[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5394-5397]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, like the majority leader, I was here the 
last time there was a government shutdown. I never believed it would 
reach that point. I certainly didn't believe it would be a long 
shutdown, but it turned out to be over 2 weeks before it was over. It 
was a period of profound embarrassment for all of both political 
parties who served in Congress that it had reached a point where our 
efforts to find common ground had failed, and we had basically failed 
by closing down the government and calling an end to basic government 
services.
  The Senator from Florida went through a partial list. The list could 
go on and on. What about the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Men and women 
who risk their lives every day guarding the most dangerous people, what 
is to happen to them as we shut down the government? He raised 
questions about our efforts to monitor terrorist activities. Those 
efforts are not only exclusively among the military. He mentioned the 
intelligence-gathering operations of the United States. I don't think 
most people outside our walk of life have any idea how many men and 
women get up every single morning, monitoring transmissions of 
information, monitoring activity all around the world, looking for that 
one shred of evidence that there is something dangerous about to occur. 
These are Federal Government employees, subject in many respects, many 
of them, to a government shutdown.
  In the Department of the Treasury is a foreign assets desk that 
monitors every single day the movement of money, looking for evidence 
of drug cartels and terrorist activities and criminal activity in the 
United States and around the world. They share that information with 
law enforcement at every level--State, local, and international--to 
keep us safe. These are Federal employees affected by a government 
shutdown. We just learned our Secretary of State is canceling a major 
conference on Tuesday, bringing in leaders from around Washington and 
the world to talk about critical issues, because of her fear that the 
Department of State will be shut down on Tuesday. We also know, in 
embassies all around the world, men and women literally risk their 
lives to be there representing the United States, offering their 
services for Americans and others in terrible circumstances, and they 
are going to be subject to a shutdown, skeleton crews.
  We ask ourselves: Is this necessary? Have we reached a point where 
there is no alternative? The answer is there is an alternative. The 
alternative is for people of good will to come together and find common 
ground.
  I am closer to the position of Senator Reid because I know, I have 
followed his conversations, his reports on the negotiations. I am 
certain of what I say. When it comes to the dollar amount for budget 
deficit reduction, we are virtually in agreement. The differences are 
minuscule. We have agreed on the amount of spending to be cut. That is 
no longer a matter of debate.
  What happened in the last 24 hours is a dramatic shift away from the 
budget deficit discussion. Now Speaker John Boehner, who is my friend, 
on behalf of his caucus, is arguing it is no longer about the budget. 
It is no longer about the deficit. It is no longer about cutting 
spending. It is about a social agenda, some issues.
  No. 1, Speaker Boehner insists we have to accept language from the 
House which says the Environmental Protection Agency will basically 
shut down its operations when it comes to certain environmental hazards 
such as greenhouse gas emissions. Some of us think that is a 
catastrophic decision, a disastrous decision. The House Republican 
caucus voted for it, the Republican majority. Now they are saying to 
us: Accept it.
  Yesterday, we debated that issue. We debated it in the Senate for 
many hours. The Senator from Florida was here. We had four separate 
votes on the issue of taking the power away from the EPA. The first 
amendment offered received seven votes in the affirmative. The second 
one received seven votes in the affirmative. The third one received 12 
votes in the affirmative. The fourth one failed with a 50-50 rollcall 
vote, offered by the Republican leader. Has the Senate spoken on this 
issue? It has. If I remember correctly, under the Constitution that 
both House and Senate Members are sworn to uphold, there are two 
Chambers. We disagree profoundly with the House Republican position. 
For Speaker Boehner to now insist that despite all the debate and 
activity, it is a ``take it or leave it'' on taking away the powers of 
the EPA is not only unreasonable, it is unfair and totally unrelated to 
the issue of budget deficit reduction.
  But there is a second issue. The second issue, which I find hard to 
believe they are now making the fulcrum of the decision on whether we 
shut down the government, is whether we should shut down the access of 
people across America, particularly poor women and children, to primary 
health care in clinics. They have an amendment under title X which 
would basically stop the funding for access to private health clinics 
funded by that program. What kind of services do these clinics offer? 
They offer cancer screening, breast cancer screening, screening for 
infectious diseases. The basic care we provide to women and families 
across the country would be shut down by the provision the Republicans 
in the House insist we agree on if we want the government to stay open 
and do business. Is that what the last election was about? I missed 
that part. I missed the part where the tea party stood and said: We are 
for fiscal sanity, and we want to close down the access of women to 
basic health services. I don't remember that at all.
  I welcome that debate. In the next hour or two or perhaps tomorrow 
morning, we are going to offer to the Republicans, if they want to 
debate on the floor that rider that is in the House approach, let's 
have the debate. Let's have the vote. It isn't as if we are ignoring 
it. We are prepared to face it and vote on it. I know what the outcome 
will be, and I think the Speaker knows as well. He is going to lose. So 
why are we allowing this ship of state to founder over two social 
issues, closing down the EPA's function and closing down women's access 
to health care?
  That is where they are. It is no longer about the deficit. All the 
deficit hawks and all the speeches we have heard, that is over. I find 
it hard to believe there are actually people who think a government 
shutdown is a good

