[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 27, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S902-S906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Abnormal Times

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, it is an honor to stand here for my first 
speech on the Senate floor. I am honored to be part of this body and to 
speak where hundreds have spoken before and thousands will speak after 
me.
  A normal first speech for a Senator is usually a proactive, forward-
looking speech. We are not in normal times. A normal first speech for a 
Senator usually happens much later, after a Senator has been around for 
a number of months. We are not in normal times. A normal first speech 
for a Senator is often in connection with the introduction of a piece 
of legislation. We are not in normal times. So I am speaking a bit 
earlier than I would have thought likely when I took the oath of office 
on January 3, but I am speaking in particular because we are not in 
normal times, and the abnormality of the times has a huge effect on the 
Commonwealth I am proud to represent.
  In the summer of 2011 Congress passed a bill we are now talking 
about, a bill dealing with the sequestration cuts of the Federal 
Government.
  There is no precedent I am aware of in congressional history for what 
is about to happen in 48 hours.
  Congress designed a set of punishing, nonstrategic, ugly cuts 
designed to hurt the economy and hurt individuals and all--however they 
voted on that bill--did not want these cuts to come into place. So 
those who voted for the package in the summer of 2011 did not want the 
sequester cuts to occur and believed we would find, through compromise, 
an alternative; and those who voted against the package in the summer 
of 2011 largely voted against it because they did not want these cuts 
to occur.
  So the abnormality of the times is this: Never, to my knowledge, in 
the history of this body, has Congress designed a punishment that would 
hurt the lives of regular individuals and that would hurt the economy. 
It was designed with that knowledge, fully. All hoped it would not 
happen. Yet we are within 48 hours of allowing it to happen.
  The effects this sequester will have on the country and the effects 
it will have on my Commonwealth are so significant and severe that I do 
feel compelled to speak a little earlier than I otherwise might have. I 
would also add I think the effects of these cuts on this institution 
and the credibility of this institution are equally severe.
  What I wish to do in this speech is basically a couple things. I want 
to talk about the effect of these sequester cuts, if they happen, on 
regular people. I just returned from a tour around my State and I am 
just going to share some stories. I want to talk, with some data, about 
the short-term impacts of these cuts on the broader economy. Third, I 
want to talk about some long-term impacts, some impacts we are not 
necessarily thinking of right now but should cause us significant 
concern. Fourth, there is a way to avoid this, and I want to talk about 
how we can avoid allowing this self-inflicted wound to occur. Finally, 
I want to talk about the fact that there is an upside in this moment 
for us. This is not just about avoiding harming people, hurting the 
economy. It is not just about avoiding negatives. I think there is an 
upside for us and for this institution and for this Nation if we do 
this right.
  Let me begin with my tour around Virginia. I am now a brandnew member 
of the Armed Services Committee, and I sit in a wonderful seat 
following John Warner, who was there for 30 years, and

[[Page S903]]

