[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 55 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2488-S2491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FISCAL YEAR 2011 SAFER PROGRAM
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I want to highlight an important
provision that is included in the Homeland Security division of this
bill. It is related to the firefighter hiring program known as SAFER.
In 2009 and 2010, Congress approved waivers for several restrictions of
the SAFER grant program because in this economic downturn fire
departments were struggling to meet those requirements. By adding this
flexibility to the program, fire departments were able to make the best
use of the funding provided in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. A provision
in this bill maintains three of the same waivers for fiscal year 2011
and specifically allows for the grants to be used to retain and/or
rehire personnel, to supplant local funds, and a local match is not
required. While some might argue that it is a local responsibility to
hire firefighters, it has been made clear disaster after disaster--and
especially including catastrophic events such as the 9/11 attacks and
Hurricane Katrina--that firefighters are the first people we call on
from all over the Nation to serve in a national response. Of course, I
supported the inclusion of all six waivers contained in the Inouye
amendment. Through negotiations we were able to secure the provisions
that allow for the retention and/or rehiring of firefighters, the
waiver of a cost share, and the ability to supplant local funds.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my subcommittee chairman for highlighting this
important provision. Ensuring that the SAFER grants are available to
retain and/or rehire firefighters and waiving match requirements will
provide communities the assistance they need in these tough times.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, much attention has been given to how the
Ryan plan ends Medicare as we know it by turning Medicare into a
voucher program.
For example, on April 6, 2011, AARP wrote to Congressman Ryan:
Today's budget proposal appropriately acknowledges that
health care costs must be addressed if the federal budget is
to be balanced. However, rather than recognizing that health
care is an unavoidable necessity which must be made more
affordable for all Americans, this proposal simply shifts
these high costs onto Medicare beneficiaries, and shifts the
even higher costs of increased uninsured care onto everyone
else. By creating a ``premium support'' system for future
Medicare beneficiaries, the proposal will increase costs for
beneficiaries while removing Medicare's promise of secure
health coverage--a guarantee that future seniors have
contributed to through a lifetime of hard work.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities put out a statement on
April 6, 2011 stating:
Many future Medicare beneficiaries with modest incomes,
such as elderly widows who must live on $15,000 or $20,000 a
year, also would likely be hit by the plan's Medicare
provisions; the Medicare voucher (or defined contribution)
they would receive would fall farther and farther behind
health care costs--and purchase less and less coverage--with
each passing year. Aggravating this problem, Ryan has said
that his plan calls for repeal of a key measure of the health
reform law that is designed to moderate Medicare costs--the
Independent Payment Advisory Board. In other words, his plan
would scrap mechanisms to slow growth in the costs of health
care services that Medicare beneficiaries need, even as it
cuts back the portion of those costs that Medicare would
cover.
The Center for American Progress writes:
Medicare as we know it would end for new beneficiaries in
2022 under the House Republican budget proposal. It would be
replaced with a government voucher that would be paid
directly to private insurance companies. This system would
double costs to seniors. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office, or CBO, concluded that ``most elderly people would
pay more for their health care than they would pay under the
current Medicare system.''
However, there has been less discussion of the other ways in which
the Ryan plan would hurt current beneficiaries.
So I would like to give some specific examples how the changes
Congressman Ryan proposed will impact current Medicare beneficiaries.
The Republican plan will force beneficiaries to pay for preventive
services and eliminates the free annual wellness exam they can
currently receive. Nearly all 44 million beneficiaries who have
Medicare, including 2.2 million in Pennsylvania, can now receive free
preventive services--such as mammograms and colonoscopies--as well as a
free annual wellness visit with their doctor.
The Republican plan will eliminate the efforts that have begun to
close the doughnut hole. If the Republican budget becomes law, costs
for Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the doughnut hole will
increase drastically. Over 266,000 Pennsylvanians will pay an
additional $149 million in 2012 and $3 billion through 2020.
The Republican plan hurts beneficiaries today by repealing
improvements designed to save them money and provide needed services.
