[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7007-7008]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I remember--and I am sure the Presiding 
Officer does too--an early morning in March when we completed our 
budget deliberations. That was a couple of months ago. I remember the 
outcry about the Senate not following regular order in passing a 
budget. On that March morning, we followed regular order. We passed a 
budget. We took up lots of amendments. We spent hours on debate. We 
voted on many amendments, and the Senate worked its will. Of course, 
the House has also worked its will. It passed a budget that is 
different from the Senate budget.
  The next step in regular order is for the House and Senate to meet in 
what is called a conference to work out the differences between the 
House and the Senate so we can then have a budget for the country. That 
is how the regular process works.
  I know for the last couple of years we have had budgets. We have had 
budgets because of grand bargains that have been agreed to on debt 
extensions and things such as that, but there is now a cry to follow 
regular order. That is what we should do: Follow regular order. So the 
next step is to go into a conference.
  I must tell my colleagues, I don't quite understand why the 
Republican leader is objecting to going to conference. He is trying to 
say, We will go to conference if the Senate agrees with the House. No, 
we don't go to conference because we agree with one body; we go to 
conference to work out our differences. So I am extremely disappointed 
that those who are yelling the loudest about following regular order 
are now preventing us from using regular order.
  We need to get to conference, and one of the reasons is so we can get 
rid of sequestration. Sequestration means across-the-board mindless 
cuts. It treats every priority in government the same. That is 
mindless. That is not what we should be doing. It is having a major 
impact on the mission of many agencies in this country. They can't do 
what the public wants them to do because they don't have the budget 
support to do it. For an agency that is affected by sequestration, it 
amounts to almost 10 percent of their budget, because they have to cram 
in savings over a short number of months. Also, it only affects some 
agencies, not all. Not all of the programs are affected by 
sequestration. But those discretionary programs that are affected are 
across the board, without any discretion.
  If the Presiding Officer ran into a tough economic time or someone we 
represent does and they lose some income, they look at their family 
budget. They may have money put aside for rent or mortgage payments, 
maybe some money put aside for a food budget for their family, and 
maybe there is some money put aside to go to an Orioles-Red Sox game.
  They are going to have to make some tough choices, but they are going 
to make choices based upon what is most important to their family. They 
certainly are going to pay their rent payment or their mortgage payment 
to keep the roof over their family home.
  So that is what we should be doing. We have to make decisions, and we

[[Page 7008]]

