Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 6:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, since the infamous Tailhook scandal in 1991, every Secretary of Defense has proclaimed that our military has a ``zero-tolerance'' policy for sexual harassment and sexual assault. Zero tolerance is the policy our military should have, but in reality it doesn't. We

know it doesn't because we have heard too many stories from women and men in the military who have been attacked, assaulted, or raped by their peers in uniform or by their superiors. We have heard too many stories in which the assailants go unpunished. We have heard too many stories about commanding officers using their authority to set aside court-martial convictions or to decide simply not to have a trial at all. We have heard too many stories about survivors being drummed out of the service by misinformed diagnoses of mental illness or by a chain of command that ignores the assailant and instead turns around and charges the survivor with bad behavior. We have heard too many stories about survivors who are so disillusioned by this broken system that they don't even bother to report these crimes. Instead, these men and women, warriors all, are forced to live in silence and with an unjust feeling of shame.

We all agree that commanders are responsible for maintaining good order and discipline in their units. This includes creating an atmosphere of dignity and respect for everyone under their command. Commanders must create an environment where sexual crimes do not occur. Our proposed changes to the military justice system do not absolve the commander of these responsibilities. It is still their job to prevent these crimes. But when these crimes do occur, survivors should have the ability to seek justice, and the Gillibrand amendment will help the survivors do just that.

I am glad our civilian and military leaders have committed to helping the survivors of sexual assault, punishing the predators and ending these terrible injustices. When the service secretaries and chiefs tell me fixing the problem of sexual assault is a top priority for them, I believe them. I believe they care deeply about this problem. Unfortunately, incremental change has not been and is not good enough. Commanders bear the responsibility for creating a culture where these crimes do not happen in the first place.

Congress must also do its part to ensure there is a system in place that both holds people accountable and doles out punishment that actually serves as a deterrent against future sexual assaults. Over the years, Congress has passed a variety of measures intended to fix these problems, and we have many good provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the NDAA which we are considering. But I do not believe these steps are enough. We must make a major change. We owe it to the men and women who serve our country in uniform. We owe it to the families and loved ones of those who serve because the trauma of sexual assault often extends beyond the trauma experienced by the survivor. We must do all we can to provide an environment where those who put their lives on the line for our country each and every day are not sexually assaulted. And if they are, we must provide a fair system of justice where the survivor is heard and not ignored, is helped and not shunned. That requires, I believe, vesting the decision about whether or not to go to trial with an impartial experienced military lawyer and not with the commander in the chain of command who has an inherent vested interest in the case.

It is undeniable the current system does not work. According to the Department of Defense, there were an estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact in 2012. We have heard about trainers at Lackland Air Force Base repeatedly raping new enlistees. We have heard about incidents at the Service Academies, Aviano Air Force Base, Fort Greely, Fort Hood, and too many other bases. It is undeniable that we have a problem. The incremental steps we have taken are not enough.

The story of Marine 2nd Lt. Elle Helmer is just one example of this broken system. She told her story in the documentary ``The Invisible War,'' and it has also been reported elsewhere, including a CNN interview and in the Houston Chronicle.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Houston Chronicle article.

Mr. President, the Houston Chronicle article tells the following account:

Lieutenant Helmer was stationed at Marine Barracks Washington in 2006, just a few blocks from the Senate Chamber. One night, after she was ordered to go bar hopping with her colleagues, a superior officer called her into his office and attacked her. She remembers him slamming her head into his desk, and then she blacked out. When she woke up she was wearing her superior officer's shorts, and she knew she had been raped. Two guards found her outside crying and shaking. She asked a colonel to call an ambulance and, instead, the colonel warned her she would be charged with public intoxication and conduct unbecoming an officer if she reported the attack. When Lieutenant Helmer finally made it to a military hospital, the sexual assault victim advocate warned her, ``These cases never go anywhere.''

Lieutenant Helmer pressed her case anyway. But after many months, here is the only thing that happened. Lieutenant Helmer was charged with fraternization and conduct unbecoming an officer, and the superior officer who attacked her received no punishment. In fact, he was later promoted.

This story should outrage us all. This story shows that when sexual assault occurs, the current system does not work. It is time to make fundamental changes to how sexual assault cases are handled in the military.

The amendment of Senator Gillibrand would be a big step in the right direction. Her amendment would take the decision to go forward with a trial out of the chain of command and place it in the hands of an experienced military lawyer. This change would improve the judicial process by increasing transparency. It would also eliminate potential bias and conflict of interest because, unlike a commanding officer, the military lawyer would be unconnected to either the survivor or the accused. Just the perception of such bias or conflict of interest could

discourage a survivor from reporting a sexual assault and thereby allow the attacker to prey on others again and again.

Many survivors of sexual assault tell us the main reason they do not report these crimes is because they think nothing will happen. The current process often does not work. It is unacceptable to allow this situation to continue.

The problem of sexual assault is a scourge on our military for which there is no silver bullet. But at the very least what we need is a military justice system where a survivor feels confident that his or her case will be fairly examined and, if deemed to have sufficient evidence, be sent forward to trial.

