[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4794-4796]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              BUDGET TALKS

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise to speak about the current 
status of the ongoing bipartisan budget talks. We are in a much better 
place than we were 2 weeks ago. The two sides are much closer than we 
might be able to tell from the public statements. After 3

[[Page 4795]]

months of back and forth, two short-term continuing resolutions 
containing cuts, and one near collapse of the talks last week, we are 
finally headed for the homestretch.
  Last night, we had a very good meeting with the Vice President. 
Afterwards, he confirmed that the House Republicans and we in the 
Senate are, for the first time in these negotiations, working off the 
same number. As the Vice President said last night, there has been 
agreement to meet in the middle, around $33 billion in cuts. The 
Appropriations Committees on both sides are now rolling up their 
sleeves and getting to work to figure out how to best arrive at that 
number.
  Today, Speaker Boehner said: Nothing is agreed to until everything is 
agreed to. That is a fair and reasonable position to take. He need not 
publicly confirm the $33 billion number. But as long as both sides keep 
their heads down and keep working, a deal is in sight. We are right on 
the doorstep.
  But there are outside forces that do not like this turn of events. 
Outside the Capitol today, there was a tea party rally staged to 
pressure Republican leaders not to budge off H.R. 1. They want Speaker 
Boehner to abandon these talks and hold firm, even if that means a 
government shut down on April 8. This is a reckless, and, yes, extreme 
position to take.
  Earlier today, the Republican leader came to the floor to defend the 
tea partiers rallying outside this building. Let me say this. I agree 
with some of his points. For instance, I agree that the fact that the 
tea party is so actively participating in our democracy is a good 
thing. They have strongly held views and they joined the debate. This 
is as American as it gets.
  But the tea party's priorities for our government are wrong. Their 
priorities are extreme because they are out of step with what most 
Americans want. Every poll shows Americans want to cut spending but 
with a smart, sharp scalpel, not a meat ax. They want to eliminate the 
fat but not cut down into the bone. They want to focus on waste and 
abuse. They want to cut oil and gas subsidies. They want to end tax 
breaks for millionaires.
  They do not want to cut border security or port security funding that 
keeps us safe. They do not want to take a meat ax and cut vital 
education programs. They do not want to end cancer research that could 
produce research that saves many lives. Most of all, unlike the tea 
party, most Americans do not want the government to shut down. They 
want both sides to compromise.
  A deal is at hand if Republicans in Congress will tune out the tea 
party voices that are shouting down any compromise. These tea party 
voices will only grow louder as we get closer to a deal, and our 
resolve must remain strong. If the Speaker will reject their calls for 
a shutdown, we can pass a bipartisan agreement. Many conservatives whom 
I would otherwise disagree with, agree with me on at least this point.
  It was very interesting to see on FOX News yesterday three 
commentators all on the same show, plainly agreeing it is time to 
accept a compromise with Democrats to avert a shutdown. Charles 
Krauthammer was adamant that a shutdown would be avoided and that if 
the government did shut down, the Republicans would be blamed.
  Kirsten Powers, a conservative columnist, said: ``What really should 
happen is if Boehner could strike a deal with the Blue Dogs and the 
moderate Dems and just go with the 30 billion with the Senate and just 
move on.''
  Bill Kristol agreed that while Republicans may like to pass a budget 
solely on their terms with only Republican votes, the reality is, the 
Speaker would need Democrats to get a deal done.
  The tea party may have helped the Republicans win the last election, 
but they are not helping the Republicans govern. The tea party is a 
negative force in these talks. But we are close to overcoming this 
force and cutting a deal.
  As the negotiations enter the homestretch, here is how we should 
define success: First and foremost, a government shutdown should be 
avoided. We should all agree on that. It bothers me when I hear some on 
the other side of the aisle or in the tea party say: We should shut 
down the government to get what we want.
  Second, the top-line target for cuts should stay around the level 
described by the Vice President and that both parties are working off 
of. This makes complete sense, since $33 billion is the midpoint 
between the two sides, and it is what Republicans originally wanted in 
February before the tea party forced them to go higher.
  Third, the makeup of the cuts, as I suggested a few weeks ago, should 
not come only from domestic discretionary spending. We cannot solve our 
deficit problem by going after only 12 percent of the budget. Mandatory 
spending cuts must be part of the package, and the higher the package 
goes, the more the proportion should be tilted in favor of mandatory 
rather than discretionary spending.
  Fourth, the most extreme of the riders cannot be included. There are 
some riders we can probably agree on. But the EPA measure is not one of 
them, neither is Planned Parenthood or the other extreme riders that 
have been so controversial.
  I believe we can settle on a few measures that both sides think are 
OK. But the most extreme ones do not belong in this budget bill. Those 
are issues that should probably be debated but not as part of a budget 
and not holding the budget hostage to them. If we can adhere to these 
tenets, we can have a deal both sides can live with. Time is short, and 
we need to begin moving on to the pressing matter of the 2012 budget.
  Speaking of the 2012 budget, let me say a quick word about that. I 
saw today that House Republicans planned to unveil their blueprint next 
week. Interestingly, the report said Republicans no longer plan to cut 
Social Security benefits as part of that blueprint. They are admitting 
it is not a major driver of our current deficits. That is true, and 
this is a positive development.
  It comes after many of us on the Democratic side, including Leader 
Reid and myself, have insisted that Social Security benefits not be cut 
as part of any deficit-reduction plan. It is good to see that 
Republicans, including the House Budget chairman, according to the 
reports in the paper, now agree with us. His original plan called for 
privatizing the program. I hope we are not going to bring up that again 
because it will not pass.
  But if the House Republicans instead simply insist on balancing the 
budget on the backs of Medicare recipients instead of Social Security 
recipients, we will fight them tooth and nail over that too. There has 
to be give on all sides--shared sacrifice, not just in any one little 
area.
  A lot is at stake in the current year's budgets. But in another 
sense, it is simply a prelude to the larger discussions ahead. We urge 
the Speaker to resist the tea party rallies of today and the ones that 
are to come, to accept the offer on the table on this year's budget, 
and let us tackle the larger topics that still await us.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. In the Senator's opinion, why would the 
Republicans, particularly from the House of Representatives, want to 
cut Social Security, since the Social Security system has little, if 
any, effect upon us getting our arms around the deficit and moving the 
budget toward balance over the next 10 years?
  Mr. SCHUMER. My friend makes a good point. In fact, by law, the 
Social Security system and its pluses and minuses and the Federal 
Government's budget and its pluses and minuses must be separate. So by 
definition, by law, the two are separate. Social Security has its 
liabilities and assets, a big pile of assets over here, and the Federal 
Government has its liabilities and assets. The twain don't meet. One 
would think, particularly those who are saying privatize, that their 
opposition or desire to include Social Security in large-scale budget 
deficit talks, which we need and which are good--and I commend the 
group of six for moving

[[Page 4796]]

forward in this direction--one would think that is an ideological 
agenda because they simply don't like Social Security and want to 
change it, privatize it, whatever, rather than any motivation about the 
deficit.
  Then when we see that some of them may want to extend tax breaks for 
millionaires permanently, which would increase the deficit by a huge 
amount, and yet at the same time they say: Let's deal with Social 
Security, let's privatize it, which doesn't have anything to do with 
the deficit, one scratches one's head and says: I don't think deficit 
reduction is what is going on here.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator for his erudite analysis.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for his erudite question.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business 
for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________