in the white house said mattel the president you can be sure that she will raise its at that point the president to make two things very clear and with respect to that text to changes underside that would revise the president to make a second point that we the american people are doing a wonderful thing that is

important for the values and interest to make sure that is at least as claire -- clear. >> it will come up and she will raise that. with the chinese representatives to take this seriously because the risk of of prc relations are significant item no fee will or will not do that he was the president to understand that is his view. if he would read it -- lean on the president to try to persuade the tpp to shift to a one china position coated by is not to do that so the

point that mike makes is right there would be to support democracy the consistency of american position of the of one china policy. if you want to understand that coming in it is ted years old so read my book. it is a serious issue getting the chinese leadership can understand and i think it is genuine concern for the reasons we talk about exactly how we see the u.s. role i don't know that your recall is not a collaboration with a the prc but also our own interest is very unhappy

with the provocations we saw coming out of taipei and we may want to use the inquiry could do this again i don't think we will tell anybody what to do with and we will have to see what that means. >> i will defer to them. [laughter] >> i would like to follow-up on your presentation and. i take everything you say about interest objective to a and don't of a bike to push you to be more operational that even though we will have an election 2016 it takes place will after the transition of taiwan's there is eight months between your inauguration and hours. there is a negative spiral

it may be under way. we don't exactly get our personnel act together quickly we will have a president or maybe secretary of state so how does one operate in that context? you are absolutely right. set the presidential election i never see a presidential candidate here to say if i am elected, they will be kept china. is a coercive it is a coarse

sieve response in the diplomatic war and people were imagining the tpp to come back to power that would make an imprint here. that would be the story. so it plays badly for china but the candidates who never imagined donald trump already have risers there will be a transition team is.

with a very sensitive problem. with the inexperienced person that would be rounded up anyway. i have not to worry about that part so we don't have to wait to have a policy of this. >> if i could just add this to the half full glass. but i would be very

surprised if anything happens after the thai won election that the issue is the situation toward a real security crisis. just the internal concerns i don't think so to be honest. this issue to be so sensitive and also so special. better control that more. is of crisis ended there was a coarse sieve responds we are right on target.

we macy's of consequences but i don't think those unless we get into a negative and vicious cycle there will not be so consequential with the security risk of taiwan. so what was pointed out earlier people are very risk averse. to be strongly supported because of that.

it may have reasons to act but not a crisis. >> but what worries me is not taipei but how beijing interprets the in the last time there is day decade or more ago, the the last time said capability a major demonstration of force whether missiles are surface combatants is several times larger than what it was last time to intimidate taiwan. and the south china sea developments would suggest

our expectation is that china's concerns of pullback from military force or action is not as high as we thought. they think our response is not as high as they expected. they think we will just shift'' we have been doing in the east or south china sea. we will demonstrate the enormous capability but americans have the reacted. i am not predicting that but i can see that scenario. >> as i've looked, what china has said in the south china sea to push american button with direct military response, even though we

have no -- no formal sense of commitment if there were an effort to use military coercion against taiwan that would be a different situation and i don't think they she is interested. >> so with that view of that problem of what you consider conversion talk about demonstrations of capability is the explicit way. and not to prompt a u.s. attack but inouye to cause a debate in this town to go different directions.

>> i want to push the two gentlemen in a different direction. to talk about that spiral i don't think he refers to the and now they have an option one by one that is very difficult kore president-elect on a decisive way. >> first one to agree that you have such a huge toolbox

to stop the tourist from going to retire one to go to the world health assembly with that economic interdependence resawed them against the philippines is in japan end they believe there is less of a likelihood to resorts because they have the tools to use. to the panel this morning about how it plays an active role and that probably would begin after the election in the period before the inauguration but even after. with that period that the

role that the u.s. played and trying to draw him not to the mainland. so what is the lessons that you draw from that period nor the moon is made to u.s. policy that were right or wrong? reaction to that or are there lessons to apply had the western and mainly and should manage this transition? thank you. >> to begin a stake to assume the demonstration of military force if beijing

feels it has to react and to be limited to mothers. then with the physical demonstration of force. i don't think we can rule that out as a scenario. if you want to make sure how we demonstrate our commitments. so i need a couch to lie down on. >> i do not think personally

as some have argued the problem was they said in an interview tuesday i would rise up. i don't think that was a problem and neither did he. and we have to dialogs redding. and ready shriver and others to make sure we have won nine of communication the other thing is not just focus but to talk to the affirmative. at that point it was the big