Sexual assault in the military is something that most people don't want to talk about. We don't want to think the men and women whose service we honor on Veterans Day are being preyed upon by their colleagues or, even worse, that they themselves may be sexual predators. There is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of our military men and women serve our country valiantly and with honor, and we should take care not to tarnish them with suspicion. In fact, we owe it to them to act.

It is for these reasons that I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Gillibrand's Military Justice Improvement Act. I urge my colleagues to support it, and to my colleagues who are opposed or undecided, I want to say again that keeping disposition authority within the chain of command has not worked. One of the arguments I have heard against making this change is that doing so would interfere with the commander's ability to maintain good order and discipline. Good order and discipline should not rest upon a commander's ability to decide whether or not to prosecute a sexual crime.

The time has come to make a significant change, and I believe this is a change that needs to be made. I want to commend our colleague Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for her tireless efforts and courageous leadership in this effort to help survivors of sexual assault in the military.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jen Burks, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges until the end of next week.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota. I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Cornelia ``Nina'' Pillard to be a circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Less than 2 weeks ago, my colleagues on the other side of the table blocked another nominee to the DC Circuit--Patty Millett. Earlier this year, they also blocked Caitlin Halligan--yet another woman who had been nominated to the DC Circuit. Unfortunately, Ms. Halligan withdrew her nomination after 2 years of obstruction.

Only five women have served as judges on the DC Circuit in its entire 120-year history. The DC Circuit is one of the most important circuits in our Nation, and it is shameful that female perspectives are so underrepresented.

Now the Senate will consider the nomination of Nina Pillard, a truly outstanding nominee to the Federal bench. Ms. Pillard is currently a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center and is one of the leading appellate attorneys in this country. Professor Pillard has extensive litigation experience at all levels. She has argued nine cases before the Supreme Court and has briefed dozens more, including the historic United States v. Virginia case that opened the Virginia Military Institute to women and the Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs case that sustained the Family and Medical Leave Act against constitutional challenge and ensured a primary caregiver could take leave in the case of a family illness regardless of gender and in this case the family caregiver was a male.

Professor Pillard has also had an impressive 15-year tenure teaching constitutional law at Georgetown. The fact that is my alma mater has nothing to do with my support of her.

In addition, she serves as codirector of the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute, where she prepares lawyers for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on a pro bono basis, without regard to which side of the case they represent. In fact, under her leadership, the Supreme Court Institute prepared lawyers on one or both sides of every case heard by the Justices in the 2012 term.

Professor Pillard has also twice served as a top attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, and in those roles she advised and defended U.S. Government agencies and officials on criminal law enforcement and national security matters--invaluable experience for a judge on the DC Circuit, where such issues are routinely considered.

I have been deeply impressed with her experience and record and have found her to be exceptionally qualified for this important position in the DC Circuit.

In addition to her extensive qualifications, Professor Pillard also has demonstrated a commitment to fair and impartial process throughout her career. As mentioned by my colleague, for example, when Professor Pillard chaired the ABA Reading Committee that reviewed Samuel Alito during his nomination process, her assessment of his legal record led the ABA to apply their highest rating of ``well-qualified.'' She deserves to be held to the same rigorous, fair standard.

However, following Patty Millett and Caitlin Halligan, Nina Pillard is the third woman in a row to be nominated to the DC Circuit only to face obstruction from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

The DC Circuit is one of the most important courts in our Nation, weighing key constitutional issues and other matters of Federal law and regulation. Three of the eleven seats on this court stand vacant. Given the complexity and far-ranging impact of the cases the court hears, it is critical we fill vacancies without delay.

Along with Patty Millett and Nina Pillard, President Obama has nominated Judge Robert Wilkins to fill these important vacancies. Unfortunately, so far, we have seen nothing but more obstruction of these extremely well-qualified nominees. This is an opportunity to put exceptionally talented lawyers on a significant court that has vacancies needing to be filled.

I am disappointed our colleagues recently blocked a vote to confirm Patty Millett, not only a great lawyer but a military spouse who managed a successful career and the care of her children while her husband was deployed overseas. When we talk about supporting our troops, it means supporting their very well-qualified spouses, such as Patty Millett.

I was dismayed and saddened when obstruction caused Caitlin Halligan to give up on her nomination after 2 years.

It would be disgraceful to continue this obstruction of these qualified and impressive women. I urge Senators to reconsider and support these nominations.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the impact of sequestration on our national security and the economy.

As a Nation, our military strength is directly supported by our economic strength, and sequestration has done substantial harm to both. This senseless policy has put our military in a very bad position and undermines or national security strategies.

In fiscal year 2013, the Defense Department's budget was reduced by approximately $43 billion due to sequestration, or a roughly 8 percent cut to each defense account. These cuts have undermined our military's readiness and reduced necessary maintenance. They have also undermined long-term investments in modernizing our force.

Our military leadership has been clear about the impact of sequestration at numerous hearings before Congress. All of the services have raised concerns about the Budget Control Act's sequestration and the post-sequester budget caps. In particular, we have heard how these cuts undermine their ability to carry out the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance or DSG.

The DSG outlines the strategic priorities of the Department of Defense. The DSG reflects the input of a wide range of military stakeholders. The DSG describes the security challenges we are likely to face as well as the resources needed to meet key mission requirements.

