Sequester for Congressional Pay and Accountability Act

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the policy changes and choices made in Washington and how they affect the spending and the well-being of so many people all around this great country. There has been a great deal of talk recently about how we can get our out-of-control Washington spending under control. How can we curb spending?

We also need to keep in mind some of the policies of the Obama administration and how they have impacted spending and how they have created economic conditions that have forced many of these hard choices to be made by American families. I believe our weak economic recovery is a result of bad policy choices that have cost Americans their jobs, and it has cost them dollars--money--they cannot spare.

The list of the administration's bad policy choices is long and, in my opinion, right at the top of that list is the President's health care law. Last week, we learned from a GAO study requested by Senator Sessions that the President's health care law will add $6.2 trillion to Washington's debt. Of course, that is debt on the back of every young person in America and on the back of future generations. It is a debt upon the entire Nation.

It is also adding to the financial burden in this country. Recently, the Obama administration has released more rules for how this health care law will be implemented. The new regulations that have just come out lay out something called ``essential benefits.'' These are the government-mandated items that health care policies will now have to offer.

Along with other parts of the health care law, these new rules will raise the premiums American families pay for their health coverage. That is not what the American people wanted, that is not what they were promised by the President, and that is not what they need during this difficult economic time.

Remember, President Obama promised that under his health care plan insurance premiums, he said, would go down $2,500 for the average family by the end of his first term. That has come and gone, but what the President promised the American people has not happened. Instead, premiums have gone up by an average of more than $3,000 family.

As more provisions of the law kick in, I can tell you it is going to get worse. As the Obama administration puts out more regulations, premiums are going to continue to go up and up. The American people are in for a serious case of premium sticker shock.

This is especially true for young people, people in their twenties, people in their thirties. That is not just my prediction. It is the warning we are getting from State officials who actually supported the President's health care law. Of course, they supported it before they knew what was in it.

The State insurance commissioner in Oregon has said the new regulations could push up premiums for young consumers by as much as 30 percent next year. According to a recent piece in the Los Angeles Times, that was not an accident. It was an intentional effect of trying to lower prices for older Americans by raising the prices for younger people. In fact, the cost-shifting was a top priority of the AARP during the debate.

Of course, I believe the administration was not honest about it. They did not come out and tell young people: Hey, you are going to have to pay a

higher premium so someone else pays less. No. Democrats in Congress and the White House tried to say young people were going to pay lower prices, but now we are seeing it was never true.

The premium increases are also going to be worse if you do not get insurance through your employer. That is because you may end up in the individual market. A recent Gallup poll found that fewer people are getting their insurance through work. Just since 2008, the number has dropped significantly. Among people between the ages of 18 and 25 years old, only 32 percent now get their health insurance through work.

Healthier people--people who take the time to focus on staying healthy--are actually going to pay more too. Even if you eat a good diet, you exercise, you do the things people would be encouraged to do so they do not get sick, you are going to pay more under the President's health care law.

According to a new survey of insurance companies, younger and healthier customers can expect premium increases of 169 percent, on average, in 2014. That is in the individual market, that more people will find themselves forced into as their employers drop coverage.

The Congressional Budget Office says that even when you take into account the subsidies some of these people will get under the law, premiums will still go up an average of 10 to 13 percent even after the subsidies are applied.

If that happens, a family buying coverage on its own may end up paying $2,100 a year more because of the health care law. You might ask yourself, why are the premiums going up so fast? It is because of the law's new requirements.

For one thing, there is something called the essential health benefits. We just got new rules on these from the administration. Those are the specific mandates that require insurance plans to cover a wide range of services. For most consumers it is going to mean a more extensive and longer list of benefits. That might sound good, but they may be for things the consumers do not want. It does not matter. Under the law, the consumers have to pay for them. It is still higher costs-- much higher costs. People cannot just get the insurance they and their family want, that is right for them, and they can afford. No, that is not enough. They must buy Obama administration-approved health insurance. That is what they have to buy. That is what the law says, and it is going to be much more expensive than what they might want, they might need or they can afford and think is good for them.

