[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 36 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1551-S1557]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 552. A bill to reduce the Federal budget deficit by creating a 
surtax on high income individuals and eliminating big oil and gas 
company tax

[[Page S1556]]

loopholes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I will try to bring this budget debate 
down to Earth and talk a little bit about the reality of what is 
happening and go beyond the amount of numbers that are out there.
  My good friend from Alabama who sits with me on the Budget Committee 
makes the point that this country has a severe budget crisis. He is 
right. The question is, How did we get to where we are today and how do 
we go forward in a way that is fair and responsible to address it? In 
that regard, the Senator from Alabama and I have very strong 
disagreements.
  How did we get to where we are today when not so many years ago, the 
day George W. Bush became President, we had a significant surplus? We 
had a surplus when Clinton left office. Now we have a major deficit 
crisis. There are a number of reasons:
  No. 1, against my vote, we are fighting a war in Iraq which, by the 
time we take care of our last veteran, is going to cost us some $3 
trillion. I didn't hear any of my Republican friends saying we can't go 
to war unless we figure out a way to pay for it.
  No. 2, my Republican friends for years have been pushing huge tax 
breaks for the very wealthiest people. I didn't hear them ask how that 
was going to be paid for.
  No. 3, under President Bush, with strong Republican support and 
against my vote, Congress passed a $400 billion-plus Medicare Part D 
prescription drug program, written by the insurance companies and the 
drug companies. It drove up the deficit.
  No. 4, against my vote, Congress voted for a massive bailout of Wall 
Street. I didn't hear too many people talking about how we would pay 
for that, $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I didn't hear them 
arguing that it was too much money and it would drive up the deficit.
  Yesterday, the Republicans brought forth and voted on H.R. 1. Almost 
all of them voted for it. Those who did not actually wanted to go 
further.
  The main point I wish to make is, A, we do have to address the 
deficit crisis, but, B, we have to address it in a way that is fair and 
responsible and not solely on the backs of working families, the middle 
class, the elderly, the sick, and the poor. That is immoral. That is 
wrong. That is bad economics.
  To my mind, it is absolutely absurd that when my Republican friends 
talk about deficit reduction, they forget to talk about the reality 
that the wealthiest people have never had it so good; that the 
effective, the real tax rate for the richest people is the lowest on 
record; and that the wealthiest people, the top 2 percent, have 
received many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks.
  I ask my Republican friends, why do they want to balance the budget 
on the backs of low-income children, low-income senior citizens, those 
who are sick, those who are vulnerable, without asking the wealthiest 
people who have never had it so good to put one penny into deficit 
reduction? I think that is wrong, and the American people think that is 
wrong. When we talk about deficit reduction, we have to talk about 
shared sacrifice, everybody playing a role, not just little kids, not 
just the elderly, not just the sick, but even--dare I say it--people 
who have a whole lot of money and who have never done so well.
  I have not been impressed at how the media has been covering this 
issue. They have not made it clear to the American people how 
devastating the cuts are that Republicans want to impose on working 
families. Let me briefly tick off some of them.
  The Republicans want to throw over 200,000 children off of the Head 
Start Program. Every working family in America knows how hard it is 
today to come up with affordable childcare, early childhood education. 
We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized 
world. The Republican solution is to slash Head Start by 20 percent, 
cut 218,000 kids off of Head Start, and lay off 55,000 Head Start 
instructors.
  The cost of college education today is so high that many young people 
are giving up their dream of going to college, while many others are 
graduating deeply in debt. Republican solution: Slash Pell grants by 
$5.7 billion and reduce or eliminate Pell grants for 9.4 million low-
income college students. Middle-class families, working-class families, 
do they hear that? We are going to balance the budget by either 
eliminating or lowering Pell grants--the ability of young people to go 
to college--for over 9 million college students.
  I know in my office we get calls every week from senior citizens, 
people with disabilities, widows who are having a hard time getting a 
timely response toward their Social Security claims. It takes too long 
to process the paperwork. What the Republicans want to do is slash the 
Social Security Administration, the people who administer Social 
Security for seniors and the disabled, widows and orphans, by $1.7 
billion. That means half a million Americans who are legally entitled 
to Social Security benefits will have to wait significantly longer 
times in order to receive them.
  We have 50 million Americans with no health insurance today, and 
45,000 Americans die because they don't get to a doctor in time. Last 
year, as part of health care reform, I worked very hard with many 
Members to expand community health centers so that more and more low-
and moderate-income people could walk into a doctor's office, get 
health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, mental health 
counseling. In H.R. 1, the bill they voted for yesterday, Republicans 
want to deny primary health care to 11 million Americans at a time when 
State after State is cutting back on Medicaid. What are you supposed to 
do if you are 50 years old, you have a pain in your chest, and you 
don't have any health insurance? Where do you go? Republicans want to 
deny health care to another 11 million Americans.
  For the poorest people, community services block grants provide the 
infrastructure, the ability to get out emergency food help, emergency 
help to pay the electric bill, LIHEAP. They are the infrastructure of 
this country that protects the poorest and most vulnerable. Republicans 
want to slash $405 million from the Community Services Block Grant 
Program. That is wrong. And the President's proposed cut to the 
community services block grant is also wrong.
  In real terms, 16 percent of our population today is really 
unemployed, if we add together the official unemployment--those people 
who have given up looking for work, those people who work part time and 
want to work full time. Republicans want to slash $2 billion in Federal 
job-training programs.
  Republicans want to slash $400 million in LIHEAP. That is the program 
that in my State and all over the country enables people to stay warm 
in the winter. We have a lot of senior citizens in Vermont getting by 
on $13,000 or $14,000 a year in income. They need help. It gets cold in 
Vermont. It gets 20 below zero. People don't have the income. LIHEAP is 
a very valuable tool. Republicans want to slash $100 million for 
LIHEAP.
  They want to slash the EPA by 30 percent. These are the people who 
have successfully enforced the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, so 
that the air we breathe does not give us asthma, doesn't provide us 
with the soup that makes us sick. The Clean Air Act has been an 
enormous success in cleaning up our air. Republicans want to slash that 
by 30 percent.
  Republicans want to cut the WIC Program. This is the program that 
provides supplemental nutrition for women, infants, and children. They 
want to cut that by $750 million. Poverty in America is increasing. 
What we understand is that if pregnant women and little kids do not get 
good nutrition, the likelihood is that births might be low weight or 
the little babies might come down with illnesses if they don't have 
good nutrition. Poverty is increasing. Yet the Republicans want to cut 
the WIC Program by $750 million--10 percent.

