Floor Statements

Mr. President, following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for debate only until 2 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, following the suggestion in the prayer of Admiral Black, I want to take a few minutes to talk about Senate decorum, Senate procedure. This is constructive criticism for the entire Senate and self-criticism for me.

I think we have all here in the Senate kind of lost the aura of Robert Byrd, who was such a stickler for Senate procedure. I think we have all let things get away from us a little bit. The Senate is a very special place with very particular rules. These rules help to keep debate among Senators civil, even when we are discussing matters in which Senators completely disagree.

One of those rules concerns how we address each other here in the Senate. The practice we observe is that when Senators speak, they address themselves only to the Presiding Officer, through the Chair to the Senator from Missouri, or whatever the case might be.

When Senators refer to other Senators--this is something we all have to listen to--whether those other Senators are in the Chamber or not, Senators must address and refer to each other in the third person and through the Chair. Thus, Senators should refer to the Senator from Vermont or the Senator from Illinois or the Senator from Nevada or the chairman of the Appropriations Committee or the President pro tempore or the manager of the bill.

Senators should avoid using other Senators' first names. Senators should avoid addressing other Senators directly as ``you.'' These rules are a little unusual, but they have been in place here for a couple of centuries. As people would generally talk directly to other people if they are in the same room with each other, they are a little unusual, because that is how we address one another.

But the Senate rules preserve distance--a little distance, not a lot of distance, but distance. So Senators are more likely to debate ideas and less likely to talk about personalities. I think all of us--that is why I said I am directing a little self-criticism here. I think we all have to understand that these rules create a little bit of distance so Senators are more likely to debate ideas and less likely talk about personalities. If we do that, we maintain more civil decorum as a result. So I bring this matter to the attention of Senators, because we have fallen out of this habit. It has gotten worse the last month or so. I will work harder. I hope my Senators will work their best to maintain these habits of civility and decorum going forward.

The Parliamentarians and Presiding Officers have all been directed to make sure we do a better job of following the basic rules of the Senate.

Mr. President, every day Members of Congress come to work at the U.S. Capitol. I said some of this yesterday afternoon, but because of the melee, the death and destruction outside the Capitol, the sound system did not work, so I want to make sure that people understand a few things about how I feel about the Capitol Police force.

Members of Congress come to work here, and we come with 16,000 staff people. We are here with millions of tourists every year. These good men and women, most of whom are in uniform, but not all of them are, are here to keep us, members of our staff, and the public safe from harm.

Yesterday's events were a sobering reminder of that fact. I spoke yesterday afternoon, shortly after the incident, to Brian Carter, a 23- year veteran of the Capitol Police force who was hurt during yesterday's incident. I talked to police officers whom I came in contact with over the last 16 hours

or so. I said: Do you know Brian? Almost everyone knows him. Almost everyone said the same exact thing: What a fine man.

As I spoke to him yesterday--he is expected to make a recovery--I wished him and his family the best during this difficult time for him and for all of us. I wish a speedy recovery to the Secret Service agent who was also injured yesterday.

But I thought the most memorable thing we had in our short telephone conversation was, he said: My job is to keep you safe. He was not referring to me, even though he and I were on the phone. He meant his job was to make sure everyone is safe. That was something I will always remember.

These brave men and women put their lives on the line every day, Capitol Police, other law enforcement agencies who work here in the Capitol. Why do they do that? Because that is their job.

So my thanks go out to every Capitol Police officer. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

I want to remind everyone listening that yesterday and today, the Capitol remains closed to most business. The Federal Government remains closed. In the newspaper today, it lists all of the layoffs. Today it has a graph of those in the administration area--not the legislative or judicial but in the administration. We have tens of thousands of public servants who are not furloughed, but they are working, including law enforcement officials, without pay. A number of people yesterday were out there risking their lives without pay. There are hundreds of thousands more, such as intelligence officers, to keep the Nation safe, who have been forced to leave their jobs, forgo their paychecks altogether.

Because of these furloughs, the Capitol Police, the FBI, and other Federal law enforcement agencies face additional risk, as they are asked to do their jobs with limited manpower and without the support they can typically depend on.

Congress owes it to them and to every American family to get past our differences, work through our disagreements, and work toward reopening the Federal Government. It is hard to comprehend what is going on. This is all because of President Obama's signature legislative issue that we were so fortunate to pass, to allow all Americans to have health care, as is the case in every industrialized nation in the world except our Nation.

We have as many as 45 million or 50 million people with no health insurance. I would hope my Republican colleagues understand the bill is 4 years old, it has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, it is in effect. Millions of people have gone on line this week to find out what they can do to have health insurance.

Of course.

(Ms. HIRONO assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, to my friend, the most senior Member of the Senate, in today's newspapers and in commentary on television and radio, even Republicans, prominent Republicans, former chairs--I have in my mind, which I read today, two former chairs of the National Republican Party--said: We have got to be for something, not just against everything.

