[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5383-5387]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, this week I got an e-mail from a first 
grader in Missoula, MT, 7 years old. Her note read:

       Senator Tester, please pass a budget so that I can go to 
     Yellowstone National Park this weekend, or at least wait 
     until Monday to shut down the government.

  I get a lot of letters and calls reminding me what is at stake. Yet 
some of our colleagues continue to put politics ahead of doing what is 
right. I will always remember that e-mail from Missoula. Even 7-year-
olds expect us to get our job done. They expect us to work together to 
pass a budget. They expect us to work together to make responsible 
cuts. They expect us to make sure we don't put our government and the 
entire economy on life support. That is exactly what will happen if 
some in Congress let the government shut down. They will fail all of 
us.
  If drawing a line in the sand becomes more important than working 
together, I think that is a shame. Of course, we can't afford the 
status quo either. We all know the problem. Everyone wants to point 
fingers. I could spend my time pointing at those who thought it was a 
good idea to put two wars we are fighting on the taxpayers' credit card 
or those who squandered a $128 billion budget surplus in a matter of 
months about 10 years ago. But I will leave it at this: Our debt and 
spending problem is not something that we got into overnight, and it is 
not something we will get out of overnight.
  It is not going to be fixed by slick talking points ginned up by 
Washington, DC, consultants. It will not be fixed by symbolic gimmicks. 
It certainly will not be fixed by irresponsible decisions such as 
ending Medicare as we know it. It will not be fixed by gutting student 
financial aid or physical infrastructure. Those create jobs now when 
our economy needs it the most.
  Our spending and debt problem will be fixed by embracing a 
responsible, credible, long-term strategy to cut our debt; to cut 
spending, discretionary and mandatory--right now we are talking about 
cuts to only 12 percent of the budget known as discretionary spending--
to strengthen our entitlement programs so they work for future 
generations; to reform our Tax Code so it is fair and sustainable; and 
to cut our defense where we can afford to cut.
  We owe it to all Americans to get the job done. But we owe it to them 
to get the job done responsibly, and that is going to require some buy-
in. But we have done it before.
  During the Great Depression, people endured incredible sacrifice. But 
they had inspirational leadership to challenge them to grow their way 
to prosperity. In World War II, they worked together and made 
sacrifices at home to build the machinery that helped us

[[Page 5384]]