issue. because of that dialogue to you effectively communicate with japan with australia and france -- friends with issues with taiwan's all of that paid off for taipei so think about friends and allies who made an impact but that is not enough. but you cannot go back you have to start with the u.s. tie pay dialogue with the agenda to move forward with an understanding of where we start to get uncomfortable and to recognize the president will develop relationships with leaders because they can talk to them on the phone you cannot

and understate the effect that has for taiwan and frankly i had to tell the president based on reporting from taipei and others, we had to explain for the president and often in contradiction we are showing to the press. said the incoming administration and should recognize you can say something with a bureaucratic mismatch with then you get on the phone to have the summit you cannot do that with thai won in the same way. if you know, that you establish the authoritative channels to find a group of

people with inclusive use then tie one will know that. >> cato institute for coitus the panel think is the primary obstacle to taiwan spending 3% on gdp? i know a myriad of things could be at play but what is one factor doing the most heavy lifting? >> our nato allies with the exception of our way are shining examples of burden sharing in defense spending.

end of the major treaty allies, australia, said japan arguably are moving on the right track so japan is 100 in the world for spending and defense. we can appreciate taiwan's as the modern democratic welfare state with budget deficits and globalization to convince the public. one other part of the problem is the defense secretary goes to japan and says we have to spend more. there is probably something in the defense dialogue that could be reached conceptualize. i am not a big advocate of symbolic to star generals going to tie pay just because we kiam but we do have our exercises in we

should think about if there is a better way to allow the secretary of defense for their views to be captured. there is a creative way to get the strategic higher level political dialogue. >> i and the director of the tpp mission and we have all whole range of defense papers we have put out and if you want access look at our web site it will show you the commitment they have for deterrence the free ride

and we will try to get to a variety of needs. >> is a good paper. the opposite in 2005 with the national security strategy the politics are still hard. >> parts of my question was answered. i am in that asian studies program at georgetown. part of my question was answered but it seems with the demonstration took -- it seems there is the shift in the demographic but i am curious how that relates to the general strategic position and their relationship with u.s. and

taiwan's? >> the only thing i would say in response to that with a volunteer force is that they're said to be pretty expensive and the ministry of national defence has bad working on that transition is saying it will take longer and not be 100 percent but to get back to my point they're running into problems two years ago with the legislature. all of good intentions are necessary but not enough on the part of the policy makers to make it happen. so if we hold might responsible if the tpp happens to win the presidency and we don't get

there. [laughter] >> the queue for the waterfall discussion. the queue for talking about the one side in which we seek this powerful man has a lot of difficulties at hand however we have forgotten this is a man who has taken bold action with bold decisions he means what he says and he will do what he will do. said recently he said the issue of taiwan cannot be a drug on for generations so that worries me does that worry you as well?

>> i read about that and was chastised by an official for over interpreting it. but i have to say then he said some people with the enemy across the table. i think it is fair c criticism i thinks fair criticism i think he is realistic about the prospects of reunification with any near-term or mid term timeframe and understands that will not happen but i think is very interested to get political dialogue with an agreement on the basic principles like china and what he said was political differences cannot be allowed to go on for generations and generations that doesn't mean

unification so i a agree. he says with the means and means what he says the sometimes he says it in a way that leads you into over interpret. i have not heard him or i haven't read about him repeating the phrase it was repeated by one senior official but the basic thrust from the responsible people in beijing is it is a political dialogue to mention and the concern that without it things will go in the wrong direction end you may get to one observer talked about was peaceful separation so i think that is the focus not to push for

reunification. that is my understanding. >> i would say his reflection is very useful and we should not overreact to anyone statement that nothing that is up marked departure necessary but if you look at how he has responded to changes in the and the status quo or the trajectory of the issue as he defines the use to coercion and whether hong kong or domestically or the south china sea dispute. given the choice to appeal

end incentivize those who may be challenging the status quo he has always chosen power. that makes me a little bit nervous but on the other hand, as the pretty good foreign policy deal for beijing. that has been pretty thoughtful and to start picking that apart which is why i don't think there will be a crisis. >> on this particular issue i agree largely that is certainly clear it is confined to the political dialogue context but that

said i actually think the statements don't over interpret whether this has been done as a pattern to make such remarks to say you took it out of context but my own sense is that represents his own true sentiment he has a penchant and a track record of throwing his talking points away to say what he believes so i do think we should take that seriously with the military modernization front with the return tarot power to see more and more amphibious oriented exercises that have a very clear taiwan reference point to them so especially the

ways in which to 89 modernization as great a complicated with any type of scenario. so i will thank the panel to close by thanking everyone for such an excellent day. thanks for your participation. [applause] . . we left our hearts in prayer and phyllis bringing to us a serenity that comes from trusting the power of your providential love.

