Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the quorum call I be recognized.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Madam President, let me review where we are.

Listening to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about the effects of a government shutdown, I will admit I am pretty sensitive about this. My State of Maryland that I have the honor of representing is home to 286,000 Federal workers--124,000 furloughed today. We have 172,000 Federal workers who work in the State of Maryland. So I am very much aware of what the consequences of this government shutdown have been to our local economy. But let me review where we are, because I am one who wants to get together and get government open as quickly as possible. I hope we can reach agreements and move forward, pay our bills, get rid of sequestration, and get a budget that makes sense. But let me just review how we got to this point, because it has been 6 months since the Senate passed a budget. That is the blueprint for our committees to work.

The House passed a budget, which was different than the Senate budget. Then it was important for both sides to negotiate well before October 1 to get a budget we could agree on so we could pass the appropriations bills. But one party--and one party alone--refused to meet. That was the Republican Party. They refused to meet.

Then we got to October 1. This is not the first time in American history that Congress hasn't been able to pass appropriations bills by October 1. It happens too frequently. But what we do if we can't reach agreement is that we keep government open while we continue at last year's funding level. That is called a continuing resolution. That is what this body did. We passed a continuing resolution so the government would stay open at the funding level the Republicans wanted. We didn't want to get into that fight because of the importance of keeping government open.

Then we had the votes to pass that. We passed it here. We had the votes in the other body. But for one person--the Speaker of the House-- not bringing that up for a vote in the House of Representatives where we could have had a bipartisan majority--the government shut down at midnight on September 30.

I know people say it is a Democrat speaking or a Republican speaking. So let me read from the Baltimore Sun today and what they said about the negotiations.

It would be tempting, of course, to write that this

impasse--the inability to agree on a continuing resolution to

fund government past the end of the fiscal year--was the

fault of Democrats and Republicans alike. But that would be

like blaming the hostages for causing the perpetrator to put

a gun to their heads. As President Barack Obama noted, he and

Congressional Democrats put forward no agenda other than

keeping the government operating temporarily at current

levels.

House Republicans set conditions, not Senate Democrats.

It's not even clear how many in the GOP truly wanted this to

happen. Conventional wisdom is that a so-called ``clean''

resolution funding government would have passed on a

bipartisan vote if it had been allowed on the floor by House

Speaker John Boehner--

The editorial goes on and I continue to quote.

Do House leaders think they can push the blame on President

Obama? Some have already tried, but it sounds suspiciously

like shoplifters blaming store owners for having so much

tempting merchandise lying about. National polls show the

public isn't buying it--most Americans didn't want the

government to shutter over ObamaCare, and Congressional

Republicans have a double-digit lead over the White House

when it comes to the public's choice for who most deserves

the most blame.

Even the unusual anti-government crowd can't find much

comfort in this, as sending federal workers home isn't saving

anybody any money. The last time the federal government had

an extended shutdown--for 21 days in late 1995 to early

1996--it cost something on the order of $2 billion. What an

extraordinary waste of money, particularly at a time when

conservatives claim to be worried about the deficit.

So it is hard to negotiate when one side has put on the table where we should be--allowing government to stay open using last year's numbers--and the other side brings in issues that are totally unrelated to the continuation of government.

Having said that, we have got to find a way to get government open. I am pleased the President is meeting with the leaders this afternoon. I am pleased they are also talking about making sure we pay our bills, which is at jeopardy in just 2 weeks.

I mentioned earlier that I am a little sensitive about this because of the impact it has on the economy of my State. It has an impact on the entire country. In my State, it is $15 million a day in revenue that we lose directly as a result of the government shutdown. It has been estimated by Moody's Brian Kessler that if the shutdown went 3-4 weeks, it would cost our economy $55 billion. This is no small impact on our economy. It is a major impact on our economy.

It is not just Federal workers who aren't going to get paychecks. It is the shop owners who depend on business that is going to be cut back. It is contractors who depend on the contracts being honored by the Federal Government, and the list goes on and on of the impact it has on our economy. As I quoted from the Sun paper, it is the taxpayers who will pick up the tab. They are not going to save any money. It is going to cost them money--not a few bucks. It is going to cost a lot of money. And every day we wait, it costs the taxpayers of this country more money. So we are interested in dealing with the deficit and keeping government operating. It is a huge waste of resources to shut down the government.

We are going to lose some vital services. Earlier today I held a conference with Senator Mikulski, Senator Warren, and Senator Boxer where we went over some of the real impacts that occur, and we were joined by Federal workers that wanted to be at work, doing service to this country, but because of the government shutdown they were furloughed.

This is not the first attack against Federal workers we have seen. We have seen freezes on their budgets in the last couple of years. We have seen them furloughed as a result of sequestration. We have seen freezes on hiring so they are asked to do more with less. We have the fewest workers per capita in modern history, asked to do more work. Let me relate some of the stories, some of the accounts by people who came to Washington today so their stories can be told.

Marcelo Del Canto works for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. He works in Rockville. He lives in Poolesville, MD. He has been a Federal employee for 8 years. He does vital work to help prevent substance abuse. He has work on his desk that he could do today to help keep people healthier. Instead, he is furloughed, sitting at home--can't go in to work.

We heard from Amy Fritz, a meteorologist and physical oceanographer at the National Weather Service. She works in Silver Spring, MD. I have been there. This is the agency that tracks the storms. Thank goodness we had reliable information about Hurricane Sandy. That work was done not on the weather channel, it was done by Federal public servants. Amy has a double degree. She is a national expert in this area.

Do you know what she said today? ``How do I know we should not be tracking a storm right now, getting additional information to keep our country safe?'' That is what is at stake. We have seen incredible weather episodes of late. Every person should be on board, doing their work. NOAA had to furlough, same as a layoff, 55 percent of their workforce, 6,633 employees furloughed as a result of the government shutdown.

We heard from Carter Kimsey. She works for the National Science Foundation. She has been there since 1976. She works with young people, getting them involved with science, awarding grants for the basic research that is critically important for economic growth and this country's competitiveness. She tells us she has work on her desk that is critically important to young people continuing in science. She can't work today because of the government shutdown. That is going to affect America's competitiveness. We are going to lose scientists. We are going to lose a great deal as a result of government being shut down.

I heard from Steve Hopkins, Office of Pesticide Programs at the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA had to furlough 94 percent of their workers; 15,181 workers were furloughed at EPA. What is he not doing today that he could have been doing? Helping keep our environment safe from the overuse of pesticides, making it a little bit safer for our children as they breathe the air and drink the water of this country. That is what is at jeopardy here.

I could tell you about their individual stories. When I talked to Marcelo Del Canto, he told me he recently purchased a home in Poolesville, MD. We are happy about that. But he has a mortgage payment. He is married. I asked how is his spouse doing? She is also furloughed. How are they going to make their mortgage payment?

Carter Kimsey was telling us about the ethics they use in scientific experiments. She talked about how they treat the animals they use. She said: You know, we make sure they get the resources necessary. They are fed, they are taken care of. How about our Federal workers? Shouldn't they have their paycheck to pay their food bills?

This is outrageous as far as being wasteful, as far as being against economic growth in this country, but it is also wrong. It is wrong to the people who have been victimized by this, who do not know if they are going to get a paycheck. We have people working who do not know if they are going to get paid. We have people who are not working who do not know they are going to get the money to pay their bills. Where is the empathy here for what you are doing? This is outrageous.

My colleagues already talked about the National Institutes of Health located in Maryland; 73 percent of their employees are furloughed. Do you know what they do? Just the most incredible research in the world so we can stay healthy, we can find out the mysteries of incredible diseases. They are working on a vaccine now to deal with influenza to save millions of lives, and what do we do? Tell them to go home and not work? This is not a game. We are affecting people's lives by what we are doing here.

Two hundred patients will be denied care this week at NIH as a result of the shutdown. Who knows for one of those individuals whether it is a question of life or death? That is what is involved.

At the FDA, 45 percent of their employees are furloughed. They will not be able to conduct the inspections for the compliance and enforcement of our food laws, our food safety laws.

