most, though, is why we find ourselves here with the senate in session and the federal government otherwise shut down. it strikes me as completely unnecessary, especially when a number of us, me included, are having two or three meetings a day to try to come up with a solution on this problem. i know that people are anxious for the status and what happens to the future of these young adults, and i am, too. i am eager to come up with a solution as soon as we can, but i think some have had what i would view an unrealistic view of the end game here. in other words, i know that our friends have been -- the senator from arizona, the senator from south carolina and others have a group along with the senator from illinois that they think will be the seed of a solution here, but as they found out last week, the president didn't

support their work product. and of course as senator mcconnell, our majority leader likes to point out, there is one indispensable person when it comes to legislation, and that's the person who signs it. all of us write the legislation, but the president is the one who ultimately decides p whether it's going to become law. that's a serious problem in terms of their plan to move forward with the so-called graham-durbin proposal. and it was i guess last week -- i lose track of the days now -- where we met at the white house where majority leader mccarthy suggested that he and i as the majority whip in the senate, minority whip in the senate, senator durbin, for whom this has been a long, passionate cause, and also the minority leader in the house, mr. hoyer, get together and schedule a tkpwraoufpl meetings to try -- a group of meetings to try to work

out our differences and build consensus because nothing happens unless consensus is achieved, as we all know. so actually i think the belief, in my view, the unrealistic belief that somehow the graham-durbin bill was going to be the path forward without the president's signature, with a doubtful future in the house of representatives, hopefully that's been set aside. i say that with great respect because i'm not, i don't want to indicate or send any signal that i don't appreciate their concern or their passion or their effort to try to come up with a solution here. it's just that i think it should be clear to everyone that that is not going to be the path forward because of the circumstances i mentioned. the president doesn't support it, and it won't pass in the house of representatives and even get to the pr*edz -- president's tkefbgt. so we find ourselves here in a completely unnecessary

situation. our democratic colleagues were pretty unanimous with, i guess, four or five exceptions in voting down a four-week continuing resolution and causing the government to shut down. the majority leader, senator mcconnell, has offered them another proposal which is a three-week continuing resolution while we continue to do our other work, and they objected to voting on that last night. but the majority leader has now filed for cloture, which means that will ripen here tomorrow. and so they have a choice. they can keep the government shut down for another day before we vote on that or we could agree to vote on it today and reopen the government while we continue our good-faith negotiations and discussions about these other matters. but when the democratic leader came to the floor and said he doesn't want to hurt the military and he doesn't want to

hurt people who are suffering from opioid addiction, he doesn't want to hurt the veterans, he doesn't want to hurt people who are relying on the government for a pension or people who are relying on the federal government for disaster relief, and so he objected to the continuing resolution and caused the government shutdown, i have to say that's a strange way of showing your devotion and your support for the military or veterans or opioid addicts or people who are depending on the federal government to come up with disaster relief. shutting down the government helps none of them, none of them at all. and when he talks about continuing resolutions hurting the military, i agree with that. but the very thing that's hurting the military the most is the shutdown and the uncertainty. our national guard can't train, for example.

so the solution to this long term -- or actually short term, and it should be short term, is an agreement on spending caps so the appropriations committee can come up with an appropriations bill that will fund the government through the end of september, through the end of the fiscal year. but what's really happened here unfortunately is our colleagues across the aisle have listened to the most extreme elements in their political party and shut down the government over an unrelated immigration issue that doesn't even ripen until march 5. now i say that just to say it doesn't have to be decided today, nor can it be decided today, but that's what they're trying to hold all of the rest of us hostage in order to do. all across the country the headlines reflect the reality, from the associated press it reads senate democrats derail bill to avert shutdown. and even "the new york times" read, senate democrats block a

bill to keep government open past midnight. and i can't help but share in the frustration of those who in disgust find us in a situation that we don't want to be in and that makes absolutely no sense to anybody. because everything in the continuing resolution that our colleagues across the aisle voted against last night are things they support. support for the military. support for the opioid treatment. support for veterans. but they voted against it in order to hold all of that hostage to this unrelated issue of immigration. well, the minority leader, my friend from new york, senator schumer, has done the best he can to try to spin the story and to try to explain his strategy

and to cast blame. and i have to admire his talent. senator schumer is my friend. we've worked together on a number of items in a bipartisan way to come up with solutions to complicated issues. and he's a very talented and smart person. but not even he can come up with a credible story here for why he chose to lead this shutdown effort for the federal government, because it makes no sense whatsoever. and he does have my sympathy. he's the leader of a tough group of senators, including some radical members who are running for president and who have held the rest of their conference hostage and done them no good service leading him down this boxed canyon only to find the government shut down. how do we know this is their plan all along?

well, the democratic whip, the senior senator from illinois, laid out the strategy in "the washington post" last november. last november. he said -- it says senator richard durbin of illinois said he's encouraging his colleagues to join him in blocking legislation if the issue on the dreamers is not resolved. that was last november he was already plotting the shutdown we find ourselves in today for this unrelated issue that we are committed to working on on a bipartisan basis. so the minority leader can't convince us or anybody that knows the facts that this is somehow president trump's fault. this is their plan, something they have been whrogt for -- they have been plotting for a long time now, and now they find themselves in a position that not even they can explain how this helps the country or how this helps these young daca

recipients. it's not going to change anything for them to shut down the government. as a matter of fact, i think it just polarizes people and makes things worse. well, we're not going to let him hold health insurance for nine million children hostage over an unrelated immigration issue. that's the children's health insurance program. this bill that they filibustered last night would reauthorize this program for the most vulnerable nine million children in the country. for what? well, they support that bill. it was voted out on a bipartisan basis out of the senate finance committee, and they come to the senate floor and they kill it. nine million vulnerable children. and they support it. it's a strange way of showing it. well, clearly the american people deserve better.

soon our colleagues across the aisle will have a chance to reopen the federal government, a chance to abandon this brinkmanship which threatens the safety and security of the country, that threatens the very people we depend upon to defend us and their families. and it threatens the access to health care for nine million vulnerable children. they need to fix this. they need to do the right thing for the american people. and they can do that today by agreeing to vote on this three-week continuing resolution that will take us to february 8 while we continue to work on this issue relating to the, to daca, the deferred action for childhood arrivals, what we talked about earlier. or they can do it tomorrow and keep the government shut down for another 24 hours. my message to them is think about the men and women who put

on the uniform of our country and deploy in dangerous locations around the globe to fight our nation's wars and to protect our homeland. think about those who wake up in the morning and put on a badge and go out possibly into harm's way to protect our communities. and think about those nine million children who depend on us for their health coverage. i hope after having had a few hours of sleep last night and had a chance to think through this fundamentally flawed strategy, our colleagues will reconsider. mr. president, the country deserves better. i yield the floor and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

>> good afternoon. this morning the president has spoken to leader mcconnell, to speaker ryan, to leader mccarthy. he also received updates from secretary nielsen about the impacts of payments not -- salary not going to our border agents. he also spoke with secretary mattis who ghei him an update about 90,000 national guardsmen and 20,000 army reservists who have had their training canceled because of the government shutdown. additionally -- additional costs that they've had to incur including pay and travel costs. we stand here ready to sign bill that the house passed last night, anxious to keep the government open or, i should say, to reopen the government.

