Continuing Appropriations

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, through the Chair, I want to pose a question about the budget conference committee. I think it is something that has puzzled a lot of people across America.

We hear some folks standing and giving speeches saying for 6 months we have been trying to get a conference committee and we have other folks who are standing and saying we will be glad to go to conference as long as there is a deal beforehand on exactly what is done in the conference committee.

In that regard, I thought it would be useful to have a little bit of perspective here. My understanding is that anything that comes out of the budget conference committee would have to have agreement of both the team of delegates from the House side and the team of delegates from the Senate side. That is a question I ask of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, to clarify that process?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator. Of course that is correct. I understand the Speaker has indicated there is no guarantee that the increase in the debt ceiling would not be a part of a conference report that came out of conference committee. We have independent Senators in this body who simply said we do not think we should be subjected to having the debt ceiling increase without a full debate and the normal processes of 60 votes in the Senate. That is where the disagreement lies. People can have disagreements about the validity of their concern, but it is a legitimate concern. If there is no intention to move a debt ceiling increase at 51 votes, why wouldn't my colleagues agree not to do it? That is the disagreement I think that now exists.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, might I ask about a couple of other pieces to this puzzle. Why not, with that concern--I pass this question through the Chair to my colleague--why not, with that concern, simply ask the House delegates to carry that concern, rather than blocking the start of the conference committee?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, the thing that puzzles me, if my colleague would still consider responding, is that there is a process on the floor of giving instructions to a conference committee.

My colleague has left the floor, but the question I would have followed up with is, given that there is a specific process in the Senate for doing budget instructions to a conference committee, why not utilize that specific process, hold a vote on the conference committee instructions, rather than blockading the conference committee from starting?

I guess I will have to rhetorically answer the question, that there is no good explanation for why not go through the normal process and propose a Budget Committee instruction for our conferees.

Then the question becomes, couldn't we resolve this today? Couldn't we resolve this today, have a proposal put forward to instruct the conferees, vote on it on the floor of this Senate, and it either passes or it does not? Isn't the whole budget process designed specifically to be a simple majority process under the Budget Act so we can indeed get the job done and not be paralyzed?

I think--I believe the story--and I would have liked to have had the perspective of my colleague--but I think the story is a determination to not allow a majority determination of the budget instructions, to, instead, allow a minority to do so. I believe also that is an absolutely unprecedented situation, but I wanted to clarify that and understand whether there was in fact precedent for this type of determination that in a simple majority budget process, a minority would blockade a budget conference.

It is very strange that this should become such a central issue. But I want Americans to understand that essentially it boils down to this: For 6 months we have been trying to start a budget conference committee. A small group, a couple of individuals have wanted to instruct that Budget Committee but to do so without going through the normal process on the floor so they could do it as a minority rather than as a discussion and decision of the Senate as a whole. It is that precedent that seems unacceptable. I think if the tables were turned it would be felt strongly on the other side.

I hope to keep exploring these questions, because this 6-month obstruction of being able to get the budget that provides a framework for spending is deeply damaging. This body absolutely has to be able to do its fundamental work in determining the budget, getting a budget conference, getting a budget number, doing the spending bills, all appropriations bills--because otherwise we are careening from crisis to crisis.

I am going to shift gears here. I am going to step back from what is going on immediately with the shutdown and ask where did the seeds of this come from? If we turn back to about April of 2009, shortly after I first came to the Senate, there was a memo put out by an individual named Frank Luntz. Frank Luntz was providing a roadmap on how to block any sort of improvement in our health care system. Frank Luntz said, and he was specifically instructing my colleagues across the aisle--he said it doesn't matter what is in the health care bill. It doesn't matter what good it does. Whatever it is, let's attack it and call it a government takeover.

This was long before anyone even knew what was going to be in the bill. So this strategy of poisonous partisanship rather than problem solving has been with us since at least April of 2009. Therefore, a series of myths were generated. As the process proceeded, those who were behind the myths kind of doubled down on them. For example, we have in the health care reform a process by which small businesses can join together and get the marketing clout of a large group to negotiate lower rates and get a better deal. But under the Frank Luntz ``let's demonize and deceive'' strategy, instead of honoring the fact that the small businesses will be able to get a better rate, there has been an assertion this would hurt small businesses.

In the health care reform bill we have a process by which individuals who have no market clout can band together and get a much better deal. We are seeing significant drops in rates for individuals across this country under the marketplaces that are just now opening for signup. But indeed, under the Frank Luntz ``deceive and demonize'' strategy, it became: Let's tell people insurance rates will go up instead of down.

We have a bill before us--not a bill but a health care reform law coming into effect--that ends abuses in the insurance industry. There was a situation where you could not get a policy if you had a preexisting condition; the sort of situation where if you had insurance and you got sick you would be thrown off the policy; the fact that your children were not able to stay on your policy until they were able to get health care insurance of their own.

These bills of rights are reforms that are deeply sought by Americans across this country, urban and rural. But under the Frank Luntz ``deceive and demonize'' strategy, there was simply an assertion, unfounded, that this would destroy the insurance system.

You have a process whereby, under the marketplaces, insurance companies will have to compete, private insurance companies. Yet under the Frank Luntz strategy adopted by some of my colleagues across the aisle, they decided to say this would hurt competition even though it strengthens competition. It puts before people, apples to apples, companies having to lay out their rates and benefits under these different levels of insurance. We are seeing that competition from private companies proceed to lower rates.

Let's fast forward. We had that phase of the ``demonize the plan'' even though we have to mischaracterize it and deceive and delude Americans about what is in it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I will wrap up with a sentence or two and yield to my colleagues. Thank you for coming to the floor to continue the conversation.

I think it is so important that we proceed to put our government back on track and quit careening from crisis to crisis, doing damage to communities and families across our Nation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source