Jim Webb, who was there before me. I am no replacement for either of 
those individuals and I have big shoes to fill. So I decided to take a 
tour around my State last week and visit the various touch points in 
the Commonwealth where we interact with our military and our national 
security.
  The map of Virginia is a map of the military history of this country: 
Yorktown, where the Revolutionary War ended; Appomattox, where the 
Civil War ended; the Pentagon, where we were attacked on 9/11. We are 
the most connected State to the military. One in eight Virginians is a 
veteran--not one in eight adults, one in eight Virginians, from birth 
to death. Over 100,000 Active-Duty Guard and Reserve, DOD civilians, 
DOD contractors. By the time we add up all of those and their families 
and military families, we are probably talking about one in three 
Virginians.
  I went to the places where Virginians work every day, as ship 
repairers in private shipyards, as Active Duty on naval bases, as DOD 
civilians working as nurses in Army hospitals, as young officer 
candidates training in ROTC programs, at VA hospitals. I went around 
the State, and let me tell you what I heard.
  A few miles from here is Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, one of the 
preeminent institutions that treats wounded warriors. A wounded warrior 
still on Active service being treated there, his wife sitting right 
next to him, we talked, and she ventured this: Let's talk about these 
furloughs of these DOD civilian employees. My husband's nurses are all 
DOD civilians, and while the sequester protects Active Duty, it doesn't 
protect the civilians. What is it going to mean to my husband's medical 
treatment as he comes back from being wounded, injured defending this 
Nation, if the nurses and health professionals at this hospital are 
furloughed 1 day a week?
  In the same roundtable, another wounded warrior said to me: Boy, the 
economy is really going to suffer if we have this sequester. We are 
going to lose jobs, and the economy could shrink. I am a reservist.
  He was a wounded warrior as a reservist, waiting to go back into the 
civilian workforce into a job with a Federal agency that does national 
security. What is that going to mean to me? Is there a hiring freeze? 
Is there a pay freeze? Is this a furlough? This wounded warrior was 
wondering about his economic future.
  At the shipyard at Newport News--what a good news story. We 
Americans, we Virginians, we manufacture the largest items that are 
manufactured on planet Earth--nuclear aircraft carriers--in that 
shipyard. What a wonderful American example of ingenuity that is. Yet 
in looking at these sequester cuts, as repairs and other projects and 
programs are being scaled back, the workers of that shipyard are asking 
about the stability of their work and about whether the ships we put 
out and we put our people on will be truly ready to do the work they 
need to do.
  At another private shipyard, the owner, a small businessman that has 
a shipyard in Hampton Roads, said: I have 50 employees. The way the 
Navy plans to deal with sequestration is to dramatically reduce 
maintenance in the third and fourth quarters of the year. I am going to 
issue WARN notices to tell 300 of my 450 employees they are not going 
to have a job. I just don't see how I can run this business without 
them, but I don't have the business to keep them if these sequestration 
cuts go through.
  At a VA hospital in Richmond, the VA Corps services are protected 
under the sequester, but they are under hiring freezes. They compete 
with private sector hospitals to hire nurses and physicians, and they 
say that is getting tougher and tougher to do. They do research in 
Richmond about traumatic brain injury, and that research money is not 
protected from sequestration. So this research that will help us treat 
our wounded warriors better is in jeopardy if the sequester goes 
through.
  It is not just military cuts. In Head Start, I talk with teachers who 
are facing significant cuts in programs for at-risk kids, even at a 
time where, because of the economy, the number of at-risk children in 
their classrooms is growing and growing and the number of children 
total in their classrooms is growing and growing.

  On Monday a number of us were at National Airport to talk about the 
effect of sequester on something that is fairly basic, the experience 
of the Americans by the millions and millions who travel every day in 
the air: longer lines, potentially higher prices.
  This is what Virginians were telling me as I went to talk to them 
about what we were doing in Washington and the likely consequences they 
were going to see in their lives. Again and again, what they said to me 
was go up and find a solution.
  I went to a bluegrass concert on Saturday afternoon. I was wearing 
blue jeans and a Carhartt jacket and I was taking an hour off to listen 
to a set of music. I sat next to a guy who appeared to be about 80 
years old, ramrod straight, energetic. He was a veteran wearing a cap 
from his Navy service. About halfway through the set he leaned over to 
me and he said: Now, I know you are here for music. You didn't come 
here to politic. I said: That is right. I am here for music. He said: 
So all I am going to say is this. There is not a single thing you are 
going to do, plus or minus--or not do--that will affect my quality of 
life. I am fine. But I am telling you, for the good of the country, you 
ought to go up and figure out a way to get people to work together and 
find some deal.
  So that is what my citizens were saying to me on this trip, just in 
the last 2 weeks, at every stop: find a deal, work together. Not a 
single person said: Protect my job, protect my program, protect my 
priority by making the cuts in other areas worse. Not one person said 
that. They were asking for a balanced approach, where there would be 
pain, where there would be a balance of cuts but also revenues, and we 
would try to tackle this in a targeted way.
  Some statistics and thoughts. These are stories from individuals. Now 
let's look at the immediate impact on the Virginia economy and on other 
important goals: our military readiness and defense posture.
  A couple weeks ago we heard at an Armed Services Committee meeting 
from Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey as Secretary Panetta was 
exiting in that role. They had just announced that CENTCOM--the portion 
of the military that controls the space including Afghanistan--wants to 
have two carriers in the Middle East to project American force to try 
to prevent or reduce any dangerous, provocative activities by Iran or 
anyone else and to protect our men and women in service, if the need 
should happen. Their military judgment was we needed two carriers and 
that force there to protect them. But about 2 weeks ago, the DOD 
Secretary said: We are not going to have two carriers; we are just 
going to have one.
  Thousands of sailors who were on the verge of deploying, many of whom 
had sublet their apartments, put their cars in storage, sold their 
cars, cancelled their cell phones, sent families back to other places 
in the country to stay with their parents, learned within just a very 
few days it was all being turned topsy-turvy.
  Having only one carrier in the Middle East, maybe nothing bad will 
happen. But when the military leadership of the country suggests we 
should have two and we decide, because of budget indecision, let's only 
have one, that sends a message. It sends a message to our friends, it 
sends a message to those we would be protecting that our commitment is 
wavering, and it also sends a message to our adversaries that our 
commitment might be wavering.
  We heard many bits of testimony that day from General Dempsey and 
Secretary Panetta about how our readiness, our ability to respond with 
flexibility, gets compromised if we don't get this right.
  On the National Guard side, I visited a National Guard Army called 
the Stonewall Brigade in Staunton, VA. Here is something interesting. 
This National Guard combat brigade, the Stonewall Brigade, their first 
action as a brigade was 20 years before the French and Indian Wars. 
Their first action as a brigade was in the 1740s. Since then, they have 
deployed again and again to protect Americans. Yet they were talking 
about sequestration affecting their ability to train their people.
  One of the individuals who was the commander of that brigade said in 
a