inspire our lawmakers to develop such a close relationship with you that they will strive to please you always. as you fill their hearts with your life-transforming spirit, may your image in them be more clearly seen. free them from any thoughts, words, and actions that are contrary to your love, making them spiritually mature through the power of your spirit. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: pleae join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to

the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: a new senate majority calm to office this year -- came to office this year with a different outlook on government funding from the previous majority. first, we passed a budget. then we worked across the aisle to pass through committee the dozen bills necessary to fund the government. that's the first time either of these things had happened in six long years. our commonsense approach represented real hope that with the necessary cooperation from across the aisle a new and better way of funding the government woos actually possible -- was actually possible. democrats initially gave americans reason to believe they might be ready to offer that bipartisan cooperation. democrats gave bipartisan committee backing to nearly all of the dozen government funding bills and a majority of these bills attracted support from at least 70% of democratic

appropriations committee members. democrats even bragged about supporting these funding bills in press releases to their constituents. but this was before democrats hatched their filibuster summer plan. in other words, block all of the government funding bills in the hopes of provoking a crisis democrats might exploit to grow the i.r.s. and the d.c. bureaucracy. as a result, you actually saw democratic leaders declare that they would use procedural moves to prevent the full senate from even debating the same funding legislation members of their party had already praised in their press releases to their media. democrats even voted repeatedly to block the bill that funds our military. think about that. funds for our military. it would have been cynical enough for our colleagues to block a bipartisan defense funding bill democrats had hailed as a win-win-win and a

kaktoviktory for their state -- and a victory for their states in their press releases. but we're all living in a time of international peril and crisis. threats seem to mount less by the day than by the hour. yet last week democrats voted again to block the bipartisan bill that funds pay races an rad medical care for our troops. i wish it could stwais the only extreme -- i could say it was te only extreme position our democrat colleagues took. last week they blocked a planned parenthood bill. republicans stood up for women's health. democrats stood p for their political friends. i think democrats will continue to -- over seemingly everything else. the question before us now is

mathousand keep the government open in the -- how to keep the government open in the short-term given the realities we face. here's what the president of right-to-life had to say on the matter. this is the president of national right-to-life. "there are two different roads we can take. one is to insist that no more money go to planned parenthood and cause a government shutdown, which interestingly enough won't actually result in defunding planned parenthood anyway. the other is to take a slightly longer-term approach taking advantage of the fact that we have the attention of the country as probably never befo before." so had democrats not prevented the senate from passing the same appropriations bills they voted for and praised, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, but they did. they pursued a deliberate strategy to force our country into another of these unnecessary crises. this leaves the funding legislation before us as the only viable way forward in the

short term. it doesn't represent my first, second, third, or 23rd choice when it comes to funding the government. but it will keep the government open through the fall and funded at the bipartisan level already agreed to by both parties, as we work on the way forward. and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that all time during quorum calls until 5:30 be charged equally between both sides. sphesthe presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: a path to ar avert yet another republican-manufactured showdown is before us now. this evening the senate will vote on a cleaning conditioning resolution that keeps the government open and funded. following that vote, the sna the will the then proceed to final passage of a clean funding

measure sometime tomorrow or wednesday. that takes a simple majority. i'm glad that we're on the verge of avoiding another republican-sponsored shutdown of the federal government. but i would be remiss if i didn't remind everyone that this last-minute scramble to do our most basic yob is as unnecessary as it is reckless. we're two days away from a shutdown, only two days, and why? because republicans made it their number-one priority to undermine women's health, keeping the government open and funded for these extremists in the republican party. with my friend, the republican leader, talking about this vote a few days ago, a choice between -- he said planned parenthood -- i say the health of women. understand, madam president, the republicans couldn't get a single -- they couldn't even get a majority vote on this.

