Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I came to the floor in support of a bill that we were going to vote on, a motion to proceed called the Shutdown Fairness Act. It is a pretty simple bill. The name pretty well describes exactly what it is. It is trying to be fair during these dysfunctional shutdowns. Any of the Federal workers who are forced to work because they are in our military, they are in Federal law enforcement, they are TSA, or they are air traffic controllers--they are keeping this Nation and Americans safe--if we are going to force them to work, at a minimum, let's make sure we pay them and pay them on time. I came down in as nonpartisan a manner as I possibly could and literally begged the other side to just join us, vote to proceed to the bill. They had some objections to it, things that I was willing to address. For example, my bill only addressed workers that were forced to work. They wanted to include furloughed workers. I said on the floor: I am happy to add that as an amendment. I think, working with my conference, I can get the conference to support it as well. It wasn't quite that easy, but in the end, we overcame objections within our conference to adding furloughed workers. So we have completely amended the bill now. We have added furloughed workers. In the meantime, surprising to me, we had Federal employee worker unions reach out to us, asking what they could do to help pass this bill. They are sick and tired of being used as pawns in this political dysfunction here. They are tired of it. One of the things that definitely appealed to them once I added the furloughed workers was that my bill makes it permanent. My bill says: We will never use you again as a pawn in the political gamesmanship that is being played out right now. I am happy to report that the Shutdown Fairness Act, as I now amended it by adding furloughed workers, is supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the Federal Managers Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. We tragically had a plane go down early in the week. I am not saying it is because of air traffic control, but we understand the danger. We have to understand the risks we are taking in not paying air traffic controllers so we can fully man our air towers and keep our airspace safe. The International Association of Fire Fighters supports my bill. The Association of Flight Attendants does. Again, one of the main reasons they support my bill is, in addition to the fact that we added furloughed workers, my bill makes this permanent. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 191, S. 3012. I further ask that the Johnson substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Michigan. Mr. PETERS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I just want to first start off and say that I deeply appreciate that Senator Johnson has updated his proposal to pay all Federal employees during the shutdown, to include furloughed workers as well as DC employees. I appreciate all his efforts. I have worked on a number of bills with the Senator from Wisconsin. We would like to continue to work on this bill as well as we go forward. But, unfortunately, I still have some concerns about the way that the bill has been drafted so far. Those are things that I think we can work out and want to work out. We have been going back and forth with our staff. I am concerned that Senator Johnson's bill still leaves too much discretion up to President Trump. There is too much wiggle room for the administration to basically pick and choose which Federal employees are paid and when. I am also deeply concerned that this would allow the administration to actually transfer this money to other purposes that are unintended by Congress, which, unfortunately, we have seen happen repeatedly in this administration. I believe there are ways that we can put in guardrails. There are ways we can get to that, but we are just not there yet. I certainly ask indulgence from my colleague from Wisconsin. We sent another proposal over to his staff. We can work on this quickly and try to figure out how we get there. In the meantime, I have also introduced a bill that would pay Federal employees just for this shutdown, without the additional powers sent to the administration. It is basically a clean bill--no additional language, no complications, no wondering, what does this actually mean? It is very straightforward. My Military and Federal Employee Protection Act would ensure that all Federal employees receive the pay they certainly deserve, allowing them to pay their bills on time this month. I have asked Senator Johnson to support my very simple proposal, which I think accomplishes most everything he wants to do, with the exception of things about giving the administration more power. I think we can agree on that. We can pay our troops and our Federal employees, period. That would be my goal. I will continue to work to this end and to work to end this government shutdown and address the healthcare crisis, but in the meantime, we must protect our hard-working Federal employees. My bill is very straightforward. We could agree to that right now, and it is done. Federal employees are going to get paid without all the other extraneous language in the Senator's bill. Therefore, I ask that the Senator modify his request so that, instead, the Appropriations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3043 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; 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. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin so modify his request? Mr. JOHNSON. Reserving the right to object, it is important that the American public understand what is going on here. Again, I came down here 2 weeks ago. I modified my bill quite dramatically. We entered talks immediately with the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Michigan. Within those talks--again, 2 weeks ago--they were accusing my bill of giving the President all this additional authority. In discussions staff to staff, they admitted there is no additional authority I am giving to the President in this bill whatsoever. This bill is completely silent on Presidential authority in terms of who he can furlough. As a matter of fact, everybody is included, every employee is now included. There is no discretion whatsoever in terms of who is furloughed, who gets brought back to work, who gets paid. They all get paid. The Senator from Michigan is well aware of this. Those discussions, I would say, petered out within a few days. I don't know if they are emboldened; just digging their heels in they are going to continue this shutdown; don't feel they are getting blamed for it; don't have much pressure on them. Here we are 2 weeks later, and they want to redline the bill. Well, in that 2 weeks, we have had our bill examined exhaustively by our leadership, by OMB, by the unions. Our bill is in a really good place right now. We tried to think of everything. No Federal employee would