At the Department of Interior, 81 percent of their employees are furloughed. What an embarrassment.

I was talking to a reporter from another country.

What an embarrassment, the iconic national parks of America are closed, but it also affects the businesses all around those parks as well as inconveniencing the public.

At the Small Business Administration, two-thirds of their employees are furloughed. Suppose you are a small business person depending on a loan. You do not have the officer there to process that loan. What do you do?

The list goes on and on. I could go through every agency. There is only one answer to this: Keep government--not one agency, two agencies, three agencies--keep every agency open. That is the responsible thing for us to do. We should do that. We should make sure we pay our bills, and yes, we should negotiate a balanced way to move forward with a budget.

I have been talking on the floor many times about that. There is a give and take that we have to make on the budget moving forward. We have to balance our books. We need the revenues necessary to do it. We have to look at all spending, not just discretionary domestic spending. We have to look at all spending. We have to do that in a bipartisan manner because, guess what, the Republicans do not control the House, the Senate, and the White House, and the Democrats do not control the House.

The public expects us to work together on a budget. That is not what this debate is about. This debate is

about whether we are going to keep government open, whether we are going to pay our bills. We must do that for the sake of the people of this country.

I want to mention one other issue. I filed yesterday legislation with many of my colleagues to make it clear that those Federal workers who are furloughed, we are going to fight to do what we did in the 1990s when we went on government shutdown, and pay all Federal workers. They are innocent. They should be made whole. My legislation is cosponsored by many of my colleagues. We have bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. We have to make sure we get that bill passed so every Federal worker is made whole as a result of this shutdown that is not their fault.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 5 p.m., and that all provisions under the previous order remain in effect, and that Senator Reid be recognized following morning business and that all time spent in quorum calls be equally divided.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

I yield first to the majority leader.

Madam President, I see my colleague from Tennessee just left the floor, and I was listening to his comments. I know he is having a hard time--as many of our Senate colleagues are--understanding or justifying the actions of the Republicans in the House.

Make no mistake about it, this is a House Republican shutdown of the government. The majority leader was talking about the consequences. The House Republicans have tried to hold all of us hostage, but it is not going to work.

When they talk about negotiating, the majority leader is absolutely right: We have tried on numerous occasions to get to a conference on the budget only to find objections from the Republicans to sit around the table to talk about the budget of the country. We are not going to yield to extreme measures. We should have the government open, and then we should be negotiating the issues that are important.

I take this time to talk about our Federal workforce and to talk about the impact this shutdown will have on Federal workers and the people of Maryland and the people of our Nation. I am proud to represent Maryland in the Senate.

Once again Federal workers are going to be asked to make sacrifices on behalf of their country, but this time they don't understand it. This shutdown will have a negative impact on them and on our country. For 3 years Federal workers have been working without a pay increase or an adjustment of salary. I had my staff check some of the statistics on the number of Federal workers we have today compared to the historic numbers. We actually have fewer workers per capita today than we did in the 1950s. We are asking our Federal workforce to do more with less, and we are asking them to continue to work under sequestration when many have been furloughed.

Now our Federal workforce has been furloughed in great numbers and are uncertain as to whether they will receive a paycheck. There are Federal workers who are working today and they don't know when they are going to get their paychecks. It is wrong, and it is going to hurt families. They are going to have to try to figure out how to pay their bills without getting a paycheck.

This goes well beyond the Federal workers themselves. Look at the reductions we see in the Federal workforce here in the Washington area. What do you think is happening to the retail establishments, the small businesses, and our economy? We estimated in Maryland that we would lose $15 million a day for every day the Federal Government is closed.

Mark Zandi said the impact of a Federal shutdown will increase unemployment by half a percent. In 1995 to 1996, the last time we had a shutdown, OMB estimated it cost the taxpayers $1.4 billion. This is wasting taxpayers' money, and it is putting people under incredible stress as to how they are going to pay their bills. For what? To move an extreme agenda, to try to see if hostage-taking works in the Congress? This will have a major negative impact on our economy.

The private sector has recently created 7.5 million jobs over the last 42 months. There are more people on private nonfarm payrolls than at any time since September 2008. Jobless claims are close to a 5-year low. The second quarter of 2013 marked nine consecutive quarters of economic

growth, the longest stretch since before 2008. And now because of the House Republican shutdown, we want to reverse that? Do we want to go back to a failing economy? That is what is at stake here. Do we want to cost our taxpayers money with the inconvenience we are causing the people of this country by a government shutdown? Talk about life- threatening delays. The researchers at NIH are being compromised. The inability of NIH to take on new patients as a result of a shutdown absolutely affects the welfare of the people of our country. Small businesses are unable to get SBA loans. How do they run their businesses during this shutdown?

In my State of Maryland--and I know this is true around the country-- the backlog on veterans getting their disability claims heard is tremendous. That will now grow as a result of this government shutdown.

The FDA is responsible for food safety. I could talk about a lot of different agencies. Forty-five percent of the FDA's workforce, or 6,620 employees, will be furloughed. The FDA will be unable to support the majority of its food safety nutrition and cosmetic activities. The FDA will also have to cease safety activities such as routine establishment inspections, some compliance and enforcement activities, monitoring imports, notification programs, et cetera. That is what this shutdown will cause. Do we want to make sure we have a safe food supply? Well, today it is not quite as clear as it was yesterday.

We know about the national parks and the zoo being closed. That makes no sense at all. People will be inconvenienced, but people's health will be put in jeopardy because of this House Republican shutdown. It is totally illogical.

We have tried to go to conference on the budget. There are three problems we have before we get a workable budget for this fiscal year. First, we have to keep government open; second, we have to make sure we pay our bills; and third, we have to get rid of sequestration. That is what we have to get done. And, yes, we have to sit down, Democrats and Republicans, to work out a budget for this fiscal year, but we can't do it while the government is closed.

When we fail to pass a budget--and quite frankly, it is the Republicans who have been unwilling to sit at a table to come up with a budget. The regular order is to pass a continuing resolution that continues the budget so the government can operate until we have a budget. We have always done that at the current level.

Well, the Democrats are willing to go even further. We are willing to take the Republicans' reduced budget number because of sequestration, and they can't even accept that because, quite frankly, there are too many on the other side of the aisle in the House who want a government shutdown. That is not the way we should be operating.

I am proud to represent so many Federal workers. I am proud to represent the people of Maryland, and we are going to continue to fight on behalf of the right policies. We are going to fight to make sure Federal workers are made whole when this is over, and that they are able to get their paychecks with full pay. It is going to be a struggle because of the attitude--particularly from the Republicans--in the House, but we are going to continue to fight for what is right for our Federal workforce and for the American people.

Let us pass a resolution to keep government open. Let us sit down and work out a budget for this coming year. Let's do what is right for the American people.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. I am pleased to have Senators Boxer, Brown, Carper, Feinstein, Harkin, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, Leahy, Mikulski, Sanders, Schumer, Udall (NM), and Warner as original co- sponsors. This bill is a companion bill to legislation Representative Jim Moran introduced in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3223. The bill is simple and straightforward. It requires that all Federal workers furloughed as a result of the lapse in appropriations that began last night at midnight receive their pay retroactively as soon as is practicable. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. Federal workers didn't cause this shutdown. Federal workers don't want this shutdown. They are dedicated public servants who simply want to do their jobs on behalf of the American people. They shouldn't suffer because so-called Tea Party Republicans, mostly in the House of Representatives, suffer from the delusion that shutting down the Federal Government will somehow prevent the Affordable Care Act from being implemented.

As the Congressional Research Service has reported, in ``historical practice'', Federal workers who have been furloughed as a result of a shutdown have received their pay retroactively ``as a result of legislation to that effect''. The language in our bill is the language used to provide pay retroactively to workers furloughed in the Newt Gingrich-led shutdowns in 1995 and 1996; that language was contained as part of section 124 of P.L. 104-56 (109 STAT. 553).

