[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10832-10834]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            SHARED SACRIFICE IN RESOLVING THE BUDGET DEFICIT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1323, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1323) to express the sense of the Senate on 
     shared sacrifice and in resolving the budget deficit.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 529, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 530 (to amendment No. 529), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, 
     with instructions, Reid amendment No. 531, of a perfecting 
     nature.
       Reid amendment No. 532 (to the instructions (amendment No. 
     531) of the motion to commit), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 533 (to amendment No. 532), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let us be very clear that in terms of the 
deficit-reduction package that is being debated, we are talking about 
an issue of huge consequence not only for people today but for our kids 
and our grandchildren. This is likely, from a domestic perspective, the 
most important issue any Member of the Senate or the House will ever 
vote on in his or her political career. This is a huge deal which in 
many ways will shape the future of America.
  I know the media refers to the discussion as whether we are going to 
have a big deal of $4 trillion or whether we are going to have a 
smaller deal of $2 trillion, but the real issue is whether we are going 
to have a fair deal--a deficit-reduction package that represents the 
interests of working people and the vast majority of our people or 
whether we are going to have a deficit-reduction package that ends up 
reflecting the needs of the wealthiest people in this country, who are 
doing phenomenally well, and the largest corporations, which in many 
instances are making recordbreaking profits. That is really what the 
debate is about.
  The Republican position on deficit reduction has been extremely clear 
and is consistent with their rightwing ideology. Despite the fact that 
our current deficit crisis has been caused by two wars--unpaid for--
huge tax breaks that have gone to the wealthiest people in this 
country, and a recession caused by the deregulation of Wall Street and 
the lack of revenue coming in as a result of that recession, our 
Republican friends are adamant that while the richest people in this 
country are becoming much richer, while today we have the most unequal 
distribution of income and wealth of any major country, where the top 
400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans--
that gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing wider--our 
Republican friends say the deficit must be balanced on the backs of 
working families, the elderly, the

[[Page 10833]]

sick, and the children. No, the very rich, the top 1 percent, who now 
earn more income than the bottom 50 percent, should not be asked to 
contribute one penny more.
  The Republicans are very clear, despite the fact that corporate 
profits are soaring, that corporation after corporation is enjoying 
huge tax loopholes that enable them to make billions of dollars a year 
in profits and not pay one penny in taxes. Republicans say: Sorry, off 
the table. Large, profitable corporations, with CEOs making millions a 
year, don't have to contribute to deficit reduction. Only the children 
have to contribute, the elderly have to contribute, and only working 
families, the unemployed, and the sick have to contribute to deficit 
reduction. We have to balance the budget on the backs of those people. 
But if you are very rich and getting richer, if you are a profitable 
corporation, that is off the table. You don't have to contribute a 
nickel.
  Poll after poll shows that the Republican position and their ideology 
is way out of touch with what the American people need or want. This is 
not Bernie Sanders talking; this is the American people talking. In 
poll after poll, when the American people are asked, ``What is your 
preferred option in terms of deficit reduction?'' they say it is to ask 
the wealthy to pay more in taxes. So when our Republican friends say 
the American people don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy, that is 
just not true.
  To my mind, what the Republicans are proposing is immoral in terms of 
coming down heavy on the most vulnerable people in our society, people 
who are already hurting as a result of the recession. When real 
unemployment is 15 percent, what do you want to take out of those 
people? They do not have any job. We have the highest rate of childhood 
poverty in the industrialized world--21 percent of our kids living in 
poverty. They want to cut them even more? We have hunger among senior 
citizens in this country going up. They want to take away their 
nutrition programs? Not only is that immoral, to my mind, it is bad 
economics because you don't get the economy moving until working people 
have some money to go out and buy the goods and services that companies 
are selling.
  To my mind, where the Republicans are coming from on this issue is 
way out in right field and way out of touch with where the American 
people believe we should go. But having said that, I have to say I am 
very confused as to where President Obama is coming from on this issue. 
And maybe I speak here as an Independent--not a Republican, not a 
Democrat, but the longest serving Independent in American congressional 
history--but I think I speak for the vast majority of the American 
people on this issue. Where is President Obama on this issue? We know 
where the Republicans are coming from. But suddenly, out of nowhere, 
President Obama tells us that Social Security cuts have got to be 
placed on the table.
  Where does this come from? The President understands that Social 
Security hasn't contributed one nickel to our deficit. In fact, Social 
Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus today and can pay out every 
benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 25 years. Social 
Security is funded by the payroll tax, not by the U.S. Treasury. The 
President understands that. Yet the President has now put on the table 
significant cuts in Social Security as well as Medicare, as well as 
Medicaid, despite his knowledge and his previous statements that cuts 
in these programs would be devastating to ordinary Americans.
  The President of the United States, Barack Obama, in recent 
statements has talked about the growth of political cynicism in this 
country and has argued the American people are sick and tired of 
politicians who refuse to tackle big issues. There is truth to what he 
is saying. But there is also a bigger truth, and that is the American 
people are sick and tired and dismayed about candidates who run for 
office saying one thing, and then, after they are elected, doing 
something very different.
  In that regard, let me mention that when candidate Barack Obama ran 
for office he told the American people over and over he was going to 
fight to protect the needs of ordinary Americans, and the elderly and 
the sick and the children. Among many other promises he made during his 
tough campaign against Senator McCain, he said he was not going to cut 
Social Security benefits. That is what he said over and over.
  Let me quote then-Senator Barack Obama and what he told the AARP on 
September 6, 2008:

       John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer 
     for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut 
     cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let 
     me be clear: I will not do either.

  That was Barack Obama in September 2008. So, Mr. President, when you 
ask why the American people are frustrated with politicians, why they 
are increasingly cynical, it has a lot to do with candidates who say 
one thing and do another. If you told the American people you are not 
going to cut Social Security, then don't cut Social Security. Keep your 
word.
  In case people think: Well, these proposed cuts are not significant; 
they are trifling, let me quote from a document from Social Security 
Works, a coalition of many organizations that is doing a great job 
defending Social Security. And when President Obama and others are 
talking about cutting Social Security, one of the approaches they are 
looking at is changing how we do COLAs--how we do CPIs. So this is from 
that document by Social Security Works:

       The Congressional Budget Office estimates the adoption of 
     the so-called ``Chained-CPI,''--

  Which is what I believe the President is talking about.

     which would be used to determine Social Security's annual 
     COLA under this proposal, would cut benefits by $112 billion 
     over 10 years. The Social Security Administration's Chief 
     Actuary estimates the effects of this change would be that 
     beneficiaries who retire at age 65 and receive average 
     benefits would get $560 less a year at age 75.

  Let me repeat that. They would receive $560 less a year at age 75. 
That may not seem like a lot of money to some folks around here, but 
when you are trying to get by at the age of 75--when you have all kinds 
of medical bills and you have all kinds of prescription drug costs and 
you are trying to eat, and maybe you are getting $14,000 a year in 
Social Security--$560 a year is a lot of money.
  But then it gets worse. Because what the Social Security 
Administration estimates is that at 85--and more and more people, thank 
God, are living to 85, people who are very fragile at age 85--people 
would see cuts of about $1,000 a year. So the longer you live, the more 
your cuts.
  Is that what we are about in America now? We don't ask billionaires 
to pay any more in taxes, but we tell somebody who is 85 years of age, 
living on $14,000 a year, they would get $1,000 less than otherwise 
because we have adopted this so-called chained CPI that I gather the 
President is pushing.
  I think the issue is very clear, and that is that the Senate, this 
Congress, have got to stand with the overwhelming majority of the 
American people who understand that the solution to this deficit crisis 
requires shared sacrifice. Yes, we have to take a look at waste and 
fraud and bureaucracy at every agency of government. No one disputes 
that. Yes, we have to take a hard look at military spending, which has 
tripled since 1997. And yes, maybe we have to bring the troops home 
from Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than many here wish, or that the 
President wishes, and save substantial sums as we do that. But most 
certainly, if we are going to go forward with shared sacrifice, yes, we 
do have to ask billionaires, who--despite all their power and all their 
campaign contributions and all of their lobbying--are doing 
phenomenally well, to contribute to deficit reduction. And yes, maybe 
those companies that stash their money in tax havens in Bermuda and the 
Cayman Islands in order to avoid taxes to this country--$100 billion a 
year--will have to start paying their fair share.