It hurts beneficiaries even more beginning in 2022 when end Medicare as
we know it and puts in place a voucher system to ration health care and
increase costs for beneficiaries.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last Friday night, in the absence of a
budget deal, the Federal Government came within 1 hour of shutting its
doors and all but emergency services. The obstacle to an agreement at
that point was not a matter of spending levels or budget cuts. The
obstacle was ideologically driven policy riders that some insisted on
including in the budget bill. Thankfully, in the end, we prevailed in
stripping out the abhorrent rider to bar funding for Planned
Parenthood.
A small but vocal minority is adamant about eliminating one specific
organization's health centers, which provide health care and family
planning services for women nationwide. Planned Parenthood centers
receive Federal funding from title X of the Public Health Service Act--
the only Federal grant program dedicated to offering people
comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services.
President Nixon was instrumental in enacting this legislation, and it
has been supported since then by lawmakers and Presidents of both
parties. As many women can tell you, title X was a remarkable
breakthrough in women's health care.
What a travesty it would have been to gut health services to women
that literally have meant the difference between life or death, health
or grave illness, to countless American women. Vermonters were
outspoken in their opposition to this rollback for women's health, and
I am proud of our State and grateful for our success in this round.
Tens of thousands of women in Vermont depend on title X of the Public
Health Service Act for lifesaving preventive treatments and care.
Around the country, there are many providers of title X services, but
in Vermont, Planned Parenthood centers are the only clinics where many
lower income women can go for family planning care. Planned Parenthood
centers in Vermont offer women and teens annual health exams, cervical
and breast cancer screenings, and HIV screenings and counseling. Last
year in Vermont, Planned Parenthood provided critical primary and
preventive services to nearly 21,000 patients.
In the last few weeks more than 6,000 Vermonters have contacted me
about their support for the funds that make title X health services
possible and for Planned Parenthood's long and commendable record of
making title X's promise a reality for millions of American women in
Vermont and across the Nation. I have heard from nurses and doctors in
Vermont urging me to support funding for Planned Parenthood in order to
continue essential care these centers offer to their own patients and
to women who would not receive primary health care were it not for
Planned Parenthood.
Despite the misleading and blatantly false statements of some
ideologically driven advocates, more than 90 percent of the care
Planned Parenthood health centers offer is preventive. In fact, 6 of
every 10 women who use Planned Parenthood for title X services describe
it as their primary source of medical care. And despite what some
opponents of women's health funding have proclaimed, absolutely no
title X funding can be used for abortion services. The sad irony is
that defunding title X and Planned Parenthood would result in more
unintended pregnancies, and probably more abortions.
[[Page S2489]]
This drive to defund women's health services offered by a particular
organization also raises constitutional concerns. Article I, section 9,
paragraph 3 of our Constitution expressly forbids passage of any ``bill
of attainder.'' According to the late former Chief Justice of the
United States, William Rehnquist, ``A bill of attainder was a
legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed
punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were
regarded as odious by the Framers of the Constitution because it was
the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose
punishment.'' Yet those promoting the anti-Planned Parenthood rider
clearly intend to single out one organization by name to ``punish'' it,
``punishing'' as well the millions of women who Planned Parenthood
serves.
Proponents of this rider have cited what they call ``evidence'' that
Planned Parenthood has acted unlawfully. Other supporters of this
virulent effort charge that the organization has been ``accused'' of a
variety of things. These comments make clear that their legislative
intent is to punish for these unverified accusations. Some in fact have
gone so far as to accuse Planned Parenthood of violating the law that
prohibits any Federal funds to be used to provide abortions.
There is no substantive reason to believe such accusations. If there
is any violation of this or any Federal law, it is the role of the
executive branch to prosecute and try the offenders. That is not the
role of this body, though that is what some are advocating, through
their injection of accusations and partisan politics into this debate.
The Framers' original intent was to prohibit bills that single out
one entity for punishment because that is not Congress's role in the
separation of powers they so carefully devised for our Republic.
