[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 51 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2288-S2290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, at this very critical time in our country's
history--a time when we have over a $14 trillion debt and we are
desperately trying to find ways to reduce government spending and there
looms the possibility of a government shutdown--I think we would be
best served trying to provide some information to our constituents and,
as politicians, resisting the temptation to throw rotten apples at each
other. I also think it would be wise for the media to not hype or
overhype a situation regarding a government shutdown but to try to put
things into perspective. So let me try to do that for a moment this
morning.
In the first place, obviously we are trying to reach agreement. I
compliment the majority leader, Senator Reid, who just spoke, and the
Speaker of the House, John Boehner, for their efforts to get together
and bridge the differences between the two parties--the two bodies--and
to reach an agreement. In the last 2 or 3 days, the President has also
weighed in on the issue, and I think he too is trying very hard to help
the parties reach an agreement. Notwithstanding that fact, under the
law, tonight at midnight, the funding for much of the government stops,
and the question is, What can be done about that?
The House of Representatives has passed a bill. They passed it
yesterday. The Senate could take up that bill and pass it. It would
keep the government running for another week. It would provide full
funding for the military, not just for another week but for the entire
rest of the year. That is a reasonable measure to keep the government
running. It also, by the way, reduces $12 billion in spending, and most
of that spending, I am informed, has already been agreed to by the
administration and would be included in any longer range continuing
resolution.
Well, what happened? The President said he would veto that bill. That
is very puzzling because if we are all seeking to fund the government,
at least until there can be an agreement on a long-term resolution, one
would think we would try to keep it going for another week and adopt
what the House did, especially since it provides funding for the
military.
The President, in his veto message, said that the bill was a
distraction. I do have to take issue with that. It is not a
distraction, it is what is necessary to keep the government running.
Let me get back to that in a moment.
What would happen if we were able to reach agreement by tonight? If
we are able to reach agreement before midnight then at least
theoretically both bodies, both House and Senate, could pass a very
short term, 2 or 3 days, stop-gap measure in order to have the time to
complete the work on the full measure and then adopt that sometime next
week and that would avert a shutdown. It is possible also, because in
the Senate it would require unanimous consent; somebody might disagree
with that process and would object. In that case, it would take a few
days for us to do, in effect, the paperwork to get this done. That
would then result in a government shutdown during that time, at least
over the course of the weekend.
[[Page S2289]]
That should be avoided if at all possible. But while there would be
some dislocations and inconveniences, I do think the media exaggerates
a little bit the result of a shutdown over the weekend.
The biggest problem from my perspective is that the military doesn't
get paid during that period of time. They will get paid but it is a
disruptive thing when you have young military families trying to make
ends meet and sometimes living from paycheck to paycheck to have that
disrupted. That is why I think it makes so much sense to adopt what the
House passed yesterday so we have the time, the week to complete the
work on the continuing resolution that would fund the government
through the end of the fiscal year, that is to say through the end of
September, and then not have to worry about a government shutdown and
especially funding the military.
There is a question that has been raised that is very logical. Why
can't the parties get together? Why can't you split the difference? In
ordinary times it might be possible to reach an agreement that way, but
these are not ordinary times. We are talking about a country that is on
the verge of not being able to pay its debts. The President himself has
asked us to raise the debt ceiling--I believe sometime next month. In
effect, we run out not only of money but of the capacity to borrow. Our
credit card in effect, the government's credit card, is full up and we
cannot get any more credit unless we go to the credit card company and
say: Would you extend the amount of money we can borrow? In that case,
it is the Congress passing a bill.
We are in a very difficult position in this country and everyone
knows we are passing a lot of our debts on to future generations. We
need to get a handle on that and I don't think anybody disagrees with
the proposition that means we need to cut spending. That is what this
exercise is all about. So it is not the usual thing of splitting the
difference. We are talking about big spending cuts.
I was disappointed in the comments of the majority leader just now.
He said this debate is about saving money. Indeed it is. Yet it appears
the one thing--this is what he said. I do not tend to believe this is
correct, but in effect what he was saying is it all boils down to a
$300-and-some million subsidy for Planned Parenthood. I do not believe
that is what is keeping us from allowing the government to continue to
operate. The majority leader has been in the negotiations. He is in a
position to say that. If that is the case, then it seems to me we are
in a very untenable position here, at least the majority leader is,
because Planned Parenthood is not the only entity that can provide
medical care in this country. It gets a subsidy of something like $300
million-and-some a year. To shut down the government over that would be
absolutely unthinkable.
The majority leader never said Planned Parenthood, you know, he said
title X. Title X does not receive the subsidy, Planned Parenthood
receives the subsidy. Everybody goes to clinics and hospitals and
doctors. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don't have to go
to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or blood pressure
checked. If you want an abortion you go to Planned Parenthood and that
is what Planned Parenthood does. So this is a red herring. To say that
somehow the government is going to be shut down over the fact that
Planned Parenthood will not get a $300 million gift from the taxpayers
of America would be absolutely irresponsible. If that is what the
majority leader is saying, it is irresponsible. I cannot believe that
is the fact of what is holding up this agreement from being reached.
