[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 50 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Page S2216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, approximately 1 hour ago, I was at the White 
House with Speaker Boehner. We had made a joint statement to the press 
during the nighttime there at the White House, and at that time I was 
cautiously optimistic that we could complete the work on the people's 
business to fund the government until the end of this fiscal year--
October 1. Now we are 38 hours away from this deadline of the 
government shutting down, so it is clear from the math that in less 
than 2 days a decision must be made as to whether the government closes 
or stays open, whether we put the American people first and reach an 
agreement, or have, as I will explain in a few minutes, issues having 
nothing to do with government funding cause the government to shut 
down.
  We met last night, the Speaker and I, with the President for quite a 
long time, 1\1/2\ or 2 hours. The meeting was initially one where the 
President, the Vice President, Speaker Boehner, and myself were present 
to try to work through these issues. We then went into a meeting with 
our staffs to try to work through these issues. The numbers are 
basically there. That is where we are. My staff, the President's staff, 
and the Speaker's staff worked through the night to try to come up with 
an appropriate way to end this impasse.
  I repeat, the numbers are basically there, but I am not nearly as 
optimistic--and that is an understatement--as I was 11 hours ago. The 
numbers are extremely close. Our differences are no longer over how 
much savings we get on government spending. The only thing--the only 
thing--holding up an agreement is ideology. I am sorry to say that my 
friend, the Speaker, and the Republican leadership have drawn a line in 
the sand not dealing with the deficit--which we know we have to deal 
with and where we have made significant cuts--not with the numbers that 
would fund the government to the end of this fiscal year. That is not 
the issue. The issue is ideology, not numbers.
  There are a number of issues, but the two main issues holding this 
matter up are reproductive rights for women and clean air. These 
matters have no place on the budget bill. This is a bill to keep the 
government running with dollars, and they want to roll back the Clean 
Air Act. The bottom line is this: If we are going to sit down at the 
negotiating table, as we have, and fund the government, it should be 
based on government funding.
  I know there are some rambunctious new Members of the House of 
Representatives over there, and there are probably some who have been 
there a long time who are more senior and who believe, as Republicans, 
this is their time to shine. But they should do that on a legislative 
matter, not on a spending bill. They can send the stuff, and we will 
get to it when we can, to show we can get to things. We have done it on 
this clean air bill and the very difficult issues dealing with 1099--a 
government issue relating to the health care bill. It was tough, but we 
did it. We had a bunch of votes yesterday on EPA funding. We can 
legislate, and we can do that on issues that are difficult. We showed 
that this week in the Senate. But no one can realistically think we can 
walk out of a room and suddenly agree on or focus on an issue that has 
been around for four decades--this issue relating to women's choice. 
This is a legislative matter. We can't solve in one night 
a disagreement this country has been having for four decades. There are 
very definite sides that have been taken.

  I served in the House of Representatives with Henry Hyde, where this 
all got started. Henry Hyde was the man who started, more than anyone 
else, the public debate on women's choice. He was dug in as to what he 
felt was right; others disagreed with him. But the Hyde amendment 
prevailed, and we have been basically working off that for four 
decades. For 40 years, we have been focused on that issue. We can't 
solve in one night a disagreement this country has been having for four 
decades. It is not realistic to shut down the government on a debate 
dealing with abortion. It is not realistic, and it is not fair to the 
American people. We haven't solved the issue in 40 years, and we are 
not going to solve it in the next 38 hours.
  Now is the time to be realistic. We should not be distracted by 
ideology. We have been distracted by ideology. This is a bill that 
funds the government. It isn't a bill that should deal with changing 
the Environmental Protection Agency's rules and regulations. That 
should be done legislatively. We can't now, on a bill that focuses on 
the spending of this country, suddenly decide there is going to be a 
big breakthrough on one side or the other on abortion. It can't happen. 
It won't happen.
  Speaking of distractions, the House is now going to pass a short-term 
stopgap. It is a nonstarter over here. Doing that is a sure way to 
close the government. There are no more short-term extensions unless it 
is a clean continuing resolution to allow us a few more days to work on 
matters relating to funding the government. The President has told the 
Speaker that, I have told the Speaker that, and Republicans in the 
Senate have told the Speaker that we can't pass another short-term CR. 
It is not only bad policy, it is a fantasy. As I said last night, this 
is a nonstarter in the Senate. The President told the Speaker that last 
night. He called and talked to him 20 minutes ago, 30 minutes ago, and 
told him the same thing. I talked to the President at a quarter to 10, 
and he told me the same thing.
  We have moved so far, and we have given everything we can give. The 
President is absolutely right, we can't keep funding this government 
one paycheck to the next, one stopgap measure after another. The United 
States of America, this great country of ours, shouldn't have to live 
paycheck to paycheck.
  I repeat, this debate that is going on today deals with money; it 
doesn't deal with ideological issues where both sides have drawn a line 
in the sand. If the House of Representatives wants to send us matters 
regarding Wall Street reform, we can debate them here. If they want to 
send us measures dealing with health care, we can debate them here. If 
they want to send us measures dealing with EPA, we can debate them 
here, just as we did yesterday. If they want to send us something here 
on title X, which is reproductive health for women, we can debate that 
issue. But it should not be on a stopgap funding measure. So if this 
government shuts down--and it looks as if it is headed in that 
direction--it is going to be based on my friends in the House of 
Representatives, the leadership over there, focusing on ideological 
matters that have nothing to do with the funding of this government. I 
think that is a sad day.
  As a predecessor of my friend the Republican leader said many years 
ago--the great Henry Clay--``All legislation is founded upon the 
principle of mutual concession.'' He was known as the ``great 
compromiser,'' Henry Clay was. He served in this body and served three 
separate times as Speaker of the House of Representatives. That is what 
he said. Isn't this the time to do that? Remember the two words that 
are so important in what Henry Clay said: mutual concession. We have 
done far more than anyone ever thought we would do, and we have done it 
because we believe this government should not shut down.

                          ____________________