Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Resumed -- (Senate - October 18, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to make a few comments. First, I would like to say this: I have tremendous respect for my colleague, and I would say friend, from Oklahoma. I don't think he does this out of any personal animus or even a direct, crass political advantage. I think he believes, and I respect that. So I would like to say that at the outset, and I say the same for my friend from Arizona. They have both been consistent in this, and they don't put in--even though their States do get earmarks, even earmarks for museums, it is not the wish of the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from Arizona to do that. That is point 1.
Point 2, generally, about fiscal responsibility, I would say both of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, like so many others, have voted pretty strongly against spending programs. But they don't vote the same way against tax cuts. They don't do pay-go on tax cuts. They vote to cut taxes much more than all of the earmarks in this entire bill, even though it makes the deficit worse, even though it is a fact that our children will suffer because of the debt.
So there is no high moral ground here. There is a view as to how big Government ought to be, but the idea of keeping the budget balanced for our children and for our grandchildren, I daresay, this new Congress, under Democratic leadership, is toeing the mark far more carefully than previous Congresses did. We have instituted pay-go--pay-go for tax cuts, but pay-go for spending programs as well.
Any economist will tell you, if you have a large deficit, it doesn't matter whether the deficit was caused by either reducing taxes or by raising spending. So, frankly, I think the arguments of my colleagues would have a great deal more suasion in this body if they were to say they will not vote for any tax cut that is not paid for either because what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
If you wish to say I am for shrinking Government and I don't care what the deficit is, that is just fine. But if you are making the argument that we should not pass debt on to our children, debt from tax cuts and debt from spending programs is exactly the same debt.
Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. Yes.
Mr. COBURN. Can the Senator recall a time that I voted for a tax cut?
Mr. SCHUMER. I don't know offhand.
Mr. COBURN. As a matter of fact, my public statements are that there should be no tax cuts unless you do spending cuts to pay for them.
Mr. SCHUMER. I respect my colleague for that. But the Senator from Arizona--I know of his record longer, and he does not have that record.
Mr. COBURN. I appreciate that.
Mr. SCHUMER. I appreciate that, and I look forward, when tax-cutting amendments come to the floor, to working with my colleague to say they ought to be paid for if we are going to do it, like we did, for instance, in the recent SCHIP bill.
I will make a second general point, and I will get to the specifics of this program. There are many needs in this country, and this country has always been one of federalism. Most of our time, effort, and energy goes into broad programs that basically do the same thing in Oklahoma, Arizona, and New York--whether it is helping pregnant women, whether it is education, or whether it is road building. Those are large national needs that this body has determined are real. But we have always had a view that States and localities are important.
Frankly, since the 1930s, there has been a view that the Federal Government has every right or reason to help those States and localities specifically, and that is what good earmarks are. Earmarks are not all good. Spending programs are not all good. Tax cuts are not all good. Each of them can be aimed at a specific place. Each of them can be aimed for the wrong reason. But I am proud of the earmarks I have put in the bills that we have had this year and in previous years. I am proud to defend them and I am glad we are having this debate. I do believe there is a balance, and I don't believe saying every program the Federal Government does ought to be just aimed across the country because Sullivan County in upstate New York, in the Catskill Mountains, is quite different from the county that surrounds Tulsa, OK, or the Grand Canyon in northwestern Arizona.
Yes, there should be a balance. To me, the balance in this bill--and the overwhelming majority are for broad Federal programs, but a certain amount are designated for earmarks--makes sense. Now, obviously, if you are putting an earmark in for something out of your State, or for the wrong reason, that is wrong. But let me tell you, if you go to Sullivan County, NY--and I appreciate that my colleague from Oklahoma has conceded this is a good program; he just doesn't think the Federal Government ought to spend for it. But I appreciate that because if you go to Sullivan County, NY, it is the place where the Catskills are. Until about 1950, the area boomed. Then the airplane boom hit and all the people from New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston who vacationed there started getting on airplanes and going to Florida, the Bahamas, California, and now Arizona to vacation. So Sullivan County became one of the poorest areas in our State. You drive up there, and you will see, from the Old Glory days, the great hotels that are boarded up. You will see the little bungalow colonies that people used to go to, which are now decrepid. I have been there many a time. I was there as a kid. I went to summer camp in the Catskills across the river in Pennsylvania. I would go there, of course, as a Senator frequently. It is an area that needs help.
When you ask the people what is the No. 1 thing they need, it is jobs. In this bill, we talk about jobs, no question. But I daresay the people of Sullivan County--the economic development experts, the town and local officials--have a better idea of what would create jobs in Sullivan County than the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from Arizona and, quite frankly, the Senator from New York. They are there, they know it. They live on the ground. They are the ones who see their children unable to get work. They are the ones who have seen and remember the older once great days, and now the decline, and they are desperate to try to restore some of the jobs so their children won't have to go away.
This Bethel Center for the Performing Arts was one of the two economic development projects that Sullivan County put at the top of its list, the other one being a racetrack, remaking the old Monticello Raceway to help with gambling, which is still pending in the Department of the Interior, where the Secretary, from Idaho, who doesn't seem to have a real understanding of the need, says it is an out-of-State tribe and we don't want to do it.
A job training program will be very nice, but it would not help Sullivan County to a large extent. All of the other large Federal programs we fund in this bill will not help Sullivan County. The people of Sullivan County, as well as the people in the rest of New York, who elected myself and Senator Clinton to try to help them with their specific needs, as well as make the country a better place--we don't tell them what is good for them. We make sure the money will be spent where it is supposed to be spent. But we defer to their decision. This was their decision. A lot of other things in Sullivan County might have needed specific help, but this was their decision. It is a good decision.
I believe--and this is where, I suppose, my colleague and I have a difference--that the Federal Government should play a role. Being a U.S. Senator means making the big, broad national policies for this country, and it means helping the Sullivan Counties of each of our States. I argue that a Senator who doesn't do that is derelict in his or her responsibilities to their State. So I am proud of this earmark. It is the right type of earmark.
My colleague mentioned the State government and why doesn't the State do it. The State has put $15 million into this. The local county officials have clamored for this for years. There was a previous earmark put in by Congressman Hinchey in the House of Representatives to help build a road. It is a whole performing arts center at Bethel, not just a museum, but it is about $100 million. We hear about State and private partnerships, and this is one of them. The locality and the State are putting far more money into it than Washington. So both the State and the county and the town of Bethel have stepped up to the plate. They are not just asking the Federal Government for something they would not spend money for.
Every one of our counties has a need like this. If we are going to let a broad-brushed argument that there should be no earmarks stand--none--we are not going to be able to help these specific needs. I am proud to do it. I spend some time doing it, and I am going to continue to do it. I think it is part of my job. I think the people of Sullivan County and the people of New York State and the people of the United States would agree with that when told the facts of this particular situation and a little history of Sullivan County, which I have just outlined.
So I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment because this is, as my colleague from Oklahoma says, a worthy project, and most of them are--not all. I have great respect for my two colleagues on the Senate floor. I don't think they are motivated by anything other than the best of intentions. Most of my colleagues believe they want to help out the Sullivan Counties, and we should be getting at the deficit. But the right way to do it is to put in pay-go across the board, not tie our hands and eliminate one specific type of program.
I want to review a little about the Bethel Museum in Sullivan County. It is a museum that not just covers Woodstock in the late 1960s, but it covers a whole post-World War II period, focusing on the sixties. It was a tumultuous decade, and it is a good idea to study it. Museums and libraries are a very important part of our history and education, as well as a job magnet. I don't think there is a debate that they are important. They have broad-brushed Federal programs that help libraries and museums. So that is not the argument.
Most important, it is an economic engine, as important as an economic engine might be in southeast Oklahoma, in the Indian country of Arizona, or the mountains of Montana, and it is what the two Senators--Senator Clinton and I--in listening to the needs of Sullivan County and the people of Sullivan County, the elected officials there and the Chamber of Commerce have said they need most of all.
I hope my colleagues will support us and vote down this amendment because when they vote down this amendment, they are standing up for the other role we have in the Senate: to help our communities in the way they believe is best, not the way Washington dictates is best.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this is the largest economic development program in one of our poorest counties. It is the Bethel Performing Arts Center. It is a large complex. It is a $100 million program. Madam President, $85 million has been donated by a major philanthropist. The State has put in close to $14 million. This is our $1 million.
Every one of you has a poor county. They have gotten together, and this is their economic development project. It is not just a museum; it is a whole complex devoted to history in America from 1945 through to the present.
If you believe in helping counties, if you believe every one of us wants the Federal Government not to just pass broad-brushed programs but to help individual needs in our States--this one coming from the leaders who have spent years and years in the Catskills to try to bring that area back--this is the project.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source