The 2012 DSG sets as a central goal the transition of a U.S. defense enterprise from an emphasis on today's wars to preparing for future challenges. The cuts due to the Budget Control Act undermine that goal. As a result, the services will have to reduce personnel levels, delay or scrap necessary equipment modernization and acquisition, and reduce training and readiness activities.

In recent testimony before the House of Representatives, Army GEN Ray Odierno noted the Army's personnel will shrink by 18 percent in the next 7 years. This includes a 26 percent reduction in Active Army personnel, 12 percent reduction in Army National Guard, and a 9 percent reduction in the Army Reserve.

In discussing these reductions, General Odierno said:

In my view, these reductions will put at substantial risk

our ability to conduct even one sustained major combat

operation.

While I hope we will not have to engage in such an operation in the near future, this reduction in our capacity to do so is very troubling.

In addition, Navy ADM Jonathan Greenert expressed serious concern about cuts to operations and maintenance and investment accounts. These cuts threaten the Navy's readiness. He explained that the Navy would likely have to cancel necessary maintenance, which reduces the useful life of ships and aircraft. In addition, the Navy's shipbuilding program could be seriously affected. This means a submarine, a littoral combat ship, and an

afloat forward-staging base could be on the chopping block.

Hawaii is home to the Pacific Command. Its responsibility encompasses half the globe. This enormous area of responsibility is home to some of the most dynamic and fastest growing economies in the world. The Asia- Pacific nations are huge markets with growing middle classes of consumers for American goods and services. However, it is also home to some of the most serious security threats we face. It is an area where U.S. economic, strategic, and security interests face many challenges, but also many opportunities.

As part of our Nation's recognition that we need to engage more in this region, President Obama has committed to a rebalance of our strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, described the Asia-Pacific rebalance by saying:

It's about ``Three Mores''--more interest, more engagement,

and from the military perspective more quality assets and

quality interaction.

For the Asia-Pacific rebalance to provide the long-term benefits to our Nation, we need to be fully committed. This requires the transition, training, and support of U.S. military personnel and assets to the region. However, this important initiative is undermined by the budget cuts our military is facing. We cannot support regional peace and stability with insufficient resources and personnel. Yet this is the reality if we fail to address planned budget cuts.

These are just some examples of how our ability to effectively protect U.S. interests and security are being impacted by the Budget Control Act. We also know that reductions in defense spending impact the Nation's economy. For example, Department of Defense employees across the country, including thousands in Hawaii, have faced furloughs this year. This is a pay cut for many families at a time when they can least afford them.

Some will argue that all we need to do is to give the Department of Defense the authority to transfer funds between accounts. I strongly disagree. Congress can address these cuts to national security while also strengthening our overall economy. How can we do this? By simply eliminating sequester and funding the whole government at the level assumed by the Senate's budget resolution.

Sequestration, like the recent government shutdown, results in self- inflicted wounds to our economy. The shutdown was like a sudden economic heart attack. But sequestration is like death by a thousand cuts to our national defense, our science and research enterprise, and programs which our communities rely upon.

I have spoken a great deal about the impact of sequestration on our military. However, the substantial cuts sustained by our education, research and development, and infrastructure are equally as damaging. These are programs that support an educated and productive workforce, improve the flow of commerce and support those in our communities in the greatest need. Just as a hollowed-out force will struggle to meet mission requirements, a hollowed-out workforce will struggle to compete in the global economy. These two are tightly linked. That is why I urge my colleagues to support eliminating sequestration for both military and nondefense programs.

The Financial Times recently reported that U.S. public investment has dropped to 3.6 percent of GDP. This is well below the 5 percent we have averaged since World War II. These cuts not only undermine our long- term national security strategy but also our long-term competitiveness and economic growth. Without a strong economy, we cannot sustain the investments we need and a strong national defense.

According to Macroeconomic Advisers, spending cuts enacted since 2010 have reduced GDP by 0.7 percentage points. This reduction in our economy has raised unemployment by 0.8 percent, or 1.2 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office--CBO--recently reported we could give our economy a significant boost by eliminating sequestration. In fact, CBO found that if Congress had enacted legislation last summer to cancel the 2013 and 2014 sequester, the economy would have nearly 1 million more jobs by next year. Our economy would also grow nearly a full percentage point faster.

To put this in perspective, without sequestration, our economy would be nearly back on track to where it was before the great recession.

We all recognize a strong economy is the backbone of our strength as a Nation. In order to get back to full strength, we need to get more people back to work. The more people who are working, the more productive our economy is. This is not rocket science. The more productive our economy, the more opportunity there is for people to achieve the American Dream.

Getting people back to work also means less people have to rely on safety net programs and more tax revenues coming in without raising any tax rates. By reducing spending and increasing revenue this way, we are helping to stabilize our fiscal situation.

A robust economy ensures that our Nation has the capacity to meet our commitments and support our vital priorities. This means we don't have to choose between a strong national defense and investment in education, infrastructure, and innovation. We can, and must, do both.

The place to start is with ending sequestration and revising the Budget Control Act caps. This modest policy change will pay dividends for our economy and, in turn, will strengthen our national security.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 197, S. 287.

I ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered, the Sanders amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the committee-reported title amendment be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 234, S. Res. 268.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 7, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 815, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, under the previous order; and that the first-degree filing deadline be 10:30 a.m. and the second-degree filing deadline be 11:30 a.m.

Mr. President, there will be two rollcall votes at 11:45 a.m. tomorrow and a third rollcall vote at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Patricia Millett to be a Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

As my colleagues have noted, Patricia Millett will bring a wealth of experience and skill to the bench. She is a nationally recognized appellate attorney. She has argued 35 cases in nearly all of the Federal appellate courts and 32 cases at the Supreme Court. Patricia Millett is unquestionably qualified to serve as a judge on the DC Circuit Court.

I am proud to serve on the Senate Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees, and I have been moved by Patricia Millett's experience as part of a military family.

Her husband, Robert King, served in the Navy and as a Navy reservist until his retirement last year. In 2004, he was deployed to Kuwait as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and was called up again in the fall of 2009 for Afghanistan, while Patricia cared for their 2 children, maintained the household, and continued her career, arguing before the Supreme Court.

Patricia and her husband have faced what so many military families have, the difficulties of deployment, the challenges of separation and single parenting at home, and the process of reintegration when a servicemember returns. They have shown the deepest commitment to serving our Nation.

Patricia Millett will bring these important experiences and the devotion to this country unique to military families with her to the bench, a vital contribution to the DC Circuit given the distinct role it plays in adjudicating military and defense issues.

Much of Patricia's life has been devoted to public service, and her desire to serve as an appellate judge for the important DC Circuit is a reflection of that commitment to serve in the public interest. I am disappointed that our colleagues have blocked a vote to confirm Ms. Millett. I urge Senators to reconsider and support her nomination.

Mr. President, on Monday I introduced a bill, S. 1588, with Senators Moran, Isakson, and Begich to provide an emergency safety net to roughly 144,000 veterans waiting for VA care. I thank my colleagues for their support. This bill fixes a catch-22 in current law that puts veterans who have recently returned from overseas at financial risk if they experience a medical emergency.

Under current law, a veteran enrolled in the VA system who receives emergency care at a non-VA facility can be reimbursed for those costs only if the veteran had also received care at a VA facility in the preceding 24 months. The intent of this requirement is to encourage veterans to seek preventative care, which decreases the need for more expensive emergency care. The problem is thousands of veterans have recently come home from overseas and they can't meet the 24-month requirement through no fault of their own. These veterans have scheduled their first new patient examination with VA, but they have not yet received their examination because of VA waiting times.

In other words, they haven't received their first VA appointment because of VA waiting times, but if they need to go to a non-VA hospital for a medical emergency VA cannot reimburse them because they haven't received their first VA appointment.

VA estimates 144,000 veterans are caught in this catch-22. With the war in Afghanistan ending, even more veterans will be affected. This is why veteran service organizations such as the lraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are supporting this measure.

This bill gives VA the flexibility to reimburse veterans who have not yet received their new patient examination if the veterans have to go to a non-VA hospital for a medical emergency. For Hawaii veterans in rural Oahu or the neighbor islands who live far from VA facilities, emergency care outside the VA may be their only option. Just last week I met a veteran from Waianae who had a medical emergency while waiting 4 months for his first appointment at VA. Veterans such as he who were denied VA reimbursement would get much needed relief under this legislation.

In its FY2014 budget request, VA asked for the statutory authority provided by this legislation. The VA has already budgeted for this new authority in its FY2014 budget request, and the funding provided in H.R. 2216, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 27, 2013, is sufficient to cover any additional costs VA will incur using this new authority.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this commonsense legislation. We owe it to our brave men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line for our country that the VA has the tools it needs to better serve new veterans accessing the care they have earned.

Madam President, my colleague, our good friend from Wyoming, has talked about the need to get back to regular order so we can discuss our funding priorities. The fact is, of course, we agree. And the regular order would be to go to conference on the budget the Senate passed way back in March. On a regular basis the Democrats in the Senate have requested unanimous consent to go to conference on that budget. In fact, only a few days ago we put in our 21st request for unanimous consent to go to conference on our budget so we can go to regular order and discuss and debate the priorities that are so important to all of us. Every single time, a Republican Senator has objected to that request.

Like so many of my Democratic colleagues have been doing, I come to the floor again today to discuss the urgent need to end the shutdown and raise the debt ceiling. There can no longer be any doubt that the shutdown is hurting hundreds of thousands of families and businesses throughout our country. I and many of my colleagues have told the stories of these families and businesses and will continue to do so. This shutdown hurts real people in real places all across our country.

Keeping the government running should not be a partisan battle. Yet the Republicans who caused the shutdown in the first place seem to think they would be doing Democrats a favor by reopening the government so that people can get back to work, get paid, and pay their bills. The idea that Congress should simply do its job isn't a favor to Democrats; it is our responsibility to the American people.

The idea that stopping Congress from doing its job is somehow a valuable bargaining chip is incomprehensible to most people. Since the beginning of the shutdown driven by an extreme faction of the Republican Party, people of all walks of life in Hawaii have contacted me. They have shared stories about the impact of the shutdown on their businesses, their families, and their communities.