Aside from the serious constitutional issues with the pending measure
is one naked fact from which proponents of this legislative rider
cannot hide: Nothing in this pernicious rider would actually reduce
spending. Their proposal would save not one penny. This is about
``punishment,'' not fiscal responsibility.
Does this Congress care more about what looks good on a bumper
sticker or what matters in the daily lives of real people? The
arrogance and shortsighted attitude of a minority has put at risk the
lives and health of millions of women. My wife Marcelle is a cancer
survivor. We were lucky. We had good health care and a salary that
allowed us to pay the bills when she got sick. Other people are not so
lucky. Without the services that Planned Parenthood provides, thousands
of low-income women in Vermont would lose their ability to have regular
cancer screenings that could save their lives too. That we are even
considering the elimination of these health services to America's women
is shameful. That it was the sticking point that nearly forced the
shutdown of the Federal Government is a disgrace.
Title X was a true breakthrough for the health of American women.
Should we as a nation walk back from the remarkable progress we have
made in women's health? Of course not. The mean-spirited and
ideological attacks must end, and these ideological assaults on women's
health care must end.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, there is no doubt that we must take
action to reduce our budget deficit. The question is, How will we
accomplish this? Will we do as we have done all too often over the last
few years, and protect the tax cuts of the well-to-do at the expense of
middle-class families? Or will we seek a balanced approach that seeks
to spread the burden of deficit reduction so that the upper income
folks who have so prospered the last few years also contribute to the
solution?
There is no question in my mind that deficit reduction requires
shared sacrifice. By that test, the legislation before us is highly
problematic. True, it manages to avoid some of the most extreme budget
cuts that House Republicans included in their original appropriations
bill. The bill before us is surely reasonable in comparison with that
extreme measure. But the test cannot be whether it is better than HR 1.
We can and must do better.
What troubles me most is that this legislation seeks to address the
problem in only one manner, targeting nondefense discretionary programs
that make up a fraction of our budget. I remain convinced it is a
mistake to attack the deficit only through cuts in domestic
discretionary spending, and not also end the huge Bush tax cuts for
upper incomes, and close tax loopholes and reduce tax expenditures that
most budget experts believe must be part of any serious deficit
reduction plan. Simple math makes clear that those kinds of revenues
must be a part of the solution.
The refusal to take a balanced approach in this legislation means
that to reach its deficit reduction target, this bill makes cuts that
are, in my mind, too large. It reduces funding for the COPS program and
grants to state and local law enforcement agencies by more than one-
quarter, making our communities less safe. It reduces energy efficiency
funds by 18 percent, as though this issue wasn't crucial to our
Nation's future security and prosperity. It cuts funding for the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 11 percent, as though the
health of our citizens was not a priority.
This bill eliminates all funding for the HUD Housing Counseling
Assistance Program, eliminates it entirely, ignoring the fact that
communities across the nation are reeling from a foreclosure crisis.
This bill cuts by 20 percent funding for Army Corps of Engineers
construction. That provides funding for the barrier that we hope will
keep destructive Asian carp out of the Great Lakes, and believe me,
that is false economy. The economic damage Asian carp can do if they
establish themselves in the Lakes is incalculable. The bill also cuts
more than one-quarter of funding for vital water infrastructure
programs important not just in Michigan but around the state, and it
makes a deeply misguided 37 percent cut in Great Lakes restoration
initiative funding, a totally unjustifiable reduction of our commitment
to lakes that are an engine of economic activity for all the states in
the Great Lakes region.
There are some important programs that have escaped the worst cuts. I
am pleased that students will still be able to receive a maximum Pell
grant of $5,500, and that the misguided proposal to reduce these grants
has been defeated. I am pleased that this bill generally avoids
misguided Republican attempts to deprive financial regulatory agencies
of the resources they need to prevent the next financial collapse.