couldn't get a majority vote. they were down in the 40's. so even republicans think what is going on now is foolish. keeping government open and funded and serving the american people was a secondary concern for these h extremists. that's too bad. while i am pleased that we have a path to move forward a void a shutdown, i'm more concerned about the republican mode is oppose ran -- govern always -- modis operandi. two years ago they actually shut the government down for 17 days. the republicans shut down the government and we were only able to get ourselves out of that morass because, for example, in the house of representatives two-thirds of the republicans in the house voted to keep the

government closed. unbelievable. but that's the way it was. here it is now two years later and we're on the verge of another shutdown. remember this: the fifth time in two years that republicans have manufactured an unnecessary showdown crisis, and it is a showdown. too bad it is leading to a shutdown. exactly two years ago they forced a shutdown of the federal government because of health care. now, seven months ago, republicans almost shut down the department of homeland security. why? over an immigration issue. the department of homeland security. they were going to shut it down. it was saved by the last minute -- i should say "in the last minute." mr. president, these are the agencies within this department that protect us, protect us from terrorists, protect us from those many things that happen in

our country that we need protection from. this past spring, a shutdown of key national security programs were part of the intelligence act. why? the republicans want add bill for themselves. it was a fight among them, not among us. but they came close to wreaking havoc -- they did wreak some havoc because the program was shut down for a while. more recently,, the republicans shut down the import-export bank endangering hundreds of thousands of jobs. this program is still closed. now we're just days from another shushutdown, a big one. though it appears we'll sidestep a republican-manufactured crisis this week, the disaster is looming ahead. we still have a long, difficult road ahead. the continuing resolution will pass this week, but it's a

short-term, and it funds our government through december 11. the measure is really shortsig shortsighted. december 11. that means within the coming weeks we will again be negotiating with republicans to avoid another shutdown. we'll also have to pay a find to pay -- have to find a way to pay our bills. republicans tried that once. we came within minutes of doing that. the federal government, this great country of ours, wouldn't be able to pay its bills. but we see the press, we see all the stories about the speaker who stepped down -- who will step down in five years and we hear the republicans over there, they're joyous. one republican running for president announced this -- and there was cheering and the person running for president, who serves in the senate, was part of the cheer. another republican presidential candidate came to the same meeting, same thing happened. it is hard to comprehend that

people are cheering for this government to be closed. that's what they're doing. don't -- we shouldn't pay our debt? the republican house is i in a d stay. last week the republican house showed that it can depose a speaker. i hope they elect some sensible leaders. i'm deeply concerned and i came here to the floor on friday and said, honestly as i could, out of my respect for john boehner, i think it's unfair that people are piling on. did i always agree with him? no. but he never misled me, always told me the way it was. i am concerned that even those republican leaders previously claiming to want a compromise have lost the quurnlg t couragep

for what matters most and have said so in the press. come november 1, we have no way what house republicans will do, this is after their election to replace congressman boehner. they want to go off that cliff or do they want to wreck the global economy? maybe both. we need to get to work immediately in order to avoid facing another government shutdown. republicans see the impending cat cat as a political tool they need to exploit. americans don't want 50 more months of republican bringsman shm. our constituents don't want every task to turn into a doom doomsday clock. i would invite nigh republican colleagues to quit governing by crisis. let's put the threat of government shutdown to bed now. let's turn our attention to getting rid of the dangerous

sequester cuts. i have heard speeches given by the senior senator from arizona, swung who knows a little bit about the military. he says the sequester cuts are terrible. i agree with him i these devastating cuts were never supposed to happen. they were meant to drive bipartisan budget negotiations. getting rid of sequestration has wide bipartisan support in both chambers. i ho -- i hope. let's start working on a bipartisan budget fix that protects our military and puts our country on more sound economic footing and let's do it without the threat of a shutdown. we can do it to prevent another catastrophe. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message to accompany h.r. 719, which the

clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 719, an act to require the transportation security administration to conform to existing federal law and so forth. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until the cloture vote on the motion to concur with an amendment in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 719 will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, wednesday night is the deadline. on wednesday night the authority of the government of the united states to do business ends. the funding for our government ends. it's a scary time. we don't want that to happen. most of us, because we know it's catastrophic. there will be people who will suffer if we fail to do our job. now this isn't the first time we've been up against a

deadline. we've faced it before. and many times we have to buy a little extra time to negotiate the budget. that's understandable. in this circumstance, though, we actually have announced candidates for presidency of the united states who are calling for a government shutdown. what happens when our government shuts down? well, it's pretty obvious. agencies stop doing business as usual. what we find is that the impact, though, goes far beyond just that simple statement. i went back to illinois this last weekend, and i took a visit to scott air force base. it's the largest single employer in the state of illinois and down state. in 2013, the last time we had a government shutdown, the junior senator from texas, senator ted cruz, wanted to shut down our government to protest obamacare.

