[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1813-1819]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SEQUESTER IMPACT

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on the impact of 
sequester on the American people, on their safety, their security, our 
economy, and the way local and State governments can use wise resources 
to protect their people.
  I know we have each been assigned 10 minutes. I have a robust number 
of Appropriations Committee members who want to speak. I will ask the 
Chair to let me know when I have used 5 minutes, and if Senator 
Landrieu arrives, I will then yield to her.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I come today not only as the chair of the entire 
Appropriations Committee but as the chair of the subcommittee that 
funds the Commerce Department, Justice Department, and the majority of 
our science agencies.
  I wish to talk about the impact on public safety and our future, but 
you have to know I come with a heavy heart.
  I note and bring to the attention of my colleagues that a guard was 
killed in a Federal prison on Monday. This guard worked at the Federal 
penitentiary in Canaan, PA. He was stabbed and attacked by a prisoner 
with homemade weapons. The entire Justice Department, the Office of 
Prisons, the union people who represent them, all mourn at Mr. Eric 
Williams' death. We don't know the full extent, and I will be asking 
for a report on the investigation on how this happened. But one of

[[Page 1814]]

the things I do know as the chair of the committee, we face prison 
overcrowding. We have Federal prisons, some we don't even open because 
we refuse to put the money in.
  You can say: Well, Senator Barb, you are on the committee. Why don't 
you put the money in? We are in gridlock, deadlock, hammerlock on not 
being able to move our bills in regular order with due diligence and 
oversight. That is why we are at this crisis of sequester: Oh, boy. 
Can't we just cut 2 percent like American families?
  American families don't run prisons. They don't build their own 
roads. They don't have to put out their own local police department. 
They depend on their government to do that. They are willing to expend 
revenue, pay taxes so they are protected. There are reasons people are 
in Federal prison. They were bad guys and gals who did bad things, and 
when they are in prison, they still want to do bad things, such as 
attack a prison guard. Do you know what sequester will mean? Across-
the-board cuts. It will have a direct impact on America's prisons.
  Oh, sure. The prisoners will still have their food. They will still 
have their hour to be able to do their exercise. But the prison guards 
will face furloughs, layoffs, and even reductions in the workforce. We 
are placing them at risk while they protect us from risk. Where are our 
national priorities?
  One of the ways we can honor this man is to get serious about our 
appropriations process. I wish to cancel the sequester and come up with 
a balanced solution of revenues and strategic, targeted cuts, not 
across-the-board cuts to 1,300 correctional guards who might face 
layoffs.
  About our Federal prosecutors. We in Maryland have one of the best 
U.S. attorneys going after violent gangs, drug cartels, child 
predators, mortgage frauds. But we are going to say to those smart 
lawyers who can make megabucks in law firms, stick with us. But when 
you do, you can be laid off and furloughed. Why is it that the 
criminals are able to hire the lawyers, but the Federal Government 
doesn't want to pay for them? Priorities.
  We need to be able to have the right law enforcement at the Federal 
and State level to catch the bad guys, whether it is white-collar 
crime, such as mortgage fraud, or street crime, or despicable crimes 
such as trafficking in women and children.
  We have to look out for our FBI, our major force in counterterrorism. 
They face, again, layoffs, and it will go to our local law enforcement. 
We will be cutting the funds for things such as the Byrne grants, which 
enable local law enforcement to put cops on the beat and buy the 
equipment they need to protect themselves. There is a program here that 
we have a line item. It is not the biggest thing in the Federal budget, 
but it is the biggest thing to cops. Why? Because it buys bulletproof 
vests.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I advise the Senator she has 
consumed 5 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I could talk another 55. I could talk another 505. But 
I want everyone to get the point that cuts have consequences. So things 
such as, oh, why don't we cut the budget as families do--well, let's do 
what families do. They, first of all, make plans and stick to them. I 
think it is time we have a regular order.
  I want to deal with this sequester now. I want to look at this thing 
called the continuing resolution so it resolves the funding for fiscal 
2013, for fiscal 2014, to work on a bipartisan basis across the aisle 
and across the dome. Let's look at our spending, how we protect the 
American people, and make public investments that help create jobs 
today and jobs tomorrow.
  In conclusion, before I turn to my most able subcommittee chair on 
Homeland Security, Senator Landrieu, I just wish to say to the family 
of Officer Eric Williams, the entire Senate wishes to express its 
condolences to the family. I believe we can show our deepest sympathy 
by making sure it doesn't happen in our Federal prisons. Let's get on 
and solve the problem of sequester. Let's work together and get the job 
done.
  I yield to Senator Landrieu, the chair of the Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security, a very crucial committee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate--and we all do--all the 
Senators, even Senators on the other side of the aisle I think admire 
her tenacity and her leadership and, most importantly, her knowledge 
and understanding of the importance of the Federal budget on the 
private sector economy. Obviously, the Senator from Maryland 
understands its impacts on Maryland, but she also understands the 
impacts to our Nation.
  No one speaks more passionately and more knowledgeably about the 
challenges before families than Senator Barbara Mikulski from Maryland, 
from a working-class family herself. Her parents and grandparents, 
immigrants to this country, operating a small business, a bakery--a 
wonderful business--not only understanding how to run their own 
business themselves but for all the neighbors who came in every day to 
talk about their problems.
  When the Senator says she knows what families do in tight budget 
times, she is correct. Families do cut back, but they plan their 
reductions. They don't pull the rug out from underneath the college 
tuition for their kids. They don't kick grandma out on the street and 
put her in a homeless shelter. They make smart decisions about budgets. 
Let me say to my colleagues on the other side who fail to understand 
the other part of the equation, they also try to bring in more revenue 
to the family base. Either the wife gets a job or the husband gets a 
job or the wife goes back to school to get a nursing degree so instead 
of making $6 an hour, she can bring in $16 or $18 an hour.
  Families work on both sides of the equation. But for some reason, we 
have half this Chamber that only wants to work on one side of the 
equation. It is only about cuts, cuts, and more cuts, even though they 
are senseless, they are dangerous, they do not make sense for our 
country, and they most certainly don't just impact the government--of 
course, which is the enemy of the other side--they impact our economy. 
They impact our ability to grow this economy. Every cut that comes down 
in a senseless way, and even cuts that are planned, are harmful to the 
private sector.
  I know this not only as a Senator from Louisiana and chair of the 
Homeland Security Committee but particularly as chair of the Small 
Business Committee. Our phone has been ringing off the hook with small 
businesses--not government workers but private sector workers and 
contractors--that are afraid, and have every reason to be, about the 
results of this sequester to their bottom line because they are 
providing the government a good service or a product the government 
needs, whether it is in health care, whether it is in education or 
whether it is in homeland security. But I digress a little bit. So let 
me get back to the central message as chair of Homeland Security.
  I rise to speak in opposition to the damaging sequester that is 
scheduled to take effect this Friday. There is no question Congress 
must act to reduce our annual deficits--must continue to act. Let me 
underline ``continue.'' We have been reducing spending. We have set 
targets of spending lower than what would have normally been set 
because we are tightening our belts. We were trying to tighten our 
belts even at a time when the economy was shrinking. Most economists 
will tell us that in times of economic constriction, governments need 
to spend more money to try to prime the pump to get the country moving 
in the right direction. The President has led in this direction. We 
have helped to follow his lead; therefore, avoiding the worsening of a 
depression and a recession.
  But contrary to the evidence all over the place that this is working, 
the other side is going to ratchet it down with these senseless 
reductions--and even well-planned reductions at this point are very 
difficult--and rejecting a balanced approach which Democrats have 
called for. Most independent observers understand we have to have an 
increase of revenues coming in because