This bill rescinds highway funding that was provided at least 13
years ago, including funds from the ISTEA reauthorization bill. That
should mean that the funding for the traverse city bypass, later
reprogrammed to the grand vision, will not be included in that
rescission since it is no longer part of the ISTEA bill. At the request
of the community, the funds were reprogrammed in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2005 for an entirely different purpose than the
original legislation and in an entirely different bill. Since that time
the community has completed the comprehensive grand vision study and is
now poised to implement its recommendations.
I am also glad that the bill contains a full year Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, so that our troops and their families will
no longer have any doubt about when their next paycheck will arrive.
And I am pleased that it does not include ideologically motivated
policy riders that would interfere with women's health care and
environmental protection.
But on balance, this bill lacks balance. It seeks solutions only in
cutting domestic programs that make our Nation safer and more
prosperous, that protect our environment, and that help the families
that have suffered most during the financial crisis and recession,
while protecting the tax cuts that benefit those at the very top.
Because of that lack of balance, that lack of fairness, I am unable
to support this bill. But I am encouraged that, thanks to the
leadership President Obama showed this week, and thanks to the voices
of the many of us who are arguing for a balanced approach to deficit
reduction, we are finally engaged in an open and honest debate over the
vision we should follow for the future of our country.
In the weeks and months ahead, we will finally seek an answer to the
question of whether we will all share in the
[[Page S2490]]
sacrifices required, and whether the same people who have done so very
well over the last decade or so will be asked to contribute. I agree
with our President, who said this week:
At a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its
lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us
can afford to pay a little more. I don't need another tax
cut. Warren Buffett doesn't need another tax cut. Not if we
have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare.
Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college
scholarships that I wouldn't be here without. . . . And I
believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They
want to give back to the country that's done so much for
them. Washington just hasn't asked them to.
Let me add that I will vote against both of the correcting
resolutions before us today. It is ironic indeed that Republicans claim
to be fighting the deficit by blocking the implementation of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which according to the
Congressional Budget Office will reduce the deficit by $210 billion
from 2012 to 2021. Likewise, the attempt to prohibit funding for
Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with the deficit and everything to
do with extreme ideology.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, after 6\1/2\ months it appears the
Congress may finally be able to finish the fiscal year 2011
appropriations process. Earlier today the House passed a Department of
Defense Appropriations bill which includes an extension of the current
continuing resolution through the end of the fiscal year. If the Senate
passes this legislation and the President signs it, we will be able to
close the books on this issue and focus our attention on the budget for
fiscal year 2012.
In reflecting upon how we got here, I wish to point out to my
colleagues that the fundamental reason we find ourselves debating a
continuing resolution today is because 1 year ago the Congress was
unable to agree upon a budget resolution. The failure to reach a
consensus agreement on the budget meant the Appropriations Committee
was asked to resolve the differences in spending itself. After months
of attempting to do so, the committee was unable to bridge the gap
between the Republicans and Democrats.
When the committee finally adopted a funding level proposed by the
Republicans, a hostile political environment crippled the committee's
efforts to enact a bipartisan budget plan. As we go forward I would ask
all of my colleagues to think carefully about this, and I urge everyone
to cooperate both here in the Senate and with our colleagues in the
House. If we can fashion a compromise budget agreement this year it
might allow our committee to restore the bipartisan working
relationship which has long been the hallmark of the committee for
generations. I sincerely hope that will be the case.
In some respects today we can take that first step. The bill that we
are considering reflects a bipartisan agreement reached among the
leadership of the House and Senate and the White House with the details
being worked out by the Committees on Appropriations. It is a very
tough measure that cuts domestic spending more than I am comfortable
with, but it is dramatically superior to the alternative passed by the
House 2 months ago and equally superior to not passing an extension
through the end of the year.
In total, the measure reduces government spending $78.5 billion below
the President's request. It is nearly $40 billion below the enacted
level for fiscal year 2010. Never before have we cut our appropriated
funding so drastically. By far and away this is the largest 1-year cut
from the President's budget request in the Nation's history. The bill
cuts all categories of spending: defense, international, and domestic,
discretionary and mandatory. While some of my colleagues will argue
that the Department of Defense was ``let off the hook,'' others will
probably say the bill cuts more from defense than is prudent.