and so he successfully closed down the government and found other republicans who were joining in that effort, and it went on for a long period of time. in 2013 at scott air force base, one of the most important facilities in our country, at scott air force base in belleville, illinois, we saw two thirds of the civilian workforce, about 2,300 people, sent home immediately without pay. those who were required to report for duty, including all of the base's 5,000 military personnel, were given an i.o.u. rather than paychecks. scott air force base families were forced to limit their spending and stretch their savings while the senator from texas gave speeches on the floor about dr. seuss. i'm not making this up. this had an impact on the entire region of southwestern illinois. scott air force base has a $1.6

billion economic impact on the local rather including supporting thousands of indirect jobs. every part of this regional economy felt the impact of this decision to shut down the government two yearsing a. gas stations, restaurants, small businesses, contractors. everybody. now this brinkmanship goes far beyond flowery speeches on the floor and press attention. the last shutdown hurt the gross domestic product of the united states of america. consumer confidence drops when the government shuts down. we saw $2 billion in lost productivity from furloughed employees. federal reserve chairman janet yellen said we have a good recovery in place that's really making progress. and to see congress take actions that would endanger that progress, i think that would be more than unfortunate. so to me, that's congress's job.

the c.e.o. of j.p. morgan j.p. morgan, a man named jamie dimon, speaking of the last republican government shutdown, said washington has really slowed america down. i agree. if that were the only thing that was happening, it would be bad enough. but there's more. today i went to a neighborhood in chicago, the all saint's e-- episcopal church in ravens worth. we were at the food pantry of this church. this particular church tries to help neighbors and residents who are struggling to try to find something to eat. we had a meeting with two

representatives, people who represent the food pantries of the chicago land area. they are worried about a shutdown and what a shutdown means to them. how would it affect all saint's episcopal church food pantry and the men and women who go in there on a regular basis to pick up some canned goods to get by? here's what it means. many of these people are on food stamps. we call it the snap program now. the snap program on average gives a person food worth $7 a day. so the notion that people are going out for steak dinners on food stamps, not quite accurate. sarah -- i won't use her full name -- who is 81 years old came up to talk about what life is look for her. she was a hard working person stricken with cancer in 2002 that recurred in 2004 and she had to quit working. all she has is a social security

check and food stamps, and that's how she survives from week to week and month to month. what happens when there's a government shutdown? they cut off the food stamps. did that happen last time? no. the last time the senator from texas shut down the government, it didn't happen because president obama had a surplus in his recovery fund. he took the surplus and put it in the food stamps so there would be no interruption of service. you see, most of the recipients of food stamps are children, single moms raising kids not making enough money supplement their income with food stamps and buy food for their kids and elderly people like sarah who are struggling on a fixed income. this time it's different. if these presidential wanna-bees who are determined to shut down the government this time are successful, we're going to have problems right away. it turns out the only surplus left in the food stamp or snap benefit fund is about $3

billion. that will keep the program going for two weeks. after two weeks they cut off the food stamps. what does that mean? for a lot of people it means a lot of suffering. primarily for the poorest people among us. did you notice last week what happened in washington? the city was transformed by the visit of pope francis. congress was in awe of this man who came and spoke to us in very human terms about what he thinks would be our obligation not just as elected officials but as human beings. one of his highest priorities is that we have some caring and sensitivity for those who struggle: the poor, the people on food stamps. so for all the applause and all the posing for pictures that went on last week with the pope, here we are this week discussing a government shutdown. here we are this week discussing

whether we're going to cut off food stamps for poor people in america. it's the sad reality. to think of what a government shutdown would do in human terms to those wonderful folks working at scott air force base in belleville, illinois, or to sarah, or go into the all saint's episcopal church food pantry and try to get by if food stamps are cut off. why? why would we do that? how can we possibly be serving this nation, this great nation by stalling our economy and hurting innocent people and punishing those who are serving our country in uniform and otherwise? some think it's a grand strategy, a great political strategy. it may move them up from the smaller debate to the big-time debate when it comes to running for president. but for me, it's an indication that we've lost our way. in june i joined with the other leaders on this side of the

aisle in sending a letter to the republican leader saying please don't wait until the end of september to face this budget reality. sit down now -- back in june -- with the president, with the leaders on the republican side and democratic side. let us compromise in good faith. let us meet our responsibility. well, that's what we face. as senator reid said a few minutes earlier, there's a suggestion that maybe as a parting gift to speaker boehner we will extend the budget temporarily until december 11, two weeks before christmas, just days before the hanukkah season. that we would extend the budget until then. and then once again be up against a deadline and the prospect of shutting down our government again. we can do better. we should do better. we need to make certain that we keep faith with the people who sent us here. we need to make certain that we