[[Page 1815]]

we are at the lowest level to the GDP since Eisenhower was President 
and some continued reductions. But they are rejecting that and going 
cuts only, cuts only. They said: We raised revenues. That is it. We 
raised $600 billion. We can't go any more. I am here to tell you, we 
have to go a little bit more, and the sooner we do that, the better we 
are going to be.
  There are people who make over $1 million in this country or 
companies that are enjoying loopholes they shouldn't be enjoying at the 
expense of the middle class and at the expense of the economic growth 
potential of this country, which is substantial, contrary to the 
laments on the other side of this aisle that the sky is falling.
  Every businessperson I talk to says: You know what, Senator. There is 
such promise out there. This energy industry is getting ready to boom. 
Natural gas is a great blessing to our Nation. But we may not 
experience any of that because we can't get 5 cents to invest in an 
airport or dredge one of the bayous or rivers in my State because of 
the tightening down of these spending cuts.
  The other side of the aisle, despite the mounting evidence, continues 
to argue against any revenues. Their cuts-only approach, cut it all, 
cut it now; don't worry about what you cut, just cut it, is not going 
to lead this country to economic prosperity.
  The reality is our deficit reduction so far has been completely 
lopsided: 72 percent has come from spending cuts, only 28 percent from 
revenues. It is not balanced, and we have to find a balance. We have 
already cut $1.5 trillion from discretionary spending over 10 years. In 
recent years, revenues coming in to the Federal Government as a 
percentage of GDP were at the lowest levels since Eisenhower. I said 16 
percent. My notes say 15.1 percent. So let me correct myself. I didn't 
realize it was that low. I thought it was 16.7.
  So while I support cuts--and have supported them in the past and 
continue to try to find them in my own budget, $42 billion for Homeland 
Security--we must have a balance.
  This sequester that is going to go into effect in Louisiana will cost 
us $15.8 million in funding for primary and secondary education. Early 
Head Start services will be cut to over 1,400 children who desperately 
need a better start in life. Our ability to develop oil and gas will 
slow down due to Interior Department cuts. Louisiana's Department of 
Defense civilian employees--over 7,000--will be furloughed, costing 
Louisiana residents $36 million in gross pay.
  As chairman of the committee, I am asking for the Senate to consider 
the impacts of these cuts on securing our homeland. We have made a 
tremendous amount of progress. We have avoided attacks, and some have 
been very close calls. This is not done because of a wish and a prayer. 
This is done because of smart research, investing in border security, 
investing in cybersecurity, investing in training of local police 
officers who can identify threats on the ground, whether it is in New 
York or Baton Rouge or New Orleans. We have avoided some attacks. As 
the Senator from Washington State knows, this does not just happen by 
magic. This happens because we are making investments in people, in 
their training. This is at risk today.
  The sequester would effectively decrease the number of Border Patrol 
agents by 5,000.
  I wish to make a statement and ask for 2 more minutes. I understand 
the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from South 
Carolina, Lindsey Graham, met with the President to talk about 
immigration reform. I am very glad we may make some progress on 
bipartisan support for immigration reform. Clearly, the country is 
asking for it, the business community needs it, our agricultural sector 
needs it, and the Latino population deserves it. But are we going to 
try to do education reform on a reduced budget in Homeland Security? 
What do they expect us to do in a Homeland Security budget without 
giving us some additional resources to hire the additional judges who 
are going to be needed, the additional patrols, et cetera? So I ask 
Senator McCain, how are we going to afford this in the Homeland 
Security budget? I look forward to having that discussion with him. On 
cyber security, the sequester would delay for a year the ability of the 
Department of Homeland Security to deploy technology to protect our 
Federal computer systems from attack.
  In the last minute I have, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record a letter we received this morning from Secretary Napolitano, 
who is preparing her agency for difficult tasks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            U.S. Department of