win victory. That momentum also created a powerful middle class. The 
attacks of September 11 brought us together again, and again we grew 
strong.
  When we work together, we succeed. It is in our DNA. It is what makes 
us the strongest, most innovative nation in the world. Now we have to 
summon that strength and determination again, to lead our way out of 
our economic challenges. It will not happen with gimmicks. It is going 
to take responsible decisionmaking, compromise, and shared sacrifice.
  Several of our colleagues in the Senate are already leading the way. 
I compliment Senators Chambliss, Coburn, Conrad, Crapo, Durbin, and 
Warner. They are working on a bipartisan strategy to cut debt and cut 
spending. Their plan will include cuts to discretionary spending. It 
will make our entitlement programs stronger. It will propose cuts to 
defense spending. And it will include tax reform.
  Last year, Senator Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles led a bipartisan 
commission in outlining a smart, long-term, credible strategy for 
cutting debt and spending. Senator Simpson and Mr. Bowles say they had 
14 reasons for volunteering their time on the Debt Commission. Between 
them, they have 14 grandkids.
  While I may not embrace every component of their plan, I applaud 
their hard work, their leadership, their patriotism. Their hard work is 
a solid blueprint we are already building from. I am ready to join 
them, and so are many of us in this Chamber. We need to do it.
  Montanans are patriots. They are ready and willing to follow our lead 
in providing a fair Tax Code that provides certainty and fairness. They 
are willing to share in the pain of responsible spending cuts that will 
not take our economy backwards. They know we can afford to make cuts in 
defense. They know we need to fix--but not dismantle or privatize--our 
entitlement programs.
  What is the alternative? Well, we may find out the hard way if folks 
are not willing to work together to reach agreement by midnight 
tomorrow. Shutting down the government means our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan will not get their paychecks on time--even though they will 
still be serving us.
  This week, I heard from a soldier deployed in Afghanistan. He said he 
would be OK in a short shutdown because he has some savings. But if 
their paychecks stop coming, a lot of his fellow soldiers will be hurt. 
Many have lower ranks. Many have pressing financial obligations such as 
mortgages and car payments, kids to take care of. They would get the 
short end of the stick.
  We have a duty to make sure the people who fight for us in harm's way 
do not have to worry about something as simple as getting a paycheck. 
That is why today I signed on to an important piece of legislation to 
ensure American troops on active duty continue getting paid if the 
government shuts down.
  But Members of Congress are a different story. If the government 
shuts down, we do not deserve to get paid, plain and simple. I want to 
say thanks to my colleagues for unanimously approving our measure to 
prevent congressional pay during a shutdown. Now the House needs to 
follow our leadership. If they fail, and if I still get a paycheck, I 
am going to give it back.
  A shutdown also means the government does not honor business 
contracts. That would cost jobs. It means the IRS suspends refunds. A 
Republican shutdown means new home loan guarantees will stop. It means 
the SBA stops approving business loans. Patent processing will be 
suspended. And it means Social Security, Medicare, and veterans' 
benefits checks could be delayed. Right now, in Montana, there are 
1,240 veterans' benefits claims that are outstanding. If the government 
shuts down, those 1,240 veterans' claims cannot be addressed, and a 7-
year-old in Missoula, MT, will not be able to see her national parks 
this weekend. We cannot afford that. Nobody deserves it. We can do 
better, and we will.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, as we were debating 
whether to move to this bill now on the floor, I sent a letter to the 
distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, and I was joined by 
several of my colleagues. We made a real simple point. The simple point 
was this: We have a spending and a debt crisis. We need to act and we 
need to act now. So rather than continue to bring up various cats and 
dogs bills, various matters that aren't related to that crucial, 
central spending and debt question before us, we should focus on the 
task at hand. We should focus on our greatest challenge: meeting this 
spending and debt challenge.
  Unfortunately, the distinguished majority leader did not heed that 
call. He proceeded with this bill. For the reasons I outlined, I and 
the other signatories of the letter voted against moving to this bill. 
Unfortunately, now, as we are on the eve of a potential government 
shutdown, I believe what has transpired has sort of made my point 
again. Why haven't we been focused on that crucial spending and debt 
challenge like a laser beam, to come together, to offer sensible 
solutions to avoid these eleventh or even twelfth hour negotiations? 
Because here we are and here we go again: Another crisis, another 
eleventh or twelfth hour negotiation; another potential government 
shutdown.
  While I am sorry we didn't focus like a laser beam on this central 
challenge sooner, now that we are here, I come to the floor to urge my 
colleagues to do what is reasonable and sensible and adopt what the 
House of Representatives is about to adopt, which is a plan to at least 
keep the government functioning smoothly for another week as we try to 
resolve the situation for the entirety of the remainder of the fiscal 
year.
  So I strongly support this 1-week continuing resolution that I 
believe will very soon pass the House. We all say we are against an 
unnecessary government shutdown. I certainly say that and mean it. If 
we all say it, and if we all mean it, I believe we will support this 
sensible measure as we try to come to an agreement--all of us--on a 
plan for the remainder of the fiscal year.
  This 1-week CR would keep the government functioning smoothly. It 
would avoid those disruptions and threats that are concerning to many 
Americans. That sensible, commonsense plan would also offer significant 
cuts to the current level of spending, $12 billion of cuts.
  What is important is those cuts are not very controversial. They come 
out of proposals mostly from the Democratic side. They mostly come out 
of the President's own budget proposal or the Senate Democratic plan 
for cuts or a series of nonpartisan suggestions made by the 
Congressional Budget Office. So I think it is reasonable to look to 
those sources of proposed cuts and work from those lists, and that is 
what this proposal does.
  The only other matter included in the proposal is two relatively 
noncontroversial so-called riders: one about Guantanamo Bay, which is 
pretty much current law right now because of language in the Defense 
authorization bill, and a second regarding abortions performed in the 
District of Columbia.
  With regard to that second rider, again, this should be relatively 
noncontroversial, particularly since this very language was in full 
force and effect from 1996 until 2009. It was the law for that extended 
period of time. President Bill Clinton signed that ban into law six 
times. President Barack Obama signed that very language into law in 
2009. Vice President Joe Biden voted for the legislation, including 
this DC abortion funding ban language, seven times since 1995. Even 
minority leader Nancy Pelosi on the House side voted

