[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2144-2145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             SEQUESTRATION

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, we are now on the eve of the so-called 
sequester. Tomorrow, March 1, Federal agencies will begin making $85 
billion in arbitrary, destructive budget cuts--cuts that economists 
tell us will damage our fragile economy and cost nearly 1 million jobs. 
This is a shame and it is shameful. This is yet another self-inflicted 
wound to our economy, and it is completely unnecessary.
  For months, President Obama and Democrats in Congress have urged 
Republicans to join with us in negotiating a balanced package of 
spending cuts and revenue increases to head off this sequester. 
Regrettably, we have run up against the same old response from our 
Republican colleagues: obstruction, obstruction, obstruction--an 
adamant refusal to compromise. They reject the very idea of a balanced 
approach, insisting that all deficit reduction must come exclusively 
from cuts to spending and investment. Since they have not gotten their 
way, they are now willing to allow all the destructive impacts of the 
sequester to happen.
  Think about it, because it really is breathtaking. Republicans would 
rather allow our economy to lose up to a million jobs than to close a 
tax loophole that pays companies to move American jobs to foreign 
countries. They would rather risk jolting the economy back into 
recession than to close a tax loophole that allows hedge fund managers 
making hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay a lower tax rate 
than middle-class families. It really is breathtaking.
  I am deeply concerned about the arbitrary cuts to programs that 
undergird the middle class in this country--everything from medical 
research to education to food and drug safety. Earlier this week, the 
Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, 
warned that the sequester would slash $1.6 billion from NIH's budget, 
directly damaging ongoing research into cancer, Alzheimer's, and other 
diseases.
  Funding for special education would also suffer deep cuts, 
eliminating Federal support for more than 7,200 teachers, aides, and 
other staff who support our students with disabilities.
  Funding for food safety would be severely impacted, resulting in 
thousands of fewer inspections, a slowdown in meat processing, costing 
jobs and endangering the safety of the public. The Food Safety and 
Inspection Service may have to furlough all employees for approximately 
2 weeks, which could close down or severely restrict meatpacking plants 
around the country.
  The list of destructive budget cuts goes on and on, and what many 
people may not understand is that these are just the latest cuts to 
spending and investment.
  Over the past 2 years, the President and Congress have already agreed 
to $1.4 trillion in spending cuts, all from the discretionary side of 
the budget. These have been very dramatic spending reductions.
  As I said earlier today, when we hear the Speaker of the House say: 
Well, since the first of the year, we have given on revenues but we 
have not had any spending cuts--he says: No more revenues, just 
spending cuts because we have already done the revenues--well, you see 
what he is doing is he is drawing an arbitrary starting line. His 
starting line is the first of this year. But you have to go back a year 
and a half to the Budget Control Act when, beginning with that, this 
Congress made $1.4 trillion in spending cuts--$1.4 trillion--and in 
January we did $700 billion in revenues. So we are still $2 in cuts for 
every $1 in revenue. Yet the Speaker says we should have no more 
revenues, all spending cuts, to get up to our $4 trillion that is 
needed to stabilize our debt in this country. So that means he wants to 
have another $2.6--well, let me think about that; I have to add it up--
it would be $1.9 trillion more in spending cuts.
  Think about that, and think about it in terms of just one area that I 
know about firsthand in my capacity as chair of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and 
Related Agencies. That subcommittee has jurisdiction over spending, for 
example, at the National Institutes of Health. Over the last 2 years, 
Congress has completely eliminated 65 programs under that jurisdiction, 
totaling $1.3 billion. What that means is no more funding for education 
technology, $100 million; no more funding for civic education, $35 
million; no more funding for creating smaller learning communities in 
high schools, another $88 million.
  LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, has been cut 
by $1.6 billion. That is a 30-percent cut--a 30-percent cut. That cut 
eliminates home heating and cooling assistance for 1.5 million low-
income and elderly households in this country. That has already been 
done. Now the Speaker wants to do more. Maybe he wants to eliminate the 
entire LIHEAP program.
  The administration's signature education initiative, Race to the Top, 
has been cut by $150 million. That is a 20-percent cut--already, a 20-
percent cut. That is what we have done already. If we cut any more, you 
are really going to be destroying education initiatives in this 
country.
  How about lead poisoning, childhood lead poisoning. It has been cut 
by 93 percent, from $29 million a year down to $2 million, meaning that 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention no more has any funding 
to test children for lead poisoning. And we know that if you get kids 
early, you can stop the deteriorating effects of lead poisoning. But 
now we are not even going to be testing these kids anymore.
  National programs to keep our schools safe and drug free have been 
cut by two-thirds, from $191 million to $65 million.
  As I said, national programs that keep schools safe and drug free are 
cut by two-thirds. I wonder how many people know that. I wonder how 
many people know we cut that already by two-thirds.
  Again, this list goes on and on with deep cuts to vital programs. I 
wish to emphasize, these are the cuts we have already made in the last 
2 years. The sequester will cut them even further.
  Fighting childhood lead poisoning, which we know continues on in this 
country, we know how it destroys kids and their future growth, and we 
know early intervention can alleviate that. Yet it has been cut by 93 
percent. What are we going to do, cut it by another 7 percent? We just 
will not have any efforts at all to test kids for lead poisoning early 
on. The sequester will have very real consequences for the economy and 
for our society.

