[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 50 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2261-S2262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in morning business, 
even though it is the evening--the nature of the Senate rules and 
procedure. During the course of the day, we have had a number of 
colleagues coming to the floor and talking about the looming shutdown 
of the Federal Government.
  During the last several hours, as we have spoken, Majority Leader 
Reid and Speaker Boehner have been meeting with President Obama. It is 
my sincere hope that it has been a productive and fruitful meeting and 
that they will report that we have found a way out of this difficulty. 
I certainly hope that is the case. But if it is not, if we are destined 
to see this government shut down tomorrow night at midnight, it is a 
sad commentary--one that most American voters will resent and be 
disappointed with, and understandably so. It basically says the leaders 
have not been able to reach an agrement. Fingers of blame will be 
pointed in both directions, and the public can reach conclusions about 
who is responsible.
  From my point of view, having worked with Senator Harry Reid on this 
from the beginning, I attended many meetings and heard many reports. It 
has been a frustrating experience because the Speaker's position in the 
House has changed so often. The amount of money they wanted to cut from 
the budget, where it would come from, and the policy riders that were 
part of this conversation have been changing with each meeting. I know 
Senator Reid is a patient person. I have watched him as my friend since 
we were both elected to the House in 1982, and as my colleague in the 
Senate now--and this is my third term. He is patient, but he has been 
frustrated because of these changing scenarios.
  The most recent change is one that I find most troubling, which is 
that it appears the debate is no longer over deficit reduction or 
spending cuts. It really isn't about how much money we are going to cut 
during the remainder of this year. Most Americans thought that was what 
we were debating and negotiating. It turns out now that it has devolved 
into a debate over policy questions that have nothing to do directly--
maybe even indirectly--with the budget deficit we face and the money we 
are going to spend.
  For example, Speaker Boehner has been insisting today that the Senate 
adopt a provision which removes the authority of the EPA when it comes 
to issues involving pollution. I disagree with that position, but I 
have to say to the Speaker that he should check the Congressional 
Record. It is not the most exciting publication, but if he looks at 
yesterday's Congressional Record, he will find that we spent most of 
yesterday debating this point.
  Four different amendments were offered by Democrats and Republicans, 
including Senator McConnell, the Republican minority leader, on this 
issue. We debated them for days and voted yesterday on the question of 
the authority of the EPA. There were four votes.
  On the first one, there were seven Senators voting in favor of the 
change in that amendment. On the second amendment, seven Senators 
again. On the third amendment, 12 Senators voted in favor of the 
change. The fourth, offered by Senator McConnell, was 50-50. At the end 
of the day none of them passed.
  For Speaker Boehner to insist now that we include in our bill a 
provision that has already been debated in the Senate and rejected is 
fundamentally unfair and goes way beyond any question about deficit 
reduction and cutting spending.
  The second item he raised is one that is even more puzzling. For some 
reason the Republican majority in the House believes the last election 
was a referendum on whether we provide medical services to women in 
America. We have the title X program--primarily for low-income women--
that gives them access to basic health care, to the type of cancer 
screening and infection screening that we want all of the women in 
America to have access to. The House Republicans decided we should 
eliminate that Federal commitment and close the clinics, denying access 
to millions of Americans to basic primary health care.
  How can that be in the best interest of our country and the costs 
that we incur to provide medical services? How can it be fair to these 
people, the men and women who use these clinics because they are 
accessible and affordable? They want to close them down. I don't recall 
that debate in the last election. I don't remember any candidate for 
the House or Senate saying: I want to go to Washington to close down 
access to health care for women, children, and men across America. That 
is, in fact, what they are saying now is the reason we need to close 
down the government. They think it is better to close down the 
government than to continue to give access to medical care to women 
under title X.
  Planned Parenthood, which has a clinic in my hometown of Springfield,

[[Page S2262]]

IL--for the record, Planned Parenthood and any clinic operating under 
title X is prohibited from using any Federal funds for the purpose of 
abortion. The only exceptions are those that have been in the law and 
accepted by both political parties for decades--the so-called Hyde 
amendment for women who are victims of rape, incest, or their lives are 
at stake in a continued pregnancy.
  This isn't an abortion issue. It is obviously a health care issue. 
For some reason, the House Republicans would rather close down the 
government than allow this kind of health service to continue. That is 
troublesome.
  It is also troubling that the underlying House budget they passed has 
been judged by economists to be a job killer--700,000 jobs would be 
lost if the Republicans passed their budget and the Senate approved it. 
At a time when we are celebrating the creation of over 200,000 new jobs 
last Friday, and the lowest unemployment rate in 24 months, here come 
the Republicans with a budget proposal that will cost 700,000 jobs, 
pushing us back toward recession instead of away from it. That isn't 
sensible.
  I don't believe the American people ever considered that part of the 
bargain in the last election. It is true the American people focused on 
the deficit and cutting spending, and we are too--on both sides of the 
aisle. That is why we have reached an agreement on the amount of money 
to be cut from the remaining part of this budget. For us to now face a 
shutdown of the Federal Government over the question of women's access 
to health care or whether we are going to accept an EPA change, which 
has already been rejected on the floor of the Senate, shows the 
unreasonable level of this debate.
  We had a meeting today of the Democratic Senators, and John Kerry 
spoke. I told him afterward that what he said had a profound impact on 
me. He reminded us that what we are doing isn't just being observed by 
politicians on Capitol Hill or reporters and journalists in Washington; 
it is being watched by the world.
  It is a sad commentary that this great Nation, the United States of 
America, with its government, has reached a point where we face 
closure. We know we can do better. It is unfortunate the House 
Republicans, with their new leadership facing growing pains, have 
brought us to this moment. I hope we can reach a point where we can 
find an agreement even now. I hope this evening there will be a 
breakthrough.
  They said last week, when the Speaker announced to his Republican 
caucus in the House that there was going to be a shutdown of the 
government, there was a standing ovation. They were cheering the idea 
of shutting down the government.
  I will not cheer that. That is a bad outcome. It is bad for 
taxpayers, bad for our Nation, and bad for the Federal employees who 
are performing essential services in North Carolina, Illinois, and 
across the country. These are men and women who are working to keep us 
safe. They are performing important duties, such as watching dangerous 
prisoners and making certain our planes take off and land safely. To 
even jeopardize for a minute the funding for these agencies is 
irresponsible to the extreme.
  Let's hope there is an agreement. If not, let's hope we can extend 
somehow the functions of government and not close them down at midnight 
tomorrow evening. At this moment, there is no report. There is likely 
to be one later.
  At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have just returned from the White House. 
We have narrowed the issues significantly; However, we have not yet 
reached an agreement. In 26 hours and 15 minutes the government will 
close if we don't get this resolved. We have not yet reached an 
agreement.
  We are going to work throughout the night to attempt to resolve many 
issues. The remaining issues are extremely narrow. Having said that, I 
have been to this podium before, and I have spoken to the press before, 
and I said we have narrowed the issues--and we have. The sad part about 
it is that we never quite get to the finish line.
  I hope we can work through the night and get this done. The President 
set an early morning deadline before we have to start notifying almost 
1 million Federal employees that they will have to report to work and 
hear that they won't be there on Monday. It is a technical thing they 
have to do tomorrow before closing time. We need to work toward that 
deadline. I hope we can get that done. I am not really confident, but I 
am very hopeful.

                          ____________________