                                            Homeland Security,

                                 Washington, DC, February 26,2013.
     Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, Chairman,
     Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Landrieu: Thank you for your comments during 
     the Senate Appropriations Committee's February 14, 2013, 
     hearing on sequestration. I share your deep concerns and 
     wanted to follow up on your request to identify impacts to 
     our Nation's economy and international trade activities that 
     this unprecedented budget reduction to the Department of 
     Homeland Security (DHS) would have.
       Sequestration would have significant impacts on our 
     economy, including travel, tourism and trade. Reductions 
     mandated under sequestration would require furloughs and 
     reduced staffing at our Nation's ports of entry and airport 
     security checkpoints, which would have serious consequences 
     to the flow of trade and travel throughout the country.
       Trade and travel is absolutely essential to our economy. 
     According to the U.S. Travel Association, one new American 
     job is created for every 33 travelers arriving from overseas. 
     DHS's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staff and 
     operate 329 ports of entry across the country, welcoming 
     travelers and facilitating the flow of goods essential to our 
     economy. Each day, almost one million people arrive at these 
     ports of entry by land, sea, and air. In Fiscal Year 2012 
     alone, DHS processed more than 350 million travelers, 
     including more than 98 million international air travelers as 
     well as $2.3 trillion worth of trade.
       The automatic budget reductions that could be implemented 
     on March 1, 2013 would be disruptive and destructive to our 
     Nation's security and economy. At major gateway airports 
     average wait times will increase by 30-50%. At our busiest 
     airports, such as John F. Kennedy International, Los Angeles 
     International, and Chicago O'Hare, peak wait times could grow 
     to over four hours or more during the summer travel season. 
     Such delays would affect air travel significantly, 
     potentially causing thousands of passengers to miss flights 
     with economic consequences at the local, national, and 
     international levels. New flights that bring in hundreds of 
     millions of dollars to the U.S. economy would be delayed or 
     potentially denied due to reduced staffing.
       Sequestration will also impact our Nation's land borders. 
     For example, daily peak wait times at the El Paso Bridge of 
     the Americas would increase from one hour to over three 
     hours. Peak wait times at the Port of Buffalo Lewiston Bridge 
     would increase by nearly six hours, significantly slowing 
     travel across the northern border. Midsize and smaller ports 
     would experience constrained hours of operation, affecting 
     local cross-border communities.
       At our seaports, delays in container examinations would 
     increase to up to five days, resulting in increased costs to 
     the trade community and reduced availability of consumer 
     goods and raw materials. At cruise terminals, processing 
     times could increase to up to six hours, causing passengers 
     to miss connecting flights, delaying trips, and increasing 
     costs.
       Last year, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 
     screened approximately 640 million people and their carry-on 
     items at checkpoints, and more than 426 million checked bags. 
     DHS also screened over 629 million pounds of cargo with TSA 
     proprietary canine teams. Sequestration would require TSA to 
     reduce overtime and not backfill vacant Transportation 
     Security Officer positions, leading to increases in airline 
     passenger wait times by as much as an hour during peak travel 
     periods at our Nation's largest and busiest airports.
       Additional effects of sequestration would be felt by the 
     American public from reductions to U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 
     fisheries law enforcement, aids to navigation, and other 
     important activities that help ensure the safe flow of 
     commerce along U.S. waterways and the protection of natural 
     resources. These reductions will impact the Coast Guard's 
     ability to respond to issues impacting the U.S. Marine 
     Transportation System that generates more than $3.2 trillion 
     of total economic activity, moves 78% of foreign trade, and 
     sustains over 13 million jobs each year. USCG also will have 
     to reduce its patrols of the 3.4 million square mile