Mr. President, Federal workers already have endured a 3-year pay freeze and ``contributed'' over $90 billion to deficit reduction. That was before sequestration hit. On top of the pay freeze, hundreds of thousands of Federal workers have been furloughed because of sequestration. Their pay hasn't just been frozen; it has been cut. They have had fewer resources to carry out their missions and administer the programs they are responsible for.

Now, upwards of 800,000 Federal workers are being furloughed, again, and the rest of federal workforce is being compelled to work without pay. And Republicans are threatening that there won't be any retroactive pay. This is happening to hardworking, patriotic public servants, mostly middle class and struggling to get by like so many other Americans. Enough is enough.

Increasingly, Federal workers are asked to do more with less. According to the Office of Management & Budget, the size of the Federal civilian workforce relative to the country's population has declined dramatically over the last several decades. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were, on average, 92 Americans for every Federal worker. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were 106 Americans for every Federal worker. By 2011, the ratio had increased to 145 Americans for every Federal worker.

Since the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. population has increased by 76 percent and the private sector workforce has surged 133 percent, but the size of the Federal workforce has risen just 11 percent. Relative to the private sector, the Federal workforce is less than half the size it was back in the 1950s and 1960s. Now it just got smaller by another 800,000 workers overnight because of Republican action regarding the fiscal year 2014 continuing resolution.

The picture that emerges is one of a Federal civilian workforce whose size has significantly shrunk compared to the size of the U.S. population it

serves, the private sector workforce, and the magnitude of Federal expenditures. Yet Republicans are intent on making things even more difficult for Federal workers and their families across the United States.

Preventing Federal workers from doing their jobs doesn't just harm Federal workers; it harms all Americans because Federal workers patrol our borders, make sure our air and water are clean and our food and drugs are safe, support our men and women in uniform and care for our wounded warriors, help our manufacturers compete abroad, discover cures for life-threatening diseases, prosecute criminals and terrorists, maintain and protect critical infrastructure, explore the universe, and make sure Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety-net programs are functioning properly.

When Federal workers do their jobs, they are helping each and every American live a safer and more prosperous life. And I would argue that what Federal workers are able to do on behalf of the American people often redounds to the benefit of all humankind, whether we are talking about conducting ground-breaking basic scientific research or establishing the rule of law.

Our tasks here in Congress are simple--not easy, perhaps, but simple: we need to end the shutdown and put federal workers back on the job; we need to raise the debt ceiling so we can continue to pay our bills and maintain the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government; we need to return to regular order around here and negotiate a comprehensive budget deal that spreads the burden of deficit reduction in a fair way; and we need to hold Federal workers and their families harmless after subjecting them to so much harm over the past several weeks and months.

We need to stop demonizing and scape-goating and punishing Federal workers. We need to re-open the government, continue paying our bills, and replace the sequester with a rational budget. One of the greatest attributes of the American character is pragmatism. Unlike what some other Federal workers are actually doing, here in Congress, balancing the budget is not ``rocket science''. We know the various options. Former President Lyndon Johnson was fond of quoting the prophet Isaiah: ``Come, let us reason together'' That is what we need to do. We can acknowledge and respect our differences but at the end of the day, the American people have entrusted us with governing, with being pragmatic. Let us do our job so Federal workers can get back to their jobs.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. I am pleased to have Senators Boxer, Brown, Carper, Feinstein, Harkin, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, Leahy, Mikulski, Sanders, Schumer, Udall (NM), and Warner as original co- sponsors. This bill is a companion bill to legislation Representative Jim Moran introduced in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3223. The bill is simple and straightforward. It requires that all Federal workers furloughed as a result of the lapse in appropriations that began last night at midnight receive their pay retroactively as soon as is practicable. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. Federal workers didn't cause this shutdown. Federal workers don't want this shutdown. They are dedicated public servants who simply want to do their jobs on behalf of the American people. They shouldn't suffer because so-called Tea Party Republicans, mostly in the House of Representatives, suffer from the delusion that shutting down the Federal Government will somehow prevent the Affordable Care Act from being implemented.

As the Congressional Research Service has reported, in ``historical practice'', Federal workers who have been furloughed as a result of a shutdown have received their pay retroactively ``as a result of legislation to that effect''. The language in our bill is the language used to provide pay retroactively to workers furloughed in the Newt Gingrich-led shutdowns in 1995 and 1996; that language was contained as part of section 124 of P.L. 104-56 (109 STAT. 553).

Mr. President, Federal workers already have endured a 3-year pay freeze and ``contributed'' over $90 billion to deficit reduction. That was before sequestration hit. On top of the pay freeze, hundreds of thousands of Federal workers have been furloughed because of sequestration. Their pay hasn't just been frozen; it has been cut. They have had fewer resources to carry out their missions and administer the programs they are responsible for.

Now, upwards of 800,000 Federal workers are being furloughed, again, and the rest of federal workforce is being compelled to work without pay. And Republicans are threatening that there won't be any retroactive pay. This is happening to hardworking, patriotic public servants, mostly middle class and struggling to get by like so many other Americans. Enough is enough.

Increasingly, Federal workers are asked to do more with less. According to the Office of Management & Budget, the size of the Federal civilian workforce relative to the country's population has declined dramatically over the last several decades. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were, on average, 92 Americans for every Federal worker. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were 106 Americans for every Federal worker. By 2011, the ratio had increased to 145 Americans for every Federal worker.

Since the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. population has increased by 76 percent and the private sector workforce has surged 133 percent, but the size of the Federal workforce has risen just 11 percent. Relative to the private sector, the Federal workforce is less than half the size it was back in the 1950s and 1960s. Now it just got smaller by another 800,000 workers overnight because of Republican action regarding the fiscal year 2014 continuing resolution.

The picture that emerges is one of a Federal civilian workforce whose size has significantly shrunk compared to the size of the U.S. population it

serves, the private sector workforce, and the magnitude of Federal expenditures. Yet Republicans are intent on making things even more difficult for Federal workers and their families across the United States.

Preventing Federal workers from doing their jobs doesn't just harm Federal workers; it harms all Americans because Federal workers patrol our borders, make sure our air and water are clean and our food and drugs are safe, support our men and women in uniform and care for our wounded warriors, help our manufacturers compete abroad, discover cures for life-threatening diseases, prosecute criminals and terrorists, maintain and protect critical infrastructure, explore the universe, and make sure Social Security, Medicare, and other social safety-net programs are functioning properly.

When Federal workers do their jobs, they are helping each and every American live a safer and more prosperous life. And I would argue that what Federal workers are able to do on behalf of the American people often redounds to the benefit of all humankind, whether we are talking about conducting ground-breaking basic scientific research or establishing the rule of law.

Our tasks here in Congress are simple--not easy, perhaps, but simple: we need to end the shutdown and put federal workers back on the job; we need to raise the debt ceiling so we can continue to pay our bills and maintain the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government; we need to return to regular order around here and negotiate a comprehensive budget deal that spreads the burden of deficit reduction in a fair way; and we need to hold Federal workers and their families harmless after subjecting them to so much harm over the past several weeks and months.

We need to stop demonizing and scape-goating and punishing Federal workers. We need to re-open the government, continue paying our bills, and replace the sequester with a rational budget. One of the greatest attributes of the American character is pragmatism. Unlike what some other Federal workers are actually doing, here in Congress, balancing the budget is not ``rocket science''. We know the various options. Former President Lyndon Johnson was fond of quoting the prophet Isaiah: ``Come, let us reason together'' That is what we need to do. We can acknowledge and respect our differences but at the end of the day, the American people have entrusted us with governing, with being pragmatic. Let us do our job so Federal workers can get back to their jobs.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, we have just a few hours, absent some

last-minute agreements on the continuing resolution, to a government shutdown. This is a manufactured crisis that we are imposing upon our country. Make no mistake about it, it will cause harm. People will be hurt by a government shutdown.

