[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 51 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2320-S2326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Oklahoma. 
I don't think there is a single Senator in this Chamber who doesn't 
recognize that we have to deal with the debt and the deficit this 
country is facing. But the reality is that we are not going to deal 
with that on the 12 percent of the budget that is nondefense 
discretionary spending. We have to look at mandatory spending and tax 
reform, and we need to do it in a thoughtful way that recognizes that 
we need to invest in our future and make the cuts where we can do it, 
without harming the future of this country.
  Mr. President, I am really sad that we are here at the eleventh hour 
on the floor of the Senate looking at a probable government shutdown at 
midnight tonight. It didn't have to be this way. I was disappointed to 
read accounts of some of our colleagues in the other Chamber, on the 
other side of the Capitol, who were literally applauding when they were 
told that a government shutdown was coming. The people of my State of 
New Hampshire are not applauding. They don't want a shutdown because 
they know that a shutdown of the Federal Government is bad for the 
country, bad for the economy, and it is bad for the people of New 
Hampshire.
  Let me begin by going over some of what is going to happen in New 
Hampshire if the government shuts down. I have spoken before about 
companies in my home State of New Hampshire who are affected by our 
inability to get a budget done--companies such as Velcro USA. I think 
we all know what Velcro is. I am proud to say it is produced in New 
Hampshire, and it was invented there. The United States military is a 
major customer for Velcro. It is a major customer of the company, 
Velcro USA, because Velcro is used in soldiers' uniforms and equipment. 
Normally, the government is a steady customer of Velcro USA, but now 
they have been waiting for months for us in Congress to pass a full-
year funding bill for the government. A shutdown will mean increased 
uncertainty for the company and for the hundreds of employees who work 
there.
  We heard from another company in my home State, a small, innovative, 
high-tech company which has said even the smallest shutdown is going to 
have dire effects. They said they would lose 95 percent of their 
revenue if we have a shutdown. This is a small business that has about 
45 employees, but it is a

[[Page S2321]]