[[Page 5385]]

for legislation including this language 14 times. Here, the 
distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, voted for legislation 
including this language 10 times since 1995.
  So, again, this is not extremely controversial, and it is certainly 
no reason to shut down the government. So, in summary, I am sorry we 
haven't been focused on this central challenge and this central issue 
for the last 2 weeks as I had urged along with my colleagues. I think 
we should focus like a laser beam on spending and debt, and I think we 
should have been doing that for the last several weeks rather than 
bringing the bill before us onto the floor. But we are where we are.
  Given that, I hope we will do the reasonable, commonsense thing and 
continue negotiations for the rest of the fiscal year, but, in the 
meantime, pass the 1-week measure about to be passed by the House of 
Representatives. It continues the operations of the government. It also 
funds the Department of Defense for the entire fiscal year. It takes 
what should be beyond politics off the table. It protects our military. 
It gives full funding for our military men and women. It gives them 
certainty. We should all be for that. It cuts $12 billion from current 
funding levels but takes the vast majority of those cuts, again, from 
the President's own list, from Senate Democrats' own list, and from a 
nonpartisan list from the Congressional Budget Office.
  It only includes two so-called riders which have been granted wide 
acceptance in the past, including being passed, voted on, and supported 
by Senator Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and others 
multiple times since 1996. That is a reasonable path forward. That is a 
responsible way to prevent a government shutdown as we continue to 
negotiate for an overall resolution of this matter for the remainder of 
the fiscal year.
  I hope all of us, Democrats and Republicans, will listen to the 
American people and do the reasonable, commonsense thing and move 
forward in a reasonable way as we negotiate on broader issues in good 
faith. I hope we will pass this 1-week measure at a minimum right now 
as we continue to look for an overall resolution for the rest of the 
fiscal year.
  Mr. President, with that I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong concerns 
about the direction Republicans and the tea party want to take our 
country, beginning with an irresponsible Government shutdown simply for 
the sake of pursuing a social agenda and continuing their reckless 
budget plan that will devastate seniors and those most vulnerable over 
the next decade while rewarding millionaires with even more tax breaks. 
I look at this Republican budget put out by Chairman Ryan and it is a 
proposal that takes $1.5 trillion out of health care for seniors and 
children and gives it to the wealthiest, but it does not even limit 
subsidies for special corporate interests or big oil. In so doing, it 
fundamentally resets our values and turns back the clock on the 
progress we have made to protect our parents and grandparents, seniors 
and children in this country and keeps the playing field reasonably 
level.
  But even before that discussion, I wish to make a few things clear 
about the implications of shutting down the Government and what we on 
this side have already cut from the President's budget to reach an 
agreement. We started this year with $41 billion less in spending than 
the President requested. Plus, in March we cut another $10 billion 
below last year's funding levels, including the complete elimination of 
33 Federal programs. In total, we have offered $33 billion in cuts for 
the remainder of the current funding year, which ends in September.
  But the most radical elements of the Republican Party will not take 
yes for an answer. They say we have not come far enough, which in tea 
party terms means we have not given them everything they want. So they 
will shut down the Government rather than take yes for an answer.
  I saw a picture on the front page of one of the papers with a tea 
party banner that said: ``Shut her down. Shut her down.''
  I thought we were here to make sure we kept the Government going. It 
is clear their real reason for shutting down the Government is to 
promote a social agenda that is not acceptable to the broader part of 
the country. They are willing to shut down the Federal Government, put 
our economy, our small businesses, our veterans at risk and potentially 
delay tax refunds for millions of American families, all simply to make 
a political point and to try to impose the social agenda of a minority 
on the majority.
  Shutting down the Federal Government over a woman's right to choose 
or the Federal Government's ability to enforce laws that protect our 
children's health, in my view, takes irresponsibility to a whole new 
level. Even the Speaker of the House himself has said a shutdown will 
``end up costing more than we save.'' The Speaker is right. It would 
cost about $8 billion every week or .2 percent of GDP every week the 
Government is shut down.
  The Speaker is right on the substance, but he has not yet been 
willing to lead and deal with the tempest in the tea party on his 
right, threatening to cut this economic recovery short to satisfy a 
narrow, rightwing political agenda.
  At a time when small businesses are just beginning to get access to 
capital they need to create jobs for American families, a shutdown will 
result in $400 million in capital each week not going to small 
businesses through the SBA loan program and will throw the engine of 
small business job growth into neutral when we want it to be in 
overdrive.
  In the last shutdown, more than $1 billion in small business loans to 
5,200 businesses were delayed, so we know what small businesses are in 
for if we have another shutdown. This is not the time in our recovery 
efforts to say no to helping small businesses put people to work.
  In housing, the FHA loan process, which accounts for 30 percent of 
the housing market, will be interrupted just as we enter the height of 
the spring home-buying season in my State of New Jersey. With prices 
low and so many houses on the market, this is not the time to prevent 
15,000 homeowners from getting a home loan every week, more than half 
of which are for new home purchases that would reduce the inventory of 
the surplus properties.
  Now, because Social Security is a mandatory funding program, seniors 
and the disabled will continue to receive their checks. But if we let 
the tempest in the tea party shut down the government, interruptions at 
the Social Security Administration could delay changes in people's 
benefits and payments. In just 4 days of the last shutdown, 112,000 new 
claims for Social Security retirement and disability benefits were not 
taken and over 800,000 callers were unable to reach the Social Security 
Administration. Certainly in this economy, this is not a time to leave 
those who rely on Social Security with nothing.
  With the tax season upon us, it is certainly not the right time to 
delay tax refunds families are anxiously awaiting in order to make ends 
meet, put into the economy, and help the recovery keep going.
  It is not the time to shut down 368 National Park Service sites, the 
Smithsonian, the Statue of Liberty, the monuments, museums, and 
national parks across the country which, in the last shutdown, lost 9 
million visitors and the tourism revenues to those communities. Given 
that our last shutdown occurred in the dead of winter, we can expect a 
shutdown in the