I talked about the toll of the shutdown on our Federal employees. I have shared stories from small businesses impacted by the closure of our national parks and other attractions. I have also been in contact with Hawaii's business community, our military, our State and local governments, and others. Today I would like to share some more shutdown stories and also underscore that allowing the United States to default on paying its bills would only serve to make things much worse.

One woman wrote to me:

My husband and I are both Federal employees with the Forest

Service. We both work in wildland fire. I am currently

furloughed and he is working, but of course neither of us

will receive a paycheck. We have three children ages 5, 3,

and 1. My current day care costs are $2,300 a month. I can't

stop paying for day care, because all require a 2-4 week

notice and I would lose our spot for when I do go back to

work. We have savings, but the money is what we have saved

for things like Christmas and a special vacation together

since my husband was gone for several months this summer

fighting fires. This shutdown is extremely stressful for me

and I am very concerned that it is going to go on for several

weeks more.

The Hawaii Chamber of Commerce, representing over 1,000 Hawaii businesses of all sizes, also sent me stories from some of their members.

The president of one business wrote:

Sixty percent of our business is with the Department of

Defense. We move military household goods around the world as

they are restationed. As a direct result of the government

shutdown, we just had to lay off 41 of our 80 employees until

this is resolved and the government starts booking moves. We

informed the affected employees that all our staff will be

working reduced hours. We anticipate that each day of this

shutdown is costing the company over $18,000.

Another business owner wrote:

My business is working on opening a fourth location in

Aikahi Park Shopping Center. I was advised by our banker that

SBA loan approvals and execution may be held up due to this

debacle in D.C.

How is that helping to move our economy forward? If we ran

our business the way our leaders on Capitol Hill run our

country--well, the ``closed for business'' sign would not be

far behind.

These are stories about what is happening now as a result of the shutdown.

If the United States were to fail to pay its bills, it would be much worse. Interest rates would skyrocket, our capital markets could freeze, and our Nation's borrowing costs over the long term would require more of our Federal budget. In other words, a default would end up costing our economy and consumers billions of dollars.

Our country has never defaulted before. The consequences of such a default are so serious that everyone from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers has warned the Republicans in particular to avoid such a catastrophe. Even the uncertainty of a possible default is enough to hurt middle-class families and businesses.

For example, after the last manufactured fiscal fiasco in 2011, mortgage interest rates rose. If you were a family looking to refinance or buy a new home, your mortgage would have cost you $100 per month more after the United States nearly defaulted than it would have cost before. That means $100 less for families across the country to spend on groceries, gas, and other items. For most working people, $100 means a lot. Imagine piling another $100 or more on the family with three young children I mentioned earlier. We can't do that to them or other families like them. Remember, in 2011 we didn't default. The uncertainty alone caused mortgage interest rates to rise. It would have been much worse if there had been a default. Yet here we are again.

It is incomprehensible that there are default deniers among my colleagues who refuse to believe that default would be catastrophic for all of us when we have the 2011 experience staring us in the face. A default would be like an immediate tax on everything middle-class families do. If interest rates explode, the cost of living in Hawaii and everywhere else would rise. Student loan rates would go up. That would reduce access to a quality education for many people. Credit cards, car payments, mortgages--all of these would become more expensive. The cost of doing business would go up. The cost of borrowing money to start or keep businesses going would go up. There is not a single good result that would come from our country defaulting on paying its debts.

As I mentioned in the past few months, a government shutdown doesn't give businesses a pause in meeting their commitments. They still have to pay rent, maintain staff, and pay to keep the lights on. Imagine if the cost of all of these suddenly went on and still nothing was coming in. That is exactly where many businesses would find themselves if the United States defaults.

In addition, with our economy still recovering from the economic crisis of 2008, finally we have businesses contemplating growing, and those plans will likely be put on hold or abandoned altogether. We should be growing jobs, strengthening the middle class, and creating opportunities for our families and businesses. A default crisis would do exactly the opposite.

In day 12 of the shutdown and with the potential of default looming on the horizon, it is way past time to give our families, businesses, and communities certainty and security. We need to open the government and avoid a totally manufactured catastrophe. Let's get on with it. I am disappointed that our Republican colleagues yesterday failed to support going forward to do just that. I ask them to reconsider their position so that we can find a path that protects our families, our communities, and our economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, our distinguished Republican whip referred to negotiations that occurred regarding welfare reform, tax reform, education reform, No Child Left Behind. These negotiations occurred, yes, but they certainly occurred not in the context of a threat of a government shutdown or the threat of government defaulting on our obligations. There is a very big difference in the context in which these negotiations occurred. That is not what we have before us today.

This past Saturday I came to the floor to share some thoughts on the impact of this government shutdown on Hawaii's Federal employees. In those remarks, I tried to remind my colleagues that we have to think beyond the most recent news cycle. Shutting down government hurts the confidence of the American people in our institutions. It drives people away from public service and it undermines our national security and our economy. If we are going to live up to the legacy of our Nation as the world's indispensable Nation, we have to rise above zero sum politics. We have to show our allies and our adversaries that our political process can withstand grave disagreements. Our process is intended to allow for vigorous debate but to ultimately find common ground.