Families are going to have to pay for insurance that covers the whole laundry list of benefits, whether they want them or not. Why should the government--Washington--tell a single 33-year-old man he has to pay for ovarian cancer screening? Why should someone without children have to pay for a plan that covers pediatric eye exams? Even the American Academy of Ophthalmology has said that requirement goes too far. They are worried that once insurance has to cover it, there will be overuse of comprehensive eye exams on children who do not even need them. Of course, that may happen. If it is covered by insurance, people are going to want more of it. That drives up health care costs, and health insurance costs go up even more.

To make matters worse, the law requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to update the list of these benefits every year. These are the benefits you still may not want--certainly do not want to be forced to pay for--but you are stuck with them now. We all know this list is not going to get any shorter. It is going to grow longer, and the costs are going to continue to go up.

That is what has happened at the State level. Health insurance mandates in some States now include everything from circumcisions to breast implant removal, and mandates add anywhere from 10 to 50 percent to the cost of insurance.

It is no way to run a health care program. Consumers should decide what benefits they want, what benefits they think they may need, not Washington bureaucrats.

Finally, I will give just one more example of how the new rules will drive up premiums. This has to do with new age rating rules in the law. The age rating limits the amount premiums can vary between healthy younger individuals and unhealthy older consumers. This is the most direct way Democrats are taxing the young to pay for everyone else.

Under the President's health care law, the premium charged to a sicker older person cannot be more than three times what a healthy 21- year-old has to pay. So those younger people are going to end up paying more. Rather than pay the higher cost, many younger people will just not purchase insurance at all. They will just pay the law's tax penalty instead. That is because it is still cheaper than the insurance premiums that have been driven up due to the President's health care law. That means premiums will go up even faster for the people left in the insurance pool, and the whole thing will keep spiraling out of control.

The White House says it will not budge on these age-rating rules. So people in their twenties and thirties and early forties should just prepare themselves now for the premium hikes they are going to see under the President's health care law.

Those are just a few of the new rules and just a few of the ways the health care law continues to raise costs and raise premiums for hard- working Americans. It seems to me the President is still in his campaign mode, so he will not admit it, but he is not fooling anybody.

I recently completed a statewide tour of Wyoming. I visited a dozen towns across the State and met with hundreds of people. I can tell you, in those meetings, people still say the health care law is unworkable, it is unaffordable, and it remains very unpopular.

The people of Wyoming, as did people across the country, knew what they wanted from health care reform. They wanted the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at lower costs. What they got were higher premiums, higher taxes, and more government control over their personal health care decisions.

When the new rules were released 1 week ago, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said: ``Being sick will no longer keep you, your family, or your employees from being able to get affordable health coverage.''

What she should have added was: The President's own health care law will be the thing that keeps people from getting affordable coverage.

The law that was passed was the wrong solution and the wrong way to reform our health care in this country. Hard-working American families cannot afford it, and they deserve better.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me begin my remarks by thanking the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his very gracious comments and for his extraordinary leadership on a bill that I believe can bring all of us together.

I also want to thank our other cosponsors of the bill, particularly Senator Gillibrand, who has had a great interest in cracking down on the practice of straw purchasing.

The practice of straw purchasing is intended to achieve one result-- to put a gun in the hands of a criminal. These individuals are easily exploiting currently weak Federal laws to obtain guns.

Peter Forcelli, ATF Supervisory Special Agent and Fast and Furious whistleblower, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in June of 2011 that: ``Some people view [the current penalties for straw purchasing] as no more consequential than doing 65 in a 55 zone.''

These guns are frequently sold, resold, and trafficked across State lines, resulting in the proliferation of illegal firearms in our communities. This has also fueled the violence across our southern border associated with Mexican drug cartels as well as gang violence in our cities.

Straw purchasing and gun trafficking put guns in the hands of criminals. According to the ATF, of the nearly 94,000 firearms that have been recovered in Mexico in the last 5 years, more than 64,000 were sourced to the United States. Similarly, a large percentage of the guns used in crimes in our largest cities were trafficked across State lines.

The congressional inquiry into the ATF's Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious investigations revealed how difficult it is for law enforcement officials to deter and punish these crimes effectively.

