[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 162 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8041-S8043]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FY 2014 BUDGET PROCESS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I once again express my strong support for
the efforts of the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator
Mikulski, and the chairwoman of the
[[Page S8042]]
Budget Committee, Senator Murray, as they work to reach agreement with
their counterparts in the House of Representatives to resolve the
impasse over the fiscal year 2014 budget.
Washington today is filled with naysayers. But as broken as the
budget process is, and as pessimistic as many people are, I remain
hopeful about the possibility of reaching a compromise that can bring
us back to some semblance of the regular order everyone claims to want.
If there ever were two Senators who could find a way through the
morass, it is Senator Mikulski and Senator Murray. And they should know
there are a great many of us, including some on the Republican side of
the aisle, who are 100 percent behind them. I encourage all Senators to
read David Rogers' piece in Tuesday's edition of POLITICO, entitled
``Barbara Mikulski's fight: Protecting appropriations''. It tells the
story, and in doing so, it pays tribute to Senator Mikulski.
I am not naive about the obstacles ahead, not the least of which is
the shortness of time. We need a top line number from the budget
conferees by the end of next week if we are to complete appropriations
bills by January 15 when the current continuing resolution expires.
There is no mystery about what needs to happen. There must be
compromise by both sides on two key issues--increasing revenues and
decreasing spending. There will not be agreement without both. But in
the absence of agreement, the operations and programs of every Federal
agency will be drastically reduced by the combined effects of
sequestration and a full year continuing resolution.
People will lose their jobs and programs will be cut deeply or
terminated altogether. Infrastructure projects will be cancelled. The
American people will pay the price in far more ways than any one of us
can imagine.
I want to mention a few examples of the effects that a full year
continuing resolution, at the level the House proposes, will have in
lost jobs and canceled infrastructure projects in this country.
Under a full year continuing resolution, the National Science
Foundation would receive $542 million less than the amount in the
Senate bill. The funding included by the Senate would provide funding
for 1,500 more competitive grants and support 17,000 scientists,
technicians and students. Under a CR, those jobs and that research
would not be possible.
The $500 million included in the Senate bill to fix thousands of
deteriorating and aging bridges around the country would disappear.
Under a CR, the Federal Aviation Administration would not receive the
$559 million in the Senate bill to hire air traffic controllers needed
to keep the skies safe. Instead, the FAA would be faced with having to
impose a hiring freeze and furlough air traffic controllers and
aviation safety inspectors.
Funding for agricultural research would receive nearly $242 million
less than the levels included in the Senate bill and America's standing
as the world leader in food production could be in jeopardy, because we
simply won't be able to compete with the $4.5 billion China spends on
agricultural research annually.
The EPA's funding for clean and safe drinking water would face
significant cuts, putting Americans' access to clean water at risk. It
would also mean 6,500 fewer American jobs.
These are just a few examples of how another long term continuing
resolution will neglect the infrastructure needs of our Nation and
prevent the creation of thousands of jobs.
I hope the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that put an end to the
needless shutdown will enable the budget conferees to reach agreement
on a top line funding level so Senate Appropriations Committee
Chairwoman Mikulski and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rogers
can help us get back to work and pass the bills needed to fund these
essential services.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Rogers' article be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From POLITICO, Nov. 11, 2013]
Barbara Mikulski's Fight: Protecting Appropriations
(By David Rogers)
It's not quite Wendy and the Lost Boys but it's getting
close.
Indeed, a year after taking power, Chairwoman Barbara Ann
Mikulski--or BAM as she's known in staff memos--is the
mother-older sister the Senate Appropriations Committee never
knew.
The longest-serving woman ever in Congress, and the first
to lead that old male haven, the Maryland Democrat brings a
style like none before her: cajoling, prodding, empowering
her members to get out on the Senate floor and fight.
Appropriations is her neighborhood just as East Baltimore was
when Mikulski began her rise as a community organizer in the
60's. Only now it's not a 16-lane highway through Fells Point
but sequestration in January that threatens her world.
The stakes are enormous.
If no budget deal is reached in the next month, Congress
will surrender to another round of automatic cuts in January
and risk leaving the government under no better than a
stopgap funding bill through the remainder of fiscal 2014.
That would be the third such 12 month CR arrangement in four
years--a true breaking point for Appropriations but also a
tempting tool for those seeking to frustrate President Barack
Obama's second term.
In the midst of this, Mikulski can be a terror: demanding,
self-centered to a point of fault. But she enjoys an
invaluable alliance with Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman
Patty Murray (D-Wash.) who also sits on Appropriations. And
at 77, it can seem that Mikulski's whole life has prepared
her for this moment: the grocer's daughter and product of
grassroots Catholic social activism matched against the new
grassroots anti-government forces of the Tea Party.
Obama checked the box of community organizer on his way to
the top. Mikulski lived it. She can paraphrase Jesuit
scholars but also pepper her floor speeches with ``Wow'' or
``Oh, boy.'' And her politics remain greatly influenced by
the likes of the late Monsignor Geno Baroni, a civil rights
and community organizer who was a leader of the neighborhood
revival movement of the 60's and 70's.