I am honored to represent the people of Maryland. We have one of the largest number of Federal workers on a per capita basis of any State in the Nation and I am proud of the work they do every day keeping our country safe, doing the important research into incredible life sciences, protecting our food supply, making sure people get their Social Security checks--the list goes on and on. These are men and women who are on the front lines of public service. At midnight they will be asked to have another sacrifice added to their public service.

These public workers have gone through a lot: 3 years of a pay freeze, fewer Federal workers to do more work, furloughs as a result of sequestration--in other words, they are not getting their full pay today. Now what will happen after midnight? Some will be asked to work and not be clear whether they will get a paycheck or when they will get their paycheck. Others will be furloughed not knowing if they will ever get paid for the time they are off.

This is unfair to our Federal workers once again. Our Federal workers want to show up at work, do their work, and get fair pay for what they do on behalf of their country. That is what each one of us wants. Yet once more they are going to be the victims of the fight we see taking place here on Capitol Hill, particularly among our Republican colleagues in the House.

This is going to hurt people of this country such as small business owners trying to get an SBA loan, finding out there is no one there to help them process that loan. That person's business cannot wait. Yet a government shutdown will jeopardize that person's ability to get badly needed capital for their business. It will affect people who are now entitled to get Medicare benefits or Social Security benefits or they may have some questions about it or veterans trying to get their veterans' benefits worked out. Those issues will be delayed as a result of a government shutdown.

Individuals who depend upon the basic research which will be done by government--slowed down or in some cases stopped as a result of a government shutdown. People will get hurt as a result of a government shutdown.

This is going to be wasteful for the taxpayers of this country. It will cost the country valuable resources which should be used to provide services to the people of this country. This is wasteful. It will hurt our economy. When people do not get a paycheck, they do not go to the local shops as they would otherwise; they do not travel as much. Our whole economy will suffer.

From a logical point of view, it is hard to understand why we have reached this point. Let me explain. This body passed what is known as a continuing resolution. That continuing resolution would keep government open until the middle of November. It did not represent one party or the other's view as to what that level should be. If anything, it represents the Republican view because the number we picked for continuing government is the number the Republicans thought was the right number. We did not take the number that was in the Senate-passed budget bill. So we have already made an accommodation in an effort to make sure we do not get into that budget fight as we keep government operating.

We passed that resolution, known as a clean CR, and sent it over to the House. We are told--you listen to the comments of Members on both sides of the aisle--it looks as though we have the votes to pass that on the House side. Yet the Speaker will not bring it up for a vote. He refuses to do that. Talk about democracy. We passed it here, looks like the votes are on the other side to pass it, the President is prepared to sign it, and government will not shut down in 7 hours, but there is no indication that the majority will prevail in the House of Representatives. Instead, a minority, with extreme views, is saying we are going to use this shutdown of government to try to advance our extreme agenda.

It gets us to what we have seen in other parts of history. This is not much different than some of the tactics that were deployed to try to prevent Medicare from coming into law, or Social Security from coming into law. The Republicans in the House who are trying to block ObamaCare are saying they do not want to see this happen. They say they are afraid of what will happen when ObamaCare becomes a reality. They are not afraid it will fail; they are afraid it will succeed. President Obama observed--and I happen to agree with him--regarding the naysayers on ObamaCare, the one thing he knows is in a few years when this program is successful, they will not call it ObamaCare.

I can talk about the merits or I can talk about the process. The merits of the Affordable Care Act--I am proud at last the United States, the wealthiest Nation in the world, is moving toward universal coverage so we can at long last say health care is a right, not a privilege. We are the only industrial Nation in the world that has yet to move in that direction.

I am proud we improved Medicare under the Affordable Care Act. Our seniors are seeing that coverage gap in Medicare prescription drugs closed. They are seeing preventive health care services now available without copayments. By the way, they are also seeing a Medicare trust fund that is solvent. The future looks much brighter than it did before the Affordable Care Act.

American families are happy they can keep their adult children on their insurance policies to age 26, and they are getting value for the dollar.

I hear these negative comments about ObamaCare. They are talking about how our health care system used to be. Talk to American families who saw every year their coverage erode and their premiums go up before we passed the Affordable Care Act. Under the Affordable Care Act, we see you are getting value for your dollar. The insurance company has to return 80 to 85 percent of your premium dollars in benefits. If not, you get a rebate. Millions of Americans have seen rebates because the insurance companies charged too much. They are getting money back. They are getting value for their dollar.

For affordability, of the people who will be able to enter the exchanges starting tomorrow--tomorrow they can enroll in the exchanges--three out of every four who are eligible to enroll in the exchanges will be entitled to some help. This is affordable coverage and it is good coverage--no lifetime caps; no preexisting conditions. You are getting solid insurance coverage for an affordable rate. That is what the Affordable Care Act is all about.

Small businesses, I have heard a lot about small businesses. If you have under 50 employees, there are no new mandates and at last you are able to get competitive products, insurance programs with a little variety. You can pick the plan that is best for you rather than being told by the insurance company this is all you can get, and there are larger pools so you don't have to worry about one of your employees getting sick and all of a sudden the premiums go up. That is the situation that is changing.

I can talk about the merits of what we are trying to do but that is not where we are. This is a process issue. There is a time and place to talk about how we can improve our health care system in this country, but in a few hours we are talking about whether government is going to stay open.

I can make a very strong argument that the reason we do not have a budget that starts October 1 is because of the obstructionist policies of the Republicans, particularly in the House. We have tried to go to conference. We passed our budget. They said we could not. We did. We passed a budget in the Senate. The House passed a budget. They were different. Would you think you go to conference? Republicans refused to go to conference. They refuse to go to conference. They refuse to negotiate a budget agreement. We are now up to October 1 and they will not agree to keep government open. I acknowledge it is not the majority, but there is an extreme element, particularly on the other side, that wants to see government shut down. They want to see government closed. That is what we are confronting, which is terribly irresponsible. It is affecting families, it is affecting our economy.

New York Magazine got this right. I don't normally quote from them:

The Republican party has spent 30 years careening ever more

deeply into ideological extremism, but one of the novel

developments of the Obama years is its embrace of procedural

extremism. The Republican fringe has evolved from being

politically shrewd proponents of radical policy changes to a

gang of saboteurs who would rather stop government from

functioning at all.

That is what we are up against. I think most Members of this body know that I believe in pragmatism. I believe we need to work together. I believe Democrats and Republicans need to come together and forge agreements to move the process forward. That is what I think the Framers of our Constitution envisioned, sitting around a table working out our differences. We have had divided government before. It is not new. We have gotten through those days. We have gotten through those days by listening to each other, sitting around the table and working out our problems.

But there are three things that are happening right now that need to end. No. 1, we have to keep government open; No. 2, we have to pay our bills and not be threatened in 2 weeks with the inability to pay our bills; No. 3, we have to get rid of these senseless, across-the-board, mindless cuts known as sequestration. We have to get rid of those three.

Yes, we do need a budget. That budget will not be what the Democrats want or the Republicans want. It has to be negotiated. It will contain, I hope, the best of what both parties can offer in dealing with the future needs of our country. That is what we should do, put America first. If we do that, we will help the people of our country.

I know we are just a few hours away from the shutdown of government. I still hold out hope that we will put the country's business first and stop playing this extremism politics of trying to say it is my way or no way. Let's keep government open. Let's pay our bills. Let's get rid of sequestration. Then let's negotiate a budget that allows this country to grow and unleashes our potential so that all Americans can enjoy the opportunity of this great land.

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

Madam President, the fatal shooting at the Washington Navy Yard last week is a senseless tragedy. I mourn the loss of life and offer my prayers to all who have been affected by this heinous act, especially the families of the victims. Our Navy and their civilian colleagues work day and night to protect the American public. An attack on the people tasked with keeping this Nation safe is unacceptable. I thank our Federal, State and local first responders and law enforcement for swiftly and dutifully responding to this appalling attack despite the personal dangers. I thank our dedicated doctors, nurses, and staff at the MedStar trauma center who helped care for the injured that day.

Today I want to remember the six Marylanders who died in this terrible tragedy, and to express my condolences to their family and friends.