business that has a lot of growth potential. It is exactly the kind of 
innovative company that will keep America's economy competitive. They 
were planning to hire 16 people this year--increasing their workforce 
by about one-third. But that will be put on hold if we have a 
government shutdown.
  Then there is the housing market. In New Hampshire and across the 
country, it is still very fragile, probably the slowest to recover 
sector of our economy. In New Hampshire foreclosure rates are down 12 
percent from a year ago, but they are still at historic highs. FHA home 
loan guarantees have been critical to the recovery in the housing 
market.
  Again, all of that is going to stop in a shutdown. No new FHA loans 
could be approved. If there is a closing scheduled or someone is trying 
to buy a foreclosed home or any home, with FHA help, the deal is off--
or at least it will be on hold.
  With all of the problems that have been caused by the housing crisis, 
we should not be hamstringing one of the most effective programs we 
have for assisting homeowners; and that is what we are going to do if 
there is a government shutdown.
  A shutdown would also close the Small Business Administration's 
lending programs. We all know how important working capital is for 
small businesses, which is still a problem.
  Then, of course, there are the 7,400 Federal workers in New 
Hampshire. That makes the Federal Government one of our State's largest 
employers. They don't know when paychecks are going to start again or 
if they are going to get backpay. Their salary just isn't important for 
them and their families, but these 7,400 hard-working New Hampshire 
citizens are critical to their local economy. When their pay stops, 
they stop making their mortgage payments, they stop paying their 
utility bills, they stop shopping at local stores. These are just some 
of the effects of a shutdown on the economy in my State of New 
Hampshire.
  New Hampshire is a small State, but if we multiply these economic 
impacts across our entire country, this shutdown carries the real risk 
of undermining our fragile economic recovery. Why is this happening? We 
have an agreement, pretty much, on how much we are going to cut in 
spending. In fact, the Senate has gone more than 50 percent toward 
meeting the House in the cuts they want to make in the budget.
  This is not about how much money we are going to cut from the budget; 
this is happening because we have a small minority in Congress who 
wants to use the Federal budget to prevent women from having access to 
family planning and other reproductive health care services.
  My colleague, Senator Coons, talked very eloquently about what title 
X does. Title X funding provides reproductive health services to women 
who otherwise could not access those services. That includes 
contraceptives, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, screening 
for breast and cervical cancer. It provides preventive care for women 
who, in so many cases, in New Hampshire and across the country would 
not be able to get access to that health care.
  In New Hampshire we have 28 clinics that receive title X funds, 
including community health centers, health department clinics and 
hospitals, outpatient clinics, as well as Planned Parenthood.
  This fight is not about reducing our debt. It is time now to put 
ideology aside, to work together in a bipartisan way, to get this 
budget back on track and passed so the people of this country can be 
confident that we are going to continue the economic recovery that has 
started and make sure we can put people back to work and support the 
small businesses and the people of this country who depend on the work 
we do in Washington.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire leaves the floor, I want to commend her on a number of 
things, but most important is her hard work with me and many others on 
the biennial budget bill, which we hope will come to the floor in the 
future.
  I want to comment, because this potential shutdown, which I hope 
doesn't happen--we have been speculating or asking the agencies to 
speculate on what this means. If you read yesterday's Washington Post, 
you saw that the only agency of the government that will work 
seamlessly through a shutdown, without any shortcoming or deficiencies, 
is veterans health care. That is because we biennially appropriate for 
that. The one thing that will be open during the shutdown is the one 
thing we do in the 2-year process rather than a hit-or-miss process 
like the current appropriations act.
  So the distinguished Senator, who was Governor of her State that has 
a biennial appropriations process and has worked with it, knows what I 
know. If you can plan and make things predictable, you will save money 
and improve the quality of your service. I hope we can get this country 
to a position where we do biennially appropriate and can spend 1 of 
every 2 years doing oversight and find waste and find ways to do things 
better and less expensively.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Yes.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I appreciate the Senator's kind remarks. Doesn't the 
Senator think if we had that biennial budget process in place now, we 
would not be on the floor debating whether we are going to have a 
shutdown, and that we would have a budget process that was going 
forward? As he points out, we have next year to provide oversight and 
accountability on that budget, and we would have the dependability and 
certainty that businesses and the people of this country are looking 
for; isn't that right?
  Mr. ISAKSON. There is no question that the Senator is correct. We are 
predictably unpredictable here. We need to be predictably predictable 
when it comes to the efficiencies we can bring about and how we spend 
our money. We need to do what people do, which is sit around their 
kitchen tables and prioritize what comes in and what goes out. And they 
balance their budgets. They have to. It is about time we have the same 
discipline the American people have.
  I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, in the South we have an old saying: If 
you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.
  We are at that point. We accomplished some amazing things in the last 
3, 4 weeks. I commend the House on the cuts that have taken place, but 
we ought to remember we are focusing on the minnow, when the big fish 
is on the horizon. There is only so much we can cut when 50 percent of 
a fiscal year is gone. People are talking about how little we are 
cutting out of small areas. That is because it is all there is to cut 
from. The cuts have demonstrated that we can begin to get our house in 
order. The big enchilada is coming up with the big 2012 budget.
  I did a little research on what we have done in the last 3, 4 years. 
In the last 3 years, we spent all our money on omnibus appropriations, 
except one Defense appropriations act. In doing the research, we spent 
on average 4 days of debate on those three bills. We have had the small 
business bill on the floor for 12 days, and we haven't finished it yet. 
We spent 12 days on the small business reform bill, and we only spent 
an average of 4 days on spending over $10 trillion. It is time that we 
got the current agreement--and I understand there is one--on how much 
we cut done. If we have differences on policy, we can reserve them for 
debates on the 2012 appropriations act.
  Let's get moving. Everybody here knows we have two big votes on the 
horizon. One is the pending debt ceiling vote at some time in May or 
June, and the other is the fiscal year 2012 appropriations. We will not 
get a second chance on those. The world markets are not going to give 
us another year to spend our money in a helter-skelter manner. We have 
the ability and the brain power, and we need the commitment in this 
body to spend money like the American people have to spend theirs. That 
is all they ask of us. We don't need to be extravagant, frivolous, and 
wasteful.
  Another thing on the current, pending, looming possible shutdown is 
that it is absolutely crazy, when we have committed our sons and 
daughters to

[[Page S2322]]

