Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, would the majority leader yield?

Mr. LEVIN. The majority leader has said we have to finish this bill this week. If we can't make progress on amendments that we agree should be called up and are important amendments--one coming basically from each side, even though there will probably be votes from each side for and against these amendments--if we can't make progress on these amendments where everyone seems to agree we ought to start moving, I am worried about the prospects of finishing this week. Frankly, I am worried anyway. I am very much worried. It has to happen. We have to finish this week or else we can't get to conference. We have to get to conference and then come back. So I hope that in the morning perhaps the majority leader might renew that unanimous consent request because the objection to it is going to make it less likely we can get our bill passed.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, my ranking member, the ranking member on Armed Services, because I know how much he wants to get to this bill. I do not understand the objection that I know is not his personally but comes from his side. I do not understand how we are advancing this bill and advancing the cause of reaching debate on amendments on this bill by objecting to move to the amendments that I think everybody wants to debate. I do not understand how that advances any cause. I know this is not the approach of the Senator from Oklahoma. We have a very bipartisan committee. Anyway, I will leave it at that. I hope in the morning we can find a way to do what I think everybody says they want to do, which is to begin an amendment process on this bill. I want to end by again thanking him. He has not only had his personal health issue, but, as the majority leader and all of us know in this body, he has had a very tragic loss, and he is working very hard through that. We doubly and triplely appreciate his service to this body and his bipartisan work on the Armed Services Committee. It is invaluable. I don't want anything that I say tonight about being frustrated that we cannot start debate on two amendments that everybody wants to debate in any way to imply anything other than a very positive relationship that we have.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this Nation began not as merely a plot of land, or as a group of people united by language or ethnicity. It began with an idea: ``That all men are created equal.'' Our story since Thomas Jefferson wrote those words has been a story of progress toward honoring what has been called ``the immortal phrase.'' Today, this Senate can move our Nation one important step forward in honoring the truth of those words by finally passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA. We can help ensure that no American is deprived of the opportunity to work--the opportunity to succeed--as all of us want to succeed merely because of sexual orientation or gender identity, just as we have acted to protect that opportunity against discrimination based on age, race, color, religion, national origin or disability. This legislation is carefully crafted to protect the sincere religious beliefs many Americans hold. It embodies a simple but powerful American ideal: On the job, what matters is your work, not your gender or skin color or faith or your sexual orientation any other extraneous matter. There may have been times in the past when the Congress pushed Americans into new and perhaps uncomfortable territory in the march toward equality. But today, the law lags public opinion in this area. Public opinion polls show that roughly 7 in 10 Americans believe workplace discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals should be against the law. In fact, they think it already is--according to one poll, 80 percent of Americans believe such discrimination is already a violation of Federal law. Support for ENDA is not confined to one region of the country--polls show that majorities in every State in the union support it. So, passage of ENDA is not some bold social experiment or engineering process. It is what the American people want and are ready for. That is as true today as it was in 1996, the last time the Senate held a vote on this measure. Even then, a majority of Americans supported it, and just as it is today, it enjoyed the support of a diverse group of religious and business organizations. Then, as today, American businesses recognized that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is just bad business. This is also not a partisan issue. This legislation is on the brink of passage here because members of both parties have shown principled leadership and dedication. But the ultimate reason I have supported this legislation for decades now is not related to public opinion polls or endorsement letters from churches and corporations, though those are heartening and welcome. Simply, it is wrong to deny employment to anyone who can do the job, just because of their sexual orientation. ``All men are created equal'' means giving every American the opportunity to earn what their talents and dedication allow, to provide for themselves and their families. Denying anyone that right is at odds with the ideals on which this country was founded and on which it depends to this day. I strongly support this legislation. I urge my Senate colleagues to support it, and upon Senate passage, I urge the leaders of the House of Representatives to recognize just how far behind the American people they have fallen on this issue, and bring the Employee Non- Discrimination Act to the House floor for a vote.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am delighted to honor the contributions of a loyal and dedicated public servant, Mayor James Buck. In November, Mayor Buck will retire after 4\1/2\ decades of public service, 29 years of which he served as Mayor of Grandville, MI. Through his vision and tireless advocacy, Mayor Buck has helped to make sure this fine city continues to be a wonderful place to raise a family and for businesses to thrive. Jim Buck began his career in public service as an appointed member of the Grandville Park & Recreation Board in 1968. Three years later, in 1971, he was elected to the Grandville City Council. After a successful stint on the city council, Jim was elected mayor of Grandville in 1984 and has gone on to serve eight consecutive terms. Although the position of mayor of Grandville is part-time, Mayor Buck has always approached it as a full-time responsibility. He has devoted himself to his work as mayor and is visible at community events throughout the year. He is committed to economic and residential development, and has made decisions that have brought businesses and residents to Grandville. He has been a pillar of integrity and a consensus builder. Under Mayor Buck's stewardship, the City of Grandville has maintained sound financial footing despite immense economic challenges. Mayor Buck is a firm believer that a strong sense of community is vital and improves the quality of life of its residents. Throughout his 45 years on the Grandville Park & Recreation Board, which he has chaired for decades, the city has created new trails and parks and revitalized existing ones. During his tenure, the Park & Recreation Board has turned Grandville's 4th of July Celebration into a major regional event and a beloved community tradition. An avid tennis player, Jim Buck has enjoyed many successful years of competition, including at the Senior Olympics in recent years. He has been assistant coach to the Grandville High School tennis team for the last 17 years. This year, the team won the OK Red Conference and Regional Championships. It is no coincidence that Grandville has some of the best tennis courts of any city its size in Michigan. A dedicated and visionary leader, Mayor Buck has not only been Grandville's strongest advocate but also an active civic leader on regional and State levels. He is an honorary life member of the Michigan Municipal League (MML), chair of the MML Foundation Board, member of the West Michigan Strategic Alliance and the long-time chairman of the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council. But more than the list of boards and commissions to his credit, Jim Buck is a man of his community. He works long hours attending events, meeting with residents, visiting schools, and listening to and appreciating the people of Grandville. He has created a standard of community engagement that will be an inspiration to his successors. Indeed, Mayor Buck has made a tremendous contribution to the lives of residents of the City of Grandville now and for generations to come. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the dedicated public service of one of the finest locally elected officials in Michigan, Jim Buck. He has dedicated himself to the betterment of his community. On behalf of the people of Michigan, I wish Jim and his wonderful wife, Kathryn (Kitty) Buck the very best for a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I very much support the nomination of Alan Estevez to be Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Mr. Estevez is a career civil servant who has served under Presidents of both political parties since 1981, when he started work at the Military Traffic Management Command. Over the last 30 years, Mr. Estevez has developed an expertise in military logistics, eventually rising to become the first career Federal official to hold the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, a position in which he provides civilian oversight for more than $190 billion of DOD logistics operations. He previously played a key role in reengineering Department of Defense transportation processes and in helping to address logistics deficiencies identified during Operation Desert Shield. Mr. Estevez is the recipient of the 2010 Presidential Rank Distinguished Executive Award and the 2006 Presidential Rank Meritorious Executive Award, two Office of the Secretary of Defense medals for Meritorious Civilian Service, and the 2005 Service to America Medal awarded by the Partnership for Public Service. He is extremely well qualified for this position. I am pleased we have now achieved cloture so his nomination may be voted on at noon. I don't know of opposition to him and his personal qualifications. I understand the debate over the helicopter issue. He is not the one who ordered nor can he reverse it. That issue is an issue which has been raised by a number of Senators, including the Senator from Texas. Senator Blumenthal has raised it in committee as well. The letter that went out to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has not yet been answered. However, I have spoken to General Dunford about this matter, and I will have more to say about that when this issue is raised either on the Defense authorization bill or on some other matter. For the time being, let me say simply that helicopter is a requirement which has been set by our generals, not by our Pentagon people, civilians. It is a top priority that the Afghans be supplied that helicopter because it is the one they have flown. The Army of Afghanistan has used that helicopter. So without getting into the merits of this, because this is left for a later time by the Senator from Texas, I am grateful the debate cannot be connected to the Estevez nomination, where it has no relevance, since he didn't accept the requirement nor can he reverse the decision. It will be set for a later time--hopefully, after the Senators receive the answer to the letter they sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I very strongly support the Estevez nomination and look forward to a confirmation vote, either by voice vote or rollcall vote, as necessary, at noon. I thank the Presiding Officer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Menendez, I ask unanimous consent that Christopher Landberg, a detailee from the State Department and the Foreign Relations Committee, be granted floor privileges for the consideration of the nomination of Jacob Lew.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, over the last few days there has been a lot of talk about negotiating, and there has been a lot of negotiating. That is good. Various Senators in small and large groups have been talking about how long a continuing resolution should be in effect, how much to extend the debt limit, among other issues, and surely it is important that negotiations take place. We Democrats have tried over 20 times now to move to a House-Senate conference so that we can discuss and negotiate our differences on a budget resolution. Regrettably, Republicans have refused to allow those negotiations to occur. The underlying issue is this: While negotiations are underway, our government should be open and serving the American people. Democrats believe government should be functioning during negotiations. For that matter, we believe, because government performs important duties, it should always be open and functioning. While those negotiations are underway, we surely should not have the threat of a global economic meltdown hanging over our Nation. The American people don't want the government to be shut down or for the United States to default on its obligations while negotiations take place--or at any other time, for that matter. No one knows how long the negotiations will take. In the meantime there are real hardships being imposed on the American people because of the shutdown. Vital public services are being impaired across all of government: Nutrition assistance for women and children, Head Start programs for school children, research grants at the National Science Foundation, badly needed repairs to our highways and bridges, among hundreds of other programs. I think all of us agree that negotiations are more than desirable; they are essential. But the issue looming before us is not that. It is whether the government will be open and the threat of default will be lifted while we negotiate. Negotiations could last a while, so they should take place while the government is functioning. It is unconscionable that Americans are denied services and benefits while we negotiate. It is also unacceptable that negotiations take place when one side has placed a bomb on the negotiating table and set the timer. Let me put it this way: If in the future I came to my Republican colleagues and said: As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am not going to allow the Defense bill to come out of the committee until the Senate raises taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans--something I very much favor--what would be the result? They would reject my ultimatum, and rightly so. Threats to do immense damage unless I get my way on an issue is plainly the wrong way to legislate and to get things done. Such threats just push people to dig in deeper on their positions. The shutdown of our government is doing tremendous damage. We know the American people have suffered great harm because of the government shutdown, and we know the impact on our economy and the world economy would be severe if we default on our debt. Who in this Congress believes the government should remain closed while we negotiate? Who in this Congress believes the government should remain closed while we negotiate? Who in this Congress believes a default on our obligations is not damaging? Surely no more than a handful among us. Cutting through all the fog and cutting through the talk of the talking heads is this point, which I believe is unassailable. There are a lot of differences in negotiations. People have different positions on different issues. But I believe this is an unassailable and undebatable point: The vast majority of the American people believe that while negotiations are going on, the government should be functioning and that we should not default on our obligations. Sitting down together and discussing the many issues that our Nation faces is essential, but it is also essential we do so while the government is open and functioning and serving the American people. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, on November 3, the many friends and admirers of Ortheia Barnes will gather in Detroit to pay tribute to her remarkable life and career. ``Careers'' would actually be more appropriate in Ortheia's case, because this extraordinary lifelong Detroiter has excelled in multiple fields. Some Detroiters know Ortheia as an entertainer. They have heard her voice accompanying Motown legends and recording stars such as Aretha Franklin, heard her powerful renditions of gospel songs or watched her sing during the annual Thanksgiving parade downtown or they have seen her in stage productions or local television programs. Other Detroiters know Ortheia from her civic involvement. She is active in a host of charitable endeavors, from the American Cancer Society to Focus: HOPE, to programs that help people recover from addiction. Some may know Ortheia from her political activism. She has long been active in Michigan elections, from city council to Senate, and she is an energetic advocate for the idea that every American, regardless of race or creed or color, is welcome and needs to be active in the political process. If you do not know Ortheia as an entertainer or supporter of worthy causes, you know her for her faith. She has ministered around the world, not only sharing her faith but doing the good works that are so fundamental to it. I am fortunate to know Ortheia for all the gifts she has given our community and in one more way: My wife Barbara and I have known her as a longtime family friend. Her family and ours have been linked through three generations, beginning with Barbara's and Ortheia's mothers. Ortheia herself briefly babysat our kids while she was in high school. We know how proud Ortheia's warm and wise mom Belle was of her daughter back then and of her growing pride as the multigifted adult Ortheia emerged. When Detroit gathers on November 3 to celebrate Ortheia's birthday, the dress will be sharp, the music will be proud, and the stories will be many. Whether we know Ortheia from the pulpit or the stage, from campaign strategy sessions or gatherings of family and friends, Detroiters admire her spirit, her energy, her dedication and her talent, and we thank her for all she has done and all she will do for our community and its people.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the other day a reporter came up to me and said: You have been here a while. What do you think it will take to end this shutdown? I replied with a single sentence: The Speaker of the House needs to lead. A majority of House Republicans want to end this shutdown by voting for a clean continuing resolution, but a small number of the most ideological Members of the House oppose such a move and oppose a vote, and the Speaker has given this small group a veto over the functioning of the U.S. Government. Congressman Charlie Dent, a Pennsylvania Republican, made one of the most stunning statements about this situation. In a television interview this week, Congressman Dent said the following: I do believe it's imperative we do have a clean funding bill to fund the government. That was the intent of the Republican leadership all along, but obviously there were a few dozen folks in the House Republican Conference who weren't prepared to vote for a clean bill, and that's why we're in the situation we're in right now. Congressman Dent, a Republican, makes it very clear what is going on over in the House of Representatives. There are a few dozen folks in the House Republican Conference who aren't prepared to vote for a clean bill, and that is why we are in the situation we are in right now. So the Speaker of the House is allowing a ``few dozen folks'' to shut down the U.S. Government. What an indictment of the House Republican leadership. Speaker Boehner could bring all this chaos to an end. All he has to do is bring the Senate's bill reopening the government to a vote. The Senate has voted three times on House continuing resolutions. Speaker Boehner has yet to schedule a single vote on the Senate's bill. Why? Because it would pass. That has to sound totally counterintuitive--that you don't bring a bill to the floor because it would pass. When the Speaker himself says he wants the government to open, and 90 percent of his own Republican Caucus wants the government to open but 10 percent of his caucus doesn't, that means he would have to depend on a few Democratic votes to pass the bill. And that is anathema to the Speaker of the House; a bill with bipartisan support cannot be allowed, in his judgment, to come to a vote because it would pass. That means it would be a bipartisan bill. It would depend upon some Democratic votes. It is his policy--the Speaker's policy--that he cannot hold votes on bills that require Democratic votes to pass. I cannot think of a more striking example of rank partisanship than that policy. I hope the Speaker will be asked one of these days to explain his refusal, as to why he is following the dictates of a small group of his caucus when there is a bipartisan solution right in front of him. We have looked through the media, and we cannot find where the Speaker has ever been asked or answered this question: Why will you not bring the Senate continuing resolution vote to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote? Why will you not allow a vote on that bill? Instead, the Speaker sends us piecemeal bills and demands we open the government one program, one agency at a time. Today, there is a new element--a bill that would pay Federal employees whether they are on the job or not during this shutdown. Federal employees didn't ask to stop working, so we should pay them. But why in heaven's name--why in heaven's name--should we not let them get back on the job serving this country if they are going to be paid? Why not pass a continuing resolution and let them work? This bill to pay retro actively Federal employees who aren't working passed, apparently, unanimously today in the House of Representatives. Why not let them work? Pass a continuing resolution. I also want to ask the Republicans who support this bits-and-pieces approach this question: When all this piecemeal legislating is through, what is it that you propose to remain closed? Is it the USDA inspectors or offices that process small business loans? Is it the agency that works on Pell grants for college students? Is it NOAA forecasters who keep the watch on hurricanes? Is it FEMA workers who respond when storms come ashore? Is it the furloughed workers at the National Institutes of Health who process the grants that fund so much of our Nation's health research? Just which Americans do the House Republicans intend to keep as hostages to their obsession with repealing ObamaCare? One of the problems with the Republican approach is it makes gross judgments as to who will be ransomed and who will remain a hostage. What agencies get ransomed and which ones remain hostage? I don't think we can be satisfied with freeing some of the hostages while the rest remain captive. That is not what this country is all about. We are not the United States of National Parks Visitors or the United States of NSA. We are one Nation, and that is why the attempt of the Republicans in the House to pick out one group of Americans at a time is going to fail. I heard one Republican say the other day that our call, the Democratic call, to open the entire government was ``cynical.'' What a remarkable statement. Here is what I call cynical: Shutting down government cancer trials for young patients, Head Start classrooms for students, benefits for the families of our troops who fall in combat, shutting down all that and hundreds of other things, and then offering to restore the government in slivers, piece by piece, while pretending you are doing the country a favor. That is pretty doggone cynical-- acting as if it is a compromise worthy of praise to shut down our government and then to allow portions of it to reopen today, perhaps another portion or two tomorrow, and another portion or two the day after that. That is cynicism. The anecdote to that cynicism is the true spirit of this country, and it is embodied in people such as Congressman John Dingell and former Senate majority leader Bob Dole. Bob Dole is a Republican. Both of those great gentlemen, Congressman Dingell and Senator Dole, served this country in peace and war. And when the House Republicans tried to cover up their destructive behavior by draping it in the love our Nation feels for our World War II veterans, these two men, Republican and a Democrat, both World War II veterans, said it clearly: If you want to honor the service, give the nation we risked our lives for its government back, all of it. Here is what they said in a joint statement: If this Congress truly wishes to recognize the sacrifice and the bravery of our World War II veterans and all who've come after, it will end this shutdown and reopen our government now. Senator Dole and Congressman Dingell added: Piecemeal or partial spending plans do not adequately ensure that our veterans--and indeed all Americans--have access to the system of self-government established to serve and protect them. Republicans have a simple choice: Continue their current dead-end approach or reopen the government and then have discussions about health care or the budget or other issues they wish to discuss. It is time for those Republicans who say the government should be open, who say they do not believe in these destructive tactics, to match their words with deeds. It is time for the rhetoric now to give way to leadership. Speaker Boehner can end this all now--end this farce of rifleshot funding that leaves our government full of holes--and bring up for a vote in the House of Representatives a clean continuing resolution. Open the government, all of it. Open it now, Speaker Boehner, by allowing the House to vote on the Senate bill which will reopen this government. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, House Speaker Boehner is sending the Senate a series of bills to put one Band-Aid at a time on the House Republicans' government shutdown. It is an obvious attempt to fool the American people into thinking House Republicans are acting to end the shutdown. But their transparent tactic is not fooling many people, and here is why: The people of this country know the harm of the government shutdown isn't about the handful of programs that House Republicans will dangle in front of us. The House Republican gambit will not put food inspectors back to work. It will not put Centers for Disease Control experts back to work tracking outbreaks of infectious diseases. It is not going to reopen Head Start classrooms for kids. Their piecemeal approach won't restart lending to small businesses or bring back the FAA inspectors who make sure commercial aircraft are safe, and it won't restore hundreds of other vital services and functions. No matter how many rifleshot bills the House Republicans try, all they do is leave our government full of holes. We could spend months legislating in bits and pieces while House Republicans ignore the obvious solution: The House should vote on the clean continuing resolution the Senate has sent to them, because that vote will end the shutdown. The Republican bits-and-pieces strategy is like smashing a piece of crockery with a hammer, gluing two or three bits back together today, a couple more tomorrow, and two or three more the day after that. House Republicans should stop before they do any more damage, put down the hammer, pick up the Senate's continuing resolution, and at least put it to a vote. I heard one Republican on the Senate floor yesterday argue that we should adopt the piecemeal approach because, after all, he said, under regular order, we pass separate appropriations bills for different parts of the government one at a time. While that is true, it is irrelevant. We have a mechanism for keeping the government open while we go through the regular order process. It is called a continuing resolution, and it keeps the full government open while we adopt appropriations bills one at a time. Five days ago, the Senate passed, for the third time, a continuing resolution to keep the government open and sent it to the House. It is well past time for Speaker Boehner to bring it to a vote. Republicans want to negotiate changes in the Affordable Care Act. Of course we will talk about that once the government is functioning, but we should not and will not allow the U.S. Government to be held hostage by the Republicans while we are talking about the Affordable Care Act or any other subject which they or we wish to talk about. I am keenly aware, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that one of the most devastating effects of this Republican shutdown is its damage to our national security. Already our men and women in uniform have been asked to operate under the damaging effects of sequestration. Those cuts have done serious harm to our military readiness and military families, and the shutdown is making things far worse. Because of the House Republican shutdown, workers at the Defense Department maintenance depots around the country who should be repairing and preparing vehicles, ships, and aircraft for combat, are instead furloughed, along with hundreds of thousands of other Department of Defense civilians. Training exercises have largely come to a halt. Anyone who thinks that is no big deal has never spent any time with our men and women in uniform. The key factor in our military's effectiveness isn't our sophisticated weapons systems, as important as they are; it is the highly trained men and women who employ those weapons. Every day of this shutdown wears away the sharp edge of their readiness to respond to crises around the world. Some troops and their families won't get tuition assistance. Most travel is suspended, including many permanent changes of station. That means military families scheduled to move to a new location who may have already sold a home at their old duty location or committed to a lease or a mortgage at their new location, and spouses who need to start a job search, face financial loss and disruption and uncertainty in their lives. Our troops and their families can't even go to their on-post commissaries because they are closed. The bill we passed last week to ensure our troops would receive paychecks is all well and good, but that did not address the many shortfalls our troops and their families face during this