Sylvia Frasier was 53 years old and lived in Waldorf, MD, in Charles County. She was a computer expert and served as the enterprise information assurance manager at Naval Sea Systems Command. And she worked a second job as well, working several evenings a week as a customer service manager at the Wal-Mart in Waldorf. The assistant manager at the store said she often gave co-workers rides home, and he once asked her, ``How come you work a second job?'' She just said, `I love it. I like working with people.' '' Her co-worker said that Sylvia could talk to customers and turn negatives into positives, and that they will miss seeing her smile and gold-colored hair at the store. She leaves behind her two parents and six siblings.

John Roger Johnson was 73 years old and lived in Derwood, MD, in Montgomery County. He was a civilian contractor and performed environmental assessments of systems used to located mines. He also provided support to the NAVSEA's Command Information Officer. He often greeted colleagues with a ``How ya doin', buddy?'' He leaves behind a wife and four daughters, and his 11th grandchild is due in November.

Frank Kohler was 50 years old and lived in Tall Timbers, MD, in St. Mary's County. He was a computer systems specialist. Frank had been the president of the Rotary Club. He had earned the nickname of ``King Oyster'' for his service, and received a crown and robe, leading the national oyster shucking competition. He leaves behind a wife and two daughters.

Vishnu Pandit was 61 years old and lived in North Potomac, MD, in Montgomery County. He was born in Bombay, India, and moved to the United States in his early 20's. His family said in a statement that ``He took great pride in being employed by the United States Navy, which he very proudly served in various capacities as a civilian for over 25 years. He felt extremely privileged to have contributed to the superiority of the U.S. Navy and the country that he served.'' He leaves behind a wife and two sons.

Kenneth Bernard Proctor was 46 years old and lived in Waldorf, MD, in Charles County. He worked as a civilian utilities foreman, and had worked

for the Federal Government for over two decades. His oldest son recently enlisted in the Army. He leaves behind his ex-wife and two sons.

Richard Michael Ridgell was 52 years old and lived in Westminster, MD, in Carroll County. He was a Maryland State Police Trooper for nearly two decades, and spent 3 years working in Iraq, helping train civilian in local policing. He was known to text his children several times a day to check up on them and tell them he loved them, and coached his daughters' softball teams. He was an avid photographer and loved taking pictures of his family. He leaves behind his wife and three daughters.

Mr. President, the tragedy of every recent mass shooting in America has underscored the importance of Congress passing sensible, Federal gun safety legislation. We know that we won't be able to stop every tragedy, but we absolutely can save lives. Earlier this year, some 4 months after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, there was a glimmer of hope that the Senate was finally working together on a bipartisan basis to pass reasonable background checks for all gun purchases. This effort was fleeting, but it must be revived.

We must use common sense and act responsibly. I am sympathetic to the interests of legitimate hunters and collectors, but we should follow the lead of states like Maryland and reinstate the Federal ban on assault weapons and prohibit high-capacity ammunition clips. We should enact universal background checks. We must take steps to strengthen our mental health system so that individuals who need help with mental illness can get appropriate help and not have access to hand guns or other weapons. I know that we can protect our communities while still protecting the Constitutional rights of legitimate hunters and existing gun owners.

Mr. President, first let me thank Senator Boxer for putting into the Record the history of how we fought for Medicare, how we went through a lot of the health care fights, and what we have stood for in protecting the American public for affordable, quality health care. I applaud her and agree with the comments she has made.

I think it is very interesting to point out the contrast to the passage of the Affordable Care Act that has been law now since March 23, 2010. It went through hearing after days of hearings in the House and in the Senate. It went through days of markups in the committee, where hundreds of amendments

were offered in both the House and the Senate. We had a long debate on the floor of the Senate and the floor of the House. We reconciled the differences between the two Houses. It went through the regular process. We spent as much time on that bill, I think, as we have spent on any major bill. And yet there were differences. The bill was passed and signed into law.

When we expanded Medicare--and I was in the House at the time on Medicare Part D. I also voted against it. Most Democrats voted against it. We voted against it for the reason the Senator just said--the coverage gap, the doughnut hole, that we knew seniors would still not be able to afford coverage. There was no public option, as the Senator remembers.

It was all private insurance. They did not pool the total purchasing power to reduce the cost of prescription drugs--another matter that we felt very strongly that we were overpaying. And we are overpaying for prescription drugs, as a result of that change.

By the way, it was not paid for. It was estimated to cost $400 billion, and there was no offset of cost. So we were worried it would have an impact on the affordability of the Federal Government to pay the bill. So we all voted against it. Many of us did.

And it became law.

Senator Boxer is absolutely right: When that bill passed, we came together and said: Let's make it better. We lost the battle on the floor. It became the law. Let's try to make it work. And we did that, Democrats and Republicans.

We are now into 3 years under the Affordable Care Act, and all we get from the Republicans is repeal after repeal after repeal--no effort to deal with legitimate problems of implementation that we would like to work together to do.

What a difference. Instead, they are using the process of holding hostage the Federal Government from being in operation in order to advance their extreme agenda.

It has been nearly 20 years ago when the Government shut down because the Republicans decided it would be better to close government to prove their point. Well, they were wrong then. We recognized the cost of a government shutdown and the inconvenience to the American people and the damage to our economy. Yet Monday night we run the risk of another government shutdown because the Republicans are holding hostage the continuation of government to try to move forward their extreme agenda.

Let me talk a little bit about this. Let me talk about what it would mean if we were, in fact, to pass the continuing resolution that was passed by the House. We are not going to do that. We are not going to pass that. Everybody knows we are not going to pass that. But I think the American people need know what would happen if that did pass and we did defund the Affordable Care Act.

I could talk a lot about provisions that have already taken effect. I could talk about the fact that in my State of Maryland, 46,000 families have taken advantage of putting their children on their health insurance policies to age 26. If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, those 46,000 families will have to find another way to take care of the health insurance for their children.

I could talk about the fact that come January, we will eliminate lifetime caps on health insurance. How many families have had to go through bankruptcy because they cannot afford health coverage? They may have insurance, but their caps put them into bankruptcy. Well, that is gone. If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, we are back to the arbitrary limits.

How many families have told us about preexisting condition restrictions that are in their health insurance policies? We have already corrected that for children. That is already the law. Come January, there will be no further preexisting conditions. Women will not be discriminated against in health premiums. Pregnancies will no longer be considered a preexisting condition. Being a victim of domestic violence will no longer be considered a preexisting condition.

I could cite, and I am sure the Presiding Officer could too, examples in our own States where people have not been able to get full coverage. I have a family in Montgomery County that had to take out two insurance policies and pay two separate premiums for the family because of preexisting condition restrictions. That is history. If you pass the resolution that came over from the House, that is all gone, we are back to how it used to be.

I know we talk a lot about affordability. I want to talk a moment about that. Because before we passed the Affordable Care Act, we got letter after letter from individuals and businesses about their premiums going up. They had to cut back coverage, and they required the employee to pay more. The benefits were less, and the premiums were higher. We were seeing double-digit cost increases in health care.

Well, now we have a quality product, a guarantee that essential benefits are going to be in there. We have protection that at least 80 to 85 percent of the premium dollar must actually go to benefits. If it does not go to benefits, you get a rebate, you get a refund. In my State of Maryland, 44,000 Marylanders are getting rebates because their premiums were too high. The average rebate is $143 a family--$13 million in rebates.

With the House-passed continuing resolution, that is gone. Those protections are no longer in the law. We are back to how it used to be: no guaranteed coverage, no guaranteed benefits, no guaranteed value.

There is another aspect to this, one that I am very proud of. The United States will at last join the industrialized nations in the world and say that we are going to make affordable health care available to every person, every American in our country. I think that is an important point. I have 800,000 people in my State of Maryland who do not have health coverage today--800,000.

Now, come October 1, next Tuesday, they are going to be able to go to the Maryland Health Connection and get health coverage. But guess what. They are going to have a variety of plans they can choose from. They can make their decision. But a large number, over 85 percent--87 percent--of the people who will be going to the Maryland Health Connection, it has been estimated, are going to be entitled for help in paying for those premiums--87 percent.