the white house position, though, remains the same, that we will not negotiate the status of 690,000 unlawful immigrants while hundreds of millions of tax-paying americans -- including hundreds of thousands of our troops in uniform and border agents protecting our country -- are held hostage by senate democrats. we continue to remain anxious to reach a deal on daca, and we look forward to resuming those negotiations as soon as the senate democrats reopen the government. the reality hoe that is difficult for, i think, many americans to understand is if you put forward a bill that continues funding the government, reauthorizes health insurance for nine million children, provides a relief of taxes that democrats and republicans on a bipartisan

basis, the rationale for shutting town the government over a bill that republicans and democrats agree with on the basis of saying we will not, with we will not negotiate, we will not reach a resolution to open the government until there's a solution on a tangential issue that remains plenty of time to be solved, i think a lot of americans have a hard time understanding how you make the argument of why we're not going to pay our men and women in uniform, our agents serving on the border in order to try to resolve an issue that we also want to resolve related to unlawful residents. we look forward -- i think that the senate majority leader is going to offer, as you know, has already offered a continuing resolution to goes to three weeks instead of the original four weeks. we look forward to that vote. we hope that senate democrats will yield and accept that the position is unreasonable and reopen the government to make sure that our men and women in

uniform continue to get paid. director of omb mick mulvaney is here to address the status of the update and how it's impacting government agencies, and then we'll take a few questions. >> good morning. good afternoon. a couple different things. walk through some of the, how a lapse in appropriations, a shutdown works. keep in mind those technical terms, the legal term is actually a lapse in appropriations. so when you saw the notices go out today, they referenced a lapse. that is the formal name for the shutdown. this morning, early morning federal workers got notices from their various agencies as to whether they were exempt or furloughed employees. they sort of fell into three categories, either you were exempt and you were to come to work either today or monday depending on your ordinary work schedule, you were absolutely furloughed in which you were not to come to work beginning today, or there's actually a number of people who would show up for a

few hours on monday or today, up to four hours, in order to close down shop or prepare for the lapse. so those notices went out today. i mentioned yesterday that this shutdown, this lapse would look different than it did in 2013. we're already seeing evidence of that, i'm going to walk you folks through a couple ways it's already different. in 2013 most of the epa shut down immediately during the, during the lapse. epa this year, consistent with omb guidance and direction from the president, is using its unobligated balance, what we call carry-forward funds. most of the agency will remain open. mine safety inspection, the number of inspectors that will be on the job for mine safety inspections will increase from 25% of the total of 2013 to 50%. here again part of the administration's intentional plan to use unobligated funds that are already at the agency, something the previous

administration did not emphasize. cybersecurity, agencies will insure that staff working on the maintenance and safeguarding of i.t. systems will continue to work during the lapse, and systems will continue to get critical updates. national parks, you may have already noticed that. the parks, national monuments, private concessions that serve them are open. as i mentioned yesterday, won't be picking up the trash or cleaning the bathrooms. number five, trade negotiations. during the last shutdown, i think the obama administration canceled a very few high-level trade negotiations. by contrast, this year the ustr will use its funding flexibilities, we talked, again, ant that, ability to use transfer of funds from one account to another in order to continue around six of the nafta negotiations later week. finally, the last example i have is that the merchant marine academy was closed during the 2013 shutdown, will stay open. there's another important example that doesn't compare

apples to apples to 2013, but it is sort of evidence of how we're managing this differently than the democrats did during the 2013 shutdown. after working closely with the white house, with omb to review the exceptions allowed in the law for agencies to continue to operate if their work is necessary to protect life and safety, the cdc has announced this morning they will continue immediate response work and surveillance to protect americans from seasonal influenza. so we'll have continued updates on that either later today or tomorrow as to how this shutdown, how the lapse -- if it continues -- is managed. with that, i think we'll take a couple of questions. gentleman in the back. >> yes, wondering how concerned you are that when we look at social media, twitter, hashtags trending that trump shutdown seems to be far surpassing democrat shutdown or gop shutdown. how concerned are you that to pus of this by the -- the onus

seems to be on the president? >> my favorite is still the schumer shutdown. that's got a nice little ring to it. yes, sir. >> you left the meeting yesterday with the president thinking he had arrived at the broad outlines of a deal and something happened that the president changed his mind. senator schumer said he relented under pressure from the far right. what's your account of that meeting? what's the white house of that -- >> i was in that meeting. i l i did talk to the chief about it this morning. and i'll give you an example of how mr. schumer is mischaracterizing the discussion. one of the things, according to the k450e6, mr. schumer told the president i will give you all the money you want for your wall, and the president said, oh, that's great, i need $20 billion, and mr. schumer said, oh,nt no, no, no, only 1.6, thas all you asked for last year in the objection. mr. heller: once again, washington, d.c. has lost its mind. at the expense of our troops and

their families, at the expense of our veterans, and expense of our children's health care. and to me this is politics at its very worse. just like every american in the -- and the public that's out there, i'm frustrated. i'm frustrated that i have to come to the floor, talk about congress once again failing the american public by not doing our jobs. at the risk of sounding like a broken record, time after time congress has blown past our deadline to complete all the current fiscal year appropriations and have punted on our responsibilities and now today the government has been shut down. and for years i've been talking about how it's congress' most basic responsibility to create a budget and pass all the appropriation bills on time. while some things in the senate changes, others just stay the same. while the majority has been working to restore normal budgeting practices, i'm disappointed that my colleagues across the aisle have spent

their time doing everything they can to avoid deadlines and to choose the routes of not working on appropriation bills and to shut down this government. not only is this disappointing, it's also not a surprise given recent history. i have personally never seen congress pass all 12 appropriation bills on time and on its own without an omnibus. i've said this before and i want to inform my colleagues that congress has been able to accomplish its regular budget and appropriation processes before and in recent history. for example, it happened under president clinton and a republican congress. it happened under president reagan and a democratic congress. and i've always said, that washington is a pain-free zone that faces no consequences if members fail to do their jobs. so maybe it's time to start

facing some pain around here and that's why i've reintroduced and have introduced for years my no budget, no pay act. regardless of who's in the majority or who's in the minority, my no budget no pay legislation says if members of congress do not pass an annual concurrent budget resolution and all 12 spending bills on time each year, then they should not get paid. i want to repeat that last part, mr. president. if congress fails to pass all 12 spending bills on time each year, then they should not get paid. both chambers of congress should pass all 12 appropriation bills on time every year. that's doing our job, and if you don't do your job, you don't get paid, so it's that simple. most americans sit around the kitchen table each night paying their bills. why should congress be different? it's time for some real responsibility, some real accountability in our nation's

capital. mr. president, since i have introduced no budget, no pay, i have been getting a lot of positive support for this idea outside of washington, d.c. ron from rio, nevada -- from reno, nevada, said i'm in full support of your no budget, no pay, because our spending is outrageous, it's ridiculous, and it's out of control. james from henderson, nevada, said no budget, no pay is the sort of accountability that i expect from our nation's leaders. until no budget, no pay is passed into law, i don't see any other way to motivate members of congress to do their job and avoid the government shutdowns and the continuing resolutions in the future. we must pass the principles outlined in no budget, no pay. it will stop these ridiculous government shutdowns in the future and it will stop members of congress from being right back here year after year after