do our job to not just send a continuing resolution to the president, but to resolve this issue. we should not be threatening government shutdowns now or in december, when we know how devastating they can be. i hope congress gets busy taking care of the work we were sent here to do. i think it's time for those bipartisan budget negotiations. it's beyond time. now is the time for congress to act responsibly to develop a budget that allows america to thrive. madam president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: mr. chairman, i would like to talk a little about an amendment that i'll be offering -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i'd like to talk about an amendment i'll offer in a little while before someone comes from our side or the other side because they'd like to come to me to talk about it with me, maybe to object to it, maybe to agree with it, but i want to talk about the amendment if i could for a moment. right now we're debating the continuing resolution. this would be to continue a level of spending from now until december 11. there are a bunch of changes in that from last year's spending but it's basically a continuation of the previous year until we can work out our differences. it's not the way to govern around here. what we should be doing instead is having individual spending

bills come up. there are 12 different appropriations bills. the ideal way to handle this is the way it used to be done, which is that the appropriations committee and its subcommittees deal with these individual spending bills. one, for instance, is for commerce, state department, justice department. one is for department of health and human services and labor department. one is for the department of defense. when you do that, what happens is you have oversight hearings and you have congress playing its rightful role of saying are these agencies doing the right thing, are these programs working or around they working? you might increase spending with a program that's actually working well and decrease spending for another program and eliminate a third program that's not working well at all. that's what congress is supposed to do. that's our job here. under the constitution, as you know, congress is given what's called the power of the purse, meaning that every dime has to be appropriated by the united states congress. what's happened over the years, particularly in the last several years, is that congress has not

moved forward on these appropriations bills because they've been blocked. in this case this year, we've been trying to bring up appropriations bills and the other side, the democrats, have been blocking even considering an appropriation bill. so we've had this debate here on the floor. many of us have heard it but the bottom line is that committees have actually done their work and reported out 12 different appropriations bills. so 12 bills are ready to come to the floor. by the way, most of these bills have been reported out with huge bipartisan majorities. so i saw one the other day, it was 24-3, for instance. and, mr. president, i know you've been involved in some of these issues over the years. this is typical actually. the appropriators do their job. senator mikulski, senator cochran and others, they work out their differences. but we simply can't get them voted on on the floor. and people will say, well, why can't you? well, because it requires 0 votes -- well, because it requires 60 votes.

you've got to overcome a 60-hoat vurdle in order -- 60-vote hurdle in order to even get to the appropriations. so we haven't voted on a single appropriations before the fiscal year end, which is september 30, coming up this week. no way to run a railroad, much less a government. by the way, the government that has the biggest budget of any government in the world, the government of the greatest nation in the world. we can't even bring these individual spending bills up here for a debate and a vote. it's just wrong. and, again, when you don't do that, what you don't have is the oversight. and i would think both sides would want to have oversight over these agencies and departments. so you understand what's working, what's not working. so that those tax dollars are spent wisely. that's the kind of stewardship that we're responsible for as taxpayers, as representatives of taxpayers. we should want to be sure that those dollars are spent in a way that's most effective and yet without having these appropriations bills, it's just

impossible to do it. so instead we're faced with this possibility of september 30th not having any what's called discretionary spending, which is not all the spending of government but it's the spending approximate the government appropriates every year, and having the possibility of parts of government actually not being able to operate because on september 30th is the fiscal year end. it's just the wrong way to do business. so the amendment that i'm going to offer later this afternoon is an amendment that simply says, let's adopt a new bill, new legislation that says, let's end government shutdowns. how would we do it? we would say that as of september 30th, if there is any bill that's not passed, any one of the 12 -- and remember, this year none of the 12 were passed. none of them. but any year any one of those were not passed, then you would simply continue the spending from the previous year. but there would be a reduction in that spending over time. after 120 days, there would be a

