[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5377-5380]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are now in the countdown phase as to 
whether this government of the United States of America--the most 
prosperous Nation in the world--is going to shut down, turn out the 
lights, close its doors, and walk away. That could happen tomorrow 
night at midnight. If it does, it is an unmitigated disaster. There is 
no winner. No political party can claim they come out ahead in this 
exercise. It makes us all look bad--deservedly so.
  So this morning I called into a local radio station in downstate 
Illinois, and the host said: You ought to hear the phone calls, 
Senator.
  I said: I can guess what they are saying. What is wrong with those 
people in Washington that they can't sit down and reach an agreement? 
They are supposed to be our leaders. They are supposed to work out our 
problems. They are not supposed to throw up their hands and throw a 
tantrum.
  That is, frankly, what will happen if we close down this government. 
Now, I think there are ways for us to reach an agreement. There are 
certain issues on which we all agree. Let me tell you what they are.
  Our deficit and debt are serious national problems. They threaten our 
future, and they leave a legacy to our children and grandchildren we 
cannot defend. In order to reduce our deficit and our debt, we need to 
change in Washington. We need to cut spending, we need to be honest 
about it, and we need to tell the American people, whom we represent, 
what it means. Some of it will require sacrifice, but on both sides of 
the aisle there is no argument over what I just said. We need to cut 
spending, and we need to reorder the priorities of government.
  But there is something more we need to do, and I credit two Minnesota 
legislators who wrote a letter to the New York Times a few weeks ago, 
who, I thought, in a few words put it together. This Democrat and 
Republican wrote in and said: We are facing a fiscal crisis in our 
State, and what we have discovered is, we can't tax our way out of it. 
We can't cut our way out of it. We need to think our way out of it. We 
need to find ways to deliver essential services to the American people 
in a more cost-efficient way. We need to stop the duplication, waste, 
and inefficiency that are clearly part of our government today.
  So where are we? We are involved in negotiations, primarily between 
the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Speaker John Boehner of 
Ohio. They are trying to work out an agreement so we can move forward 
and finish this year's funding. It is 6 months and a few days, but it 
is critically important we get it done. They are close. In fact, I 
would say--and I just asked Senator Reid if this was a fair 
representation--the dollar amount of this negotiation is all but 
completed. The dollar amount is all but completed, meaning that both 
sides have agreed how much we will cut spending for the remainder of 
this year.
  To give credit where it is due, to Speaker Boehner and the House 
Republicans, there are significant cuts in their initiative in this 
area they can point to as part of the agreement. On the other side of 
the ledger, I think at the end of the day we will be able to say, as 
Democrats: Yes, we supported spending cuts, but we drew the line where 
we thought it was important for the future of this country. We made 
sure the cuts were not too deep in job training programs for unemployed 
and new workers in America. We made certain the cuts were not too deep 
when it came to education, particularly for children from low- and 
middle-income families. We made certain the cuts were not too deep when 
it came to

[[Page 5378]]

medical research and the basic competitive research necessary for the 
American economy and businesses to expand--and a host of other things. 
But those three major areas of job creation, education, and research we 
fought for, and at the end of the day I think we can point with pride 
to the fact that most of those are going to be largely protected.
  So we can both walk out of the room with some satisfaction that after 
all of this time, we have reached the point where the dollar amounts 
are in basic agreement--I am not going to say in total agreement but in 
basic agreement.
  So why am I not standing here saying with certainty that the 
government will not shut down? Unfortunately, now the House Republicans 
have decided this is no longer a battle over the budget deficit; it is 
a battle over issues--issues that do not relate directly to the 
spending of our government or the size of our deficit.
  One of the things they are insisting on is a group of riders that are 
part of H.R. 1, their budget bill, which restrict the authority of the 
Environmental Protection Agency in Washington to deal with 
environmental issues.
  I totally disagree with the House Republican position on this, and 
they are insisting on it. I would commend to them to pick up that 
always scintillating volume, the Congressional Record, from yesterday 
and read what happened on the Senate floor. Yesterday, on the Senate 
floor the Democratic majority agreed with the Republican minority, and 
we called four amendments on the EPA. In fact, we said to the 
Republican leader, Senator McConnell: Write your own amendment. We will 
call it to the floor, and we will vote on it. It was a sweeping 
amendment which took the authority away from the EPA when it came to 
greenhouse gas emissions. I think that is the wrong position, but 
Senator McConnell had his right to offer it.
