SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his courtesy. I am not speaking about this issue. I saw he looked over in this direction. I will be brief.

I rise to speak about the current debate over the Federal debt. Last week, H.R. 1, the House Republican scorched-earth spending proposal that counts among its casualties such priorities as border security, cancer research, disaster preparedness, and much needed investments in domestic energy production, was summarily defeated in the Senate. That same day, a Democratic alternative that would have cut spending by $10 billion, compared to current levels, and $51 billion, compared to the President's budget request, was also defeated. We were hopeful these failed votes would be an opportunity to start afresh. We thought it would allow us to hit the reset button on the negotiations.

The purpose of those votes was to make it clear that both sides' opening bids in this debate were nonstarters and thus pave the way for a serious, good-faith compromise.

Unfortunately, an intense ideological tail continues to wag the dog in the House of Representatives. One week after those test votes failed in the Senate, House conservatives are still showing no yield. We have moved $10 billion in their direction. They have not budged an inch off H.R. 1, even though H.R. 1 did not get a single Democratic vote in the Senate. In fact, the Republican conservatives in the House are digging in. In the last 48 hours, there has been a wave of hard-liners who are now rejecting even the 3-week stopgap measure negotiated last week. This measure is needed to avert a government shutdown this Friday. But in a vote occurring very shortly in the House, there is expected to be a number of rightwing defections on this short-term continuing resolution.

Look, Democrats agree this short-term solution is not ideal. Running the government 2 weeks at a time is not good for anyone. We prefer not to have to do another stopgap measure, but we recognize the need, the necessity of averting a government shutdown.

Throughout this debate, Democrats have shown a willingness to negotiate, a willingness to meet Republicans in the middle. Yet the rank and file of the House GOP has been utterly unrelenting. They have wrapped their arms around the discredited reckless approach advanced by H.R. 1, and they will not let go.

But why are House conservatives bucking their leadership by resisting even the stopgap measure? It certainly cannot be because it does not cut spending because it does by another $6 billion over just 3 weeks. The real reason many of the House conservative Republicans, particularly the freshmen, oppose the stopgap CR is clear. It is because it does not contain the extraneous riders they demand.

H.R. 1 was chock-full of ideological policy measures. These items deal with controversial issues such as abortion, global warming, and net neutrality. They do not belong on a budget bill, but they were shoehorned onto it anyway. These measures are akin to a heavy anchor bogging down the budget negotiations.

In recent days, a number of rightwing interest groups--the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council--began encouraging Republicans to vote against any budget measure that does not contain these controversial policy measures.

This is what is driving the defections on the Republican side.

For example, Mike Pence explained he is voting no because the 3-week measure doesn't weigh in on abortion. He is the author of the controversial hard-right amendment to defund Planned Parenthood. Yesterday, he said he wouldn't mind a government shutdown if it meant he could succeed in passing his rider. Michele Bachmann said she is voting no because the short-term CR doesn't repeal the health care law. Tim Huelskamp, a freshman from Kansas on the Budget Committee, said he would oppose the stopgap measure because it lacked riders against EPA and against family planning.

We finally know why a compromise has been so hard to come by on the budget. It is because Republicans want more than spending cuts; they want to impose their entire social agenda on the back of a must-pass budget. They are entitled to their policy positions, but there is a time and place to debate these issues--and this ain't it.

We have seen this type of overreach before. In the recent battle in Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker went to war with the State's public workers. Governor Walker started out seeking concessions from the unions on their benefits in order to reduce Wisconsin 's budget shortfall. In the spirit of cooperation, unions agreed to reduce their benefits. But the Governor didn't take yes for an answer. He went further and insisted on ending collective bargaining entirely.

The budget fight going on right now in this Chamber is also about more than just budget cuts. The conservative Republicans in the House are showing themselves to be Scott Walker Republicans. They are using the budget to try to shoot the Moon on a wish list of far-right policy measures.

If this debate were only about spending cuts, we would probably come to an agreement before too long. But we will have a hard time coming to an agreement with these Scott Walker Republicans who are trying to use the budget to enact a far-right social agenda.

I urge Speaker Boehner to consider a path to a solution to this year's budget that may not go through the tea party. He should consider moving on without them and forge a consensus among more moderate Republicans and a group of Democrats because if these extraneous policy items are going to be a must-have on the budget, a compromise will be very, very, very hard to come by.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source