shutdown. Another truly outrageous example is that the families of the brave men and women who were killed while defending this Nation will see a delay in the payment of death benefits because of this shutdown. Some may say, You are right, these problems for our national security are intolerable. Let's pass a bill to fix them. We have. The Senate passed a continuing resolution three times, the last one 5 days ago, which would keep the government functioning. Speaker Boehner refuses to allow the House to vote on the Senate-passed continuing resolution. No matter how many piecemeal bills the Speaker sends to us here in the Senate, he will be leaving out millions of Americans who will continue to suffer from the shutdown that he and tea party-dominated Republicans have created. Every day they spend obsessing over ObamaCare is one more day of unfairness and uncertainty for our troops and their families. Every day of the House Republicans' destructive submission to the tea party is another day food is not inspected, it is another day FBI agents are working without pay, it is another day the SBA is not approving loans for small businesses, it is another day scientists are barred from their labs and on and on. Speaker Boehner can bring this chaos to a halt by bringing the Senate's continuing resolution to the floor of the House for a vote. The Senate has voted three times on House versions of continuing resolutions. Speaker Boehner refuses to vote even once on the Senate bill. Why? This is the question, by the way, the media has not yet asked Speaker Boehner. Why? Why has he not brought to the floor of the House the Senate-passed continuing resolution? Here is to the answer, and it is a stunning answer: Because it might pass. You heard me right. The reason Speaker Boehner is not bringing the continuing resolution passed in the Senate to the floor of the House for a vote is because it is going to pass. That is anathema. It would be anathema--anathema--to the Speaker of the House for a continuing resolution to pass if it depended upon Democratic votes. It is his policy not to depend on any Democratic votes to pass legislation in the House. The policy of the Speaker is truly the epitome of rank partisanship. In fact, I do not know of a clearer example of extreme partisan policy than Speaker Boehner's refusal to hold a vote on bills that would rely on some Democratic votes to pass. One of Speaker Boehner's Republican colleagues, Congressman Dent from Pennsylvania, has verified this sad fact. Here is what Congressman Dent said last night on PBS's NewsHour. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 4 additional minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Here is what Congressman Dent said: I do believe it's imperative that we do have a clean funding bill to fund the government. Then he continued: That was the intent of the Republican leadership all along, but obviously there were a few dozen folks in the House Republican Conference who weren't prepared to vote for a clean bill-- Here is his conclusion. This is now a Republican Congressman speaking last night, saying: . . . a few dozen folks in the House Republican Conference who weren't prepared to vote for a clean bill, and that's why we're in the situation we're in right now. That is an astonishing report of abdication of leadership in the House of Representatives. What an incredible statement about the stranglehold that a few dozen ideological zealots now have on the Republican Party in the House of Representatives. It is an extraordinary moment in history when a Speaker of the House allows a few dozen Members of Congress to bring the government of this Nation to a standstill. When we cut through all the claims and all the counterclaims, all the press conferences, all the photo-ops, there is one unassailable, indisputable fact that remains: The Senate has passed a continuing resolution to keep the government open, and Speaker Boehner refuses to bring it to a vote in the House of Representatives. It need not be this way. All that is required to break the stranglehold that the tea party has on House Republicans is for Speaker Boehner to bring the Senate-passed continuing resolution that would reopen the government to the floor of the House for a vote. I urgently hope he will do so, and I hope that every hour until he does, he is asked to defend his refusal to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, it is a great pleasure to join my colleague Debbie Stabenow in honoring Starr Commonwealth on a century of distinguished service to children and families across Michigan. Fittingly, they will mark this milestone with a Founder's Day celebration on October 6 in Albion, MI. This impressive community-based organization is, indeed, 100 years young. ``There is no such thing as a bad child.'' This simple yet profound belief, held fervently by Floyd Starr, the founder of Starr Commonwealth, has served as the guiding principle for everything Starr Commonwealth has accomplished from the very beginning. A century ago, Floyd Starr sought to create a place where troubled youth could find shelter, peace and the assistance they need to grow. He understood then, as we do today, that it is important to ensure that all young people, regardless of their circumstances, have an opportunity to flourish. Today, Starr Commonwealth is stronger than ever, and their strength-based approach to transforming the lives of young people has proven successful time and again. Situated on 350 acres in Albion, MI, Starr Commonwealth has nurtured an environment steeped in natural beauty to serve as an oasis where troubled youth can begin the process of comprehensive, constructive change. This nonprofit, multiservice organization currently reaches more than 1.5 million people annually, including families across Michigan, around the United States and in more than 60 countries throughout the world. Starr Commonwealth operates dozens of programs with a focus on helping young people reach their full potential. These programs include residential care services, a therapeutic boarding school, community-based and home-based programs, a public access charter school, and an international learning network for professionals working in positive youth development, trauma-informed care and racial healing, among many others. Organizations such as Starr Commonwealth play an invaluable role in communities across our Nation. They provide young people with the tools they need to succeed and become productive members of society. Helping young people face adversity and overcome challenges in a caring, positive way is a blessing Starr Commonwealth has bestowed not just on the young they nurture, but on the future of our State. Success stories can be found in communities across our land. The lives of countless young people have been transformed; their families are healthier; and the communities in which they reside are stronger as a result of Starr Commonwealth's work. Senator Stabenow and I are delighted to congratulate all who have contributed to the success of this fine organization. Our young people, and our State, have brighter futures because Starr Commonwealth is there to help them along the way.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Earlier today the Senate rejected for the second time the House Republican continuing resolution. The approach they have adopted over in the House attempts to and would deprive millions of Americans of health insurance if it were passed here. It is not going to pass here. I would say to Speaker Boehner we have given your proposal a vote. In fact, we have voted on it twice. Now you owe it to the American people to hold a vote, a vote on the bipartisan, clean continuing resolution which would keep the government open. This is the resolution which the Senate sent to you just a few hours ago. The only thing preventing us from keeping this government open is Speaker Boehner's refusal to bring a bipartisan Senate continuing resolution to the House floor. I think most Republicans over there even acknowledge that it would pass if Speaker Boehner would allow a vote on it. The Senate, a short time ago, approved a measure to allow for the pay of our men and women in uniform to continue in the event of a government shutdown. This measure was necessary because requiring our military to go into combat with only an IOU instead of pay would be a travesty. Nobody should be fooled. It is only one travesty that was avoided among many. Even if we restrict our view to the impact of a government shutdown on the military, there are many other terrible impacts of a government shutdown. Our military Members would be paid so a shutdown would result in at least avoiding that problem. However, there are other unthinkable outcomes to our security with a government shutdown. Family members of military members who die in combat would not receive death benefits during a shutdown. It defies belief that in the pursuit of a narrow ideological goal House Republicans would prevent the payment of benefits for those who died defending our country. That is the result of a government shutdown. In the event of a shutdown, the Department of Defense would also further reduce already curtailed training and bring routine maintenance to a halt, exacerbating the corrosive effects that sequestration is already having on military readiness. The Department of Defense would be barred from entering most new contracts. That would harm modernization programs. A shutdown would severely curtail medical services for troops and their families. Commissaries would close, with hundreds of thousands of civilian employees. Workers vital to our defense would be laid off. Outside of the DOD, a shutdown would disrupt some operations in the Department of Veterans Affairs which is providing benefits to those who have served. Then there is the extraordinary disruption of having to plan for all of this absurdity. As Under Secretary of Defense Hale said on Friday: Even if a lapse never occurs, the planning itself is disruptive. People are worrying right now about whether their paychecks are going to be delayed, rather than focusing fully on their mission. And while I can't quantify the time being spent to plan, it has or will consume a lot of senior management attention, probably thousands of hours in employee time better spent on supporting national security. Again, that only covers the impact on our military and on our veterans. While Border Patrol agents and FBI agents would continue to work, they would be putting their lives on the line for an IOU instead for a paycheck. Health clinics would stop taking new patients. Lifesaving research would grind to a halt. The far-reaching effects of a shutdown on government services across the country should give us all pause, as should the fact that a shutdown is likely to damage the all- too-fragile economic recovery. This has gone on for far too long and Speaker Boehner can end it now. There is still time for him to bring to the floor of the House of Representatives a clean continuing resolution and avert a government shutdown. For the good of our men and women in uniform and our national security, for the good of our economy, and for the millions of Americans who rely on and who benefit from important Federal programs, I hope the Speaker will allow our bipartisan continuing resolution to be voted on. I hope that even this late in the game reason is going to prevail. I hold that hope in part because while House Republicans have put tea party ideology ahead of the good of the Nation, many of our Republican colleagues here in the Senate have not. These Members recognize there is a difference between on the one hand debating serious policy preferences and on the other hand threatening government shutdown if you don't get your way. All of us in the Senate have issues on which we feel every bit as passionately as the opponents of the Affordable Care Act feel about that law. I happen to feel strongly, for instance, that we should have universal background checks for firearms purchases. By the tea party method of proving the strength of my belief, I should threaten a government shutdown if I don't get what I want on that subject. If all of us threaten legislative anarchy in pursuit of our goals, democracy will cease to function. As appalled as I am that some Members would threaten such damage to our Nation, I am heartened that many of our Republican colleagues here in the Senate have spoken out in opposition to this approach. When I came to the floor last week to speak on this topic, Senator Ayotte was speaking. I commended her for saying that the American people expect us to keep the government running even though I disagreed with much of what she said about the Affordable Care Act. I commend Senator Collins for saying a shutdown ``will only further damage our struggling economy'' and that we should resolve our differences ``without resorting to constant brinkmanship and the threat of government shutdown.'' I commend Senator Collins, even though I disagree with her on the Affordable Care Act, for taking that position against a shutdown and for seeing the distinction between fighting hard for what you believe in and threatening to bring down government operations overall if you don't get what you want. I commend Senator Portman for saying that the differences on the Affordable Care Act ``ought to be handled outside the context of a government shutdown.'' I commend Senator Chambliss for saying that while, in his words, he would love to defund ObamaCare, a government shutdown is ``going to do great harm to the American people if we pursue that course.'' I commend Senator Kirk for saying, ``Let's not shut down the government just because you don't get everything you want.'' There are others who have made that critically important distinction between opposing a certain policy and shutting down the government if one doesn't get his or her way. I welcome spirited debate. I welcome differences of opinion. As my friend Senator McCain said last week, there was plenty of both during the debate on the passage of the Affordable Care Act. But it is deeply distressing to hear Members of Congress argue that the litmus test of whether you are fighting for your beliefs is whether you are willing to shut down the government if you don't achieve a particular goal. That is more than fighting for your position, that is wanton destruction. I hope at least some House Republicans will come to see the difference between fighting for your goals and sowing anarchy in pursuit of them. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator just made a reference to the fact that the Speaker of the House has refused to put the Senate resolution up for a vote in the House of Representatives. It seems to me this has not been adequately illuminated to the public. It is not just that we insist that there be a clean CR--which we do, because we don't want every other issue that people feel passionate about to be insisted upon as the price of keeping the government going. Each one of us has issues we feel very passionately about. But I don't know any of us--at least on this side--who have said that unless we pass, for instance, an infrastructure bill--unless we pass a bill that includes background checks for people before they can buy an assault weapon--I feel very passionately about that. But the idea that we or any of us on this side of the aisle would say the government is going to close unless we get our way on a particular issue that we feel passionate about is absolutely anathema to us. Nonetheless, there are a few folks who are willing to do that. But when we say we insist we have a clean CR--in other words, that it not be linked to some issue that some faction is insisting upon--what we are really saying is something even deeper than that, more basic. We simply want them to vote on a clean CR. We are very confident it will pass if there is a vote, because it will have bipartisan support. For some reason over in the House, bipartisan support for a bill is now anathema. Apparently, it is called the Hastert rule. The Republican leaders over there say they are not going to pass any bill that relies upon any Democratic votes, which is the exact opposite of what bipartisanship should be. Over here, we rely on votes from both sides of the aisle for just about everything we pass. But over there they have this policy now, which is the most partisan kind of policy one could imagine. If someone could design a partisan policy, it would be, We will not have any reliance on the other party for votes; only our party can be relied upon for votes. We are not going to pass anything which depends upon the other party. That, to me, reeks of partisanship. Whenever I hear the Speaker or any of the Republicans in the House talk about bipartisanship, the first thing they ought to do is get rid of the Hastert rule, because the Hastert rule guarantees partisanship. It bakes partisanship into the process over there. But back to the narrow point I wish to ask the Senator about: Tonight, as in previous nights, all we are saying is not just we insist upon a clean CR, which is not linked to some faction's passion, which in this case is getting rid of ObamaCare; what we are saying is vote on the Senate CR. Just put it up for a vote. We are confident it will pass. But does the Senator agree it is even something less than saying it must be a clean CR that we are insisting upon? What we are saying is, vote on a clean CR. We are very confident it will pass, but put it up for a vote. Does the Senator agree with that?

Mr. LEVIN. At least vote as to whether to do it.

Mr. LEVIN. Is it also not true that we have voted twice on the House continuing resolution? We have rejected it, but we voted on it.

Mr. LEVIN. All right. They have not voted once on what we have sent to them.

Mr. LEVIN. That is not something you have to go to conference about. That is something which is sort of kind of fundamental. We have voted twice on your proposal. We have rejected it. You refused to vote on a Senate proposal. Why? Because you are afraid it will pass with some Democratic votes. That is anathema to the House of Representatives Republican leadership now to pass legislation that depends upon Democratic votes. And at the same time they talk about bipartisanship, they have that fixed, rigid rule that they will not depend on Democratic votes to get something passed in the House of Representatives. The first step toward bipartisanship in the House would be to end that approach. But I thank my friend from Oregon. It is amazing to me that the refusal of the House of Representatives to even vote on the Senate proposal which we sent to them has had such little play in the media because I think if the public understood that, they would then--without any doubt--instead of it being 60 to 30 that it is the Republicans who are bringing this government to the brink of closing down, it would be 80 to 10, when the public understands that it is the refusal of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives to allow a vote on the Senate proposal.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the recent tragic shooting at the Navy Yard has by now moved off the front pages, but for the victims and their loved ones and for the Washington, DC community, the effects of that horrific day will linger much longer. We may never fully understand what demons compelled the perpetrator to commit this heinous act, but at least one thing is clear: We should not consider this incident in a vacuum, not after 6 dead in Tuscon, not after 12 dead in Aurora, not after 6 dead in Oak Creek and 2 dead in Clackamas and 27 dead in Newtown, 20 of them children, not while mass shootings are occurring all around our Nation, every day, in places like Albuquerque, Minneapolis, Newton Falls, Seattle, Chicago, and many more. In the words of MedStar Washington Hospital Center chief medical officer Dr. Janis Orlowski, ``There's something wrong here when we have these multiple shootings, these multiple injuries, there's something wrong.'' Dr. Orlowski is right. Our Nation is torn by gun violence. Facts are facts: The American Journal of Medicine recently released clinical research showing that the United States has a rate of 10.2 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. This rate is far higher than almost all of the 27 other countries the study examined--higher than the rates of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Turkey, Germany, and Canada combined. The Washington Post has put similar findings in sobering perspective by noting that an American is ``20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country.'' Congress can take important steps to stop this violence. There is legislation in the Senate right now that, if enacted, would take important steps toward reducing gun violence in this country. Among other things, these bills would close the `gun show loophole' that allows 40 percent of gun purchases in this Nation to go forward without any sort of background check on the buyer. This loophole allows criminals, the mentally ill, domestic abusers, and terrorists to obtain deadly weapons to turn on our communities. The American people agree that taking this step would just be common sense. Study after study has shown that around 90 percent of Americans support comprehensive background checks for all gun sales. Another study conducted by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program found that 55.4 percent of gun dealers and pawnbrokers in the United States support comprehensive background checks. Public safety is not a partisan issue. Dr. Orlowski said it well: ``Mass murders people--walking through schools, people walking through movie theaters, people walking through work places--unfortunately is common, or more common than what it should be . . . we've got to work together to stop this.'' The American people overwhelmingly support commonsense gun safety measures. Our law enforcement communities, our medical communities, even our licensed gun sellers overwhelmingly support commonsense gun safety measures. We should listen to them, and act.