That is the problem we have. They are against everything. Against everything. As the distinguished Senator from Vermont said, what are they for? We know what they are against, but what are they for?

I ask permission to direct a question through the Chair to my friend from Texas.

Mr. President, my question is that I was under the assumption that my friend would offer the consent requests, as we do here with brief responses in the competing consent requests, and then the Senator would speak for 20 minutes. My only concern is this: one, two, three--I have five or six Senators over here wishing to speak. So my question is this: Does the Senator wish to take 20 minutes following this in addition to what time he has taken now?

Further, Mr. President, I propound a unanimous consent request, and the request is: When the Senator from Texas finishes his consent that he is asking--and there is one more, as I understand it-- then I ask permission that the next Senators to be recognized be Senator Mikulski for 10 minutes, the Senator from Florida--so it is not bad. Only a couple speakers. So we have Senator Mikulski, who will be recognized for up to 15 minutes. I apologize for the interruption. The floor is the Senator's from Texas.

Mr. President, prior to my responding to my friend, I would use just a few minutes of leader time--I will be very brief--with permission.

Here is what I am going to say.

Mr. President, we have heard this back-and-forth stuff about veterans. But in addition to what the Senator from Washington said, let me read one paragraph from the Record of yesterday:

I would note also that I believe the resolution the Senator

is offering and suggested be passed provides only partial

funding for the VA. There is no funding here to operate the

national cemeteries. There is no funding for

the Board of Veterans' Appeals. There is no funding for

constructing VA hospitals and their clinics. There is no

funding, actually, to operate the IT system that the entire

VA needs in order to continue going forward.

I reserve the right to object to the request of my friend from Texas.

I object, as do most Americans. There is no reason for us to have to choose between important government functions, as has been said by my three colleagues so brilliantly this morning. But I guess my objection is best paraphrased by reading a column from the Washington Post by Dana Milbank. Here is what he said:

House Republicans continued what might be called the

lifeboat strategy: deciding which government functions are

worth saving. In: veterans, the troops and tourist

attractions. Out: poor children, pregnant women and just

about every government function that regulates business. . .

. Here are some of the functions not boarding the GOP

lifeboats: market regulation, chemical spill investigations,

antitrust enforcement, worksite immigration checks, workplace

safety inspections, the Environmental Protection Agency . . .

communications and trade regulation, nutrition for 9 million

children and pregnant women, flu monitoring and other

functions of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

and housing rental assistance for the poor.

I spent, 1 month ago, a day at the National Institutes of Health. I remember so clearly one Institute I went to where this young girl, about 12 years old--she had come back for her second visit. She has a disease that they do not know for sure what it is. But they were trying to figure out what she had, and they felt they were on the cusp of being able to figure that out. Her parents, of course, were very happy.

We know how important it is that little children, babies, adults be taken care of, especially toward the time when they have no hope. That is what NIH is about: hope.

I truly believe we should open the government, all the government. This is a trip down a road that is so foolish. We need not be there. If people have a problem with ObamaCare--and I know my friend, the junior Senator from Texas, does not care for ObamaCare--let's do it in a context that is reasonable and fair, not have all the people in America who are so troubled with this----

I heard an interview with the Governor of Maryland this morning. They are losing $15 million or $20 million a day because of the government being closed in Maryland. I would ask my friend to accept a modification. It is a modification that is so well-intentioned. What it would do is open the government. It would take care of the National Institutes of Health, it would take care of the veterans, including all the stuff that is left out of the consent we have here before which I read into the Record a minute ago, it would take care of the national parks, and in Nevada we are really desperate to have those open. We have one 70 minutes outside of Las Vegas where 1 million people a year visit. We have one about 12 miles outside of Las Vegas where we have 600,000 people a year visit, Lake Mead. The other is Red Rock, and others. We have a Great Basin National Park. We want to open that. That would solve this problem.

So I ask unanimous consent that the consent of my friend from Texas be modified, that an amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; that the joint resolution, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

This amendment is the text that passed the Senate and is a clean continuing resolution for the entire government. It is something that is already over in the House and reportedly has the support of a majority of Members of the House.

Finally, the statement I made, if that little girl came back there now for her clinical trial, likely she would not be able to have any help, just as we learned earlier this week there were 200 people who were turned away from clinical trials, 30 of whom were babies and children.

Mr. President, still reserving my right to object, my friend from Texas--and I have developed a relationship with him--talks about a meeting

that he did not attend. I was there. I was one of five people, the President, Speaker Boehner, Leader McConnell, Leader Pelosi, and me-- the Vice President was also there. I am sorry.

I attended that meeting. The President did not say: Come on in, I am not going to talk to you, I have nothing to say, words to that effect. The meeting lasted an hour and 20 minutes. There were a lot of things said. But one thing that was not said is this ``Alice in Wonderland'' what took place in that meeting, when someone talks about the meeting who was not there.

