[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7395-7396]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             SEQUESTRATION

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, Senator Collins and I are 
here today to underscore the timeliness of a bipartisan solution we 
have been pushing since March. While I firmly believe we should replace 
the sequester with a balanced and comprehensive plan that delivers the 
same deficit-reducing punch, it appears to me, and to all of us, the 
sequester is here to stay for at least the remainder of the fiscal year 
ending September 30 of this year.
  We need deficit reduction, but the way in which we are doing it under 
the sequester is terrible policy and it is time to fix it. Just after 
the fiscal year 2013 sequester was triggered, with Senator Collins' 
leadership, she and I introduced a commonsense plan that would empower 
Federal departments and agencies to replace the indiscriminate cuts of 
sequestration with more strategic cuts.
  One only has to look at the way in which sequestration has endangered 
critical programs for working families, our senior citizens, and the 
middle class to know we have to do more than we are doing today. 
Throwing up our hands and doing nothing is poor governing. Senator 
Collins and I believe we have a responsibility here as leaders to 
inject some measure of common sense into the process.
  With that, Madam President, I wish to turn to my colleague Senator 
Collins for her thoughts on the necessity of the Collins-Udall 
legislative proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, of course my friend and colleague from 
Colorado is exactly right, and I want to thank him for his leadership 
on this issue and for working with me to develop a bipartisan, 
commonsense plan that would help to mitigate the harmful effects of the 
automatic spending cuts known as sequestration that took effect on 
March 1.
  I want to emphasize that under our proposal, budget targets would 
still have to be met. We understand the need to confront our enormous 
Federal debt, which is approaching $17 trillion. But our plan does so 
in a sensible way. It recognizes that rather than imposing meat-ax 
cuts, we should be setting priorities. Our bill would give the heads of 
Federal agencies and departments affected by sequestration the 
flexibility to implement the required cuts in a much more thoughtful 
way by preserving vital programs and reducing or eliminating lower 
priority programs.
  Our bill also ensures appropriate congressional oversight of these 
decisions by requiring the agency heads to submit their spending plans 
to both the House and Senate appropriations committees 5 days before 
implementing these decisions. These committees and their subcommittees 
know the budgets of these agencies inside and out and will be able to 
effectively monitor their spending decisions, just as the committees 
now oversee reprogramming requests.
  Congress has already demonstrated that providing flexibility to 
Federal agencies in a commonsense way to address the unprecedented 
problems caused by sequestration makes a great deal of sense. Recently 
Congress passed a bill we authored that gave the Department of 
Transportation the flexibility to end the furloughs of air traffic 
controllers and to, instead, reduce spending by transferring unused 
balances from a grant program. That is the kind of decisionmaking 
flexibility we are talking about. In this case the furloughs were 
causing terrible flight delays and had the potential to truly harm the 
economies of Maine, Colorado, and countless other States that count on 
tourists visiting our amazing scenery, sampling our extraordinary food, 
and being with our great people. Had we not come together to pass this 
bill, the impacts could have been devastating to Maine and to Colorado 
businesses and their employees.
  In Maine it would have affected everyone from our wait staff and our 
innkeepers to our countless tourist attractions. It would have even 
affected Federal institutions such as the gem of Acadia National Park 
and our State parks as well. In our States, each season, but 
particularly during those key peak summer months, we welcome with open 
arms visitors from around the globe. If those visitors were going to 
have to sit on a tarmac for 3 hours awaiting a flight, they most likely 
were going to cancel their trips.
  I am proud of the work Senator Udall and I did to pass this 
bipartisan bill, but more can and should be done to give other agencies 
the same kind of flexibility to set wise spending priorities.
  I would turn to the Senator from Colorado to ask him if he agrees 
that isn't a better approach than across-the-board cuts with no 
flexibility?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. The Senator from Maine has it exactly right, 
and I commend her for her leadership.
  I want to point out to those who were critical of what we did when it 
came to the FAA, it is not just elite business travelers or Members of 
Congress who use our air transportation. It is families, it is seniors, 
it is businesswomen, and every American possible using our air 
transportation system. We see the egalitarian nature of our air 
transportation system when we are in our airports.
  Senator Collins brokered a sensible compromise that kept our airports 
running, flights on time, and commerce

[[Page 7396]]

flowing smoothly. I remember Senator Collins standing here on the 
floor, somewhat late at night, appealing to both of our leaders. So 
Senator Collins led the way.
  We also moved in the furloughs for meat inspectors. If we can deal 
with these small corners of sequestration, we can go all in. We have 
proven we can find consensus. It is time to finish that job.
  I want to turn back to my colleague for any final thoughts she might 
have to make about our bill and the importance of this effort we have 
underway.
  Ms. COLLINS. I want to thank my good friend and colleague. It 
wouldn't have happened without his support. We took a bipartisan 
approach, and that is the kind of approach we are taking today in 
urging our colleagues to look at our bill and our leaders to move it.
  Many agencies face the same challenges that were encountered by the 
FAA, and many agencies know of better ways to meet the sequestration 
targets. I have long believed these across-the-board cuts where we 
don't prioritize simply do not make sense.
  Last week, the Department of Defense announced that because the Navy 
was able to identify cost-effective ways to meet its budget targets, 
thousands of hardworking men and women at our Nation's naval shipyards, 
such as the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME, would not have to 
be furloughed. I had long argued the Department of Defense has the 
flexibility to minimize the furloughs because we gave them that 
authority as part of the continuing resolution.
  I would be remiss if I did not note, however, my disappointment that 
some of the workers at the shipyard, and others, such as those in the 
National Guard and at other facilities, such as the Defense Accounting 
Services Center in Limestone, ME, still face furloughs.
  There are other important programs as well. Biomedical researchers 
and school superintendents are also in a quandary of having little or 
no flexibility to implement the sequestration targets.
  Instead of enacting piecemeal fixes--whether it is the FAA or it is 
the meat inspectors--our bill would empower administrators to head off 
this problem and avoid indiscriminate spending cuts. We can mitigate 
the harmful effects of sequestration, protect jobs, and avoid mindless 
spending cuts while tackling the very real problem of excessive and 
unnecessary spending by simply allowing managers to distinguish between 
vital programs, to be creative, and to cut those that are of lesser 
importance.
  I know my colleague from Colorado would agree that no business facing 
the need to cut expenses would ever treat every program and function 
and service of that business as if they were of equal worth. Instead, 
the business managers and executives and employees would evaluate all 
the programs and set priorities. That is all we are asking.
  I thank the Senator from Colorado, my good friend Senator Udall, for 
his strong partnership on our effort to protect the jobs of hard-
working Americans, prevent arbitrary spending cuts, yet deal with an 
unsustainable $16.8 trillion debt. We know our approach would go a long 
way toward allowing priorities to be set. After all, if we are not 
going to set priorities, to make the tough decisions and distinguish 
among absolutely vital programs and those that could be cut or 
eliminated, then we might as well go home and just have a computer 
apply a formula to the budget.
  That is not why we are here and that is not what the American people 
expect. They expect us to exercise judgment and make good decisions.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I believe our time has 
expired or is beginning to expire, but I wish to underline what Senator 
Collins has said. We are passionate about this. Some say a passionate 
problem solver is an oxymoron or a passionate moderate is an oxymoron. 
That is not the case here. We want to solve this. We both have private 
sector experience. This is not how you would run a concern in the 
private sector. We can do this. We have shown we can do this. Let's 
move forward and provide certainty, not just to the Federal agencies 
but to the people in this country. At a time of tough economic 
challenges with a fragile recovery underway, we need to create more 
certainty and need to budget in a wiser, smarter way.
  I thank the Senator from Maine for her leadership. I value our 
partnership, and I know we are going to see this to a successful 
conclusion.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, could the Presiding Officer inform me 
of whether there is an order to proceed right now or whether there is 
some additional time for morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes remaining for the majority 
in morning business.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Maine 
be recognized for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________