[[Page 1816]]

     U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone--impacting fisheries enforcement 
     and resulting in more incursions by foreign vessels, 
     exploiting our natural resources. Reduced Coast Guard 
     presence protecting the U.S. fishing industry would impact an 
     industry which generates $32 billion in income and supports 
     over one million jobs annually.
       The Department appreciates the strong support it has 
     received from Congress over the past 10 years. As we approach 
     March 1, I urge Congress to act to prevent sequestration and 
     ensure that DHS can continue to meet evolving threats and 
     maintain the security of our Nation and citizens. Should you 
     have any questions or concerns at any time, please do not 
     hesitate to contact me at (202) 282-8203.
           Yours very truly,
                                                 Janet Napolitano.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask for 30 seconds to complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. One of the issues I have been very focused on is 
international travel. I do not have the time to go into the details. It 
is an important industry for our country, not just for Louisiana and 
New Orleans, which are way up on the list of places people want to 
come. The travel industry is important.
  Last week Roger Dow said:

       Travel has led the nation's economic recovery--generating 
     more than 50 percent of all jobs created since the beginning 
     of the recession. The indiscriminate sequester cuts threaten 
     to derail travel-led recovery. These across-the-board cuts 
     may punish travelers with flight delays, long security lines 
     at [TSA] checkpoints and multi-hour waits to clear Customs 
     and Border Protection.

  This is not a time to cut back on investments we have made in 
increasing travel, 10 years after 9/11 ground this industry to a halt. 
Now is not the time to put up a yellow light or a red light, and that 
is what the sequester is going to do--it is going to be blinking yellow 
at a time when we need green all the way.
  We need to find a way to break through. This Senator is willing to 
compromise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise as chairman of the Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee to highlight the urgency and importance of 
addressing sequestration. These imminent cuts will have real impacts on 
the environment and on thousands of jobs related to infrastructure 
investment and environmental protection.
  The reductions required by sequestration will also come on top of 
other deep cuts these programs have already absorbed over the last 2 
years. Even though Interior bill programs make up less than 3 percent 
of total Federal discretionary spending, we have already seen more than 
$2 billion in cuts to environmental programs over the past 2 years. If 
sequestration moves forward, it will mean an additional $1.6 billion in 
across-the-board cuts to the Interior bill.
  We have already been forced to take $1 billion out of water 
infrastructure funding. Under sequestration, EPA's State Clean Water 
and Drinking Water Revolving Fund Programs will lose another $130 
million. In addition to potential public health impacts, these cuts 
will mean 7,000 fewer construction jobs at a time we need to put more 
people to work. These cuts will be made worse by more than $50 million 
in additional reductions to grants that help States run their 
environmental agencies, including supporting clean water programs. The 
consequences will fall squarely on communities such as those in my home 
State of Rhode Island that are already struggling to keep pace with 
their infrastructure needs.
  Just as we cannot place the burden of our Nation's growing financial 
debt on our children, we cannot place the burden of repairing our 
failing infrastructure on the next generation also. We have immediate 
needs that require immediate investment.
  I am also concerned about cuts to our Nation's land management 
agencies, including the National Park Service, which is slated for $130 
million in cuts. Sequestration will affect all 398 of our national 
parks, from the largest to the smallest. It means fewer seasonal 
personnel to assist visitors, which means fewer jobs. It also means 
fewer visitor services, more facility closures, and less upkeep and 
maintenance of our Nation's premier public lands.
  These cuts are obviously bad news for the millions of people who 
visit our national parks every year, but it is worth pointing out that 
these cuts are also bad news for local economies that depend on 
national parks. Nationwide, parks support more than 250,000 private 
sector jobs and contribute almost $13 billion annually to local 
economies. Even Roger Williams National Memorial in my home State of 
Rhode Island attracted nearly 51,000 visitors in 2011, with nonlocal 
visitors adding more than $3.2 million to the local economy. The Roger 
Williams National Memorial is one of the smallest of our national 
parks. Even this small park is a major factor in my community. These 
closures and cutbacks will certainly affect the bottom line of 
communities across this Nation if fewer families are able to visit and 
enjoy our Federal lands and our national forests.
  Sequestration will also impact programs that generate revenue for the 
Federal Government. The Interior Department oversees onshore and 
offshore energy development and expects those activities will be slowed 
dramatically.
  The trial for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill--and my colleague 
from Louisiana was so effective and so critical to the response of the 
Federal Government for her home State of Louisiana and the whole gulf 
coast--that started on Monday is an important reminder of how critical 
these activities are to preventing these disasters rather than somehow 
try to recoup losses after the fact. Yet the Department will be forced 
to furlough employees who conduct lease sales, issue permits for new 
development, conduct environmental reviews, and inspect operations. 
That is no way to run a railroad or a national Department of Interior.
  These cuts could result in 300 fewer onshore oil and gas leases in 
Western States and processing delays for the 550 offshore exploration 
and development plans expected this year. Companies may decide that 
development is not worth it because of the uncertainty, which will lead 
to less production and smaller royalties for the Treasury. In other 
words, the cuts required by sequestration could actually end up costing 
the government money rather than saving money and could take away from 
the developing ability of the United States to become more and more 
energy independent through production within the country rather than 
buying petrochemicals and petroleum products from overseas.
  The sequester is a real problem for environmental programs in the 
Interior bill and throughout nearly all government programs. But there 
are ways to prevent this meat-ax approach to addressing the budget. 
Indeed, Democrats have put forward a specific and clear plan--half cuts 
and half revenue--to replace the sequester. Simply, we have put a plan 
forward that puts jobs first by cutting specific wasteful spending and 
closing dubious tax loopholes. This bill gives the economy more 
breathing room by offsetting the sequester with smart policies that 
should be enacted even if there were no threat of sequester.
  Let's be clear what is at stake. The Director of the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office recently testified that the 2013 sequester 
will result in 750,000 lost jobs and a 0.6-percent reduction in GDP for 
2013. Lost jobs and lower growth--that is what sequester is going to 
produce. I don't think the people of Rhode Island or anyone else in the 
United States wants to have Congress support policies that mean fewer 
jobs. We have a crisis in Rhode Island, a jobs crisis that should be 
addressed before anything else.
  We hear from the other side of the Capitol that we must have a 
sequester to address the budget. But over the last few years, as my 
colleagues have pointed out, we have slashed the deficit by $2.4 
trillion over the next 10 years. The bulk of that reduction, $1.7 
trillion, has come through spending cuts. We have been cutting. Indeed, 
my Republican colleagues have repeatedly held the economy hostage in 
order to cut spending that benefits the vast majority of Americans and 
protect tax cuts that