harm's way--right now, they are in three countries: Libya by the Air 
Force, Iraq, and Afghanistan. To put them in a position of accruing 
their income because we have shut down the government is just not 
right. It is not the right thing to do. We ought to debate these 
matters on the Senate floor with the government functioning.
  I hope all of my colleagues will recognize that we are about to take 
defeat from the jaws of victory. We have won the battle on the short 
term with the cuts we needed. Let's get this short-term cut done, let's 
get the CR done, and then let's get to the kitchen table of the 
American people and get it done for fiscal year 2012 and the years 
ahead. We have to find out how to pay back over time $14 trillion. That 
is going to take a lot of commitment, work, and time. Let's get to it. 
Let's get the CR done. Let's come back next week and finish dotting the 
i's and crossing the t's and commit ourselves that the rest of the year 
is about America's future, it is about our children and grandchildren; 
it is about beginning to rein in expenses and spend our money 
accountably and predictably so the American people can expect of us 
what we always demand of them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Levin). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for 
those very moving and powerful remarks. I differ with him only in 
recognizing that the saying about digging a hole is not only a southern 
saying, but I think by now it is a national saying, thanks to my 
southern colleagues and others.
  Let me just say about this debate that it has been very eloquent on 
both sides, but there is an unreality to it. In the real world, 
Americans are struggling to find jobs or keep them, striving to stay in 
their homes, working hard to keep their families together. In the real 
world, economic growth has to be a priority.
  We are on the verge of a failure of action that threatens the fragile 
economic recovery that right now is a priority for most Americans, and 
it is unnecessary. We are truly in danger of distracting ourselves from 
what should be the main task and the central reason we should be 
seeking a budget, which is to fund the Federal Government for the 
remainder of this year and ensure that we continue economic growth and 
provide more jobs for the American people.
  There is agreement on the numbers, on the dollars, on the figures for 
spending the remainder of this year. My colleague from Georgia has just 
confirmed what others have said on this floor repeatedly, what the 
majority leader said this morning. There is agreement on the cuts and 
the savings. The distraction is on an ideological war on women's 
health. A small minority--a very small minority--is holding this budget 
and this Nation hostage in this ideological war on women's health. That 
is a disservice to the American people who want us to go back to 
basics: jobs and the economy, get a budget done, avoid a shutdown that 
threatens that fragile recovery.
  Again and again on this floor, my colleagues have made the point that 
uncertainty and unpredictability are enemies to small businesses and 
large in this country and elsewhere in the globe that count on American 
leadership, count on our leadership in achieving a budget.
  This war on women's health care cannot be allowed to succeed. I have 
spoken about it, along with other Senators who have spoken on this 
floor, most recently the Senator from New Hampshire, who has been a 
leader on this issue, along with the Senator from California, Barbara 
Boxer, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Franken, Senator Lautenberg, Senator 
Mikulski, and others who have spoken out in favor of title X and 
Planned Parenthood funding.
  The unreality of this debate reflects a failure to appreciate what 
these dollars mean to the women who depend on these services. They are 
women who cannot afford the kinds of screenings for cancer and 
cholesterol and other problems that are so vital to preventing those 
problems that cost us all larger dollars if they go untreated. These 
services are vital to the testing for other kinds of problems that may 
be more expensive to treat if they are not dealt with and, of course, 
contraception that prevents exactly the kinds of problems or issues on 
which many in this body have focused. In Connecticut alone, we are 
talking about more than 60,000 patients served by Planned Parenthood, 
including 30,000 title X patients, 18 health centers that are imperiled 
by this rider or the conditions that would be attached, and almost 
100,000 preventive screenings that are vitally important to low-income 
women and men who need access--the key is access--to contraceptive 
services and preventive screenings, vital health care.
  There is a silver lining to this cloud. This moment is teaching us 
something. In reality, it is a teaching moment. I think it will alert a 
lot of Americans to the importance of preventive services--testing, 
screening. If it draws one more woman or man to seek these kinds of 
testing services, it will have accomplished something.
  The debate over these social issues will not be resolved in this 
budget and should not be resolved in the remaining few hours we have 
left. There will be other occasions when we can debate and resolve 
these social issues, the ideological divides that have been with us for 
decades and will remain after this budget, hopefully, is resolved in 
the next few hours.
  My hope is that there will be other teaching moments but, most 
importantly, not only about health care but about the way the 
democratic process works.
  In the short months I have been privileged--and I deeply mean 
privileged--to be part of this body and sometimes to preside in the 
very chair where the Presiding Officer is now, I have often looked 
around this Chamber and have seen the students and others who come to 
visit us and thought of the millions of Americans who are watching us 
and who hope that we will recognize we have more in common than in 
conflict as Americans; recognize that a shutdown of this government 
cannot happen consistent with our duties to seek what we have in common 
over what we have in conflict; that it would be devastating not only to 
American leadership around the globe but to the military men and women 
who are depending on our judgment and leadership, to the veterans, to 
the folks out there searching for jobs, trying to stay in their homes, 
keep their families together; recognize that the reason they sent us 
here is to do what is right for this economy now and to reach agreement 
and to do the kinds of things Americans do in their homes over that 
kitchen table when they disagree. They come together. They see what 
they have in common. They do not walk out of the house. They do not 
shut off the lights. They stay together, and they do what they think 
will best serve the common interest, which for us is to recognize that 
we have an agreement on the budget numbers, that we cannot be 
distracted by the ideological war on women's health, and that we should 
stay true to our principles.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise because obviously we are 
talking a lot today about--and really the eyes of our Nation are 
looking at what Congress is doing because there is so much negotiating 
going on. I am one who wants to have a long-term continuing resolution 
to the end of our fiscal year that makes the responsible budget cuts, 
that funds our troops and gets us on to the next item of business, 
which is the one we really must address; that is, the huge debt that is 
facing our country. That is what we should be doing.
  We are now in the throes--and I am told there are serious 
negotiations going on that we hope still will have a result before the 
midnight deadline. But if everything breaks down, I have a bill that 
now has 74 cosponsors in the Senate out of 100. That bill is very 
simple. It says that if everything else falls through, even though 
everyone I am talking to wants us to have that agreement that will not 
shut down the government, that does fund our Army, our Navy, our Air 
Force, our Marines, our Coast Guard, all of those in the Transportation 
Security Administration, all of those personnel who are waiting to see 
if their financial lives are going to be disrupted--I want to make the 
deadline so it will not be.
  However, I do have a simple bill because there are some people who 
are

