[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 32 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1247-S1250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FULL-YEAR CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011--MOTION TO PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 14, H.R.
1.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to H.R. 1, an act making appropriations
for the Department of Defense and the other departments and
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and
for other purposes.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I have a cloture motion that is at the desk. I ask the
clerk report the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 14, H.R. 1, an act
[[Page S1248]]
making appropriations for the Department of Defense and other
departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2011.
Harry Reid, Daniel K. Inouye, Bill Nelson, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Kent Conrad, Mark Begich, Tom Udall, Kay R.
Hagan, Robert Menendez, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jeanne
Shaheen, Amy Klobuchar, Benjamin L. Cardin, Barbara
Boxer, Al Franken, Dianne Feinstein, Jeff Bingaman.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum under rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I now withdraw my motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, when an American family sits at their table
in the kitchen and sorts through their finances, as they often do,
partisan politics do not figure into that equation. When the families
we represent calculate their own budgets, when they add up the cost of
gas and groceries, tuition in some instances, and other necessities,
they care more about the bottom lines than news headlines. When a
family desperately counts the dwindling number of weeks before its
unemployment insurance runs out, that family does not have the time to
keep track of which side scored the most political points during any
given week. That is because when you have to make the tough decisions
that go into any budget, those decisions have to be practical, not
political. They have to be realistic, not ideological.
We often tell ourselves and our colleagues that we should be as
responsible as the American people. As their representatives, we
absolutely must be sympathetic to the challenges outside this Chamber,
and we need to come quickly to a resolution that benefits them before
worrying about whether it benefits us. As careful as we must be not to
waste the American people's money, we must be just as mindful not to
waste their time.
Regrettably, though, the budget debate has turned into a political
exercise, and I am sorry to say not much more. That is
counterproductive. We need to be as serious as the challenge before us.
I am much more concerned with actually keeping our country running and
investing smartly in our future than I am in this political game we
see.
When they wake up in the morning, the American people want to send
their children to a good school and then go to a good job. And now they
are saying ``a job.'' They want their families to come home to a safe
neighborhood at night, and they want to go to sleep knowing our country
is safe from those who want to do us harm. They do not care about who
gets credit. They do not care about who thought of how best to do it.
They just want us to do it.
The time for politics should be over. We have set up a procedure--it
was agreed to in the Vice President's office--to get this H.R. 1 out of
the way. Everyone knows it is not going to pass. It is a very
difficult, bad piece of legislation. Get rid of that. We will do what
we think is responsible and cut spending by $51 billion and not have
all the mean-spirited riders that are attached to H.R. 1 that on their
own could not pass over here. It was a mad rush to see who could do the
most sensational amendment. Bring it over here in the light of day,
refer it to a committee, have a hearing on it. Once that is done, none
would come to the floor, with rare exception. But they were not willing
to do that.
The time for pragmatism is overdue also. This is what the Senate is
going to do. We are going to vote early next week on the Democrats'
plan, and we are going to vote on the Republicans' plan. It seems fair.
Let the American people decide which is the better of the two. Everyone
will have the chance to be on record supporting whichever plan.
Let me talk briefly about the merits of each of these plans and what
they will do.
First of all, H.R. 1, which will go down as probably one of the worst
pieces of legislation ever drafted in the history of this Congress.
First, this reckless Republican plan the tea party has pushed through
the House--that irresponsible proposal--slashes investments, cuts jobs,
and sacrifices security and education. Yes, it cuts a lot of money
today, but America would lose so much tomorrow because these cuts are
made arbitrarily without regard for the consequences. That is why
leading independent economists agree it would hurt our economy, slow
growth, and cost jobs. We cannot afford that. The day before yesterday
on National Public Radio, they had more than 300 economists who were
saying with one voice: Do not do this. We can't be blinded by the big
numbers in the House Republican plan. We have to scrutinize how they
cut $63 billion. The truth is, it adds up to $61 billion through
significant subtraction of programs the American people don't want to
lose. It slashes more than $1 billion from Social Security--$1
billion--which means \1/2\ million seniors who paid into Social
Security their entire lives and now are eligible for it would not be
able to get the benefits promised to them because there is nobody to
process the claims.