Including military construction, the Defense Department's budget is
reduced $20 billion below the President's request. In comparison to the
fiscal year 2010 enacted funding, the department's budget is
approximately $2 billion below a freeze, with military construction
down by more than $6 billion and the rest of defense increasing by more
than $4 billion.
The priority in this defense bill is first and foremost to ensure
that we treat our military personnel and their families fairly. This
means a 1.4 percent pay raise. It means fully funding health care, but
it also means ensuring that our forces have the proper equipment and
the funding necessary to operate it. While funding is austere, the bill
includes important enhancements such as buying more missiles for our
Aegis missile defense ships, and more helicopters for search and rescue
operations and medical evacuation in Afghanistan. It means investing in
new technologies at a faster pace than requested, purchasing more
drones to find and wipe out terrorists, and ensuring the safety of our
soldiers and Marines by accelerating the purchases of safer Stryker
vehicles and MRAPs.
Accomplishing this while at the same time reducing defense spending
has been a challenge, but working with our colleagues in the House we
have put together a plan which fulfills all of these objectives.
But this bill isn't just about defense. For the State Department and
foreign assistance, we are providing $8 billion less than was
requested. This low level of funding was the most we could get our
colleagues in the House to agree with, and it means many important
programs will have to be reduced. We won't be able to make as much
progress on fighting AIDS and hunger. We won't have as much funding as
I would like to support our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. But
considering the budget situation we face, we will have to make do.
It is in the area of domestic spending in which the bill makes the
most serious reductions, with the total included being approximately
$50 billion below the President's request. In achieving this rate of
savings, this compromise measure sought out as many different ways to
reduce spending as possible to allow us to preserve our critically
important priorities. We were able to mitigate the damage by looking at
areas where we could identify savings from mandatory spending and by
rescinding lower priority funds. In total, domestic discretionary
spending is cut by $38.3 billion while mandatory spending comes down by
$17.7 billion.
Many, many programs had to be cut to reach these levels. In health
care, in education, in housing, in infrastructure, but this bill is
much better than the approach adopted by the House in HR 1. For
example, we were able to fully fund Head Start--restoring the House
Republican cut of $1.4 billion which would have denied 218,000 children
an opportunity to learn. We provided $30.7 billion for NIH, $1.4
billion more than the House Republicans. We provided $2.1 billion more
for food safety than the Republican plan.
In energy, housing, our National Parks, our transit programs, in
every area we forced the House to back away from their unwise cuts
which would have devastated the progress we are making to restore the
economy and protect our people. Crazy ideas like furloughing Social
Security workers and shutting off food inspections were turned around.
But there is more to this story. The House bill wasn't just about
dangerous and drastic cuts; it was also an attempt to legislate
terrible social policy on a must pass emergency spending bill.
Here too we turned them around. Nearly a dozen provisions to overturn
health care reform were rejected. Eleven riders to gut the
Environmental Protection Agency were rejected. Provisions to eliminate
successful programs like needle exchanges, and the Corporation on
Public Broadcasting were denied. Their attempts to rewrite gun laws and
net neutrality were rejected.
It is true and regrettable that we had to accept limited provisions
affecting the District of Columbia on abortion and school vouchers. We
are not happy about that. Still, in comparison to what the House wanted
to do, this bill is an enormous improvement even for the District of
Columbia.
As in any compromise, neither party to the agreement is happy with
every item in the bill. Some on the other side would have preferred
more cuts in domestic programs while most members on our side believe
we have cut our domestic priorities too deeply. But, this is truly a
bipartisan bill. When it is approved it will be the most significant
[[Page S2491]]
legislation to pass the Congress this year.
I believe this bill provides a road map on how we can continue to
work across party lines to achieve what is necessary for the country.
