[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 51 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2308-S2314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I rise again today to urge my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol to move
beyond the unnecessary and distracting partisan bickering and come
together to fund our government through the remainder of the current
fiscal year, including our military, our early-childhood programs, and
our essential health services for our seniors and children.
Six months into the 2011 fiscal year and less than 12 hours before a
government shutdown would close off many of the important services to
millions of Americans, Congress has yet to fulfill its most basic
responsibility and pass a budget.
I know the people of North Carolina or any State did not send us to
Washington to point fingers or blame other people for the challenges
our country faces. They sent us here to work with our colleagues on
commonsense solutions. During my time as budget cochair in the North
Carolina State Senate, I learned two things: First, it is never easy to
craft a budget, there are always tough choices to make; and second, our
fiscal challenges can only be met if Republicans and Democrats have
that commitment to work together.
Despite the impression the American people may have based on what
they have seen in recent weeks, I know we can work this out. We have to
work together because after we come to an agreement on this year's
budget, we must buckle down and chart out a comprehensive bipartisan
path to rein in our nearly $14 trillion national debt.
I believe we all share the common goal of reducing this year's
deficit, but the national debt will not disappear with one bill or in 1
year alone. It will take a comprehensive and long-term approach that
moves beyond a singular focus on domestic discretionary spending.
That is why I remain concerned by some of the cuts passed by the
House and especially by the dozens of divisive policy riders that are
disrupting our ability to chart a pragmatic and responsible fiscal
course for our country.
It is why I remain concerned that we are holding up government
funding with threats to take away vital health care to millions of
American women who could not otherwise afford it. These health services
include Pap tests, breast cancer screenings, birth control, and STD
testing and treatment. These services, which are funded through title
X, were signed into law by President Nixon and supported by George H.W.
Bush. According to independent, nonpartisan studies, every $1 spent on
these family planning services saves $4. Is that not what we are
supposed to be working on--reducing the amount of our government
spending?
These proposals are the only things standing between a reasonable,
bipartisan compromise and an irresponsible government shutdown. If such
a shutdown does occur, we risk delivering a crippling blow now to our
already fragile economic recovery.
More than 1,000 American small business owners, who were already
facing difficulties securing the borrowing they need to expand and add
jobs, could see their SBA-backed loans delayed.
We have 368 national parks in our country. Millions of dollars will
be lost to the businesses surrounding those parks if we shut down the
government. In April of 2010 alone, in North Carolina, more than 1.3
million people visited the national parks and spent millions of
dollars. These parks include the Great Smoky Mountains, the Blue Ridge
Parkway, and Cape Hatteras National Seashore and others. Tourism in
North Carolina is one of our State's largest industries. In 2010,
tourists spent $17 billion across our State, and the tourism industry
supports 185,000 jobs for North Carolinians. More than 40,000
businesses in North Carolina provide direct services to travelers. If
we close our national parks, these small businesses are at risk of
losing customers, losing money, which will make it much more difficult
for my State to recover from this tough economy.
We risk putting even more pressure on our already shaky mortgage
market by preventing thousands of homeowners from receiving a loan to
buy a new house.
As for North Carolina, I am particularly alarmed about the impact a
government shutdown would have on our courageous military personnel and
[[Page S2309]]
their families who have dedicated their lives to this country. Two
weeks ago marines from North Carolina rescued with amazing speed and
skill the American F-15 pilot who went down east of Benghazi in Libya.
Last week, I spoke with Marine Corps Commandant General Amos on the
amazing work of these North Carolina marines. He told me it took only
90 minutes from start to finish to rescue the F-15 pilot.
These warriors are heroes, as are the 120,000 active-duty troops in
North Carolina and the approximately 400,000 American troops who are
deployed overseas, including 90,000 troops in Afghanistan and 45,000
troops in Iraq. These heroes and their families do not deserve to have
partisan bickering jeopardize their financial stability.
More than a third of the people in my State are either in the
military, a veteran, or have an immediate family member who is in the
military or a veteran. So if the government shuts down and we delay
paychecks to our military personnel, it is not just our courageous
service men and women whose lives are affected but those of their
spouses and their children. I know nobody in this body wants to see
that happen. Whether you represent a State with a large military
population or not, we are all incredibly grateful for the sacrifices
our military personnel and their families give this country every day.
Earlier this week, I cosponsored the bipartisan Ensuring Pay for Our
Military, sponsored by my Republican colleague from Texas, Senator
Hutchison, which would prevent an interruption in the pay for members
of the military if there is a government shutdown. This is an important
bill--a must-do bill--but I sincerely hope it is an unnecessary bill.
The American people want Members of Congress to work across party
lines, avoid an irresponsible government shutdown, and move forward on
a sound, comprehensive, and bipartisan plan to put our fiscal house in
order. The American people don't care if it is a Republican plan or a
Democratic plan, they just want it to be a good plan for our country.