[[Page 5395]]

thing politically. There was a statement printed in the Washington Post 
this week on April 5:

       Republicans gave the speaker an ovation when he informed 
     them . . . to begin preparing for a possible shutdown.

  An ovation? So some people in that caucus apparently believe a 
government shutdown is a good thing. Some of them, Congressman Pence of 
Indiana, has been forthright and direct. Let's shut it down, he says.
  How do we answer the basic question posed so many times: What does 
that do to the reputation of the United States around the world, that 
our government is going to shut down? What does it do in terms of the 
state of our economy which is coming out of a recession, trying to put 
people back to work? We know what the predictions are. Any government 
shutdown will reduce economic growth at a time when we desperately need 
more economic growth and more jobs. The longer the shutdown goes on, 
the worse it is in terms of unemployment and economic growth. We also 
know that even though some Republicans in their caucus were cheering on 
the idea of a shutdown, basic services essential to the operation of 
this government and the safety of our Nation will be in peril and 
danger. People who literally give their lives in service to the country 
will be wondering from day to day and hour to hour whether we will 
continue to finance the government.
  The clock runs out at midnight tomorrow night. Between now and then, 
I hope Speaker Boehner comes to his senses and appeals to his 
Republican caucus and tells them we cannot have everything. Take what 
we have, this cut in spending, this reduction in spending, which is a 
step in the right direction. I hope he will say it to even those who 
are cheering the idea of a government shutdown. It is not the right 
thing for America.
  It is time for men and women of both political parties to stand and 
to represent the best in this country, to make the concessions that 
keep us moving forward. We have plenty of work to do beyond this. I am 
leaving here to go to a meeting to discuss a bipartisan approach to 
dealing with our budget problems way beyond the next 6 months. If we 
are going to create an environment for bipartisan cooperation, it does 
not start with a government shutdown. If there are any Republicans who 
believe this is a sound strategy, that somehow this will endear them to 
the American people, I think they are making a mistake. A shutdown 
could cost the government dearly, and it could certainly cost the 
United States in its reputation around the world. I don't want to see 
that occur.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, sometimes when my constituents come to 
Washington I tell them: Welcome to the District of Columbia, 68 square 
miles of logic-free environment, where perception is reality.
  I can't think of anything more surreal than the situation we find 
ourselves in with the House of Representatives having passed an 
appropriations bill that would keep the government open while 
negotiations continue and would fund our men and women fighting now 
three wars around the world to make sure they get paid.
  I have also had occasion to tell my constituents that Washington, DC, 
is a lot like Disneyland. It is a fun place to visit, but it is not 
real. When we get in trouble, when Members of Congress get in trouble 
is when they think Washington is real because it is not. What is real 
is what is back home, where people have common sense, try to solve 
problems working together, rather than play endless political games.
  I find it outrageous that Senator Reid, the majority leader, and the 
President of the United States would refuse to fund pay to the men and 
women in uniform by threatening a veto to the House bill sent over 
here. We know that unless Senator Reid and the President agree to keep 
the government open, they will be responsible for the shutdown of the 
Federal Government and all the disruption that goes along with it.
  After the government shuts down, we are still going to have to pass 
an appropriations bill at some level to keep the government 
functioning. A shutdown doesn't solve anything, except cause 
disruption, concern, and heartburn among a lot of good people about 
whether they will get paid. First and foremost among those are our men 
and women in uniform.
  The President has threatened to veto the troop funding bill, which is 
H.R. 1263, by saying: ``This bill is a distraction.'' That is according 
to the President's own Statement of Administration Policy issued by the 
White House earlier today--``a distraction.'' An attempt by the U.S. 
House of Representatives to make sure our men and women in uniform are 
being paid while they are fighting three wars around the world is a 
distraction to the President of the United States. That is outrageous. 
That is irresponsible. That is an abdication of Presidential 
leadership, and I hope the President will reconsider because funding 
our troops is not a distraction, it is a responsibility. A veto threat 
is not what they deserve nor what they should be hearing from the 
Commander in Chief.
  About 1 in 10 people who wear the uniform of the U.S. military calls 
Texas home. Those Texans are among the roughly 100,000 U.S. troops 
currently deployed in Afghanistan, many of whom are serving multiple 
deployments away from home and away from their families. Some of them 
are, for example, members of the Texas Army National Guard's 176th 
Engineer Brigade headquarters that is currently handling engineering 
projects for about one-half of the country. Other Texans are among the 
roughly 40,000 troops still deployed in Iraq. Some of these are members 
of the Texas Army National Guard's 36th Infantry Division headquarters 
that is currently providing command and control for about one-third of 
that country.
  Texans are also supporting the mission in Libya, although many are 
perhaps unclear about what the mission is. Texans are onboard more than 
a dozen Navy vessels currently providing humanitarian assistance off 
the coast of Japan.
  The President's threat to veto funding for these troops is 
irresponsible and shows his willingness to risk a shutdown of the 
government and deny them the pay they are entitled to rather than to 
accept responsibility and to face the fiscal facts.
  For nearly 200 days, our Federal Government has operated without a 
budget because of an irresponsible approach to one of the most basic 
functions of the Federal Government: to keep the lights on, to keep the 
government operating, and to accept responsibility for those decisions.
  We know Democrats, while they controlled the White House and both 
branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, failed to pass 
even a budget last year--even a budget. Every family in America, every 
small business, everyone other than the Federal Government and Congress 
has to operate on a budget, but only Washington could continue to spend 
money it does not have--about 40 cents on every dollar. Yet I would say 
the President remains either oblivious to that fact or, I think 
probably more accurately, in denial about the fiscal crisis that is 
impending and is apparently unwilling to try to work across the aisle 
to try to address it.
  I think it is imperative that the majority leader allow the Senate to 
vote on the House-passed measure, which we could do by unanimous 
consent if not today then tomorrow before the looming shutdown tomorrow 
night. It is clearly in Majority Leader Reid's hands, and it is in the 
hands of the President of the United States if he would withhold his 
veto, allow negotiations to continue, and to make sure our troops were 
funded as they should be.
  The troop funding bill would fund the Department of Defense through 
the end

[[Page 5396]]

of the fiscal year, and it represents a bicameral, bipartisan agreement 
that was reached last December on funding of the Department of Defense. 
It is past time for this legislation to be enacted, particularly given 
that in the months that have passed since December, America now finds 
itself engaged in a third war--entered into without congressional 
authorization, without any clear mission and, frankly, only 21 percent, 
according to a recent poll I saw, actually believe the mission is 
clear. Well, I am with the other 79 percent. I do not know what the 
mission is.
  The President said it was a humanitarian mission, although when he 
obligated the U.S. military to go in he immediately outsourced the 
responsibility for it to NATO, which did not have the assets and the 
resources in order to protect the rebel forces who continue to be 
killed by Qadhafi's troops.
  The President said Qadhafi must go. Yet he is doing nothing from a 
military perspective to accomplish that goal. What does that do to 
America's stature and reputation in the world community? What other 
tyrants are watching this President say Qadhafi must go, and yet have 
this President unwilling to do what is necessary to remove him from his 
office?
  Well, I think it not only damages American prestige, it emboldens 
other tyrants like Qadhafi, and it does not solve the humanitarian 
crisis in Libya.
  Well, some have said--and the majority whip was here talking about 
so-called riders that accompany this piece of legislation, but let me 
first say what this troop funding bill also does. It cuts $12 billion 
in additional spending. When 40 cents out of every dollar the Federal 
Government has spent is borrowed money, and we are spending money we do 
not have, doesn't it make sense to cut Federal spending? Well, I think 
it does. I think anybody who thinks we can continue business as usual 
is just deluding themselves, living in a la-la land that has no 
bearing, has no semblance with reality.
  This bill would also keep the government operating for another week. 
This would avoid the shutdown that would occur tomorrow night, and it 
would allow for more time for bipartisan negotiations to occur.
  So far as the so-called policy riders go, prohibiting taxpayer 
funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, well, that has been 
supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the past. President 
Clinton signed similar legislation six times. Vice President Joe Biden 
and Senator Harry Reid have voted for it many times; and President 
Obama himself signed this same provision into law in 2009.
  This troop funding bill also prevents Guantanamo Bay detainees from 
being transferred to the continental United States. I think if there 
ought to be a consensus about anything, it is that we do not want 
dangerous terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, transferred to 
the United States. This bill prevents that.
  This language is virtually identical to existing law that was 
included in the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill also 
includes full funding for our commitment to the U.S.-Israel Memorandum 
of Understanding for fiscal year 2011 and was passed Thursday 
afternoon, this bill, by a vote of 247 to 181 in the House of 
Representatives.
  I do not know what could be any clearer than if President Obama were 
to veto this legislation--after it was passed by the Senate--that 
closing the government would be on their hands.
  Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. So this bill has been passed by a substantial majority in 
the House of Representatives. For Senator Reid to say he will refuse to 
take this up or President Obama to say--if it were passed in the 
Senate--that he would veto it is irresponsible, and the shutdown of the 
government would clearly be on their hands.
  This demonstrates a very disconcerting trend that we are seeing of a 
failure of leadership at the highest office in the land; that is, the 
President of the United States--a President who goes to Brazil and 
talks about, well, I am for free trade, yet has been sitting on the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement, the South Korea Free Trade Agreement, 
the Panama Free Trade Agreement since he entered office, a President 
who says he is for bringing down the price of gasoline, for making 
America less dependent on imported energy from abroad, and goes to--
