ask about us, given that we can't even 
pass a CR--and we are going to pass a debt limit increase and not make 
any of the hard choices. They won't be made this year. They won't be 
made next year. The only time we are going to make the hard choices is 
when the international financial community forces us to make those.
  But what Americans are asking now, the confidence is so low, is who 
decides? Do we really represent their thoughts about spending, about 
priorities, about waste?
  If we recognize that all this is there--these trillions and trillions 
of dollars over 10 years that could be changed without any marked 
impact on America, and we don't do anything about it--what they are 
asking is who is deciding? Who decides? Do I represent my constituents 
if I won't try to change these things?
  The confidence level in us, as reflected in the polls, and when you 
talk to anybody, is they don't have any confidence in us because we 
won't admit to our addiction, come together, get on the wagon and solve 
the addiction.
  A long time ago in this body I said there was a rumble out in 
America. It wasn't long after that the tea party came along. I know 
they are thought about with some disdain. They are not crazy. What they 
have done is lost confidence and they want something changed. But it is 
not just the tea party anymore. It doesn't matter your political 
persuasion. They think we don't get it, that we are not willing to make 
the sacrifices of our own political careers to solve the problems. What 
we need to be doing, in my opinion--and my prescription for us is, 
American people, don't let us get out of the box by letting us raise 
again the shackles that are going to be increased by increasing the 
debt in this country. Because if we do--and we will--what will happen 
is we won't perform. We won't make the tough decisions. We won't make 
the sacrifices. There will be no sacrificial leadership on the part of 
Members of Congress. Their sacrifice will be, How do I get reelected, 
rather than I don't care if I lose; our country needs to be fixed, and 
we need to be about addressing that even if it costs me a political 
position.
  When it is all said and done and America has blown through and we see 
the real results of our profligate spending and the hyperinflation and 
the marked decrease in the standard of living in this country, what 
they are going to remember about us is there was a challenge and we 
didn't rise to it. We didn't rise to the occasion. We saw short term 
and we forgot and ignored the long-term consequences of our actions.
  My hope is that will change on both sides of the aisle; that we would 
truly

[[Page 15606]]

embrace a long-term picture and recognize the tremendous difficulty. We 
have heard all this talk about how we have to raise the debt limit; 
otherwise, we are going to default. We are not going to default on our 
bonds, ever. It requires less than 7 percent of our total cashflow that 
comes into this country. We use that as a scare tactic.
  I am not saying we should necessarily not increase the debt ceiling, 
but we sure shouldn't increase it until we have made a commitment that 
we are going to solve the problem, because we will be back here in 1\1/
2\ years doing exactly the same thing with exactly the same excuses 
that say why we can't.
  What America is wanting to hear from us is why we can. They are not 
wanting to hear about division. They are wanting to hear about unity. 
They are wanting to hear about what pulls our country together rather 
than tear it down. The best way to show them is that we are serious 
about solving this problem. I hope that is so.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, this past weekend I was with a group of 
heroes from the ``greatest generation.'' These men and women faced some 
of the biggest challenges our Nation has seen. They put aside their own 
needs to make the country and the world a better place.
  These World War II veterans from Arkansas were flown in on an Honor 
Flight to see their memorial. They didn't have much to say to me 
personally about the shutdown. We talked about it, but talked more 
about the branch of the service they were in, what they did during the 
war, and the various things that happened to them during that period--
and, of course, about Razorback football. We didn't have to spend and 
take time to visit a great deal about the shutdown for me to know their 
thoughts. Their presence alone was enough of a reminder that we need to 
solve this issue.
  As the shutdown drags on, it spills into the debt ceiling discussion. 
These are two major issues with very serious impacts if left 
unresolved.
  To everyone outside of the Beltway, it seems both sides are digging 
their heels in deeper, both sides are ratcheting up the rhetoric, and 
nothing is getting done. The American people are tired of this. 
Dismissing the other side's offers without consideration and trading 
barbs do not help out one bit. No one is being asked to abandon their 
principles. What needs to happen, however, is both sides must respect 
the will of the American people.
  We must find a way to do what the public demands--reopen the 
government and get our spending under control. The President and the 
Senate majority want to say that their health care law is an entirely 
separate issue from this debate. That is simply untrue. It is not the 
way Americans see it. One major reason the American people are 
rejecting it is because of its budget-busting pricetag. We have a 
budget that can't be strained any further. Our debt stands at almost 
$17 trillion, and $6 trillion of that has been added on President 
Obama's watch. You can't take on that much debt and pretend it is not a 
problem. Americans do not have the luxury of telling their credit card 
company to stop calling because they do not want to pay the debt that 
they racked up.
  This mess could be avoided if we simply followed regular order here 
in Washington, but we have not done that in 10 years. What I mean by 
that is during my time in the Senate we have passed one individual 
appropriations bill prior to the end of the previous fiscal year. We 
didn't consider a single appropriations bill on the Senate floor last 
year. Let's return to regular order by passing an annual budget and the 
accompanying spending bills, not one large bill.
  The good news is that many Members on both sides believe we simply 
need to get that done. But that doesn't get us out of our current mess. 
We have to get the government operating again, and we have to avoid a 
default.
  Impassioned debates on major decisions like raising the debt ceiling 
in the past have resulted in positive policy changes. In fact, half of 
the 53 times Congress has agreed to raise the debt ceiling since 1978, 
they have attached conditions to it. The Gramm-Rudman act is a perfect 
example. We talked a lot about the need to cap spending in Washington. 
Gramm-Rudman actually did that, and it led to a balanced budget. Even 
the situation we are currently in with the Budget Control Act was born 
out of this type of constraint. Some in the Chamber still are not happy 
with that, but the Budget Control Act is the first time in a long time 
that we have managed to curb the growth in Washington spending.
  Anyone who has ever bought a house or a car can tell you that it 
takes some time to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. There is lots 
of haggling involved. The owner says here is what it costs. The 
consumer makes an offer in return. This brings a counteroffer and so 
on. This continues until both parties reach an agreement where everyone 
is satisfied.
  But the key to this process is that both parties have to engage in 
the discussion. Everybody needs to come to the table. It is simply not 
enough to say this is where I stand and I will not take any other 
options into consideration. I am fairly certain you will never buy a 
house with that approach.
  The good news is it seems we are heading in a positive direction. I 
believe there is movement toward a consensus. At the very least, both 
sides seem to be coming out of their respective corners and discussing 
their options. We need everyone to come to the table, to develop a way 
forward that puts us on the path to fiscal responsibility. These 
discussions serve as a starting point for how to rein in reckless 
spending so we can eliminate the blank check, the philosophy that has 
become so pervasive in this town.
  If we need inspiration to solve this problem, the men and the women I 
visited with at the World War II Memorial this past weekend are a 
perfect place to look. They have accurately been named the ``greatest 
generation'' in part for their willingness to take on enormous 
challenges because it was the right thing to do.
  We have an enormous challenge in front of us now. Let's follow the 
inspiration of the ``greatest generation.'' Let's put our country 
before ourselves and solve this problem.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the Presiding Officer's permission, I 
ask the clerk to report the cloture motion I have filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S. 1569, a bill to ensure the complete and timely 
     payment of the obligations of the United States Government 
     until December 31, 2014.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Patty Murray, Charles E. Schumer, 
           Richard J. Durbin, Barbara A. Mikulski, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Mark Udall, Bill Nelson, Barbara Boxer, Jon 
           Tester, Brian Schatz, Benjamin L. Cardin, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Maria Cantwell, Tim Kaine, Elizabeth 
           Warren.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum required under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 15607]]



                          ____________________