Madam President, I move that the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2343, and I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the…
Madam President, I move that the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2343, and I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the majority controlling the second 30 minutes.
Madam President, the clerk just read the matter before the Senate, which is to prevent the interest rate on loans students receive to go to school--the money they borrow--from doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. That is the pending matter before the Senate.
Yesterday the Republicans continued to filibuster our plan to prevent that from happening. We do not want the rates to double. We don't want them to go up at all. There are 30,000 people in Nevada who are depending on our doing something to freeze those rates. But what is worse, in my estimation--and I think that of the American people--is that Republicans seem proud of blocking this legislation. Not a single Republican voted to allow the debate to go forward.
This isn't an issue of saying: OK, if I vote for this, this will be the legislation. They would not even let us go forward to debate it. They have said they like the bill, except they do not like the way it is paid for. Fine. Let's get on the bill and offer amendments to pay for it. But no--every single Republican voted no. Every single Republican said: We are not going to allow a debate.
The American people certainly shouldn't be surprised because this has been going on for 3 years, almost 4 years. Everything is a fight. They are blocking legislation that would allow us to stop the increase of the rate on student loans. That is wrong. And the person who signed this legislation into law, making this interest rate such as it is, was President Bush. So I hope Republicans will come to their senses and work with us to accomplish this, but I am not holding my breath because, as I indicated, they seem proud they have stopped another piece of legislation altogether.
Now, what does this mean, that they are hanging together to stop legislation, to stop progress? Well, as we work to create jobs and make college affordable, our colleagues--my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle--operate under a different set of priorities.
In the House, for example, there are efforts now underway to undo a hard-fought agreement of last August to cut more than $2 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. That agreement came after threats by the tea party-
driven House--and now 40 percent of the people over here are tea party advocates--to shut down the government. And they wanted to do that in a couple of different ways: not allowing us to continue funding for government programs, and then, for the first time ever, there was a knockdown, drag-out fight over weeks and weeks as to whether we should increase the debt ceiling in this country. During President Reagan's time in running the country, this had been done dozens of times. But, no, these folks will do nothing without a big fight. As a result of that, we came to an agreement that was bipartisan. Now, some say the agreement was forced upon the Republicans, but they voted for it, an agreement to reduce the deficit, and the deficit we couldn't reduce before August of last year. We said: OK, fine, if we don't do something about it this year, then there will be automatic cuts called sequestration.
Now the House is doing everything they can to walk away from the agreement we made and the bipartisan vote we took. They are doing everything they can. They have a Republican budget, the so-called Ryan budget. And I say ``so-called'' because they are trying to make a reconciliation bill, but they can't do it because they are not following the law to do that. So they not only have reneged on this bicameral, bipartisan agreement to reduce spending, but they have fundamentally skewed priorities because they hand out even more tax breaks to multimillionaires and shield corporate defense contractors, all at the expense of hard-working, middle-class families, the elderly, and those who can least afford it. That is what they are doing in the House. They are going to have a so-called rule today and vote on it shortly thereafter. They would slash investments to strengthen our economy and just shred our social safety nets.
I want to quote from President Dwight Eisenhower. And let me remind everybody that he was a Republican. He was a tremendous President, and each day that goes by, people are looking at him more favorably. Here is what he said:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every
rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those
who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not
clothed.
This isn't some leftwing, socialistic-leaning liberal. That was Dwight Eisenhower--a five-star general who led the invasion of Normandy and did many other things, such as starting the National Highway System. Let me repeat what he said:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every
rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those
who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not
clothed.
I didn't make that up. That is what he said. In a balanced world--one where a strong national defense and a strong social safety net are both valuable pillars of a successful society--that need not necessarily be true, is what President Eisenhower said. But the Republican plan would enshrine into law a set of unbalanced priorities and ensure the kind of terrible math General Eisenhower envisioned.
Unlike defense contractors and billionaires, ordinary Americans don't have high-priced lobbyists to protect them. That is our job. That is our job. There is not a person on this side of the aisle who doesn't believe it is good that we have wealthy people in America. We have Senators here, Democrats, who are wealthy--certainly not all Democrats, but there are some. We don't look down on people who are rich, but we do have to look out for people who are in need of our help. Most of these rich people have all kinds of lobbyists here to help them, but the people in Henderson, Ely, and Winnemucca, NV, don't have people here to help them. They have us. So Republicans are going after those who can't fight back--hard-working Americans and struggling families.
Let's review a little bit of history again. The sequester isn't the first bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit. When I became the Democratic leader, I thought--having served on the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives and being very interested in America's involvement in foreign affairs, I took a trip to Central and South America. That was so necessary. And I took Democratic and Republican Senators with me. I was very careful in picking two Senators whom I wanted on that trip. One was Judd Gregg, a very fine Senator from New Hampshire, who has retired, I am sorry to say. I recommended that Senator Gregg be a part of President Obama's initial Cabinet. He agreed to take the job, but something came up, and he didn't do it. But he is a wonderful man. I also wanted Kent Conrad on that trip. And I don't know which one knows more about the inner workings of the finances of this country, Gregg or Conrad, but they are both good, and I wanted them to go together, and they did.
Senators Gregg and Conrad spent hours and hours seated in that airplane working on doing something about the deficit. They both believed it needed some really difficult, hard work, and they decided to do what the base-closing commission did; that is, prepare legislation and give it to a commission that would send it back to us. There would be no amendments, no filibuster, just an up-or-down vote. That was their legislation. They wrote that and brought it to the floor.
As the leader, I decided I would move to proceed to it, and so I did move to proceed to it, thinking it should be a slam dunk. But seven Republicans, who had cosponsored the legislation, voted against it. I couldn't bring it to the floor. That was where Bowles-Simpson came from, as a result of the Republicans walking away from their own efforts to reduce the deficit.
Now, Bowles-Simpson was very difficult. There were 18 members, and they had to get 14 of the 18 to approve it. That didn't work. They couldn't get that many people to vote for it.
In the meantime, President Obama was working as hard as he could with the lead spokesman of the Republicans, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner. John Boehner said: I didn't get elected to do small things, I want to do big things. And President Obama, to his detriment with his base, said: I will do something to change Social Security and Medicare. And all these things he agreed to do publicly. But the Republicans-- John Boehner--could never go against Grover Norquist. The Republicans shake in their boots. They will not do anything, even though the American people by a more than 70 percent majority say people making more than $1 million a year should contribute to what the problems are in this country. So that fell apart.
Then we had the Gang of 6 Senators--three Republicans, three Democrats--who had been on the Bowles-Simpson Commission, who said we should do something about this. They were in the press, they had press conferences, and this was going down the road and doing all kinds of great things. While that was going on, there was a decision made, and a law was passed to create a supercommittee, to which I appointed Senator Patty Murray of Washington to run. No one in the Senate, Democrat or Republican, has more respect than Patty Murray. She worked so hard with the other 11 Members of Congress to come up with something.
A few days before they were to arrive at a decision--and the Gang of 6 members are out here doing all this stuff all the time--I get a letter signed by virtually every Republican Senator saying: We are not going to raise revenue for anything. The supercommittee didn't work there. The Gang of 6 is gone. So we passed this last August to fund government for 2 years and to say if we don't arrive at another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction during this year, it automatically kicks in at the end of this year or the beginning of next year.
So that is where we are, and the Republicans in the House are trying to change that. So that is what this little history lesson has been all about.
I don't like to sequester. I wish we didn't have to do it. It was a hard pill to swallow, but it was the right thing to do. If we are ever going to reduce the staggering deficit, we are going to have to make some hard decisions. So that is what this is all about. But that is the point: It is hard to do; therefore, we have to do it, to sequester-- which, in effect, would take almost $500 billion from domestic programs and almost $500 billion from defense programs. They were designed to be tough enough to force two sides to reach a balanced deal. It hasn't happened yet.
As I said earlier with General Eisenhower's statement, I didn't make that
up. That is what he said. My complaint about the Republicans being so unreasonable about everything is something where I am not a lone wolf crying in the wilderness. We have two long-time nonpartisan watchers of Congress, one from the American Enterprise Institute, which is a conservative think tank, another from Brookings Institute that wrote an article saying: It is the Republicans. Can't you see what they are doing? Here is one thing they said:
We have been studying Washington politics in Congress for
more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this
dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both
parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we
have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the
problem lies with the Republican party.
They further said:
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American
politics. It is ideologically extreme; of scornful
compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts,
evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its
political opposition.
What brave men to do that, to write these comments--which are true. I have been saying that I don't want to fight about everything. Republicans insist on balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class, seniors, students, single mothers, and those who could least afford it. That is what they are doing over there today. It is their refusal to compromise that leaves us facing the threat of sequester, and it is difficult but it is balanced.
Going back to the August budget agreement now in order to protect wealthy special interests is no solution. Neither is refighting the battles of last year. Democrats agree we must reduce our deficits and make hard choices, but we believe in a balanced approach that shares the pain as well as the responsibility.
Is the sequester the best way to achieve that balance? No. But Republicans refuse to consider a more reasonable approach--one, for example, that asks every American to pay his fair share while making difficult choices to reduce spending. Democrats will not agree to a one-sided solution that lets the superwealthy off the hook while forcing the middle class and those in greatest need to bear all the hardship.
Democrats believe we can protect Americans' access to health care, create jobs while investing in the future, and protect the poor and elderly. But we can't do it alone. It will take work and compromise, and so far Republicans have been unwilling to make a serious effort to achieve that result.
Republicans have rejected our balanced approach. Their one-sided solution to across-the-board cuts would take away from the many to give to the few.
