[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7321-7325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H. CON. RES. 25

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it has now been 59 days since the Senate 
and the House passed our budget resolutions. The American people are 
now expecting us to get together and do everything possible to bridge 
the partisan divide and come to a bipartisan deal. On this side the 
Senate Democrats are ready to get to work. Unfortunately, despite their 
focus over the past 2 years on the need to return to regular order, 
Republicans have been refusing to allow us to move to a bipartisan 
budget conference.
  Many Republicans, including the ranking member on the Budget 
Committee, Senator Sessions, had been very clear up until recently that 
after the Senate engages in an open and fair budget markup process--and 
these are his words--``the work of conferencing must begin.''
  Minority Leader McConnell said in January that if the Senate budget 
is different from the House budget, then ``send it off to conference. 
That's how things used to work around here. We used to call it 
legislating.'' I could not agree more with Minority Leader McConnell's 
words from back in January. Over the past few weeks we have tried to 
move to conference eight times, and each time Senate Republicans have 
stood and said no.
  They have managed to stall for weeks now, but their excuses for not 
wanting to move to conference are changing. At first Republicans told 
us that we needed ``a framework'' before they would allow us to move to 
conference, although they never explained what that meant. And, 
frankly, a budget is a framework. Then the story changed, and they told 
us they would only let us move to conference if we made certain 
guarantees about the outcome. Then last week the story changed again, 
and Senate Republicans claimed that despite the fact that we engaged in 
a fair and open budget process in the Senate less than 2 months ago, 
they think we need a do-over, with another 50 hours of debate on top of 
the 50 hours we have already done and another round of unlimited 
amendments on top of the unlimited amendments that were moved already.
  This is absurd. First of all, to claim that regular order involves a 
second full Senate budget debate is simply not true. The Senate has 
never been forced to go through a full debate and open amendment 
process twice just to get to conference--not one case. Completely 
unprecedented. In fact, every single time since 1994 that the Senate 
moved to conference, it was done by unanimous consent, with bipartisan 
support, which is the way it ought to be done.
  Second of all, the Senate engaged in a full and open debate in which 
any Member could offer any budget amendment they wanted to. We did that 
a few months ago. I know all of my colleagues remember this. I 
certainly remember this.
  I would be happy to quote some of what was said about the process if 
any reminders are needed because as that debate came to a close in the 
wee hours of the morning, Minority Leader McConnell said the Senate had 
just engaged in ``an open and complete and full debate.'' He continued 
and said, ``I know everyone is exhausted, and people may not feel it at 
the moment, but this is one of the Senate's finest days in recent 
years, and I commend everyone who has participated in this 
extraordinary debate.''
  My ranking member, Senator Sessions, said the Budget Committee markup 
was ``an open process'' where ``everybody had the ability to offer 
amendments.''
  Senator Sessions said on the floor, as debate was wrapping up, he was 
thankful that the Republicans had ``free ability to speak and debate'' 
and for ``helping us move a lot of amendments fairly and equitably 
tonight.''
  There is no question the Senate engaged in a fair and open and 
lengthy debate about the budget before we passed it. There is 
absolutely no good reason to ask that we do this all over unless the 
intention is to simply stall the process and push us closer to a 
crisis.

[[Page 7322]]

  Instead of scrambling to find new excuses for their budget conference 
flipflops, I hope Senate Republicans realize their opposition to 
bipartisan negotiations is not sustainable and will not allow us to get 
to the table and move on this matter.
  I know there are Members who do not agree with the budget that was 
passed. They will have another opportunity to fight for changes in a 
bipartisan conference, which is how we do this. That is the responsible 
and appropriate path forward, and I hope the Senate Republican leaders 
decide to move back to the position they maintained just a few months 
ago. I know a number of our colleagues on the Republican side have said 
to me privately and in public that they believe we should move to 
conference. I hope we can do that. The challenges before our country in 
terms of our debt and deficit and the investments that need to be made 
and the certainty that Americans are looking to us for cannot be 
completed until we go to conference and work out our differences and 
come back and move this forward.