That is why this week I signed on to the biennial budgeting bill which
is being led by my Republican colleague, Senator Isakson, and my
Democratic colleague, Senator Shaheen. This bill, which will move the
Federal budget from an every year to every two-year funding process, is
a commonsense, bipartisan approach which will hopefully improve the
partisan political bickering.
I urge my colleagues to come together now and fund our service men
and women, our VA doctors, our Head Start Programs, and our women's
health care so we can move on to the Nation's No. 1 priority, which is
tackling our unsustainable national debt.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rose yesterday to talk about the
consequences of a budget shutdown, and I rise again today--hours away
from facing that reality.
What I cannot understand for the life of me is after having agreed to
$78 billion in cuts, more than almost 80 percent of the way of where
our Republican colleagues originally stated they wanted to be--the last
time I checked on a negotiation, when someone comes 80 percent of the
way to where you are, you have done rather well. Yet, even in the face
of having made those very deep cuts--some of which will clearly affect
major services delivered to individuals in this country, but coming
together for the understanding of what is necessary to both get this
budget year done and being able to begin to significantly reduce the
deficit--it is still not enough. Why? Because of a driving force in the
House of Representatives on the Republican side that insists on social
issues that have nothing to do with the budget and keeping the Nation's
business open and making sure this economy stays on track, and growing
jobs, and putting families back to work.
I will talk about that issue in a minute. But, again, I wish to
revisit that this isn't about some museums closing on The Mall, even
though that in and of itself has a tourism and dollar effect on our
economy to all those places throughout the country that would be closed
down. This is about businesses here in America.
Today the New York Times gave examples of that. It talked about the
manufacturing executive whose company supplies goods to Federal
agencies; the bank loan officers who make mortgages guaranteed by the
FHA, which is one of the single greatest block drivers of mortgages to
be done for middle-class working families; the Wall Street analyst who
depends on a steady flow of government data. The Federal Government is
in and of itself a major driver of the economy and a ripple effect to
businesses across the spectrum in our country, and pulls the plug on
the other businesses in America that at the end of the day means jobs
and at the end of the jobs means a consequence to this fragile economic
recovery.
That is why the Chamber of Commerce has come out against a shutdown.
That is why the Business Roundtable has talked about it. These are
voices of those entities that clearly speak with a one-vision business
sense, and they say a shutdown does not make good business sense for
America--all, however, risked for some social issues. When the
government shut down in 1995, the last time Republicans shut down the
U.S. Government--let's not forget that. I was there in the House of
Representatives when that happened. The last time Republicans shut the
government down for their ideological views, the Nation's economic
growth was slowed by as much as 1 percent in that quarter--a full
percent.
In an economy that is in recovery--and a recovery, I would remind
people, from where we were to where we are--I think there is a little
history we need to remember. I remember in the Clinton years when
Democrats balanced the budget for the first time in a generation and
created record surpluses, lower unemployment, low interest rates, and
the greatest peacetime economy in over a generation. We had surpluses.
The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, said, We are looking at a 10-
year outlook that is bright. We were actually years ahead for not only
balancing the budget but from ending debt. And here we are. What
happened in between? Tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country
under President Bush, two wars unpaid for, a Medicare prescription drug
benefit unpaid for, Wall Street allowed to run wild, and we went from a
surplus with projections of $5.6 trillion in 2011 to the challenges we
have today. So I know people want to forget the past, but the past is,
in part, the reality of our present challenges.
At a time in this fragile economic recovery, where we are ultimately
meeting the challenges of global events that also affect us here at
home--the unrest in the Middle East, the driving up of oil prices which
drives up gasoline prices which drives up commodity prices which drives
up food prices, and, therefore, has a consequence not only to every
American at the pump but also at the supermarket and in their lives--it
has a collective consequence to our economy. What is happening in Japan
and whether they will be able to send supplies for some of the most
critical elements of our economy in the technology field; the millions
of Americans still looking for work, and we are going to give a
domestic body blow, all because of social issues--all because of social
issues, that doesn't make sense, and it is not necessary. We could have
consequences to the markets, the Asian markets. If we close down this
government, don't open, the Asian markets on Sunday will begin and that
begins setting a trend throughout the globe. This has real consequence
to our economy here at home.
It is amazing to me that we have those who wear the uniform of the
United States fighting halfway around the globe and they will continue
to fight for their country, but they would not be paid. They will earn
the pay and eventually they will get it, but while they are in the
field they wouldn't get the pay. How about their families here at home
who are already suffering not having them with them? All because we are
driven by the Republican voices in the House of Representatives over a
program called title X. What is title X? Title X is a law signed by
President Nixon and ultimately had, as one of its strongest supporters
when he was in
[[Page S2310]]
the House of Representatives former President Bush, to provide
lifesaving health care services for women.