Current loopholes in Federal law make preventing and prosecuting these offenses very difficult for law enforcement officials. Right now, a straw purchaser can only be prosecuted for lying on a Federal form, which is treated as a paperwork violation.

Because straw purchasers by definition are nonprohibited persons and can lawfully purchase a firearm, prosecuting these individuals is difficult and any potential punishment is likely to be minimal.

Because of these weak laws, prosecutors have minimal leverage over straw purchasers who, in turn, have little incentive to cooperate and assist law enforcement in investigating trafficking crimes and crimes involving gun violence. For years, law enforcement has been asking Congress for better tools to crack down on this type of criminal conduct.

It is time to give law enforcement the tools it needs to combat this activity effectively.

Our bill reflects a combination of advice from law enforcement officials and leadership by many Senators. It gives law enforcement officials the comprehensive framework they have been seeking from Congress.

First, the bill creates new, specific criminal offenses for straw purchasing and trafficking in firearms. Instead of a slap on the wrist, these crimes would be punishable by up to 25 years in prison.

The proposal also increases the punishment for an individual who serves as

an organizer of a straw purchasing or trafficking enterprise.

This bipartisan bill also strengthens existing laws that make it unlawful to smuggle guns into the United States.

The bill protects legitimate private sales and is drafted to avoid sweeping in innocent transactions and placing unnecessary burdens on lawful private sales.

When buying from a private seller, the buyer is only in violation of the new straw purchasing prohibition if the buyer purchases a firearm for someone known to the buyer as a prohibited person, meaning a felon, drug addict, someone subject to a domestic violence order, or someone with serious mental illness.

When buying from a federally licensed firearms dealer, it is prohibited to buy a firearm on behalf of or for another person. This is consistent with current law that requires a person buying from a dealer to certify that they are the ``actual buyer.'' It is important to note, however, that the bill also expressly exempts transactions like gifts and transfers that occur in raffles and auctions.

The bill is supported by numerous organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the FBI Agents Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum.

This bill helps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing in any way upon the second amendment right of law-abiding citizens.

I urge my colleagues to support this much needed legislation.

I am, again, very pleased to have been able to work under the leadership of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I am delighted he is going to proceed to mark up our bipartisan compromise this week, and I thank him for the opportunity to work with him.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss two separate problems facing our Nation--the first is sequestration, which is underway now and indiscriminately affecting a wide range of programs. The second is the prospect of a long-term Continuing Resolution to fund the Federal government for the remainder of the fiscal year, also not the way we should be doing business. Both will result in damage to our military readiness.

In order to tackle these two separate but equally devastating problems, I am introducing two measures today.

The first bill, which I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Udall, in sponsoring, will help mitigate the consequences of sequestration by providing Department and agency heads additional flexibility in implementing the cuts. The second bill, which I am introducing with my colleague from my home state of Maine, Senator King, will fund the Department of Defense for the remainder of the fiscal year at levels approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee in the funding bill that was reported unanimously by the Committee on August 2, 2012.

As Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has repeatedly warned, failing to pass an annual defense appropriations bill and requiring the Pentagon to operate under last year's law will continue to lead to dangerous absurdities that have ramifications that last far beyond the six months left in this fiscal year.

Military readiness will suffer. A hollow force will be created. The Pentagon will be unable to increase production rates for existing weapons, start new programs, or sign multiyear procurement contracts that would provide significant savings for taxpayers.

When I questioned Deputy Secretary Carter on February 14, at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing about what the continuing resolution means for the Navy and our domestic shipbuilding capability, he testified that:

We're in the absurd position where we're five months into

the fiscal year and we have the authority to build the ships

that we built last year and no authority to build the ships

that we plan to build this year. That's crazy . . . and that

has nothing to do with sequester, by the way, that's the CR.

I have long argued that we need to bring the annual appropriations bills to the floor to be considered individually on their merits. I believe that CRs represent an abdication of our responsibility and should be avoided altogether. But given where we find ourselves today, at the very least we should be able to come together to pass the full- year Department of Defense funding bill and the Military Construction/ Veterans Affairs appropriations.