[[Page 2145]]

  Finally, let me step back and put our discussion of this sequester in 
a broader perspective. By all means, we need to reduce deficits 
further, especially in the longer term. But I have questioned 
repeatedly the sort of obsessive, exclusive, almost borderline 
hysterical focus on budget deficits. Meanwhile, we are neglecting other 
urgent national priorities. How about the jobs deficit, the deficit in 
our investment in our infrastructure, the deficit in our investment in 
a strong, growing, middle class?
  What we need is an approach to the budget that addresses all of 
these--reducing budget deficits, yes, but doing it in a way that allows 
us to strengthen the middle class and lay the foundation for future 
economic growth.
  We also need to look at the demographic projectory of our country as 
well as the challenges posed by globalization. Our Nation is growing 
older with the retiring baby boomers. This will dramatically increase 
government costs for health care and other services. We are also now in 
a global economy competing not only in manufacturing but also in a 
growing range of services, from telemarketing to the reading of medical 
MRIs. In order to compete successfully and keep quality jobs in the 
United States, we need to invest robustly both in a 21st century 
infrastructure, as well as in a system of education and training that 
equips our young people and workers for the jobs of the future.
  In this broader context, what is the best way to address the 
resulting deficits? Do we just slash spending for education, slash 
spending for infrastructure, slash spending for research and discovery, 
sacrificing the investments we will need to grow our economy in the 
decades ahead? Do we just allow this destructive sequester to kick in, 
costing us jobs, cutting vital supports for middle-class Americans?
  These are the destructive budget options which will take effect 
starting tomorrow if we fail to act. This is why I come to the floor, 
at the eleventh hour, to plead one final time for a compromise and 
common sense from Republicans. Yes, I am here to plead for some common 
sense, some compromise from Republican leadership.
  There are plenty of areas where we can cut spending without seriously 
harming the economy. There are plenty of commonsense options for 
raising revenue without lifting tax rates or hurting the middle class.
  It is still possible for Senators to come together, but that may only 
happen if we have some willingness to compromise on the Republican 
side.
  When the Speaker says absolutely no more revenue, how do you 
compromise with that? We know from the polling data that the vast 
majority of the American people, 60, 70 percent, believe we should have 
a balanced approach, both in revenues and in cutting spending.
  We have reached out our hand in an effort to shake hands with the 
Republicans. They have not reciprocated by reaching out their hand to 
close the deal.
  It is still possible, but it is only possible if the other side is 
willing to make some compromises. Time is short. I urge colleagues to 
put ideology and this partisanship aside, stop this sequester, tackle 
these budget deficits in a way that allows us to invest in a growing 
economy and a stronger middle class.
  A lot of people say if the sequester kicks in, people aren't going to 
feel it right away. Well, maybe not tomorrow night, maybe not even 
Saturday or Sunday. We will beginning next week, when the Food Safety 
and Inspection Service starts furloughing people and we begin fewer 
inspections and maybe the week after that when our air traffic 
controllers begin to be furloughed because they don't have enough money 
and air traffic begins to slow down in New York and Chicago and 
Washington, DC, and Atlanta.
  It is always true that in times such as these, when we have these 
kinds of crises facing us, who gets hurt first and the most are the 
people at the bottom rung of the ladder, kids with disabilities, 
families who need some heating assistance in the middle of the winter, 
elderly people who may need some Meals On Wheels delivered to their 
homes.
  These are always the people who get hit first and the hardest. We 
can't forget our societal obligations as a Congress to make sure their 
needs are met also. We can't turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the 
needs of people in our society who don't have anything anyway. We can't 
throw them out in the cold. We can't let our children be denied Head 
Start programs or adequate child care programs. This is not befitting a 
great and wonderful society such as America.
  I am hopeful with a meeting in the White House tomorrow--as I know it 
is not just a photo opportunity--we will hear from the Speaker of the 
House that, yes, we need a balanced approach, and we are willing to 
take that balanced approach. If they do that, we can get this settled 
within the next few days and then move ahead.
  So that is my hope for tomorrow. And I hope, again, we will see some 
forthcoming on the part of Republicans that they are indeed willing to 
compromise.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________