[[Page 10834]]

  On my Web site, which is sanders.senate.gov, I put a letter which 
said: Mr. President, stand tall, take on these rightwing idealogs who 
want to make devastating cuts to working families. In a couple of 
weeks, we have had 135,000 signatures on that letter. I think that 
letter reflects what the American people want. They want shared 
sacrifice. They do not want to see the elderly, the kids, or working 
families being battered more and more, especially in the midst of this 
recession.
  I would say to President Obama: Do not assume--do not assume--because 
you work and reach an agreement that everybody here is going to support 
that agreement. The American people demand fairness, they demand shared 
sacrifice, and some of us intend to bring that about.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak for up to 7 minutes. I don't believe I will need all of that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I always enjoy listening 
to my New England colleague speak. The rightwing rhetoric stuff, 
though, doesn't work for me when people of good will on both sides of 
the aisle are trying to solve these problems.
  We are working on a sense of the Senate here today, and I am rising 
to speak about my own sense of the Senate. It is an amendment I filed 
to this bill we are on addressing a key commonsense idea. It is very 
simple: Don't raise taxes on small businesses, period. But especially 
don't raise taxes at a time when unemployment is over 9 percent and 
there is meager job growth throughout the country. Quite frankly, it 
has stalled out. We can't afford more of the failed economic policies 
we have been experiencing. Frankly, I can't believe increasing the tax 
burden on small businesses is even on the radar screen here in 
Washington. It makes no sense to me. I want to do the opposite. I think 
we should respond to these terrible unemployment numbers with a 
progrowth idea such as a payroll tax deduction for businesses that hire 
workers. Let's do something constructive, something that adds 
incentives to actually get our economic engine moving again, especially 
with the businesses that do it best, which are small businesses.
  The idea we would raise taxes right now on small businesses is the 
very definition of being out of touch with the people back home who 
actually work for a living and who create jobs for others. As I travel 
back to Massachusetts--and I do that virtually every weekend--I meet 
with constituents, and I think I have had over 230 or 240 meetings 
since I have been elected. The biggest question I am always faced with 
is: What is going on in Washington? Why do you guys always throw a wet 
blanket over us, with overregulation, overtaxation, creating a lack of 
stability and certainty? It is not something that is making a lot of 
sense back home.
  When I hear from small business people back in Massachusetts, they 
are worried they can't hire more workers. We need to actually create 
confidence in our small businesses so they will put people back to 
work. Instead, we are terrifying them with these tax proposals and a 
lot of the rhetoric they are hearing here today. They do not know what 
is coming down. They do not know what is next. People up here listening 
have no clue what is next. What are we in Washington going to do next 
that will throw that wet blanket on things? Yet we expect them to hire 
a new employee? It is not going to happen.
  In particular, there have been recent calls from some on the other 
side of the aisle to repeal the LIFO--last in, first out--accounting 
method, and applying it retroactively, without even reducing the 
corporate tax rate or doing anything to soften the blow on small 
businesses. That would be disastrous on those who depend on the current 
system. As the Presiding Officer knows, our corporate tax rate is 
already the second highest in the world. If Japan lowers theirs, ours 
will be the highest. And it is often the small local companies that get 
punished the most. Yet some here in Washington want to tax small 
businesses more. I don't get it; I am sorry.
  Despite these many challenges, in the past decade this country has 
seen the creation of more than 300,000 small businesses--companies with 
500 employees or less. These small firms and the founders who started 
them took risks during a time many large companies had been downsizing. 
As a member of the Small Business Committee, I hear testimony regularly 
from many of our business leaders expressing the difficulties of the 
current environment, and I believe we absolutely need to do everything 
in our power to protect small businesses from the heavy hand of 
government--the overregulation, the lack of certainty and stability, 
the potential overtaxation.
  In Massachusetts and throughout this great country, small businesses, 
and especially manufacturers, have been the key to our economic 
recovery. They are the economic engines in Massachusetts and the rest 
of the country. They are the lifeblood of our economy. They range from 
mom-and-pop stores to some of the country's most cutting-edge, high-
tech startup companies. How can we tax these job-creating small 
businesses and then stand on the Senate floor and speak about how awful 
it is that unemployment is at an all-time high, cloaking it in the 
language of rhetoric of ``millionaires and billionaires, and corporate 
jets.'' We all know, even if we do the things we talk about, it doesn't 
get us close to solving or dealing with the problems.
  It is outrageous and, quite frankly, the American people can see 
right through it. We should be doing better. So I filed the amendment 
today to say that I, for one, will not support more burdens on small 
businesses. They already face enough problems and challenges.
  The current unemployment numbers that we are all seeing from States 
across the country should serve as a wake-up call that people are still 
hurting. They need some relief. They want to do their best, but they 
are being stifled. That wet blanket is hurting them and stopping them 
from creating jobs. It should be our No. 1 priority, and I hope it will 
get the attention and support of every one of my colleagues.
  If you care about the survival of your State's small businesses, stop 
proposing increasing the taxes, increasing regulatory burdens, creating 
that wet blanket and killing off the incentive to actually go out and 
hire.
  Mr. President, I thank you for your courtesy in the beginning, and I 
yield the floor.

                          ____________________