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, folks back home will often come up to me after the Senate has gone through some crisis or complex procedure and they will ask me: What just happened? Usually I can give them an explanation. But I hope nobody asks me about what we have seen last night and today because, to me, it is inexplicable. A Senator holds the floor overnight delaying what turns out to be a 100-to-0 vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill. I am not sure I can explain that back home, so let me try to describe what I expect to see in the days to come. The question before the Senate this week is whether some Members of the Senate will succeed in disrupting much of the Federal Government if they do not get their way in one matter on which they feel passionately. This group of Senators argue that we should take away health insurance from more than 20 million Americans. They urge us to take away cheaper prescription drugs and free preventive care for more than 6 million seniors. They argue for kicking millions of young adults off their parents' health insurance coverage, and they argue for a return to the days when insurance companies could deny Americans health care because of a preexisting condition. Are arguments over the elements of the Affordable Care Act in order? Of course they are. But what should be out of order, what should be off the table is the tactic that opponents of the Affordable Care Act are employing--at least some of those opponents. As we just heard from Senator Ayotte, she is an opponent of the Affordable Care Act who is not going to vote for this tactic, and I commend her for it. In order to eliminate the Affordable Care Act, some of these opponents would deny our military members their paycheck, some of them would shut down our NIH clinics, they would halt Small Business Administration assistance to small businesses, and they would close Head Start classrooms. All of that and many more government operations would grind to a halt if this group had their way in order to eliminate health care reforms that would bring insurance to millions of Americans and protect coverage for those who already have it. That is not just a policy failure. In my book, that is a failure to understand the role of an elected official in a democratic government. This system does not function when Members of Congress threaten to shut down the government and bring about legislative anarchy if they do not get their way on a particular policy. So I am not going to try to persuade those Members on the value of ObamaCare, even though already, thanks to ObamaCare, the number of young adults without health insurance has fallen by nearly 1 million, and a higher percentage of young adults have coverage today than at any time since 1999. I am not going to try to persuade those Senators on the value of ObamaCare, although already inflation in health care costs has slowed to the lowest level in half a century. While the causes for this good news are complex, many health care experts believe the Affordable Care Act's focus on quality and coordination of care is already having a measurable impact. I am not going to try to persuade those Senators of the value of the Affordable Care Act, even though more than 6 million seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because the Affordable Care Act is closing the doughnut hole in drug coverage and even though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2016, 25 million Americans who otherwise would have no health insurance will be covered, again thanks to the Affordable Care Act. I am not going to try and persuade those Senators about the value of ObamaCare, even though repealing the Affordable Care Act would, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, raise the budget deficit by about $110 billion over 10 years. While I am not going to question the sincerity of the Senators who argue that denying the American people those benefits is a good idea, I do question the willingness of those who are willing to close down this government to achieve their goal, to create legislative and governmental anarchy in pursuit of their goal as acceptable. I believe the tactic of shutting down or threatening to shut down the government to get their way on an issue is appalling, and that is what the basic question is before us. I have a number of issues that are important to me. So does every Member of this Senate. I believe very strongly in universal background checks for firearms purchases. An opinion poll shows a large majority of the American public agrees with me. Should I threaten to shut down the government if we don't pass universal background checks? Should I threaten to delay pay to our men and women in uniform, to close classrooms and health clinics and research labs, to waste billions of dollars by creating anarchy in the government if I don't get my way on universal background checks for firearms purchases? I believe strongly we should close offshore tax loopholes that cost the Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars, and I am hardly alone in that belief. Should I threaten to default on the public debt and to damage the full faith and credit of the United States if we don't pass a bill to close those offshore tax loopholes? I hold these beliefs and others with the same passion as those Senators who oppose the Affordable Care Act, but threatening a government shutdown and chaos unless I get my way is, I believe, inconsistent with our responsibilities as Senators. So, yes, I feel very strongly about background checks and tax loopholes and a host of other issues, but I can't imagine threatening government shutdown or default on our debt if I don't get what I want. The effects of a government shutdown would be devastating to our men and women in uniform, who would be told they must stand at their post without pay. It would be devastating to patients with deadly diseases who depend on clinics that would close their doors, and researchers who must leave their labs. The mere cost of shutting down and then restarting government operations would run to several billions of dollars. A shutdown could cut gross domestic product by a percentage point or more, putting us back into a recession. When the Founding Fathers launched this experiment in democracy, most observers--at least many observers--expected it to fail. They did so in part because they doubted that democracy could exist in a large and complex nation. Montesquieu declared that in any large democracy ``the public good is sacrificed to a thousand private views.'' The Founding Fathers designed Congress so it could represent the interests of large States and small States, of populace and rural areas, of North and South. The task they gave to Congress was to prove that Montesquieu was wrong. It was here that our ``thousand private views'' were to be weighed and considered, and from those deliberations public policies aimed at the public good were to emerge. The form of our government was designed to guard against any one faction from succeeding in attempts to sacrifice the public good to its own concerns. At every turn, the Founders designed our constitution to defend against extremism, to help all-too-flawed elected officials transform what could be the anarchy of a large Nation with varied opinions into a coherent whole. The tactics we are seeing in this debate, and the tactics threatened in the debt ceiling debate we will soon face, turn the Founders' vision on its head. We are told that unless we give in to the demands of one faction, that America will be plunged into shutdown, recession, default, and catastrophe. Two hundred twenty-six years into our experiment in democracy this faction of Congress is trying to prove Montesquieu right. They would, indeed, sacrifice the functioning of our government to advance one of their own views. I oppose the efforts to defund ObamaCare, and I believe that preserving health care reform is vitally important to millions of Americans. Defeating this attempt to close down the government unless zealots get their way is important to the very functioning of our democracy. It is deeply destructive to our ability to function as a democracy for Members of this Senate to threaten to bring down the walls around us unless they get their way, and, hopefully, they will not succeed. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Levin pertaining to the introduction of S. 1533 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')