  I hope this time when I ask for unanimous consent to go to conference 
Senate Republicans will join with us so the American people can see an 
open conference move to a debate and solve this very challenging 
problem we have in front of us.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration 
of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the 
desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the 
Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, 
be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table; 
that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the 
House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and that the chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, all with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, it has now been 59 days that 
the opposition has been trying to orchestrate a backroom deal to raise 
the debt ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling is an incredibly important 
debate and shouldn't be done in the back room by a few people. It 
shouldn't be done through parliamentary trickery or chicanery. It 
should be done out in the full and open and under the ordinary rules of 
the Senate.
  We are now borrowing $40,000 every second, $4 billion a day. We must 
borrow from China to run the ordinary functions of our government. In 
fact, it is worse. We borrow from China to send money to China. We 
borrow money from China to send money to Pakistan. We build bridges in 
Pakistan with money borrowed from China. It can't go on. No American 
family can continue to spend money endlessly that they don't have.
  All we are asking is for a commonsense resolution that says we can't 
keep borrowing.
  What I ask is unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request 
so that it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference 
report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt 
limit. I ask that as a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will reserve the right to object to the modification, 
and I will object in just a moment.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
that for 4 years--for 4 years--we complained about the fact that the 
majority leader, whom I see on the floor, refused to bring a budget to 
the floor of the Senate. Then, in what most of us believe was a proud 
moment--I thought it was a pretty tiring experience at my age, voting 
all night--we approved or disapproved of 70 meaningless amendments.
  The fact is, we did a budget. All of us patted ourselves on the back, 
and we were so proud that we did the budget. By golly, now we will move 
with the House of Representatives and we will have a budget and, 
hopefully, at least begin negotiations with the House of 
Representatives, in which the majority is Republicans--not Democrats, 
Republicans. We would decide we were going to do that. Now we are going 
to, according to the objection and the unanimous consent that was just 
asked for, in an unprecedented way, put restrictions on the conferees.
  The way we usually do it is what I am about to do; that is, we 
instruct the conferees. We don't require the conferees because that is 
why we appoint conferees, and that is why we approve or disapprove of 
the result of that conference. That is how our laws are made, and that 
is how our budgets are made.
  What do we keep doing? What do we on my side of the aisle keep doing? 
We don't want a budget unless we put requirements on the conferees that 
are absolutely out of line and unprecedented.
  All I say to my colleagues is, can't we, after all those hours--I 
forget what hour in the morning it was--after all those votes, after 
all that debate and all that discussion, we came up with a budget and 
now we will not go to conference, why is that?
  I will object to the modification the Senator from Kentucky just 
asked for in a moment, but I would first ask consent that the original 
request by the Senator from Washington include two motions: to instruct 
the conferees, one related to the debt limit, and one related to taxes. 
That is the way we should do business in the Senate. It is instructions 
to the conferees.
  The Senator from Washington may not like those instructions, but the 
fact is that is the way we do business, not require the conferees to 
take certain measures. If my colleagues on this side of the aisle think 
we are helping our cause as fiscal conservatives by blocking going to a 
conference on the budget--which every family in America has to be on 
because of certain requirements they demand--then we are not helping 
ourselves with the American people at all.
  I will object to the modification proposed by the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  I would first ask consent that the original request by the Senator 
from Washington include two motions to instruct the conferees: one 
related to the debt limit and one related to taxes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request for further 
modification?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, we are talking about two 
different issues. We have passed budgets year in and year out. We 
continue to pass budgets. Of course, the budgets on our side don't 
raise taxes; the budgets on the other side raise taxes by $1 trillion. 
There are parliamentary rules for how we address separate issues such 
as the debt ceiling.
  What we are concerned about, and all we are asking the opposition to 
do--including opposition within both parties to do--is that the debt 
ceiling vote be a separate vote and that it not be stuck in the dead of 
night in a conference committee with very few people, selected by very 
few people. We have a big party on our side that can include people 
with many different opinions, some who are very concerned about the 
debt ceiling and the direction of our country and some who are 
concerned very much about the debt, so much so that our resilience will 
not flag. We will maintain the position that throwing our country into 
further debt is wrong for the country. I think most Americans can 
understand that.