  Title I education funding. Everybody understands we have problems 
with education right now, with large dropout rates. Republicans want to 
cut $5 billion from the Department of Education.
  On and on and on it goes.
  What do I think? Do I think it is appropriate we balance the budget 
on low-income pregnant women and infants who need nutrition? Do I think 
you should throw 200,000 kids off the

[[Page S1557]]

Head Start Program? Do I think we cut the Social Security 
Administration severely? Do I think we cut Planned Parenthood, which 
has done such a good job in preventing unwanted pregnancies? Does that 
make sense? I do not think so. I do not think that is good for America.
  But I do believe we have to move toward a balanced budget. So what is 
one way to go forward, other than savage cuts on programs for the most 
vulnerable people in this country? That is, I think we have to begin 
talking about revenue, not just cuts.
  Today I am introducing legislation which does two things. No. 1, it 
creates a millionaire's surtax, which will be used strictly for deficit 
reduction. It will be a 5.4-percent surtax on income over $1 million. 
That says that all households that have income over $1 million will pay 
a 5.4-percent surtax on that income, which will go into an emergency 
deficit reduction fund. Just doing that--asking millionaires to pay a 
little bit more in taxes, after all the huge tax breaks they have 
received--will bring in approximately $50 billion a year.
  I think that is a good idea, but it is not just me who thinks it is a 
good idea. Recently, last week, there was an NBC News/Wall Street 
Journal poll, and they asked the American people: What is the best way 
to go forward on deficit reduction? Mr. President, 81 percent of the 
American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable 
to impose a surtax on millionaires to reduce the deficit.
  The American people get it. They understand you cannot move toward 
deficit reduction just by cutting programs that working families, the 
middle class, and low-income people desperately need in order to 
survive in the midst of this terrible recession. They understand 
serious, responsible deficit reduction requires shared sacrifice. It is 
insane--and I use that word advisably--it is insane to be talking about 
deficit reduction, as my Republican friends do on one hand, and then 
say: Oh, yes, we have to give hundreds and hundreds of billions of 
dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent, the top 2 percent, when 
those guys are doing phenomenally well, are seeing an effective tax 
rate lower than it has been in decades and have received huge tax 
breaks already.
  Why does anyone think it is moral or right to move toward deficit 
reduction on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable? I understand--
and I know something about politics--I do understand the parents of 
kids who are in Head Start do not make large campaign contributions. I 
know the senior citizens of this country who need some help with Social 
Security do not make large campaign contributions. I understand that. I 
understand college students, desperately trying to go through college 
on a Pell grant, do not make large campaign contributions.
  But there is a sense of morality we have to deal with. I think it 
makes no sense, I think it is immoral, I think it is bad economics to 
balance the budget on the backs of working families, while we give 
continued tax breaks to those people who do not need it.
  So today we are introducing a piece of legislation which I hope will 
have strong support. I think it paves the way for us to go forward with 
serious deficit reduction in a way that is fair. Do we need to make 
cuts? Absolutely. But do we also need to ask the wealthiest people in 
this country to start contributing toward deficit reduction? I think we 
do.
  Once again, the legislation I am introducing today creates a 
millionaire's surtax of 5.4 percent, which would bring in about $50 
billion a year, to be used exclusively for an emergency deficit 
reduction fund.
  We also end tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, which will 
bring in about $3.5 billion a year. Over the past decade, the five 
largest oil companies in the United States have earned nearly $1 
trillion in profits. Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the very 
largest oil companies in America have paid absolutely nothing in 
Federal income taxes. In fact, some of them have actually gotten a 
refund, a rebate from the IRS.
  So that is my plea. My plea is that, yes, the need for deficit 
reduction is real. It is urgent. Let's go forward, but let's go forward 
in a way that is fair and responsible and not simply on the backs of 
the most vulnerable people in this country.
                                 ______