[[Page S2323]]

not in the United States right now, who are overseas protecting our 
freedom. They are serving in Iraq. They are serving in Afghanistan. 
Their loved ones are mostly at home watching what is going on.
  I have been looking at the comments of the wives of the personnel, 
who are worried about what effect this is going to have on them because 
they have actually gotten notices that their pay is going to be cut, 
that it is going to be less than their full pay on the 15th because 
they are accommodating a potential government shutdown. We cannot let 
that happen.
  I have introduced S. 724. I have 74 cosponsors. Senator Inhofe and 
Senator Casey stepped up right from the beginning, and now we have 74 
Senators ready to ensure that if things break down, we will fix this 
problem.
  I am very moved by a Web site that was created by one individual 
today--early this morning, I think--and her name is Hope Gwen Bradley. 
I did not know her name earlier today when I spoke. She said: I am 
going to do something. I am one person, and I am going to do something.
  I do not know Ms. Bradley. I do not know if she has a connection to 
the military, but she opened a Facebook with the name of my bill, 
``Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011.'' As of when I left the 
office to come to the floor, there were 906,412 people on this Web site 
who agreed with her that we must at all costs alleviate any fears of 
our military families when they are doing so much for our country and 
fighting for what we are trying to do right here.
  I commend Hope Gwen Bradley--and I surely hope I can meet her some 
day--for this kind of grassroots groundswell to support our troops with 
a simple bill that says if there is a government shutdown, our troops 
will be paid on time, full pay. That is what the bill does. It has 74 
cosponsors.
  I will say that Senator Rockefeller, my esteemed colleague, the 
chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, is on 
the floor, and I am going to stop in just a minute because I am sure he 
is here for his time in morning business.
  We now have the support of the Military Officers Association, which 
has 377,000 members who sent me a letter supporting S. 724. We have the 
letter from the National Association for Uniformed Services, with 
180,000 members and supporters, signed by Richard Jones, their 
legislative director, in support of this bill. We have just received 
the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America letter saying they 
strongly support S. 724.

  Here is what they say in the letter:

       This bill ensures that all members of the Armed Forces will 
     continue to receive the pay and allowances they have earned 
     despite any lack of interim or full-year appropriations. Our 
     men and women in uniform protect our Nation and continue to 
     do so despite budget disagreements in Washington. The members 
     of our Armed Forces are essential to the defense of our 
     Nation and must be treated as such. Many young servicemembers 
     and their families--

  Remember, so many of those over there are young. They are in their 
twenties. So they are not in the high levels of compensation. 
Continuing with what this letter says, and this is the Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America, so they know what they are talking 
about; they have been there--

       Many young servicemembers and their families are dealing 
     with multiple deployments and often live paycheck to 
     paycheck. Military families should not be asked to bear 
     further financial stress in addition to fighting the war on 
     terrorism. This legislation protects the men and women who 
     protect us.