cannot do these across-the-board cuts. It is hurting agencies. These 
are cuts on top of cuts on top of cuts.
  Let me mention one group that will be particularly affected by that, 
and that is our Federal workforce. These are the people who are at NIH, 
the talented scientists doing the research that is keeping us healthy. 
They are finding the answers to the dread diseases in our society. 
These are people who are standing guard on our border, keeping us safe. 
These are people who do food inspections to make sure we have a healthy 
food supply. These are people who help our seniors, to make sure they 
get the checks they need for their dignity in their older years. These 
are people who are working for the public.
  What have we done to them? Three straight years of freezes, no 
increase in their salaries. We are now looking at what we are going to 
do with their benefit structure. On top of that, we have freezes on the 
number of employees; therefore, they are being asked to do more with 
less. And now we have furloughs, which is basically cuts--cuts in their 
salary.
  It is not the Federal payroll that causes the deficits we have today. 
As the Presiding Officer and I know, it is the fact that we went to war 
in two countries, we cut taxes, we went through a recession. We have to 
answer the way of getting out of this problem in a balanced approach. 
We have already done the discretionary cuts to those agencies, and we 
are now affecting their ability to do their mission.
  I want to mention some of the effects of sequestration on the 
citizens of Maryland, whom I have the opportunity to represent in the 
Senate.
  Maryland will lose approximately $14.4 million in funding for primary 
and secondary education. Twelve thousand fewer students will be served 
and approximately 30 fewer schools will receive funding. In Maryland, 
we believe education is a top priority. That is how we compete. That is 
how we invest in our future. We invest in our children.
  Maryland will lose approximately $10 million in funds for about 120 
teachers, aides, and staff who help our children with disabilities.
  Around 770 fewer low-income students in Maryland will receive aid to 
help them finance the cost of college, and around 440 fewer students 
will get work-study jobs that help them pay for college. These are 
programs that Democrats and Republicans have fought for over the years 
to make sure they are funded. Now, in Maryland, we are going to have to 
cut back.
  Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for 
approximately 800 children in Maryland, reducing access to critical 
early education.
  The list goes on and on and on.
  Maryland would lose about $3 million in environmental funding to 
ensure clean water and air quality, as well as prevent pollution from 
pesticides and hazardous waste. We have worked hard to clean up the 
Chesapeake Bay and provide a safe environment for our families. That is 
in jeopardy as a result of sequestration. In addition, Maryland could 
lose another $467,000 in grants for fish and wildlife protection.
  In Maryland, there will be 46,000--tens of thousands--of civilians in 
the Department of Defense who will be furloughed, reducing gross 
payroll by around $353.7 million in total in our State.
  Maryland will lose about $317,000 in justice assistance grants. These 
grants support law enforcement. We all talk about supporting law 
enforcement. These grants also support prosecution and courts, crime 
prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug 
treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.
  Maryland will lose about $66,000 in funding for job search 
assistance, referral, and placement, meaning around 9,270 fewer people 
will get the help and skills they need to find employment.
  Madam President, 2,050 fewer children in Maryland will receive 
vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, 
whooping cough, influenza, and hepatitis B.
  Maryland will lose approximately $551,000 in funds to help upgrade 
its ability to respond to public health threats, including infectious 
diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and 
radiological events.
  Maryland will lose about $1.6 million in grants to help prevent and 
treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2,500 fewer admissions to 
substance abuse programs.
  Maryland health departments will lose about $595,000, resulting in 
around 14,900 fewer HIV tests.
  Maryland could lose up to $124,000 in funds that provide services to 
victims of domestic violence.
  My point is these are cuts that I do not think the public wants us to 
do. In Congress, each of us says: Oh, we did not mean that. Well, it is 
time for us to act. Democrats and Republicans, coming together in a 
bipartisan way, compromise. That is what our Founding Fathers 
envisioned we would do--working together--so we have a balanced 
approach.
  Just look at compulsory spending, mandatory spending. We can organize 
our health care delivery system in a more cost-effective way. Dealing 
with individuals with high-cost interventions--we can save money 
there--reduce hospital readmission rates. There are ways we can bring 
down costs in a sensible way. Our troops are coming home from 
Afghanistan. We can reduce our military spending. We can certainly look 
at the $1.2 trillion we spend every year through the Tax Code--that is 
on a yearly basis--tax expenditures. We can certainly close some of 
those loopholes and get the badly needed revenues so we can deal with 
our budget in a balanced, responsible way.
  Let's work together in a bipartisan fashion, Democrats and 
Republicans.
  One more thing it will do: Solving problems gives predictability, and 
people will know what the rules are. They will know what our budget is, 
they will know what our Tax Code is, and that unleashes our economy and 
creates jobs, which helps the economy and helps balance our budget.
  I urge my colleagues, let's take the next step. The next step is to 
go to conference on the budget. Let's work out the differences between 
the House and the Senate. Let's do what we are supposed to do in 
regular order.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to remove their objections, and let's 
get to a conference on the budget as soon as possible.
  With that, I see my distinguished friend from Utah who is on the 
floor. I always learn a lot when he speaks, so I am going to yield the 
floor for my colleague from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my dear friend and colleague from 
Maryland. He is a wonderful person and a very good Senator. I enjoy him 
on the Senate Finance Committee. He is one of the brighter people on 
that committee, among a whole bunch of very bright people.

                          ____________________