year, making the same speeches and taking the exact same votes. i would say to any of my colleagues who are tired of this whole process that regardless of what specific issues you're fighting for, specific my no budget, no pay act, and i believe the congress can work together again, but it will take some accountability like no budget, no pay to get us there. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i ask that the quorum call be eviscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: we rise today after a long night last night, a night that i think could produce some fruits today or tomorrow, or soon, i hope, because on behalf of the just over one million montanans and families across this country, and i believe a vast majority of the people in this body, we need to put this shutdown to an end. folks, whether you're a welder

in butte or a teacher in billings or a sugar beet farmer in sidney or a mill worker in columbia falls, they have all told me and they will continue to tell me that this body is incredibly dysfunctional, that congress is incredibly dysfunctional, and we ought to break that. we ought to start working together. we ought to start listening to one another. we shouldn't be taken off the right side of the earth or the left side of the earth, and work in the middle on policies that work for america. the budget may be the most important of those policies that work for america. it has been 112 days now since our budget ran out the end of september of this year.

we have responded to that budget running out by four short-term continuing resolutions we filed. stop-gap measures, band-aids, if you will, kick the can down the road. it's described by a lot of different methods on funding our budget. that has resulted in costing the taxpayers additional dollars, incredible inefficiencies, and caused by the members of this body not doing their job and leadership not doing their job, and that was enough. we need to roll up our sleeves. we need to work together. we need to talk. we need to listen to one

another. and we need to come to a resolution of this problem. we can talk about the children's health insurance program. it's an incredibly important program. there is no doubt about it. but it has been held hostage for the last four months. i can tell you if it was put on the floor and could have been put on the floor any time in the last four months, it would have passed, i believe, overwhelmingly by this body. why? because kids need it, families need it. we're putting montana's case alone 24,000 kids at risk who do not have credible care. the same can be said for our health care centers. the same can be said for the opioid crisis. the same could be said for security on our northern and

southern border. the same could be said for our military. the uncertainty that we have without a long-term budget that goes to the end of the fiscal year is unacceptable. we all know it. we have been talking about it for months since nothing ever comes to the floor to solve it except for a continuing resolution, which is not a solution at all, it's a band-aid. last night, i proposed a 272-hour, three-day extension so that the shutdown wouldn't happen until monday night, so that we could work together to negotiate this deal, put some pressure on the body to work together to come up with a deal by monday night. it seemed reasonable enough to me. we have been talking about these issues for months. but the majority leader objected

to keeping the government open and pushing ourselves, driving ourselves to the negotiating table to get something done. look, we have -- i have worked in this body with a number of folks on my side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle, and we have had success. i bring this up often because johnny isakson is an incredibly good member of the government affairs committee. i bring this up because johnny isakson and i work well together. we don't always agree. but from the very beginning, we have agreed to put what we disagree off to the side and work upon what we can work on. what has transpired is a record number of votes on tough issues coming out of the veterans' affairs committee. why? because we're working for the veterans. and that's what we need to be doing here.

not working for a political party. not posturing ourselves for the next election. not putting working families and businesses at risk, but working together to make a difference for this country with a long-term funding bill that addresses a number of issues, they have all been laid on the table, from health care to opioids to pensions to our military to border security, the list goes on, but it's a list we can work with. we know what needs to be done. we need to quit playing games. one of the people that i have incredible respect for in this body that has what i believe uncommon common sense is the senator from maine. senator king and i visit oftentimes off the floor and we talk about our frustrations with this body because it doesn't have to be this way.

we can get things done if we work together. senator king, can you explain to me why, why we continue to have a budget that doesn't work for the american people, continues to be a watch work of month-by-month or week-by-week continuing resolutions, and what we need to do to fix that? mr. king: i have given it a great deal of thought, and i think there have been a lot of discussions around here about fancy changes to the budget process and new bills and new budget process and new rules and everything, and i always stop and say wait a minute, we could have a budget process written by aristotle and thomas jefferson, but if we don't do our job, it's not going to work, and that's essentially where we are now. that's one of the reasons i voted no last night. i have had it with c.r.'s.

continuing resolution. it really means can't resolve. we can't make decisions. i want to talk about it with your indulgence a bit about this part of why we are where we are. i think this is a deeper issue, because where we are today is going to simply be repeated six months from now, a year from now, three months from now, five years ago. it just keeps going on. it's one of the reasons that we can't get where we're going. now, i was a governor of maine in the 1990's, and i remember vividly, i would almost tell you where i was standing in my office when a group of legislators -- we have a budget deadline of july 1. and a group of legislators came to me because budgets are hard. we all know that. it's hard to resolve some of these issues. they came to me a week or so before the expiration date and

said, governor, we have never done it before here in maine, but why don't we -- will you go along with a continuing resolution like they do in washington, and we can solve this in an extra week? and i said not on your life. why did i say that? because that's what we do here, and it doesn't work. that's what's got us into trouble. governments all over the country don't do continuing resolutions. they struggle, they argue, they debate and they get their budgets done. yet here we have this constant escape hatch that's in the background, and i have done a lot of reading and thinking about the framers who were geniuses. the people who wrote the constitution. if you read the federalist papers, read madison, read hamilton, they understood human nature. that's why the constitution has withstood the test of time for 200 years, because it's based upon a deep understanding of

perception of why and how people do things. this is a human nature question. if you're confronted with a difficult decision and you have an easy way out, you will always take it, and that's what a continuing resolution is. it's basically a statement that says we can't solve this, we're just going to kick it down the road a few months or six months or a week or a couple of months, and then maybe something will happen then. my problem is we won't know anything in a month that we don't know now. and there's no reason to delay it. and the problem is that this government by continuing resolution -- and i'll give you the figures in a minute. they're breathtaking -- but government by continuing resolution is, in fact, like a slow-motion shutdown because the agencies, particularly the military can't plan, they can't commit, they can't commit to long-term contracts, and the

military -- i'm on the armed services committee. i don't think we have had half a dozen hearings in the last five years that haven't talked about sequestration and continuing resolutions. in fact, the secretary of defense came to us a couple of weeks ago and said please don't do another continuing resolution. it's crippling to our military. so i think there's an issue at stake here that, yes, daca's important. all the other issues that are wrapped up in this are important. but i think there's an underlying issue about the functionality of this organization we need to address. in the last 20 years we have averaged 5.6 continuing resolutions a year. every year for 20 years. the average number of days before we got to a budget after the deadline was 137 days, approaching a half a year. now if you can do it six months

late, why can't you do it on time? what did we know six months later that we didn't know when we should have done it in the first place? and i believe this is really one of the reasons that this place doesn't work very well. if we provide, if we continue to provide this exit, this easy way out, we will always find ourselves in positions like this. and that's where the problem is. if you could go to your chemistry teacher and say the tuesday exam is a little, looking tough for me, i'd like a continuing resolution to friday, who's not going tkpao -- to do it? and that's what we're doing, and we're going to do it as long as we keep allowing it to happen. i think, frankly, that many of us -- i talked to many of our colleagues off the floor in the past few days -- we need to have a peasants revolt here where we say we're not going to vote for these things anymore.