With regard to sequestration, we have known this day could arrive for a year and a half now. Yet, instead of working together to avert sequestration and replace it with a more rational alternative, the time has been spent jockeying for partisan advantage and engaging in a blame game. Last week, the Senate spent time voting against proceeding to debate on two partisan proposals that both sides knew beforehand were doomed.

The bill Senator Udall and I are introducing today is a bipartisan effort to mitigate the harmful effects of sequestration. As a result of sequestration, vital priorities such as defense, education, transportation, and biomedical research, all face indiscriminate, meat- ax cuts. No distinction is made between high-performing programs and poorly performing ones.

The legislation we introduce today seeks to fix that. Instead of mindless across-the-board budget cuts, this legislation provides the heads of Federal agencies and departments with the flexibility to implement the savings targets required by the Budget Control Act until such time as a bipartisan agreement is reached to replace the sequester cuts or until Congress passes new appropriations bills for fiscal year 2013 that meet the sequester levels.

The bill requires these agency and Department heads to submit their proposals to the Appropriations committees of both the House and the Senate for approval.

This approval is an important step in the process because these Committees know the budget of each agency and can provide oversight of agency plans. This provides a strong incentive for each agency to put forth serious plans in order to avoid the across-the-board sequestration cuts that would otherwise take effect.

Let me emphasize that while our proposal is intended to mitigate the harmful and mindless across-the-board approach of sequestration, a comprehensive, bipartisan approach to put our fiscal house in order must remain a top priority.

I urge my colleagues to support both bills that we are introducing today.

Today I am proud to introduce modified legislation to combat the practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms. Since my initial introduction of the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act at the very beginning of the 113th Congress on January 22, I have had productive conversations with several Senators who share my goal of reducing this destructive criminal conduct. Today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Kirk, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Blumenthal. These Senators understand the weaknesses in our current law and the challenges faced by law enforcement officials. I thank them for their commitment to this legislation, for their support of law enforcement, and for their cooperation in making progress in our collective efforts to prevent and reduce gun violence.

I hope that as other Senators on both sides of the aisle become more familiar with our bipartisan proposal, they will understand how it provides law enforcement with the tools they need to go after those who engage in the straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. The practice of straw purchasing is used for one thing to put firearms into the hands of those that are prohibited by law from having them. Many are then used to further violent crimes.

I have heard again and again from Senators on both sides of the aisle that keeping guns away from those who should not have them is a goal worth pursuing. This bill will further that effort and help answer the call from Gabrielle Giffords and so many Americans for us to take action.

I want to commend the senior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, for her leadership on this matter and for her willingness to work across the aisle to make real progress. She helped unite us to get this done. Without her, we would not have made the progress we have, or be in position to consider this comprehensive response to what law enforcement has told us they need.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue our consideration of four measures to reduce gun violence. The issue of gun trafficking and straw purchasing is before the Committee. I will amend my original trafficking bill that is pending on the Committee agenda with the text of this bipartisan compromise, which combines the proposals that I put forward with Senator Durbin at the beginning of this Congress as well as proposals that have been championed by Senator Gillibrand and Senator Kirk. Our substitute amendment will improve the language already pending before the Committee. As I did before introducing any measure related to gun violence this year, I also hope to continue my outreach to the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member. I invite Senator Grassley and other members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle to join with us so that I can report this measure with strong bipartisan support and without delay for consideration by the Senate.

Law enforcement officials have complained for years that they lack the legal tools necessary effectively to combat illegal straw purchasing and firearms trafficking. Congressional inquiry during the last Congress put a spotlight on the very difficult legal environment within which law enforcement officials currently operate. In fact, one of the whistleblowers who testified about the misguided tactics used by Federal law enforcement in firearms trafficking investigations in Arizona described the current laws as ``toothless.'' If we are to address gun violence, we should respond to this clear vulnerability that is being exploited by criminals.

The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will make important changes to Federal firearms statutes that will better equip law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practices of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. Straw purchases typically involve a person, who is not prohibited by Federal law, purchasing a firearm on behalf of a prohibited person, or at the direction of a drug trafficking or other criminal organization. These practices result in the support of larger criminal organizations, and the illegally obtained guns are often sold and re-sold across state lines. This trafficking in firearms results in the proliferation of illegal firearms and gun violence in our communities. Straw

purchasers circumvent the purposes of the background check system, and they put law enforcement officials and law-abiding firearms dealers in difficult positions. Gun trafficking and straw purchasing make our communities less safe.

Under current law, there is no specific statute that makes it illegal to act as a straw purchaser of firearms. Nor is there a law directly on point to address the illegal trafficking of firearms. As a result, prosecutors must cobble together charges against a straw purchaser using so-called ``paperwork'' violations such as misrepresentations on a Federal form. These laws are imperfect, and do not give prosecutors the leverage needed to encourage straw buyers, often the lowest rungs on a ladder in a criminal enterprise, to provide the information needed for investigators and prosecutors to go after those directing and profiting from such activity.

The bipartisan bill we introduce today will add two new provisions to our Federal criminal code to specifically prohibit serving as a straw purchaser of firearms and trafficking in firearms. The bill establishes tough penalties for these offenses in an effort to punish and importantly, deter this conduct. We need a meaningful solution to this serious problem. Talk about prosecuting mere paperwork offenses is no answer.

Under current law, it is a crime to transfer a firearm to another with the knowledge that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. This bill would strengthen this existing law by prohibiting such a transfer where the transferor has ``reasonable cause to believe'' that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. We listened to concerns about family members who give firearms as gifts and other transfers that are not designed to get around the existing background check system. As a result, the bill contains important exemptions for the innocent transfer of a firearm as a gift, or in relation to a legitimate raffle, auction or contest.

Another key provision of our bipartisan bill is that it complements existing law that makes it a crime to smuggle firearms into the United States by specifically prohibiting the smuggling of firearms out of the United States. In light of what we know is occurring, particularly on our Southwest border, this is an important improvement to current law and another tool that was needed but missing over the last few years.

The provisions laid out in our legislation are focused, commonsense remedies to the very real problems of firearms trafficking and straw purchasing. Our bill does not affect lawful purchases from Federal firearms licensees, and in no way alters their rights and responsibilities as sellers of a lawful commodity. I hope Federal firearms licensees welcome a stronger deterrent to keep criminal straw purchasers out of their business.

The problems of gun trafficking and straw purchasers, particularly along the Southwest border, are matters we have been talking about for years. Senator Durbin chaired a hearing on border violence back in early 2009. Law enforcement officials have called for a firearms trafficking statute that can be effective to go after straw purchasers. That is something agents did not have when they initiated Operation Wide Receiver during the Bush administration and later the disastrous Fast and Furious effort. Their frustration with the limits of the current law contributed to their looking for another way to make a difference in their fight against gun trafficking. Their initiative was a failure. What we need to do now is to create better law enforcement tools. I hope that those who have been concerned about Fast and Furious, whose investigation established that it was the local ATF agents in Arizona who initiated and so poorly implemented that effort, will join with us to close the loophole in the law that Mexican drug cartels are continuing to exploit.

Our bill was drafted at the request of law enforcement. It will provide needed tools to fight against the drug cartels and other criminals who threaten our communities. It will not undermine the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners. It has the support of many law enforcement organizations--both leadership and rank and file. Indeed, the original bill I introduced with Senator Durbin has been supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum. I urge everyone who cares about keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals to join in this effort.

We have an obligation to find solutions to reduce gun violence and I thank these Senators for their strong leadership. We can do this in a way consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I believe our bipartisan legislation meets those goals. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Senator, a Vermonter, an American, a father and a grandfather, I look forward to continuing our progress on this important legislation.

Mr. President, I, like many of my colleagues, have just flown in our Nation's airways, going through a fairly crowded airport in Florida, coming into a crowded airport here in Washington, and in 30 days those TSA lines are going to get longer.

For the international flights, I and others have worked very hard to get additional customs agents to cut the time it takes to process our international visitors. In airports such as Miami and Orlando where there is quite a bit of international traffic, getting those additional customs folks has meant a great deal because we even had some airlines that would come in, for example, to Orlando, and they would have to keep the international passengers on the airplane for upwards of an hour before they could get off the airplane so that there was room, with the personnel available.