1% reduction, giving you 120 days to work with the appropriations committee to say, okay, we know you don't want to see the spending be cut, we know you have some priorities you'd like to fund, but it's going to be cut 1% at 120 days. and then 1% the next 90 days. 1% the next 90 days. 1% the next 0 days. so you -- 1% the next 90 days. so you get to the point where you actually see a reduction in spending every year, which is not necessarily a bad thing because congress spends more than it takes every year, but if appropriators and others here in congress don't want to see that, they would actually have to get their act together and pass appropriations bills. once an appropriation bill is passed, the end government shutdowns act would not apply. this seems to be a logical, bipartisan, commonsense solution to the problem that we're facing here. and again, the problem is, congress is not doing its work. we're not getting these appropriations bills done. it's not for lack of work in the committees this year. again, all 12 bills reported out of committee. i believe the same is true in

the house. and yet we cannot get here on the floor of the senate the 60 votes needed to come up with the ability to proceed to these appropriations bills. it's called a filibuster. it's being -- they're being filibustered. we're not even debating them. this is just wrong and i think again the way to get around that is to say okay, if you want to try to block these bills, then what's going to happen is we're going to have automatic spending from last year. no increases. in fact, decreases. and decreasing more over time until congress gets its act together and actually passes this legislation. this idea is so common sense that when we had a vote on it a couple years ago when i was able to bring it up for a vote -- and we'll see tonight whether i'm permitted to do that -- we actually had 46 united states senators support it. now, not everybody supported it on the appropriations committee. some of them obviously have some concerns about it. not every republican supported it. there were a few republicans who

didn't support it. by the way, one of the republicans who didn't support it now -- it last time is now a cosponsor of the legislation. because she has looked at, it -- and knows the system is not working. so i hope i'll have the opportunity to offer that amendment here this afternoon because i think it makes all the sense in the world, as we are debating a continuing resolution again, the so-called c.r., which is the wrong way to govern, let's also pass as part of that a new discipline, a new idea, a new approach that says let's not do this again. let's not ever have the threat of government shutdown hanging over us. instead, come september 30, the appropriations bill isn't done, fine, continue the spending from last year and a slow ratcheting down of that spending. mr. president, i think that makes all the sense in the world. it takes away this political

football that's being thrown back and forth. it takes away the specter for our economy, for our businesses, for our families of not knowing whether you're going to have this government operation continue after september 30th in whatever area is affecting our economy or those businesses or those families. i just think it makes a lot of sense and i think it provides an inscene ti for congress to -- incentive for congress to get its work done. and congress should be doing every year all 12 appropriations bills, doing the oversight that goes into that, deciding what gets more money, what gets less money, what gets thrown out altogether. it doesn't make any sense. in the huge bureaucracy of the vast federal government, not every program is perfect. let's be honest. a lot of them need reform. and if you don't have this process of the power of the purse, the leverage of the power of the purse to be able to say, you know what, prove this program is working. when it doesn't, we're going to

pull the funding away. you lose the government of the congress to be an effective power the way our founders set it up. again, congress alone has the power of the purse. every dime has to be proand -- appropriated by this congress and congress is not doing its job. and this amendment which would put in place this new practice would be a tremendous help to get congress back on track. it wasn't too long ago this happened. you know, during my time here, i've been here almost five years now, 4 1/2 years, we haven't had a single year where all the appropriations bills were done. in fact, very few appropriations bills have been voted on at all. this year not a single appropriation. zero. not a single bill has come to the floor of this senate because they've been blocked. they've all come out of committee now but not a single one is allowed to get voted on here in the united states senate. i do hope that my own leadership on the republican side will keep bringing these appropriations bills up and at least then we

have the opportunity to talk about them, what's in the bills, why it's a good idea for us to have the oversight and then, again, the reforms to these programs, the spending cuts, the spending increases for programs that are working well, the eliminations altogether of programs that aren't working. we should at least have the opportunity to discuss that and talk about it. so, mr. president, i was hopeful that we would see a colleague from the other side of the aisle show up or some member of the appropriations committee. i was told i could give this -- this little talk at 5:00 and have the opportunity to offer this amendment. i will have to come back later and offer it again. i thank you, mr. president, for giving me the time, and i don't know if my colleague from iowa is planning to speak. if so -- no. okay, then i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: tbher a quorum call. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, earlier i had the opportunity to talk a little about the amendment that i would like to offer. this is an amendment to the underlying bill, which is the continuing resolution. the amendment would have to do with a piece of legislation called the end government shutdowns act. i'd like unanimous consent to ask to be able to speak for five minutes, to finish the conversation we started earlier this evening. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i talked about the fact that here

we are once again without the appropriations bills done and forced to do a continuing resolution from now until december 11. this is because, as of later this week, on september 30 when the fiscal year end comes to a close, we will not have done the appropriations bills. i.t. noit's not that we haven'te one, two, three. we haven't done any of them. and there's 12 of them. i think it is time to take a different approach. any time you goa get to this pot with a eption pro any aeption p, that -- any appropriations bills that you provide an incentive to get our work done. to do our job under the constitution, the powfor power e is exclusively delegated to the united states congress.