and then the committee chairs and the leadership and the president are going to have to make the deals and arrangements they have to make when they have to make them. already this fall we've blown through all kinds of deadlines. we blew through the chip deadline, the fqac deadline. we blew the biggest deadline of all, the budget, september 30. let's vote for a continuing resolution. and i voted for them and i voted for a bunch of them, but i'm tired of it. it struck me in the last two or three weeks that this is at the core of one of the reasons that place doesn't work. all we've got to do is do our job and do it now. it's not going to be easier a month or now or two months from now. and assuming we can find some resolution here in the next couple of days -- and i deeply hope we can -- nobody wants to shut down the government. it is not good for anybody. but the deeper issue is we've got to get out of the continuing

resolution business because as long as that escape hatch is there, it's going to be used. madison would say that's human nature. and i think we as a collective body have to weld that escape hatch shut so people can't take it and we have to get our job done at the time that it's required. and that would go a long way. we don't need fancy changes in the budget process. we just need to do the job that we're assigned to do under the current system. i deeply hope, as i said, that our leadership can negotiate a solution to this problem. it seems to me they were very close last night. hopefully we can do it. i frankly don't understand at the end of the evening last night when there was a motion made to give us a three-day -- i think it was you that made it, senator, made a motion for a three-day continuing resolution

so we could, we didn't have to shut down the government last night and we could have kept talking and found a solution, and it was objected to. i found that very puzzling. i don't really understand those who are saying this side of the aisle shut down the government. as of midnights or ten minutes after when you made your motion it was the other side that shut down the government because they had before them an option that would have kept it open for three or four days to try to get this thing done. so i believe that, i appreciate the senator raising these issues. i would like to ask him what's on the mind of the people of montana as if if they're like the people of maine, they're just puzzled why we can't get these things taken care of. mr. tester: thank you for the question, senator king. i will tell you that last night as we approached midnight, i got an e-mail from one of my, one of my p good friends in montana who is in the business of agriculture. he's a rancher in north central

montana, actually on the rocky mountain front. and he said why does this have to happen? and my comment was to him, is that continuing resolutions don't work well for this country. it costs taxpayers a bunch of money and it doesn't give folks the kind of predictability in their government that they elected us to give them. and i'm with you. i mean, i voted for the continuing resolutions, the one that extended to the first of december and then the next one that went to, i believe, the 19th of december. at that moment in time i thought, you know, christmas is looming and we'll come to an agreement. and if not, we'll just stay here throughout the christmas break and do it because it's that important. i believe strongly in my family, and i would love to be there, and i was there for christmas. but the truth is that this job here is critically important for the whole country, and we need to do our job.

but the motion for yet another c.r., the 19th of december to move it to the 19th of january came up and i held my nose and i voted for it. and at that moment in time i said i'm not going to do this again because we were supposed to have in that month between december 19 and january 19, work out a deal. guess what happened? there was no deal worked out. and now we're back in exactly the same place. and you said it exactly correct, senator king. what are we going to know in february that we don't know now? and the point is nothing additional is going to be added to the equation. we all know what it is. it deals with border security and the military and health care issues and pensions and opioids and a budget that goes to the end of september, which is the end of the fiscal year for this country. but it's simply not going to happen unless we get folks working together again. and look, the republicans, they

have majorities in the house. they have majorities in the senate. they control the presidency and the white house. i'm telling you that if the floor leader doesn't provide the kind of leadership that we need to get to a point where we address the issues that are important to this country, we'll never address the issues and we'll continue to have continuing resolution after continuing resolution. so what i would ask is that folks from both sides lock themselves in a room, the two leaders lock themselves in a room. ultimately that's what it's going to come down to, to come to an agreement that works for this country and gives predictability over the long haul. and then i will also tell you that i happen to be on the appropriations committee, we're going to be starting to work on the f.y. 2019 budget real quick. we're not even done with the f.y. 2018 budget because of these continuing resolutions. senator king, i will just tell

you the people in montana are frustrated. they want to see their government work better. what are the folks in maine telling you? mr. king: the same thing. i was thinking about it as you were saying it. i know of no institution in our country -- i wish we could banish the phrase continuing resolution. i know of no business that does business that way. i know of no school districts or very few states. i think some states allow one or two days if they're really in close negotiations. and i understand that. i mean, it would be one thing if we were right on it and, you know, just give us a couple more days and we can iron this out. or, on the other hand, if we have an agreement and it takes several days or perhaps even several weeks to actually do the writing of the bill, i understand that. but i think people just, they just scratch their heads because this is so alien to most people's common, everyday experience. and this is one of the few

places i know of where we have this kind of operation. the basic -- i mean, you know, i have a modest suggestion. no budget, no recess. if we don't get these things done, which is the most basic job that we have, let's stay here until it gets done. i mean, we've got to try to -- maybe that's another reflection of using human nature as an incentive because everybody wants to have a break every now and then. i'm glad we're here on this saturday. at least we didn't shut down the government last night and then go home. we're going to be here tomorrow as far as i'm concerned and as far as i know. i'm certainly going to be here. but we've got to have some discussion. but i would add you mentioned the four leaders. i think this has to involve the president as well. the president, one of the powers of the president is as a convener. and i think the president has to be involved in this. and he has to make some decisions, and he has to help

guide the decisions. here's what i'll take. here's what i won't take, and work with his party so that we can get a comprehensive agreement on some of these important issues. but that's -- and i understand they have some nice meeting rooms down at the white house. they probably have sandwiches. i think they can bring the group down there and say nobody leaves this place until we get this done. and as i say, i think the people of maine are just scratching their heads saying, you know, what, why can't we do this? and i think another important point is if this were a body and an institution that was one party, everybody was of the same party, you know, you wouldn't have any dispute if somebody would lay down the law and that's what would happen. but this is an institution that's intended to represent the entire country, different views. and that means that if you're in

the majority, and particularly in the senate, you have a responsibility to get input from the minority, for people, in my case, i'm in a minority of two. but everybody here has a valid input. and to just say this is it, here's the deal, take it or leave it. and if you leave it, we're going to hammer you for not going along, that's no way to make good policy in the long run. there are lots of good thinking in this hall, lots of smart people. in fact, i told somebody at home i've never been in an outfit that has more good people and gets less done. and there's something about the structure. i don't think it's anything in the water down here, but there's something about how this structure works that just keeps us from getting there. and i respect the majority has has -- as the majority. but there also has to be some role to work together, and that's what the 60-vote margin is all about.

and i think that this is a place where there needs to be some compromise. one of my favorite philosophers, mick jagger said you don't always get what you want. but if you try sometime, you might just find you get what you need. and i think that's where we are right now. everybody can't get what they want. but if we work together, if we listen to each other, if we respect each other and if we quit taking the easy way out, we'll get what we need. that's what the people of maine want us to do. mr. tester: senator king, i would just say that i think that's what the whole country wants us to do. and you brought up the point if this body was all one party and they all thought the same it might be easier, but it would be a lot worse. the truth is diversity of thought is important and talking to people, come getting compromise and finding the middle ground is what built this

country. it's what built america. and we need to look at those principles and move forward on a bill like this. ten days ago i was at the white house. senator durbin was there. there was about two dozen folks between the house and the senate, both parties. we saw the president more focused than i've ever seen him before. and he said you bring us a bill on the issue with immigration and i'll sign it. i'll be the bad guy, he said. i'll sign it. and there's a bipartisan group here that got together that did that. and then he said no. so you're exactly right. the white house, the president has to provide the kind of leadership and assurance to know that he's just not going to say no, that he will take yes for an answer. i think it's very, very important moving forward. look, we are at a time in this moment in time where everybody looks at us, and i think we've got single-digit approval ratings -- probably lower than

that now after last night -- and america is saying come on, guys, it doesn't have to be like this. you need to work together. everybody needs to work together and come together, and come up with something that works for america, that solves the problems that are there. and i think that's what i ask of this body today. we all say basically the same thing, so let's just do it. let's put the bill together. let's bring it to the floor, and let's vote and get it done. mr. king: i thank the senator from montana for his clear thinking, as always, and his contribution to this discussion. and i hope that our colleagues will pay heed, as they always should, to the senator from montana. mr. tester: i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: after a year of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle being in the majority in the house and the senate and the white house, finding that rather than working together across the aisle to get things done, that we have seen either nothing getting done, dysfunction, or partisanship at its worst, and that really is not good enough. the people in michigan want us to work together to get things done. they don't want to see a

situation where there is a cynical ploy of pitting children against each other, one group of children against another group of children for some political purpose, some divisive purpose. so there are a number of us that are here this afternoon to offer an amendment, what will be coming up, to address needs of children and families around health care, something i care deeply about, my colleagues care deeply about, something i have been coming to the floor to speak about since september 30 when we saw two very, very important programs for children and families in michigan that had their federal funding expired, the children's health insurance program and community health centers. we have hospitals and ambulances and communities around the

country that also need us to take action to make sure health care is available in their communities, and that's what our amendment addresses as a whole. it is deeply concerning to me that when we look at the children's health insurance program that covers nine million children across the country, 100,000 children in michigan, that many, many of them, mr. president, get their health care at health centers, and so when we talk about how if we really care about these children, their families, and for the families for many people in michigan, 680,000-plus families who go to quality health centers in their community to see a doctor or a nurse to get the care that they need, it is deeply concerning that those two pieces of health

care for families would somehow be divided and pitted against each other. we have strong bipartisan support. we came out of committee. i see our distinguished ranking member from oregon on the floor who knows he and the chairman, myself, others, all of us working together brought a bill out of committee months ago, months ago. i assumed it was going to happen immediately, that would extend children's health insurance. and then senator blunt, the senior senator from missouri and i have bipartisan legislation that over -- that 70 members of the senate have signed a letter supporting it, extending community health center funding. we assumed that we would bring hirono's health insurance to the floor -- children's health insurance to the floor right away. we would combine it with community health centers, which are the way children and families get their health care.

we have to have both. and we assumed that we could be on our way, that we would pass this, it would pass the house and go to the president for signature, and we would ease the minds of millions of families, parents who are concerned about taking their children to the doctor, dealing with their juvenile diabetes, their asthma attacks, addressing very, very serious chronic illnesses and the regular things that happen to kids all the time with broken bones and bruises and the flu and so on. so we're here today to stand up for those families and for an approach that is bipartisan. each of the items in our amendment has bipartisan support and can get done together, rather than the divisive underaligned issue in front of

us, the question of dividing groups of children, using children as pawns in some political game, we have the opportunity to come together, yes, extend children's health insurance. we want to permanently extend it. that's what this amendment does. we know, according to the budget office, because a number of different things that have happened on health care, you can extend that six years as has been proposed but ten years can actually save billions of dollars, and that the families across the country, certainly the families in michigan deserve to know that this particular program will be extended permanently so it's not used as a political pawn in the future or some game so that parents and children aren't used in some game because of other kinds of agendas. so we can address that today as we look at the broader issues of how we give certainty to our

military and certainty to our veterans for their health care and border security. we're a top border security state in medical research and the other things that need long-term certainty that have not been able to get done in a very dysfunctional place now as we look at what's happening here with one-party control. we need to be looking and working together. so let me just say again before turning to my other colleagues that the children's health insurance program covers nine million children at risk. we want to make sure this is a permanent health care program for the children of this country, for working families. we're talking about families whose moms and dads work but may not have health insurance at their work but still want to make sure the kids can go to the doctor and get covered. and so we provide a way for them to do that with children's health insurance. and then secondly, they go to

health centers. thousands and thousands and thousands of parents use their children's health insurance to go to health centers in michigan, or 260 across the state. nationally, we have 25 million patients, 300,000 veterans are included in that, 7.5 million children served by health centers, which is the other piece of this that needs to happen. and then in addition to that, we have a number of other serious health care issues that need to be addressed and what have been dubbed in the past a health extenders package. one, funding the maternal infant and early childhood home visiting program critical to families and children again as part of the commitment. if we care about children, i have heard a lot about caring for children under 4. i'm happy to hear that. i appreciate with some a new-found commitment to rirn's

health care. others have been committed for a long time. well, let's come together and fund the maternal infant and early childhood and infant visiting program for new babies and moms. this would permanently repeal the therapy caps that make sure that people on medicare, people with disabilities on medicare receive the services they need to get healthy. this would provide adequate funding for ambulance providers in rural communities. this is a big issue in michigan. i'm proud to be leading this effort to make sure that in small towns where i grew up, in clare and other small towns across michigan that we have ambulance services, so in an emergency, somebody can so up and show up quickly to be able to take care of people and get them to the hospital. funding for small rural hospitals like the one where my mom was the director of nursing when i was growing up in clare.

they need to keep their doors open. this would make sure that happens. all of these things are incredibly important. funding our safety net hospitals, continuing the special diabetes program, leading to new research and therapies and ultimately leading to a cure. in conclusion, let me just say that i have said so many times, health care is not political. whether it is for children, whether it is for seniors, veterans, families, health care is not political. it's personal. that's what the fight for a long-term budget commitment to our veterans' health care is about and a long-term commitment to tackle opioids is about, what a long-term commitment for children and families is about. and, frankly, metro health and all of the issues that deal with health care above the neck which need to be treated the same as health care below the neck. it's time to get this done. while other issues are being sorted out, we should not be

pitting children against children. families are counting on us to do the right thing, and i hope that colleagues will join us in supporting this effort. i would now yield -- i believe that senator casey -- this is senator casey, senator brown and i are offering this amendment, and senator casey as a passionate, long-time devoted, committed supporter and champion for children is right where he ought to be right now on the floor of the united states senate and fighting for children and our families. mr. casey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i want to thank the senior senator from michigan for her words today, but more importantly for her advocacy for so many years, and maybe especially in the last year on the children's health insurance program and all of the great work that she has done. this is a program which has been