Well, you see where I am going, because all of that is going to change unless--as the Good Book says, come, let us reason together. Unless our sharply divided politics--be it partisan, be it ideological--unless we can come together and reach consensus to stop this ridiculous thing that went into effect last Friday called the sequester, which was never intended to go into effect, but because of the inability of the parties to come together, in fact, it is in effect, and it is cutting, in an indiscriminate way, like a meat cleaver across the board.

In certain agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, it even gets exacerbated because the cuts can only occur in certain accounts. Thus, civilian employees are going to be furloughed.

It is also happening in the Department of Defense. In my State of Florida alone, there are going to be 31,000 defense civilian employees who are going to be furloughed. What does a furlough mean? It means that after the 30-day notice, so about 30 days from now, that number of employees--in this example, in the Defense Department--is going to be laid off 1 day a week, under the law, for up to a maximum of 22 weeks. Is that in the interest of national security? Of course not.

Why is it exacerbated in the Department of Defense? Because the existing appropriations law--remember, we are not operating on a current law; we are operating on last year's appropriations

law. That has so constrained the managers--in other words, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary--that they can't move the money around, and what they are having to do is to take the sequester cuts out of operations and maintenance instead of out of acquisitions of systems or programs. That is the worst possible place--out of operations and maintenance.

Now, I am an optimist. I couldn't be in this business if I were not an optimist. I have ultimate faith in the American people. And I know every one of these Senators here, from the extreme left to the extreme right, are all good people, and there can be consensus found if everybody would get out of their little silos and realize the greater good.

Senator Claire McCaskill and I want to help them, so we are filing a bill today. Since this was never intended and all these civilian Federal employees are going to be furloughed, our bill will say that Members of Congress will get docked the same percentage of their pay that the furloughed workers are docked in the percentage of their pay.

Now, the question is, Will this pass? I hope it doesn't pass because I hope it is not necessary to pass. We have 30 days of notice before the furloughs take place. I am certainly hopeful that happens by the end of this month, clearly by the time of March 27 when the existing appropriations bill--which is last year's appropriation--ceases to exist and the government can come to a screeching halt unless we continue the appropriations for the remainder of the fiscal year.

I am hopeful our legislation will not pass, but somebody needs to understand how ridiculous this whole thing is. Conservatives want to cut spending. You can do it in a more intelligent and rational way. If we are going to get serious about $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the decade--and we have already enacted policies that will take us down about 2.5 trillion of deficit reduction--we have about $1.5 trillion to go in enacting policies over that decade and we ought to be able to do that in a nanosecond.

Senator McCaskill and I want to try to help nudge the process along. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You are going to dock all of these civilian employees who have lives, who have families, who have children, who have expenses, who need to buy milk and so forth and so on. You are going to dock them their pay because of the inability of the Members of Congress to get together to do what should have been done, by the way, a year and a half ago when this whole thing was enacted. The meat cleaver sequester was put there because it was so ridiculous that surely it would encourage, a year and a half ago, the supercommittee of six from the House, six from the Senate, half and half of each party--surely it was going to encourage them to come together in agreement. All it needed was one vote. Instead of a 6-to-6 deadlock it would have been 7 to 5. It did not happen, and here we are a year and a half later.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to dock Federal workers' pay because you are going to force them into a furlough which was never intended, is not rational policy, is not good administration, then you are going to be docked your own pay.

This is not pontificating. Again, I say I hope this never passes because I hope it is moot. But it is trying to bring into focus just how ridiculous the goings-on here are right now. So I am very hopeful.

I say I love the Members of the Senate, every one of these Members of the Senate. I have a great relationship with almost every one of these Senators. They are all good people. We need to come together, give a strong statement of consensus building, and then send it down there to the House and tell them they have to get off the dime.

Mr. President, I, like many of my colleagues, have just flown in our Nation's airways, going through a fairly crowded airport in Florida, coming into a crowded airport here in Washington, and in 30 days those TSA lines are going to get longer.