We talked about the individual mandates. What we provided was an affordable option so everyone can be in the system. We want universal coverage because we think it is the right policy. Everybody should be covered. We want universal coverage because we think it is wrong for someone who has health insurance to pay for someone who does not have health insurance because they use the health facility and do not pay for it, and we pay more as a result of that. Hospital costs are more, physician costs are more. We think everybody should pay their fair share.

But we make it affordable. Eighty-seven percent will be entitled to help. Those who go through the Maryland Health Connection and are enrolled in Medicaid obviously are going to get their help. We have expanded that coverage. Those who go into the exchanges--and Maryland is one of those States that the State will be operating the exchanges.

The overwhelming majority will be entitled to some help in the payment of those premiums. If the House-passed resolution were to become law, and it is not going to become law--the purpose for sending it over here was to make it hostage in the closing of our government. If it became law, that help would be gone. These uninsured have no prospect of getting health coverage, and the inefficiencies of our system continue, the use of emergency rooms, the lack of preventive care continues.

The Senator from California Mrs. Boxer talked about the Medicare system. Let me take a moment about the Medicare system, because this is very important. The so-called doughnut hole, that prescription drug gap of coverage, is being closed as a result of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. How many seniors fell into that doughnut hole and literally could not afford their prescription drugs? We closed that in the Affordable Care Act. In my State of Maryland, 50,000 seniors benefited from that--50,000 seniors. If we

pass the bill that came over from the House, those 50,000 seniors would be calling our office every day finding out what happened to that coverage they lost. You better believe our phones would be ringing about why are we taking away their benefits.

It is even more who are benefiting from the preventive health care services. They do not have to pay copayments. About half a million Marylanders are eligible for that benefit--who are taking advantage, 34 million nationwide. They would lose that preventive health care service that they have today as a result of the passage of Affordable Care Act. That is gone if the House-passed resolution were to become law.

Probably even more serious than that, and Senator Boxer alluded to it, the passage of the Affordable Care Act improved the solvency of the Medicare system for a decade. You repeal the Affordable Care Act, you are back with whether Medicare itself will be a solvent program.

I could go on and on. We have provisions in the Affordable Care Act that are working to prevent fraud within the Medicare system, saving taxpayers dollars. That is gone. We help to make sure that the Medicare Advantage plans are properly paid. That is gone. All of that is repealed if the House resolution were passed, which it will not be. I will make it clear. It was sent over to us with a strategy to put the government operations in jeopardy. There are many on the other side who believe it is a good idea to close the government. That is their objective. Even the Republicans admitted this strategy would not work to actually defund the Affordable Care Act.

I think we should at least talk about what impact it would have. I hear my colleagues talk frequently about small business. I have had a lot of forums with small businesses in Maryland. I must tell you, yes, small businesses are concerned about whether they can afford the cost of their employees and health benefits. They are concerned about it. That is a legitimate issue. But let's talk about what are the circumstances without the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Well, they are on their own. They do not have large markets. They have to pay more than large companies have to pay. They do not have a lot of options.

Under the exchanges, under Maryland Health Connection, they will get different opportunities that they did not have before, more affordable coverage that they did not have before. There are credits available to help them pay for their health insurance. If you have less than 50 employees, there is not a single new mandate in this law for a small business. So this is good news for small companies. That is gone if the resolution that passed the House were to become law. It is not going to become law. My Republican colleagues know it is not going to become law.

I think it is important to point that out. What happens if we do not get to an agreement by Monday night? That is possible. That is possible. We are going to send back a continuing resolution to the House. We do not know whether they are going to accept it. What happens? Well, I can tell you this. I represent the State of Maryland. I represent a lot of Federal workers. I tell you something, they have been through furloughs, they have been through pay freezes, they have been put to the test. They have been asked to do a lot more work with less workers. We have less per capita workers than we have had in modern times on a per capita basis of Federal workers. They have been asked to do more with less. They have already contributed greatly to reducing the deficit.

Once again, come Tuesday morning, they are going to be asked in some cases to show up for work not knowing whether they will get paid, in other cases, to stay home not getting paid, trying to figure out again how they are going to pay their bills. They have rent payments and mortgage payments and food payments. Guess what. That is going to have a major impact on our economy. Make no mistake about it, it will hurt our economy. We have been through this. We have seen this movie before. It hurts our economy. It hurts our country. This is a self-inflicted crisis. This is totally avoidable. If that happens, yes, people will be terribly inconvenienced.

You ask the 10,000 people a day who elect to enroll in Medicare and there is no one there to enroll them in Medicare. What are they going to do? You ask the person who needs a passport and cannot get a passport, what are they going to do? I can go through a whole host of things. In 1995 and 1996, I think it was estimated 9 million people who had planned to go to national parks did not go to national parks.

It is a cumulative effect. Why are we doing this? To advance our agenda? No, it is not going to pass. Why are we not using regular order? This is costly to our economy, it is costly to American families. It is causing a slowdown in the recovery of our economy. An even greater concern is that in a couple of weeks, middle of October, we are talking about going through this again perhaps on whether we will pay our bills. The limit that we have deals with whether we can pay the expenses that have already been incurred. This is not about new spending. This is about money that has already been spent, will we pay the bill when the bill is received?

In the House-passed resolution, they said: Well, we will prioritize. We will pay some but not all. I do not know how you can do that. Administratively, I do not know how you can do that. You certainly are going to make it much more difficult to deal with those that are not in the priority category. So we become a selective deadbeat? We say we are not going to pay contractors, we are not going to pay doctors, we are not going to pay workers? I mean, who are we not going to pay? They have already done the work. They have already provided the services. They have responsibilities. They expect us to pay our bills.

It does not work. We have been through this before in the last Congress. We saw. It hurt America's reputation. We came close. We did not go over the cliff. But just coming close presented a huge problem for this country. If we actually go over the cliff and do not pay our bills, it will be very costly to the American taxpayers. Interest rates will go up on our national debt. It will go up. That will cost the taxpayers more money. For what? Another self-inflicted crisis by the Republicans to advance their extreme agenda.

We have the votes here to pass what we call a clean CR, a clean extension of paying our bills. We have the votes here. There is a majority of us prepared to vote for that. We have said that. We have shown that. But, instead, it is being held hostage to an extreme agenda and trying to shortcut the regular process. What is the regular process? The regular process is we do our work, they do their work, the House, the Senate go to conference, work it out.

Yes, there is a Republican-controlled House. Yes, there is a Democratic-controlled Senate. We do not have 60 votes but we have a majority. In the White House is President Obama. So that is what the voters gave us. Our responsibility is to work with that.

We did. The House passed a budget. I did not like the budget. I did not like their budget. But that is a democracy. They passed their budget. We passed a budget here. Our Republican friends said we probably will not do it. We did it. We did not pass that last week, we passed that months ago. And what we said is, okay, let's go to conference, work out the difference. It will not be everything I want, it will not be everything the Republicans want. That is how the process works.

Republicans will not sit down and talk with us. They will not let us go to conference. They will not let us work out a budget. So when you look at why we have not been able to reach a budget by October 1, it starts with the fact that we have not been able to sit around a table to work out our differences because the Republicans will not let us go to conference. That is a fact. So we have got to get to conference. We have got to get that done.

In the meantime, do not hold the government hostage, or paying our bills hostage, because all that does is create additional costs, hurts America's reputation, hurts our economic recovery. It does not at all advance a final resolution of an orderly process in which we work out the problems of this country.

I urge my colleagues to put America's interests first, stop the games we are playing and threats we are making. We are coming too close. Too many people we are again telling: We do not

know whether you are going to get a paycheck next week. What do you do if you are a worker or contractor and you do not know if you are going to get a paycheck next week?