bipartisan for a generation. i speak from the vantage point of pennsylvania. it's been bipartisan in my home state for even longer than the federal program. in pennsylvania, the program passed in 1992 became law in 1993, and so for longer than the federal program which many people know started in 1997. it has personal connections to me. my father was the person who signed -- i should say the governor who signed the legislation into law in 1993. and since that time, every republican and democratic governor and for the most part the legislature of both parties has supported it, which is the case or has been the case here. it's only lately that chip has become contentious. the tragic irony here -- or if you wanted to use stronger language, i would use the word insult -- is that in this case, you have legislation to

reauthorize, which is a fancy washington word for do it again with maybe some changes, but the legislation was reauthorized way back in the fall and was ready for passage here on the senate floor. the majority leader indicated that it had to get through committee, and it did, and so we had a unanimous vote in the finance committee to have children's health, have that program be part of our -- our log -- our law going forward, and what happened? the deadline was september 30. the republican majority had the opportunity to bring that bill, the kids act, that was the bill, to the floor. if that bill were brought to the floor, it would have passed in a matter of hours, if not less. the majority decided not to bring the children's health insurance program

reauthorization bill, the kids act, to the floor before september 30, so the program expired september 30. here we are more than hundred 1, i guess it's 112 or something like that days since it expired. republicans had the power to get children's health insurance done by september 30. they failed, despite the fact that there was a bill to do that. it could have passed on the floor very quickly. they have all the power to do it to get it on the floor. they chose not to. that's bad enough. but it gets worse. they had all of the month of october, they did nothing on children's health insurance. all of the month of november, they did nothing on children's health insurance. all of the month of december, they did nothing on children's health insurance. now there is this new-found urgency to make sure that they criticize democrats for not

passing this defective piece of legislation that has major holes in it from the house that was developed only by the freedom caucus in the house, and we're supposed to accept, i guess, whatever the freedom caucus wants in the house. that's the say we are supposed to run the u.s. senate. why would republicans, despite their assertions that they want to move the children's health insurance bill forward, why would they let all of october, all of november, all of december pass after they already let it expire? why would they let all that time go by? it's not a mystery. we don't have to hire a private investigator to find out why they let it go that long. one reason. because for most of november or all of november, but certainly all of december until i guess about december 22, they were focused on one priority, their

tax bill. a tax bill which is a giveaway to the super rich. the top 1% gets about $51,000 in year one. i hope everyone else is going to do that well, sorry they're not. what did they do in that bill in addition to helping the wealthy? they gave big corporations not just the kind of tax cut that we've never seen before, more than almost $1.5 trillion to corporations, but they made it permanent. so they got permanent corporate tax relief when they should have been figuring out a way to get children's health insurance done. so that's the story of how we got from there to here. now we hear that because there are changes in the cost of children's health, that this would be a six-year bill. well, that's -- that's a good

amount of time. but guess what? guess what? because of all that change in the intervening period, we could do a ten-year children's health insurance program and save billions of dollars in doing it compared to what republicans want to do now. so if there's an urgency to do something about children's health on the republican side, i'd say let's join together and not only get children's health insurance done, today we could do it. we've got all day today. we've got all day tomorrow. we have a big weekend of work here. let's get children's health insurance done. let's knock something off the list. we don't have to worry about it. but while we're doing that, let's make it ten years. i would argue children's health should be a permanent program, permanent, just like that tax cut for big corporations. they found a way to give corporations to get permanent tax relief.

why wouldn't you support permanent children's health insurance? but if they can't do that, we could at least do ten years. that's easy to do right here today. a ten-year children's health insurance program so that nine million kids and their families and 180,000 in pennsylvania could have the certainty to know that despite the fact that it's over a hundred days late because of republican failure to get the job done, we could get it done right now, today. so let's see what they do. here's another issue that we have to talk about because this bill that came over the house didn't address this issue. community health centers, 800,000 people in pennsylvania depend upon those community health centers. there's nothing in that bill that we voted on last night to address those 800,000 people in

pennsylvania and tens of millions across the country. the house bill didn't even touch that. i guess those people shouldn't have to worry. community health centers. we know that after that expired, community health centers expire just like the children's health insurance program, and the republicans have the majority. they could have made sure that those health centers continue but they didn't. so after expiring, we know that these health centers face a funding reduction of 60% to 70%. we also know that at least in my state, of the 180,000 children covered on chip, something on the order of 9,000 children enrolled in the chip program go to community health centers. so having chip in place is essential, but having community health centers in place

alongside it is also essential. what do those 9,000 kids in pennsylvania do if they have chip coverage but can't go to the community health center down the street because it's closed, because it wasn't addressed by house republicans or senate republicans? so while we're at it this weekend, why don't we get community health centers done. and in my state, 4,915 people work there ful, full time jobs, 4,915 people. the third issue of four -- i'll be done in a minute -- tax extenders. kind of another washington phrase, right? well, in this case, not getting these extenders done by the end of the year, which we almost always do no matter who's in charge but guess what? they couldn't do -- they didn't get to tax extenders for rural hospitals by the end of the year because guess what? they were working on their tax bill for big corporations and

rich people. so rural hospitals got pushed aside just like children's health got pushed aside, just like community health centers got pushed aside because they had to get their tax bill done for those big corporations and rich people. so tax extenders for rural hospitals didn't get done. rural hospitals -- i should say rural health providers face hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts across the nation. now, i represent a state that has 67 counties but we have 48 counties of those 67 that are rural, okay. and in those communities, those 48 rural counties, about 279,000 people got health care either through the medicaid expansion or through the exchanges.

and in those communities where there is a rural hospital, sometimes there's only one hospital for a long distance, those communities rely upon that hospital not just for health care but for jobs. sometimes it's in most places it's the biggest employer in the county or the second biggest employer. in my state there's between 20 and 30 counties where the hospital is either 20 -- 20 or 30 rural counties where the hospital is either the biggest employer or the second biggest. so they need those tax provisions in place. but the majority did not get that done. finally, mr. president, i'll end with this. the senior senator from michigan highlighted this and i think it's important. another thing that didn't get done that wasn't in this bill coming over from the house was an important program that we don't talk about enough.

it's been in place a couple of years. the maternal infant and early childhood home visiting program, an evidence-based home visiting program that supports at-risk pregnant women and young families. that didn't get done in this. it was not in the bill. in fiscal year 2017, funding for that program was $400 million. it's the right thing to do to have that in place. we know that just in pennsylvania, for example, 3,282 families benefit from this program. that's another part of this bill that wasn't included. so if the majority is so concerned as they professed last night -- i wish they did this months ago -- but just last night, breaking news, they're concerned about the children's health insurance program. let's pass it today.