  He got 50 votes in favor, 50 votes against. It failed, but we had the 
debate. We are not ducking this issue, I say to Speaker Boehner. We 
have faced it. We have voted on it. This Chamber has spoken on that 
issue and had three other debates and votes yesterday on EPA. None of 
those proposals got more than a dozen votes, but we have had the 
debate. We are not running away from it.
  So to insist now, as part of any budget agreement, we accept the 
House position on the EPA is to ignore the obvious. The Senate has 
spoken. The Senate has debated and voted, and it is clear where we 
stand.
  The second issue Speaker Boehner insists has to be part of this 
package is one that troubles me because it goes to the heart of some 
basic health programs for people across America. It is the title X 
family planning program.
  Speaker Boehner's approach would eliminate the entire title X family 
planning program. How big an expense is this? Mr. President, it is $327 
million.
  Since 1970, title X funding has provided men and women in every State 
with basic primary and secondary health care, including annual exams, 
cancer screenings, family planning, and testing and treatment for 
sexually transmitted infections. In 2009, title X-funded providers 
performed 2.2 million pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over 6 
million tests for infections, including HIV. Title X services prevent 
nearly 1 million unintended, unplanned pregnancies each year, almost 
half of which would otherwise end up in an abortion.
  Family planning programs such as title X not only give men and women 
command over their lives, they save us money. Every public dollar 
invested in family planning saves us almost $4--$3.74 to be exact--in 
Medicaid-related expenses. If we ended title X, as Speaker Boehner and 
the House Republicans insist, it would result in more unintended 
pregnancies and, sadly, more abortions, and it would result in more 
than 5 million women losing access to basic primary and preventive 
health care.
  We are prepared to debate this. If the House Republican position is 
that we need to close these clinics across America and we need to 
eliminate access to basic primary health care to literally millions of 
women and men across America, I am ready for the debate. But to hold up 
this budget negotiation, to insist that unless the House Republican 
position of eliminating title X is accepted, we can't reach an 
agreement--we have to shut down the government? Does Speaker Boehner 
really propose we shut down the government of the United States of 
America unless we are willing to cut title X family planning programs 
and health clinics and close the doors of health clinics across 
America? Is that what the last election was about? I don't think so. I 
think the American people said in the last election: Get serious about 
the deficit and start working together and stop your squabbling. Those 
were the two basic messages I took out of it. Well, we are getting 
serious about the deficit because we are nearly in full agreement on 
the dollar cuts necessary for the remainder of this year.
  I don't remember the last election being a referendum on whether poor 
people and children in America would have access to health care at 
title X clinics. H.R. 1 included an amendment from a Congressman from 
Indiana that barred Planned Parenthood from receiving any Federal 
funding, including Medicaid reimbursements, CDC grants, and teen 
pregnancy prevention program funding. Planned Parenthood health centers 
provide comprehensive care to millions of low-income and uninsured 
individuals each year. Forty-eight percent--1.4 million--of their 
patients are on Medicaid and would lose access to their primary care.
  This provision is presented as a means to prevent Planned Parenthood 
from using Federal funds for abortion. However, Federal law already 
prohibits the use of Federal dollars for abortion--that is not the 
issue--except, under the Hyde amendment, which goes back decades now, 
in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is threatened by 
the pregnancy.
  Abortion counseling represents 3 percent of Planned Parenthood's 
services. Yet this amendment, this rider from Congressman Pence, would 
ignore that. Ninety percent of the care provided at Planned Parenthood 
is preventive care--cervical and breast cancer screening, family 
planning, sex education, and the treatment of infection.
  If this amendment were enacted, most of the 800 health centers in the 
United States and 23 centers in Illinois, including in my hometown of 
Springfield, would be forced to close.
  This prohibition on Planned Parenthood funding is a rider on the 
House budget bill that is now the stumbling block for an agreement on 
deficit reduction for the remainder of the year and keeping the 
government open. It is ridiculous that Planned Parenthood, which 
receives title X funding, should be such a target and should be an 
obstacle to an agreement.
  We understand the conscience clause restrictions that are in the law 
when it comes to the issue of abortion. That is not what this is about. 
This is about family planning. And those of us who personally oppose 
abortion believe women should be given the information and opportunity 
to take care of themselves and make their own family decisions. That is 
what Planned Parenthood is about. This amendment would close down those 
clinics across America. I believe that is a move in the wrong 
direction.