It cuts $700 million from education, which means 1 million
disadvantaged students could lose funding and more than 10,000
teachers, aides, and school staff would lose their jobs. It would even
take 200,000 children out of the Head Start Program.
What is the Head Start Program? These are not just words, they are
programs to educate the poorest of the poor children. It has worked out
well. Try to find someone who criticizes the Head Start Program. These
little boys and girls have no alternative, and it has worked out well
because the parents are involved. They are going to eliminate 200,000
children from this wonderful program of Head Start.
The Republican H.R. 1 closes poison control centers and cuts $100
million from food safety inspections. That means the food we eat could
be both less safe and more expensive. That is a lose-lose proposition.
It also cuts $\3/4\ billion--$750 million--from renewable energy
investments.
The reason that is so important is these investments are incentives
for people to do these kinds of jobs. You can drive 36 miles from my
home in Searchlight, NV, and get to the 31-mile mark, where you look
off to the left and there are 1 million solar panels being installed--1
million solar panels--producing huge amounts of electricity in the
summer and winter in what we call the great dry lake. That was done
because of these programs so that we don't have to be beholden to the
Middle East tyrants who are shipping us oil.
So it cuts $\3/4\ billion from renewable energy investments, which
will cost us jobs, threaten our energy independence, and delay the day
America lives and works in a clean energy economy.
It also cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from border security and
port security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. When an
emergency comes, we need to be able to respond to that. Even Republican
Congressmen have said, and are now admitting, it is not so smart to
pinch pennies on the backs of the Nation's emergency management and
first responders.
In my conference room right across the hall, one of the Shriver boys
came in to see me. The Shriver family has done so much for our country.
The eldest Shriver, who just died, was head of the Peace Corps.
Probably their No. 1 mark has been how they have worked with children,
young men and women with physical and emotional challenges. They
brought a number of those young men and women--some are not so young
anymore--in to see me. Some of the great programs being cut in H.R. 1
help Special Olympics. The Best Buddy Program is another one. And
Shriver told me he had talked to a Member of the House of
Representatives, an elected Member of the House of Representatives who
voted for H.R. 1, and he asked: How could you do that? How could you do
that, when you have a child with Downs Syndrome? Her response was: Oh,
I didn't know it was in the bill. I didn't know it was in the bill.
I have been talking, Mr. President, about H.R. 1. I ask, how many
pages are in H.R. 1?
Mr. President, can you tell me how many pages are in H.R. 1?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three hundred and eighty-two pages.
Mr. REID. Three hundred and eighty-two pages. Well, Mr. President, I
have only talked about enough to take up
[[Page S1249]]
two or three pages, but it is full of the same kind of stuff I have
talked about today--stuff that is not fair and is mean-spirited.
We all want to cut. I represent the State of Nevada. We are in a deep
economic problem. We know, though, we have to cut things. The Presiding
Officer is from the State of Connecticut. We are both members of the
Democratic Party. We have supported these programs because it was the
right thing to do. We recognize there is going to have to be cuts made,
but we have to do it with a scalpel, not a meat cleaver. Then to hear
that a Member of the House said: Well, I didn't know it was in the
bill--eliminating and cutting drastically a program for people with
emotional, mental, and physical challenges--I didn't know it was in the
bill. Well, there is a lot of that same type of stuff in this bill,
H.R. 1. That is why it is going to be defeated here.
I would say to my friends, the Republicans, I can't imagine you will
all vote for this bill. We have to move beyond partisan politics and do
what is right. I don't know how many, but not all Republicans will vote
for that.
I have been castigated in the press: Why doesn't Reid allow a vote?