[[Page 1817]]

benefit the wealthy few. That is not economically efficient, and that 
is not fair.
  We see the results in my home State of Rhode Island--a 10.2-percent 
unemployment rate. That is unacceptably high. And 12.3 million 
Americans across the country are still unemployed. This Republican 
agenda of protecting the wealthiest and not investing in job creation 
is out of step with the majority of Americans. Most Americans would 
prefer right now that we address the jobs crisis. And by the way, more 
people working means we also address the deficit. They pay taxes, they 
don't qualify for unemployment insurance, and they don't apply for 
other programs. That is the smart way and the way we should deal, at 
least in part, with our deficit problem.
  We should not be jeopardizing our economy. We should not be allowing 
these loopholes to exist that allow multinational corporations to ship 
our jobs overseas. We should not let these loopholes that give benefits 
to oil and gas companies that are recording historic profits linger, 
all ultimately at the expense of investing in programs like those that 
will put Americans to work in the parks and rebuilding our 
infrastructure across America. More austerity--and that is what this 
sequester is all about, especially in the form of these reckless cuts--
will hurt the economy. We should instead be working to create jobs.
  We should also recall that we are here today as a legacy of the 
Republican brinkmanship of threatening to allow the United States to 
default on its national debt. That is why we are here. Let's not forget 
that. The sequester was a means to avoid what would have been a 
catastrophic default.
  Now we have the opportunity to change course, to invest in our people 
and invest in growth and do it in a balanced way. We cannot cut our way 
to prosperity. The President said that. These contractionary policies--
this austerity the Republicans are urging upon us--will reduce economic 
growth at a time we need to expand economic growth, not only to create 
jobs but to truly address the deficit in a responsible, reasonable way. 
We have come through the threat of default on the debt with severe and 
unbalanced spending cuts. Now is the time to have a balanced approach. 
I urge that this balanced approach be adopted quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I have come today to join the other 
Appropriations subcommittee chairs to really implore the Senate and 
this country to take a look at what will happen if sequestration 
occurs.
  In just one day, unless Republicans drop their opposition to our 
compromise bill, sequestration will be a reality.
  Now, we have heard from a wide range of economists and other experts 
about how harmful these cuts will be to our economy. They will hurt job 
creation, reduce our economic growth, and impact the most vulnerable 
among us.
  According to HUD, the cuts required under sequestration would put 
125,000 tenants at immediate risk of losing their housing vouchers, 
leaving low-income residents facing higher rents, eviction or 
homelessness.
  At the same time, communities would be left with fewer ways to help 
the homeless.
  In fact, the cuts would place formerly homeless people back on the 
streets, since HUD estimates that the cuts would threaten housing or 
access to emergency shelter for 100,000 people.
  Sequestration will also disrupt some of the most fundamental work of 
our government, such as its management of the air transportation 
system.
  Every year, U.S. airlines carry hundreds of millions of passengers, 
many of them travelling for business or tourism. And our aviation 
system carries freight valued at hundreds of millions of dollars every 
year.
  This is possible because the FAA is a world leader in managing air 
traffic and protecting the safety of our skies.
  These cuts will force them to furlough their entire workforce, 
including each and every air traffic controller and safety inspector.
  With these furloughs, we can expect that every FAA facility and every 
air traffic control tower will be short-staffed every day of the week 
through the rest of this fiscal year.
  In order to protect the safety of our skies, they will be forced to 
reduce the level of air traffic.
  For these reasons and so many more, sequestration is the wrong answer 
to the fiscal challenges facing the country.
  The cuts will hurt the most vulnerable in our society, and it will 
hurt our ability to compete in the global economy.
  There is no question that we must address our deficit, but we must be 
smart about how we do it.
  That is why Democrats have put forward a credible, responsible plan 
to replace sequestration.
  Our legislation builds on the precedent set in the year-end deal, and 
it is in line with the balanced approach the American people favor.
  It would replace half of the first year of sequestration with 
responsible spending cuts, and half of it with revenue from those who 
can afford it most.
  Our bill calls on the wealthiest Americans to pay at least the same 
marginal tax rate on their income as middle-class families pay, and 
would eliminate needless tax breaks for oil and gas companies and 
companies shipping jobs overseas.
  At the same time, it would make responsible cuts.
  Our bill would eliminate direct payments to farmers that have been 
paid out even during good times, and for crops farmers were not even 
growing.
  And as the drawdown from Afghanistan is completed, our bill will make 
adjustments to our military that are in line with a strong 21st century 
strategy.
  This legislation meets Republicans halfway.
  It would protect the families and communities we represent from 
slower economic growth, fewer jobs, and weakened national defense.
  And it would allow us to move past sequestration, towards working on 
a fair, comprehensive budget deal that provides certainty for American 
families and businesses.
  So I would like to ask my Republican colleagues to seriously consider 
our proposal.
  The American people want a balanced deal. Let's deliver.
  We have heard people talk about job creation being impacted, reducing 
our economic growth, impacting the most vulnerable among us. In my 
subcommittee that oversees transportation and housing, we are going to 
see incredible impacts. HUD housing would have to put 125,000 tenants 
at immediate risk of losing their housing vouchers and putting them 
back on the streets at a time when we are just starting to really focus 
on our veterans and that growing number of veterans who are on our 
streets and making an impact across the spectrum. We will see a huge 
impact on housing.
  On the transportation side, every sector we oversee will be impacted. 
We have heard a lot of talk about our U.S. airlines. They carry 
hundreds of millions of passengers every year. It is a huge impact on 
our economy. Our FAA is a world leader in managing air traffic and 
protecting the safety of our skies. These cuts will force the FAA to 
literally furlough every single employee and impact our air traffic 
control and safety systems.
  It does not have to be this way. The Senate majority has put forward 
a very balanced approach to replace sequester, and in the longer term, 
as budget chair, we are working now to bring to the Senate a 10-year 
budget plan that will replace sequestration in a responsible way, work 
us to a manageable debt and deficit, and invest in our country again so 
we can grow. Let's get out of this crisis-management mode, pass a 
replacement to sequestration in the short term that we have offered, 
and get back to the regular order in the Senate. That means our country 
can get back to managing their families and their businesses and 
communities in a responsible way. We can do