Here is what the plan would do--not all of it, but here is what their plan would do. Remember, they are taking it up over there in the House today.
It would cut Medicaid benefits, increasing the number of uninsured children, parents, seniors--and that is in addition to people with disabilities--by hundreds of thousands, just eliminate them. It would also put seniors in nursing homes at risk. Some of them would have to move out of the nursing home, I guess.
It would punish Americans who receive tax credits to purchase health insurance when their financial circumstances change, causing 350,000 Americans to have no coverage. This would add to the tens of millions who already exist that way.
It would weaken Wall Street reforms, protecting big banks at the expense of consumers. Their legislation would once again target middle- class workers, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, Border Patrol agents, drug enforcement, and FBI agents. They would have to be laid off.
It would cut funding for preventive health care programs that fight chronic illnesses--such as heart disease, cancer, strokes, and diabetes--that cause 70 percent of the deaths in America. Preventive care would be reined in.
It would slash block grant funding in the United States to help 23 million children, seniors, and disabled Americans live independently and out of poverty.
No segment of the population is immune from this painful, absurd Republican plan--except maybe millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations. The Republican proposal cuts Meals on Wheels and reduces food assistance for almost 2 million needy people. One of the Republican candidates running for President said President Obama is the Food Stamp President.
There are more poor people. Our economy has been in bad shape. People are struggling. The millionaires are doing fine. And in addition to what I have already mentioned, this thing that they are taking up in the House today cuts off almost 300,000 children from free school lunches at a time when one in five children lives in poverty.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the Republican plan fails ``a basic moral test.'' This budget sets very clear priorities. The problem is what they are taking up in the House sets up the wrong priorities.
President Franklin Roosevelt said:
Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened
the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be
cruel to be tough.
So Republicans would do well to remember our Nation is judged not only by the strength of its military, but also by the strength of its values, so says General Eisenhower and President Roosevelt.
Reservation of Leader Time
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, during the day I flipped on the TV that we have in
our offices and looked at it as often as I could. I was very impressed with my colleagues who came and talked about why it is so important that we not have an increase in the interest rate for student loans. I have been very happy with my Democratic colleagues who have come here and made such a profound case. But I listened also to what the Republicans had to say, and it is beyond my comprehension how they can come to the floor with a straight face and say what they have said. I have listened as my Republican colleagues have come to the Senate floor to blame Democrats for stalling legislation to keep college affordable for 7 million people throughout our great country. The claim is pretty rich considering that Republicans voted unanimously yesterday to filibuster this legislation. What is a filibuster? It is stopping us from going to the legislation.
Our bill would prevent 7 million students from paying $1,000 more on their loans. With college already unaffordable for far too many young people, Democrats believe we should be doing all we can to provide access to higher education. That is what these student loans are all about.
Republicans have repeatedly claimed they support efforts to support legislation to keep loans from doubling this summer, but they sure have a funny way of showing it with this endless filibuster. Today, Republicans have said that Democrats should negotiate a way out of this stalemate--again, a very strange reasoning. It is hard to negotiate without a partner.
Every Tuesday after we do our weekly caucus meetings, I go to what we call the Ohio Clock. One of the reporters said: Your Republican colleague Senator McConnell said you should negotiate on this issue with Speaker Boehner.
Now, how do you like that one, that I, the leader in the Senate, should go to the Republican House and start negotiating with them? That is a strange, strange way of doing business.
The Republicans claim their only objection to our legislation is how it is paid for--by closing a tax loophole that allows wealthy Americans to dodge taxes they already owe. That is what we feel should happen. We don't believe it is a tax increase--just that people should pay what they are supposed to pay. They now have a way of avoiding taxes. Rich accountants and lawyers avoid it by claiming they are going to pay dividends and not ordinary income. It is not fair to everyone else.
So if the Republicans object to this, fine. Democrats are willing to consider alternative offsets. In fact, we are even willing to vote on the House Republicans' own proposed offset. Now, that is a doozy, the offset from the Republicans coming from the House, which takes away money for preventive care for virtually everybody. The leading causes of death in America are diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. They want to take away preventive programs to stop heart disease. And, as we know, there are programs now--mammograms, for example--that stop people from having to get too far behind with the dread of breast cancer. That is their offset. We strongly oppose that alternative, but we are willing to vote on it. We are not running from it. And once their proposal to slash programs that save money and lives fails on a floor vote--and it will fail--we Democrats are still willing to consider other options to pay for this legislation. My Republican colleagues on the other hand have refused to consider alternative ways to pay for a bill they claim they support.
So I say to my Republican colleagues, let us bring this bill to the floor. If Republicans are so interested in negotiating a solution, they should be willing to take that first step. Once the bill is on the floor, we can debate it, we can amend it with an offset on which both sides can agree. But until Republicans end their obstructionist filibuster, there is no path forward.
So for my Republican colleagues to come down here and say ``we support this legislation,'' I repeat, what a strange way of supporting this legislation.