Some voices continue to falsely say this is about abortion. The
Federal law is very clear: No Federal dollars can go for abortion
services. No Federal dollars can go for abortion services. This is
about an array of confidential preventive health services from
pregnancy testing to screening for cervical and breast cancer, to
screening for high blood pressure, anemia, diabetes, screening for
STDs, including HIV, basic infertility services, health education. This
is about the very essence of a woman's ability to get health care if
she does not have the wherewithal on her own financial condition to be
able to go to a doctor. There are many institutions--by the way,
including Catholic and religious institutions--that receive title X
money. I am sure no one would claim they are providing abortion
services.
Why, when we are looking at the very essence of whether it be my
daughter or anyone else's daughter in America, or anybody's wife or
mother, why is it we must have an ideologically driven issue in the
midst of a budget debate? A budget debate is about numbers and it is
about making sure services are continued, and it is about making sure
the economy continues to prosper and it is about getting people back to
work, but it certainly isn't about using an ideological view that this
program which ultimately helps women have preventive health care
services is somehow an abortion issue when the law clearly says it
cannot be under any circumstances. Why would we deny women in this
country the ability to have the health care they need so they can be
healthy, so they can continue to prosper, so their families can
continue to have that mother, that breadwinner, the person who holds
that family together, be healthy? I cannot imagine for the life of me
that we will shut the government down based on those issues. But that
is, in fact, where we are.
When I look at that and when I look at the other elements of what has
recently been discussed as a prelude--this is just the opening salvo of
a debate that will continue on. Hopefully, we will have a vote. I am
ready to vote to keep this government open. I am ready to vote to make
sure those who wear the uniform of the United States are paid when they
are committing the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of their country. But,
more importantly, I wish to be able to vote to have $78 billion worth
of cuts and, at the same time, make sure this economy continues to move
forward, continues to grow, continues to put people back to work.
I hope cooler minds can prevail in the House and that the ideological
views can be told it is not for a budget debate; have that debate some
other time--have those votes, if you want, another time. That is fine.
But do not hold the Nation hostage to that issue. But I see that as
only the beginning of what is a broader plan, and that broader plan is
another reason why we need to get this budget done so we can move to
that other plan in the next fiscal year.
I commend to my colleagues, as we look at that plan, the column
written today by Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize recipient, entitled
``Ludicrous and Cruel.'' Basically, he talks about the Ryan plan that
privatizes Medicare, that has large tax cuts for the wealthiest people
in the country, that ultimately doesn't do either one of the things
that they suggest, in this column, which I commend to my colleagues. He
says:
In past, Mr. Ryan has talked a good game about taking care
of those in need, like Medicare and seniors and Medicaid for
children, but as the Center on Budget and Policy priorities
points out, of the $4 trillion in spending cuts he proposes
over the next decade, two-thirds involve cutting programs
that mainly serve low-income Americans.
Then he goes on to say that it is a continuation of the voodoo
economics of the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country that
supposedly are going to create prosperity, and we saw that simply
wasn't the case. What it did do is a big part of unraveling the
surpluses that Democrats helped to create and drive an enormous amount
of the debt that we are realizing and debating today.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that column be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Apr. 7, 2011]
Ludicrous and Cruel
(By Paul Krugman)
Many commentators swooned earlier this week after House
Republicans, led by the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan,
unveiled their budget proposals. They lavished praise on Mr.
Ryan, asserting that his plan set a new standard of fiscal
seriousness.
Well, they should have waited until people who know how to
read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For
the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all. Instead,
it's simultaneously ridiculous and heartless.
How ridiculous is it? Let me count the ways--or rather a
few of the ways, because there are more howlers in the plan
than I can cover in one column.
First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo
economics--the claim, refuted by experience, that tax cuts
pay for themselves.
Specifically, the Ryan proposal trumpets the results of an
economic projection from the Heritage Foundation, which
claims that the plan's tax cuts would set off a gigantic
boom. Indeed, the foundation initially predicted that the
G.O.P. plan would bring the unemployment rate down to 2.8
percent--a number we haven't achieved since the Korean War.
After widespread jeering, the unemployment projection
vanished from the Heritage Foundation's Web site, but voodoo
still permeates the rest of the analysis.
In particular, the original voodoo proposition--the claim
that lower taxes mean higher revenue--is still very much
there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts
actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the
next 10 years.
A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office tells a different story. It finds that a large
part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not
to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the
budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would
lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.
And about those spending cuts: leave health care on one
side for a moment and focus on the rest of the proposal. It
turns out that Mr. Ryan and his colleagues are assuming
drastic cuts in nonhealth spending without explaining how
that is supposed to happen.
How drastic? According to the budget office, which analyzed
the plan using assumptions dictated by House Republicans, the
proposal calls for spending on items other than Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid--but including defense--to
fall from 12 percent of G.D.P. last year to 6 percent of
G.D.P. in 2022, and just 3.5 percent of G.D.P. in the long
run.
