Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, all across America people are calling their cable providers and they are asking if they can get a refund for C-SPAN coverage of the Senate. There seems to be some concerns that there is no serious debate underway, no serious votes being taken, and the hours just continue to flow by.

I can understand the frustration of the American public watching this Chamber. We are going through a 30-hour interval. The Senate is kind of designed on 30-hour intervals, and this is the 30-hour interval before we enter the next 30-hour interval in the hopes that we will ultimately get to a vote. Does it have to be this way? Of course not. It should not be this way.

I understand the depth of feeling some Senators have about a variety of issues, and they have come to the floor to express them. In fact, I even agree with some of their positions. But there comes a point where you have to say: All right, I did not win my battle today. I am not going to get my day in court. Let's at least go on with the business of the Senate because, you see, we have an important responsibility ahead of us.

Senator Murray just spoke before me. She is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. She has a Herculean task, and she is up to it. In fact, she has shown herself to be a very able leader of the Budget Committee in producing a budget proposal for the next fiscal year. It is a balanced proposal. It is one that I think is sensible.

I have some background in this, at least by way of avocation. Having been a member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission, I sat through a year of committee hearings and debates that led to a vote on a proposal to reduce the budget deficit. So I have heard some of the arguments that have been made on both sides. I then joined a bipartisan group of Senators, the so-called Gang of 8, and we sat down to try to do the same, and we spent over a year doing exactly that. So I kind of know where this comes down.

My approach to this--an approach that is being followed by Senator Murray with her proposed Democratic budget resolution--is, yes, the deficit is a serious problem, the debt of America is a serious problem. When you borrow 40 cents of every $1 you spend, it is unsustainable. So we have to deal with that issue and deal with it honestly. But first and foremost, let's do it in a fashion that builds the American economy, that creates good-paying jobs. If you want to find your way out of a deficit, put people to work first. When they are paying taxes as opposed to drawing benefits, that really tips the scales in the right direction in dealing with the deficit.

So what the Murray budget does, the Democratic budget resolution will do is make investments in what does produce jobs in America, and it is very obvious.

Education. Who is going to argue with that one? Is there a person standing in the Senate who did not rely on their own education and training to progress in life? And didn't you tell your son and daughter the same thing when they were making their life choices? Stay in school. Get a good education. So education is an investment. It is part of the Democratic budget resolution.

Secondly, the notion of research and innovation. One of the most heartbreaking parts of sequestration to me was when we took $1.6 billion away from the National Institutes of Health. That is the organization that does the medical research to find new cures, new vaccines, new medical devices so people can survive when they have a diagnosis that could be fatal, to make sure children have a chance at a full life. We are cutting that in the name of budget deficit reduction, and that is troubling.

The third area is infrastructure. I spent the entire day with contractors from my State of Illinois, people who represent road builders, for example, bridge builders. They believe--and I do too--that investment in infrastructure pays off over generations. We just had a meeting on the waterway system, the Mississippi River, which is such an important part of national commerce. We need to improve the dams and the locks on the Mississippi and the adjoining rivers, such as the Illinois.

So the Murray budget deals with investments--investments to build the economy, investments to spark economic growth--but then it goes on to seriously reduce the deficit. The goal in this, of course, is to not only meet but surpass the goal of the Simpson-Bowles budget commission in terms of deficit reduction. The way Senator Murray does it, of course, is in a balanced approach, which includes spending cuts, which must be part of it, as well as revenue. I think that is the sensible approach to it.

Unfortunately, on the other side, the argument is made that we just cannot raise any more revenue. I know better. Anyone who has taken a close look at the Tax Code in America realizes that we literally forgive tax obligations of over $1 trillion a year in our Tax Code, some of them very worthy--the deduction for a home mortgage, for example; deductions for charitable contributions, for example. These things are worthy of our Tax Code. But there are other things that cannot even be explained. Why in the world would we put in our Tax Code a provision which says that if an American business wants to move jobs overseas, we will give them a tax break to do it? I do not think so. That should be a decision, if they make it, with no encouragement from our Tax Code. Rather, let's encourage businesses to stay in the United States.

Similarly, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan has really made a concerted effort to investigate and expose the offshore tax havens that cost us over $300 billion a year in taxes owed to the United States. People who park their money in faraway places with strange-sounding names end up escaping tax liability. Why do we let that happen? The average family across America, the average business across America cannot escape and does not even try to escape this liability. Yet we built into the Tax Code these Cayman Islands, little fiascos in Bermuda and all the other places they head to. We could put an end to that in a hurry and bring revenue back to the United States to reduce the deficit.

So what Senator Murray and the Budget Committee talk about is generating revenue to reduce the deficit and making spending cuts.

In addition, Senator Murray and the Budget Committee will face the entitlement issues. They are important. If you just left the entitlements without change, the cost of health care would lead us to further bankruptcy in America. They are addressing it, as we should. While protecting the integrity of the programs, they are finding ways to save money to reach the goal.

Wouldn't this be a great debate to have on the floor of the Senate, to have that budget resolution before us, to actually have some votes on amendments? Well, it would be. But, unfortunately, because of the objection of several Republican Senators, we cannot get to it. So the clock is continuing to turn. We are watching hours slip away, and now we are facing the possibility of a weekend session because one or two Senators do not want us to bring this matter to a vote. That is unfortunate. It may be their right to exercise that kind of power in the Senate, but it is not fair. It is not fair to this institution or to the American people who count on us to do more than just waste time on the Senate floor. They count on us to use our time to solve problems.

So I urge my colleagues on the Republican side who are holding up these votes, who are engaged in this filibuster, for goodness' sake, let's move on, let's vote on the continuing resolution, and let's start the debate, the important debate on the budget resolution. Let's get this done.

For the longest time, we were preached to by Members on the other side about no budget resolution. I even heard a speech today by my friend from Texas, the senior Senator, talking about how derelict we have been in not bringing up a budget resolution. We want to. We are being stopped by Republican Senators. They are the ones who will not let us bring this to a vote. I hope they will change their minds, and soon. I would like to spend next week back in Illinois and with my family, as most Senators would, during the Passover and the Easter seasons. More importantly, I would like to get my job done before that happens. To do that, we ought to be working on the floor right now. Instead of an empty floor, it should be a floor filled with Senators debating the issues and voting on them. I think that is what we were elected to do, and I think the people watching on C-SPAN would like to see some activity on the Senate floor.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Medium Air Defense System is a NATO program we jointly develop with the Germans and Italians. They have made clear if the United States does not fulfill its funding commitment for 2013, Germany and Italy would interpret this as a unilateral withdrawal, and they have stated this in writing to Congress.

The Memorandum of Understanding among the U.S., Germany and Italy clearly states that a ``withdrawing Participant will pay all Contract modification or termination costs that would not otherwise have been incurred but for the decision to withdraw.''

This is a standard clause for cooperative international agreements. In fact, it is usually included at the insistence of the U.S. to ensure long-term commitment of our Allies so they do not withdraw on joint programs, leaving the U.S. to pay the bills. It is included in agreements on the Excalibur program; technologies and systems for AEGIS-equipped ships; and the Global Positioning System. It will also be included when the U.S. and Israel enter an agreement on the Iron Dome missile defense program.

There is precedent. Following its withdrawal from the NATO Alliance Ground Surveillance Memorandum of Understanding, Canada was assessed a fiscal penalty, even though a development contract had not yet been awarded. The MEADS program has contracts with industry that, if canceled, will require the payment of termination liability. To think that we would get out for free is unrealistic. If we take the funding out of this program, we leave the Army a bill that it will have to pay.

MEADS is not a ``missile to nowhere.'' Last November, MEADS conducted a successful intercept test that demonstrated advanced technologies for air defense. The Department of Defense has informed us the missile used in the MEADS program will be incorporated into the aging Patriot system next year.

The United States has not paid more for the program than what was agreed to in the MOU. The U.S. share of the program is $2.32 billion in 2004 dollars, which when adjusted for inflation is closer to $2.9 billion in today's dollars.

Finally, premature withdrawal from MEADS sends the wrong signals to our allies when the U.S. has been asking them to do more on missile defense. Secretary Panetta sent the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee a letter last June, echoed by a letter from Secretary Clinton in September, which specifically asks Congress not to terminate MEADS at this time, as it would undermine a new and fragile consensus achieved by the U.S with its NATO Allies in Chicago last spring.

I agree with my colleague from New Hampshire now, more than ever, we need to be vigilant about how and where federal defense dollars are spent. Prohibiting funding for this final installment of MEADS research is the wrong way to approach this, but I look forward to working with her and other Senators as we develop the fiscal year 2014 spending bills.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source