[[Page 1818]]

that by voting to put in place our replacement. I urge our colleagues 
to do that tomorrow morning when we have a chance to vote on that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland 
and commend the very energetic way she has taken on her new 
responsibilities as Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. She has 
played a leading role in educating other Senators and the American 
people about the real impacts of sequestration.
  While most of the media has focused on the projected consequences for 
programs and jobs here at home, there are also consequences for the 
budget of the Department of State and foreign operations, which is 
directly related to the national security of the United States.
  It might interest people to know that the entire Department of State 
and foreign operations budget amounts to one percent of the Federal 
budget, not the 15 or 20 percent many mistakenly believe.
  That one percent is what we have to operate our embassies and 
consulates in over 290 countries, to process visas, carry out 
diplomacy, respond to humanitarian crises, and build alliances with 
security and trading partners. There are dozens of examples of how 
sequestration would harm these efforts, but I will mention just three:
  Cuts in diplomatic security at a time when everyone agrees we need to 
do more to protect our Foreign Service Officers overseas. Funding for 
local guards, diplomatic security personnel, and embassy security would 
be reduced by $181 million from the current level.
  This would force the Department of State to choose between reducing 
the number of local guards at overseas posts, delaying maintenance at 
existing facilities, or postponing construction of secure facilities to 
replace those that do not meet current safety standards at a time of 
increasing attacks against U.S. overseas diplomatic posts.
  Global Health programs that prevent the spread of AIDS and pay for 
vaccines for children, women's health, and to combat malaria and 
tuberculosis, would be cut by $468 million from the current level.
  A reduction of this size would end life-saving drugs to more than 
165,000 people infected with the AIDS virus. It would result in 
thousands more deaths from malaria. Tens of thousands of people 
infected with TB will not receive treatment. And the health of millions 
of Americans who travel, study, work, and serve in our Armed Forces 
around the world would be put at greater risk.
  Funding for disaster and refugee aid would be cut by $156 million 
from the current levels. With 750,000 Syrian refugees and 5,000 fleeing 
the country each day, now is not the time to cut these programs. Other 
funds to help victims of drought, famine, and extremist violence in 
Mali, Somalia, and Sudan, and to prevent those crises from getting 
worse, will also be cut.
  These are just a few examples of the real world consequences, not 
only for the people of those countries but for the security of the 
United States. People need to know what is at stake.
  As has been pointed out repeatedly, sequestration was included in the 
Budget Control Act as an incentive to negotiate. The idea was that it 
would have such catastrophic consequences that rational minds would 
replace it with a thoughtful and balanced approach to deficit 
reduction.
  That has not happened. To the contrary, just days before the 
sequester is to take effect our friends in the minority party whose 
only answer is to slash government programs and particularly those that 
help the neediest, have apparently decided that sequestration is not so 
bad after all.