  The letter is signed by Paul Rieckhoff, the executive director of 
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. They are the ones who have 
most recently come back, and they are too coming forward and saying we 
must do this.
  I am for the bills that would come through. I think the House bill is 
a good bill. The 1-week continuing resolution does take care of the 
military. But the chances of it passing here are probably nil. I think 
if the other body was to have a clean continuing resolution, I would 
support that too. But I don't think that is going to have a chance 
either. So the only thing that is going to have a chance is if we get a 
real agreement between Senator Reid, Speaker Boehner, and the White 
House that we can do a long-term continuing resolution that will truly 
fund our troops and that will have the necessary cuts to show we are 
serious about this budget deficit and we are going to correct the 
course of our country financially. That is what we all hope for.
  But if we don't get that, my bill, 724, has 73 cosponsors, our 
Members speaking in large numbers, saying this is the right thing to 
do. I hope we can pass this bill as soon as it is clear we are not 
going to have a real agreement. We can do no less.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Feinstein to 
our bill as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, it is quite an honor to speak while 
the Presiding Officer is in the Chair. I think I have not seen him 
there before, so I will have to give a good speech. I will probably 
have to give a little longer speech simply by virtue of his presence.
  I think most people who choose a career in public life do so because 
they have a genuine, huge feeling in their heart that they want to help 
people. It is kind of simple. I know I have spent the better part of my 
career in West Virginia and in Congress looking for any way I possibly 
could--succeeding in some cases, failing in some cases--in trying 
always to make life better for West Virginians and for the American 
people as a whole. Perhaps it is a simple idea, but I can say with some 
pride that over the years we have made a lot of strides.
  It is popular, these days, I know, to beat up on the government. It 
always has been. That goes back to George Washington's time. But the 
truth is, the government does an incredible amount to help people in 
their lives every single day. The benefits of government are not always 
visible. They do not usually make the evening news, but they are 
enormously important and specific and make a large difference.
  This government looks after veterans; otherwise, they wouldn't be 
looked after. The private sector wouldn't do it. The private sector is 
sometimes very reluctant, actually, to participate in helping them. But 
when they come home from battle, the government is there with an 
expanded Veterans' Administration system and superb medical health care 
to take care of them.
  The government takes care of seniors with Medicare and our Social 
Security programs. We also have Medicaid and the Children's Health 
Insurance Program, which is vastly important in a State such as my own 
or anybody's State because it provides comprehensive health coverage to 
our most vulnerable populations, including children. We passed this 
because it is morally right. It is the right thing to do and in the 
best interest of our Nation to be sure children get a decent start in 
life--in health care, maybe even before education, because the health 
care part starts very early with early tests.
  The government builds the roads, the bridges, and other 
infrastructure that connects small towns and communities and helps make 
us a larger community. It is the fabric that links families and 
businesses all across this country.
  Federal agencies also make sure the food we eat is safe and the water 
we drink is clean. They help communities pay for public safety and all 
kinds of law enforcement to help keep our streets safe.
  People don't generally know where money comes from. That is pretty 
understandable. They just need to know, if they are sitting out in the 
evening on a summer's night, that the streets they live on are being 
patrolled or being watched, et cetera. I could go on and on. There are 
literally thousands of things government has done over the years to 
improve the quality of life for every single man, woman, and child in 
this country. It is indisputable, and there is a glorious tale in all 
that.
  But in recent weeks, we have seen the discussion about the role and 
the purpose of government take what seems to be a very nasty turn. Some 
of my colleagues on the other side have lately taken up the call to 
arms to do whatever it takes to slash, to close or to shut down the 
government. We are faced with that, and we may get that. They want to 
hold the American people

[[Page S2324]]

hostage with a ransom note that keeps getting higher and higher every 
time negotiations go on.
  There is no question we must get our growing deficit under control, 
and Democrats have taken responsible steps to do that. In fact, in the 
larger scheme of things, we have gone 75 to 80 percent toward the 
Republican position. But at every turn, Republicans have blocked 
reasonable attempts to rein in government spending. They say they want 
it to happen, but if there are reasonable attempts to do that, they 
stop it. Instead, they make unreasonable demands and they change the 
goalposts on a repeated basis.
  Last December, Democrats produced an Omnibus appropriations bill to 
fund the government for 2011 that would have reduced spending by $20 
billion, a level endorsed by a bipartisan group of Senators. Incoming 
Speaker John Boehner, however, launched a campaign to oppose that bill. 
Republicans ramped up their opposition to the bill and, instead, all we 
were able to pass was a short-term extension of funding to 2011, which 
was very frustrating.
  In February, Republicans offered a long-term proposal to fund the 
government through the end of fiscal year 2011 with $32 billion in 
cuts. But tea party Republicans, who are in control, rejected the $32 
billion and, instead, insisted on deeper cuts of $61 billion that 
Republicans knew and openly admitted were both dangerous to the economy 
and totally unlikely to pass the Senate.
  In the meantime, Democrats have fought to keep our government 
operating. We have passed $10 billion in cuts since March. It is harder 
for Democrats to make cuts than Republicans because we believe in doing 
things that help people directly, that keep them safe--such as the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission. Who knows about that? Senator Boxer 
does and I do. They make sure our toys and other products people use 
are safe. Somebody has to always be watching over what goes on.