That last number is less than we currently spend on defense
alone; it's not much bigger than federal spending when Calvin
Coolidge was president, and the United States, among other
things, had only a tiny military establishment. How could
such a drastic shrinking of government take place without
crippling essential public functions? The plan doesn't say.
And then there's the much-ballyhooed proposal to abolish
Medicare and replace it with vouchers that can be used to buy
private health insurance.
The point here is that privatizing Medicare does nothing,
in itself, to limit health-care costs. In fact, it almost
surely raises them by adding a layer of middlemen. Yet the
House plan assumes that we can cut health-care spending as a
percentage of G.D.P. despite an aging population and rising
health care costs.
The only way that can happen is if those vouchers are worth
much less than the cost of health insurance. In fact, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2030 the value
of a voucher would cover only a third of the cost of a
private insurance policy equivalent to Medicare as we know
it. So the plan would deprive many and probably most seniors
of adequate health care.
And that neither should nor will happen. Mr. Ryan and his
colleagues can write down whatever numbers they like, but
seniors vote. And when they find that their health-care
vouchers are grossly inadequate, they'll demand and get
bigger vouchers--wiping out the plan's supposed savings.
In short, this plan isn't remotely serious; on the
contrary, it's ludicrous.
And it's also cruel.
In the past, Mr. Ryan has talked a good game about taking
care of those in need. But as the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities points out, of the $4 trillion in spending cuts he
proposes over the next decade, two-thirds involve cutting
programs that mainly serve low-income Americans. And by
repealing last year's health reform, without any replacement,
the plan would also deprive an estimated 34 million
nonelderly Americans of health insurance.
So the pundits who praised this proposal when it was
released were punked. The G.O.P. budget plan isn't a good-
faith effort to put America's fiscal house in order; it's
voodoo economics, with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large
helping of mean-spiritedness.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this is a time to make sure there is a
vote
[[Page S2311]]
on this Senate floor on a budget that ends the fiscal year, that
encapsulates the $78 billion in cuts, that strips out social riders
that have nothing to do with the budget, that preserves a woman's
preventive health care services and moves the country forward in terms
of its economic advancement, creating jobs and making sure we don't get
thrust back into a recession.
That is what this debate is about. That is what the vote should be
about today. I and other members of the Democratic Caucus stand ready
to do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I can only imagine that the American
people who are watching this drama unfold in Washington, DC, are
scratching their heads and are confused, and are wondering why it is
that Congress can't perform one of its most basic functions, which is
to make sure that the government continues to operate.
I am reminded of an adage from the days I practiced law, and then
presided as a judge in the courtroom: If you can't convince them,
confuse them.
Whether it is inadvertently or intentionally or by mistake, I think
there is a lot of confusion being encouraged and propagated on the
floor. The fact of the matter is, there are three things we are talking
about. One is the continuing resolution that the House of
Representatives passed and sent over here some time ago, which would
fund the Federal Government through the end of the fiscal year. That is
one thing.
There is a second thing, which is a bill sent over yesterday that
would fund the government for 1 more week and the Department of Defense
for the remainder of the fiscal year, which the majority leader has the
power to bring to the floor today and have us vote on this afternoon or
tonight. But the President of the United States has sent out a veto
message saying he would veto it.
Then, the third thing that is being discussed--and it may be the most
confusing of all--is when Speaker Boehner says it is all about the
money, and Majority Leader Reid says, no, it is about the policy
riders--well, I submit that it is about the money. It is not about
objections to policy, which 49 of our Democratic friends have voted for
in the past, which has been signed into law by President Clinton and
signed into law by President Obama himself.
The real casualties of this dysfunction here, and the inability of
Congress to get its work done, unfortunately, fall on men and women in
uniform. In my State, a large Army installation, as the Presiding
Officer knows, is located in Killeen, TX, at Fort Hood. On November 5,
2009, a tragedy hit Fort Hood when Major Hassan killed 13 people in
what could only be described as a domestic act of terrorism. Shortly
after that, a number of our military who were deployed to Iraq and
Afghanistan are now in the process of returning. The three corps
soldiers are finally returning from Iraq and individuals such as SPC
Kevin Gallagher of Tiger Squadron Calvary Regiment, who is a Purple
Heart recipient, is just coming back from Iraq. Soldiers of the 20th
Engineer Battalion and the 36th Engineer Brigade are returning to Fort
Hood from Afghanistan.
I wonder what they are thinking now, along with their families, when,
as a result of the Federal Government dealing with its most basic
responsibilities, they are not going to get paid--starting tomorrow--
unless the majority leader takes up the temporary bill that was passed
yesterday in the House and sent over here and we vote on it today to
make sure our troops and their families continue to get funded, and get
the pay they so richly have earned and deserve.
We have heard, as I said, a lot of talk about riders. The only thing
that is contained in this bill that could be called a policy rider,
about which there appears to be confusion, is one that 49 Senate
Democrats have voted on in the past--a spending bill with regard to
abortion funding in the District of Columbia. President Obama has
signed it into law, President Clinton signed that into law, and 49
Senate Democrats voted for it in the past. Yet this becomes somehow the
obstacle to paying our troops what they have earned.
