Senate Debate Reopening Government

Senate Debate Reopening Government

Listen:

• mediaBrew Media Player: ( 25 Min. mp3)
• Default Device Player: ( 25 Min. mp3)

 

 

 

Summary:

The ongoing government shutdown has led to significant frustration, with Republicans voting multiple times to end it while Democrats have voted to maintain it. A senator proposed two bills to prevent Congress from being paid during the shutdown, emphasizing fairness as many federal employees, including military personnel and air traffic controllers, are not receiving pay. This senator believes that Congress should be held to the same standards as those affected by the shutdown. However, another senator objected to this approach, advocating instead for a solution that ensures all federal workers are paid during such crises, pointing out the necessity for bipartisan cooperation to reopen the government and avoid further disruptions.

Transcript:

Mr. President, this weekend I watched, probably like you, a number of folks go on television and confidently predict that we were going to be out of the shutdown. Some said as early as Wednesday, one confidently predicted Thursday, a couple more said Friday. So when I came back on Monday, I was pretty sanguine about things.

It gives me no joy to say this, but I was wrong. I don’t know, as bad as this multiple vehicle pile-up looks from the outside, you ought to see it from the inside. I know you know what I’m talking about, Mr. President.

We voted, the Republicans have voted 14 times to come out of the shutdown. My Democratic friends have voted 14 times to stay shut down. And I think it’s going to be like that for a while.

I used to have a beagle, Mr. President. I loved him to death. His name was Roger.

He was a rascal. Roger would run off. He was a rabbit dog that we picked up as a stray.

Rabbit Roger would run off for three days, scare me to death. I was afraid he was going to die. And after three days, he’d come staggering back home, and he always had roadkill in his mouth.

And he would hide that roadkill under my back porch. And where we are now in negotiating out of the shutdown, looks like something Roger used to hide under my back porch. We’re supposed to have a vote tomorrow.

We don’t know what we’re voting on, but we’ve been promised we’re going to have a vote. And I hope we do. And I hope I’m wrong.

And I hope we come out of this shutdown very soon. But I’m not going to lie to the American people. I think we’re going to be in it for a while.

Now, as everyone knows, folks aren’t being paid while we’re in a shutdown. Our air traffic controllers are not being paid. In fact, starting tomorrow, the airlines are going to be canceling flights.

Our staffs are not being paid. Federal employees are not being paid. These young men and women here, our pages are not being paid.

Our military is only being partially paid. I’m confused about SNAP payments. Some say the payments are being made.

Some say they aren’t. I don’t know who’s telling the truth. But I do know this.

I don’t think anybody wants to see anybody hungry in America. The only people that I can ascertain who are being paid are members of Congress. Now, I’m not being paid.

I said I wasn’t going to take a salary during the shutdown. Some of my colleagues are, and I’m not judging anybody. The purpose of this is not to judge anybody.

I’m just saying that it’s time that Congress set an example. I’ve got two bills I’m going to offer up today. The first one is called the No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act.

This just says that while we’re in a shutdown, members of Congress don’t get paid, and they don’t get back pay. The second bill is entitled Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act. That bill says while we’re in a shutdown, members of Congress don’t get paid, but they will get paid.

They’ll get their money and arrears after we open government back up. Now, I’m rather fond of the Constitution, as most people are. I’m well aware of the 27th Amendment, which says no law bearing the compensation of the services of the senators and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

What that means, of course, is that you can’t change the pay for a congressman until after you’ve had an election. I think my bills are constitutional for two reasons. Number one, we’re not changing the rate of compensation.

We’re just saying during a shutdown, you’re not going to get your money. Number two, there is precedent for this. Back in 2013, President Obama had Congress pass what’s called the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.

President Obama’s bill said, look, Congress is about to go into a shutdown. Fine, have at it. Knock yourselves out.

Go into a shutdown. But if you don’t come out of that shutdown by this particular date, you’re not going to get paid. And you know what? Members of Congress had an epiphany.

They had a domiciled moment. They were born again. They got out of the shutdown in time to be paid.

I’m not trying to put down anybody. I’m not trying to condemn folks who have been taking their salary. I’m not saying they don’t earn every bit of it.

But I am saying what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And I’m going to offer up these two bills for the members’ consideration. So starting with my first bill, which would say members of Congress can’t be paid and don’t get back pay, even after we end the shutdown.

That’s called the No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act. I ask a unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, that bill, which I just described, which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Is there an objection? Mr. President, I have the right to object. I think it’s time that instead of closing the government down further that we begin to open up government. What I will offer is legislation that instead of closing government down further begins to pay those who are working, pays our soldiers, pays our air traffic controllers, pays everyone who’s showing up for work.

I think this should become a permanent feature of our government. I think it’s disruptive. I think it’s unfair.

And I think it’s wrong that we don’t pay the workers that are showing up. But a better way than isolating out different groups and punishing different groups is to actually pay those who are working. And I think we should do this.

If we pass this legislation, this would never be a problem again. We’re going to run into disagreements in the future. We’re going to have times when government shuts down, but there’s no reason that we shouldn’t be paying our government workers.

So I ask that the Senator modify his request so that instead of the Senate proceeding to the immediate consideration of calendar item 191, that S3012 that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to consider be considered made and laid upon the table. Mr. President, would the Senator modify his request? I will not, Mr. President. And I’d like to explain why.

I understand Senator Paul is making a good point. What he’s saying is, rather than then saying, as I am that nobody else is being paid, so members of Congress shouldn’t be paid. I think what Senator Paul is saying, let’s pay everybody.

That’s what I understand to be saying. And he wants me to agree to that instead of my bill. What Senator Paul is proposing is Senator Ron Johnson’s shutdown, no shutdown act that we voted on several times.

And I’m for it. I voted for it several times. Here’s the problem I have with Senator Paul’s proposal of pulling down my bill and going with Senator Johnson’s bill.

Several reasons. Number one, I’m interested in passing something. I’m not interested in just putting on a show.

My bill will pass the House of Representatives. And my bill will be signed by the President. Senator Paul’s bill, I can assure you, will not pass the House of Representatives.

And President Trump will not sign it. I’m not saying someone’s right or somebody’s wrong. President Trump does not consider Senator Paul to be part of his MAGA agenda, and he will veto it.

And then we’re right back to square one. So for that reason, I can’t substitute his for mine, because his is going to be as dead as fried chicken here in a few days, and mine has a chance to pass. Now, I need some clarification, Mr. President.

Parliamentary inquiry, if you will. Do I understand that Senator Paul has objected to my bill? Correctly. The Senator from Kentucky asked if you would modify your request.

And his modification, if I might ask, is to substitute his bill for mine. That is the understanding of the Chair. Okay.

I have said I will not substitute his bill for mine. Objection to the modification is heard. Is there an objection to the original request? Reserving the right, Mr. President.

Senator from Kentucky. Reserving the right to object. I think it’s actually not clear at all that the President wouldn’t sign a bill to continue paying federal workers.

I think it’s actually a universal sentiment among both parties, among the American people, particularly among the soldiers, that we ought to continue to pay the soldiers, continue to pay the workers. I’m perhaps the most conservative member of the Senate. I vote to cut spending on everything.

I think we spend way too much, but I’m not for cutting the salaries of people who have a contract and who are doing their work. Now, I probably would not hire new people, and I would probably let the federal government shrink gradually through attrition because I think we need to be smaller. But if you work for government, you’re doing your job, and you have a contract, I think you ought to be paid.

So I don’t think it’s not clear that the President wouldn’t support this. I think it’s actually quite confusing that this is being objected by the Democrats. And I think actually it would be nice to let the Democrats, you know, have a round at this and explain to us why they don’t want to pay their traffic controllers.

Look, we can have a dispute over spending. I think the Republican proposal spends too much. I think the Democrat proposal spends too much.

But I think we ought to pay the workers while we’re working out the debate over what the spending level ought to be. I think it’s actually an untenable position of Democrats to come before this body and say, oh, we want to give subsidies to people who make $225,000 a year. That’s what they’re arguing for.

The Obamacare subsidies are not the basic subsidies. These are add-on subsidies that started two years ago. If you make $100,000 a year, the Democrats want to give you $13,000.

Meanwhile, people who make $20,000 and are on food stamps are not going to get food stamps, but somebody making $100,000 is going to get $13,000. That doesn’t sound like the Democrats are for the working class or for the poor. It sounds like the Democrats are for people making $200,000 a year to get a subsidy.