As I said, we have the bill before us which would provide for a week-
long continuation of the government with a $12 billion reduction in
spending and a funding of the military through the end of the year. It
seems to me that is a very reasonable proposition. We don't have to
worry about shutting the government if we adopt that.
I said I would get back to the President's message. He said it would
be a distraction when he said he would veto that bill to keep the
government running, and to fully fund the military. He said it would be
a distraction. His exact words, ``this bill is a distraction from the
real work that would bring us close to a reasonable compromise.'' I
don't see how it is a distraction if it provides another week for us to
complete the work to be done. It is obvious we are going to need time
to get the work done because neither the House nor the Senate can get
everything that would have to be done completed by midnight tonight.
The House has a requirement that they have any bill pending for 72
hours before it is adopted. This continuing resolution clearly would
have to be posted for 72 hours. Do we want to shut the government down
during that period of time because the President thinks the bill to do
so is a distraction? I find that incomprehensible, frankly.
I also will make this final point. The discussion about reducing
government spending is not just because we are having trouble borrowing
from borrowers now. Over half, about 42 cents on every dollar we spend
now, is borrowed from someone. About half of that is from foreign
entities. It is also because, as the government spends more and more
money, the private sector has less money to invest and spend. It is the
private sector that creates jobs. What we need to do is spend less
government money, not only to get ourselves out from under this huge
debt burden but also to allow the private economy to have the resources
to grow. Included in that, of course, is to hire more people.
On April 4, the Wall Street Journal had an op-ed by Dr. John Taylor,
a noted economist from Stanford, Gary Becker, a Nobel laureate in
economics, George Shultz--three different Secretaries, serving in two
different Cabinets--all experts in financial, fiscal matters. What they
wrote in this, which they called ``Time for a Budget Game-Changer'' is
the following two sentences:
Credible actions that reduce the rapid rate of growth of
Federal spending and debt will raise economic growth and
lower the unemployment rate. Higher private investment, not
more government purchases, is the surest way to increase
prosperity.
What we are talking about here is not drastic cuts for austerity's
sake, but rather sensible reductions to create prosperity in this
country. That is what we are talking about doing here. That is why I
support what Speaker Boehner has been trying to do. I urge my
colleagues, instead of, as I said, throwing rotten apples at each other
here and trying to preach a doom-and-gloom game, let's focus on what
this country can do in a positive and constructive way to get our
economy going again and get our people back to work.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in shock and
anger that, after weeks of negotiations, after pledges from Republicans
to come to the table in good faith, after repeated assurances that they
want to talk about principles and budget numbers and not politics,
after all the hot rhetoric we have heard about concern for our troops
and our workers and that the veterans will be hurt, Republicans have
decided to hold the Federal budget hostage to their extreme social
agenda. It is now clear that this is not a debate in the last hours
before this government shuts down about how much to cut. It is about
whether women in this country will have access to basic health care
services.
As a woman, as a mother, as a grandmother, I find that appalling.
They can say whatever they want to on the other side, but if they want
to say this is about numbers, then I challenge them to say title X is
off the table. For millions of women in this country, and men, their
only access to preventive health care services, pregnancy diagnosis,
counseling, preventive health services, cervical and breast cancer
screening, sexually transmitted disease and HIV transmission prevention
and education, a broad range of access to contraceptive methods--that
is what Republicans now, in the 11th hour, are holding hostage to a
government shutdown. I don't think anyone in America thought this
election was about that.
We heard the promises about the economy, about cutting budgets, about
fiscal concerns, but we never heard from anyone that they would be
willing to shut down this government and put this country at risk over
an ideological debate about women's health care.
I have three words for them: Women aren't pawns. We will not be pawns
in
[[Page S2290]]
this debate and we will not give in. The access to these critical
services is so important to so many young women in this country. I told
the story and I will tell it again. A few days ago I heard from a young
woman in my State who, at 18-years-old, had to leave an extremely
abusive family situation, out on the street on her own. She had
cervical cancer that runs in her family. The only way she was able to
get the medication and care she needed was through title X Federal
funding through clinics in her State.
She and 5 million others in this country depend on that, and we are
going to take this away at the 11th hour, in order to get an agreement?
Not on my watch. Not on the watch of millions of American families in
this country who know that access to women's health care is basic to
them and their families and their communities. What kind of country are
we, that at the 11th hour on a debate like this, the issue remaining is
about women's health care? I find that stunning.
Families across my State are hurting. They have lost their jobs, they
are worried about getting a pink slip, their home prices have dropped,
they are worried about making their mortgage, and this debate now has
come to this? An issue of access to title X funding for preventive
health care for women? We need to focus on the economy. Yes, there are
going to be some budget cuts in this that are going to be extremely
hard for me and others who care about investing in education and jobs,
but we know we have to come to an agreement. But we will not let women
be used as pawns in this debate at this 11th hour. We are not going to
allow this debate to end by cutting off funding for health clinics
across America that are often the only place for low-income women.
In my State of Washington over 100,000 patients depend on these
clinics to provide prevention. Over 3 million Americans do nationwide.
We are not going to let the threat of a shutdown make us fade away.
Women are going to stand tall, and men with them, across the country,
to say: Not on our watch. Women are not pawns.
I yield the floor.
____________________