For the international flights, I and others have worked very hard to get additional customs agents to cut the time it takes to process our international visitors. In airports such as Miami and Orlando where there is quite a bit of international traffic, getting those additional customs folks has meant a great deal because we even had some airlines that would come in, for example, to Orlando, and they would have to keep the international passengers on the airplane for upwards of an hour before they could get off the airplane so that there was room, with the personnel available.

Well, you see where I am going, because all of that is going to change unless--as the Good Book says, come, let us reason together. Unless our sharply divided politics--be it partisan, be it ideological--unless we can come together and reach consensus to stop this ridiculous thing that went into effect last Friday called the sequester, which was never intended to go into effect, but because of the inability of the parties to come together, in fact, it is in effect, and it is cutting, in an indiscriminate way, like a meat cleaver across the board.

In certain agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, it even gets exacerbated because the cuts can only occur in certain accounts. Thus, civilian employees are going to be furloughed.

It is also happening in the Department of Defense. In my State of Florida alone, there are going to be 31,000 defense civilian employees who are going to be furloughed. What does a furlough mean? It means that after the 30-day notice, so about 30 days from now, that number of employees--in this example, in the Defense Department--is going to be laid off 1 day a week, under the law, for up to a maximum of 22 weeks. Is that in the interest of national security? Of course not.

Why is it exacerbated in the Department of Defense? Because the existing appropriations law--remember, we are not operating on a current law; we are operating on last year's appropriations

law. That has so constrained the managers--in other words, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary--that they can't move the money around, and what they are having to do is to take the sequester cuts out of operations and maintenance instead of out of acquisitions of systems or programs. That is the worst possible place--out of operations and maintenance.

Now, I am an optimist. I couldn't be in this business if I were not an optimist. I have ultimate faith in the American people. And I know every one of these Senators here, from the extreme left to the extreme right, are all good people, and there can be consensus found if everybody would get out of their little silos and realize the greater good.

Senator Claire McCaskill and I want to help them, so we are filing a bill today. Since this was never intended and all these civilian Federal employees are going to be furloughed, our bill will say that Members of Congress will get docked the same percentage of their pay that the furloughed workers are docked in the percentage of their pay.

Now, the question is, Will this pass? I hope it doesn't pass because I hope it is not necessary to pass. We have 30 days of notice before the furloughs take place. I am certainly hopeful that happens by the end of this month, clearly by the time of March 27 when the existing appropriations bill--which is last year's appropriation--ceases to exist and the government can come to a screeching halt unless we continue the appropriations for the remainder of the fiscal year.

I am hopeful our legislation will not pass, but somebody needs to understand how ridiculous this whole thing is. Conservatives want to cut spending. You can do it in a more intelligent and rational way. If we are going to get serious about $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the decade--and we have already enacted policies that will take us down about 2.5 trillion of deficit reduction--we have about $1.5 trillion to go in enacting policies over that decade and we ought to be able to do that in a nanosecond.

Senator McCaskill and I want to try to help nudge the process along. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You are going to dock all of these civilian employees who have lives, who have families, who have children, who have expenses, who need to buy milk and so forth and so on. You are going to dock them their pay because of the inability of the Members of Congress to get together to do what should have been done, by the way, a year and a half ago when this whole thing was enacted. The meat cleaver sequester was put there because it was so ridiculous that surely it would encourage, a year and a half ago, the supercommittee of six from the House, six from the Senate, half and half of each party--surely it was going to encourage them to come together in agreement. All it needed was one vote. Instead of a 6-to-6 deadlock it would have been 7 to 5. It did not happen, and here we are a year and a half later.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to dock Federal workers' pay because you are going to force them into a furlough which was never intended, is not rational policy, is not good administration, then you are going to be docked your own pay.

This is not pontificating. Again, I say I hope this never passes because I hope it is moot. But it is trying to bring into focus just how ridiculous the goings-on here are right now. So I am very hopeful.

I say I love the Members of the Senate, every one of these Members of the Senate. I have a great relationship with almost every one of these Senators. They are all good people. We need to come together, give a strong statement of consensus building, and then send it down there to the House and tell them they have to get off the dime.