  We can work together, and we should, to deal with this budget 
deficit.
  Paul Ryan is a Congressman from Janesville, WI. I know him. I like 
him. We worked together for almost a year on the deficit commission. He 
is a bright, hard-working young man and chairman of the House Budget 
Committee. He has proposed a plan for the budget for the next 5 to 10 
years. It is not a plan I agree with, but I respect the fact that he 
put the time in to prepare it. The reason I don't agree with it is 
that, unlike the Bowles-Simpson commission, the budget plan Congressman 
Ryan has proposed does not really deal in a comprehensive and fair 
fashion with the challenge of the deficit. Here is what I think and the 
commission believed: If we are serious about the deficit, we need to 
put everything on the table--everything.

[[Page 5379]]

  What Congressman Ryan has done on the Republican side is to say we 
are not going to put on the table any savings from the Pentagon over 
the next 10 years. That is hard to imagine--$500 billion-plus a year we 
spend at the Pentagon and no savings? While we are cutting programs in 
every direction, we can't find a way to protect our men and women in 
uniform, keep America safe and secure, and eliminate the obvious waste 
of money that goes on with much of the contracting in the Pentagon? Of 
course we can. I am sorry Congressman Ryan doesn't see that. I do, and 
I believe it should be part of the conversation.
  Secondly, there is no suggestion of any revenue at all as part of the 
solution. In fact, Congressman Ryan goes in the opposite direction and 
continues the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. If we are 
worried about explaining to our children and grandchildren how we can 
leave them this debt, how can we explain Congressman Ryan's position 
that would have us borrow over $1 trillion over the next 10 years to 
give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America? How can we explain 
to our children that we are going to go to China to borrow money to 
give tax cuts to wealthy people in America as we cut our deficit? That 
is his approach. I don't think it is complete and balanced.
  There is a better way. We need to look back to the Bowles-Simpson 
commission, the deficit commission, and we need to move forward, after 
we finish this debate on the budget for the rest of the year, in a 
comprehensive and bipartisan fashion.
  For months--literally for months--I have been engaged in a bipartisan 
effort with some colleagues in the Senate. We are trying to come up 
with something. I don't think everyone will applaud it. I know some of 
my colleagues will hate it. But it is going to be an honest approach to 
dealing with the deficit for the next 10 years. It is going to have the 
same Bowles-Simpson goals of $4 trillion in deficit reduction and will 
include all of the major elements of our government in the 
conversation. I think that is the only way to honestly approach this. 
We can reach that debate once we get this immediate problem resolved.
  So the point I wish to close with is this: We are at a moment here 
where we can resolve this issue, keep our government open, and move 
into the larger debate about our deficit in the years to come. It is 
morally a historically imperative debate, but in order to get beyond 
it, I hope Speaker John Boehner, whom I respect as well, will accept 
the obvious. His riders on the Environmental Protection Agency were 
debated and voted on in principle already in the Senate yesterday. It 
has happened. We are not avoiding it. Second, their rider relating to 
zeroing out funding for Planned Parenthood under title X funding is one 
we will take up at some point. We are not running away from it. But it 
is one that shouldn't stop the function of this government. It would be 
impossible to defend closing down our government, and all of the 
hardship that would follow, over that one rider--or two riders--they 
are insisting on.
  Let's move toward reducing the deficit, but let's also reduce the 
political rancor. Let's put some of these issues, which have been 
around for decades, off to another day. Let's make sure we consider 
them--and we will--but let's move forward now to keep this government 
open. Let the American people at the end of this week look at us and 
say: In the end, they got it right. We didn't like the way they reached 
this point, but they didn't do the irresponsible thing and walk away 
from their responsibilities. They accepted their duties, they kept the 
government functioning, and now they can roll up their sleeves and deal 
honestly with this deficit.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to describe to the 
American people and actually Members of both bodies of Congress what is 
going to happen to our troops and their families if the collapse of the 
budget negotiations forces the government to shut down. We look at 
charts and graphs and numbers, but let's talk about the reality.
  While I am sure many understand that most government services will 
halt, it is also important to understand that some government 
operations will not shut down. In particular, our men and women on 
Active Duty and in the National Guard and Reserves will continue to 
serve, but they will do so without pay. At a time when we ask them to 
fight two wars, to help stay the slaughter in Libya, and to keep peace 
around the world, another burden is going to be added to their 
shoulders: They are going to be asked to do it without a paycheck.
