[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 23 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S664-S668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                               The Budget

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont, and I 
will be very brief.
  I know today the President has put forth the administration's 
proposal on the budget, and a lot of people on both sides of the aisle 
have spent a tremendous amount of time over the course of this last 
year----
  Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator yield for a moment? I assume the Senator 
is speaking on the time reserved for the Republican side.
  Mr. CORKER. That is correct, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator 
from Vermont for being so fastidious.
  Back to what I was talking about. I know a lot of people on both 
sides of the aisle have spent a great deal of time looking at ways for 
us to lessen, if not close, the tremendous amount of

[[Page S667]]

the deficit we have in this country. I think everybody understands what 
a threat this is to our economic security--candidly, to, I believe, our 
national security--and I think many of us have paid close attention to 
what has happened to other countries in this type of situation. There 
is a strong sense on both sides of the aisle, and becoming even 
stronger, that this is an issue we as a country have to deal with.
  What is unique about the issue of this fiscal deficit our country has 
is that it is something totally within our hands. In other words, we 
can deal with this. This is not like some of the situations we deal 
with in Afghanistan or other places, where it takes others, if you 
will, working with us to ensure our efforts there are successful. This 
is something we as a Congress can solve. Again, the economy requires 
private sector investment and people doing work outside of this body to 
create the kind of prosperity we would like to see. But this is totally 
within our control.
  So, Mr. President, I really do try to look at the bright side of 
things. On the other hand, I was disappointed to see the President's 
budget today and the lack of urgency that was displayed there and the 
lack of concern. I think what that means for those of us in this body 
and in the House who are going to have to--as we should--deal with this 
issue, it is much more difficult when dealing with a national crisis 
not to have the administration pulling along with you. It is my hope, 
even though I think the President did miss an opportunity to lead on 
this issue, that over the course of the next several months he will 
come to the table and deal with this issue in a responsible way with 
both the House and Senate.
  I know the House is wrestling with these issues right now. My guess 
is that by the time they get ready for recess this weekend, they will 
send over something that deals with some cuts in discretionary 
spending. I think we all know we have to deal with the entire budget if 
we are actually going to make the type of headway all of us know needs 
to be made. But I do hope what we will do this spring, early on, is go 
ahead and vote to pass on some very large reductions in spending. I 
hope we will pass something like the Cap Act that Claire McCaskill and 
I have cosponsored, which takes us from where we are in spending 
relative to our country's economic output down to the 40-year average.
  I would think most people in this body would consider that to be a 
reasonable approach over a 10-year period that would be a straitjacket 
on Congress to ensure that we actually make those cuts. So those are 
two steps that need to occur, and it is my hope the administration, 
after putting forth what has been put forth, will join us in this 
effort.
  Mr. President, I think all of us know that in order to deal with the 
big issues of this country, it is going to take the executive branch, 
the House, and the Senate. We have divided government, but this is a 
perfect opportunity for us, as a country, to deal with this huge issue 
that threatens certainly the future of the young people sitting before 
me, but threatens our country's economic security and our national 
security.
  So, Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I hope all of us will 
deal with this budget in a serious, sober, and responsible manner. I 
think we have several months over which we have a tremendous 
opportunity to come together and do the right thing as it relates to 
our country's economic and fiscal situation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently debating two 
nominations.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is it appropriate that I speak on one of those 
nominations but also make some comments about the budget?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very happy today to know that we are 
about to cast a vote on Edward Davila, nominee for the U.S. District 
Court for the Northern District of California. This is a wonderful 
nominee, and he deserves this up-or-down vote. I am convinced he is 
going to get an overwhelming vote, and I am going to speak to that in a 
moment. But the Senator from Tennessee was critical of President 
Obama's budget, and I wanted to just make a response to that.
  The Senator from Tennessee is not the only Republican to criticize 
President Obama's budget. They are all reading out of the same 
playbook. I just have to say that while no one agrees with everything 
in that budget--I certainly don't--the basis of the budget is critical, 
and this is the basis of the budget: The President is addressing the 
deficit in a very responsible way--freezing domestic discretionary 
spending--very tough, very tough--cutting billions and billions and 
billions of dollars of red ink while not jeopardizing the economic 
recovery that we are in the midst of.
  To me, it is very interesting because I had the privilege of being in 
this body the last time we balanced the budget. As far as I know, I 
don't recall any Republicans voting for Bill Clinton's budget. Maybe 
there were one or two, I don't recall. But that budget was in balance 
and we went into surplus. Frankly, we learned how to do it then.
  What did we learn? We learned that when we are facing a crisis like 
this--a budget deficit that is growing too fast and an economic 
recovery that we don't want to disrupt--we have to be responsible. We 
don't take a meat ax to this economy and cut things just for the sake 
of telling the American people we met a certain number. Every billion 
dollars of cuts means real people with real jobs.
  Then the Republicans are criticizing our President for investing in 
the infrastructure of this country. Mr. President, you and I know we 
can't have a great nation if we can't move goods, if we can't move 
people, if people are stuck in traffic, if we have sewer systems that 
are overflowing, water systems that are antiquated, and we have 
millions of people who can't get access to broadband and the Internet. 
We all know the value of that.
  So I would say to my Republican friends: Please don't be against 
something simply because our President is for it. He is reaching out 
his hand. Don't give him the back of your hand. I am very optimistic we 
can work together. I am certainly pleased the President has reached out 
his hand, and Republicans and Democrats have reached out their hands, 
too, in this Congress.
  I am pleased to say on the highway bill I am working very closely 
with Mr. Mica, who is the chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in the House. I am working with Jim Inhofe, my 
friend and ranking member of the committee in the Senate. So let's, in 
our rhetoric, not each go to our corners. Let's welcome this 
President's budget. Let's take a look at it, let's ask economists what 
the impact is of cutting so much that we derail our economic recovery.