let's get it done today and make it a ten-year program. no one would have to worry for an entire decade about children's health insurance if the republican majority wants to join us in that effort. mr. president, i would yield the floor and note that the next speaker is the senior senator from ohio, a great fighter for our kids and for our families. mr. brown: thanks -- i thank senator casey and senator stab now for -- stabenow for their leadership. they're exactly right about this. they're right about maternal health. they're right about chip. they're right about rural hospitals. they're right about community health centers that so many people depend on. i thank them very much for their work. i thank the ranking member of the finance committee, senator wyden, who is also joining us and senator carper, i believe, will join us, too. it's now been -- it's been 112 days since funding expired for the children's health insurance program. 112 days of uncertainty for

families, 112 days of mothers worried about whether they'll be able to avoid their child's checkups, 112 days of fathers worried about whether they'll have to choose between the heating bill or medicine for their kids, and for every one of those 112 days, republican leaders in congress have made a choice, a choice to do -- to extend chip and renew, something that had been bipartisan for two decades. the chairman of the finance committee loves to brag about he was there since inception. he invented it with senator kennedy or he invented it and senator kennedy came along afterwards or whatever actually happened 20 years ago. he loves to brag about it, but in finance committee with senator casey and senator carper and senator wyden and senator stabenow and others, we asked him about it repeatedly during that tax bill. again, they were willing to pass a tax cut in december where 81% -- 81% of the benefits for that tax break -- that tax bill went

to the richest 1%. 81% of the benefits. and that bill will encourage more companies to shut down in erie, pennsylvania, and as ash buhl, ohio or pittsburgh and cleveland and move overseas. they were willing to do that. as we asked them over and over again, senator hatch and others on the finance committee, let's pass chip. they just didn't get around to it. they made a choice. they made a choice to do tax cuts for the rich. they made a choice to let chip expire. they made a choice not to bring a bipartisan bill passed out of the finance committee to the floor. they made a choice to spend their time and energy on other things. they have a choice today. i'm calling on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i thank senator stabenow will make a motion to do this, to pass a permanent extension of chip with no strings attached. it's a policy we agree on, protecting health insurance for nine million children. it's an added bonus of $6

billion in savings to the federal government because chip, frankly, doesn't cost very much because children don't get sick very often and don't require a lot of medical care. some do. and that's the whole point of chip, so that healthy children can stay healthy and get regular checkups and with an occasional ear infection, go to the family doctor when the ear infection in its first days rather than the emergency room after the child might experience intense pain or even later in life hearing loss. in some cases it's there for those like crystal lette in columbus, ohio. crystal is the mother. noble lette. it didn't just make moral sense. it makes finance sense. it's time for republican leaders to stop holding chip hostage and families hostage to their failed budget process. i know they broke out a plan the other day as their political talking point to try to use it -- use it to pass a bill that

really wasn't all that good a bill. but these aren't bargaining chips. they're kids. in my state, mr. president, the state the presiding officer grew up in, 209,000 ohio kids. 209,000 ohio kids. nine million kids nationwide. roughly -- a number not much lower than that in michigan, not much higher than that in pennsylvania. the three of our states, 600,000 kids. 600,000 kids will benefit -- are right now getting insurance through chip. mr. president, remember, these are kids -- these are kids whose parents generally work making $le, -- $8, $10, $12. they're not kids unfortunately whose parent vs jobs who have -- parents who have jobs who have insurance. from working -- again, these are working families. these are children whroz parents -- whose parents have jobs but don't have insurance. think about these families.

think about the stress they're facing. think about the letters i get and senator casey gets, the stories we hear from ohio and pennsylvania families. josh from cleveland said, quote, chip helped me arrange for my family to get the health coverage they needed while i look for a new job. it's apparent that peace of mind knowing my family is secure getting the medical help they need should be something god forbid -- should something, god forbid, arise is price ldz. now, -- priceless. now, his letter he sent to us really underscores the view -- underscores the fact that all kinds of parents over the christmas season, over the holiday season -- and these are low-income hardworking parents in most cases, $8, $10, $12 an hour. they're not buying a lot of stuff for christmas anyway. they're trying to figure out how this is all going to work in the christmas season. they got to worry about whether or not they're going to have insurance come the new year while congress passed the tax cut that senator casey talked about. tiffany from cleveland wrote, my

son relied on chip. without chip we wouldn't have been able to afford to get him intensive speech therapy for his diagnosis. without the speech therapy, he wouldn't be able to speak today. listen to this. chip gave him a voice. chip gave him a voice. then he writes -- tiffany writes -- his mother writes, now i want to use my own voice to give other kids like him a chance. linda from johnstown, ohio, a small town outside of columbus. she wrote to me about her grandchildren. the chip program is vital to my grandchild. my daughter is a hard working tax paying 26-year-old single mother to a 4-year-old son. she works over 40 hours each week as a chef. they qualify for chip. its a he a tremendous hem. without chip she would be forced to find other ways to make ends meet, perhaps even quit working so she could even qualify for full public assistance. so my colleagues, again, i remind you, mr. president, my colleagues all of whom have insurance, paid for by taxpayers, if we don't pass chip, people like this young

woman, people like the daughter of linda -- she didn't mention her daughter's name but the daughter and granddaughter -- that she might quit her job as a chef, her more than a 40 hour a week job so she could then go on medicaid and then get insurance for her child. does that make any sense to anybody? another grandmother. it's always the grandmothers. never underestimate them. susan from columbus, is a pediatric nurse. i have seen firsthand how chip has provided essential health care and saved lives. so many of my family -- as a grandmother, my grandchildren benefited. their father is deceased. my daughter can't afford the high cost of her company insurance, but makes too much to qualify for medicaid. without this program, my grandchildren would not have had adequate health care. so many of these families, mr. president, think about them -- as pope francis said, go out and get your public opinion -- he admonished his priests, go out and smell like

the flock. go out and listen to your constituents around the country, i beg my colleagues. i don't think if you had that we would not have seen chip reauthorized months ago, but that's passed. so many of these families are just like linda's and susan's daughters. they work full time. they just aren't lucky enough to work for employers that offer health insurance. all of us are that lucky. again, i don't know how we can stand here with insurance paid by taxpayers and not do anything about it. make no mistake, that's what republican leaders did for 112 days. i know that most of my colleagues wanted to pass chip in september before it expired, then in october, then in november when we begged the finance chair to do it, then in december, i know my colleagues wanted to do that. for whatever reason, senator mcconnell whose office as we know is down the hall and has lobbyists running in and out and chip families didn't really have very good lobbyists. i don't know why that works that way, but insurance companies did, but i guess that's the way this town works.

mr. president, i asked leader mcconnell and senator hatch time and again to bring this bill to the floor and allow a vote. senator casey asked them, stabenow, all of us did. it was december, october, november, december. they chose to do other things, but they have a chance to make a different choice today, a chance to stop using children and families as bargaining chips, a chance to choose making policy over playing politics. if this is really about children's health care, i challenge leader mcconnell to bring a clean, permanent chip deal to the floor right away. there is no reason to hold this up while we continue to fight over the budget process, pretending that the two must pass together of course is a fallacy. a permanent chip extension that provides certainty to families and $6 billion in savings to the federal government will pass overwhelmingly. we will be the first enthusiastic votes cast. thank you, mr. president. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyden.