  Some of those in our Armed Forces--many of them--do not have savings 
to fall back on in hard times. Many family members are overseas 
fighting for America while their families are living back here. They 
are living paycheck to paycheck to pay for their groceries, to pay the 
car payments or the bills for a sick child or rent or a mortgage, while 
the other member of the family, the one who earns the paycheck, is over 
facing the possibility of dying on the field of battle. And now we tell 
them: Oh, stay right out there and fight. By golly, we are proud of you 
for fighting. Sorry we can't pay you. Because Members of Congress and 
the White House can't come together and deal, we can't pay you.
  You and your family may not be able to buy groceries, or your child 
may not get the medical care needed, but, boy, are we proud of you; if 
you get killed, we will give you a medal.
  Come on. Like so many Americans, some of those who serve in the 
military live paycheck to paycheck. They depend on their pay each month 
to put food on the table and keep a roof over their families' heads. 
Certainly, mortgage lenders are not known for accepting excuses when 
the monthly payments come due. But excuses are all that some Members of 
Congress can offer for why they will not come to the table and make 
sure our men and women in uniform get the pay they have earned.
  This is not bumper sticker sloganeering government. This is what 
happens. It is so easy for people to stand up and sanctimoniously state 
that we are doing this for the good of the country. You are doing it 
and you are harming the families of our men and women in harm's way.
  It is especially disturbing that the hard times that now are in 
prospect for our troops have been completely avoidable. The possibility 
of a government shutdown is very real because a relative few are 
willing to play politics and brinkmanship at a time when the public 
wants basic, unadorned statesmen. They want Republicans and Democrats 
to act as though they also have a stake in the course of our 
government. The American people want Congress to do its job, and that 
is certainly not too much to ask. Those who are insisting on their way 
or no way should pause to reflect on what their intransigence means to 
our troops and their families and, in fact, to every American.
  The decision to put politics ahead of the American people is reckless 
and imposes real hardship on real people. It is crueler still knowing 
that some of our troops, already facing fears of death or injury and 
sleepless nights in forward operating bases, must now add paying the 
electric bill and feeding their families to their list of daily 
worries.
  I have been with some of those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They 
have enough on their minds. They have enough they face every single 
hour of every single day--especially every single night. They should 
not have the added worry of whether their families will be able to pay 
their bills.
  Naturally, as cochair of the National Guard caucus, I worry 
especially for the Vermont National Guard troops

[[Page 5380]]

who are currently forward deployed to locations throughout the world. 
Many of them come from our small towns and cities in Vermont and they 
face these very fears.
  In shutting down the government, an ideologically motivated faction 
in Congress is willing to breach our most fundamental pact with these 
men and women. We have always said, ``protect our Nation overseas, and 
we will protect your loved ones at home.'' Who can justify violating 
that pact with the men and women in uniform?
  Some in Congress are already seeking cover, claiming they have put 
forward plans to fund the Pentagon and our troops. But, of course, even 
these transparent political ploys would not pay many of our 
intelligence personnel, our brave and dedicated forward deployed 
consular staff and officers and others--many of whom work side by side 
with our troops. Not to mention the vast number of individuals working 
in communities across the Nation to support our overseas operations. 
Every one of these dedicated public servants and every one of our 
troops deserves to be paid for a day's work. Our troops, their 
families, and those supporting them have enough to worry about without 
needlessly being pushed to the brink of a costly government shutdown.
  I hope that, as we sit here in our plush offices, with our staff and 
everything we ever want, being well paid as Members of Congress, we let 
the reality sink in. The distinguished Presiding Officer has spoken 
about this many times. The reality is that men and women--the families 
throughout our country--are being severely hurt. Let's not forget that.
  Mr. President, we are seeing some in the other body, reacting to the 
ire of a minority of vocal, anti-government extremists who make no 
secret of their desire to shut down the government even while 
complaining that the government is not doing enough for them, proposing 
reckless cuts in programs that are vital to job creation and to 
national security.