  We can do this. We did it under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget 
and created 23 million jobs. Under George W. Bush, that was gone in 5 
minutes--tax cuts to the people who didn't need it--and with it a 
horrible economic recession, which this President--President Obama--
stepped to the plate and dealt with, without much help from the other 
side. A couple helped us, yes. And I am preparing a little presentation 
on what we did and what was the impact. We had capitalism on the brink 
of failure, and this President had the courage to deal with it.
  There were calls from the Republican side of the aisle to nationalize 
the banks. I remember that. President Obama said: No way. We are not 
going to do that.
  Now, has it been rough? Has it been tough? Horribly so. My State is 
suffering from this mortgage crisis. We have to do more. We all know 
that. But economists are saying we are moving forward. We have turned 
the corner. Therefore, I don't understand this chorus of negativity 
coming from the Republicans toward our President when he was able to 
take the worst recession since the Great Depression and bring us back 
to a stable situation.
  Let's work together. Let's not heat up this rhetoric. We can do this. 
We did it before. We know how to wrap our arms around this deficit, and 
we know how to grow jobs. So let's take a page out of that book. It 
means we take bold steps, but we don't go so far so fast

[[Page S668]]

that we derail economic recovery. We can do this.
  The attack by the other side on the Environmental Protection Agency 
is unbelievable. I saw a cartoon in the Gannett papers in my hometown. 
It had a drawing of an elephant, representing the Republican Party. In 
the elephant's trunk was a can that was obviously poison. It had skull 
and bones on it, spraying the flowers, the trees, and the air. Under 
the Republican logo it said: Environmental Destruction Agency. The 
Republican Party calls it the Environmental Destruction Agency, and 
they have cut one-third--that is their proposal--of the EPA's budget.
  Now when I go out to talk to people, not one of them ever says to me: 
The air is too clean, Senator. Make it dirtier. My kid only missed 2 
days from this school year, and I want dirty air. Nobody has ever said 
to me: I want unhealthful water. Nobody has ever told me they want to 
live close to a Superfund site. So I say to my friends: Watch what you 
are doing. You are taking a meat ax to the Environmental Protection 
Agency that protects the health and the safety and the well-being of 
our children and our families. If you can't breathe, you can't work. 
You know that? You lose time from work. So let's be careful. Let's not 
be radical. Let's not be extreme. That is not what the people send us 
here to do.
  They certainly didn't send us here to take away a woman's right to 
choose. They sent us here to work on this economic recovery. Yet we 
have proposals over there on the other side that are unbelievable and 
that would raise taxes on people who have health care policies that 
include reproductive health care for women. Can you imagine? They want 
to raise taxes on small businesses that have health policies that cover 
reproductive health care for women. I don't think that is what this 
election was about. I thought it was about getting jobs in this 
economy.
  So between that and the overreaching on the budget, we have a lot of 
work to do. I say it with due respect, I really do. But the American 
people need to weigh in. They are going to need to say how much is too 
much and what their values are.
  Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. A 
Republican President signed these acts. Yet now the Republicans are 
trying to destroy these important bipartisan accomplishments. You know 
why? They say it kills jobs. Guess what. We heard the same thing from 
the people who tried to stop the Clean Air Act--the polluters. They 
said, it is going to cost jobs. But we had the greatest economic growth 
after that period. And guess what. Jobs are created when we clean up 
the air. Jobs are created when we have technologies we can export and 
when we find ways to make drinking water safe.
  Frankly, I am energized by this debate because I believe there are 
differences in the parties. I think that is OK, it is fine. I will be 
involved in the debate. I am sure colleagues on the other side who 
disagree will put forward their views. They are trying to take away the 
power of the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce standards on 
carbon pollution--dangerous carbon pollution--that the Bush 
administration told us through their work puts our people in danger, 
puts our families in danger, puts our country in danger, puts our 
economy in danger. They are actually trying to stop the EPA from 
enforcing the Clean Air Act. I do not know one constituent who ever 
told me they thought the air was too clean or the water was too safe to 
drink.