Let's talk about compromise. My friend brought up compromise. We have before us a continuing resolution. My friend, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, called me and said: We have got to work this out. We have got to get this done quickly.

I thought: So how are we going to get it done? This was on September 9 after our recess ended. He said: We have got to have the 988 number for this year.

I said: I cannot do that. I cannot do that. Chairman Murray's number is $70 billion above that that we passed here in the Senate. We passed that. I cannot agree to 988.

He said: You have got to do it. I do not want to be fighting. I want to get this done.

So I talked to Chairman Murray, Chairman Mikulski, and others. Even though it was desperately hard to do--because we do not like the number 988, we do not like it. It is not our number--we agreed to do it. That was a compromise. I have been in Congress 31 years. That is the biggest compromise I have ever made. My caucus did not like it, but we did it in an effort to have a clean CR.

You talk about compromise, that was big time. But, Speaker Boehner, I am sure, was well intentioned. He could not get it done. He could not get it done. It was his idea how to get it done.

Then, talking about further compromise, one of the last things we had walked over from the House is: Go to conference. So I thought: I have something. It is an offer so good that he cannot refuse. What did I do? With the cooperation of all 53 Democratic Senators, here is what we agreed to do: Open the government. What we will do is go to conference. Not on little select areas. We will go to conference on a list of everything. I listed everything--not everything, but everything I could think of. We listed agriculture, we listed discretionary spending and, yes, we listed health care.

I gave the letter to the Speaker. I talked to him 45 minutes later. He said: I can't do it.

Wow.

I know what legislation is all about. It is the art of compromise. I understand that. We have compromised in big-time fashion. The problem is that the Speaker and some other Republican Members of Congress are in a real bind because the only thing they want to talk about is the law that passed 4 years ago, which the Supreme Court declared constitutional. This is a little unusual, I would think, in my experience here.

So we are where we are because we not only have the government shutdown, but we have the full faith and credit of our Nation before us in a week or 10 days.

I suggest, I do not want anyone to say I have not compromised. All one needs to do is talk to any Member of my caucus and they will talk about how difficult it has been for us to accept that number, and agree to go to conference on anything.

I object.

If my friend would yield, following his statement of 20 minutes, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized: Mikulski already has 15 minutes; Murray, I ask unanimous consent that she follow Mikulski for 10 minutes; Heinrich, 10 minutes; Schumer, 15 minutes.

If some Republicans want to come and talk, my friends, I would be happy to yield to any of them. But we have not had a large number of people over here this morning.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 5 p.m., and that all the provisions under the previous order remain in effect.

Madam President, I appreciate my two friends for yielding for this consent agreement.

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

Madam President, it has been 7 days since we passed a piece of legislation to fund the government. I wonder how many days it will be that the Speaker makes the American people wait to open the government. How long is he going to make them wait before the government is open? It is a real hardship not only to the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees but the people who depend on the Federal employees for their own jobs. So it is very unfortunate.

Madam President, we have not had a harder working Senator in the past 9 months than the Presiding Officer.

You have worked so hard doing so many different things, not the least of which is presiding over the Senate. You have presided over the Senate in the early morning hours, late-night hours. It is remarkable. I so appreciate your doing this. The entire Senate, Democrats and Republicans, has expressed their appreciation through me to the Presiding Officer for the good work you do in trying to make this place better. Not only do you preside, but you do a good job. You are dignified, and you do it with authority.

The people of Wisconsin are so fortunate to have the distinguished Presiding Officer as a Senator. I have had the good fortune to serve with a number of other Senators from Wisconsin. Russ Feingold was such a good friend. I miss him very much. Herb Kohl is a unique individual who added a great deal to the Senate with the many things he did as a long-term member of the Appropriations Committee. However, none of the Senators I have served with from Wisconsin will outshine the distinguished Presiding Officer. You have been remarkably good. You have only been here a short period of time, but in the short period of time you have been here, you have had admirable dedication to this institution.

Senator Baldwin is a native of Wisconsin--the first woman ever to represent that great State.

As frequently as you have presided, you have enjoyed a front-row seat. History is being made during this congressional session. Some of the sessions you have watched haven't been too much fun, but it has been good, and you have done such a remarkably good job.

On behalf of all of the Senators, I congratulate you and thank you for your service to the Senate. This is the first Golden Gavel Award. There will be a presentation made at our caucus this Tuesday to recognize your distinction. This is something that is traditional, the Golden Gavel. It is a beautiful memento we will present to you on Tuesday.

I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further action on H.R. 1848.

I further ask that the substitute amendment, which is at the desk and is the text of S. 1072, as reported by the Commerce Committee, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3095, which is at the desk.

I further ask that the bill be read three times and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 200, S. Res. 227.

I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 201, S. Res. 213.

I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; the committee-reported amendment to the title be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 265.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for their first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, but object to my own request for both of these measures.