[[Page S904]]

very powerful way: I am going to send my people, and they are going to 
do their best, but I would rather send them 100 percent trained than 80 
or 85 percent trained. If we act now after we sequester and reduce 
training, we will be sending people into service 80 or 85 percent 
trained.
  Our DOD civilians, the Pentagon has announced it would take steps to 
furlough 800,000 civilian employees for up to 22 days a year. In 
Virginia alone--one State--90,000 individuals, beginning at the end of 
March, early April, will face the beginnings of furloughs 1 day a week 
for up to 22 weeks.
  There aren't many towns and cities in Virginia that have more than 
90,000 people. Yet we would take all those people and put their 
economic livelihood at risk for the foreseeable future as we try to 
figure this out. Let me tell you who some of these folks are. These are 
the nurses who treat our wounded warriors. These are our air traffic 
controllers who keep us safe in the air. Think of those individuals and 
the fact that they are trying to make a living for their families and 
they are trying to do good service for their fellow Virginians and 
fellow Americans and then multiply that by 90,000, and that is just one 
State's worth.
  We all want a vibrant private sector. We all think the private sector 
being strong is the key to economic growth. The estimate of most 
economists is that Virginians, because of sequestration and reductions 
to private contracting, would stand to lose up to 200,000 jobs, 137,000 
on the defense side and nearly 70 on the nondefense side.
  The Newport News Shipbuilding company that I announced earlier, the 
largest industrial employer in Virginia, is preparing to shrink; facing 
smaller ship repairs and having to issue WARN notices to their 
employees. We see this all over the Commonwealth.
  Educators. Virginia stands to lose $14 million in funding for primary 
and secondary education, and this is funding that is targeted. It is 
targeted to funding to the most disadvantaged students, title I 
funding. One hundred ninety teachers' jobs are at risk and about 14,000 
fewer disadvantaged students will receive these services. In a 
particular passion of mine, Head Start and early childhood education, 
70,000 students nationally will lose their spaces in early childhood 
education Head Start because of the sequester; about 1,000 of those are 
in Virginia.
  The statistics are grim, and these aren't just numbers on a page or 
numbers in a budget book. These are parents who are sitting at a 
kitchen table already worrying about how to make ends meet and finding 
that they are going to have 1 less day of work every week, potentially, 
for the next 20 weeks or people who spent their lives in shipbuilding 
and they are going to be given WARN notices, with no clear indication 
of when their company or other companies might start hiring again.
  Those are the short-term impacts. Let me talk, for a minute, about 
some long-term impacts because these are the stories that aren't 
necessarily in the newspaper. But as I listened to my constituents last 
week, they made this case, and they made it in a way I found to be 
pretty compelling.
  When the decision was announced about the USS Truman not being 
deployed, there was a 20-year-old airwoman aviator on the carrier who 
was quoted in the newspaper as saying: I was so excited to be on my 
first deployment for my country. I want to have a military career, but 
I am starting to think that might not be realistic.
  We have a whole generation of young people who serve in the military, 
and they are our future generals and Joint Chiefs of Staff and future 
Deputy Secretaries of Defense and Secretaries of Defense in that 
leadership corps. They have decided they want to devote their future to 
protecting the Nation. But what is happening in this building is making 
them believe maybe this is not a realistic career choice.
  I spoke to ROTC students at the University of Virginia. These are 
folks on the verge of commissioning as officers in all four primary 
service branches--Army, Marine, Air Force, Navy--and I spoke to them 
last week and one of them said this to me. I found this very chilling.

       I am training to be an officer because I want to serve my 
     country and guess what, I am willing to put myself into 
     harm's way to known hostilities and unknown hostilities in 
     the world, to serve my country. But I have to ask myself, am 
     I willing to put my career at risk by making a career choice 
     to pursue a path when I do not have confidence that the 
     civilian political leadership of the country has a commitment 
     to me and to my colleagues?

  Being willing to face hostilities and enemy fire--they signed up for 
that. But as they think about their military careers, whether they 
would do their 4 years and leave or whether they would make a career 
out of it, the message we send from this building and this Capitol 
about whether we are committed to them is one of the factors they 
utilize to try to make their decisions.
  Similarly, students around this Commonwealth and country who are 
thinking about being early childhood educators would wonder about the 
future of early childhood or Head Start programs. In a really funny 
interchange with some welders and the president of the shipyard, the 
Newport News Shipyard, which is run by Huntington Ingalls, he said: If 
we do layoffs or scale back and we lose nuclear engineers for the subs 
and carriers, they can find other jobs. In fact, the president, Mike 
Petters, a good friend, said: It is easier for this company to replace 
me, the CEO, than it is to replace a nuclear engineer.
  But if our commitment to shipbuilding and ship repair and ship refurb 
is questionable and a nuclear engineer has other career options and 
they have to analyze which career option they should pick, or a welder 
has other career options--and all do--and they have to decide which 
career options they pick, we will find it down the road increasingly 
difficult to have the kind of talent we need to do the jobs that need 
to be done to protect this Nation if we are not sending them a signal 
that we can find compromise, find agreements, and provide funding in an 
appropriate way for these critical services.
  Here is the good news. The good news is we can avoid this. In fact, 
we have an obligation to avoid this. I was a little bit surprised when 
I came to the Senate to learn some things I did not know. I thought I 
was an educated observer. I was a little bit surprised, for example, 
that in the Budget Act that deals with how budgets are written, the 
budgets do not even go to the President. It is purely congressional. 
When the House and Senate pass a budget and then when it is 
compromised, it is purely congressional. Appropriations acts of course 
go to the President for signature, but they never get there unless 
Congress does them.
  So while everyone has a responsibility to try to make this right, and 
the President and his team definitely have a responsibility, this is a 
congressional constitutional responsibility. There is a unique 
legislative prerogative for us to get this right and for us to avoid 
the self-inflicted damage to the economy and to people that every last 
person who voted was sure would not occur. Again, I say we are in a 
unique situation where we have designed a punishment and we would allow 
that punishment to affect individuals and our economy. I do not think 
there is a precedent that would be similar in the history of this body.
  In order to address it, we have to find a balanced approach, as my 
citizens were telling me, and not gimmicks. No more sequester or 
supercommittee, no more continuing resolution. There is a process. We 
should follow that process. The process involves compromise. The 
process involves listening. And we need to do it.
  I will say one more thing about why it is important that we do it, 
and not just for the economy. A lot of people think we are broken. I 
was struck in talks to some of my citizens that for as many people as 
do not like the current President, no one says to me that the 
Presidency as an institution is broken. For as many people as do not 
like this or that decision of the Supreme Court or the judiciary, no 
one says to me they think the judiciary is broken. But the third branch 
of government--really the first branch of government, we are first in 
the Constitution, the legislative branch--many people look at this 
potential sequester and other similar things and they worry about 
whether we are broken. So we not only have a constitutional obligation 
to fix it, we really need those of us, and all of us who care about 
this institution in the Capitol, we have to do our part to fix it.