  We have passed $10 billion in cuts since March and offered another 
$20 billion in cuts to the Republicans so we can end this standoff and 
not shut down government. Just when we thought we had finally reached 
an agreement on $33 billion in additional cuts below the 2010 enacted 
levels--which is $73 billion below the President's 2011 budget 
proposal--not interesting, all these statistics but profoundly 
important in the function and the possibilities of government. So this 
was at the end of March. But Republicans then changed the rules again. 
They demanded $40 billion in cuts to appease the far right--the tea 
partiers.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side have lately taken up a call 
to arms to do whatever it takes to close the government. Despite a 
previous commitment from the Speaker, middle-ground funding cuts of $33 
billion are no longer good enough.
  Then, as the final bomb, they passed the seventh short-term spending 
measure that is loaded with $12 billion in spending cuts--which, by the 
way, is six times more than the agreed-upon rate of $2 billion a week, 
which includes the Department of Defense appropriations bill and all 
those 66 riders that have absolutely no place on any appropriations 
bill.
  What is required is less concern about the tea party messaging and 
total attention to the well-being of the American people and the health 
of our Nation. The tea party cry--delivered in gleeful shouts and rants 
on the floor of the House, in the Senate, and frequently in rallies 
outside these buildings--is nothing like I have ever seen before. I 
have been here 25 years--something like that--and I have never seen 
anything like it. But they want to close the government down, and they 
love the theater of it.
  Recently, we watched as an extremist crowd, standing on the lawn 
outside, waved flags with snakes on them and shouted: Shut it down, 
shut it down, shut it down, as if this is a sporting event--you know, 
the Roman Coliseum. Let the gladiators compete, the heck with the 
people. Let the Roman Senate take care of that. Even the leadership on 
the other side has joined in--with one Republican Member telling the 
crowds and people everywhere, therefore, because it was televised, that 
he wants to see the government shut down. He flatout said that.
  I believe they want that. I believe they want that. So really? You 
have such disdain for our constitutional government, you so disrespect 
our fellow citizens--the people who sent us and who count on us to help 
and protect them--that you want a government shutdown? That is the 
deal, I guess.
  Has anyone else noticed that in many parts of the world today there 
are protests in the streets about basic freedoms? Here, where we are 
privileged already to enjoy these freedoms, we are stuck in the middle 
of a political debate with extreme positions and Members of Congress 
who seem not to care what happens as long as they win or score points 
for the next election--a cynical thing to say, but it happens to be 
true.
  Frankly, this cynical posturing from the other side has not only 
brought us to the brink of a government shutdown--only a few hours from 
now, perhaps, though I hope not--it has taken us to a point where we 
are forgetting what it is we are arguing about in the first place. What 
should be a serious, thoughtful debate about finding reasonable ways to 
cut the budget and scale back our deficit has, for some, instead, 
turned into a game. I say that because what we are hearing from the 
other side is that they want mostly to move in an extreme agenda. They 
care about that. They have their markers. They have to meet those 
markers; no matter the effect on the people, they have to meet the 
markers.