[[Page 5386]]

midst of spring breaks and high tourist season to have a much larger 
impact on tourism revenues and the wallets of families who have already 
booked trips to national parks and planned visits to national monuments 
and museums. To put it in context, if we shut down the government for 5 
weeks, we could lose up to $1.2 billion based on the $12 billion 
visitors brought to the national park communities last year.
  If the tea party continues to insist on a government shutdown, 
military paychecks would be delayed at a time when military families 
are struggling with multiple deployments and struggling like everyone 
else to make ends meet. They will ultimately get paid but only when the 
shutdown is finished. In the last shutdown, more than 400,000 veterans 
saw their disability checks delayed. Now, let's not repeat that mistake 
when more of our wounded sons and daughters are returning home from two 
wars raging abroad every day.
  If the tea party continues to insist on a government shutdown, 
clinical trials of lifesaving drugs will be halted and new patients 
will not be accepted into clinical research programs at the National 
Institutes of Health.
  If the tea party continues to insist on a government shutdown, they 
will put our entire economy at risk. As a matter of fact, business 
leaders have said that a shutdown could result in higher interest rates 
and chaos in the markets. Every week, 350 import licenses could be 
delayed, resulting in holding up billions of dollars in American 
exports at a time when we need those exports to help fuel the recovery. 
During the 1995 shutdown, $2.2 billion in U.S. exports could not leave 
the country because thousands of export licenses could not be issued.
  Ivan Seidenberg, the CEO of Verizon, who is also the chairman of the 
Business Roundtable, said:

       I don't think any of the CEOs would welcome a government 
     shutdown. Problems for business would run from contracts 
     being postponed to disruptions in the supply chain.

  John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, said:

       Business would face the danger of the law of unintended 
     consequences. Interest rates could rise and there could be 
     turmoil in financial markets.