believe it or not--Brazil and says: It is great you are going to be 
drilling for more oil offshore in Brazil. And do you know what. We are 
going to be one of your best customers--in other words, saying one 
thing in America and doing another thing abroad.
  This is the same President who appointed a fiscal commission that 
reported in December of 2010, which documents the sobering reality of 
the debt crisis we are facing in this country and what we must do 
responsibly to deal with it on a bipartisan basis, but in his State of 
the Union Message, in his budget he has presented, it is not even 
mentioned.
  We know we have important issues to deal with. This is the most 
immediate one ahead of us. But this is small compared to the bigger 
issues we are going to have to deal with in just a month or two, which 
is the debt ceiling. America has maxed out its credit card, and the 
President is asking us, the Treasury Secretary is asking us to raise 
the credit limit to allow us to continue to borrow more money.
  We know that is an unsustainable path. We know the American people 
are sick and tired of the typical gamesmanship and the ``gotcha'' 
politics in Washington, DC. What they want, I truly believe, is for us 
to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve the problems in front 
of us and not to kick the can down the road, not play a game of 
``gotcha,'' setting up our political adversaries for the next election 
in 2012. That is what this smells like. That is what this looks like.
  This is irresponsible on the part of the President. It is 
irresponsible on the part of the majority leader to fail to take up 
this bill and to allow us to vote on it tomorrow to prevent the 
shutdown of the government. It is irresponsible to threaten our men and 
women in uniform, fighting three wars across the globe, with being 
deprived of their paycheck by our failure to act, by the President's 
commitment to veto any legislation that were to be passed on a 
temporary basis to stop this government shutdown.
  I hope the American people will call, write, e-mail, I hope they will 
let their representatives know that is unacceptable and that Congress 
must act tomorrow in advance of the deadline; and if the Senate does 
pass the bill, that they communicate to the White House, by every means 
necessary, that, Mr. President, you shall not veto pay to our troops 
while we are fighting three wars. To do so not only is an abdication of 
your responsibility as Commander in Chief, but it is an abdication of 
the leadership people expect from the President of the United States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know we are rotating back and forth. I 
am the only one on the Senate floor, I think, who is requesting time. I 
ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for, let's say, 15 minutes. 
I probably will not use that much time, but I ask that unanimous 
consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me, first of all, speak in response to 
what the Senator from Texas talked about. This is very significant. I 
happen to be maybe one of the few who voted against the last three 
extensions that were requested--these 1-week extensions. That is no way 
to run government. I understand that.
  But this one is different, and I rejoiced when I saw we had an 
opportunity to pass a 1-week extension that would do three things: No. 
1, substantial cuts--not these just imaginary things we have been 
talking about--No.

[[Page 5397]]

2, continue the funding for what we must do in Israel for the end of 
this fiscal year; but, most importantly--and I say this as the second 
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee--this would be a 
huge help to our military so there would be certainty, they would know 
what we are going to be doing between now and the end of this fiscal 
year. That absolutely has to be done.
  It is unimaginable to me that in the middle of what I call two, maybe 
three conflicts right now that we are not lining up and making sure we 
have the funding that is necessary for what is going on in Afghanistan 
and other places where we have our troops in harm's way. It is 
something that is inexcusable, and I just cannot believe there is going 
to be a veto.
  In spite of the veto threat, this is our opportunity to have time to 
be fiscally responsible, and I hope we are.

                          ____________________