  They ran, some of them without any intention--many of them without 
any intention of running again so they can't be held accountable, so 
they can work on shutting down government which they do not like for 
various reasons. So it is no longer on agreeing on a dollar figure to 
cuts from the budget. It is about turning the government into a 
boogeyman and closing its doors.
  Let me tell you why I think that is unacceptable. It is because this 
is not a game at all, this is real life and the decisions we make here 
have real world implications for the people of West Virginia and every 
other State and all over the world.
  Let's consider what would happen if the extremist wing of the 
Republican party gets its way and the government does in fact shut 
down. Soldiers would not get their paychecks if there is a shutdown, if 
we cannot pass something. That is right, the service men and women who 
risk their lives so we may live in freedom might not get paid. You can 
talk, maybe someday they will be repaid, but in the meantime they are 
living week to week, and their families are, and they don't get paid. 
That doesn't sound like a sane policy.
  In my State of West Virginia there are more than 6,500 people serving 
in the National Guard. Nationally, about half of the young men and 
women in the military are 25 years old or younger, and about 40 percent 
of them have children. Many of the families are on one income and some 
are living paycheck to paycheck. They don't know what they are going to 
do. That is one more thing they should not be thinking about. They 
should be thinking about surviving and carrying out their mission.
  The chair has indicated that I have gone on a little bit too long so 
I am going to beg for 1\1/2\ more pages. That being granted, I will 
proceed.
  There is so much more on the chopping block if the extremists in 
Congress get their way. The Federal Housing Administration wouldn't be 
able to process mortgage loans. Social Security claims would freeze. I 
am not sure that Medicare could take in any new members, several 
thousand people every day who qualify for Medicare. I am not sure they 
could be taken in.
  We remember that during the 4 days of the 1995 shutdown, 112,000 
claims for Social Security retirement and disability benefits were not 
taken, they were not received, they were not processed, they were not 
dealt with, and 800,000 callers were denied service on the Social 
Security Administration's phone.
  I am going to stop with that. I think you get the drift of my 
feeling, and what I feel. But I do not consider it a game if the IRS 
could, would, stop refund checks. More than 235,000 West Virginians 
will file their taxes using paper forms this year. Computers are not 
all the rage in all parts of West Virginia. So they will wait longer 
for their returns to be completed.

[[Page S2325]]

  I could go on with small business and the National Institutes of 
Health and all the rest of it. Federal mine safety inspection will shut 
down. The mines will continue to run but there will be no Federal 
inspectors. I respect the State inspectors but I have a lot more 
respect for Federal inspectors. Mines operating with nobody inspecting? 
It is a horrifying thought.
  I hope somehow this will come out to be a good result. There are 
reasons why it could be, and there are reasons both to be pessimistic 
and to be a little bit optimistic. I cannot at this time call it either 
way.
  We would turn the lights off on the NIH--and tell scientists working 
on developing life-saving treatments or finding a cure for cancer, that 
their work will have to wait. And they will have to turn away patients 
whose best or only hope is to join a clinical trial for new treatments 
or medicines.
  We would shutter the agency responsible for regular Federal mine 
safety and health inspections--should I remind my colleagues here that 
this month marks 1 year since the worst mining accident in recent 
history at Upper Big Branch?
  Inspections of stock brokers and routine oversight of financial 
markets by Federal agencies would cease. Enforcement actions would be 
postponed. Do we need to review where that might get us?
  West Virginia is set to receive $416,590 in Low Income Heating and 
Energy Assistance Program--LIHEAP. But that stops in a shutdown.
  Some of the FEMA flood mitigation and flood insurance operations 
would stop. Have we forgotten the lessons of Katrina so quickly? In 
West Virginia, spring storms often brings torrential and devastating 
floods that can wipe out entire communities.
  Most veterans' benefits services would stop; we know the last time 
that extremists on the other side closed the government more than 
400,000 veterans saw their disability, pension or educational benefits 
delayed.
  I could go on.
  What is more ridiculous is that even the leaders on the other side 
have conceded that the vast ``shutdown'' movement is not even sound 
fiscal policy.
  The Speaker of the House, who is not as extreme as others in his 
party, said recently that if you shut the government down, it will end 
up costing more than you will save.
  A new study from Goldman Sachs said that a Federal shutdown would 
cost $8 billion a week. And the economist Mark Zandi predicted that a 
shutdown would have a detrimental impact on our recovery.
  Why? Because many of the contracts and other services that are 
interrupted do not go away--they just get delayed. So you often end up 
paying more in the long run.
  It is tempting to wonder if the other side is interested in anything 
more than finding clever new ways to attack the White House and score 
political points. We started this debate earlier in the year with a 
mutual agreement that we need to find ways to pay down the deficit and 
make some cuts and somewhere along the way we went off the rails.
  During the last couple of weeks, as extremists on the other side have 
prevented us from arriving at a deal, Congress has resorted to short 
stop-gap funding measures that cut billions of dollars from Federal 
programs as part of a deal to buy more time.
  Instead of just tossing out a claim that we must cut $33 billion more 
from the budget without any distinction on what is valuable, wouldn't 
we be better off having a conversation about reforming the Tax Code to 
end the disgraceful tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the 
middle class?
  I have tried for years to work towards a tax policy that would do 
less for corporate America and more for Main Street America; less for 
offshore operations and more for seniors and families; and less for big 
oil companies and more for investment, infrastructure and innovation.
  Does the other side realize that at a certain point we are mocking 
the American people, we are mocking the legislative process and we are 
mocking the entire Congress by turning this issue into a game of 
chicken where the other side just doesn't care about consequences?
  To the cynics who recklessly argue that the government should ``shut 
down'' I ask: Do you realize the impact of your words? Do you see what 
would happen to the people of West Virginia or any other State in this 
great Nation, if we just tell everyone that the government can't 
function right now?
  I want to make a point here. The other side likes to go on and on 
about how important it is for us to get the economy back on track and 
keep the recovery going.
  Have any of them who keep crying that we should ``shut it down'' 
stopped and thought about the economic impact on families of sending 
home thousands of hard working Americans without a pay check?
  During the two government shutdowns in 1995-1996, about 800,000 
Federal employees were unable to work. Is cheering for a repeat a good 
path towards prosperity?
  Is the best way to curb spending really to just tell people go home 
and sit? To tell them that they may have a job at some point but for 
now we are closing programs, parks, grants, inspectors and everything 
else they can think of?
  With workers facing frozen wages struggling to pay their mortgages, 
coping with trade deficits, and closed factories--is this really the 
best we can do for them?
  Shutting down the government is a simple and easy way to pander to 
the tea party and the extremist elements of the far right. By insisting 
on their way or no way, the tea partiers are squandering precious time 
and resources. The best part of what we do here is working together. 
Finding the best ideas and working until we have a solution.
  This squabble should be settled by a reasoned discussion and a 
thoughtful exchange of ideas between Democrats and Republicans.
  I call upon the other side to show some leadership and bring us back 
from the brink.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the important issue of 
the day. Sometimes complex challenges present clear and compelling 
choices. That is the case for the fiscal challenge before us today. We 
have a choice between delay and disruption or progress and accord. The 
Nation's eyes are upon us. We need to vote to keep our government 
running, to pay our military, and at the same time take essential steps 
to tame our uncontrolled spending and deficit. Most important, we need 
to ensure that our men and women in uniform continue to receive their 
well-earned pay while we undertake the work of balancing America's 
books and they undertake the vital work of defending our Nation, both 
here at home and abroad.
  In that regard, I am proud to be one of the sponsors of a bill 
introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison that will make sure that 
happens, even after the work of the 111th Congress is finished. I am 
also pleased to report that we are now up to 74 cosponsors.
  But in the final analysis we need to reduce our overall spending, 
which Americans recognize is necessary, necessary because every day we 
delay we are spending ourselves $4 billion deeper into debt. Right now, 
this fiscal year, we are on a path to spend $3.7 trillion, but we are 
taking in only $2.2 trillion in revenue, leaving a deficit of more than 
$1.5 trillion. To make up for that shortfall the Federal Government is 
borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend, with a national 
debt of more than $14 trillion. Our largest lender is China, which now 
holds more than $1 trillion in American bonds.
  No American family would practice that kind of fiscal management, and 
neither should our country. Reducing our debt and deficit is something 
the American people understand and support because the American people 
are the ones suffering the impacts. Nearly 14 million of our country 
men and women are out of work and another 8 million are underemployed 
because they have had their hours cut back or they cannot find a full-
time job. Sadly, 1 million more have stopped looking.
  As private investment has plummeted, unemployment has climbed sharply 
to levels we have not seen in decades. For those who are fortunate 
enough to be working, the American dream is getting more and more 
difficult to achieve. In response to growing inflationary pressure, the 
Federal

