[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 4 (Monday, January 8, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S51-S52]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Funding the Government

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, my dear friend and I got to Congress in 
1980, and I thank him very much for his leadership on the CHIP issue, 
as on so many other issues that pass through the Finance Committee, 
where he has done a terrific job. His caring for kids is unmatched, and 
he is a great asset to his State of Oregon, to this body, and to our 
country.
  We have 2 weeks until funding for the government runs out. Alongside 
our talks about extending government funding, we have also been engaged 
in serious bipartisan negotiations on a number of issues that should 
coincide with that deadline. We have to lift spending cuts, pass 
disaster aid, a healthcare package, reach an agreement to enshrine DACA 
protections alongside additional border security, and of course there 
is the issue of 702 as well.
  Those negotiations, though difficult, have been proceeding quite 
well. In fact, the four congressional leaders met with representatives 
from the White House last Thursday and had an encouraging meeting. 
Unfortunately, following that meeting, the White House issued a series 
of unreasonable demands entirely outside the scope of our ongoing 
negotiations about DACA and border security. It is part of a pattern of 
behavior on the part of this White House during sensitive bipartisan 
negotiations.

  Over the past year, the White House has much more frequently been a 
disruptive force rather than a unifying force. To throw down a list 
from the hard-line wing of the White House at the last minute is not a 
very fortuitous or smart thing to do.
  I hope we can keep on the track that we were on because the issues we 
are facing are mounting, and a major deal requires dedicated, 
bipartisan effort. Democrats are going to keep working toward a global 
agreement with our Republican colleagues, one that lifts the spending 
caps for defense and urgent domestic priorities in tandem, that sends 
our men and women in uniform the support they need, and that puts a 
downpayment on tackling the pressing issues here at home, such as 
combating the opioid epidemic, improving veterans' healthcare, and 
shoring up pension plans. These are every bit as important as helping 
our troops.
  Our troops are extremely important, but we are a great country, and 
we don't have to say: To help the troops, we can't help the victims of 
opioid addiction. To help the troops, we can't help the veterans who 
once were troops themselves. To help the troops, we can't help working 
Americans keep the pensions they paid into year after year. All these 
folks want is to retire to a life of some degree of dignity.
  When the majority leader said this morning that he is not for parity, 
he is saying we can't do both. He is telling victims of opioid 
addiction, many of whom are soldiers who have PTSD, and he is telling 
pensioners--some miners in his own State--and he is telling veterans 
who have to wait in line for healthcare that this country can't do 
both, that we can't protect our military, give them the funds they 
need, and deal with our domestic needs.
  When Donald Trump ran, he said that we have to pay more attention to 
America. What the majority leader is saying is that is not the case. So 
let no one be fooled. When the majority leader says he is not for 
parity, he is not for helping opioid folks to the extent they need, he 
is not for helping veterans to the extent they need, and he is not for 
helping pensioners to the extent they need. We Democrats are there for 
both--helping the military and helping these folks here.
  Over the weekend, I was in White Plains, which is a suburb of New 
York City. I stood with a mother who lost her son to an opioid 
overdose. A mother should never have to bury her son, especially 
Stephanie Keegan, whose son Daniel was a veteran who served our country 
bravely in Afghanistan. He did very well in school but had a duty to 
country. He was in the intelligence unit for a while, he was so 
brilliant. But he came home, as some do, nerves shattered by war, 
struggling with a severe case of PTSD. Stephanie told me that her 
beautiful, brilliant son Daniel--I saw his picture; an all-American 
boy, if ever there were one--her son Daniel waited 16 months for 
treatment by the VA and died 2 weeks before his first appointment.
  ``There are so many things that can be done to change this 
situation,'' Mrs. Keegan said. She is right. We can make a real 
investment in combating the scourge of opioid addiction, putting real 
resources into treatment and recovery, as well as interdiction. We can 
make a real investment in improving healthcare at our veterans 
hospitals so kids like Daniel don't have to wait almost a year and a 
half before they get the treatment they desperately need.
  And what about hard-working Americans who need pensions? Retirement 
is one of the things Americans worry about most these days. For years, 
Teamsters and miners and carpenters paid into pension plans week after 
week, month after month, year after year. They took a little less 
salary in their negotiations because they wanted to know that when it 
was time to retire, they could retire with some degree of dignity. No 
one is going to get rich on these pensions, but at least they are there 
and provide a little bit of a nest egg for people in their golden 
years. As they put the money in week after week, month after month, 
year after year, they were told: You may not become rich when you 
retire, you may not be able to buy luxuries, but at least you will have 
a life of dignity.
  Now those pensions may be stolen from millions in America, in this 
country. These folks contributed to and earned every penny of their 
pensions. Are we going to shrug our shoulders and say: We can't do 
that. Most Americans want us to do that; they don't want it to be an 
either-or situation.

[[Page S52]]

  Our colleagues would say: Well, that might increase the deficit. 
Don't come talking to us about the deficit anymore when you put 
together a $1.5 trillion increase in the deficit, the majority of which 
went to big tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and the biggest, 
fattest corporations in America. No more deficit talk from my 
colleagues here.
  When we Democrats ask for parity in budget agreements, this is what 
we mean: We mean opioids. We mean veterans' healthcare. We mean 
pensions.
  We need to defend and support the middle class here at home just as 
we must protect America from her adversaries abroad, which our military 
does so proudly and bravely. We agree that we need to support our 
military wholeheartedly, but we don't think that is a reason to leave 
the middle class behind. So let's do both. Let's lift the spending caps 
equally for defense and these urgent domestic priorities.
  Our two parties can reach a deal like that, just as we can reach a 
deal to pass a disaster aid package that treats all States and 
territories fairly; just as we can have an agreement on a healthcare 
package that acknowledges the new realities of the healthcare markets, 
which were disrupted by Republicans when they repealed the mandate in 
the tax bill last year; and just as we can reach a deal on DACA--
protecting young people who were brought here as kids through no fault 
of their own--while at the same time making reasonable, appropriate, 
and smart investments in border security--something that in the past 
both Democrats and Republicans have supported.
  In conclusion, an agreement can be reached on all these issues. 
Nobody wants a shutdown. Nobody wants sequestration to come into effect 
for either the military or the domestic side of the budget. So let's 
continue to work together. Let's commit to work together in good faith 
to make progress on these issues and get it done before January 19.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.