``He was always cooking up a pot of social glue and
developing social capital,'' Mikulski said in a 1994 speech
honoring Baroni's memory. Nearly 20 years later that might
describe too her own approach to Appropriations.
``A little bit different,'' she laughs of the change she
has brought. ``Absolutely'' community organizing is part of
that.
``My worst nightmare is that we get to like January 12th
and 13th and we don't have anything,'' she told POLITICO.
``And we go to a year-long CR with sequester kicking in on
January 15th which is government at its worst. Government on
auto pilot and cuts across-the-board in that meat axe way.''
``I know a lot about a lot, but I want to be able to
marshal the resources of my own committee to be able to get
out there and talk,'' she said. ``The chair of the
Appropriations Committee is more like head of the Joint
Chiefs. My twelve subcommittee chairman enjoy not only a
great deal of autonomy but they really are the ones that
drill down on their respective portfolios and know it in a
very granular way . . . Who better to tell the story than
those who know it the most?''
Beginning with the shutdown in October, the Mikulski style
has been to go to the Senate floor herself but then gin up
her colleagues to follow. This proved remarkably successful
last month, and after a meeting with her Democratic members
last week, she's doing the same now--this time focused on
sequestration and the perils of surrendering to a full-year
stopgap CR.
``She wants us to be engaged with the same energy she
has,'' said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) ``It can be quite
effective. Instead of just her giving a speech, we follow and
say `Let me tell you specifics.' ''
``It's a new day around here,'' said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-
Ark.). ``All the organization skills she can muster, we need
at this point.''
That organization begins with Murray. And the dynamic of
these two women--both rooted in Appropriations--is the most
intriguing of the battle ahead.
It is an alliance both new and old at once.
Mikulski took over the chairmanship of Appropriations in
December last year after the sudden death of Sen. Daniel
Inouye (D-Hawaii.) Weeks later, Murray took the gavel at
Budget, replacing North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, the
committee's long time top Democrat and chairman who retired
at the end of the last Congress.
At one level, the 63-year-old Murray is junior to Mikulski.
At another, she has moved well ahead by taking on tasks in
the party leadership which the matriarchal Mikulski stepped
back from even as her Senate contemporary and old House mate,
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) advanced.
For Reid, a veteran of Appropriations and now Majority
Leader, the emergence of this Mikulski-Murray alliance is a
huge asset as seen in last month's shutdown crisis.
It was popular in the press then to credit a bipartisan
coalition of women--led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)--with
driving the final outcome. But in fact, it was two women,
Mikulski and Murray, who took the opposite stand. And inside
the Democratic caucus, they proved pivotal for Reid in
holding firm against the Collins plan.
``We liked the Collins effort . . . It had dignity. It had
intellectual rigor,'' Mikulski said looking back. But the
plan itself, which envisioned a CR through January 30, risked
disaster for Appropriations. It did nothing to
[[Page S8043]]
stop sequestration and despite Collins' best intentions, left
the door open to what Mikulski feared would be simply another
eight month CR after that.
But take away gender, this Mikulski-Murray alliance is
really a return to past practice for the Senate.
For most of its history, under Republicans or Democrats,
the Senate Budget Committee has been led by chairs bred in
Appropriations. Think back to Sens. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.),
Lawton Chiles (D-Fla.) Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.) or Judd Gregg (R-
N.H.).
In this context, the long tenure of Conrad, a product of
the Senate Finance Committee, was more the exception than the
rule--now restored by the arrival of Murray.
``She actually understands what we do and what we need to
do to do our job,'' Mikulski said.
The flip side of this coin is that Mikulski must also help
Murray do her job on Budget. Time and again through Senate
history, budget resolution votes have been decided by
Appropriations members falling in line--or crossing the
aisle--in the name of moving ahead. If Murray gets a deal
with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.),
Mikulski's support will be needed to sell it to the Senate.
Two very different pressure points are available to her.
First are the Republicans with whom Mikulski has worked on
Appropriations and have their own vested interests in a
budget deal. Second are Democratic liberals where Mikulski
can provide political cover on tough votes given her
progressive credentials and history alongside the late Sen.
Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on
Appropriations, was still a Democrat in the House in the 80's
when he and Mikulski served together on the Energy and
Commerce Committee. They came over together to the Senate in
1986 and are their own Mutt-and-Jeff pair, taking alternative
turns running the Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee.
``We've got a history,'' Shelby said. ``We both would like
a [topline] number being appropriators. When I was down at
the White House with the president, I told him the reason
we're here mainly is because we've had an appropriations
breakdown.''
Given Republican politics, Mikulski knows that Shelby can't
be as outspoken as she is for a budget deal. But she was
worked to enlist him and House Appropriations Committee
Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) to keep the pressure on for a
swift conclusion to the budget talks.
``I asked him if he would encourage the timeline of sooner
rather than later,'' Mikulski said of Shelby. In the same
vein, she signed onto a recent letter with Rogers that urged
negotiators to have an answer by Thanksgiving--leaving time
for Appropriations to have an omnibus bill in place by early
January.
``What [Rogers] and I share is sequester,'' Mikulski said.
``If we go to sequester, we're cooked.''
But Ryan will want Democratic pain to get to a deal. And
the day may come when Mikulski has to choose between more
chaos for her committee or a compromise that entails savings
from sensitive areas like Medicare or federal workers.
``I've got to see what's exhausted before I go down that
road,'' she says, quickly ducking any commitment. ``Do you
mean to tell me there is not one loophole [Republicans] are
willing to close?
``I'm convinced that Patty can still have room for a deal .
. . I don't want to speculate on the array of things that she
has to take to the table. It's premature.''
Kennedy's memory is important here. Mikulski has no
pretensions of having the same status as her late friend. But
their history is rich, and just as Kennedy could be a swing
vote for the left, she may also have to play that role.
At the 1980 Democratic convention--having lost the
nomination battle to President Jimmy Carter--Kennedy tapped
Mikulski, then a young congresswoman, to introduce him before
his ``Dream Shall Never Die'' speech.
``You know what: I kept the dress,'' Mikulski said. ``I
told him I would keep it until he was president. It became a
standard joke. I told him I looked at it longingly.''
``And he said `Because you would like to see me as
president?''' Mikulski said. ``And I said, `No cause I want
to be able to fit into the damn thing.' ''
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, Congress is facing two
fast-approaching budget deadlines: December 13 for a budget deal and
January 15 for a funding bill to avert another government shutdown.
Given the complexity of the issues, the brief window of opportunity,
and the upcoming holiday season, meeting those deadlines will be a
challenge. But it is a challenge Congress must meet. If we don't get a
budget deal, we don't get a budget topline; we don't get any relief
from sequestration; we can't write the 2014 appropriations bills, and
we default to a year-long CR. That is a nightmare scenario.
A long-term CR is the worst way to fund the government. It merely
recycles last year's funding levels to meet this year's funding
priorities. That makes as much sense as using last year's canceled
checks to pay this year's bills.
The military construction Program is the poster child for everything
that is wrong with a CR. The 2014 Senate MILCON-VA bill includes $4.8
billion for the construction of hundreds of new-start MilCon projects
throughout the United States. The 2013 bill--which sets the funding
levels for the CR--funded a totally different set of MILCON projects,
and the funding does not align with the 2014 program.
For example, the Army needs $\1/2\ billion less for MILCON in 2014,
and the Air Force needs $800 million more. A CR written at 2013 levels
would not reflect those requirements, meaning the Air Force would come
up short while the Army would be awash in MILCON dollars it does not
need. This would be a devastating blow for the Air Force because it
took a pause in its MILCON Program last year. As a result, a CR at the
2013 level would fund less than 30 percent of the 2014 Air Force MILCON
Program.
All of which could be moot because a CR also prohibits new starts.
Without relief from that provision, 96 percent of the major MILCON
Program would be on hold.
The MILCON bill funds mission-critical training and operational
facilities, schools, hospitals, troop and family housing, and myriad
other programs crucial to the work and well-being of our service
members and their families. The 2014 Senate bill funds more than 200
new major MILCON projects in 39 States. And that does not include
overseas MILCON or follow-on phases of ongoing projects.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans across the Nation go to work every
day for contractors building MILCON projects. Government construction--
whether it be MILCON, VA hospitals and clinics, or Federal roads,
highways and bridges--is a major job generator. The Association of
General Contractors estimates that every $1 billion in nonresidential
construction generates 28,500 jobs.
For the 2014 slate of major MILCON projects alone, that amounts to
nearly 137,000 new jobs. Multiply that by the annual Federal Government
investment in nationwide construction projects, and it is clear that a
robust government construction program is a wise economic investment on
all fronts.
Even if the new-start prohibition were lifted, the 2014 sequester
remains a threat to the military construction program. DOD estimates
that a second round of sequestration could cost the MILCON Program as
much as $1 billion, of which about half would come from new major
construction projects. Under another round of sequestration, project
deferrals or cancellations are almost guaranteed. The result would be a
disruption of the MILCON Program and possibly thousands of lost job
opportunities.
As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I am well aware of the
Nation's precarious economic recovery. As an appropriator, I am equally
aware of the need to adequately fund both Defense and domestic
government programs.
The path to responsible government funding requires both revenue
increases, through such means as closing tax loopholes and sensible
spending cuts. Spending cuts alone cannot close the gap without
crippling the economy.
Mr. President, Congress has a responsibility to govern. In the coming
weeks, we must strive to achieve at minimum a 2-year budget deal,
cancel sequestration for at least 2 years, and produce a governmentwide
funding bill--what is commonly known as an omnibus by January 15. With
the cooperation of all parties, that is an achievable goal. The
American people deserve--and expect--no less.
____________________