[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 18, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4122-S4123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Fiscal Responsibility Act
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about why the
funding decisions we make here in this building matter and how the
Fiscal Responsibility Act spending caps will continue to hold America
back, undercutting our economy, competitiveness, and future, unless the
Senate can come together and take action.
The Appropriations Committee has now held nearly 40 hearings on the
resources that we will need in fiscal year 2025. We have discussed
exactly what our Nation needs to stay strong, safe, and competitive,
and there is a big, obvious takeaway from those hearings: The FRA caps
for fiscal year 2024 are already causing serious pain and serious
challenges, and the caps for fiscal year 2025 are grossly inadequate.
In fiscal year 2024, the FRA froze nondefense funding while
increasing defense funding by nearly 30 billion more, to say nothing of
the billions in the supplemental. In fiscal year 2025, the caps mean
just a 1-percent increase for nondefense and defense alike. Needless to
say, that does not begin to keep pace with inflation or other rising
expenses. That means net cuts in terms of real resources across the
government.
Let's all remember why we have these caps in the first place. House
Republicans took the debt ceiling hostage and demanded funding caps and
cuts in exchange for not destroying our Nation's credit. I warned at
the time that we passed the FRA--and I have warned repeatedly since--
that these caps undermine our country's future in a really serious way.
That is not speculation. I am speaking from experience.
Back in 2011, the last time a large group of Republicans leveraged
the full faith and credit of the United States to extract spending caps
under a Democratic President, we got sequestration, which both parties
quickly recognized was a disaster, and we got a decade of harmful caps.
The effects of that still echo today.
Nondefense funding, except veterans' medical care, is down 6 percent
from 2010 when you adjust for inflation and down 14 percent when you
adjust for inflation and population growth. That is not just a number
on a page. That is less support for families, fewer research grants to
keep us on the cutting edge, fewer officers cracking down on crime in
neighborhoods. It is just so many opportunities lost, and I can't, for
the life of me, understand why we would want to go through something
like that again.
Now, I am glad so many of my Republican colleagues are in strong
agreement, at least when it comes to defense, but every Senator calling
to boost defense spending alone is seriously missing the point. And any
Senator who thinks I will let us leave nondefense spending behind is
seriously misreading the situation. There is a simple reason I pushed
for the principle of parity when I struck the budget deal that ended
the worst of sequestration with Paul Ryan in 2013, and it still applies
today.
Nondefense investments matter to families. They matter to our
economy, our competitiveness, our future, and, yes, it matters to
national security. I can't emphasize that enough.
Here in Washington, DC, we call it nondefense discretionary spending,
or NDD--very wonky. Back home, we call it making sure parents have
childcare, helping families put food on the table, supporting quality
affordable healthcare in our communities, fixing our roads. Back home,
we call it clean water, safe food, fresh air, affordable housing.
When air traffic controllers keep our planes operating safely, that
is NDD. When the FDA pulls an unsafe product off the shelf, that is
NDD. When kids go to a public school or get a Pell grant that makes
college possible for them, that is NDD. NIH researchers working to cure
cancer, weather forecasters warning us of a disaster, agents cracking
down on the flow of fentanyl and going after criminal organizations,
fighting wildfires, enforcing sanctions against Russia, negotiating
tough agreements with allies and adversaries alike--that is NDD.
So I hope I have made my point. What we are talking about here is
spending that is, by no stretch of the imagination, the largest portion
of our budget--just about one-eighth of our total budget. But that
makes a real tangible difference in family's lives and our country's
safety and success every single day.
We are also talking about things Americans overwhelmingly support.
Seriously, I encourage my colleagues to go ask your constituents in any
part of this country--conservative, liberal, Washington to Kentucky: Do
you care if you have clean water? Do you care if your kids get sick
from foodborne illness? Do you want to wait longer when you call the
Social Security office, if you can reach anyone at all? Do you want
someone making sure that the bridges that you drive across are safe? Do
you want to stall our progress on cures and treatments for cancer or
Alzheimer's or other deadly diseases?
And yet NDD has been consistently underfunded, and it is a constant
target for cuts by House Republicans, as we are now seeing.
I am here to say: Enough is enough. If we keep cutting and stretching
and shortchanging those programs, something is going to snap--something
important.
But more cuts are exactly what a 1-percent cap actually means--not
treading water, not keeping up. A 1-percent cap means pain.
If we let families down, that means we let our competitors get ahead.
It means we leave our Nation vulnerable. That is not politics; it is
cold, hard math. One percent is not enough to keep up with rising
costs, growing needs, and new challenges.
The issue here isn't whether we can make more tough choices. It is
whether we are going to be honest about the tough realities of a 1-
percent cap. There are so many priorities lawmakers on both sides of
the aisle care about that just can't happen with a 1-percent increase.
Here is what 1 percent means in practice: 1 percent means letting
families go hungry. WIC, a literal lifeline for nearly 7 million
mothers and babies is going to need a nearly 10-percent increase next
year. Anything less will force us to choose which moms, which babies
are getting the food they need and which are getting put on a wait
list. Think about that.
One percent means we are letting rural families lose their homes. We
need a 5-percent increase for rural rental assistance alone. Falling
short means thousands of rural families will lose assistance and may
face eviction.
How is that right?
One percent means losing law enforcement. The FBI already can't fill
about a thousand open positions because of what happened in fiscal year
2024. At 1 percent, in fiscal year 2025, it would have to trim another
1,300 positions. That is far fewer agents going after transnational
criminal organizations, fentanyl traffickers, violent crime, cyber
attackers, and more.
Meanwhile, DOJ would have to lose or freeze nearly 5,000 positions.
We are talking about attorneys and agents that defend our civil rights,
prosecute dangerous criminals, and keep our Nation safe.
Do Republicans really want to defund law enforcement?
One percent means slashing pay for our Federal firefighters. Any
family
[[Page S4123]]
whose house has been threatened by one of the many devastating
wildfires in recent years will tell you firefighters are not an
optional expense. But over a quarter of the Forest Service's wildland
firefighting jobs are vacant. And unless we provide funding to save our
firefighters from a pay cut, those vacancies will get worse.
This is the very definition of a ``must-have,'' not a ``nice-to-
have,'' kind of investment.
One percent means we are blunting momentum for lifesaving biomedical
breakthroughs.
NIH is looking at a $280 million shortfall as Cures Act funding
tapers off. That absolutely cannot be filled with a 1-percent bump. And
that is on top of the $678 million in NIH Cures Act funding that
already expired last year that we couldn't make up for because of the
caps.
There are countless patients who would be devastated to hear that
totally arbitrary spending caps are stifling research that could save
their lives.
But that is barely scratching the surface. One percent means no major
new funding for the opioid or mental health crisis.
It means fewer kids in Head Start, which is facing now a severe
staffing shortage.
It means long waiting times for seniors and people with disabilities
who need help with their Social Security benefits.
It means laying off meat inspectors and consumer product safety
workers.
And let's not forget that 1 percent means we are giving up ground to
our competitors and adversaries in just about every way.
It means delaying NASA missions.
It means letting adversarial governments fill the void in global
politics and influence, failing to counter an aggressive Putin in
Russia and allowing partners to succumb to economic coercion from
Beijing and withdrawing from the world stage to let competitors set the
international norms that impact our safety and economic strength.
It means falling way behind on innovation, which we should be leading
the way.
Do you know how much the Chinese government is increasing their
research and development spending this year? It's 10 percent--10
percent.
How do we expect to compete at 1?
You know, we authorized some truly transformative programs and
funding levels in the bipartisan Chips and Science Act, but that
doesn't matter if we don't provide bipartisan investments that live up
to those ambitions.
The FRA has already forced us to fall short; and without more
nondefense funding, it will force us to fall behind the Chinese
government.
I have covered a lot, but here is the rub: This is not even close to
a comprehensive list of what those spending caps mean for our country.
I cannot emphasize enough that under the caps for nondefense,
everything struggles to keep up with rising costs. Programs that our
kids, the future of our country, depend on--public schools, public
health, nutrition assistance, to name a few--cannot get by on 1
percent.
Programs that keep our economy strong and growing--childcare,
training for our workers, support for small business and for farmers,
cutting-edge research--can't get by on 1 percent.
Programs that help communities thrive--affordable housing,
transportation, broadband, and, of course, support for our Tribes--
cannot get by on 1 percent.
Programs that keep us safe--diplomacy, Border Patrol, food
inspectors, law enforcement--cannot get by on 1 percent.
It is entirely self-defeating to box our future in, leave our
families behind, and give our adversaries an opening to charge ahead.
Congress needs to decide, Do we want a stronger America?
House Republicans are saying ``no'' and writing fiscal year 2025
bills that ignore the deals that they negotiated in favor of
devastating cuts to nondefense.
The Senate, however, needs to come together and chart a different
path in a bipartisan way that says ``yes'' to a stronger America.
So, to me, the path for the Senate is clear: We have got to provide
additional resources beyond the caps to address major shortfalls and
new challenges.
I appreciate my colleagues who want to do more for defense. I also
think the defense cap is too low. But I feel strongly that that
increase cannot happen in a vacuum. We have to do more for nondefense
as well.
Parity is the order of the day because investments in our families,
in our economy, in communities' safety and success are no less
important than investments at the Pentagon. They are, actually, in
fact, connected. After all, a new submarine isn't just built with
money; it is actually built by people who need schools and childcare
for their kids, roads and public transportation to get to work, safe
food and water, workforce training programs so they can take on new
roles in advanced manufacturing, and more.
So let me be clear: I will not let us boost defense alone while
leaving families and our country's future in the dust. That is a core
principle for me. It is who I am.
Now, I want you to know I am not asking for the moon here. Parity for
defense and nondefense is not new or radical; it was the norm. I should
know.
When I sat down across from Paul Ryan--a principled conservative--to
reach a deal that undid the worst of sequestration a decade ago, we
didn't agree on everything. In fact, we didn't agree on a lot of
things. Family and football and fishing was all we agreed to start
with. That is where we started.
But we both understood the only way we were going to reach a deal,
undo massive cuts, and help folks back home was by working together and
producing a deal that may not be what we would have written alone but
addressed concerns that both of us brought to the table.
A cornerstone of that agreement--and of numerous agreements since--
was parity for defense and nondefense.
Parity is not new. It is not some antiquated concept either; it is as
relevant today as ever, because I think we can all agree that making
sure planes fly safely overhead, making sure we invest in R&D as the
Chinese government now spends 10 percent more, making sure our kids
don't get hungry is not some second order priority.
So we cannot shortchange either side of the ledger. We increased
defense funding by tens of billions this year while nondefense was held
flat; and I worked extremely hard alongside my colleagues to ensure we
delivered on a $95 billion national security supplemental to address
the major global threats we are facing.
In fiscal year 2025, I cannot accept net cuts in real resources to
NDD, which is what a 1-percent increase means.
Our duty to our constituents is to pass bills that make their lives
better: to provide funds that let us actually meet this moment, support
families, protect our Nation, and stay ahead of our competitors.
That will require more resources for nondefense. And I am ready to
work with my colleagues to provide the same for defense.
Last year, we were able to produce strong, bipartisan bills in
committee. I am very hopeful we are going to be able to do the same
again this year.
I plan to hold our first fiscal year 2025 markup the week we return
from the Fourth of July recess. And I look forward to working with all
of my colleagues to make sure we meet this moment, take the concerns
that we are hearing back home, and write and pass strong, bipartisan
Senate Appropriations bills.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority whip.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Senators be allowed to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall votes:
Myself for up to 10 minutes, Senator Cornyn for up to 15 minutes, and
Senator Merkley for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.