mr. -- the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: before he leaves the floor, i want to thank the senator for his eloquent remarks and our colleague from pennsylvania, senator casey, my seatmate on the finance committee, senator stabenow. i will be making some remarks. we may have another colleague or two come and then senator stabenow on behalf of all of us will be making a motion with respect to these health programs. but for my three colleagues on the finance committee, thank you for your commitment months and months of commitment around the proposition that senator brown just said that this program should have become law a long, long time ago. mr. president, it is heart breaking to see these chip families put through the political wringer, and there is no other way to describe it because they come up to us.

moms, families, and they talk about how they are being told that, well, maybe this program isn't going to be around pretty soon, and they heard that at the end of the year, there was going to be big slabs of relief, tax relief, for those at the top and some multinational corporations. what these kids get is something called a patch. in effect, that says it all. they were given second-class treatment, the powerful and the well connected got first-class treatment. and as my colleagues have said, you didn't hear much of a mention about the children's health insurance program back then. our friend, the distinguished majority leader, mitch mcconnell, was over here last night. i think my friend from michigan knows her well.

the majority leader last night talking about the children's health insurance program sounded like he was marion wright identify he will man, the founder of the -- edelman, the founder of the children's defense fund. he was saying the biggest priority to him, we had to make sure the kids got a fair shake. i looked over and said i thought i was listening to senator kennedy, senator ted kennedy who has devoted his whole life to health care. so before we go to my colleagues' important unanimous consent request, i just want to go through a little bit of history on this. back in the fall, on the finance committee, we were committed to a multiyear children's health insurance program general lustily funded, and we wanted it done in early october. we had virtual unanimity in the

finance committee. i think there was only one senator who had reservations, and we worked with him as well, so we were ready to go in the fall. had we moved then, all of those families wouldn't have had the months and months of heartache and the wonderful people who run the children's health insurance program who were trying to figure out if they had to send a notice and tell people well, maybe it's not going to be there and how to tell them and when to tell them. we could have spared everybody all of that. and people find it hard to follow what goes on here in the united states senate. following government is tricky under the best of circumstances, but this is not a complicated proposition, as my colleague from michigan has stated. the republicans in washington, d.c., with respect to the children's health insurance

program, run all of the critical branches of our government that relates to these kids. the presidency occupied by the republicans. the senate run by republicans. the house run by republicans. so all of those institutions could have made it possible for us to take our bipartisan chip bill and enact it in october. it could have all happened then. and people are trying to watch this now and wondering why the kids didn't get health care. it didn't have to be this way. i know because chairman hatch we all admire, 40 years in the proverbial ring. he was a boxer.

he's retiring. because the storied program was so important to him, i spent an enormous amount of my time working both inside and outside the congress to line up support for this bill. and one of the reasons we moved first in the senate is we knew we mitt have some challenges with this program in the other body. and so i spent a lot of my time trying to line up support for a bill that chairman hatch felt particularly strong about because of his history on it, and we could have moved then. but somehow, shortly after the finance committee acted in a manner that is really a textbook for how the senate ought to work, things went off the rails, not because of democrats but because immediately after we

acted, the other body, the house, went forward with a bill that was ensnarled in partisan fighting to the point where many on our side and believe deeply in the children's health insurance program couldn't support it because it meant, for example, doing great harm to medicare and other kinds of programs. so that began this kind of odyssey where for months there was always something more important for the leadership of the three branches of government, white house, the senate, and these kids. that's the bottom line. for three months, there was always something more important. so my eloquent colleague, senator stabenow, came to the floor during that period day after day after day, saying why

can't they do this now because everything, all the stars are aligned, and again, there was always a reason not to do it. i will tell you, because we serve on the finance committee, it was particularly sad to see how those in december who had power and clout and were well connected and had lots of lobbyists, their priorities went lickety-split through the united states senate. a whole tax reform bill, unlike what was done when ronald reagan got together with my friend, bill bradley, and they spent months working in a bipartisan way. the powerful and the well connected got what they needed in a matter of weeks and set a land speed record for moving the tax reform bill. they had to borrow at one point

$5 trillion, hundreds of billions of dollars to the most influential, the most well connected, and the kids at the end of the year, they got their patch. so that brings us to last night, and i have worked with the majority leader on a host of his issues over the years, but i'll tell you, having him come to the floor and talk about how committed he was to the children's health insurance plan after turning his back on it for months and months, that's a little much. that's a little much. so today months after it ought to have been done, we're going to try to advance this long-delayed priority. a long-delayed priority which

has had a storied bipartisan history, which if we had had our way would have been built upon back in october. a bipartisan bill with the lead sponsor being our distinguished retiring colleague, chairman hatch, on its way to the president's desk early in october. but for all the reasons i have described, it was derailed. now the hour is late, and i guess it's convenient for them to say well, it was really our priority all along, but i think the record shows something else, and that's why i look forward to my colleagues' motion to make the children's health program and the other programs that we have fought for so hard, particularly the community health center program, which have been a lifeline to so many

families that walk an economic tightrope, with the fuel bill against the rent bill. i look forward to my colleague from michigan closing this part of the debate. i want to thank her and note that the eloquent speakers on this topic have years and years of expertise. our senator carper, he got held up with another member of the finance committee who was with bill clinton when they really were part of launching this whole effort, so i'm very grateful to my finance committee colleagues. i look forward to the motion to be made by the distinguished senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. before offering a motion, i first want to thank our ranking member from oregon who is -- is

so dedicated, so passionate, so smart, he is working tirelessly every day. it's such a pleasure to serve with him as someone who has such a distinguished career of fighting for middle-class families, working people, for the right kinds of things. he came from his work working with the gray panthers and senior citizens, and he brings that to work every single day, and i thank him for that. i want to just stress before offering a motion that he -- he and other colleagues, senator casey, senator brown, senator carper who we had hoped would be joining us, i know is trying to as well, have all stressed the fact, first of all, that we are at a one-year anniversary of this president. we have for the first time in a number of years we have the house, the senate, the white house, all controlled by republicans, and over and over again, what has gotten the priority, what has gotten done?

things for the wealthiest americans and people with really big lobbyists, special interest lobbyists. that's what gets done over and over again. and so when, in fact, the funding ran out, not only for children's health care but also for community health centers and other important priorities that needed to get done for rural hospitals and ambulances and special diabetes program, other things, those have been shoved aside over and over and over again, people waiting and waiting and waiting. why? because the needs of the wealthiest americans, the needs of the special interests, the folks with the big lobbyists have been the ones that have taken priority this last year over and over and over again. so now we get to a point where we're talking about children's health insurance which finally -- i'm glad we are doing that, but it's in the context of pitting one group of children against another group of children. and not recognizing that the

majority of families that have children's health insurance need to use community health centers. that's where their doctor is. that's where they get their care. and that is not included in this. we have an opportunity now -- i'm offering a unanimous consent on a set of policies that are bipartisan, that have bipartisan support, and we could get done today, not in a divisive way, not pitting children and families against each other but actually doing something together that would be in the best interests of the majority of americans. middle-class families and folks trying really hard to stay in the middle class or to get into the middle class. and so, mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar -- excuse me. i'm being asked to hold off for a moment. i will be happy to do that.

i will put in a quorum call. i understand we have a moment as some details are being worked out, mr. president. so without objection, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: