[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1416-S1418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     RESPONSIBLE DEFICIT REDUCTION

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to follow up on what was said by 
the majority leader. This exercise we are engaged in here, this 
conversation about how to finish this fiscal year which ends on October 
1, is one that I think has gotten out of hand, and I will tell you why.
  I know the debt is a serious problem facing America. I know the 
deficit is something that threatens our economy and our way of living. 
I also know there are sensible, thoughtful ways to deal with it. One of 
them was addressed by the Bowles-Simpson deficit commission which I 
served on and voted for in terms of their final report. I disagreed 
with some things, but that is the nature of a compromise and the nature 
of moving our Nation forward. What we tried to do in that commission 
was to take a look at this challenge and not solve it in a month or 6 
months, but say, How can we solve this, do it in a sensible, 
responsible way, and still grow the economy?
  Right now, a few feet away from where we are meeting, are some of the 
best minds in America. They are sitting in a room, meeting with 
Senators. They represent the high-tech industries of America. I just 
heard Mr. John Chambers, who is the CEO of Cisco, talk about the 
challenge we face and compare our status in the world to China today, 
the No. 2 economy in the world. He compared our situation today to what 
it was a few years ago.
  We are in a position now where we have only one out of four startup 
companies that we had a few years ago, and it is an indication to me 
that if America is going to continue to lead in this world, we need to 
invest in that which makes us strong. I am not saying the deficit is 
not a problem. It is. But we will still have a Federal budget as we 
address the deficit and we should invest, through that Federal budget, 
in what is important, things that build our future.
  This morning Senator Reid of Nevada talked about the vulnerable in 
America. Well, I couldn't agree more. We don't hear the words ``safety 
net'' around here anymore, and it is unfortunate, because we know that 
even in this prosperous society there are many unfortunate people. 
There are children who, through no fault of their own, were born into 
dysfunctional and poor families, kids whom we try to rescue from their 
plight and engage them in Head Start, to bring them into a learning 
atmosphere, a classroom. I have been there, all over my State of 
Illinois. I was there two weeks ago in Chicago. I went into one of the 
poorest sections of that great city and saw a room full of 40 of some 
of the cutest kids in the world from struggling families who were lucky 
enough to be in the Head Start Program. It means that for the better 
part of the day, they are in a safe, positive, learning environment. Is 
that a good thing? Of course it is. Whether it is my son or daughter or 
your son or daughter, it comes down to the basics. If we don't give our 
children the right lift-off in their lives, many of them struggle and, 
unfortunately, many fail.
  So when the House Republicans say the way to deal with our deficit is 
to cut hundreds of thousands of these poor children out of the Head 
Start Program and to dismiss tens of thousands of teachers and staff, 
we have to step back and say, Are you sure? Has it reached that point? 
Are we at a point now where we have to deny these children access to 
the kind of learning experience that makes their school experience 
later on more successful? I don't think so.
  An honest look at our deficit would not just go after education and 
research and investment in our infrastructure. It would look across the 
board, as the Bowles-Simpson commission did. How can we rationalize at 
this moment in time cutting Head Start for hundreds of thousands of 
kids across America, denying money to the poorest school districts in 
America where they literally struggle day to day to try to turn around 
the lives of children who are in very dire circumstances?
  The House Republicans have suggested cutting Pell grants. Pell 
grants. Those are the grants given to college students from lower 
income families. I look back on my life and I guess I was one of those 
kids. My mother was a widow and I wanted to go to college, and it 
wasn't a family experience. I needed help. In those days, Pell grants 
didn't exist, but college loans did, and the Federal college loan came 
to my rescue.
  Well, here I stand today because of that. And for hundreds and 
thousands of students across America, the Pell grants are their ticket 
to college. That is how they can get into college, earn a diploma, and 
succeed in life. When the House Republicans say we have reached the 
point where we have to cut that assistance to college students across 
America, you say to yourself, Is it that bad that we have to reach that 
far?
  Let me suggest there are other efforts we ought to look at first. I 
happen to believe in this great, prosperous Nation that the most 
prosperous among us--the wealthiest, the people who have benefited the 
most from this great Nation--can be asked to sacrifice more. I think 
they should. Asking those at the highest income levels in America to 
pay more in taxes at this point in our history is not unreasonable and 
it is not going to kill the economy, and it is simple economic justice. 
If doing that means we can protect the most vulnerable and protect 
opportunity for education, I think that is fair.
  I also question some of what we are doing. Look at the price of 
gasoline at gas stations across America today and then watch the next 
quarterly earnings report of the oil companies and tell me why we 
continue to funnel billions of taxpayers' dollars into subsidies for 
the oil companies. They are doing quite well, thank you. They don't 
need a subsidy that adds to our deficit. The same thing is true in my 
home State of Illinois. Let me get personal about this. I happen to 
believe that agriculture is critical to our Nation. I believe we need 
to be there as a safety net for farmers who can't predict what the 
weather will be or what crop prices might be, but there are parts of 
our ag

[[Page S1417]]

program that, frankly, need to be seriously reviewed and the Federal 
contribution needs to be reduced. At a time when commodity prices are 
the highest and farms are the most prosperous and profitable, the fact 
that we are sending so much money out of the Treasury to some of the 
largest farms in America is indefensible.
  So I am bringing it home to the agricultural State of Illinois and to 
our Nation when it comes to oil and gas and saying that before we cut 
money for research, as the House Republicans suggest, at the National 
Institutes of Health, before we deny to doctors and scientists and the 
best minds in America the resources they need to find cures for 
diseases, to find the next wonder drug that will revolutionize life in 
America--before we do that, let's take an honest look at this entire 
budget. The House Republican budget goes too far.
  Let me also raise a point relative to my own appropriations 
subcommittee. We have funded three watchdog agencies to make sure we 
never, ever enter another recession like the one we are in now. After 
Wall Street brought the economy to its knees, sent millions of hard-
working Americans to the unemployment line, and took $700 billion from 
taxpayers--you will remember that $700 billion in bailout funds--the 
House Republicans are now fighting to prevent the cops from getting on 
the beat, those who are going to be there to make sure Wall Street can 
never wreak this damage again.
  The Securities and Exchange Commission was tasked by our Wall Street 
reform bill to write new rules to bring more transparency to the stock 
markets. The House Republican budget would cut $231 billion from the 
Securities and Exchange Commission's budget compared to what the bill 
authorized. That is an 18-percent cut at the very time when this agency 
should be beefing up its ranks to keep an eye on what is happening on 
Wall Street and writing new rules for enforcement.
  That may be good news for future Bernie Madoffs but not for investors 
and families across America who count on Wall Street and financial 
institutions across America to deal honestly.
  The Commodity Futures Trading Commission was tasked by the same Wall 
Street bill to bring some sunshine to what Warren Buffet called 
``financial weapons of mass destruction, the credit default swaps and 
other derivatives that are mostly traded on shadowy over-the-counter 
markets today.
  The House Republican budget would cut $174 million from the CFTC, 
compared to what the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended. That 
is a 69-percent cut, at the very moment when the CFTC needs better 
technology and many more investigators to handle its awesome 
responsibilities.
  Then there is a third cut in the House Republican budget. They cut 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is brand new, created by 
the Wall Street reform bill. The budget the House Republicans are 
pushing would cap the funding for the CFPB at half of what it should 
receive from the Federal Reserve under the Wall Street reform bill.
  Since the day I introduced the first bill to create this bureau--in a 
different form but a similar goal--with the help of Elizabeth Warren, a 
professor from Harvard Law School, the House Republicans have fought to 
defeat this idea.
  When President Obama signed the bill into law, the reformers--the 
people who want Americans to have access to financial services they 
understand to use to improve their lives--won.
  As the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with the 
responsibility for funding these agencies, I have done my best to make 
sure they have adequate funds to protect American investors and 
maintain the sterling reputation of our financial institutions on Wall 
Street.
  As an early champion of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I 
am going to continue that fight to make sure this agency has the power 
and resources it needs.
  I will close by saying there is such a stark contrast in the vote 
that we will have today. We are going to be asked on the Senate floor 
whether Members want to vote for H.R. 1, the House Republican budget. 
The majority leader reminded us it is not just a spending bill; it is a 
bill that is fraught with every bumper sticker issue you can remember 
over the last 10 years.
  The Republicans don't want to just cut spending, they want to inject 
themselves into the national debate on a myriad of issues. They want to 
take the spending bill and debate abortion, and they want to debate 
whether we will provide Federal funds for family planning, for Planned 
Parenthood across America. They want this spending bill to take funding 
away from National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting. They want this spending bill to take one-third of the 
resources from the EPA, which needs to make sure the air we breathe and 
the water we drink are fit for ourselves and our families.
  That is what they are doing. You think to yourself, if this is about 
an economic emergency and budget emergency, why did the House 
Republicans let it devolve into this situation where it has become a 
cat fight over political issues? We can do better. The American people 
expect us to do better. I am still meeting with five other Senators--
three Republicans and two other Democrats. We are trying to take the 
Bowles-Simpson Commission and build this into a thoughtful effort that 
will reduce our deficit in a meaningful way. It will take time. We are 
not going to finish in 6 or 7 months or lurching 2 weeks at a time this 
Federal Government. We need to address our responsibilities--the 
responsibilities to build this economy and, No. 2, to put America's 
fiscal house in order. We can do that, but we need to get beyond the 
current level of political fighting into a more constructive level. I 
hope this bipartisan group I am part of will be part of the solution 
ultimately. In the meantime, we will continue our efforts.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, our Nation's budget is a statement of 
our values, our priorities, and our vision for what kind of country we 
will be handing off to our children and grandchildren.
  Working together to pass a responsible and forward-looking budget 
that works for the American people is one of the most important jobs we 
have in the Senate. The outcome of this process we are talking about 
will affect millions of families across our country, and the decisions 
we make this week are going to go a long way toward determining if our 
economy is going to continue moving in the right direction.
  This morning I want to speak about two very different budgets being 
debated today, with two very different statements about what we should 
be focused on as a country, and two very different visions for how we 
need to be positioned to compete successfully and win the future.
  This should not be a partisan process. I am still hopeful we can work 
together on a budget plan that cuts spending responsibly and works for 
the American people. But I am extremely disappointed that Republicans, 
who came into office talking about the economy, have proposed an 
extreme budget that would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, 
devastate workers and small businesses across the country, and threaten 
that fragile economic recovery.
  I am disappointed that at a time when so many middle-class families 
still need support to get back on their feet after the Wall Street 
crisis Republicans have proposed a highly politicized slash-and-burn 
budget that will pull the rug out from families and children.

  I am disappointed that while the Senate Democratic proposal makes 
responsible and practical budget cuts that will allow us to continue 
out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building our competitors, 
Republicans are proposing a budget that would hack away at these 
estimates across the board and threaten our Nation's ability to compete 
now and into the future.
  We are going to hear a lot about big numbers today, and I will 
mention some myself. I think it is important we keep in mind that this 
debate is about

[[Page S1418]]

more than dollars and cents; it is about real people with real lives.
  I recently heard from the South Central Workforce Development Council 
in Washington State, and they told me about a man they worked with 
named Damon.
  Damon had been laid off from his job testing machine equipment. He 
held that job for almost 10 years. He and his wife had to move back in 
with his father, and he said that no matter how hard he tried he could 
not find work that matched his skills.
  Damon had to do something about it. He went to his local one-stop 
career center and sat down with counselors who talked him through what 
local employers were looking for, and he decided he was going to learn 
computer networking. He studied hard and graduated from a local 
computer technology program. Despite this tough economy, he was able to 
work with the one-stop center to find a new job in a new field.
  Damon was able to get back on his feet and support his family because 
of this program. He is not alone. Millions of Americans depend on 
workforce training programs to get the skills they need to get back to 
work and help our economy grow, including nearly 400,000 in my State of 
Washington.
  House Republicans have proposed eliminating these critical programs 
and cutting off services for the workers who depend on them. At a time 
when so many workers are fighting to get back on the job, this would be 
devastating.
  I recently met with a woman named Tiffany from Chehalis, WA. She told 
me her stepson, Rodney, had some difficult family circumstances and had 
fallen behind his peers and that she and her husband could not afford 
the private education they thought he needed to catch up. Then she 
heard about Head Start from a friend and enrolled Rodney in that 
program.
  Tiffany told me she saw the difference within a few months. Just a 
short time later, Rodney was ready for kindergarten, and he is now the 
top reader in his first grade class. Tiffany and her family got the 
support they needed and they, too, are far from being alone.
  Nearly 1 million families and their children depend on Head Start. 
The Republican proposal we will be voting on this afternoon eliminates 
services for 218,000 children, including more than 3,000 in my home 
State. It will close 16,000 classrooms across the country, and it will 
cause up to 55,000 teachers and staff to lose their jobs.
  Again, this extreme slash-and-burn approach is wrong. It would hurt 
the most vulnerable of our children and families in our country and 
leave us at a competitive disadvantage in the future.
  The Republican proposal also slashes community development block 
grants by 62 percent. That would eliminate services and decimate 
housing and economic development programs in communities across our 
country.
  It cuts the community health centers so many Americans depend on for 
their health care, eliminating funding outright for 127 clinics in 38 
States, reducing services at over 1,000 centers nationwide, cutting off 
health care for almost 3 million Americans that will cause 5,000 
workers across our country to lose their jobs.
  Not only will the Republican proposal devastate middle-class families 
across this country, it would also halt the beginning of an economic 
recovery that our families and our small business owners desperately 
need to take root.
  Last month, our economy added over 200,000 private sector jobs, and 
the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level in 2 years.
  We have a long way to go, but I am confident that we have turned the 
corner and are beginning to move in the right direction. Economists on 
both the left and the right have come out and said if the Republican 
proposal from the House were to pass, the economic recovery and 
millions of jobs across the country would be threatened.
  In fact, one independent analysis said the Republican plan could 
destroy up to 700,000 American jobs in this country, including an 
estimated 15,000 in my State of Washington. That would be devastating, 
and we cannot afford to let that happen.
  That is why the Senate Democratic proposal would take our country in 
a very different direction. It would cut spending--billions of dollars, 
in fact--but it would do so in a responsible and practical way that 
would protect our middle-class families, those who need it most.
  Our proposal continues to make the investments we need as a country 
to compete and win in the 21st-century economy. Take the highly 
successful TIGER Program that I helped create. Communities across our 
country have been competing very hard for resources from this program 
so they can invest in transportation projects that make significant 
contributions to the Nation, to their region, or their metropolitan 
area.
  Today, the TIGER Program is putting workers on the job and helping to 
lay down a strong foundation for economic growth in this country. But 
the Republican proposal would not only eliminate that program 
completely and slam the door on communities that want to invest in 
their infrastructure, it would also take back every penny of funding--
all funding already--promised in last year's budget. That will halt 75 
projects in 40 States that are ready to go and put 33,000 jobs at risk. 
It doesn't make any sense. The Democratic proposal would protect that 
critical investment.
  The Republican proposal would also jeopardize public health and the 
environment by gutting the laws that keep our air and water clean. It 
cuts nearly $2 billion in funding for clean water infrastructure, which 
our local communities need to keep our families safe, so when you turn 
on that water in your kitchen you will know it is safe. It slashes the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund, which, by the way, uses revenue from 
offshore oil leases to protect some of the most treasured places in our 
country. But that is not all. The extreme Republican proposal would 
also slash investments for students and children, including a $700 
million cut to title I funding, which will affect 2,400 schools serving 
over 1 million students. It cuts Pell grants by 15 percent, which will 
make it so much harder for kids to go to college today.
  The House Republican proposal would even slash some of the bipartisan 
programs we have created to keep our families safe, including 66 
percent cuts to both the Transit Security Grant Program that helps make 
sure our trains and subways are safe, as well as the Port Security 
Grant Program that helps protect our critical economic and national 
security assets across the country. That does not make sense. If a 
terrorist attack were to occur at one of our ports or transit systems, 
it would be absolutely devastating for our families and our economy, 
which is why the Democratic proposal protects these critical 
investments.
  Those are just a few of the examples of the radical and irresponsible 
cuts that are proposed in the Republican budget.
  We, of course, need to cut spending. We need to bring down the 
deficit. We all agree on that point. But we have to do it responsibly, 
and we cannot do it on the backs of our middle-class families who are 
struggling.
  I urge my colleagues this afternoon to support the Democratic 
proposal, and if we cannot pass something today, I urge my Republican 
colleagues to come to the table and work with us to pass a responsible 
long-term budget that really does reflect our priorities, gets our 
workers back on the job, and invests in America's future.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________