it will help us get our job done if we have this in place. i would like to ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up the end government shutdowns amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president, as i understand the senator's suggestion, his amendment would create an automatic continuing resolution to fund the federal government in any event an annual appropriations bill is not enacted by the time the fiscal year expires. that may sound harmless enough, but what we're saying is that not only is the power of the senate suspended and put on hold, but the obligations of the

committee system are put under a threat that unless you complete action on legislation referred to the committee of jurisdiction by a certain time, you're out of business. and whoever wants to offer an amendment as a substitute gets to offer that and pass it on a majority vote. we have the two-thirds required vote to cut off debate to be sure that all senators, not just a bare majority, get to decide the decisions of the senate, get to actively participate in the process offering amendments. his amendment abolishes the offering of any other alternatives for a full debate, unlimited debate. that's what the senate is for, to cool down the passions of the

moment. it might be a good idea that a senator has to change a law, repeal thre--- repeal a resoluty access to federal funds for this, that, or the other that goes to a state's interests. so this is -- this is a terrible amendment. and it ought to be rejected. now, i hope the senator would withhold the of the amendment. we could have hearings on this and see what other senators may think about it. but at first blush, this seems like that this is an amendment whose time has not come. we're not ready to dismantle the liewls oriles of the senate piey piece and say, well, we can have the right of unlimited debate, senators can talk as long as

they want to, you don't have to go through a rules committee to get permission or any other senator to get permission. these are direct responsibilities of individual senators selected by their states to stand up for their interests, not to go to washington and cave in on something that might be a good-sounded amendment or might have the passions of the moment behind it so that there appears to be a wave of support. but until you have a chance to seriously consider the individual issues involved, until two-thirds of the senate decides to cut off debate. so i strongly object to this amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? objection is heard. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i appreciate the comments of my friend and i look

forward to talking to them about this. 36 senators have supported this in the past. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent this the mandatory quorum call under rule 22 be waived with respect to today's cloture vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object, i would like to have one minute to have in debate of the matter of bus. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: thank you. i stand with the senator from mississippi. we may be from the opposite political parties, but i certainly agree with him. that the suggestion by the senator from ohio does not serve the best interests of this country. imagine -- imagine if his proposal went through and we were faced with inadequate funding for medical care for our veterans. i'm sorry to say that what the e senator from ohio suggested is that we would have last year's level of funding with potentially 4% cut, the same

thing for fighting fires, the same thing for the national institutes of health, a 4% cut in medical research. i think that what we're doing here, if we accepted this approach, is giving up our responsibility that the taxpayers sent us to do, and that is to make careful choices when it comes to budget. and i just want to be on the record supporting my colleague from mississippi. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i had planned to have a debate on this. but i am happy to have one. let me be very clear. this is about putting the appropriations committee in business, not out of business. this is not about cutting spendings. it is about forcing congress to get its work done. here we sit about to pass a continuing resolution. the committee has done its work and yet we can't get the appropriations bills across the floor. yet you have the other side saying this would somehow hurt the process. how can the process be hurt any worse? we want the process to work. that's why 46 of us on a bipartisan basis have supported

this idea. if at the end of the day on september 30, the appropriations bills have not been passed, you would simply do the spending from last yeerd and over time you would ratchet it down, giving 120 days for the committee to get its act together that it did not in the previous year when it was smoafd to to get these bills done to do the oversight, to make the decisions about nie n.i.h., as you say. to make the decisions about our vrntses. if we want to help our veterans, this is not the way to do it with a c.r. the way to $if is to let the v.a. bill come to the floor, have the debate, take the committee's good ideas and by the way it came out of the committee with a large, bipartisan voavment that's how we should be legislate here. that's our job. the power of the purse revieds exclusively in us and yet once again this year we're not doing our jobs. it is not that we're doing a couple of appropriations bills. we're not doing a single one, not a single appropriations bill. i think it's time for us to change course here and that's what this legislation is about. i'm sumli am i simply saying, le

process of passing a c.r., set up a discipline in the future that provides an incentive for us to get our work done so the good work being done by senator cock are inan arecochranans othr for a vote and we can get back to governing. i yield back. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request to waive the mandatory quorum? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 719 with an amendment number 2689 signinged by 16 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense

of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 719 with amendment number 2689 offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

is vote:

sdz vote: