Budget Negotiations

Floor Speech

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in morning business, even though it is the evening--the nature of the Senate rules and procedure. During the course of the day, we have had a number of colleagues coming to the floor and talking about the looming shutdown of the Federal Government.

During the last several hours, as we have spoken, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner have been meeting with President Obama. It is my sincere hope that it has been a productive and fruitful meeting and that they will report that we have found a way out of this difficulty. I certainly hope that is the case. But if it is not, if we are destined to see this government shut down tomorrow night at midnight, it is a sad commentary--one that most American voters will resent and be disappointed with, and understandably so. It basically says the leaders have not been able to reach an agrement. Fingers of blame will be pointed in both directions, and the public can reach conclusions about who is responsible.

From my point of view, having worked with Senator Harry Reid on this from the beginning, I attended many meetings and heard many reports. It has been a frustrating experience because the Speaker's position in the House has changed so often. The amount of money they wanted to cut from the budget, where it would come from, and the policy riders that were part of this conversation have been changing with each meeting. I know Senator Reid is a patient person. I have watched him as my friend since we were both elected to the House in 1982, and as my colleague in the Senate now--and this is my third term. He is patient, but he has been frustrated because of these changing scenarios.

The most recent change is one that I find most troubling, which is that it appears the debate is no longer over deficit reduction or spending cuts. It really isn't about how much money we are going to cut during the remainder of this year. Most Americans thought that was what we were debating and negotiating. It turns out now that it has devolved into a debate over policy questions that have nothing to do directly--maybe even indirectly--with the budget deficit we face and the money we are going to spend.

For example, Speaker Boehner has been insisting today that the Senate adopt a provision which removes the authority of the EPA when it comes to issues involving pollution. I disagree with that position, but I have to say to the Speaker that he should check the Congressional Record. It is not the most exciting publication, but if he looks at yesterday's Congressional Record, he will find that we spent most of yesterday debating this point.

Four different amendments were offered by Democrats and Republicans, including Senator McConnell, the Republican minority leader, on this issue. We debated them for days and voted yesterday on the question of the authority of the EPA. There were four votes.

On the first one, there were seven Senators voting in favor of the change in that amendment. On the second amendment, seven Senators again. On the third amendment, 12 Senators voted in favor of the change. The fourth, offered by Senator McConnell, was 50-50. At the end of the day none of them passed.

For Speaker Boehner to insist now that we include in our bill a provision that has already been debated in the Senate and rejected is fundamentally unfair and goes way beyond any question about deficit reduction and cutting spending.

The second item he raised is one that is even more puzzling. For some reason the Republican majority in the House believes the last election was a referendum on whether we provide medical services to women in America. We have the title X program--primarily for low-income women--that gives them access to basic health care, to the type of cancer screening and infection screening that we want all of the women in America to have access to. The House Republicans decided we should eliminate that Federal commitment and close the clinics, denying access to millions of Americans to basic primary health care.

How can that be in the best interest of our country and the costs that we incur to provide medical services? How can it be fair to these people, the men and women who use these clinics because they are accessible and affordable? They want to close them down. I don't recall that debate in the last election. I don't remember any candidate for the House or Senate saying: I want to go to Washington to close down access to health care for women, children, and men across America. That is, in fact, what they are saying now is the reason we need to close down the government. They think it is better to close down the government than to continue to give access to medical care to women under title X.

Planned Parenthood, which has a clinic in my hometown of Springfield, IL--for the record, Planned Parenthood and any clinic operating under title X is prohibited from using any Federal funds for the purpose of abortion. The only exceptions are those that have been in the law and accepted by both political parties for decades--the so-called Hyde amendment for women who are victims of rape, incest, or their lives are at stake in a continued pregnancy.

This isn't an abortion issue. It is obviously a health care issue. For some reason, the House Republicans would rather close down the government than allow this kind of health service to continue. That is troublesome.

It is also troubling that the underlying House budget they passed has been judged by economists to be a job killer--700,000 jobs would be lost if the Republicans passed their budget and the Senate approved it. At a time when we are celebrating the creation of over 200,000 new jobs last Friday, and the lowest unemployment rate in 24 months, here come the Republicans with a budget proposal that will cost 700,000 jobs, pushing us back toward recession instead of away from it. That isn't sensible.

I don't believe the American people ever considered that part of the bargain in the last election. It is true the American people focused on the deficit and cutting spending, and we are too--on both sides of the aisle. That is why we have reached an agreement on the amount of money to be cut from the remaining part of this budget. For us to now face a shutdown of the Federal Government over the question of women's access to health care or whether we are going to accept an EPA change, which has already been rejected on the floor of the Senate, shows the unreasonable level of this debate.

We had a meeting today of the Democratic Senators, and John Kerry spoke. I told him afterward that what he said had a profound impact on me. He reminded us that what we are doing isn't just being observed by politicians on Capitol Hill or reporters and journalists in Washington; it is being watched by the world.

It is a sad commentary that this great Nation, the United States of America, with its government, has reached a point where we face closure. We know we can do better. It is unfortunate the House Republicans, with their new leadership facing growing pains, have brought us to this moment. I hope we can reach a point where we can find an agreement even now. I hope this evening there will be a breakthrough.

They said last week, when the Speaker announced to his Republican caucus in the House that there was going to be a shutdown of the government, there was a standing ovation. They were cheering the idea of shutting down the government.

I will not cheer that. That is a bad outcome. It is bad for taxpayers, bad for our Nation, and bad for the Federal employees who are performing essential services in North Carolina, Illinois, and across the country. These are men and women who are working to keep us safe. They are performing important duties, such as watching dangerous prisoners and making certain our planes take off and land safely. To even jeopardize for a minute the funding for these agencies is irresponsible to the extreme.

Let's hope there is an agreement. If not, let's hope we can extend somehow the functions of government and not close them down at midnight tomorrow evening. At this moment, there is no report. There is likely to be one later.

At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source