be excluded from this. The Senator from Michigan says my bill allows the President to pick and choose. That is total hogwash. Again, every Federal employee, including contractors, gets paid. There is no picking and choosing. That is completely false. Money transfers? What is he talking about? More power? There is no power. It is completely silent in terms of Presidential authority. These are false arguments. This is further evidence of the gamesmanship the Democrats are playing with people's lives. They are the party of Big Government. They have, in effect, taken a family member hostage. I see our leader on the floor here. He has been doing everything he possibly can to help Democrats release their own hostage, open up the government. Once you do that, we are more than happy to talk to you about how do we repair the damage done by ObamaCare and transition to a system that works. But they are playing politics. They are using Federal employees and, quite honestly, the American public right now, whose flights are being delayed, whose skies are less safe--they are using public employees and the American public as pawns in this grotesque display of partisanship. My bill is very simple. It is backed by the public sector unions, which generally don't support things I am putting forward. If the Senator insists on objecting to this, preventing these people, these workers, these people who keep us safe, from getting paid in this round, my guess is that we will take a vote on this to proceed to the bill. The problem with that is it will take much more time. If we can pass this by unanimous consent right now, we could send it over to the House. The Speaker has already indicated that if we pass the Shutdown Fairness Act, he will bring his people back. They are on 48-hour call. We could have this passed by Monday. Our skies would be safer again. Federal employees would be treated fairly. They would be paid. And they will never ever be used as pawns in this kind of grotesque partisan gamesmanship. So I will not modify my request. Mr. THUNE. Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield? Mr. JOHNSON. Absolutely. Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I am trying to understand what is going on here. Perhaps the Senator from Michigan can clarify. So every public sector employees' union is supporting the Senator from Wisconsin's bill, but you are objecting because you think it grants too much power to the President. Now, if that is--I don't know how every public sector employees' union would be in support of this bill. My understanding is that the modification proposed by the Senator from Michigan would essentially cover backpay but wouldn't do anything to address it going forward. In other words, we are going to keep Federal employees hostage. So they might get paid for backpay, but starting tomorrow, they are not going to get paid again, and that means that in the future, they will continue to be pawns, they will continue to be held hostage. This is a straightforward approach that addresses that issue and everybody in this Chamber who isn't getting paid. I can't believe people come down here and look these people in the eye when he is saying right here: We will pay them not only for today but for tomorrow and for the entire year, and we won't allow them to be held hostage and be pawns in a political game in the future. My understanding is that the Senator from Michigan, on behalf of, I suppose, other Democrats, is objecting to that. Please, please help me understand. This is a straightforward proposal which addresses the concern that millions of Americans have who are heading to food banks and can't pay their rent, and you are coming down here and saying you are going to object because you just want to pay them for yesterday, not for tomorrow or for the next day after that? It is about leverage, isn't it? Isn't that what you all have been saying--it is about leverage? This isn't leverage; this is the lives of the American people. The Senator from Wisconsin has put forward a straightforward proposal to pay people--Federal employees--today, tomorrow, and in the future. And what you are essentially saying: Well, I am fine with paying them for yesterday, but we are not going to pay them for tomorrow or the day after that or for the future, and we don't seem to care that there are men and women in uniform who are frequenting food banks, who are not making rent payments, or who are trying to borrow to get by, because it is leverage. So I would hope--we are going to vote on this. So the Senator from Michigan can object to the unanimous consent request the Senator from Wisconsin made, but everybody in this Chamber is going to be put on the record as to whether or not they want to pay Federal employees not yesterday but today and tomorrow and into the future. I am tired of political games. I really am. So feel free to object to something that--I don't know how anybody in their right mind could walk into this Chamber, look these people in the eye, and say: We are not going to pay you. So we are going to vote on it. You can object to it right now, but everybody in this Chamber is going to vote on whether or not they want to pay Federal employees--something that every single public employees' union has said they support. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. JOHNSON. In reclaiming my time briefly, let me emphasize the fact that if you pass this now--again, to the Senator from Michigan, I am literally begging him: Do not object. Do not object. It is still going to take a couple of days to actually pass this. If we have to go the route of a motion to proceed and getting on the bill, that is going to take quite some time. Our skies can't remain at this level right now. We can't continue with these airport delays. We can't continue to use public sector employees and the American public as pawns in this partisan gamesmanship. So, literally, I think the Senator knows me. He knows I am saying this in good faith: Please do not object. Let this bill pass so the House can come back, and the President can sign this into law, and these good people who are being forced to work or who have been furloughed can get the pay they deserve. Again, today, tomorrow, and in the future, they will be assured they will never ever be used like pawns in these partisan games. Again, I underscore that I will not modify my request. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification. Is there an objection to the original request? The Senator from Michigan. Mr. PETERS. Madam President, to the Senator from Wisconsin, I know he and I have worked on a lot of issues. That is not in question here. We do have questions with some of the language in this bill just to make sure that we have guardrails. I want to pay Federal employees. That is why I have the bill that is on the floor right now that I am trying to move. It will pay Federal employees. It will pay contractors as well. The Senator's is not doing that, I understand. But everybody who is being shorted right now should be paid, and that is what my legislation does. So we could do that. You know, I am happy if the Senator wants to take my legislation and put his name on it. I will support it, and we will pass it right now and send it there, and people are going to get paid. So if the Senator really wants to do that, we could do that today. Does the Senator want me just to put his name on this bill and then we will pass it? It would be fine to do that. Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield? Mr. PETERS. Excuse me. In reclaiming my time, we can make that happen, and if the Senator puts it on the floor later, we will go through the process. I would hope that he and I, during that process, can work on language to perhaps address some of the concerns that I have. It is not that we pay people. That is not my concern. I wouldn't be offering this legislation here today if I were concerned about that. I want to pay them. Labor unions support my bill too--no surprise. They are getting paid. And that is why I have introduced this. This is not a political game. I hope we get this shutdown open. I hope we are able to find common ground and say that we want to lower the cost so Americans have affordable healthcare, and we don't want to see their premiums go up and people lose insurance. I hope we can do that. It is not a game. I don't see this as leverage. Now, a President who refuses to release SNAP funds to feed people-- now, that is what is irresponsible and reprehensible leverage. Money is available to feed people right now, and this President is saying no. The court has ordered him to put that money into food, and he says: I am going to appeal it. That is absolutely despicable, that the President of the United States wants to starve children in order to get his way. We have to move beyond that. We have to find common ground. I hope we can find common ground in this bill. My bill is just plain, simple, clean, no games, no other language. We know we have to have guardrails when we have a lawless President. We had better put some guardrails in. He walks over Congress all the time. My colleagues on the Republican side just let him walk over Congress all the time. I don't know why you ran for office if you just want to be run over by a President. We are a coequal branch of government. We are here to represent the people of our States. So let's work together and be thoughtful about this and understand that if Congress puts this law forward, it actually goes the way we want, and we don't have a President who basically thumbs his nose at Members of the Senate and the House and does what he wants, and he knows the Republicans will say: Oh, well. That is fine. We are just here to rubberstamp. That is what we are here for. So let's hope we can work together to get this right and pay employees. They should be. They have a right to that. I think we can do this, and we can get together and get beyond the rhetoric and games from the leader, that I heard. It is also on this side as well. So let's work together. Let's open up this government. Let's end this shutdown. Let's make sure people have affordable healthcare in this country. Let's make sure our own employees get paid. Let's do all of that this weekend. I am on board for all of that. Hopefully, we can get that done. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the original request? Objection is heard. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. JOHNSON. Again, let me correct--I hate to say--falsehoods that were presented here in the Chamber. My bill is completely silent in terms of Presidential authority. To the Senator from Michigan, I know they want to put language in there to restrict Presidential authority, but the fact of the matter is--and I made him well aware of this--that it is a bill that would never be signed into law. So if the Senator is serious about actually paying the workers, he will recognize that fact and admit that my bill is completely silent. It does not add and it does not detract from Presidential authority. There is nothing in the bill that does that. Secondly, we have tried to come to accommodations with a number of Senators on the other side for a couple of weeks, but they have pretty much fallen on deaf ears. Again, I know it is unfortunate that he objected right now. If we proceed and vote and actually get on the bill--and I hope, at least, we do that--that will take quite some time. So it seems he has already objected. What I am happy to do--not happy; I am very disappointed I am going to have to do this--is to look at their language. If it is acceptable-- again, if he is doing anything with Presidential authority in the way of adding or detracting, it won't be signed into law; it will be a fruitless exercise. But if we accept their language--we will look at it, and then maybe--maybe--we can come back down here and do another unanimous consent request and pass this today. That is what I hope we can do. So we will look at the language. It is very unfortunate we didn't pass it right now, but maybe later this afternoon, we can do so. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon. Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I appreciate that my colleagues from Wisconsin and Michigan are striving to find a path to make sure that folks are paid. Folks who are working should be paid, and folks who are furloughed should be paid. But here is the problem with the proposal from my colleague from Wisconsin, and that is, we have a President right now who is violating the Constitution. Every time you hear the President of the United States say ``Hey, I am ending that program because it is not in alignment with my priorities'' or a Cabinet member say ``We are going to kill those grants because they are not in alignment with the President's priorities,'' what you are hearing is an authoritarian statement in violation of the Constitution. So, in recognition, we have an out-of-control tyrant in the Oval Office who is violating the Constitution. We have a responsibility right here to defend the Constitution, and that is exactly why my colleague from Michigan put those protections into the bill. If you have a President who chooses what programs are funded and not, that is an authoritarian country, and that is what we have right now. The whole vision of our Nation was founded on these Senators and these House Members coming from different districts and different States, with different life experiences and different geographic interests, and bringing them to forge a consensus or forge a vision of how to address the challenges in every part of our Nation, not to have one person down Pennsylvania Avenue who knows a little bit about New York and a little bit about Florida and who has a certain one point of view be a tyrant. Martial law would be empowered by the proposal from Wisconsin, and that is why my colleague from Michigan was absolutely right to ensure we here in the Senate defend the Constitution. Recognition of the Minority Leader