But I think in the midst of all this, with pressure, I think the Democrats could be made to understand and support paying the government workers. I mean, I just think it is something eminently reasonable. I think it is something very passable.

And I don’t see the President objecting to this. I think the President would sign this in a heartbeat. So I object.

Objection is heard. Mr. President, could I ask for clarification? I have offered him a bill, a bill to say that Congress does not get paid like everybody else is not being paid during their shutdown. There’s been a little bit back and forth.

As I understand it, Senator Paul has objected to that bill. Is that correct? The Senator from Kentucky objected to your unanimous consent request. To my bill to keep, to say Congress didn’t pay during the shutdown.

Is that correct? To the bill, you ask unanimous consent to pass. He objected to the unanimous consent. I want to bring up my second bill.

It’s called the Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act. Remember my first bill that Senator Paul objected to would have said members of Congress don’t get paid, just like our staffs don’t get paid, just like air traffic controllers don’t get paid, just like the military doesn’t get paid. We don’t get paid until the shutdown is lifted.

And we don’t get our money in arrears. In other words, we don’t recoup our money once the shutdown is lifted. Perhaps Senator Paul will find my second bill to be more palatable to him and his pocketbook.

The Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act would say while we’re in a shutdown and everyone else is not being paid, Congress would not be paid. But members of Congress, including Senator Paul, including me, including all members of Congress, would have the right to get the money back to be paid after they’re out of the shutdown. In other words, the money would be escrowed and they would get it once we came out of the shutdown.

Again, there is precedent for that. I talked about what Senator Obama did back in 2013. And for that reason, Mr. President, I’m going to ask unanimous consent on that one.

Um, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of s 3057. Is that the right bill number? Okay, that’s not the right bill number, Madam Clerk. You don’t know? Okay, yes, s 3057 in the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. Their objection, Mr. President chair recognizes Senator from Kentucky, reserving the right to object. I think the answer is to pay more people, not less people to try to get through shutdowns without having people go without pay or doing their job.

Now the proposal was made, and I just simply made a proposal that would pay everybody. And so the senator from Louisiana has objected to paying everyone. So I don’t quite understand this.

We could pay everyone, we could have paid everyone had he agreed to my motion. My motion was to pay everyone, pay the soldiers, pay the air traffic controllers, pay the staff, pay everybody that’s working. And yet there was an objection.

So I don’t understand what’s going on here. Should the emphasis be to pay less people or more people? Why would we try to punish certain groups of people instead of paying all the people who are working? Why would we not do that? So I don’t understand the process we’ve gone through here. We just had a chance to pay all the people.

We had a chance to pay the air traffic controllers, we had a chance to pay the soldiers, we had a chance to pay all the government workers, and then there was an objection. So I don’t understand what we’ve gone through here. But I for one believe that the workers should be paid.

I for one believe that we should fix this permanently. The bill that I have presented is not just to pay them one time, it’s to pay all workers all the time who are under contract, who show up for work, whether there’s a shutdown or not. It’s a permanent payday for those who do their job.

That was the fix. It’s not a niche bill. It’s not to punish one group or the other group.

It’s to say if you’re working and there’s a disagreement on the spending levels that all workers are paid. I don’t understand the objection and I will continue to support paying all the workers all the time they’re at work, whether there’s a shutdown or not. I object.

Objection is heard. Mr. President. Point of clarification.

Senator Paul has objected to my bill or he wants me to modify it? He objected to your bill. Okay. I’m not done yet.

Let me see. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I apologize, Rand, if I wasn’t clear.

I support Rand’s bill. It’s actually Ron John’s bill. But I support his idea.

What I’m saying is if everybody over here isn’t being paid, members of Congress shouldn’t be paid. Okay. What Rand is saying, Senator Paul is saying is let’s pay everybody.

And he’s absolutely right. I support that. But I want to pass something.

I want to pass something, Senator Durbin. We live in the real world. And my bill is more likely to pass the House and more likely to be signed by the President than Senator Paul’s bill.

I wish that wasn’t the case. But it is. I don’t think that the House is going to pass Senator Paul’s bill.

And I don’t think it’s any secret. I’m not saying he’s right or wrong. But President Trump does not consider Senator Paul to be part of the MAGA agenda.

He said that. He’s tweeted it about a squillion times. Am I wrong, Senator Durbin? I mean, he’s tweeted it about a squillion times.

And he’s going to veto Senator Paul’s bill because his name is on it. He’s going to knock it to Uranus. He’s going to knock it into a new zip code.

And then what have Rand and I done? We put on a pretty performance. I want to pass something. Now, I tried to pass my bill, preventing members of Congress from being paid.

And you can pretty it up all you want to, but Rand objected. And I’m not judging. I’m not judging anybody who’s taking their salaries.

I’m not taking mine. But I’m not judging anybody. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

And you either think members of Congress ought to be treated like everybody else, or you don’t. You either think that we’re more important and smarter and more virtuous than American people, or you don’t. And I think we ought to be treated the same.

Now, having said that, I said I agreed with what Senator Paul said. I’m just worried his name on the bill is going to get knocked out of the park. So I’m gonna put it in my name.

Let’s do what, it’s not Senator Paul’s bill. It’s Senator Ron Johnson’s bill. And what Ron John’s, we call him Ron John, I’m sorry, Senator Ron Johnson from the wonderful state of Wisconsin.

What Senator Johnson has proposed, I voted for repeatedly, says, look, if you’re deemed an essential employee right now, you’re working, but you’re not being paid. Senator Johnson’s bill says, we’re gonna pay you. That’s, I voted for that.

It also says, if you’re furloughed, if you’re deemed to be deemed to be non-essential, then you’re not working, but you will get paid once we come out of this shutdown. Does that make sense? That’s what Senator Ron Johnson has proposed. And as I told my good friend, Senator Paul, I agree with him.

Senator Paul’s name is on that bill. It’s going to be vetoed six ways to Sunday. I’m going to try to put my name on the bill.

Maybe it’ll get passed, maybe it won’t, but I think I have a better chance than Senator Paul. That’s just my personal opinion. It’s not meant to be personal.

So for that reason, Mr. President, I tried a third way. It’s not my preferred way, but we got to get out of this mess. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 191S302, which as I’ve indicated, Mr. President, I think we’ve got a chance to pass the House with it.

And I really don’t think President Trump will veto it if I explain to him it’s Senator Ron Johnson’s bill. And I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. Is there an objection? Mr. President.

Chair recognizes the Senator from Washington. Thank you, Mr. President. Reserving the right to object, let me just say this.

We should make sure that every federal worker gets the paycheck that they are owed. And the right way to do that is for Republicans to finally join us and get serious about passing a bipartisan CR so we do reopen the government and prevent healthcare costs from exploding. Instead, the bill that the Senator from Louisiana is asking for unanimous consent for actually lets Donald Trump and Russ Vought decide who they want to pay during a shutdown.

And that will allow them to stiff everyone else. President Trump has said he will only pay the people he wants to. He literally said, and I quote, we’re going to take care of our people.

There are some people who really don’t deserve to be taken care of and we’ll take care of them in a different way. Unquote. This bill would actually let Trump do exactly that.

Mr. President, we should make sure all of our workers get paid, not just the workers Trump likes. So the best way to do that is for, of course, Republicans to sit down with us as Democrats, work out a solution to reopen the government. If instead you do as the Senator from Louisiana suggests here, then at a minimum, it should cover all employees.

And that proposal is out on the table with Senator Van Hollen and Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. President. For that reason, I object.

Objection is heard. Chair recognizes Senator from Louisiana. Mr. President, look, I get it.

You know, this is why we’re in a shutdown. I just proposed a bill was my third choice. There’s better than nothing to say everybody gets paid.

And my good friend from Washington State objected. I don’t know what else to do. I voted 14 times to open up government.

I can’t change the election. President Trump was duly elected President of the United States. He was in a free election.

And the American people spoke. And some of my colleagues are upset about that. In fact, they hate the President so much, they’ve shut down government.

They hate him so much that if President Trump came out in favor of breathing to live, they would hold their breath. It’s not rational. And I just don’t know what else to do.

Um, all I can tell my, my democratic friends is look, reasonable people disagree and I get it. But you’re just being too emotional. You need to go drink a big old cold tall glass of get over it.

And realize that President Trump is the President of the United States. Don’t shut government down because of it. Mr. President, you’ve been really patient.

And and even though the parliamentarian tried to get you to dodge my questions, you answered them straight up. And I really appreciate