[[Page S2326]]

Reserve Bank now says that interest rates are likely to rise at the end 
of the year to tighten our money supply. Every percent increase in 
interest rates adds $140 billion to our debt. Higher interest rates 
will erode the income of every American and make it harder to buy a 
home, a car, or a college education. Spending more will not help them. 
In fact, spending more will prolong the problem.
  In the 1990s, when government spending as a share of GDP shrank, 
employment grew. Despite the surge in government spending over the past 
2 years, unemployment still hovers stubbornly at about 9 percent. We do 
not need more public spending. What we need is more private investment. 
When private investment grows, unemployment shrinks. The American 
people understand all of this and that is why they want us to arrive at 
a plan that keeps our government running, that respects the sacrifices 
of our military in real terms, and puts us back on the road to fiscal 
health.
  We owe it to these hard-working men and women to bring the 2011 
budget to a reasonable and realistic conclusion and then move on to the 
important matters that still lie before us, including the 2012 budget. 
That is where we can address all of the substantive and urgent issues 
that we must resolve to get America's financial house in order; issues 
such as making sure we have a prudent level of spending, reforming our 
Tax Code, and making entitlement programs such as Social Security and 
Medicare solvent and more secure for our seniors, both now and long 
into the future. We owe that not just to our current constituents but 
to future generations of Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

                          ____________________