Let's have a vote. Well, I am willing to move on that, but I couldn't
do it. I had to file cloture to move to proceed to it. They wouldn't
even let me do that. But we are going to get to it because I know the
procedures around here. I can get to this bill, and I can do it next
week.
I have just talked about the tip of the iceberg with this mean-
spirited H.R. 1. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke said these cuts--and
there are many more like them than I have already said there are--will
cost a significant number of jobs. Mark Zandi, the chief economist at
Moody's and formerly the chief economic adviser for John McCain, has
said that H.R. 1 will cost our country 700,000 jobs.
These cuts place far too heavy a burden on working families, low-
income children and seniors, and it asks little, if any, sacrifice from
those who rake in unnecessary taxpayer-funded subsidies they do not
need. That is no way to recover.
Look at oil and gas subsidies. The former head of Chevron Oil said:
We don't need them; we are doing fine.
Mr. President, I have been very helpful to my farm State Senators. I
have helped them work their way through droughts and floods and all
kinds of things. I understand how important agriculture is. But very
few times in the history of our country have commodity prices been so
high--so high. Don't you think they could take a little nick--a little
nick--rather than take it away from Head Start Programs and programs
such as that?
Our plan was filed today by Senator Inouye, who is a very sensitive,
good man. I don't need to recount who he is, but he is one of the most
famous men in the history of our country. He has been in Congress a
long time, but we always remember this man was a hero on the
battlefields of Italy where he lost his arm and was badly injured. As a
result of his heroic actions there, he received a Congressional Medal
of Honor. But he is also a hero in these legislative Halls. He was one
of the leaders in the Watergate hearings, and there are many other
things he has done over the years to become a hero in addition to being
a hero on the battlefield. The amendment we have filed is his
amendment.
So Democrats have a different plan--the Inouye plan--which represents
our different priorities, and it is supported by the President. We know
we have to make cuts. I have said that this morning several times. We
also know when we cut, we have to cut in a way that strengthens our
economy not in a way that weakens it. We have to look carefully at the
quality of these cuts and not get blinded by the quantity of the cuts.
I have said before that a person could lose a lot of weight--you, I,
anybody in this room. We could cut off our arms and legs, and we would
have accomplished the purpose of losing a lot of weight. But no doctor
would recommend it. That is what they have done with H.R. 1. No well-
reasoning economist would recommend it.
Our plan cuts $51 billion from President Obama's budget but in a much
more responsible way. We are eliminating redundancies, ending
unnecessary bureaucratic programs, and cutting funds for earmarks. We
have agreed to cut funding for earmarks. I don't like that. I have told
the President I don't like it. I believe we are giving up too much
power to the President in getting rid of those earmarks. We have
obligations to do congressionally directed funding. But I have agreed,
as all of us over here have, to accept that.
Remember, Mr. President, when we have a budget of $10 and we have 2/
10 of 1 percent that goes to congressionally directed funding, it is
still the same amount of money. It is just that the President didn't
determine where that money is spent; Congress had a say in it. But we
have agreed. We have agreed. We have earmarks in here, billions of
dollars of them, that are going to go toward cutting the deficit. I
have agreed to accept that.
So ending unnecessary bureaucratic programs and cutting funding, as I
have indicated, for other things. I commend my friend, Dr. Coburn, the
Senator from Oklahoma. He got a GAO report that shows all kinds of
redundancies and overlapping. Those are places we can cut money. Let's
do it.
Our plan recognizes we are not in competition to determine who can
cut the most without regard for the consequences. Rather, we need to
cooperate to figure out where we can cut the smartest. While the House-
passed plan is based on ideology, we believe ours is based on reality.
Not ideology, but reality. These are decisions about real money to
solve real problems that affect real lives. Our budget affirms our
determination that we have to also reflect our values.
We see our modestly recovering economy, including today's news about
employers hiring at the fastest rate in a year, and the national
unemployment rate fell to a nearly 2-year low. We can't squander this
cautiously optimistic news with counterproductive cuts--eliminating
700,000 jobs.
I hope when we have these votes next week on H.R. 1 people will run
from that. For the people who vote for that, it will take all their
legislative lives and afterwards trying to live down having voted for
that bill. But this is what each Senator will vote for or against next
week. These votes, like all our votes, are about choices, and what I
have just outlined is what these choices represent.
Not to spoil the surprise, but we all know how this vote will turn
out. We know neither will reach the President's desk as written.
Republicans likely will not vote for ours. I hope they do. If it were a
simple majority vote, we would win that. But Republicans have
established a different standard--60 votes. We accept that. So we will
end up back at square 1, without consensus, without a budget for the
rest of this fiscal year, and without assurance that we can keep the
country running.
So once these votes are behind us and everyone's voice is heard, I
hope each Senator and Member of Congress will find renewed motivation
to do what we have needed to do since the beginning: come together,
negotiate in good faith, working on consensus and compromise.
Legislation is the art of compromise. Legislation is not who can flex
their muscles the biggest, the longest, and the hardest. Legislation is
the art of compromise, working out things for the American people.
We have to acknowledge that the answer that will allow us to move
forward lies somewhere between our two positions perhaps. We have to
recognize that digging in one's heels threatens our fiscal footing. If
one side stubbornly demands victory, everyone loses. That goes for both
parties and both Chambers. This negotiation will not happen in the
media, and a solution cannot be found in extreme rhetoric or
unrealistic idealism. It will happen when we sit down and have an adult
conversation about what our country and our constituents need. That is
the only worthy exercise.
How we invest taxpayer money, how we create a foundation for our
future, how we articulate our priorities to our citizens and States
across the country and allies around the world is not political. It is
among the most practical things we do.
There is no dispute among the 53 Democrats. We are willing to cut. We
have cut $51 billion from our President's budget. As we talked about,
we
[[Page S1250]]
are willing to do more. But we are not willing to do this with a meat
axe. We want to do it the right way. We want to take a scalpel and be
very careful how we affect people's lives. And when it is over with, we
don't want people saying I didn't know it was in the bill, even though
it affects that person as personally as anything could.
When we talk about where to invest and what to cut, everyone is
concerned about the budget's bottom line. When we talk about how we can
get there, here is the bottom line of the negotiation process: Yes, we
have to make tough choices, but that is what leadership is all about.
It is true that no one here will get everything he or she wants. My
friend, the Presiding Officer, was a long-time attorney general of one
of our--I was going to say most famous States--but one of the original
States, who is noted for his fairness. If an attorney general or a
lawyer is noted for fairness, that person is known to be willing to
compromise. That is what it is all about. It is the same in the law as
it is here in the Senate.
When we talk about how we can get there, the bottom line is
negotiation. We have to make tough choices. But I repeat, that is what
leadership is all about.
Today marks 150 years since Abraham Lincoln took his first oath of
office as the President of our country--whose very existence at the
time was in question. Like the incomplete Nation he had just sworn to
lead, this great Capitol building was unfinished. As he addressed the
Nation for the first time as President, President Lincoln stood on the
east front of the Capitol building under cranes and scaffolding that
represented growth and uncertainty at the same time. Now, 150 years,
later the threats we face are nowhere near as dire as the Civil War
Lincoln's America was about to endure but his words that afternoon are
useful to us to hear this afternoon, for we are again at a moment of
peril in our country. Again, we will sink or swim together.
As Lincoln closed that Inaugural Address 150 years ago today, he
reminded a divided nation that, ``we are not enemies but friends. . . .
Though passion may have strained it, it must not break our bonds of
affection.''
Lincoln then famously called on us to recall the ``better angels of
our nature.'' Those are his words. If we listen to his critical lesson
in leadership at this critical moment in history, we will secure in our
time a stronger future for this great Nation we call America.
____________________