You are already cutting back on your commitments. This is already hurting our economy. Every day we wait it hurts our economy. That is why a host of us are upset that we had to waste yesterday. It would have been nice to be able to use yesterday to resolve this issue. Every day we wait costs our economy, it costs our country. Let's pass the necessary legislation to keep government operating and pay our bills. Let's sit down as we should and work out the budget problems in a way that is befitting the tradition of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I wish to commend Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman for their hard work in bringing a bipartisan bill to the floor that will boost energy efficiency in government, in industry, and in commercial and residential buildings. This bill will help increase our economic competitiveness, enhance our national security, and combat global climate change.

Energy efficiency improvements are a smart, cost-effective way to reduce pollution, increase the competitiveness of our manufacturers, and put people back to work in the building trades.

We don't have an energy problem in this country; we have a waste problem. Last October the Department of Energy and Lawrence Livermore National Labs calculated that we waste 57 percent of all energy produced--57 percent. We are becoming more energy efficient, but we have a long way to go, which is why the Shaheen-Portman bill is so important.

I wish to speak about two changes I would like to see in the Tax Code that would help us achieve our goals of energy efficiency. I have worked on two bills in this regard and I will be speaking about them as we go through this session of Congress. I have noted amendments, but as I think the Presiding Officer is well aware, to try to put a tax provision on a bill that originates in the Senate causes what is known as the blue slip when the bill is taken to the House, since all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Therefore, I will be looking for opportunities to advance these two energy-related bills but will not have the opportunity on the legislation that is before us.

Energy efficiency is as important as renewables, nuclear, and fossil fuels in an ``all of the above'' strategy to meet the Nation's energy demands. In fact, the cheapest, cleanest ``energy'' we have is the energy we don't need because of energy efficiency improvements.

Our Tax Code in turn can be an effective tool in promoting energy efficiency. Consider that buildings account for more than 40 percent of our energy consumption in the United States. So by encouraging businesses to make energy-efficient upgrades in their buildings, we can reach substantial energy savings. A recent study by McKinsey & Company backs me up. The study concluded that maximizing energy efficiency for homes and commercial buildings could help our country reduce energy consumption by 23 percent by 2020 and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 1.1 gigatons annually. This is the equivalent of taking all passenger cars and light trucks off the road for a year.

Making buildings more efficient is more cost-effective than developing new energy sources. Current building codes are already making new construction significantly more efficient, but a boost is needed for older structures.

Up to 80 percent of the buildings standing today will still be here in 2050, so encouraging the retrofitting of existing buildings needs to be a priority. Even buildings that are fairly new can benefit from retrofitting. For example, Bush Stadium, home of the St. Louis Cardinals, was built in 2006, but energy improvements in 2011 reduced energy consumption by 23 percent.

We could see more successful projects such as this proliferate across the Nation, but our current tax policies have not yet proved to be meaningful incentives for making energy-efficient upgrades to existing buildings. For example, the landmark upgrade of the Empire State Building, which is under contract to lower energy consumption by almost 40 percent, could not qualify for a 179D deduction under the law's current structure. Senator Feinstein and I are working on legislation that would make commonsense reforms to the existing section 179D tax deduction.

Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code provides a tax deduction that allows cost recovery of energy-efficient windows, roofs, lighting, and heating and cooling systems that meet certain energy savings targets. Section 179D allows for an accelerated depreciation that encourages real estate owners to make the significant front-end investments in energy-efficient upgrades. The deduction is scheduled to expire at the end of this year. By extending, modifying, and simplifying this important provision, we can encourage energy savings, create thousands of retrofitting jobs in the construction industry, and reduce energy bills for all consumers--a win-win-win situation. Our legislation would make this critical incentive more accessible and effective for existing buildings that are currently using inefficient lighting systems, antiquated heating and cooling systems, and poor insulation. Upgrading and improving the 179D deduction will make thousands of businesses more competitive and create good-paying jobs right here in the United States.

In addition to commercial properties, our bill will also help promote energy efficiency in private residences. Homes consume more than 20 percent of our Nation's energy, so we need to give American homeowners a helping hand to increase the energy efficiency of their properties. Our legislation does this by establishing a section 25E tax credit for homeowners. Homeowners would receive a 30-percent tax credit of up to $5,000 for making an investment in energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption and costs. Simply

put, it is an incentive that encourages homeowners to choose the most inexpensive option for saving energy. At a time of Federal budget constraints, we must prioritize tax policies so they promote the most cost-effective methods of bolstering our energy security. Performance- based energy efficiency improvements can transform America's homes and lower energy bills for the families who live in them.

Finally, our legislation targets the sector with the largest potential for increasing energy efficiency in our country--the industrial sector. Our bill offers focused, short-term incentives in four areas to help manufacturers make the efficiency investments necessary to innovate and compete. These critical areas include water reuse and replacing old chillers that harm the atmosphere.

I have a letter dated September 17, 2013, from a large coalition of business, labor, and environmental groups supporting the Cardin- Feinstein approach to the reform of section 179D. The Real Estate Roundtable spearheaded the letter, but 50 different organizations have signed on. I want to quote one part of that letter. This is a quote from the letter that was sent in support of the legislation:

The Section 179D deduction is a key incentive to leverage

significant amounts of private sector investment capital in

buildings. It will help spur construction and manufacturing

jobs through retrofits, save businesses billions of dollars

in fuel bills as buildings become more energy efficient,

place lower demands on the power grid, help move our country

closer to energy independence, and reduce carbon emissions.

I think that is exactly what we should be doing. These are the types of incentives we should be working for. If you look at the groups that have signed on to this letter, these are groups that understand how to create jobs and that Congress can help in that regard.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Senator Crapo and I will be introducing legislation that will fix a problem that is keeping energy-efficient roofing materials from being deployed. This is a separate bill that I think could help us create jobs, save energy, and help our environment.

The current Tax Code acts as an obstacle to retrofitting old roofs with energy-efficient ones because, generally speaking, commercial roofs are depreciated over 39 years. Our bill would shorten the depreciation schedule to 20 years for roofs that meet certain energy efficiency standards and that are put in place over the next 2 years. By shortening the depreciation schedule, we are lowering the amount of tax businesses would otherwise have to pay. They get the advantage of their savings in the early years.

This change will create more jobs by encouraging the construction of new roofs and by putting more cash into the hands of businesses. It is good tax policy because the average lifespan of a typical commercial roof is only 17 years. So this legislation corrects an inequity in the Tax Code by aligning the depreciation period closer to the lifespan of commercial roofs.

Securing America's energy and economic future requires a renewed focus on energy efficiency. I hope we can pass the legislation that is before us and send it to the House. I hope the House will send us a tax bill that can serve as the basis for using the Tax Code to promote energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency gains are a win-win for families, businesses, job seekers, taxpayers, our human health, and the environment. We can create jobs, we can help our economy, we can become more competitive, and we can have a cleaner environment if we do the right thing with the legislation before us and are able to improve our Tax Code to help achieve those goals.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today--September 18--marks the Air Force's 66th birthday. For 66 years, our Nation has entrusted the Air Force with preserving peace and freedom, and defending our democracy. Since its beginnings on July 26, 1947, when President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 on board the presidential aircraft, the Sacred Cow, and set the creation of the United States Air Force in motion, to its instrumental role in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force has always served America admirably and I have every confidence that it will continue in this proud tradition.

The Air Force tracks its origins back to 1907, when the Wright Brothers conducted the world's first airplane flight over the sands of Kitty Hawk, NC. Just like the Wright Brothers whose innovation spurred aviation, the vast success and numerous achievements of the Air Force would not be possible without the talented Airmen who fuel innovation today, enabling the Air Force to fly faster, further, and utilize technology that the Wright Brothers could not have imagined over 100 year ago.

Today, the United States Air Force is the largest, most capable, and most technologically advanced air force in the world, with about 5,300 manned aircraft in service, 246 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles, and 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Air Force prides itself on five core missions; Air and Space Superiority; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Rapid Global Mobility; Global Strike; and Command and Control. The Air Force's commitment to core missions illustrates its vast capability and has remained steadfast since the Air Force's establishment as a separate service 66 years ago. Our amazing Airmen today are constantly adapting and improving to meet the challenges of a fast-paced security environment and an ever-evolving battlespace across the globe.

The United States Air Force is, and will continue to be, the United States' key asymmetric advantage across the spectrum of conflict. Whether responding to a national security threat, a

natural disaster, or crisis engagements, the Air Force provides Global Vigilance, Global Reach and Global Power to ensure that the U.S. is capable of responding to events around the world. Without the Air Force's supremacy in air, space and cyberspace, the U.S. would not be able to move troops and equipment to war zones, send relief to countries devastated by natural disasters, provide air support to troops on the ground, or gather crucial intelligence through electronic warfare and stealth technology.

But let us not forget the true power behind the Air Force is its Airmen. The Air Force comprises over 330,000 personnel on active duty, 185,000 civilian personnel, and 180,000 in the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserves. These flexible, adaptable, and innovative Airmen employ unmatched air, space, and cyberspace capabilities. Our Airmen today are driven by the ideals of the Warrior Ethos and commit themselves to succeed in any mission our Nation asks of them. Our Airmen believe that our Constitution and the freedom it guarantees are worth fighting for. They sacrifice their personal comfort and safety to answer a higher calling: service in the cause of freedom, both here at home and abroad. I am awed by our servicemen and women's ability to adapt and succeed in a total force mission that at various stages has called upon them to be scholars, teachers, policemen, farmers, bankers, engineers, social workers, and, of course, warriors--often all at the same time.

Above all, I am perpetually thankful for their willingness to serve, and I have the greatest faith in their ability to face the difficult and dangerous missions that lie ahead. These patriots have always been the strength of our Nation. The unwavering dedication to duty, to our country, and to all Americans is embodied in the Air Force vision, ``The World's Greatest Air Force--Powered by Airmen, fueled by innovation.'' For 66 years, our Air Force has been on a mission to protect the skies so that our society may be free. Let us remember our Air Force Airmen for this achievement today, and wish them a happy 66th birthday.

Mr. President, our existing water infrastructure is crumbling. The longer we ignore the problem, the more it costs us. The truth is that we are in a crisis that can be averted. There is no need to lose revenue from disrupted business and flooded streets. Our water infrastructure may be buried and out of sight and out of mind; but today we must elevate these systems to the priority level they deserve.

Each year within my home State of Maryland I witness stark reminders of what cities across the Nation are facing. In July of this year, Prince George's County, MD, experienced a breakdown of its most essential public infrastructure when a water main serving 100,000 people began to fail. Mandatory water restrictions were instituted, limiting access to water for homes and businesses during an intense heat wave that saw the heat index repeatedly reach the triple digits. At the National Harbor, one hotel evacuated 3,000 guests and was forced to cancel upcoming reservations. Included in the affected area is Joint Base Andrews, which publicized plans to shut down a long list of services, including appointments at its medical center.

There are incidents like this happening all across America. The reports are startling. They confirm what every water utility professional knows: we need massive reinvestment in our water infrastructure now and over the coming decades. The Nation's drinking water infrastructure--especially the underground pipes that deliver safe drinking water to America's homes and businesses--is aging. Like many of the roads, bridges, and other public assets on which the country relies, most of our buried drinking water infrastructure was built 50 or more years ago, in the post-World War II era of rapid demographic change and economic growth. Some of our systems are even older; in Baltimore, where I live, many of the pipes were installed in the 1800s. We need investment to deal with changing population needs and changing hydrological conditions. We have no other choice but to elevate it to a public safety priority and to take action now.

The Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act aims to help local communities meet the challenges of upgrading water infrastructure systems to meet the hydrological changes we are seeing today. The bill directs the EPA to establish a Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability program. Grants will be awarded to eligible water systems to make the necessary upgrades. Communities across the country will be able to compete for Federal matching funds, which in turn will help finance projects to help communities overcome these threats.

Improving water conservation, adjustments to current infrastructure systems, and funding programs to stabilize communities' existing water supply are all projects WIRS grants will fund. WIRS will never grant more than 50 percent of any project's cost, ensuring cooperation between local communities and the Federal government. The EPA will try to award funds that use new and innovative ideas as often as possible.

It's estimated that by 2020, the forecasted deficit for sustaining water delivery and wastewater treatment infrastructure, will trigger a $206 billion increase in costs for businesses. In a worst case scenario, a lack of water infrastructure investment will cause the United States to lose nearly 700,000 jobs by 2020.

A healthy water infrastructure system is as important to America's economy as paved roads and sturdy bridges. Water and wastewater investment has been shown to spur economic growth. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has found that for every dollar invested in water infrastructure, the Gross Domestic Product is increased to more than $6. The Department of Commerce has found that that same dollar yields close to $3 worth of economic output in other industries. Every job created in local water and sewer industries creates close to four jobs elsewhere in the national economy.

We know that a reactive mode causes us to lose billions in revenue in the short-term. Let us instead take a proactive approach, making strategic investments in innovative projects designed to meet the current and future needs of our water systems. That is the purpose of the Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act.

Mr. President, our existing water infrastructure is crumbling. The longer we ignore the problem, the more it costs us. The truth is that we are in a crisis that can be averted. There is no need to lose revenue from disrupted business and flooded streets. Our water infrastructure may be buried and out of sight and out of mind; but today we must elevate these systems to the priority level they deserve.

Each year within my home State of Maryland I witness stark reminders of what cities across the Nation are facing. In July of this year, Prince George's County, MD, experienced a breakdown of its most essential public infrastructure when a water main serving 100,000 people began to fail. Mandatory water restrictions were instituted, limiting access to water for homes and businesses during an intense heat wave that saw the heat index repeatedly reach the triple digits. At the National Harbor, one hotel evacuated 3,000 guests and was forced to cancel upcoming reservations. Included in the affected area is Joint Base Andrews, which publicized plans to shut down a long list of services, including appointments at its medical center.

There are incidents like this happening all across America. The reports are startling. They confirm what every water utility professional knows: we need massive reinvestment in our water infrastructure now and over the coming decades. The Nation's drinking water infrastructure--especially the underground pipes that deliver safe drinking water to America's homes and businesses--is aging. Like many of the roads, bridges, and other public assets on which the country relies, most of our buried drinking water infrastructure was built 50 or more years ago, in the post-World War II era of rapid demographic change and economic growth. Some of our systems are even older; in Baltimore, where I live, many of the pipes were installed in the 1800s. We need investment to deal with changing population needs and changing hydrological conditions. We have no other choice but to elevate it to a public safety priority and to take action now.

The Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act aims to help local communities meet the challenges of upgrading water infrastructure systems to meet the hydrological changes we are seeing today. The bill directs the EPA to establish a Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability program. Grants will be awarded to eligible water systems to make the necessary upgrades. Communities across the country will be able to compete for Federal matching funds, which in turn will help finance projects to help communities overcome these threats.

Improving water conservation, adjustments to current infrastructure systems, and funding programs to stabilize communities' existing water supply are all projects WIRS grants will fund. WIRS will never grant more than 50 percent of any project's cost, ensuring cooperation between local communities and the Federal government. The EPA will try to award funds that use new and innovative ideas as often as possible.

It's estimated that by 2020, the forecasted deficit for sustaining water delivery and wastewater treatment infrastructure, will trigger a $206 billion increase in costs for businesses. In a worst case scenario, a lack of water infrastructure investment will cause the United States to lose nearly 700,000 jobs by 2020.

A healthy water infrastructure system is as important to America's economy as paved roads and sturdy bridges. Water and wastewater investment has been shown to spur economic growth. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has found that for every dollar invested in water infrastructure, the Gross Domestic Product is increased to more than $6. The Department of Commerce has found that that same dollar yields close to $3 worth of economic output in other industries. Every job created in local water and sewer industries creates close to four jobs elsewhere in the national economy.

We know that a reactive mode causes us to lose billions in revenue in the short-term. Let us instead take a proactive approach, making strategic investments in innovative projects designed to meet the current and future needs of our water systems. That is the purpose of the Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act.