Floor Statements

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., to hold an East Asia and Pacific Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Assessing the Response to Typhoon Yolanda/Haiyan.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Strengthening Government Oversight: Examining the Roles and Effectiveness of Oversight Positions Within the Federal Workforce.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance and the Subcommittee on Economic Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2013, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Present and Future Impact of Virtual Currency.''

Madam President, it is clear we have honest disagreements about how we should address our budget. I believe the path forward should be fair and balanced. That is not what we have seen to date. We have enacted $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts. These cuts put tremendous pressure on important domestic investments in areas such as education, health care, and national security.

I do not believe cutting domestic programs that invest in our future and help low- and middle-income American families is the right thing to do, especially when we can close egregious tax loopholes that benefit multinational corporations and some of the wealthiest Americans.

Again, we have made significant progress in deficit reduction. The bulk of that has been cutting programs that invest in the country and help families. To go forward, we need a balanced approach, selective cuts, but we also need to close some of these egregious loopholes that are benefiting--not the small business man or woman living in Rhode Island--but multinational corporations--not working wage earners in Rhode Island--but some of the wealthiest Americans.

I know some of my colleagues disagree with me. But in order to address our long-term fiscal challenges, the brinkmanship has to stop. Drawing lines in the sand and daring people to cross them has to stop. What we need is not to surrender our principles but to reach principled compromise.

That is why we should provide immediate certainty that the shutdowns and the threats to wreck the economy are totally off the table. We can do this by agreeing to adequate top-line numbers for the appropriations process for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 and eliminating the job-killing sequester.

Then we can move forward to a long-term debate about our fiscal challenges. We can then build consensus and reach this principled compromise. In reaching that compromise, I would urge my colleagues to include policies that focus on jobs and economic growth, that restore fairness to our Tax Code and preserve hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Looking over the last few years, the uncertainty and the brinkmanship according to most economists has robbed us of growth. That growth, in and of itself, not only would have put more Americans to work, but it would have contributed to deficit reduction, even more than we have already been able to do to date.

If we are serious about deficit reduction, if we are serious about narrowing the gap in terms of equality in our society, then we have to emphasize not only wise fiscal policies that reduce the deficit directly but wise fiscal policies that encourage growth and also reduce the deficit.

Let's agree to those top-line numbers. Let's also eliminate the sequester and let's move forward. That is why we were sent here. Americans want us to keep the economy moving forward and to get the economy working for them. They do not want to see us engage in procedural maneuvers that simply leave us without adequate progress on these issues that are extraordinarily important to them.

We are recovering from the most recent self-inflicted wound--the government shutdown and near default. That manufactured crisis was absolutely unnecessary and it was particularly unnecessary to threaten the credit of the United States. A vast majority of Americans are clear that at a minimum we should keep the government open and we should pay our bills. We have always done that. Only in the last few years and harking back to when Mr. Gingrich was Speaker did the other side engage in this sort of brinksmanship.

This does not work for Americans. They do understand we have differences in policy. They do understand we have to debate these various differences. But at a threshold level, government has to be working for them, not sporadically but constantly. And we cannot threaten the credit of the United States.

Jumping from these manufactured crises to crises is no way to do the job. As I said before, there are immediate tasks before us. We have to have a reasonable expenditure level for our budgets for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Sequester must stop. Then we have to start to look at longer term problems that are being driven by demographics.

We know the sequestration is harming our job growth. CBO has estimated that the 2013 and 2014 sequester will cost the economy 900,000 jobs. Simply suspending or limiting the sequester, if we can generate 900,000 jobs, most Americans would say that is the right policy. If you can just do that and create jobs, then do it.

It is obvious the sequester is not workable. The House of Representatives, our colleagues, have had very difficult times passing bills that adhere to sequestration, bills that traditionally passed overwhelmingly, like transportation and infrastructure bills. If we cannot even do that under the pressure of the sequester, then, again, we are back to a dysfunctional government. It might be formally open, but it is not helping people and it's not doing the things we have to do: getting economies to grow, letting States build bridges, sewers, and highways.

Senator Mikulski has done an extraordinary job as the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. She has been working hard to make sure we bring bills to this floor that not only have the support of our Members, our colleagues, but also meet the needs of the American people.

I have the privilege of chairing the interior subcommittee. We have been able, working with my colleague Senator Murkowski from Alaska, to propose--we have not brought it to the subcommittee or full committee-- but to propose a mark that would respond to the real needs of this country in terms of clean water and drinking

water infrastructure--which is vital to the economy of every American community.

On the other side, the House is proposing a cut of $1.756 billion, more than 75 percent. That cut would devastate these programs and result in 97,000 fewer jobs. These are the good kinds of construction jobs, high-paying jobs, that allow families to stay above the water and allow communities to prosper. The workers who are putting in those infrastructure projects are also going to local supermarkets, local restaurants, paying the fees and dues to the Little League teams, and doing the things we expect every family should be able to do and we hope every family can do.

In the Transportation bill, for example, we were able to maintain our promise to fund transit, airport, and highway systems. We have been able to set aside more than $1 billion for the popular TIGER grant program and a new initiative to replace bridges in critical transportation corridors. This is an effort that can benefit every State in this country in terms of infrastructure projects.

Looking across the Capitol at the House Republican Transportation bill, they are cutting by $7.7 billion--even more than last year's sequestration level. It not only eliminates the TIGER grants for 2014, it reaches back to 2013 TIGER grants and cuts them by $237 million. These kinds of cuts are untenable.

They also signal a very different attitude here. It was at one time clear that transportation was one of those issues that united us, Republicans and Democrats, the North, the South, the East, and the West, because it was something that every community needed and every community understood. Now we see this dichotomy, and that is unhealthy for our government and for our economy.

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers said last July when these draconian cuts forced House leaders to pull the bill from consideration:

With this action, the House has declined to proceed on the

implementation of the very budget it adopted just three

months ago. Thus, I believe that the House has made its

choice: sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived

discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end.

Even the chairperson of the House Appropriations Committee is signaling that sequestration is untenable and unworkable.

On this side of the Capitol, Chairman Mikulski has been a strong voice echoing--not only echoing, but asserting--that position constantly.

We can't get rid of sequestration with spending cuts alone. We can't cut our way to prosperity. Revenue has to be part of the solution.

In fact, as we have done over the last several years, we have cut discretionary spending dramatically. We are down to not fat but bone, and so we need additional revenues.

There is some good news. There are loopholes, egregious loopholes, that in and of themselves should be closed, regardless if we were dealing with the issues of deficit and sequestration. They are not appropriate, not efficient, and they do not add to the overall economic benefit of the country. They do benefit very narrow interests. It comes down to whether my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to see these special preferences prevail or whether the national economy and the families across this country will benefit.

We have to move forward. We have to emphasize things that will help us, for example, create more manufacturing jobs in this time and for the future. I think at one point we thought manufacturing was passe. We discovered it is not only not passe but it is absolutely vital, because we can't take new innovation, new discoveries, at which we are so good, commercialize them, and then create new products in that commercialization process, unless we have manufacturing.

We learn a lot on the manufacturing floor. We have seen products we have developed intellectually become not only manufactured but improved by other countries who have the ability to manufacture, we have to get back to doing that.

We have to be able to align our workforce and our education system so that we have the skills for the next century. Job training has to be competent, efficient, and adequate. All of this requires investments in resources, not simply cutting away and cutting away.

Ultimately, as we understand, and as our predecessors, particularly my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell, understood, education is the engine that pulls this country forward. We used to assume we were the most educated. We were the country with the best record of college graduates. We were the country that advanced public education for everyone. We look around the world and we have slipped in terms of college graduates. We have slipped in terms of skills. Our public education system needs to be reinvigorated. Not only with suggestions from the sidelines, not only with new approaches, but also with real resources. These investments have to be made.

It is a multifaceted approach, but I think we have to begin with only the simple understanding, as we go forward, we need to provide the economy, our constituents, and ourselves the certainty of an adequate funding level for the government for the next 2 years. We need to suspend, dispense with, postpone--whatever the appropriate term-- sequestration, because it is not going to help us grow the economy. In fact, it will take away about 900,000 jobs.

Then we have to certainly make it clear we will not threaten the creditworthiness of the United States by defaulting on our debt.

If we can do these things, and I believe we can, we can provide the certainty that our private entrepreneurs need to make real investments in the economy and to grow. In all of this, we have to bring a balanced approach. It is not only cutting, it is expenditure cuts wisely chosen, together with revenue wisely chosen, through closing loopholes that will give us a growing economy, hopefully increase opportunity, and put us back on the path to profound sustained economic recovery.

(The further remarks of Mr. REED are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my deepest sympathy to the senior Senator from Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and his wife Kay on the sudden and untimely loss of their son, Dr. Perry Inhofe, this weekend in a plane crash. I extend my thoughts and prayers to the entire Inhofe family.

Perry Inhofe was an orthopedic surgeon as well as a licensed pilot and flight instructor, with a family of his own. Flying is integral to the Inhofe family--I know that from my service with Senator Inhofe on the Armed Services Committee and as cochair with him of the Army Caucus, a caucus he created along with Senator Dan Akaka to support the men and women serving in the Army. I know of his intense involvement in flying.

I hope, certainly, that the memories and the time he had with his son will help sustain and comfort him in the days ahead. Senator Inhofe is a man of great integrity, with great dedication to his faith, to the Nation. Again, at this time of loss, I only hope the memory and the example of his son, his son's service and his courage and faith and love will sustain the Inhofe family.

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with Senator Grassley, the Government Settlement Transparency and Reform Act. This bill closes a loophole that allows corporations to reap tax benefits from payments made to the government stemming from settling corporate misdeeds. So this bill aims to end the subsidization of illegal corporate behavior by taxpayers.

Corporations accused of illegal activity routinely settle legal disputes with the government out of court because it allows both the company and the government to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of going to trial. Under Federal law, money paid to settle corporate civil or criminal penalties is not deductible. But under the tax code, offending companies may often write off any portion of a settlement that is not paid directly to the government as a penalty or fine for violation of the law. Corporations exploit this provision by later characterizing settlement penalties as restitution and a tax-deductible business expense.

I think it is common sense that, for example, a corporation should not agree to pay the government $500 million in criminal or civil fines and then when they file their taxes count those fines as a business expense and take a tax windfall. Corporations that do this are effectively using taxpayer money to subsidize their illegal behavior. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that of the 34 companies and $1 billion in settlements they examined, 20 companies took a tax deduction for some or all of the money it paid to the government. Those settlements were silent on whether that $1 billion to the government counted as penalties or restitution. According to GAO, in 2 of those settlements, company representatives said they made a mistake in deducting civil penalty payments totaling $1.9 million and said they would amend their tax returns.

The Reed-Grassley bill would address these practices by amending 162(f) of the tax code and requiring the government and the settling party to reach pre-filing agreements on how the settlement payments should be treated for tax purposes. The bill also clarifies the rules about what settlement payments are punitive and therefore non- deductible. Furthermore, it increases transparency by requiring the government to file a return at the time of settlement to accurately reflect the tax treatment of the amounts that will be paid by the offending party.

Over a 10 year budget window, this legislation is estimated to raise between $200 to $300 million in revenue.

With this legislation we can close this tax loophole that flies in the face of sensible and fair tax policy. The tax code should not be used to subsidize illegal activity by corporations--when a fine is levied that fine should not be construed as a legitimate business expense. Instead, it should be paid in full, with no tax deduction taken.

I want to thank Senator Grassley for working with me on this legislation. I would also thank Chairman Baucus who introduced similar legislation in previous Congresses. They have long championed closing this loophole. I urge our colleagues to join us by cosponsoring this legislation and seeking its passage.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to support my colleague and my friend, Congressman Mel Watt of North Carolina, who has been nominated by the President to be the next Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency--the FHFA. I have total confidence that Mel is fully capable and qualified to serve as the FHFA Director, and I am not alone.

This week, the National Association of Home Builders wrote a letter to Leaders Reid and McConnell unequivocally endorsing Congressman Watt, stating:

During Representative Watt's tenure on the House Financial

Services Committee, he has proven to be a thoughtful leader

on housing policy. The FHFA needs a permanent director with

his leadership capabilities.

Senator Burr, Congressman Watt's Republican colleague from North Carolina, and Senator Hagan recently shared a ``Dear Colleague'' in which both North Carolina Senators stated clearly, in their words:

Congressman Watt has shown himself to be an honest, kind,

and capable individual with deep understanding of the housing

market. We urge you to support his nomination.

He is indeed qualified to serve as the FHFA Director. He is an incredibly decent and honest person who I know will always work diligently toward a decision based on the facts, not on ideology or momentary trends. Democrats know this, and Republicans who have worked and served with him know this.

Despite this, there is some question whether Congressman Watt has the technical experience to run FHFA. So let us look at Congressman Watt's record to see if we can peel that back and look closely.

He is a graduate of Yale Law School, who for 22 years practiced business, economic development, and real estate law. He is not a theoretician. He understands the impact of foreclosure, not just the macroeconomics but the personal dimension. He understands the role of financial intermediaries, banks and housing agencies. He has been a 21- year member of the House Financial Services Committee, so legislatively he has been engaged and involved in every major business, financial, and housing initiative in the last two decades, and he has seen this from the perspective of a legislator.

He has earned the support of his colleagues, but also he has earned the support of his constituents and his neighbors back home. He has the endorsement of the former Republican Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Spencer Bachus of Alabama, who noted:

Congressman Watt has played an integral role in the

financial services committee's deliberations on housing

policy and is known as a serious and substantive legislator .

. . In my experience in working with him on a variety of

issues, I have always personally respected Congressman Watt

for his intellect, attention to detail, and dedication to

serving the public.

Again, this is a reflection of two decades of service at the heart of the process of legislating with respect to housing policy in the United States. So when we combine his legal training, his practical experience as a lawyer, his two decades of service as a member of the House Financial Services Committee, he is fully qualified for this key position, which is so vitally important now because we have to seriously tackle the issue of housing finance reform, and we have to take into consideration the needs and concerns of all the stakeholders, from investors to homeowners.

Again, Congressman Watt has that perspective--knowing the intricacies from his legal training of financial laws, doing what he has to do to protect the interests of his clients, and as a legislator with over two decades of experience in creating housing policy in the United States.

The FHFA should be led by a Director, confirmed by the Senate, not an

Acting Director. We have to send the signal this is a position that is important and deserves a confirmed Director, notwithstanding the skills and abilities and the great dedication of the current Acting Director. We need to have someone in the position who has been confirmed by the Senate. There are too many critical decisions each day, and too much at stake in terms of housing finance reform not to have a confirmed Director of the FHFA.

I urge my colleagues to allow this nomination to come before this body for a vote. Congressman Watt deserves no less, and I indeed urge support for his confirmation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Servicemember Housing Protection Act along with my colleagues Senators Begich, Whitehouse, Durbin, and Tester. Our country has a strong tradition of ensuring that our service members are protected while they serve to keep our nation safe. Building on such laws and efforts, in 1940, as World War II escalated across the globe, Congress enacted the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act ``to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation.'' In 2003, Congress passed a new version of this law to reflect the new challenges of post- 9/11 service and renamed it the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA. Since that time, Congress has further amended this law, most recently in August 2012, in order to address the country's high foreclosure rates and their impact on service members.

Additionally, in 2010, when it became evident that military families needed an entity to serve as a watchdog, provide education, and help monitor and respond to concerns, questions, and complaints about consumer financial products and services, I led the bipartisan effort during the Dodd-Frank Act debate to create a new Office of Servicemember Affairs within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

Mr. President, today I introduce the Servicemember Housing Protection Act along with my colleagues Senators Begich, Whitehouse, Durbin, and Tester. Our country has a strong tradition of ensuring that our service members are protected while they serve to keep our nation safe. Building on such laws and efforts, in 1940, as World War II escalated across the globe, Congress enacted the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act ``to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation.'' In 2003, Congress passed a new version of this law to reflect the new challenges of post- 9/11 service and renamed it the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA. Since that time, Congress has further amended this law, most recently in August 2012, in order to address the country's high foreclosure rates and their impact on service members.

Additionally, in 2010, when it became evident that military families needed an entity to serve as a watchdog, provide education, and help monitor and respond to concerns, questions, and complaints about consumer financial products and services, I led the bipartisan effort during the Dodd-Frank Act debate to create a new Office of Servicemember Affairs within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the twin manufactured crises that are facing the country: A hobbled government and the threat of default.

I have seen some describe this as a game, and I have heard others say it is just partisanship posturing. But this situation is neither. This is serious business. In fact, I am deeply troubled about this--not only as a Senator representing the State of Rhode Island, but as an American--about where my country is going.

I am dismayed that some on the other side have decided that for whatever reason--and those reasons seem to keep changing--the only way to achieve their goal--and their goals seem to keep changing--is to shut the government down and suggest that defaulting on our debt will have no consequences.

It would be a nice fiction if we could say: Well, America really didn't have to pay its bills. That we don't have to pay for the trillions we spent in Iraq and in Afghanistan, or for the significant tax cuts under President Bush that benefited the wealthiest Americans. I didn't support the operations in Iraq, and I didn't support those tax cuts. I think we could have invested the money much more wisely and helped America.

But the reality is all these bills are coming due, and the United States Treasury has to pay them.

Some of my colleagues on the other side are suggesting: Well, we can prioritize payments. No one will be upset. No one will be hurt if we don't pay the bills as they come due. We will just pick the ones we want to pay.

But these are not Democratic bills. They are not Republican bills. These are America's bills. They were approved by the Congress of the United States under Republican Presidents and Democrat Presidents, under Republican Congresses and Democrat Congresses. And as they come due, they must be paid.

But we are here today in this manufactured crisis that essentially locks out and blocks the American people from accessing their government--from accessing basic government services. Women and children receiving food under the WIC program, Head Start--a whole panoply of Americans who are literally being denied benefits they earned, or benefits that are necessary not just for their health, but for the health and vitality of the fabric of America. Then, on top of that, is the added threat of a default on our obligations--already accrued, already authorized, already appropriated obligations--not new borrowing for new expenditures. These bills are coming due.

We have seen this ever-changing theme from the other side about why they have to do these things. At first it was an effort to repeal ObamaCare. Then it was a 1-year delay of health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Then it was just a delay of part of the law. Then it was repealing a tax that was part of the law. Now, we have heard about Canadian oil pipelines, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and cutting Medicaid. The rationale keeps changing and suggesting that the reasons behind this lockout are not only unclear to the American public, they are unclear to the proponents. In fact, some are suggesting that this is also about cutting Social Security and Medicare and other programs that are central to every family in this country. Indeed, it seems as though they have transitioned from ``let's take ObamaCare and repeal it'' to ``let's take the New Deal and repeal that.'' In fact, one of our colleagues in the House apparently suggested he didn't know what he wanted; he just knew he wanted something in exchange for an open government that is functioning and a government that pays its bills.

It is hard not to draw the conclusion that many of my colleagues on the other side have simply committed themselves to extracting major policy

concessions, whatever they can get, by threatening to default on our debt and by continuing to lock out the American people from its government. They are sadly using potential economic chaos to get their way.

Now I don't think Republicans are debating seriously--and we have heard this argument from them for years going back--for decades, in fact--to the initial debate on Medicare, that it is evil socialized medicine. Now I am sure during the discussion of the New Deal, there were criticisms of growing central government, but to seriously take away these programs I think would cause the American people to stand up and say no, since most if not every American fundamentally depends on them. Particularly as they get to the point where they are retired or they are approaching retirement.

So now the Republican story has shifted, as they have gotten closer and closer to what seems to be some of their real motivating factors: shrinking government dramatically, not just those parts that are popular. Now they are beginning to hint that this is about something more fundamental. This is about tearing up the basic social contract where people have worked all their lives, paid into Social Security, and will get Social Security benefits. For them, this is about tearing up the social contract that if you have worked, you have paid into the Medicare system, you will get Medicare benefits.

Of course now they have shifted their current story again, and now it is all about negotiation, that we have not negotiated. That is why they have to shut down the government and default on the debt of the United States. The irony, of course, is that Democrats have been, indeed, trying to go into serious and bipartisan negotiations about our budget for many months. Indeed, months ago, in March, as I recall, the Senate, after taking 47 rollcall votes, passed a solid, balanced, and sensible budget plan and asked to negotiate with the other body in a conference. Indeed, at the beginning of the year, the Speaker called for following the budget process, for following regular order.

At one point, the other side even demanded that Senators and Congresswomen and men should not be paid if there was no budget resolution. But, sadly, months later, after we had passed our budget, a handful of colleagues in this body, on the Republican side, have been blocking us from going to conference. They are insisting that as any precondition to a bipartisan conference we could not talk about raising revenue, or take actions that will ensure the government be able to pay its bills. They have essentially stopped regular order.

For his part, the Speaker of the House refused to appoint conferees for months, as well, apparently fearful that Republicans might have to actually vote on some of their proposals that have been incorporated over the years in various Republican budgets with respect to Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.

But now as we approach default, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying: Oh, it is time to negotiate on the budget.

It was time months ago when we asked to go to conference. It was time weeks ago. Now it is time to ensure that we pay our bills and we open the government.

We have come to the Senate floor 21 times so far to seek to go to conference to negotiate with the House on the budget. What do we hear? When we ask to go to negotiate, no. But, when we ask them to open the government, to pay our bills, they say no let's negotiate. That is not the way to conduct the business of this government. It is not the way to provide the confidence our economy needs to go forward. It is not the way to provide families the confidence they need to face the rigors of daily life--of educating children, of taking care of their health care, of contributing to their community.

We have had consistent and constant objections, which frustrate our ability to go to conference and negotiate, over many, many, many months. But after all their other rationales--defund ObamaCare, delay ObamaCare, delay the personal mandate--now it has come down to let's negotiate, when indeed, Republicans have rejected that approach 21 times on the floor of the Senate.

It is time for the other Chamber to reopen the government and agree to pay our bills. They can do that by bringing to the floor very quickly--and they can procedurally: a clean CR--a term of art that was Washington speak until a week or two ago, but now everyone knows. It simply sets for a few weeks the amount of money we can spend and allows us to open the government.

Americans are being hurt by the shutdown, and they will be hurt even more grievously if we default on our debt. It is continually amazing to me that the other side persists in shutting down the government and threatening to default on the debt.

But, you have a response by the other side, particularly, that is consistent with what we heard during their primary campaign for the Presidency: Let's shut down some government agencies. Now it is the other side of that coin: Republicans will just open a few government agencies, not the whole government, but the ones--and they change or they increase each day--that they think are important. Each day they seem to have another idea about: Well, we have to open this. It will be a good headline. It will be a good talking point.

For example, they have talked about opening the national parks, the Smithsonian, and other museums. But, let's remember that in the House, Republicans have proposed cutting the allocation for the Department of Interior Appropriations Bill by $5.5 billion from last year.

So we have to go forward and we have to resolve this situation. We cannot allow this lockout to continue. We have to do what Leader Reid has said quite succinctly: open the government, pay our bills, go to conference on the budget, and then negotiate everything that is within reason to negotiate. Let's do that for the American people. We are ready to do it. I hope our colleagues will agree to do it also.

With that, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, we are 5 days into the government shutdown, but unfortunately there has been no progress in resolving this issue. I disagree with some policies championed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and indeed I sometimes disagree with the President and Members of my own party on specific policy prescriptions. Case in point: raising the student loan interest rate and the so-called JOBS Act. In both cases I tried to make my best argument on the merits of the issue, and then we voted, moved on, and I am still working to try to improve both laws. I haven't given up, but I have not shut the government down because my views didn't prevail.

So I say to my colleagues on the other side, the way to change laws you do not like is not to shut down the government at the expense of your fellow Americans and at the expense of our economy; it is to try to build consensus and persuade a broad swath of the American people that there is a better way of doing things and making concrete proposals.

It has been pointed out many times before that the House of Representatives has attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act 45 times at last count, I believe, but I have yet to hear any credible plan put forth to replace it or strengthen it or make it work better. And the American people want our constructive efforts to succeed. They would like it modified if it needs modification. But the attitude of some of our colleagues has been to just strip away the whole book of significant legislation--and replace it with what? We don't know. That is irresponsible.

This Senate and this Congress is a great institution. Our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, set up a system with plenty of room for debate, different points of view, and checks and balances. But checks and balances are not what is happening today. The government has been shut down not because Congress can't agree on levels of funding. We agree. We have actually agreed with the House on their level. The real reason is that some on the other side of the aisle--and I do think it is just a small cadre--have a very different vision about the government itself. And this is not hyperbole. We can all recall that during the Republican Presidential primaries we had candidates seeing who could out-promise whom in terms of eliminating aspects of the Federal Government. They proposed getting rid of the EPA, the Commerce Department, the Department of Education, FEMA, and the Department of Energy--not reforming these agencies, not changing their missions, not making them more efficient or more effective, but just doing away with them--and that spirit is animated in the House today, unfortunately.

I am particularly glad that view did not prevail in the last election because these agencies are vital to all Americans. Looking back at Rhode Island, we were victims of serious historic flooding over the last several years. If FEMA had not been there to step in and help us, we would still be trying to pull ourselves together. As a small State, like Connecticut and other States, we do not have the resources to do it. We saw the same thing with Hurricane Sandy. They were there helping efficiently and effectively. And that is one of the agencies my colleagues are not allowing to operate today.

Many small business men and women in my community, manufacturers, et cetera, have been aided immensely by the Department of Commerce. That is something else that was on the hit list during the Presidential primaries by Republican candidates.

Those of us who enjoy clean water, fresh air, and the importance of a healthy environment--i.e., every American--even if they do not notice it or admit it, their health and the health of their children would be jeopardized severely if EPA was eliminated. There are calls repeatedly to make it more efficient, more effective, make it more businesslike, and those calls have to be recognized and heeded. But the notion that we would just wipe it away and the private markets or private self- interests would ensure that our air is clean, that our water is clean, and that our health is protected is not something that is either realistic or, indeed, even something that is arguable.

There is room in this country for a range of views, and I recognize that many of my colleagues, who consider themselves members of the tea party, are simply doing their best to represent the views of those who sent them here. But I would hope everyone who has been entrusted with the responsibility of government could work together to at least make the government function--i.e., to stay open. That is a basic responsibility our constituents entrusted us with when they sent us to Washington.

There is nothing patriotic about shutting down the government, putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and potentially forcing our country into default. And the hundreds of thousands out of work are not just government employees. As my colleague from Connecticut pointed out, now defense contractors are beginning to furlough. These industries are the heart and soul of so many communities. When these jobs are lost, there is a multiplier effect, which affects the entire community. And this cascading series of economic problems will get worse each day we keep this government closed.

Both sides need to work together, but we have already significantly compromised on our side. Again, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, we are voting for a continuing resolution at the House level, not our level--a multibillion-dollar gap. We have accepted that. At least for the interim period, the 6 weeks or so of this continuing resolution, we accept the House's position. And of course, for many of us who have been arguing vociferously to end this sequestration, to increase investment, this was a significant compromise. We are not seeing that reciprocated on the other side; it is ``my way or the highway,''--stop ObamaCare or nothing gets done, Government doesn't work, and we will default on our credit.

That is reckless, irresponsible, and does not serve the interest of those who sent us here.

It is time for those who are proposing the wild plans of shutting down the

government if they don't get exactly what they want to grasp the reality of the situation. We cannot keep this government closed. This closure will last as long as Speaker Boehner wants it to. He can, under the rules of the House, call up this bill within hours--perhaps less-- or Republicans can join Democrats and sign a discharge petition to bring it to the floor regardless of the Speaker's position. Those are two paths that should be taken immediately to open this government.

We all have a shared responsibility for the government. As I sense it, one of the basic rationales of this government is to keep the lights on, keep people working. Let's get to the difficult negotiations on how we improve efficiency, how we improve operations, but we have a responsibility to keep our government open--to open it and then keep it open--and the longer this shutdown drags on, the more people will be affected. Cancer patients, young mothers, scientific researchers, Federal employees, people who take prescription drugs all are being negatively impacted. Government contractors are being laid off.

Let's work together and reopen the government for business. Let's continue to debate the issues. We have many issues we can debate but not under the sword of Damocles--of a government that is closed and an economy that is beginning to lose more and more of its momentum and strength. That harms the American people irresponsibly and recklessly for a very narrow self-interested principle.

There is another aspect here too. It is not just the government shutdown, but we are coming perilously close to a potential default on the debt of the United States. The government closure is affecting our economy dramatically, but a default on our debt could be catastrophic. There is a growing risk that this brinkmanship on the part of the Republican Party could force us to default. We are only 12 days away from a potential default because the tea party Republicans would rather play their games over the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, than choose to do what we have always done--pay our bills.

This is not about borrowing more money to spend more. This is about paying for those things we agreed on--Republicans and Democrats-- through congressional appropriations, through legislation creating programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security.

These are obligations we have incurred, and we won't be able to pay all of them. Indeed, on October 17, unless my Republican colleagues end their obstruction, the Nation will not be able to pay its bills, causing dire consequences for American workers and our economy.

Many commentators have pointed out a default will destabilize the national and global economy. It could cause another financial crisis and over the span of a month cause an estimated $106 billion shortfall of Federal spending that would cause a severe economic contraction.

If we can't pay our debts, then we will contract federal activity. That contraction will be multiplied in the economy. Our economic growth will slow. In fact, not only decelerate, it could collapse. Ironically, one aspect of that is it will almost overnight increase our deficit as less economic activity produces less revenue, there are more people who are laid off and eligible for unemployment insurance. It is a downward spiral.

Economists on both sides agree that it is just the specter of default that has serious economic consequences. In fact, we have already seen the 1-month interest rate of Treasurys jump over the 6-month and the year-long rates. The markets are already voting. They are nervous. They are nervous that the Republicans will carry out these threats, and you can see it in what they are demanding in order to buy the short-term paper of the United States versus the longer term paper.

Madam President, I want to recognize the work of the Marshall Legacy Institute, MLI, and extend my congratulations on its 16th anniversary. While serving as Secretary of State, GEN George C. Marshall devised a plan to rebuild Europe after the devastation of World War II. Founded in 1997 on the 50th anniversary of the plan that bears General Marshall's name, the MLI's goal is to extend the plan's legacy by helping rebuild today's war torn countries.

Over the past 16 years, the MLI has focused on assisting severely mine-contaminated countries, like Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, and Afghanistan, by clearing mines, offering survivors' assistance programs, and providing educational outreach to children. This work is vital to civilians who, when they are finally able to return to their homelands after war, often face the unpredictable threat of landmines. It is also critical to protecting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces, who risk their lives every day to defend our country and often serve where landmines pose a significant threat to their safety.

One such servicemember is PFC Barrett Austin, a combat engineer in the 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division who bravely served our country in Afghanistan, and who died on April 21, 2013, after his vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device. Private First Class Austin's dedicated service, selflessness, and sacrifice were the qualities that General Marshall exemplified and valued. It is therefore fitting that the MLI pay tribute to this soldier through its Mine Detection Dog Partnership Program by naming a mine detection dog in his honor.

I thank MLI for its 16 years of service, and for its continued efforts to make our world a safer place.

Mr. President, first let me commend the chairwoman for her extraordinary leadership in so many different ways, including her articulate explanation of the crisis we face at the moment and her compelling argument that a piecemeal approach to resolving the government shutdown will not work, since the pieces are so critically interrelated.

I rise to speak about this government shutdown as well. Today is day three of the Republican government shutdown, and it seems increasingly clear that Speaker Boehner is trying to drag this out long enough to merge the shutdown with brinkmanship over whether to pay our Nation's bills. This attempt to gut existing law and put the full faith and credit of the United States at risk is no way to run a country. If we are dragged into the commingling of the Republican government shutdown and the Republican proposals to default on our debt, we could be facing a catastrophic financial situation that would affect not just government operations but markets worldwide, and that is not something we should even contemplate. So we have to move very quickly to a resolution of this manufactured crisis.

When I hear a discussion of what is going on, the words I hear used are words such as ``reckless,'' ``irresponsible,'' and, indeed, words much worse than these all across this country. The bottom line is the average American is fed up. They expect government to open, to serve them, to perform its basic function--not selective functions but its full range of functions.

Survey after survey notes two simple things: No. 1, the government should be reopened for business. No. 2, the effort by some to connect the Affordable Care Act to funding the government should be ceased. These aren't the views of one particular political party; they are the views of a very, very large majority of Americans, and I share their sentiment. The government should not be closed. The Affordable Care Act should not be tied to reopening the government.

There is a very simple solution here: Pass the short-term, continuing resolution at current levels of spending so then we can begin the process of resolving the budget impasse. Let me say that again: Pass the bill that funds the government at the current level of spending. Doing so means keeping, in effect, the sequester--something that many on the other side of the aisle have demanded. Frankly, I would hope that having done that, we could then seriously get into discussions with the leader and with the chairwoman on our side about how we create a budget for 2014 that does away with the sequester. This was inherent in the budget resolution which I supported last March.

Regrettably, the tea party has refused to allow negotiations on the budget, even though we heard day in and day out complaints by our colleagues in a previous session of Congress that we need a budget, we need a budget, we need a budget. Well, we produced a budget, and now we are being blocked.

What is happening instead of moving to meaningful, comprehensive budget negotiations is that we are in a government shutdown, and now the Republicans are trying to extricate themselves from this manufactured crisis, created by their own hands, by sending over piecemeal bills to fund preferred and selected agencies of the government. As the chairwoman pointed out, it doesn't work, because the government is related. NIH can make discoveries, but if the FDA is not authorized and operating so they can approve their use by people, it doesn't work. We can't disassociate these things.

We saw today in Rhode Island about 26,500 women and children might lose their WIC benefits, their nutrition benefits, their support. Ignoring them and helping others is not going to benefit this country. In fact, it will contribute, I think, to decline.

We have looked at the National Guard, veterans' benefits, and national parks. Those are all worthy elements, but they are not the entire range of elements we must perform. I believe the other side is trying to come up with some type of coherent argument for their actions. Is this about the debt? We have made progress in reducing our deficit. Because of actions we have taken, we have reduced projected deficits over 10 years by $2.4 trillion. Do we have to do more? Yes. But we have to do it in a current, thoughtful way.

Is it about the sequester? Well, let's talk about the sequester. Let's talk about it in the context of a budget and appropriations bills for 2014.

Is it about the Affordable Care Act? Well, it has begun. There has been a huge demand in the first few days and it is working through problems. And there will be problems. There is no major initiative of this kind that is rolled out by any business or any government that doesn't have issues, and those issues will be dealt with.

What is very clear, though, is closing the government and then, in sort of an ad hoc way, opening up parts is no way to operate. It is unfair to the American people who aren't getting services they expect and deserve. Also, it's unfair to furloughed Federal employees at the Defense Department and elsewhere--not just the Defense Department but all Departments--some of them are working without the certainty that they indeed will be paid.

There is a simple way to avoid this situation. The House should stop preventing an up-or-down vote on the Senate's continuing resolution and open the government. The Speaker can call up that vote in less than an hour, get it on the floor, and go ahead and reopen our government. Then reopen the thoughtful, careful, collaborative discussions about where we are going in terms of our budget, in terms of our deficit, in terms of serving the American people.

I have heard a lot of talk such as: Oh, we have to have a lot of negotiations and compromise, et cetera. I have supported legislation I believe in strongly. I have opposed legislation, but I don't think I have ever stood up and said it is either my way or nothing happens. That is not the way to responsibly represent the people of America. It is the give-and-take of principled compromise. Sometimes there is legislation that reaches this floor that I can't support, but I think in a democracy it is the majority, ultimately--after we go through our procedural convolutions--it is the majority ultimately that prevails.

There is a strong sense, as reflected in the newspapers, that the majority of the House of Representatives wants this situation resolved. They want all government agencies opened. And through the procedural votes on this side, it is very clear that our colleagues were willing to allow a majority vote to come to this floor, which carried. So the majority of the House and the Senate are with the American people. We just have to get the leadership of the House to get with the American people.

We have to talk about some of these serious issues, but I think the best place to do so, in my view, is in the context of budget negotiations, and we have been repeatedly blocked from bringing the budget to conference. In fact, many of our Republican colleagues--and I will give them credit; many of them have stood up and said we have to go to the budget negotiations in the conference. Senator McCain said, for example, ``It's not the regular order for a number of Senators, a small number, a minority within a minority here, to say they will not agree to go to conference.'' That is what is happening. It is happening in terms of a minority of Republican Members in the House who are demanding that this Speaker not relent on this government shutdown, and it is happening here to a degree with respect to the conference committee on the budget. We have to go ahead and do our job.

We have had colleagues on the other side talk about how the closure has detrimental effects. The Member who represents Yosemite National Park was very sad it was closed. I am also distressed that it is closed. I chair the subcommittee that appropriates funding for our national parks. We do our best to maintain the parks, to make sure we support those individuals who work for the Park Service. I understand the impact is not just within the confines of the park, it is the businesses all around the park. That is

what we said a week ago. That is what I said a week ago, asking, in terms of our deliberations, that we pass a continuing resolution. So this should come as no surprise to those people who voted against keeping the government open.

But this is not just about the value of a national park. It is about all the functions the government performs. It is about those women and children who receive benefits through the WIC Program. It is about those Federal workers who are furloughed who cannot perform their duties. We have to go ahead and open up our government. We have to recognize what a democracy ultimately is all about: It is the will of the American people--the majority of the American people--that has to be reflected, ultimately, by the Representatives and the Senators.

Again, I think it is very clear, except for the bottleneck at the House leadership, that the majority of the House and the majority of the Senate want this government to open up. Let's do it. We need a vote. We have to stop relitigating the Affordable Care Act. It passed. It was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is open for business starting on October 1, with significant interest by the public. There were 3,000 page-hits per minute in Rhode Island as it opened up on October 1, which I am told by the technologists is an amazing number. There were 2,000 calls to our call center--people who were looking for insurance, to buy it in a private marketplace, which is the core of the Affordable Care Act.

So we have to move forward. If we do not move forward, SBA lending is effectively cut off, so small business men and women, who are struggling to get their businesses going, to keep them going, and hire Americans, will not have that ability to receive support from the SBA.

We need, as they say--and everyone has become familiar with this term--a clean CR that opens everything up. If we do not, then we know the impact is going to be dramatic.

In 2011, economists estimated that a shutdown would cost the economy 0.2 percent of GDP each week. And it accumulates.

Looking back to 1995 and 1996, when a Republican House also shut down the government for 27 days, it reduced GDP growth by roughly 0.5 percent. Those are jobs, not just statistics. Those are lots of jobs and confidence in our economy. If we do not have jobs and confidence, then we are not doing our job and we are not fulfilling what we were sent here by the people to do: grow the economy, give us work, give us confidence that you can at least perform the basic functions of government.

Now we have to move forward. I am uncertain as to how long this will continue to fester. We should do this immediately. As I said, procedurally the House--and I had the privilege to serve there for 6 years--can bring this continuing resolution up on very short notice and get, which I believe they have, the majority votes they need to pass it. That should be done. Then we can sit down and work again--work hard on those issues that face us in the context of budget negotiations and a conference and also recognize that while we are here involved in this manufactured crisis, the world is moving. The world is moving in ways in which we cannot be so preoccupied that we do not sense: foreign affairs issues in Syria, foreign affairs issues across the globe; international economic issues; future competitive issues with other economies. While we are fixated and focused on this manufactured crisis, which is completely unnecessary, we are not doing the important work, we are not anticipating the problems that are developing right now in the world or in our economy, we are not investing in jobs and in job creation, we are not looking ahead. We have to do that also.

I would urge a quick, decisive vote on a continuing resolution so we can get back to the business of leading America.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes of proponent time to Senator Coats, as well as, by agreement of the other side, 3 minutes of opponent time.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of proponent time to the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey.

Mr. President, I will begin where Senator Pryor left off, and that is to commend our chairwoman for her extraordinary leadership--not only on behalf of her constituents but for the Nation. These are very difficult times, and we all feel much more confident because of her leadership, because of her commitment, because of her incredible and energetic advocacy for commonsense solutions, in terms of not just her work on appropriations but in terms of the way we conduct ourselves in the Senate. We are fortunate to have her leadership.

Along with many of my colleagues I am here to address the looming fiscal deadlines, and, more importantly, how to keep our economy growing and increasing jobs. That is why I believe we were sent here, not to engage in some of these procedural arguments, not to challenge the basic presumptions and the history of our country--which show that, with few exceptions, we have always managed to keep our government open, and with virtually no exceptions we have paid our bills. Yet today we are consumed by these debates when most every American in every corner of this country is asking us: What about our jobs? What about growth? What about the future for our children? So we have to refocus on growing our economy and investing in our country. A big part of that is to fund our government and to pay our debts.

Let me start by pointing out that denying health insurance to 30 million Americans doesn't help the economy and it doesn't create jobs. It will do quite the opposite--it will set us back. We had substantial debate and we passed legislation; the Supreme Court of the United States declared the legislation constitutional, and we are going forward now, as most Americans want us to do, to deploy it, to fix it where it needs to be fixed, but not to use it as a political wedge for purely political means. We are for the first time about to achieve the dream of many people in many decades--that every American will have affordable access to health care; and, by the way, to do what other nations have been able to do and reduce the cost of health care so it's affordable, not just today but in the generations ahead. I think the idea that you would threaten a government shutdown to try to defeat this objective is unfortunate and inappropriate.

We are facing two fiscal deadlines, and they can be reduced to very simple questions: Do we fund the government? Do we pay the Nation's bills? My answer, and the answer of the vast majority of constituents, is: Yes, we do. We have to.

We understand we have to have an economy that works and a government that helps that economy work. We have to be efficient and effective. But we simply can't leave to the mercies of the market and fate what happens in our economy. We have to take purposeful action. That means we have to have a government that is prepared and able and has the resources to act.

If Republicans force a shutdown of the government, it will have extraordinarily adverse consequences to thousands of Rhode Island workers, my constituents, and people all across this country. It would hurt our economic growth. Rather than doing this, we should be working to expand our growth. We should be doing more to get people back to work.

But, instead, we have heard Republicans from both Chambers talking about another round of brinkmanship. We saw this in August 2011, and the results there were palpable. It set back our economy. It suppressed job creation. It took what looked like growing economic momentum and it deflated that momentum. Our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in anyone's recollection and perhaps in history. It was a shortsighted political game that hurt people all across this country. Yet Republicans are here again, apparently prepared to play the game. People do not want us to gamble with their futures, their children's futures. They want us to be helping them, both sides investing in those futures in a positive and collaborative way.

But we are back arguing over whether to pay existing bills. Will we pay our bills by voting to raise the debt ceiling? Will we keep the government open and working so we can help people who need help, so we continue to research issues, so we continue to innovate, so we continue to build, literally, the country? We believe we must do this.

This March, Senate Democrats passed a budget that set spending levels, responsibly replaced the sequester, reduced the deficit, and included a $100 billion targeted jobs and infrastructure package that would start creating new jobs quickly, begin repairing the worst of our crumbling roads and bridges, and help train our workers to fill 21st century jobs.

The Republican-controlled House also passed a budget. It is in stark contrast to ours, but they have a budget too. The basic constitutional approach, the basic procedural approach is to bring those two budgets to conference, to iron out the differences, and to have a plan to go forward to fund the government.

But we cannot do that because repeatedly Republicans here have objected to going to conference. This is ironic since the refrain we heard several years ago from Republicans was ``the Senate Democrats don't have a budget, they don't have a budget, et cetera.'' This of course was a political refrain; it ignored the fact that in the Budget Control Act of 2011 we actually set budget limits and effectively had a budget. But now the Republican refrain is sort of, ``never mind, they have a budget,'' and Senate Republicans object to conferencing the Senate and House budgets because they do not want the Congress to have a budget.

We need to pass a budget. We need to responsibly deal with sequestration. We have to create jobs and strengthen the middle class.

Last Friday, the House Republicans played their latest card in this gambit, which they have extended over several years, to achieve their political goals by holding the economy hostage. This time they want to defund health care reform as a condition of keeping the government open--indeed, a tactic that I believe even some Republicans in this body have rejected, and I think sensibly rejected.

There is no doubt if the House position prevails it will hurt our economy, it will reduce revenue, it will waste taxpayers' dollars. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the shutdowns of the mid- 1990s reduced GDP by half a percent. Those shutdowns during the Clinton administration, again prompted by a Republican political agenda in the House, not an economic agenda, cost Americans jobs and growth. It is estimated every week the government shuts down it will cost the economy about $30 billion. This is a very expensive political gambit--something that should be rejected on its face but also rejected because of the harm, the demonstrable economic harm, it will do to the country. If you do care about jobs and the economy, the last thing you want to do is shut down the government.

First of all, it eliminates directly a lot of people who work for the Federal Government--who pay taxes, who provide critical services. The secondary effect is they cannot do their job so economic activity stalls. Then the tertiary effect is that the local vendors in the community who rely on government contracts lose their business. It is a downward spiral. Everyone here, particularly my colleagues, the chair men and women of the appropriations subcommittees, recognize this.

Senator Pryor was articulate about some of the effects on the agricultural sector. I have the privilege of chairing the Interior appropriations subcommittee. A shutdown would be very disruptive. For example, lease sales and permits for oil, gas and coal and other minerals on Federal lands would be stopped. Processing onshore oil and gas drilling applications would be stopped. Processing applications for permits to drill offshore will stop. Review and approval of offshore exploration and development plans will stop. What will be the effect? This will delay

revenue, obviously, both to the Federal Government and for the private sector, as those private entrepreneurs who are out there investing their own capital to try to develop natural resources and provide them to the marketplace will lose out too.

Another example, public access to recreation on Federal lands will virtually cease. The national parks, national monuments, and national wildlife refuges will be closed to visitors. Campgrounds, lodging, visitor centers, marinas, food services, and other concessions will be closed, with thousands of people without jobs. Businesses that operate in the parks or as outdoor outfitters will not be able to access permitted areas.

If you go to any national park there is typically around it a group of small businessmen and women who provide backpacking gear, who provide rental of rafts and boats and outdoor equipment. What happens when the park closes? Their business goes to zero, practically. That is a consequence that is predictable, in fact, inevitable in the event of a shutdown.

There is another aspect to this government shutdown too. While many Federal employees will be furloughed--again directly losing their pay, not contributing their tax dollars to the national economy--there are some who will not be. In the Interior Department alone, thousands of Federal workers will continue their jobs in order to protect life and property, but they will not be paid. This will include the Park Police. They were one of the first responders a few days ago to the Navy Yard shootings. Typical of their ethic of service and dedication to the country, they risked their lives, rushed to that place to try to protect fellow Americans. Those men and women of the Park Police will still stand guard, but they will not be paid.

It also includes park rangers who provide valuable safety. It would include tribal law enforcement officers for our tribal police departments, tribal child protection services, and the oil and gas inspectors who have to go out and make sure existing operations are being conducted in a technically appropriate way.

Turning to the EPA, Administrator Gina McCarthy has said, in her words: ``EPA effectively shuts down with only a core group of individuals who are there in the event of a significant emergency.''

EPA is planning to furlough approximately 95 percent of its total workforce. Staff will not be reviewing air, water, and hazardous waste permit applications or writing such permits. This will slow construction of new facilities and major improvements to existing ones, impacting jobs and impacting industry's overall willingness to plan investments.

This could shrink construction in the United States, it could halt major construction projects, because you can't just take out the permitting process, or nullify it; these projects cannot go forward legally without permits, permits from EPA, permits from local regulators. We could have a huge construction contraction. We will have projects that have been planned, that are going forward, that will be put on hold, and it will ripple through the economy.

EPA, for example, also will stop certifying that manufacturers are complying with all vehicle emission standards and without EPA certification, automakers will have a difficult time selling products in the United States.

One of the great examples of what the President's leadership has done, the revitalization of the American automobile industry, could be jeopardized simply because they cannot have their vehicles certified by the EPA, which has basically closed.

A shutdown compounds the hidden costs of the sequester. Sequestration is an inefficient and blunt instrument. It forces the Agency to make drastic decisions that frustrate that mission, that do not allow them to prioritize their work, and it frustrates our work here and throughout the United States. It will complicate and compound our life going forward.

We are already feeling--put aside for the moment a potential government shutdown--the effects of the pending sequestration. We are seeing forced furloughs up in Rhode Island at the Newport Navy Base and other facilities and we are seeing the ripple effect of that. The local businesses are seeing demand go down, revenues go down. Their financial stability is being threatened. Rhode Islanders who have been laid off in private enterprises, through no fault of their own, are seeing their unemployment insurance cut by the sequester already. The average weekly benefit of $377 is being cut by $46. The Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training estimates 6,000 to 7000 Rhode Islanders are being affected, taking $1.4 million per month directly out of our economy. Our economy is at 9.1 percent unemployment. This is something that is causing pain and hardship to families throughout my State. The sequester is cutting back on the very modest benefits that they might be receiving after losing employment.

Head Start is an extraordinarily valuable program that serves more than 2,400 children in my State. For fiscal year 2013, the sequestration has reduced funding by $1.3 million, which is a big number when it comes to the smallest state in the Union. To manage these sequestration cuts, staff have been laid off, transportation has been reduced, as have other support services. Even with those savings, 370 slots--children, don't call them slots--children will not gain access to Head Start. That means in many cases their parents cannot continue to work because they cannot leave their child alone, and the problem becomes more and more complicated. These problems have profound implications and they reach very far across the spectrum.

Then there is one other point I wish to make. Some people are saying sequestration is bad, but we just have to deal with the defense aspects of it because that is the most important thing--that these other programs, they can go away. Norm Augustine is one of the premier leaders in the defense industry. He is former chairman of Lockheed Martin, former Secretary of the Army. He served on so many different boards as one of the great public servants as well as one of the great industrial leaders--National Academy of Engineering, Defense Science Board, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. In his speech recently, Mr. Augustine said that much of the nondefense spending people are dismissing as unimportant is more critical to our national security or as critical as some of the defense programs. He talked about how today's youngest generation will be the first in history to be less well educated than their parents, if trends continue. They are likely to be less healthy, particularly if we do not continue to support the health care improvements of the Affordable Care Act. One of the startling discoveries is that the military, according to Mr. Augustine, is claiming that 70 percent of today's young people are ineligible for military service because of mental, physical, and moral shortcomings.

The mental and physical shortcomings are a function of two things-- education and health care. Republicans are proposing to say: Let's cut them. Let's defund the Affordable Care Act. Who will be the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and better Head Start and better education? Probably those 70 percent of the young people who cannot qualify to be recruits in the Army. So if you think we have a problem of national defense, we do have a problem of defense, but it is not simply solved by buying more platforms, more ships, more planes; it is by having a generation of Americans who can stand and serve.

I could go on, but I simply want to say we are in a situation where we have to basically do what we have always done, stood and said: We are going to keep the government moving. We are going to make choices about priorities, but we are going to keep our government open. We will debate those choices and we will debate those priorities and we will come to a conclusion and we will move forward and we are going to pay the debts we already accumulated.

The American people should understand this is not like an initial offer of a debt security.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

We are not going out there and saying: Listen, let us borrow

some more money so we can spend this new money. We are just trying to pay for programs and appropriations that have been approved by Congress, both Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate. These are accumulated debt. Many of the debts were accumulated in the previous administration while we were fighting two wars.

We are not--and we shouldn't--turn our back virtually for the first time in our history on what we have voted previously to spend. Indeed, if we do that, it will create chaos in the economic markets. It will create chaos like we have never seen before. The international markets are so fragile that we dare not risk this.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rita Culp, a detailee from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Committee on Appropriations, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 113th Congress, and Tiffany Taylor, a detailee from the Department of the Interior to the Committee on Appropriations, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the first session of the 113th Congress.