The argument sounds as if we will not fund our troops like we can't
fund abortions in the District of Columbia. I think it is a terrible
shame and I think it galvanizes public opinion about everyone in
Washington.
I think the President and his advisers are wrong if they think a
government shutdown will help Democrats and help him get reelected and
hurt Republicans. I think people are saying: a pox on all your houses.
You need to work together to solve problems, to cut spending, to cut
the deficit, deal with the unsustainable debt, and you need to get on
with it now.
The fact of the matter is, we continue to spend 40 cents out of every
dollar in Washington as borrowed money. We know that the debt held by
the public--and this is under the President's own budget proposal--
would double in 5 years, and it would triple in 10 years, because the
President himself, who is obligated under the Budget Act to send over
his requested budget, does nothing to deal with the debt crisis that is
threatening our Nation, threatening our prosperity and our freedom.
As China continues to loan us money, we are subject to the tender
mercies of a country that I submit we do not want to be subject to the
tender mercies of. We need to deal with this.
Unfortunately, the President and some of my friends across the aisle
have been very critical of the proposed budget of Paul Ryan in the
House. At least he tries to deal with the reality of the hand we have
been dealt, or which some of us have created. The President himself
ignores his own fiscal commission report that came out in December of
2010.
On this chart, here is what the wall of debt looks like, unless we
deal with this problem. According to the President's own budget, it
gets worse and worse. In 1997, it was roughly $5 trillion. Now we are
looking at about a $14 trillion debt. If we don't do anything about it,
if we continue business as usual in Washington and don't cut spending
and deal with the structural and systemic problems facing us and our
debt crisis, it will continue to get worse and worse.
This is another sobering chart. This shows when we borrow the money,
we have to pay interest to the people who buy that debt. This chart
shows that the interest paid by 2021--the last year of the President's
proposed budget--that the amount of money paid in interest, at assumed
rates, which are now very low, is $931 billion, which is more than
transportation, more than defense, and more than Medicare.
We have been told by the experts that if interest rates were to go
up--if, for example, we incur a period of inflation, this number could
explode into multiples of this figure, putting us into a death spiral--
economically speaking--and we could end up like Greece or Portugal. The
only problem is that there is nobody out there to bail out the United
States of America. The only one that can stop this is us.
Secretary Geithner said the debt limit ceiling has to be raised
sometime in the period between middle May and July. That is the big
event. What we are talking about now is a preliminary skirmish, albeit
very important. I will tell you, I do not intend to vote to increase
the credit card limit of the Federal Government, unless we can get
systemic reform that will deal with this very real problem.
One of those ways to do that would be to pass a balanced budget
amendment. All 47 Senators on our side have now agreed to a
constitutional amendment provision that would require a balanced
budget. We hope our friends across the aisle will join us in passing
it. The last time this was considered, we came within one vote--in
1997--of passing a balanced budget amendment. The deficit was $107
billion. Now it is $1.5 trillion. The debt was around $5 trillion and
now it is $14 trillion. So if it was compelling enough that it came
that close to passage in 1997, how much more compelling now is the
evidence that we need to pass a balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution?
In closing, I hope cooler heads will prevail tonight, that those who
seek political advantage via the game of ``gotcha''--a world class
sport in Washington, DC--will forbear and allow us to get on with the
big fights, which are dealing with this unsustainable debt, these huge
deficits, and not threaten the paycheck of the men and women who wear
the uniform of the United States, who are fighting three wars
[[Page S2312]]
around the world, and whose families are calling my office.
Mr. President, I guess they are calling your office and that of the
Senator from Michigan and New York also, saying: What are you doing,
and why can't you get this taken care of so that we don't have to add
this to our list of burdens while our loved ones are away fighting
America's wars.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that at 4
p.m. the majority leader be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague and friend
from Texas about the fact that people are scratching their heads.
People in Michigan are wondering what in the world is going on right
now. We are still trying to recover from a recession and we have a long
way to go for most Americans--even though the unemployment rate has
come down substantially in Michigan. At one point, we were at 15.7
percent, and that is just what you count, in terms of unemployment. Now
it is 10.7 percent and going down. Still, it is way too high. Families
are under water, their houses are under water, and they are trying to
recover in terms of their incomes and hold it together and look for new
work or job training. And what about the kids in college and all that
comes with that? Some in the middle class may be struggling to stay in
the middle class, or just get into the middle class.
Small businesses are wondering what the heck is going on around here
when they are trying to, hopefully--folks who held on through the
recession and trying to come back, trying to invest, keep the doors
open, hire more people--they are wondering what in the world is going
on here.
