[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13866-13868]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              FEMA FUNDING

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I would like to talk a little 
about the upcoming FEMA bill. As I understand it, the House intends to 
send us a CR with FEMA funding only at the level of $3.65 billion, 
which is a level that is completely inadequate to meet FEMA's needs. 
They intend to put $1 billion in for 2011, which is more than is 
actually needed in 2011, but then they ask that it be paid for with 
$1.5 billion, which is not the way mathematics is supposed to work.
  The real problem is that the total amount of $3.65 billion is 
inadequate given the terrible tragedies we have had over the last 
several months and

[[Page 13867]]

years. We are still rebuilding from Katrina, the Joplin tornado was 
devastating, and, of course, the storms that hit the Northeast, 
including my beloved State of New York, were just awful. Just in New 
York State alone, it is estimated that cleanup costs will be closer to 
$2 billion. So you can imagine that $3.65 billion is not even close to 
enough.
  The good news is what we intend to do here under the leadership of 
Majority Leader Reid, which is to take the CR they send us and add to 
it the very bill that passed last Thursday night, which adds 
approximately $7 billion to FEMA. That is the amount of money that is 
needed. It adds some money to the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and other places the Governors of the States 
have told us are needed. And given the fact that 10 Republicans voted 
for it, we have every expectation that amendment will pass and we will 
send it back to the House. So the House should understand there will be 
a measure to adequately fund FEMA, and we will do that this week. 
Again, we have every expectation that the 10 Republican Senators who 
voted with us last Thursday night will cast the same vote on the same 
exact measures because the disasters in their States are not any less 
this week than they were last week.


                             Budget Deficit

  I also wish to address the President's proposal on the budget 
deficit, particularly on the tax side, and the many arguments being 
tossed around by many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Yesterday, the President put forward a blueprint for the joint 
committee to consider this fall, and it included a very commonsense 
principle; that is, those very few among us who are fortunate enough to 
make over $1 million a year should pay the same effective tax rates at 
the end of the day as middle-class households.
  A number of Republicans rejected the President's plan before he even 
announced it. As soon as it was suggested that we should ask the 
wealthiest few among us to pay their fair share, many on the other side 
began labeling it class warfare. Apparently, they think they can slap 
that old label on the President's proposal and be done with it. But 
their refusal to address the proposal on the merits is revealing. They 
know they will lose any argument about the policy itself because it 
makes sense economically and because the American people support it. 
Even Republicans in the country--59 percent in a recent poll I saw--
support the wealthiest among us paying a fair share and support not 
giving them the continued Bush tax breaks at a time when we have record 
deficits and we are asking everybody else to sacrifice.
  This is, emphatically, not class warfare. It is not class warfare to 
fight for the middle class, that is for sure. It is not class warfare 
to say we need funding for roads and bridges and teachers and that the 
wealthiest among us should pay their fair share to do it. Let me ask a 
question, Madam President. Is it class warfare when Republicans 
advocate tax cuts for the wealthy? Do we call that class warfare?
  The debate about the progressivity of the Tax Code has existed for 
over 100 years in this country, and there are different policy 
prescriptions. Most Democrats and most Americans believe the wealthy 
don't pay their fair share. That is not to begrudge the money they have 
made. There are a lot of wealthy citizens in my State, and I am proud 
of them. I am proud they made a lot of money. And many of them believe 
they should pay a fair share. It is not just Warren Buffett. It is not 
class warfare to ask that. It is not class warfare to advocate tax cuts 
for the wealthy or tax increases for the middle class. That is not 
class warfare. To try to call it this name is unfair.
  Let me make a second point. We have a need to do this. The President 
is not proposing things such as the Buffett rule out of vengeance. He 
said yesterday: ``It's not because anybody looks forward to the 
prospects of raising taxes or paying more taxes.'' But we do have a 
consensus that has been reached here--it is one of the few--that we 
should reduce the deficit. We all know we have to. There are two ways 
to do it. One is by cutting spending, and when we cut spending, it 
hurts middle-class citizens. Middle-class citizens need help to pay for 
college; wealthy people don't. So if you cut student loans or Pell 
grants or Stafford loans that go to the middle class, it is not going 
to affect wealthy citizens--they can afford college themselves--but it 
does affect the middle class. When you cut Medicare, it doesn't hurt 
the wealthy. They can afford any doctor or hospital they want. God 
bless them. They have earned their money, and they deserve that. We 
don't have a system that mandates everyone must have the same. But it 
sure hurts the middle class.
  So the bottom line is very simple: If everyone has to pay their fair 
share so we can get the deficit down, the only way the wealthy pay 
their fair share is by making sure their tax rates are at least the 
same as average Americans, and perhaps they should be a little bit 
higher. So there is a choice.
  We don't do this because we want to raise taxes and certainly not 
because we think the wealthy have gotten an unfair advantage. That is a 
different argument, and I don't believe that. I am proud when New 
Yorkers or Americans climb the ladder and make a lot of money due to 
hard work and their ideas. We do it because we don't want to lay off 
more teachers, because we don't want to see our infrastructure crumble, 
because we don't want to say we can't create jobs, and yet we don't 
want to increase deficit spending. If we want to keep the deficit down 
but keep our schools good and our infrastructure good and our basic 
research good, the only way to do it is to ask the wealthy to pay a 
fair share. That is why we do it. And that is not class warfare; that 
is a policy debate which we welcome.
  To sum up that point, either we ask big oil companies to give up 
special subsidies or we gut education or medical research. Either we 
ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share or we will have to 
ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can't do both if we want to 
keep the deficit in line. America's middle class knows this. We know 
their median income is declining. We know the only place on the 
economic spectrum where incomes are going up is at the high end, and we 
know the right policy is to make those folks at the high end pay their 
fair share.
  My colleagues are in for a rude awakening. I have talked to a couple 
of the people who study the polling data and what the average American 
thinks. And let me tell you, they think the phrase ``class warfare'' 
means war on the middle class. They think it means the wealthy get away 
with what they do not. So when our colleagues talk about class warfare, 
maybe it resonates with a few on the hard right among the very wealthy 
who don't want to pay any taxes at all--and Lord knows we have heard 
enough from them in this place--but to the middle class, it means the 
middle class is being beleaguered, not being helped, and even being 
attacked by circumstances beyond their control. So when we say the 
wealthiest should pay their fair share, middle-class Americans will not 
see that as class warfare. They will not. They will understand what we 
are doing.
  I am so glad the President has decided to take this fight to the 
American people. It is a fight where we are on their side. That is what 
all my experience shows when I go around New York, and that is what the 
polling data shows. We are doing what is right for the future of this 
country and for our children and grandchildren.
  So let's have the debate and let's dispel this idea that simply 
because we want the wealthy to pay a fair share, we dislike them and it 
is class warfare, that it is negative toward them. It is not. It is the 
right way for all Americans to make the pie grow in America and not 
have the various parts of America fight with one another because 
Medicare is being cut, because teachers are being cut and the deficit 
is going up and hurting our children and grandchildren.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.

[[Page 13868]]


  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague from New 
York, and I would ask the Chair how much time is remaining in morning 
business on the Democratic side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Nineteen minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________