[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2974-2975]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        DEALING WITH THE DEFICIT

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, we face as a nation some of the most 
difficult circumstances this country has faced since the Great 
Depression. Two of the major issues we are facing is the collapse of 
the middle class and, simultaneously, while poverty increases and the 
middle class in this country disappears, we also find ourselves with a 
$14 trillion national debt and a $1.6 trillion deficit.
  At this momentous time in American history, the question arises as to 
how we, in fact, will deal with the deficit. Will we deal with it in a 
way that is fair and just or will we, at a time when the gap between 
the very wealthy and everybody else is growing wider, in fact, try to 
balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, on the backs of 
the poor, on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children?
  That is the question we have to address right now.
  Yes, the deficit is a serious problem. Yes, we have to go forward in 
deficit reduction. But, no, in the midst of a major recession, it is 
morally wrong and economically bad policy to balance the budget on the 
backs of those people who are already hurting.
  I find it interesting that some of the loudest voices who come before 
us every day talking about the serious problem of the deficit are 
precisely those people who have voted time after time after time to 
raise the deficit, raise the national debt. Yet now they come forward 
and say we have to cut programs for the elderly, the poor, and the 
children in order to balance the budget.
  I suppose it turns out that now I and a few others are the real 
deficit hawks in the Senate. When it came to the war in Iraq--which 
will end up costing us some $3 trillion--I didn't hear a whole lot of 
discussion about how that war was going to be paid for. I voted against 
that war.
  When it came to giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in 
this country, I didn't hear my Republican friends say: Oh, gee, we 
can't do that because it is going to drive up the deficit. I voted 
against tax breaks for the wealthy.
  When it came to passing an unfunded $4 billion Medicare Part D 
prescription drug program--written by the insurance companies and the 
drug companies--I didn't hear my Republican friends say our kids and 
grandchildren are going to have to pay for that. I voted against that.
  Madam President, you will recall that after the crooks on Wall Street 
drove this Nation into a recession and they needed a bailout from the 
American people, you didn't hear too many of our friends who voted for 
that bailout say: Oh, we can't do that; it is unpaid for. It is going 
to drive up the deficit and the national debt. You didn't hear that.
  But now, suddenly we have people who have great concern about the 
national debt and the deficit, and they intend to balance that budget 
on the backs of working people, the elderly, the sick, the poor, and 
the children. Among other things, which is incomprehensible to me, at a 
time when approximately 16 percent of our people

[[Page 2975]]

are truly unemployed--way above the official levels, the official 
numbers, because the official numbers do not include those people who 
have given up looking for work, those people working part-time when 
they want to work full-time--the Republicans come up with a deficit 
reduction package which will cost us some 700,000 jobs.
  Now, I don't know how or why in the middle of a severe recession, 
when unemployment is so high, they would come up with a proposal that 
costs 700,000 jobs.
  Madam President, you well know that we do an abysmal job in this 
country in terms of taking care of our children. We have the highest 
rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. We have a 
totally inadequate early childhood education program in this country. 
Head Start, to the degree that it is funded adequately, does a good 
job. But in the midst of the crisis in early childhood education and 
childcare, the Republican proposal would cut Head Start--Head Start--
one of the most important programs in America, giving low-income kids a 
chance to maybe get into school in the first grade, in kindergarten, on 
par with the other kids. They want to cut that program by 20 percent 
from fiscal year 2010, depriving over 200,000 little kids the 
opportunity not only to receive early childhood education but health 
care benefits and nutrition benefits from this important program.
  I worked very hard to expand community health centers in America 
because maybe--just maybe--it is a bad idea that 45,000 Americans are 
going to die this year because they do not get to a doctor. Pick up the 
papers all over America. Tens of thousands of people are going to be 
thrown off Medicaid. What do you do if you don't have health insurance 
and you are 40 or 50 years of age and you get sick? What do you do? Yet 
the Republican proposal would cut community health centers by $1.3 
billion, denying 11 million patients access to quality primary health 
care. In the midst of a major health care crisis, when millions of 
people are uninsured--50 million uninsured and people being thrown off 
Medicaid--you don't shut down community health centers and deny people 
access to health care.
  In Vermont--and I am sure in New York State--young people are finding 
it very difficult to afford a college education. They are coming out of 
college deeply in debt. In some cases, they can't go to college. We are 
falling behind other countries in terms of the percentage of our young 
people graduating from college. Yet the Republican proposal would 
reduce by 17 percent the average Pell grant, and 9.4 million low-income 
college students would lose some or all of their Pell grant.
  At this moment in American history where we are involved in an 
international, global economy, with so much pressure from abroad, we 
have to invest more in education, more in higher education, not less.
  In the State of Vermont, the Community Services Block Grant Program 
provides vital services to low-income people who are in need of 
emergency food, emergency housing--emergency services. They do a great 
job. The Republican proposal would cut the Community Services Block 
Grant Program by $405 million, which would harm 20 million low-income 
people, including millions of seniors.
  Lastly--not lastly because there is a long list of these cuts which 
make no sense to me--I want to mention a cut of $1.3 billion to the 
Social Security Administration. Our Republican friends say we are not 
cutting Social Security, but they are proposing a $1.3 billion cut to 
the Social Security Administration--the people who administer the 
program. What does that mean?
  Right now, there is a significant delay if you are looking for 
disability benefits--a huge delay. People are calling my office all the 
time saying they can't find anybody to process their claims. Yet the 
Republicans would propose a $1.3 billion cut, which would delay Social 
Security benefits to about 500,000 Americans.
  The issue is pretty clear: The top 1 percent in America earns 23 
percent of all income, more than the bottom 50 percent. The wealthiest 
people in this country over the last 20 years have seen a reduction--a 
reduction--in the tax rates they pay. Today, at 16 percent, the 
wealthiest people in this country are paying the lowest tax rates that 
the rich have paid in many decades.
  This is not a complicated issue. This issue is, do we move forward to 
balance the budget on the backs of people who are on Social Security, 
on the backs of little children who need Head Start, on the backs of 
seniors in the State of Vermont who depend upon heating assistance? Do 
we balance the budget on the backs of the weak, the vulnerable, the 
elderly or the poor or do we say: When we have an increasingly unequal 
distribution of income--the rich are doing very well--do we ask the 
wealthiest people to start paying their fair share of taxes?
  The American people are pretty clear on this matter. They think it is 
wrong to balance the budget on the backs of those people who are 
already hurting in a recession. Let's ask the people on top to start 
paying their fair share so we can see some shared sacrifice in the 
midst of this recession.
  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. What is the pending business before the Senate?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask consent to speak in morning business for a few 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________