[[Page S905]]

  The good news is that we can. Let me show you what we have done 
already by way of dealing with our fiscal challenges, and especially 
tackling deficits so we can try to get our balance sheet more in 
control. I have three very simple charts that are pretty easy to 
follow.
  Congress, both Houses, and the President, have taken thus far, 2010 
to now, steps that have reduced the deficit going forward over a 10-
year period by about $2.4 trillion. This is how this has been done. I 
get no credit for this because this all happened before I got here. 
This is what Congress has done over the last couple of years to reduce 
our deficit path and bring us closer to balance to the tune of $2.4 
trillion. We have done spending cuts of about 60 percent of the total. 
Because of some of these other actions, we have been able to project a 
savings in interest payments of another 14 percent. And with the 
decision at year end on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the 
bipartisan compromise that resulted, we have put in new revenue of 
about 26 percent of this total. All you have to know from looking at 
this chart is it is balanced.
  We could argue the ratio. We might like it more red, more green, more 
blue. We could argue about the ratio. But it is a balanced approach of 
revenue, of spending cuts and of interest savings. That is what we have 
done already, and I give praise to the Members of Congress and the 
President who have been able to take that step.
  But we all know we have more to do. So now that test is before us and 
that challenge and chore is on our table. We have more to do and there 
are two alternatives we will likely be debating and voting on within 
the next couple of days in this body, a Democratic approach and a GOP 
approach to how do we do more. That is because most would agree if we 
have done about $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction already that we need 
to do about another $1.5 trillion or so over the course of the next 10 
years. We will be voting on one proposal tomorrow that has been 
advanced by the Democratic majority. That says we will additionally 
close our deficit over the course of this year. We will do it in a way 
that will push us forward to finding a bigger solution. And we will do 
it in a balanced way: 50 percent through new revenue, closing some 
corporate tax loopholes that have outlived their usefulness, raising 
rates at the top end for a very few Americans who can afford it. I talk 
to Virginians and they know we can afford it. So 50 percent of our 
additional deficit reduction would be on the new revenue side and 50 
percent would be on spending cuts--spending cuts, many of which have 
already been agreed to in this body.

  One of the core kinds of spending cuts--and it is important here--the 
spending cuts in the proposal we will vote on tomorrow are not across-
the-board pain for everybody equally because everything is not worth 
everything else. They are targeted spending cuts, the right kind of 
spending cuts. So, for example, this body last summer voted on a farm 
bill to reduce significantly farm subsidies. It was bipartisan, 
Democratic and Republican votes. That bill died on the House side, but 
that notion that we can save money and that we should, that had 
bipartisan support, that is in the spending cuts component of the 
package we will talk about tomorrow, and that is the Democratic 
approach.
  Is it magic? No, it is not magic. You might argue about the ratio. 
You might argue about the items. But the key to it is, just as what we 
have done so far to reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion has been a 
balanced approach, the approach we will vote on tomorrow on the 
Democratic side is a balanced approach.
  There is also a Republican approach, or approaches. It was a little 
bit unclear as I took the floor whether there will be a single bill or 
multiple bills. But the GOP approach to this, which they laid on the 
table and which we will also debate and vote on, is, as you will see, 
all spending cuts. They might be different spending cuts from those in 
the sequester. In the context this will emerge. But there is no revenue 
in this approach. It is not a balanced approach, and I argue, based on 
what we have already done with the $2.4 trillion, the right way to do 
this is to do it in a balanced way. That is the right thing for the 
economy. It is the right thing to soften the effect of these cuts. It 
is the right thing to make sure that people's lives are not needlessly 
turned topsy-turvy.
  Can we save? Sure we can, and we should. But you cannot fix a balance 
sheet on just one side of the balance sheet. You have to look at both 
sides of the balance sheet, and I think that is what we will be 
debating over the next couple of days.
  I have been thinking about this, and the last thing I will say before 
I close and talk about an upside is, when I was home in Richmond over 
the weekend after this week-long tour, knowing we would be coming here 
today to debate about these proposals, something happened in my 
hometown that I want to recommend to the contemplation of my colleagues 
here in the Senate. Virginia had been wrestling for two or three 
decades about what to do about transportation because it would be good 
for the economy for us to invest in transportation.
  I will be candid and even sheepish. I was the Governor of Virginia 
and I strived for 4 years to get my legislature to do something 
meaningful, to invest in transportation, and aside from a few modest 
wins here or there I never was able to convince my legislature to do 
what I thought needed to be done.
  Saturday in Richmond, 90 miles from here, 4 days ago, my Republican 
Governor, Bob McDonald, a friend, a Republican House of Delegates, 
overwhelmingly Republican House of Delegates, 2 to 1, and a Republican 
Senate--it is a split Senate 20-20 but there is a President who breaks 
ties who is a Republican Lieutenant Governor so it is a Republican 
majority body--Republican Governor and Republican legislature decided 
to do something to benefit the economy and here is what they did. They 
did a package of $880 million of revenue for transportation, annually 
when fully phased in, and 80 percent of the package is new revenue and 
20 percent is spending cuts in general fund programs that would be 
repurposed to transportation.
  For them to do that, they had to make a hard decision. For them to do 
something that was balanced, because an individual whose name is often 
mentioned in Washington, Grover Norquist, said can you not do this 
without violating your pledges, and others said it would be anathema to 
ever raise a tax or fee and it will be politically damaging and it will 
be economically wrong, and a Republican Governor and a Republican 
legislature looked at them and said: The right thing to do to benefit 
our economy is to take a balanced approach. And by an overwhelming 
majority in both Houses, supported by Republicans and Democrats and 
celebrated with excitement by a Republican Governor, this is what 
happened, 90 miles from here a few days ago in order to benefit the 
economy.
  A transportation package is not a precise analog to what we are 
wrestling with here, but it is pretty close. This was a step that was 
taken to benefit the economy. It was done in a balanced way. We are 
faced with a fundamental decision about whether we are going to benefit 
the economy or whether we are going to intentionally allow something to 
happen that will hurt the economy. I think the lesson for what happened 
in Richmond is the economy benefits from a balanced approach and an 
imbalanced approach is not going to be the way we get to a solution 
that is good for the economy and good for people.
  The last thing I will say is this. Much of my discussion has been 
about trying to avert bad things--people being furloughed, people 
losing their jobs, small ship repair yards potentially having to close, 
wounded warriors not having the nursing care they need, students 
eligible for Head Start not being able to go into classrooms, Guards 
men and women not receiving the kinds of training they need to go into 
the field and be fully prepared--much of what I have described has been 
about trying to avert negative consequences.
  But the best part of all is I think we are in a unique moment where 
it is not just about averting the negative. I think we can do something 
that will have a positive effect, that will avert negative 
consequences, certainly, but by getting some certainty and by showing a 
spirit of compromise and cooperation, we will be sending a message from

[[Page S906]]

this body that will have a positive effect on the economy.
  There are some who see signs of the economy showing some strength. 
The stock market is doing pretty well. It is a bit volatile every day, 
but where are we on the stock market? We are doing pretty well. There 
was news about the housing prices and housing market coming up. 
Consumer confidence has been stronger than expected. These have not yet 
congealed into the trends we hope to see, but there are signs and there 
is evidence that we have an economy that is ready to achieve some lift.
  If we look at our global competitors, we see that there are some 
weaknesses. This is a lesson I heard preached again and again by my 
senior Senator as he talked about global economies around the world. 
Senator Warner talks about how Europe and the Euro Zone has its 
challenges, the Japanese economy has its challenges, and the Chinese 
economy has not been quite as strong as it had been. Our major global 
competitors are not just clicking on all eight cylinders.
  If we do something right now, it will send a message throughout the 
economy that we are not only open for business, but there is a balanced 
approach that can be reached by a Senate and a Congress that is willing 
to work together and put country first and do what is right for the 
economy. I think we have every reason to believe we will not only avert 
the negative consequences I spent the last half hour talking about, but 
we will take those positive trends in the economy and put some more 
healing into the economy.
  We will see some more lift that could be significant. We will see 
more of that cash that is in bank accounts invested back into the 
American economy. We will put some distance between ourselves and some 
of our other global competitors. This is what is at stake for us if we 
get this right.
  It should be enough for us to do the right thing and find a balanced 
approach to avoid hurting people and to avoid hurting the economy. We 
will not only get an additional benefit if we act in a balanced way--
because I believe we will avert those consequences--but we will see our 
economy lift in a more accelerated way.
  I will conclude by saying this: This is a moment where we have a 
choice to make. I was with Leader Reid an hour or two ago, and we sat 
through a beautiful ceremony where a statue was unveiled of Rosa Parks. 
One of the speakers talked about a very humble and pedestrian setting 
where she had a decision to make. The decision was, Do I just do what 
has always been done? Do I just kind of keep drifting into a situation 
that I know is unjust and unequal or do I decide to do something 
different?
  We are drifting toward something that is very bad, something that 
Members of Congress believed strongly when the bill was first put in 
place should not happen and would harm people and would harm our 
economy. That is the moment we are in right now, a moment to make a 
decision.
  The decision is, Do we allow ourselves to drift in a way that hurts 
people or do we choose a balanced approach that will help people, 
strengthen the economy, strengthen our budget, strengthen our ability 
to create jobs, and strengthen the reputation of this body?
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Virginia.