  Many in the other party are masters at blaming others for a budget 
deficit and debt they created during the last administration--self-
proclaimed fiscal conservatives who, in a few short years, racked up a 
trillion dollar deficit by borrowing the money for two wars, something 
that was never done before in the history of this country. Their idea 
was to cut taxes for millionaires, cut taxes for companies that ship 
jobs overseas, cut corporate taxes, and borrow the money to pay for the 
wars while causing the debt to skyrocket. They burned through the 
Clinton era surpluses and embarked on a massive borrowing binge--and 
they think they can lecture us on fiscal conservatism.
  Any mention of the consequences of what is being proposed is 
carefully avoided, but the American people should know the facts.
  There are many examples. The catastrophic earthquake and tsunami and 
the nuclear crisis in Japan, as well as the popular uprisings and 
violence in North Africa and the Middle East, demonstrate once again 
the essential role that our Embassies and consulates and our foreign 
assistance programs play in protecting the safety and security of 
American citizens and our allies.
  Our Republican friends have been urging drastic cuts to our 
international operations and programs, even though they, in total, 
comprise a mere 1 percent of the Federal budget--1 percent--and have no 
appreciable impact on the deficit.
  Yet when a natural or manmade disaster occurs overseas and Americans 
are affected or an American is arrested and locked in a foreign jail, 
those same critics of these programs immediately expect the State 
Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to leap 
into action.
  In Egypt alone, at least 75,000 Americans were living, working and 
studying when that country erupted in civic unrest and airports and 
train stations were jammed with throngs of frantic people trying to 
leave the country. Thousands of Americans turned to the U.S. Embassy in 
Cairo. Our consular officers worked around the clock to help them, 
including a group of Vermont students, one of whom had lost his 
passport.
  Just last week, another Vermont student was released after 2 weeks in 
a Syrian jail, thanks to the persistent diplomacy of U.S. Ambassador 
Robert Ford and other U.S. Embassy officials, as well as the Syrian 
Ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, who helped convince 
his government that a mistake had been made. My office worked closely 
with them, as is customary when a constituent is in trouble in a 
foreign land.
  As every Member of Congress knows, there are countless examples such 
as these, involving Americans from every State, which are not reported 
in the press.
  As the international affairs budget faces deep cuts in fiscal year 
2011 and in the future, it is important to be reminded of the 
invaluable assistance provided by the State Department and USAID to 
American citizens abroad, their families in the United States, and 
others impacted by foreign crises.
  It is also important to be reminded that Members of Congress and the 
American people cannot have it both ways. You cannot on the one hand 
support drastic budget cuts, and at the same time expect the agencies 
that are losing personnel and resources to be able to respond as needed 
to help Americans when disaster strikes.
  Today the crushing demands on the State Department for American 
citizen services are unprecedented. In the past month alone, the 
Department has issued travel warnings and alerts related to political 
unrest or natural disasters in six countries. Americans rely on their 
State Department for current, accurate travel information.
  Since the earthquake and tsunami, U.S. consular officers in Japan and 
Washington have worked ceaselessly to assist Americans in Japan, and 
the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo deployed teams to the Tohoku region to locate 
American citizens and help them find transportation away from the 
devastated areas. USAID sent search and rescue teams and emergency 
response experts to Japan.
  They were doing the same thing a little over 1 year ago in Haiti, 
after the catastrophic earthquake there.
  As much of the world's attention has shifted to Libya, the State 
Department continues to closely monitor the situation in Japan, 
including the impact of the damage to the nuclear powerplant, and to 
provide updated detailed travel warnings and information for Americans 
considering travel to Japan.
  Throughout North Africa and the Middle East, to prevent chaos and 
suffering at borders and surrounding areas, the State Department and 
the USAID have provided food, water, and other humanitarian aid to 
refugees and internally displaced persons.
  It is regrettable that despite these realities, so many in Congress 
support reckless cuts in operations for the State Department and USAID. 
It makes no sense to wait until these agencies can no longer function 
effectively before we recognize that we cannot ignore events beyond our 
borders, and that the services Americans expect from their government 
cost money. In fact, the cost of everything--fuel, transport, rent, 
communications, and security--is going up, while budgets are being cut.
  An unfortunate trend is taking hold here. Demand cuts in spending and 
in the taxes to pay for it, while expecting that it will not affect the 
government services you take for granted.
  The world is a dangerous place and unanticipated disasters of every 
kind are occurring with remarkable frequency. American citizens are 
spread far and wide around the globe, and they rely on the State 
Department and USAID to protect their livelihoods and their security 
every day. For that, the people who serve in these agencies deserve our 
thanks and our support.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________