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




                           DEFICIT REDUCTION

  Mr. DURBIN. Let me thank my colleague from New York for his statement 
about the challenges we face. I have been involved for over 1\1/2\ 
years in deficit reduction talks on a bipartisan basis with the Bowles-
Simpson Commission, the Gang of 6, now the Gang of 38--I believe was 
the last number of Democratic and Republican Senators who have publicly 
stated they are willing to move forward in a process based on the 
principles of the Bowles-Simpson Commission.
  At a time when most Americans have given up hope that Congress will 
ever work on a bipartisan basis to solve our problems, I hope our 
effort will be viewed as positive and helpful to the supercommittee's 
work. We are doing everything we can to make sure they are successful 
and they have a very difficult assignment and a difficult timetable.
  In the meantime, though, I understand, as the Senator from New York, 
my colleague who spoke earlier, that if we are serious about deficit 
reduction, it not only must involve cuts in spending, but it also must 
involve revenue and a serious look at the future of entitlement 
programs.
  Currently, Social Security untouched will pay every promised benefit 
for the next 25 years with a cost-of-living adjustment; then it runs 
into trouble--a 22 percent cut in benefits, if we don't do something. 
The same cannot be said for Medicare. As strong as it is, as important 
as it is, it has about 12 years of solvency before we have to do 
something significant. Medicaid, which is a very critical health 
insurance program for millions of Americans, is threatened by State 
revenue declines and all the problems we have in Washington with our 
own deficit.
  So these three entitlement programs need to be viewed in an honest 
context to keep them strong, to protect the basic benefit structure 
that underlies each of these bills and laws, and we need to do that as 
well. We need to put it all on the table. It is spending cuts. It is 
revenue. It is entitlement reform. It all has to come together. When 
the President says the wealthiest among us should be willing to help us 
through this crisis by sharing part of the burden, that is not 
unreasonable.
  I have yet to hear the Republican plan for getting this economy 
moving forward. It appears they have no plan and are dedicated only to 
protecting those with the highest incomes in America. That is not a 
recipe for success. It may be somebody's ideas of a campaign platform, 
but it isn't a platform to build the economy.
  I also heard this morning when the Republican leader came to the 
floor, Senator McConnell, and talked about the need to pass trade 
agreements. I voted for trade agreements. I believe the U.S. workers 
and businesses can compete in this world successfully if the rules are 
fair and we are given a chance with the markets, and I voted for trade 
agreements in the past.
  The Senator from Kentucky asked for us to pass more as soon as 
possible, but he did say something which caught my attention:

       In a moment when 14 million Americans are looking for 
     work--

  Senator McConnell said--

     it is indefensible for the White House to demand a vote on 
     trade adjustment assistance as a condition for action.

  I couldn't believe my ears when I heard that. Trade adjustment 
assistance is designed to put people who have lost their job because of 
trade agreements back to work. So it is totally defensible, totally 
consistent, and an important part of economic recovery.
  The Alliance for American Manufacturing released a report this 
morning that 2.8 million jobs have been lost or displaced in America 
between 2001 and 2010 due to our growing trade deficit with China--2.8 
million jobs. As we speak about expanding trade adjustment assistance 
so those who have lost their jobs to nonfree-trade agreement countries 
such as India and China, we are talking about putting Americans back to 
work. This should not be viewed as an obstacle, a diversion or 
inconsistent with economic recovery.
  I couldn't follow the logic of the Senate Republican leader this 
morning when he was talking about trade adjustment assistance being 
indefensible at a time of high unemployment. It is totally defensible, 
totally consistent with putting Americans back to work.
  For the record, since 2009, trade adjustment assistance has provided 
assistance to 447,235 workers in America who have been displaced due to 
trade agreements. It helps their families with income, with health 
care, with opportunities for retraining and education.

                          ____________________