  This would all happen because Republicans, being held hostage by tea 
partiers, have rejected $33 billion in spending cuts for this year 
because they did not get all they wanted, because they are not getting 
their way on unrelated, extraneous social issues such as women's 
reproductive rights and enforcing laws on our books to protect our 
children's health. They simply will not take yes for an answer because 
yes on spending cuts is not really their only goal. Spending cuts is 
not why they are trying to shut the government down.
  I would remind our colleagues that democratic governments are not 
about total victory. Authoritarian governments do that, not 
democracies. In democracies, we are all fairly elected to represent our 
constituents. We all have a view. We all have a vote. We all have an 
obligation to govern and legislate for every American, not just for 
those who hold the views of the tea party. With all due respect, tea 
partiers claim to love our right to free speech and yet clearly do not 
believe anyone's views other than their own are acceptable.
  I say to our colleagues, we all have deeply held beliefs. Defending 
them and shouting them from the rooftops is easy, but listening to 
those who disagree with us and working on the differences is the hard 
work of government.
  I remind my colleagues on the other side that the word ``congress'' 
is derived from a Latin verb meaning ``to walk together.'' We have 
already made cuts to the President's budget. We have already made real 
cuts in this year's spending. We have offered a reasonable compromise 
that seeks even more cuts but, more importantly, a compromise that 
seeks common ground, not capitulation, and neither should our 
colleagues expect capitulation. All we ask is that those on the other 
side do what is right and act in the broader interests of the Nation, 
not shut down the government, disrupt services, and put the economic 
recovery at risk, all to satisfy a narrow political agenda.
  I know there was a lot of fanfare on the Republican budget proposal 
that was put out as we look to the next fiscal year. In my view, it is 
by far one of the most partisan, ideological, and fundamentally 
destructive budgets I have seen in my time in Congress--destructive of 
fundamental protections for every American and for what we have come to 
accept as fundamental protections that are uniquely American.
  It fundamentally takes $1.5 trillion out of health care for seniors 
and children, and it gives it to the wealthy. It would take health care 
from seniors and children rather than take subsidies from special 
corporate interests such as big oil companies. If Republicans got their 
way, New Jersey residents would lose $34 billion in health benefits, 
and almost 400,000 New Jerseyans would see their coverage cut entirely.
  The Republican proposal talks about cutting taxes, but in reading it, 
I find only two groups whose taxes would be cut: the rich and those who 
are even richer. Corporations and millionaires and those soon-to-be 
millionaires will keep all of their recent tax giveaways and would 
actually see their tax rates slashed by 30 percent. This proposal loses 
$700 billion on the revenue side over the next 10 years by extending 
the Bush tax cuts, particularly to the wealthiest in the country, and 
trillions more by slashing tax rates for corporations and millionaires. 
Those making more than $1 million a year will see tax cuts of $125,000 
each from the tax cuts and tens of thousands of dollars more from 
proposed rate cuts, while people in my State would lose $34 billion in 
health benefits, and 400,000 New Jerseyans end up without health 
coverage at all.
  This budget proposal shifts the balance to the wealthy and makes cuts 
that do not reflect our values as a people and as a nation. At the top 
of the list of Draconian Republican cuts is Medicare. Let's for a 
moment look at the logic of the Republican budget proposal when it 
comes to Medicare, a program that since 1965 has protected seniors and 
made sure no older American would be without health care when they need 
it the most.
  In 1965, we passed Medicare. Why? Because senior citizens could not 
get health insurance. And the reason health insurance companies would 
not take the risk of insuring older Americans, who, logically, would 
need to see doctors and receive treatment more often than younger 
Americans, is rather clear. Even if there were such a plan, the cost 
would be prohibitive for a senior on a fixed income. So we created 
Medicare, and today it is one of our most successful programs. No 
senior is left without access to lifesaving, life-enhancing drugs or 
the care they need.
  What are the Republicans proposing in this budget? They are proposing 
to end Medicare as we know it. In fact, they want to privatize 
Medicare, and they say their privatization plan is just a way of asking 
wealthier seniors to pay more. But let's ask ourselves, logically, how 
much do we think an insurance company will charge in premiums to a 65-
year-old American male who may have had a heart attack or heart ailment 
or suffers from diabetes. How outrageous do we suppose the premium will 
be, and how much of a voucher will that 65-year-old American need to 
purchase even a minimal health care plan? That logic escapes me. Today, 
buying a private plan on the open market for a self-employed, middle-
age couple can cost as much as $18,000 a year. The average retiree in 
America is living on about $19,000 a year. So, again, the logic escapes 
me. The fact is, this proposed privatization plan for Medicare 
completely overlooks the history of why we needed Medicare in the first 
place. It illogically assumes insurance companies will provide quality 
health care coverage at a huge discount to older Americans. If that is 
not wishful thinking, I don't know what is.
  Let me close by simply saying that it is time to make sure this 
government stays open, it is time to make sure we don't thrust the 
economy backward, and it is time to ultimately ensure that those who 
have given service to this country, such as the men and women in 
uniform, don't get hurt, and

[[Page 5387]]

that we do by coming together on a reasonable budget.

                          ____________________