We are in a situation where these negotiations have now just become
so political and the discussion so unrelated to what the budget is
about and, most importantly, to what people care about. The political
piece of this now, about pulling in issues around women's health care,
is distracting us from getting a 6-month budget done, which is
distracting us from what we ought to be talking about, which is jobs
and the economy and putting people back to work and supporting small
businesses to get the capital they need to grow. We are in a situation
now where the whole process has been politicized to the point where it
is extremely disappointing to me and extremely concerning.
What the bottom line ends up being is that middle-class families,
veterans concerned about their disability claims, or seniors concerned
about their Social Security or Medicare claims, or small businesses
that are putting together loan applications or somebody trying to close
on their house with FHA is being held hostage to politics that have
nothing to do with the budget.
This latest distraction over breast cancer screenings and cervical
cancer screenings for women and girls is just another in a long list of
distractions from the budget crisis and, most importantly, from the
focus that we need to have on creating jobs.
We have all agreed that Washington, just like every family, has to
change the way it does business, has to focus on cutting the items that
are not important, to focus on what is important. Every dollar that is
being paid, every taxpayer giving a dollar has found it is a lot harder
to earn that dollar than to give that dollar. We better be taking care
of that dollar, stretching it as far as possible and focusing it on the
things that are most important because those dollars are hard to come
by these days. That is the reality.
We have come together. It has been a long time in coming, but we have
come together. We have agreed on significant spending cuts, changes,
while keeping a focus on education, innovation, and growth of the
future. Now, at the eleventh hour, all of a sudden what was agreed to
in terms of significant spending cuts to allow us to bring the budget
together and focus on deficit reduction, somehow that is gone and we
are now talking about whether women's health care will be funded in
this country, whether women are going to be able to receive blood
pressure checks, cancer screenings, and other preventive care efforts.
Is that really what this is about? Are we really going to hold
middle-class families, small businesses, and veterans hostage over
blood pressure checks for women and cancer screenings for women?
Really? Is that what this is about? Stunning. This is absolutely
stunning.
In the great State of Michigan, women's health clinics that at this
point are proposed for elimination provided 55,000 cancer screenings
last year, and there were 3,800 abnormal results. Women who found out
those results early were able to detect their cancers early and get the
treatment they needed to save their lives. It could be your mom, your
grandmother, your daughter, your friend, your neighbor, somebody at
church.
Is this really about telling women in communities across Michigan--in
Marquette, Muskegon, Burton, Owosso, Three Rivers--that they cannot get
their breast cancer screenings; telling women in Flint, Grand Rapids,
Ypsilanti, and Sturgis that they cannot get their cervical cancer
screenings; telling women in Warren, Brighton, Big Rapids, and Battle
Creek that they cannot get their blood pressure checked or their
cholesterol tested? Are Republicans really planning to shut down the
government and hold middle-class families and veterans hostage in order
to stop breast cancer screenings and cholesterol checks? Unbelievable.
I think it is shameful.
It is time to come together and get this budget done. As I understand
it, there was an agreement last night on the level of spending cuts. We
need to get this done and move on to the real focus and debate we need
to be having about how we grow the economy and compete in a global
economy.
There could be a lesson learned from what people in my State have
gone through and done in the last couple of years. We did not give up
on the American automobile industry. With the support and help of our
President and Members here, despite some incredibly tough times and
difficulties in terms of cutting back that had to take place, we did
not give up. Workers sacrificed cutting starting pay in half; retirees,
the companies, the shareholders, communities, everybody got together
and said: We know there is a big problem, and we are going to get this
fixed, and we are going to sacrifice together.
Then we did an important thing with the support of people here, and I
am very grateful for it. We said: We are going to invest like crazy in
innovation. Because we did that, that combination of resetting the
budget and the finances for the auto industry and then investing in
innovation with the great help of our wonderful engineers and skilled
labor force and a whole lot of smart people who came together with
battery investments and retooling loans and are bringing jobs back from
Mexico now and investments in new advanced manufacturing, we are not
only growing and for the first time since 1999 the American companies
are making a profit, but we are winning the awards. We are winning all
the awards for top quality, the great vehicles of the future.
I suggest that would be a good model for us: Come together on what we
need to do, push the reset button, come together and get our arms
around spending, balance the budget, tackle the deficit, and then
invest like crazy in the future, in innovation and education and
rebuilding America.
Where we are today is extremely concerning to me because instead of
talking about how we compete in a global economy, instead of talking
about the United States vs. China, which is what we should be talking
about, or Germany, India, or Korea, we are at a place where we are
talking about whether the Federal budget and middle-class families will
be held hostage in order to stop cancer screenings and research for
women in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. STABENOW. I urge we come together.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the budget issues we
are facing, the continuing resolution--all the issues that have been
talked about over the last week or so. Oftentimes when I speak on the
Senate floor, I talk about what it is like back home in
[[Page S2313]]
Nebraska. I do so because I am enormously proud of my State. It just
seems our State does so many things right. Again today I am going to
take a moment or two to get started and talk a little bit about that
and my experience in dealing with budget issues.