  We are $16 trillion in debt. We are passing this debt on to our 
children. It is inexcusable. Somebody must make a stand. Several of us 
are making a stand--not against a budget but in saying we cannot keep 
raising the debt ceiling; we cannot keep adding debt to our country. 
This burden is going to be passed on to our kids and grandkids. We are 
making a stand, and so I object to a modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Is there objection to the 
original request?
  Mr. PAUL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I just want to associate myself with 
the

[[Page 7323]]

comments of the Senator from Arizona. It is accurate that no one on our 
side of the aisle supported the final budget.
  The fact is, for the first time in years, a budget was brought to the 
Senate floor. Senator Murray presided over a very open process with 
debate and with plenty of opportunity for amendments to be offered. 
There is simply no reason the very reasonable approach suggested by 
Senator McCain that would allow us to go to conference should not be 
adopted.
  We have called repeatedly for a return to regular order in this body. 
Regular order is going to conference. Both the House and the Senate 
have passed budget resolutions, and it is important that there be a 
conference committee to work out the differences, which are 
considerable, so that we will have a framework with binding allocations 
for the Appropriations Committees.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question, just one question?
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that the people with whom the conference 
would be held on the other side of the Capitol happen to be a majority 
of our party? So we don't trust the majority party on the other side of 
the aisle to come to conference and not hold to the fiscal discipline 
we want to see happen; isn't that a little bit bizarre?
  Ms. COLLINS. It certainly is ironic at the least. It is an 
opportunity for the Republican House to argue for its budget.
  I voted against the final version of the Senate budget, but I think 
we should go to conference and try to work out an agreement. The 
instructions suggested by the Senator from Arizona are entirely 
reasonable.
  Let's get on with the process. Let's do what the American people 
expect us to do; that is, to negotiate a conference report that then 
would be brought back to both Houses for consideration. That is what I 
urge my colleagues to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I, of course, admire--and have for many years now--the 
chairman of the Budget Committee. She is a renowned Senator. She is 
very good at what she does. We are very proud of her.
  We have just heard something that is unusual. We heard my friend from 
Arizona--the Senator and I came together to Congress some 30-odd years 
ago--and another outstanding Senator, Ms. Collins from Maine, come up 
with a novel idea. It is kind of old-fashioned, but it is called 
regular order.
  What they are saying we should do is go to conference. We have had in 
years past many motions to instruct. That is the way we used to do 
things around here. To get off-base on a debt ceiling matter has 
nothing to do with what we are doing. Let's go to conference. I don't 
know if when we go to conference we will get anything out of it, but we 
are sure going to try.
  That is what this is all about. I can't imagine why after 2 months--
after 2 months--we can't go to conference and work something out.
  The Republican leader has told me for a couple of years: Why don't we 
do our appropriations bills? We have the former chair of the 
Appropriations Committee, who is now the ranking member on the 
Agriculture Committee, he knows as much as anyone here about financial 
matters. He is a man who is a humble man, doesn't talk a lot--and I 
don't want to speak for him--but I think everyone here wants this 
institution to continue, wants us to do regular order.
  I have heard this hue and cry for quite some time on the other side. 
I admire and appreciate very much the Senator from Arizona instigating 
old-fashioned regular order, which we need to do in this body a lot.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. REID. There is nothing to object to.
  Mr. CRUZ. The issue before this body is not a budget. The issue 
before this body is not going to conference. The issue before this body 
is one thing in particular: It is the debt ceiling and whether the 
Senate will be able to raise the debt ceiling using a procedural back 
door that would allow only 51 votes.
  My friend from Nevada, my friend from Washington State, both of them 
could go to conference on the budget right now today if they would 
simply agree this budget would not be used as a back door to use a 
procedural trick to raise the debt limit--not on 60 votes but on 50 
votes.
  I commend their candor, because neither one of them is willing to 
make that representation, and that is commendable. But I would point 
out that nothing in the budget we debated raised the debt ceiling. I 
would suggest the American people are not interested in procedural 
games. I think they are tired of games by the Democrats and tired of 
games by the Republicans. What they are interested in is leadership in 
this body to address the enormous fiscal and economic challenges facing 
this country.
  Our national debt is nearly $17 trillion. It is larger than the size 
of our entire economy. In the last 4 years our economy has grown 0.9 
percent a year, with 23 million people struggling to find jobs. This 
body should be debating every day how we get the economy moving, how we 
get people back to work, how we stop our unsustainable debt. Instead of 
doing that, 2 weeks ago we spent a week voting to add $23 billion in 
new taxes to small retailers online, creating an Internet sales tax--
going backwards, killing economic growth and killing jobs.
  This issue is very simple: Will the Senate allow a procedural back 
door to raise the debt ceiling and doing so while not fixing any of the 
problems?
  My friends on the Democratic side of the aisle believe we should 
raise the debt ceiling with no conditions, with no changes, with no 
spending reforms, with no progrowth reforms, with nothing to stop this 
unsustainable spending. The President likewise has said: Raise the debt 
ceiling with no conditions. That is why, I would submit, the majority 
leader is not willing to agree: No, this budget conference report will 
not be used to raise the debt ceiling, because it is precisely the hope 
to do so. This body may well vote to raise the debt ceiling. But if 
this body votes to raise the debt ceiling, we should do so after a fair 
and open debate, where the issue is considered and where the threshold 
is the traditional 60-vote threshold and we can address what I think is 
imperative--that we fix the problem.
  When I travel across the State of Texas, men and women stop me all 
the time and say: Enough of the games. Go up there, roll up your 
sleeves, work with each other and fix the problem. Getting a new credit 
card--jacking up the debt ceiling--with no spending reforms, no 
structural reforms, no progrowth reforms is a mistake and it is the 
wrong path.
  Mr. PAUL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Here is the problem. The people in my State are saying 
the same thing: Roll up your sleeves and attack the problems. Because, 
guess what. I remember when this budget was balanced, when Bill Clinton 
was President. It took literally a few months before George W. Bush 
gave a tax break and put it on the credit card, two wars on the credit 
card, and the debt was off and running.
  But put that aside, we are where we are. Does my friend not think if 
we could get into a conference--and I know a lot of us here have been 
in tough conferences--that is where we would roll up our sleeves? I say 
Patty Murray and Paul Ryan are ready to roll up their sleeves and get 
to work. Why would my friend want to give instructions--of course, I 
would love to give instructions. I would like to give instructions the 
richest of Americans pay the same effective tax rate as their 
secretaries. I would love to do that. I would love to order that, but I 
wouldn't do that.
  Let Patty Murray and Paul Ryan and the respective committees get in 
there, in an open process, and come

[[Page 7324]]

back. Doesn't my friend understand what he is calling for, when he says 
roll up your sleeves and get to work, is exactly what Senators Murray, 
McCain, Collins, and lots of us want to do, those of us who believe we 
need to use regular order? Can my friend comment on that?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from California for that question. She 
may well be right, that one of the reasons spending is out of control 
is that we no longer have Bill Clinton as President and a Republican 
Congress. Instead we have President Obama who has expanded spending 
more than any other President in modern times.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator skipped over George W. Bush, who caused the 
deficits. But let's not argue that.
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from California, but I have been quite 
vocal that both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to getting 
us in this mess, and we need leadership from both parties to turn it 
around.
  I would note in the question the Senator from California raised, she 
did not say one word about not raising the debt ceiling using 51 votes. 
And everything else about this debate is all smoke. It is all about one 
thing, which is do we give an unlimited credit card to the Federal 
Government to raise the debt ceiling $1 trillion, $2 trillion, $5 
trillion, $10 trillion.
  If the result of reconciliation was raising the debt ceiling $10 
trillion, it would come back----
  Mr. PAUL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for one more question? Then I will 
yield the floor.
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield as soon as I finish this point. I will 
be happy to yield after that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
  Mr. CRUZ. If we went to a conference committee and it came back on 
reconciliation to raise the debt ceiling by $10 trillion, then under 
reconciliation rules, 51 Senators--only the Democrats--could vote to do 
so, and the Republicans would be utterly silenced from participating in 
anything there. It may well be----
  Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator 
expect the House of Representatives, a Republican majority in the House 
of Representatives, would not participate in that vote?