              Military Construction and Veterans Programs

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Chairwoman Mikulski for 
organizing this colloquy among Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs 
regarding the real consequences of the upcoming sequester on this 
Nation.
  Fortunately, America's veterans are spared from the direct impact of 
the sequester, as all programs funded through the Department of 
Veterans Affairs are exempt. Veterans hospitals and clinics will 
continue to operate normally, veterans benefits will be processed and 
paid, and other veterans services will continue uninterrupted.
  But make no mistake about it; veterans are no more immune than any 
other American from the collateral damage that these senseless 
automatic spending cuts will inflict. Bear in mind that veterans are 
parents and teachers, firefighters and law enforcement officers, border 
patrol agents and small business owners. A large number of civilian 
jobs at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among other 
federal agencies, are held by veterans. In fact, veterans comprise 44 
percent of the Defense Department's civilian workforce. Veterans are 
subject to the same risk as any other government employee of being 
furloughed or laid off because of the sequester, and veteran-owned 
businesses face the same risk as any other small business of losing 
crucial government contracts.
  This is not some abstract inside-the-beltway issue. Eighty-six 
percent of the Defense Department's civilian workforce resides outside 
of the Washington metropolitan area. In my home state of South Dakota, 
approximately 1,000 Defense Department civilian employees are slated to 
be furloughed, reducing gross pay by about $6.3 million. This loss in 
income will surely reverberate throughout the local economy.
  The ripple effect of the sequester on the economy and job market 
nationwide is particularly worrisome for veterans of the Iraq and 
Afghanistan wars, who already face higher unemployment rates than the 
general population. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
veterans of these two wars are dealing with an unemployment rate of 
11.7 percent, compared to a national unemployment rate of 7.9 percent. 
The employment picture for Iraq and Afghanistan-era women veterans is 
even bleaker: 17.1 percent compared to a national unemployment rate for 
women of 7.4 percent. Furloughs, layoffs, and civilian hiring freezes 
have the potential to make a bad problem far worse for these veterans.
  So yes, the VA is spared a direct hit from the budget axe triggered 
by the sequester, but veterans are not.
  Another impact of the sequester that will be felt across this country 
is funding for military construction, which is poised to lose more than 
$1 billion as a result of sequestration. Like other agencies, the 
Defense Department does not have the flexibility to choose where to cut 
military construction every single project planned for construction in 
fiscal year 2013 will be forced to take a funding cut of approximately 
9 percent.
  The fiscal year 2013 program comprises more than 250 military 
construction projects in 42 states, the District of Columbia and 
overseas. As a result of sequestration, every one of those projects 
will have to be reassessed to determine if it can be executed at the 
lower funding level, or if it will need to be delayed or cancelled. The 
Defense Department can shift funding from one project to another 
through a congressional reprogramming, but that means the Department 
will be the sole arbiter of choosing winners and losers among the 
projects that Congress has already authorized. Moreover, reprogramming 
actions are time consuming and labor intensive, and at a time when the 
Department will be understaffed due to furloughs and a hiring freeze, 
the likelihood of delays or deferrals of military construction projects 
is high. Not only does this affect mission critical and quality of life 
projects on military installations, but it also impacts the local 
construction industry, and thus the local economy, in hundreds of 
communities throughout the Nation.
  Carpet bombing the federal budget with across-the-board spending cuts 
is neither wise nor prudent. It's about as smart as a surgeon 
performing heart surgery with an axe. There will be casualties, and 
veterans and military families will be among those casualties.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota, 
the Chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
Subcommittee, for presenting a stark and compelling explanation of the 
impact

[[Page 1819]]

of sequestration on veterans and military installations, and the 
consequences these ill-advised budget cuts will have on local 
communities.
  I am particularly troubled by the impact these cuts could have on 
Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who are already struggling to find 
jobs, many of whom are also coping with combat-related physical and 
mental health issues. The unemployment rate among women veterans is 
truly shocking. These brave Americans have served on the frontlines of 
our war on terrorism, and they should not be subject on their return 
home to a manufactured budget meltdown that could further complicate 
their job prospects and job security.
  Of course we need to rein in the federal debt, but we need to do so 
in a thoughtful, constructive way that brings both reasoned budget cuts 
and additional revenue to the table. The President has called for, and 
Senate Democrats are proposing, a balanced way forward.


                              NNSA and CCE

  Ms. MIKULSKI. As the Chairman of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I would ask the Senator from California to 
describe the impact of sequestration on the Department of Energy and 
the Corps of Engineers.
  Please provide specific examples that would help Members of Congress 
and the American people understand the consequences of sequestration on 
basic and applied research for future energy technologies, nuclear 
weapons modernization and nonproliferation activities, and maintaining 
critical water infrastructure.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for her leadership on bringing 
much needed attention to the arbitrary and damaging cuts of 
sequestration on important government programs.
  I would like to start by highlighting the impact of sequestration on 
national security activities. A semi-autonomous agency within the 
Department of Energy, known as the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, or NNSA, is responsible for safeguarding the country's 
nuclear weapons stockpile.
  NNSA has recently embarked on a major modernization effort. The 
purpose is to upgrade aging infrastructure and replace aging components 
in nuclear weapons. These investments are being made so that NNSA can 
reduce the size of the stockpile, consistent with New START Treaty 
obligations, and certify each year that nuclear weapons remain safe, 
secure, and effective without underground nuclear testing.
  Sequestration would cut close to $600 million from the nuclear 
weapons program, essentially freezing and reversing modernization 
efforts. Specifically, cuts in funding would put at risk NNSA's ability 
to refurbish nuclear weapons that are needed by the Air Force and Navy 
to meet nuclear deterrence missions, delay construction of facilities 
needed to replace old facilities that do not meet modern health and 
safety standards but are necessary to manufacture critical nuclear 
weapons components, result in furloughs and/or lay-offs of up to 5,000 
contractors at the eight NNSA sites across the country, and reduce 
oversight of NNSA nuclear facilities resulting in less frequent and 
thorough audits and evaluations of security at the sites. This would 
come at a time when security lapses have occurred at a major site 
storing nuclear weapons materials.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. It is my understanding that NNSA also funds 
nonproliferation activities. Would sequestration undermine the 4 year 
goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world by 
the end of December 2013?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. NNSA has sufficient funding to meet the 4 year goal, 
but securing materials is not the same as permanently removing and 
disposing of them. Even with the 4 year goal nearly complete, thousands 
of kilograms of highly enriched uranium and plutonium enough materials 
for dozens of nuclear weapons still present a terrorism risk. 
Terrorists are indifferent to sequestration.
  The sequester would impose cuts of nearly $200 million from the 
nonproliferation program. Efforts to remove additional nuclear 
materials would be delayed. In addition, NNSA would not be able to 
deploy additional radiation detection equipment at border crossings 
that are most vulnerable to nuclear and radiological smuggling. Of 
particular concern is NNSA missing the deadline to build and deploy 
new, more accurate sensors that can detect other countries' nuclear 
weapons tests. NNSA would not be able to build the sensors before the 
Air Force is scheduled to launch its satellites.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Equally important to our national security are efforts 
to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil and mitigating the effects of 
global warming. What impact will sequestration have on basic research 
needed to accelerate future energy technologies?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Department of Energy maintains U.S. leadership in 
scientific and technological innovation by supporting basic research 
through its Office of Science. The goal is to advance energy 
technologies and operate world-leading facilities to accelerate 
scientific discoveries.
  Sequestration would cut about $250 million from the Office of 
Science. Specifically, these cuts would result in hundreds of layoffs 
at national labs, universities, research facilities, and private sector 
companies that rely on Office of Science funding grants for energy 
research, reduce operations of major scientific facilities, meaning 
less research and development in one of the highest priority research 
areas designing novel materials which is critical to advancing energy 
technologies, stop almost all construction projects that are replacing 
aging infrastructure at the national labs that are needed to support 
science missions and attract the best scientists from around the 
country and the world, and allow no, or very few, new awards to advance 
high performance computing to stay ahead of Chinese competition and 
develop the next generation system, known as exascale, before the U.S. 
reaches the limits of current technology.
  These cuts would come at a time when many other countries are making 
significant investments in energy research and development. Many 
experts are already warning that current investments are not sufficient 
to maintain U.S. competitiveness in energy technologies.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Before our time is up, let's also discuss the impact of 
sequestration on water infrastructure. What will be the impact on the 
Civil Corps of Engineers?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. With sequestration, the Corps would likely have to 
close 57 recreation areas and partially close 186 recreation sites. 
There would also be no funding for 52 ongoing studies that were funded 
in FY 2012, 65 construction projects that were funded in FY 2012, and 
43 dredging projects that were funded in FY 2012.
  As the studies and construction projects are cost shared with non-
Federal sponsors, over 115 local sponsors would be left with no Federal 
share to match their contributions for these studies and projects, 
further delaying completion of these studies and projects. In addition, 
only the bare minimum funding for dredging of ports and harbors will be 
available. This will lead to inefficiencies in transportation due to 
required light-loading which will ultimately lead to increases in 
consumer costs.
  The long-term effect of these delays is increasing the costs of 
construction projects. More money needed to complete current 
construction projects means less or no funding for future projects 
already planned.
  I thank Senator Mikulski for the colloquy today on this issue.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank Senator Feinstein for her sobering assessment 
of the impacts of sequestration.

                          ____________________