Over 6 months ago, the Senate passed a budget. So did the House. A little over 6 days ago the U.S. Government shut down. How did this happen? The reason is that Republicans have blocked now 21 attempts to negotiate a Federal budget agreement in a timely fashion. That is how negotiations are supposed to happen--not with the threat of a government shutdown, not with the threat of defaulting on our obligations and debt.

Instead, after 6 months of failing to come to the table, tea party Republicans are holding the U.S. Government--and, if we default on our debts, the world economy--hostage.

Enough is enough. The Senate is prepared to negotiate on fiscal issues. The President is ready to negotiate on fiscal issues. We can find a way forward so we can all agree on the path. But first Congress needs to do its job. It needs to reopen the government and make sure the United States pays its bills. These are fundamental responsibilities.

Just to be clear, defaulting on our debt would be the most irresponsible action I can imagine. It is the most easily avoidable catastrophe in history. We are not talking about a natural disaster, we are talking about a totally avoidable catastrophe. Yet some Republicans in the House believe a default would not be a big deal. In fact, one Member of the House actually said that a default would ``bring stability to world markets.''

That is an opinion that no one outside of the tea party bubble agrees with. In fact, economists, small businesses, bankers, big businesses, realtors, and nearly everyone in between have been clear: Default would be a catastrophe for our economy--and not just our economy either. Our currency, our bonds, and the full faith and credit they are backed by are the linchpin of the global economy. How a default from the world's most trusted Nation could possibly bring stability to world markets is incomprehensible.

We have to stop the ideological games and irresponsible rhetoric, and then we can negotiate on fiscal issues and other policies--mindful of the work

we were elected to do and mindful of the people, families, and communities that elected us to serve them.

Today I would like to share some more stories from Hawaii families and businesses about how the government shutdown is impacting one of the key drivers of Hawaii's economy--tourism.

Each year millions of people from all over the world flock to Hawaii. Our State has so much to offer. They come to enjoy our blue oceans and sandy beaches. They come to visit our breathtaking national parks and wildlife refugees. They also come to learn and pay respect at our historical attractions, such as Pearl Harbor.

Last year Hawaii welcomed over 8 million visitors--a record number. Combined, these visitors spent $42 million per day, of which $5 million supports State and local government activities that benefit our communities. In 2012 about 20 percent of our State's gross domestic product was generated by tourism. That economic activity supports 175,000 jobs in Hawaii.

Due to our location in the center of the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii's tourism industry relies on critical government services to keep people moving and commerce flowing. These include the work done by our air traffic controllers, our customs and TSA personnel, and agricultural inspectors. Many of these workers are on the job, but they are not getting paid right now. Thanks to them, our transportation systems are operating safely and effectively. As a result, visitors are still flocking to our resorts, our beaches, and other attractions. Even with the tea party shutdown, 2013 is on track to be another strong year for tourism in Hawaii.

Unfortunately, at the same time, there are small businesses around the State that are being impacted by this shutdown. For the last 7 days our national parks, wildlife refugees, and historical sites have been closed to the public. These Federal sites are critical to many small businesses, particularly in our rural communities.

Over the past week I have heard from many people--especially small business owners--whose livelihoods are being impacted by the closure of these Federal sites. One tour operator wrote to me:

Our business is losing money, as do our tour guides who

cannot perform the tours to the National Parks. We have to

return the money to a lot of our clients because their tours

have to be cancelled. Our tour guides are losing income as

well, as they will not be able to do the tours.

National parks are some of the main attractions in Hawaii. People travel thousands of miles from all parts of the world, spend a lot of money to come and visit, and then the main things that attract them are closed and they are not able to see them. For a lot of people, these trips are once in a lifetime, and if they don't see them now, they will never be able to see them again.

A restaurant owner from Hawaii Island wrote:

Well, we are in a small town on the Big Island of Hawaii.

Our economy is totally tourist driven. We are dependent on

people going to the National Park and stopping at our place

to eat. Since the shutdown, our revenue has dropped a lot and

we have had to cut hours for employees to compensate for the

lack of business.

I'm tired of all this Republican childish actions and wish

all politicians would drop the partisan nonsense and do what

is right for the American People.

Thank you for your concern.

One gentleman from Maui reminded me that private businesses don't get to pause on meeting their commitments when the government is closed. He wrote:

My daughter and son-in-law have a tourist based clientele

for their bicycle crater tour business on Maui. When

Haleakala National Park was closed down, they lost their

income and are still having to pay office expenses, etc.,

etc., as well as their home expenses, but nothing is coming

in, as everything is going out.

They are losing hundreds to thousands of dollars a day,

their employees who have families aren't able to work with

the business closed, tourists who come to Maui to have a good

time, part of which was the bike ride down from Haleakala,

are angry and disappointed and some even think this is

somehow Maui government's fault!

He goes on to say:

My daughter has six children, mortgage payments. Money is

going out, but none is coming in. My family are diligent

middle class people who work hard, pay their taxes, vote in

every election--responsible citizens who do their part

always.

If this ridiculous federal government shutdown continues

for any length of time, my family will lose their business

and be at poverty level in no time, as will all their

employees. Everyone I know, on either side of the political

spectrum, thinks the shutdown is ridiculous and unnecessary.

