[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3358-3359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, budgets and votes have something very 
important in common: At their heart, both require and reflect tough 
choices.
  Tomorrow we hope the Senate will vote on the Republican response to 
the President's budget. That is the so-called H.R. 1. Not only is the 
United States now focused on it, but the entire world is as well. Then 
we will vote on the Democratic response. Everyone has done the math and 
everyone knows how these votes will turn out. It is likely neither 
proposal will pass, which means neither will reach the President's 
desk, and we will go back to square one, back to the negotiating table.
  But tomorrow's votes are still significant. Just as our budget--that 
is, how we invest taxpayer money and invest our resources--reflects our 
values, so will the votes cast on these two competing measures. They 
will show us which Senators are serious about fortifying our long-term 
future and which are more concerned with scoring short-term political 
points. These votes will show us who wants an easy applause line and 
who wants to strengthen our Nation's bottom line.
  As the two parties' vastly different proposals make clear, there is a 
fine line between a responsible budget and a reckless budget. The 
Republican plan we will vote on tomorrow is the same plan the tea party 
already pushed through the House of Representatives. It is called H.R. 
1. Now the same tea party is trying to push it through the Senate. That 
plan will cost 700,000 Americans, including 6,000 Nevadans, their jobs, 
and I will not support that nor will any other Democrat I know of here 
in the Senate. The figure of 700,000 is not a figure picked out of the 
air. Economists generally agree that is a huge job loss for our 
country--economists led by Mark Zandi, whom I have said on this floor 
on a number of occasions has a pretty good resume. He is a chief 
economist at Moody's now. He is a noted economist and was John McCain's 
chief economic adviser during the campaign.
  The tea party Republicans are hoping America will see their budget's 
pricetag and swoon over its cuts. They are hoping the country doesn't 
look under the hood and see what is wrong. That is because they know 
that when we do, we will see their shiny new budget is a lemon and has 
a badly broken engine.
  I can remember I represented a number of car dealers when I practiced 
law. One of them was a wonderful man. His son is now running his 
operations. There was someone out picketing his place of business and 
he had a great big lemon. He alleged he had bought a car there at 
Findlay Oldsmobile and it was a lemon. I was an attorney wanting to 
stop that. I was ready to go to court and get an injunction to stop 
that. Pete Findlay called me and said, look, there is something wrong 
with that car and I don't want people to buy cars when there is 
something wrong with them. Take care of it. We will get him another 
car.
  Well, that is what the Republicans should do with the lemon they are 
trying to perpetuate over here. As I said, when we look under the hood 
of H.R. 1, we find it is not a good piece of legislation, and that is a 
gross understatement. H.R. 1 has not only a broken engine, it is a 
lemon in many other respects.
  To pull ourselves out of this ditch, we need an engine that powers 
growth,

[[Page 3359]]

innovation, and our being more competitive. We need one that powers a 
recovery. The last thing we can afford is a broken engine that will 
drive us right back into recession. We can't fix a broken economy with 
a broken engine. But that is exactly what the Republican House is 
trying to sell us with this H.R. 1. The tea party plan will make 
Nevada's students and workers less competitive and will make Nevada's 
families and communities even less safe.
  It hurts education, which, of course, threatens our future. There are 
many examples, but let me give two or three, starting where many of our 
children start--in early education. Head Start is a successful early 
education program for the poorest of the poor. It has been proven Head 
Start students are much more likely than their peers to graduate from 
high school. But under the Republicans' plan--this tea party plan, this 
H.R. 1--200,000 Head Start students, including hundreds and hundreds in 
Nevada, will be basically eliminated from the school system. That is a 
careless short-term cut with devastating long-term consequences.
  Second, what about students who are already out of high school and go 
to college thanks to Pell grants? If the Republican plan were to pass, 
those Nevada undergraduates who rely on Pell grants would see their 
tuition assistance cut by more than $600 a year. That means one of two 
things: These students' tuition bills will go up or they will be forced 
to drop out. We can't afford this. Either choice is a bad choice.
  Third, what about those who are already in the workplace who are 
looking to join the job market? This tea party proposal would cost 
Nevada $30 million in job training investments. That would hurt about 
8,000 potential Nevada workers. These cuts won't do anything to help 
unemployment go down or help Nevada's economy get back on its feet.
  We all know we have to make some sacrifices. We know there have to be 
cuts made. We have made them. But these Republican cuts, as indicated 
in H.R. 1, dealing with education alone, as I have mentioned, are 
counterproductive. If we slice budgets in the name of a stronger future 
but cut the most important way to strengthen our future, what have we 
accomplished? Nothing. We have made things much worse.
  It is not just education. Let's talk about a few more of these 
dangerous consequences the Republicans' reckless budget would have for 
Nevada. The same would apply to Connecticut. It would pull the plug on 
renewable energy jobs in Nevada, including 600 new jobs at the State's 
largest solar plant. It would fire another 600 Nevadans who work at 
community health centers. One of the outstanding things we did in the 
health care bill is we put $10 billion in that bill to build 10,000 new 
community health centers across the country. These aren't just for poor 
people, but they do help poor people a lot. It gives a place for people 
to go so our emergency rooms don't become overrun. All of the medical 
economists say it will cut down the cost of health care delivery 
significantly. But that isn't what the Republicans do. The 600 Nevadans 
who work at community health centers would basically be eliminated, 
which means fewer Nevadans would have jobs and the neediest among us 
would have fewer places to turn when they need help getting healthy.
  It would cut more than $1.5 million from local law enforcement 
programs to help Nevada prevent crime, fight domestic violence, and 
keep our neighborhoods safe from gangs. The plan would cut homeland 
security investments by about $1 million which puts every Nevadan and 
everyone who visits Nevada at risk. Some 60 million people a year visit 
Las Vegas alone. These cuts threaten the health of our economy, our 
communities, and our citizens.
  The Democrats know we cannot make our economy work again for the 
middle class unless we invest the taxpayers' money as responsibly, 
efficiently, and transparently as possible. So for anyone to say we 
don't think there should be cuts--we believe there should be cuts. We 
have proven that. We have already cut $51 billion below what the 
President recommended, and it was a pretty austere budget he presented. 
Yes, it is easy to demonize any investments we make by calling it 
government spending. It has always been a political shortcut to demand 
that we slice zeroes off the end of the national budget. But before we 
go on a reckless cutting spree, let's think about what these 
investments do, whom they help, and how much they mean to our future.
  That is what Democrats have thought about as we drafted our plan. We 
made responsible cuts to the tune of $51 billion below President 
Obama's budget. We have made some difficult choices. But where the 
Republican plan cuts indiscriminately, we have cut carefully. Where the 
Republican plan is based on ideology, ours is based on reality.
  Some of the ideological cuts: Eliminate public broadcasting, 
eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities. There are scores of things they have 
done, cutting indiscriminately. Where the Republicans' plan is based on 
ideology, ours is based on reality. That is because we know the whole 
point is to cut in a way that strengthens our economy, not in a way 
that weakens it. Our cuts eliminate redundancies, end unnecessary 
programs, and stop funding for earmarks. Our plan recognizes our job 
isn't to cut a billion here and a billion there just to say we did.
  Our plan recognizes, as Democrats do, that we are not in competition 
to determine who can cut the most without regard to consequences; 
rather, we need to cooperate and figure out where we can cut the 
smartest.
  The budget is complex, but the choice is very simple: If we want to 
create jobs, the Senate simply cannot pass the plan the tea party has 
already pushed through the House. We want to responsibly make the cuts 
we all agree we have to make. The Senate should pass the Democrats' 
proposal to bring down the deficit and keep our economy moving in the 
right direction.
  If we want to realistically get something done before it is too late, 
the House and the Senate Democrats and Republicans should return to the 
negotiating table where we know a good compromise on common ground 
awaits us. The country is waiting too. Time is not on our side.
  Mr. President, would the Chair announce morning business.

                          ____________________