I had the great honor at one point to serve a couple terms as mayor
of a great city, the community of Lincoln, NE. It was a strong mayoral
form of government. Each year I would have the responsibility of
preparing a budget and submitting it to a seven-person city council
that would take it apart and put it back together. I would work with
them to get a budget done.
It never occurred to me that as mayor of that city I had the ability
not to do a budget. I cannot imagine walking into a state of the city
address and saying to the good people of Lincoln that after giving it
some thought, I decided that it was going to be a situation where I
would not be submitting a budget for consideration of the city council.
It just never occurred to me.
I look at that community today led by a mayor who is very capable. It
happens to be of the other political party than I am. That community
has the lowest unemployment rate of any community in the United States.
Why? Because people take a pretty conservative view of things. In fact,
in preparing that budget, we would literally go item by item, police
cars, police salaries, fire engines, whatever, and literally list them
item by item and then the amount. At some point there would be a line
drawn through the page where we had spent all of the money we had, all
of the money available that year was spent. Everything below that line
was not funded. If I went below that line or a council member did and
said: We want more done here, we want to fund that item, then we had to
go above the line and find the money in another program or we had to
raise taxes. Those were the choices we had.
After that, I had the great honor of serving the State of Nebraska as
its Governor for two terms. Actually, the budget process did not differ
that much. Each year as Governor I would submit at the start of the
year a budget to our Nebraska unicameral. I would deliver a state of
the State address where I would talk about priorities or budget issues,
whatever I chose to talk about as Governor.
There were three things I could guarantee the citizens each year: No.
1, that a budget would be submitted and it would be approved; No. 2, we
would not borrow any money--any money--to balance that budget because
our constitution essentially prohibits elected officials at the State
level from borrowing money; and No. 3 was that the budget would, in
fact, be balanced.
We did not have the option of going out to the bond market and
issuing debt to mask the lack of discipline to get the spending under
control. We, again, had just a few choices: Choice No. 1 was we could
cut spending; choice No. 2 was we could raise taxes; and choice No. 3
was we could do some of both. I always favored the cut spending piece
because if revenues were down, it told me that people were earning less
and they were spending less, and because of that, less money was coming
into the State treasury. Why should I as Governor go out and beat them
up some more by raising their taxes?
I, as you know, spent a 3-year period of time as Secretary of
Agriculture. I was given a budget by the Congress, and it never
occurred to me I should spend more than what was allocated to me. I
would always tell my subcabinet and my cabinet, when I was Governor:
Look, this isn't magic, it is math. If the math doesn't work, then we
have to come to grips with this.
With all due respect to my colleagues who have come to the floor
throughout the day and have talked about what this process is or isn't,
and whether funding is going to be done for this program or what rider
is there, all I want to say is this: What we are finally focused on in
this great Nation is what we should have been focused on decades ago;
that is, we are spending more than is coming in. Every dollar overspent
is put on a credit card, and it doesn't go away. It won't be canceled
at my death.
I have been going across our State with charts and graphs to try to
illustrate this point. I turned 60 this year. When I was a 20-year-old
man, our government owed $380 billion. Now, I am sure at that point in
time many argued that was way too much debt. The projections now are--
under President Obama's plan--by the end of this decade, on my 65th
birthday, we will owe $20 trillion. So in the span of one lifetime--one
lifetime--we have gone from $380 billion to $20 trillion.
Mr. President, that has consequences. Now, maybe that doesn't have
consequences for a man who is 60 years old--maybe it does; I believe it
does--but beyond the shadow of a doubt, no matter which side you want
to be on, it has consequences for our children and grandchildren.
So you see, it isn't about an individual rider, an individual
program. It is about the fact that we are spending this great Nation
into an absolutely hopeless abyss. If we don't come to grips with that,
if we don't come to grips with this, this won't turn out, and it won't
turn out for anybody.
When I came here 2 years ago, I was stuck. Every conversation was,
how do we spend more? I thought there would be a stimulus package when
I was elected to the Senate. I thought maybe it would even be a package
that I would support. Then somebody said it had to be a $500 billion
package, all borrowed money, and I started getting real squeamish about
that. Then somebody outbid them and said: No, I think it has to be a
$750 billion package. Then I really got squeamish, and I knew I
couldn't support that. Then someone raised the ante, and by the time
this was all done, with interest, we borrowed from China and other
places $1 trillion. And I thought, my goodness, will we take a breather
at some point? But there was no breather. There was a health care bill
with more gimmicks and scoring than you can possibly imagine.
So here we are today, fighting over whether this continuing
resolution should be $30 billion in cuts or $60 billion in cuts. Quite
honestly, in the grand scheme of what our Nation is facing, that is
pitiful. It is almost tragic. If we don't come to grips with this soon,
the big picture, this absolutely is going to destroy any future that
our kids and grandkids might have hoped for in the United States of
America.
But hope springs eternal. I look at the glass as half full all the
time. I think we are going to get through this. I think we will deal
with the issues before us--maybe in ways some like, some dislike--but
if we don't come together somehow, some way, and deal with what the
real issue is--that we are spending a great nation into the Stone Age--
we are going to be a lesser nation than any of us could have ever
imagined, and that affects every priority. That affects Medicaid,
Social Security, education, national defense, homeland security--you
name your priority, it affects it all.
So today I count myself as one who wants to come down to the floor at
some point before the day is out and vote to solve this problem, but
then I want to do all I can to work with my colleagues to deal with
what is really facing us, which is debt that is out of control,
spending that is out of control, with a situation where no budget was
submitted and not a single appropriations bill. That is where we find
ourselves today, trying to patch this together because we didn't come
to grips with the budget process last year. Mr. President, that doesn't
seem right to me.
With that, Mr. President, I conclude my remarks, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, I rise today to ask a simple question:
What are we doing here? What are we doing jeopardizing our economic
recovery to score political points?
I happen to agree with my friend and colleague from Nebraska. I am
optimistic also in that we have agreed on a $78 billion reduction in
the 2011 budget. The glass isn't half full, it is more than three-
quarters full. They are grandstanding over the Federal budget when we
should be focusing on making sure American families can make their
monthly budgets and get back to work.
I am here to downplay the need to cut the Federal deficit. I agree
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--we need to make real
cuts now. We have already committed to the deepest cuts in
discretionary spending since World War II. Given that we are already
halfway through the fiscal year,
[[Page S2314]]
these cuts are a good downpayment on even more progress in our fiscal
2012 budget and beyond.
As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am already putting
forth concrete recommendations for more cuts in future budget years,
such as eliminating the ``orphan earmarks,'' saving upwards of $1
billion; cutting subsidies for millionaire farmers, saving, again,
billions of dollars; cutting tax loopholes, saving tens of billions of
dollars.
Shutting down the government is not going to get us any closer to the
real goal of reducing the deficit. We didn't save a single dime during
the last shutdown. In fact, it cost the American taxpayers $1.4
billion.
The economic costs will be even more. Dozens of military construction
projects are stalled right now, putting at risk hundreds of jobs this
summer and needed improvements to Alaska's military bases. I have
talked to these contractors, these individuals who are waiting for us
to get our work done to provide the certainty they need to get their
work done. There is over $\1/4\ billion pending and waiting for the
work to be done.
Military families are also caught in the middle. The military will
get paid, but the uncertainty of when they will get paid, because they
will be waiting on us to pass a bill, is unfair. We should push harder
to work out a compromise for them.
At the same time, civilian construction projects and the jobs created
by them for docks, housing, and facilities are also at risk. Critical
contracts to move forward on the land transfers to the State of Alaska
and Alaska Native Corporations will not get done in time for the summer
work.
Alaska businesses looking to start new operations won't be able to
get the SBA loans, families won't get the FHA or the USDA home loans,
and the tax refunds for people who have sent in their taxes by mail
won't be processed.
Also, key permits to onshore oil and gas development, which have been
painfully slow to move forward, will be stalled even further.
When I was home during this past week, I heard from some of the more
than 17,000 Federal workers in Alaska about their concerns. It might be
easy for some to criticize public employees, but in Alaska these
workers are members of our communities. They contribute to our economy,
pay taxes, and they provide critical services all across my State. Many
are getting by paycheck to paycheck. A shutdown could mean their rent
doesn't get paid, their mortgages are put at risk, and their bank
accounts won't balance. We cannot and should not play politics with
their jobs just because we are not doing our job.
Americans--Alaskans--are frustrated. They are wondering what the heck
we are doing here, and I agree with them. It has only been 3 months
since the new Congress convened. Not much to report back home to
Alaskans who work every day making progress in our State.
It is past time to get back to work, to roll up our sleeves, finish
this budget, and put the 2012 budget on the table and focus on the
economy and creating jobs. Our economy is starting to turn the corner.
Frankly, the many steps Congress took over the last 2 years to rebuild
this economy are working. Unemployment dipped to 8.8 percent, 216,000
jobs were created last month--the largest increase since last May--and
TARP, which we all had mixed feelings about, is not only being paid
back. It is returning a profit to the Federal Government.
Let's not put a wrench in our economic recovery. These are good data
points, but we are far from getting the job done. The economy is still
fragile. Rising gas prices make it harder. We need to show voters and
the folks back home we can work together on deficit reduction but also
tackle energy legislation, tax reform, small business support, and
education investment.
I know it will not be easy to get all this done, but this is what
folks in my State sent me here to do--to get the work done, balance the
budget, reduce spending, and continue to invest in growing our economy.
I always tell Alaskans when I get back home that all the easy issues
are done. Only the hard ones are left. That is why we are here.
Mr. President, it is time for us to get back to work.
____________________