I also heard about the impact of the shutdown on the visitors themselves who go to Hawaii. One person from Hawaii whose family members traveled to Hawaii to visit wrote:

My family has travelled 6,000 miles on a once in a lifetime

trip--sorry--no Pearl Harbor (Dad was a lifer Navy man) no

Volcanoes National Park--no Puukohola--these sites are

essential to our culture and tourism alike--many are

without work--it is just ridiculous over a LAW that has

been declared Constitutional--their antics change

nothing--just hurt our country.

Another local bed-and-breakfast owner on the Big Island shared the perspective of some of her international guests:

Aloha, I have a bed and breakfast in Hilo and I feel sorry

for my guests who have saved for a once in a lifetime

vacation to Hawaii. They have come from all over the world to

see our Beautiful Volcano National Park! These Guests do not

understand how the government can CLOSE and deny them access

to the Park.

This week I have guests from Montreal, Canada; Singapore,

Germany, France and Japan! They may NEVER have the

opportunity to visit here again. This is Shameful for our

country. Not only is this behavior bad for our Country but

bad for the world.

The tea party shutdown is also impacting Hawaiian visitors to our Nation's Capital. Yesterday I met with 81 students from Millilani Middle School on Oahu. They made the long trip from Hawaii to Washington, DC, in hopes of seeing historical sites, visiting museums, and learning about their country and our democracy. The trip was saved for and planned for months in advance. The sites and museums were scheduled. Their tickets and reservations were already paid for. They could not rebook their travel even though the shutdown has closed many of the sites they planned to visit. I took them on a tour of the Capitol myself because it was the only way they could see these halls of government. These students are here to learn about our democracy. Many of them asked me about the shutdown and how we were going to get government back on track. What kind of message will they take home with them about how our government operates?

These are just some of the stories that illustrate the real impact of the tea party shutdown on communities, families, and people in Hawaii. So many of the folks whose letters I have shared work hard to earn an honest living. They go to work each day, striving to show our visitors aloha while building something for themselves and their families to be proud of. They play by the rules, meet their commitments, and do what they can to be good community members. Yet, through no fault of their own, many of these Hawaii small businesses are losing income and their livelihoods are being affected.

It is past time for the House to take the responsible action to pass the Senate bill to keep government running and services going. It is not fair to our veterans, our students, and their families when they can't visit our Nation's historical and national treasures just because a small minority in Congress has chosen recklessness over responsibility. It is not fair that this shutdown and these senseless default threats have gone on for a week. This behavior is harming our economy and undermining our credibility around the world. We need to stop the tea party temper tantrum, we need to open the government, we need to pay our bills, and then we can negotiate on other matters.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in order to talk about the impact of the current government shutdown on Hawaii's Federal workers.

Here in Washington, we debate in what most people consider abstractions. We use terms such as ``ObamaCare,'' ``filibuster,'' and ``discretionary spending.'' We talk about government programs and initiatives in the aggregate and in the abstract. Hardly a day goes by that we do not hear about some program costing in the millions and billions. While we use these terms and concepts when debating the nuts and bolts of government policy, what we need to always keep in mind is that these dollars and these terms impact real people, real lives.

The work of the Senate is to debate and to deliberate with the goal of finding consensus solutions to the challenges our Nation faces. The core of what we do is about people, families, and communities. When we get away from thinking this way, when we focus on the abstractions and the slogans and who is winning the day's media war, it becomes easy to forget what we are all here for. When we forget that, we find ourselves unable to move forward and find consensus. We lose focus on the people, families, and communities that sent us here.

Public service is a privilege. It is also a responsibility. When we stand for election or enter public service in some other way, we are committing to put ourselves in the back, behind the people for whom we work and serve.

So today, as we mark another day of a government shutdown, I would like to share some stories with my colleagues, stories about people and families affected by the shutdown.

I have received letters like my colleague from Minnesota has received letters from her constituents, from people of all ages, serving in different capacities and at different Federal Government agencies, and even some who are just embarking on a path to public service. These are all people dedicated to their work and dedicated to their country. The damage we are doing by not getting these folks back on the job is serious and impacts our national security, our economy, and a host of necessary services upon which the people of our country depend.

This shutdown and the debate around it is undermining a commitment to public service for many people. It is damaging the effectiveness of our institutions, and it is unnecessarily putting many families in Hawaii and across the Nation in a state of uncertainty and anxiety.

One furloughed man who wrote to me expressed these views clearly. He said:

As a U.S. Air Force civilian, I am a furloughed employee.

Hawaii has nearly the highest percentage of federal workers.

This has a huge impact on the Aloha state. Unlike the recent

sequester, one can't scale back when nothing is coming in.

Some lower-grade workers may lose their homes and with it

their sense of pride for choosing to work for the govt.

That's the reality of this shutdown.

He went on:

By Oct 9, we'll have lost more than the recent sequester

cuts. Many have not overcome that and now we're summarily

discharged. And the debt ceiling debate is next? I work in an

office of 10 or so. Half active duty, half civilian. We

provide the continuity needed year in and year out to manage

instrument procedures at all our bases in the Pacific Air

Forces. . . .

He goes on:

Are we ``non-essential'' employees? I respectfully ask

Speaker Boehner to ask them. I'm upset that a few politicians

are holding my country, my community, and yes, my family

hostage for political brinksmanship. . . . I stand with you,

Leader Reid and the ``responsible'' Republicans in the U.S.

House that want to get our nation moving again.

Another constituent wrote to me about the impact of the shutdown on her family. She said:

As the wife of an ``essential personnel'' government

employee, I would like to tell you that the shutdown is

devastating. We are parents of three children, one of whom is

special needs and requires expensive measures daily to

survive. Without a paycheck, we will be unable to pay our

bills, buy food, support our children. Many, many middle

class federal employee families are in the same boat. Savings

will not support us indefinitely.

My husband is, right now as we speak, at work doing his

duty, protecting the American public against foodborne

illness and contamination. Yet he is doing it with no pay. We

are devastated. Please please tell our story. Tell the

Republicans who have not crossed the aisle to please be

reasonable and fund the government. They can argue later.

Children are paying the price for the shutdown.

As of right now, at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, three of our Nation's nuclear submarines are in drydock. Work on them stopped due to the shutdown. One of the shipyard workers wrote this to me:

Mazie, I am an employee of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. The

shutdown has left my co-workers and myself with a sense of

trepidation, insecurity and angst. Most of the hard working

dedicated and patriotic federal civilian employees I work

with live paycheck to paycheck due to the high cost of living

in our islands. I have fears of not being able to pay my

mortgage on time in November.

But more importantly Mazie, the operational readiness of

our Pacific Fleet is in jeopardy because we aren't able to

keep our ships ``Fit To Fight'' if we can't go to work,

repair them and meet schedule deadlines for returning them to

operational status. Our workload already is stretching our

resources and demanding we perform more with less. How can we

recover a day, a week, a month or more sitting at home when

so much is at stake? The long term consequences of this

shutdown has ripple effects that are not one for one but a

much longer period when moving a large industrial workforce

back into a rhythm of productivity and efficiency. Please

continue to work with your colleagues in Congress and

convince them to end this shutdown sooner rather than later.

This letter is an example of the selflessness of so many workers. While he is concerned about himself and his colleagues, his greater concern is for the impact this shutdown will have on our Nation's security.

I have also received letters from people just starting out in life and in public service. For example, one young woman wrote me:

I am in jeopardy of losing my AmeriCorps VISTA placement, which would prevent me from developing essential workplace skills, and an education stipend that would lighten the load of my student loan debt.

Another shared this:

My husband and I are closing on our first condo today,

Tuesday, October 2nd and are now faced with the challenge of

my husband not receiving a paycheck during the shutdown. He

is a government employee who is expected to work during the

shutdown without a payday in sight. I am extremely nervous

now about paying our mortgage and other essential bills when

I should be excited about our first home purchase. I know

eventually this will be straightened out but at what cost to

us? We are both in our early 30's trying to make a life

together and like many obstacles, this is another setback. I

hope this comes to an end quickly.

These are people just starting to make their way in the world. They are working hard and doing all the right things. Yet, through no fault of their own, they are facing uncertainty and are likely questioning whether they have chosen the right path.

The last letter I would like to share today--and I will be sharing more in the coming days about other areas of Hawaii's economy that have been impacted--is one that I hope my colleagues will think about as we go forward. This couple wrote:

My spouse and I are both federal employees, with a combined

public service commitment of over 50 years. We have seen and

lived through many congressional sessions and many more

shenanigans, but neither of us can recall a time when the

truculence of a few has caused so much hurt in the lives of

so many. I am ``essential;'' my husband is not. We will get

by.

Others are not so lucky. Our administrative assistants, for

example, both of whom are barely hanging on, trying to feed

their kids on the same pay they received three years ago

while the costs of health insurance, transportation, and

housing have continued to rise, are now not being paid at

all.

Our daughter, for example, over $200,000 in student loan

debt, who tends to our veterans as a physician in a VA

hospital, still had to come up with her rent on Tuesday and

still has to pay for healthy food and quality daycare so that

she can go to work, but not get paid.

These people devoted their careers to serving the public, helping people, and making our country a better place.

I ask my colleagues to think: How long will this couple's daughter or the administrative assistants they mention in their letter continue to hang on and stay in public service? If our political system cannot function, our institutions and the people who work in them and rely on their services suffer.

One of the most damaging legacies of this shutdown could be the crisis of confidence it will create among the American people toward their own government. That would be devastating.

I am not arguing that government should be the answer to all of our problems, provide all of our services, but the services it does provide should be worthy of the people, families, and communities we are providing them for. Having a dedicated Federal workforce is central to that goal, and our job as Senators is to give that workforce confidence that their work is valued, that they are valued, that their contributions are worthwhile. This shutdown fails miserably in all of those respects.

We have the privilege of serving in the Senate. Let's do our job for the people all across our country who, like all these people who wrote to me and who wrote to all my other colleagues, expect nothing less of us.

Let's reopen the government. Speaker Boehner, let the House vote on the bill that the Senate sent to you. Let's get back to working on what we can do better to serve the people, families and communities that gave us the privilege to be here.

I yield the floor.