  Mr. CRUZ. What I expect is that each of us is obliged to carry out 
our responsibility to defend the interests of our States. I have 26 
million Texans who I am not willing to go to and say, if they ask me: 
Why did you go along with the procedural game to raise the debt 
ceiling, to allow Republicans in the Senate to be shut out, to give up 
any ability to force progrowth reforms, to get jobs back, to get the 
economy back, to get people working, why did you give up----
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Does the Senator expect he would not have a vote at the end of a day 
after a conference comes back from the House of Representatives?
  Mr. CRUZ. We may well have a vote, but if we had a vote----
  Mrs. MURRAY. And isn't that a democratic process?
  Mr. CRUZ. The vote would be a 51-vote threshold, which would mean--
and my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle have been very 
explicit that in their collective judgment the debt ceiling should be 
raised with no conditions. Given that----
  Mrs. MURRAY. Can the Senator answer my question? Does the Senator 
from Texas understand the House of Representatives also would have to 
pass this? They are a Republican majority.
  And, by the way, we are not talking about whether we should pay the 
bills this country is already obliged to pay. We are talking about 
putting a budget framework forward for the next 10 years. We had a 
terrific debate about that and the Senator from Texas participated in 
that and offered amendments. He had an opportunity to do that.
  The House of Representatives did the exact same thing. At the end of 
the day, the way a legislative democratic process works is the two 
bodies come together and it will have to pass whatever our conference 
agrees to with a majority of Republicans in the House and a majority in 
the Senate with Democrats. That is going to be where the Senator from 
Texas will have an opportunity to say yes or no to a conference.
  So I don't understand the Senator saying he would not participate. He 
has a vote. That is how the Senate works.
  Mr. CRUZ. I appreciate the efforts of my friend from Washington to 
defend the prerogative of the Republican House. What I would suggest is 
that each of us has a responsibility to our States.
  Mrs. MURRAY. With your vote.
  Mr. CRUZ. With our vote, but also to defend the ability to have our 
vote matter, to have it make a difference. Because if this procedural 
trick is allowed to go forward, what it would mean--this fight right 
now is the fight over the debt ceiling. Because what it would mean, if 
we go to a conference committee, as sure as night follows day, we would 
find ourselves in a month or two with a debt ceiling increase coming 
back and the Democrats in this body voting to raise the debt ceiling 
with no conditions whatsoever, which is what the President has asked 
for.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question? And I thank him so 
much.
  Listen, let's cut through what is happening and tell me where I am 
wrong, and I would respect the Senator's answer. The Senator represents 
a lot of folks, I represent 38 million, so we are two big States and we 
owe a lot to our people. That is for sure. What is happening here today 
is very clear. The Republicans, except for Senator McCain and Senator 
Collins, who were here, are stopping us--this Nation--from having a 
budget, and they are saying their reason is that something might happen 
in the conference. Well, that is not the way we work in a democracy. 
Anything can happen at any moment.
  Let's get into that conference. Paul Ryan has a budget that I think 
is apocalyptic and that the Senator from Texas may well support. Patty 
Murray has a budget that the Senator probably thinks is apocalyptic. 
They want to get into that conference and they want to work together. 
That is called democracy.
  I will close with this and ask my friend to respond. Ronald Reagan 
supported raising the debt ceiling about 18 times. He put out a number 
of statements that were totally counter to my friend's. Ronald Reagan 
said--and I am paraphrasing, and I will get the exact quote and put it 
in the Record, as I have done in the past--even thinking about 
defaulting on the government's bills is enough to send shock waves 
through the country.
  The last time the Republicans played that game it cost us $19 
billion. We cannot afford that. My friends say they are conservatives, 
but they are leading us down that road. I beg them to think about what 
they are doing. I beg them to have faith and trust in this democracy. I 
beg them to let the people who are very responsible in the House and in 
the Senate, who are on different wavelengths when it comes to this 
budget, get to work. And to quote my friend, let them get to the place 
where they can roll up their sleeves and get the job done.