Yesterday the President unveiled his long-range strategy to reduce the
deficit. His approach is extremely different than the approach of the
House Republicans. In 2 weeks our Senate Budget Committee will unveil
its plan on regaining fiscal control. It is not overstating the case to
say that it is truly a matter of urgent national security that we reach
across party lines and conclude an agreement with our colleagues in the
House to regain control over our government's finances.
Both parties feel strongly about their recommendations and the
structure of future budgets. The philosophical divisions are wide. But
as I watched the President's speech, I thought about this continuing
resolution and how we were able to bridge a huge divide between the
Houses and the political parties. Because of this experience I became
more optimistic that we can find a way to work with our House
colleagues and come up with a deficit reduction plan that would
represent all of our best efforts to act in the Country's interest.
Today it is vitally important that we take that first step toward
putting our fiscal house in order by adopting this bill. It is also
critical that the Congress demonstrate that it can act in the spirit of
compromise and in the national interest. This bill represents a fair
compromise which will meet our country's needs, and I urge all my
colleagues to support it.
Madam President, I submit pursuant to Senate rules a report, and I
ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items
I certify in accordance with rule XLIV of the Standing
Rules of the Senate that there are no congressionally
directed spending items contained in H.R. 1473.
Mr. INOUYE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, as ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations, I regret that the Senate must consider in mid-April an
appropriations bill for a fiscal year that is already half over. It
disturbs me that we have subjected the Federal Government to eight
short-term continuing resolutions over the past 6 months. Such measures
are inefficient, add hidden costs to Federal contracts and
procurements, and make it difficult for State and local governments to
plan effectively. Such measures also have a detrimental impact on the
morale of the Federal workforce, including our men and women in uniform
who last week, even while engaged in hostilities overseas, were left
wondering about their next paycheck.
However, this delay has made possible significant spending
reductions. The bill cuts $38 billion from the spending levels in place
at the beginning of this Congress. It also cuts $78 billion from the
President's fiscal year 2011 budget request. These reductions in
spending will compound over time and, if sustained, will result in a
significant reduction in our national debt. These reductions don't come
without consequences, however. The bill cuts programs that are
important both nationally and in my State of Mississippi. This bill
contains rescissions of funds I once fought hard to appropriate but
which have not been spent for a variety of reasons. In many cases, we
don't yet know the precise impacts of the various cuts because so much
discretion is left to the implementing agencies. We all recognize,
however, that sacrifices must be made in order to achieve the greater
good of fiscal solvency.
We also recognize that the bill is only one step toward addressing
our Nation's debt problem. Although discretionary spending will be an
important component of any solution to that problem, we will fail to
solve it if we focus on discretionary spending alone. Hopefully, the
agreement reached on this bill will lay a foundation for the much more
difficult decisions on entitlements and taxes that lie ahead.
We also realize some will think this bill cuts far too little and
some will think it cuts too much. I suspect that, individually, each of
us could write spending bills at much lower levels than are contained
in this legislation. We could fund those things we deem to be
priorities and significantly cut back or eliminate the rest. But this
legislation, instead, represents the priorities of the people of the
entire Nation as expressed and negotiated by their duly elected
Representatives, Senators, and the President.
On balance, the process has worked well. But without a budget
resolution or any agreement on an appropriate top-line discretionary
spending level, there was little agreement on the level of funding in
appropriations bills. As a result, we are once again presented with a
single trillion-dollar package that no Senator has had an opportunity
to amend. The bill gives enormous flexibility to the executive branch
because it does not contain the detailed directives typically found in
appropriations bills and reports. And, of course, it is 6 months late.
I hope in the coming months that Congress and the President will
reach consensus on a budget plan that will address each of the major
drivers of our current fiscal imbalance, including discretionary
spending. We need to find a way to bring fiscal year 2012
appropriations bills to the floor individually and get them to
conference with the other body. I believe such a process would provide
needed constraints on spending levels while allowing all Members to
influence the content of the individual bills.
Madam President, I will vote for this bill, and I urge the Senate to
approve it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Cornyn pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
148 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
____________________