Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment is based on the absurd premise that the unemployment insurance benefits piece alone must be paid for, lest we contribute to the deficit. Never mind that this entire package contributes $858 billion to the deficit, of which only $51 billion is accounted for by the UI extension provision. It is clear that this amendment is not about deficit reduction; rather, it is about attacking programs that make a real difference to the everyday lives of our constituents. Meanwhile, this amendment leaves the tax benefits to the wealthiest Americans, those who need the least assistance, completely intact.
Let me be clear. There are a few ideas proposed in this amendment that make some sense. However, as part of the Appropriations Committee's annual and ongoing oversight responsibilities, the committee has already rescinded unobligated balances from those programs or reduced their funding for fiscal year 2011 as part of the fiscal year 2011 omnibus, which the Senate will consider this week. Every recommendation in the omnibus was made in collaboration with Republican members of the Appropriations Committee, based on a detailed analysis. These decisions were not made rashly, nor because they might sound good in a press release.
Too often when the Senate debates cuts in unobligated balances, the proponents want to ignore the consequences of their recommendations and focus on broad generalizations. But in reality these cuts can cause serious problems. Accordingly, let me highlight the impact of a few of the programmatic cuts proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma.
For example, this amendment would require each Department to cut its workforce by 10 percent over 10 years, without considering the impact of the cuts. It seems as though Federal workers have become the newest punching bag for a few of our colleagues. FDA staff, necessary to ensure that the food we eat and the drugs we take are safe and effective, would be cut by nearly 1,000. The staff of the Food Safety and Inspection Service would be cut by an additional 1,000. These cuts are irresponsible and would put the American public at unnecessary risk at a time of breakthrough medical research when important new drugs are being produced and must be monitored. When more of our food supply is coming from around the world, preventing contamination is more important than ever.
More than 95 percent of the 280,000 employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs either work for the Veterans Health Administration or the Veterans Benefits Administration. To reduce the VA's overall employees by 28,000 over 10 years would mean that doctors, dentists, hospital administrators, and benefits claims processors would have to be reduced. As more and more of our veterans are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, this is not the time to be cutting their service providers.
This amendment would require a reduction of 600 to 800 Government Accountability Office staff, as well as a reduction in travel that is necessary for the GAO to conduct audits and evaluations. Travel is critical to GAO's ability to meet the requirements of Congress.
Rescinding funds from the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals will not prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead, cutting funding for these agencies means cutting agents who are serving on the front lines keeping our Nation safe from terrorist threats and cyber attacks, reducing the flow of drugs, and combating gun-related violence along the southwest border, strengthening immigration enforcement, and keeping children safe from sexual predators. That is the real impact of this proposal.
The 15-percent budget cut to the Executive Office of the President might sound reasonable, but it would cut key staff of the Council of Economic Advisers, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council. This would severely hamper the President's ability to coordinate critical economic security and national security programs across the entire Federal Government. It would be particularly devastating considering that the rest of the Federal Government would also be shedding a significant number of staff under the Coburn amendment, leaving agencies currently managing the economic crisis and our national and homeland security programs not only short-staffed but also in chaos due to minimized leadership.
The Coburn amendment also would eliminate the State grant for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. The Congressional Budget Office has previously recommended this action. However, this suggestion comes a year too late. The Committee on Appropriations removed $295 million in funding for the State formula grant funding from the 2010 appropriations bill. There is no funding for the State grants program in the 2011 bill. The Appropriations Committee has already made this cut.
The Coburn amendment would also rescind $4 billion in fiscal year 2011 for U.S. development and humanitarian programs in the world's poorest countries, from Haiti to Afghanistan. This would cut funding for programs for refugees and victims of natural disasters from Darfur to Pakistan; it would affect global health programs including HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment that mean life or death for millions of people; and it would weaken programs to support food security and nutrition, clean water, sanitation, and basic education, and to combat human trafficking, in countries where 95 percent of new births are occurring and over 2 billion people barely survive on less than $2 per day. The short-term effects of such a reduction in funding would be severe, the long-term effects would be devastating, and ultimately it would exacerbate global problems that directly affect U.S. security.
The amendment proposes to rescind funds focused on returning contaminated sites to productive use. The Brownfields Program has a track record of successfully restoring damaged properties--often in physically and economically distressed neighborhoods--to sources of economic growth, creating jobs for lower income people in the process. Many of our cities are among those communities hardest hit by the economic recession. Now is not the time to stall the cleanup of brownfields.
This amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Army in consultation with other Federal agencies to determine the definition of ``low priority'' Army Corps projects. This appears to be code for those projects not requested in the President's budget. Since when has the administration been the only source of wisdom for determining funding decisions? If there is surplus funding available, we should ask the Corps to identify those funds and propose them for rescission. However, it would become quickly apparent that this strategy is penny wise and pound foolish. These are all ongoing projects, previously funded by this or prior Congresses. It would not make economic sense to stop these projects. Demobilization costs and costs to make these construction sites safe for the public could end up costing more than continuing the projects.
These are just a few examples of the damage that would be done if this reckless amendment was actually agreed to. But I would conclude by saying that every Member of this Chamber who supports the tax cut deal should vote against the amendment being offered by the Senator from Oklahoma for the simple reason that it seeks to change the tax package, which reflects an agreement between the Republican leader and the President of the United States. The Republican leadership signed off on this deal because many of the provisions they wanted were included in exchange for a 13 month extension of unemployment insurance benefits with no offset. I would certainly hope that they will stand by their agreement.
Mr. President, this amendment would do serious damage to many necessary government programs. Unobligated does not mean excess or unnecessary. I urge all my colleagues to reject the Coburn amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source