  I think by my friend's continuing presence to stop us from having a 
budget, he is doing a great disservice not only to this country but to 
his party.
  That is it for me.
  Mr. PAUL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRUZ. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. PAUL. This is a debate, and it is a good debate, because it is a 
debate about the debt ceiling. I am actually in favor of allowing the 
debt ceiling to go up under certain conditions where we reform things. 
I think it is unconscionable not to do anything, to simply say: Here is 
a blank check, keep doing what you have been doing.
  We are running the country into the ground. We are borrowing $40,000 
a second. Should we not talk about reform in the process? Many of us 
supported last time around raising the debt ceiling in exchange for a 
balanced budget amendment. Seventy-five to 80 percent

[[Page 7325]]

of the public thinks we should balance our budget. They have to, why 
shouldn't we?
  I would ask the Senator: Is he not hearing from his people at home 
that the debt ceiling should not be done in secret, that it should be 
done, and if it is going to be done, it should be attached to 
significant budgetary reform?
  Mr. CRUZ. I thank my friend from Kentucky, and that is exactly what I 
am hearing from men and women throughout Texas.
  I would note for the Senator from California and the Senator from 
Washington that I respect the sincerity of their beliefs, that they 
genuinely believe the Democratic budget passed by this body is the 
proper course for this country; that the proper course is to raise 
taxes yet another $1 trillion on top of the $1.7 trillion that taxes 
have already increased. They genuinely believe the proper course is 
never to balance the budget and allow massive deficits to extend into 
perpetuity.
  I respect the sincerity of their views, but at the same time I 
believe those views are inconsistent with the best interests of this 
country; that the best interests of this country are to restore 
economic growth, are to get back to historic levels of growth that 
allow small businesses to thrive and, in particular, allow the most 
vulnerable among us to work and to achieve the American dream.
  In the last 4 years, under President Obama, we have had 4 consecutive 
years of less than 1 percent average growth in the economy. I refer to 
this period as the ``great stagnation.'' The people who have been hurt 
the most during the great stagnation have been young people, have been 
Hispanics, African Americans, and single moms. Right now, if we look at 
unemployment, unemployment for those without a high school degree is 
over 11 percent, for Hispanics it is nearly 10 percent, for African 
Americans it is nearly 14 percent, and for young people it is over 25 
percent.
  When this country has massive spending, massive debt, massive 
regulation, and massive taxes, the result is that small businesses are 
strangled and die, and the people who lose their jobs are the single 
moms who are struggling to provide for their kids at home, like so many 
moms now seeing their hours forcibly reduced to 29 hours a week because 
of the burdens of ObamaCare. I believe we have an obligation to the 
American people to focus every day on turning the economy around, on 
getting jobs back, and stopping our unsustainable debt.
  My friend from California made reference to the prospect of a 
default. I absolutely agree the United States should never, ever, ever 
default on its debt, and that is the reason why I strongly support the 
legislation introduced by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, 
the Default Prevention Act, which says: In the event the debt ceiling 
is not raised, the United States will always pay its debts, pay the 
interest on its debts, so we never default.
  I would note my friends on the other side of the aisle right now 
could join together in taking default off the table entirely.
  (Several Senators addressed the Chair.)
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator to yield for one final question. I 
know they want to keep talking.
  Mr. CRUZ. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The irony of this is really astounding. By objecting to 
us going to conference, the Senate Republicans who are objecting are 
actually putting us right in the position of being in the place where 
the debt ceiling, by virtue of timing, will have to--may be part of the 
budget conference because the House of Representatives wants to appoint 
conferees and have a budget done fairly quickly once they appoint 
conferees because they have told us they do not want to go through a 
series of votes as we all did. I think it is 20 days. If my colleagues 
object to going to conference at this point----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Now 5:30 having arrived----
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. By objecting to going to conference right now, what 
Senate Republicans who are objecting are doing is pushing us to a place 
where the debt limit, by virtue of timing, may be a part of the 
discussion. I ask the Senators to think about what they are doing by 
their objection, in forcing us into that position, and suggest that by 
allowing us to go to conference--we will have a better chance of not--
--

                          ____________________