[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13016-13017]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, tomorrow night we will hear a speech 
from the President of the United States about an issue that affects 
every single one of us in America. It affects millions in a personal 
way and all of us indirectly. It is the state of our economy. It is an 
economy that has been wracked by a recession which has gone on way too 
long. Even the President concedes that we had hoped we would have 
emerged at this point, but we still have not. I think it is important 
for us to focus on the reality of life even for working families in 
America. Too many working families today are struggling to survive 
paycheck to paycheck.
  Over the last 10 or 20 years, we have seen a decline in the rate of 
growth in real wages, which means that families, even working families, 
aren't earning enough to keep up with the cost of living. They are 
falling a little bit behind each year.
  They recently surveyed working families across America and asked them 
a basic question. They said: If you had an emergency in your family and 
needed to come up with $2,000 in the next 30 days, could you find that 
$2,000 either in your savings or borrowed? Forty-seven percent of 
working families said they could not come up with $2,000 in 30 days. 
Now $2,000 is the cost of an uneventful trip to an emergency room. It 
is an indication of the vulnerability of families all across America.
  I am also concerned about the fact that, as we speak about the 
economy, we know many families are doing the right thing, trying to 
shed debt. We see the credit card debt in America declining as fewer 
and fewer people borrow against their credit cards, understanding the 
interest rates they are going to pay are way too high and it is 
impossible to keep up with your debt if you pile it all on credit 
cards. People are reluctant to purchase because they are afraid of 
debt, and vulnerable, with the thought of losing their jobs or perhaps 
seeing a decline in their wages. That is the reality of life for 
working families across America. It is the reality I have seen in 
Illinois and a reality that affects us nationwide. The President will 
address that tomorrow night, as he should.
  I think there are ways to deal with it, but here is the caution I 
wish to add: We are fixed on the theme of our Nation's deficit and 
debt, and we should be, because as we borrow 40 cents for every dollar 
we spend, we create an unsustainable situation for future generations. 
That is a fact.
  I have been party to the Bowles-Simpson Commission, where I voted for 
their report. I have worked with the Gang of Six, a bipartisan effort 
in the Senate which has more than 30 Senators showing an interest in 
this approach. So I seriously believe this deficit and debt are a 
problem for us in the long term. But I might remind my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle that Bowles-Simpson, this bipartisan 
Presidential commission, concluded that we should not hit the brakes on 
spending, should not hit the brakes on government activity too soon 
because of the recession. In fact, they recommended that we wait 
another year, with a serious effort to reduce the deficit coming after 
the recession.
  The logic behind it is obvious. It is virtually impossible to balance 
the budget of the United States with 14 million people out of work. You 
need to put Americans back to work earning a good paycheck, paying 
their taxes, and then you can start building this economy and building 
toward a balanced budget. I hope we keep that in mind as we talk about 
what we are facing, as we try to create a climate to create more jobs 
in America.
  It is interesting to me, the President will propose to extend the 
payroll tax cut for working families across America. It accounts for 2 
percent of income. That, to me, is sensible. Put spending power in the 
hands of working families, lower and middle-income families. These are 
the people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck. We have done that. 
We should continue to do that.
  The criticism from the Republican side of the aisle is, no, you 
shouldn't allow a tax cut for middle-income families and those in lower 
income categories unless you pay for it. Interestingly enough, that is 
exactly the opposite position from what they took when they talked 
about tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. When the Republicans 
wanted to see tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year, they say 
we don't have to pay for it. But when we talk about tax cuts for 
working families, middle-income families, all of a sudden they become 
deficit hawks and say you have to pay for those tax cuts. I think we 
should continue the 2-percent payroll tax cuts to help working 
families. I think that is good. I also think we ought to extend 
unemployment benefits.
  I spent my time in August in Illinois visiting unemployment offices, 
where I met a lot of people who are struggling every single day to 
apply for jobs, sometimes four and five applications a day, and many 
times without success. They are doing their best to pick up new skills 
at community colleges and training courses. They are trying to make 
their resumes look a little more attractive, working to do so, and they 
are running into a brick wall time after time. Some are in extremely 
difficult circumstances. Extending unemployment compensation at this 
point in our economy is absolutely essential. It is the right and 
caring and humane thing to do, and it also injects money into the 
economy. The President will call for this, and I think he is right. The 
Republicans have said we have to pay for that unemployment 
compensation. Again, it is hard to follow their logic as they offer 
millions of dollars in tax relief for millions of people, refuse to end 
the tax cuts and benefits for the most profitable oil companies in 
America, and when it comes to helping the unemployed and middle income, 
then they become deficit hawks.
  They also talk about the corporate income tax. The corporate income 
tax rate in America is 35 percent, and they say it is one of the 
highest in the world. That is true. But it is an effective rate versus 
the nominal rate. The

[[Page 13017]]

nominal rate is 35 percent. The effective rate is much lower.
  Take, for example, the report that just came out that puts this in 
perspective. There was a report that compared the salaries for the 
CEOs, the chief executive officers, of major American corporations. 
Twenty-five of the one hundred highest paid corporate executives in the 
United States earned more in pay than their company paid in taxes in 
the year 2010. That is right. Our Tax Code is so easy on massive 
multinational corporations, they pay their top executives more than 
they pay in Federal taxes each year. It is a startling fact. It is a 
report released by the Institute for Policy Studies. If you look 
through the report, you will see some of the biggest names in corporate 
America.
  Look at General Electric. They made waves when it was reported that 
they paid zero, absolutely nothing, in Federal taxes last year. In 
fact, GE got a refund from the government of over $3 billion. The top 
executive at General Electric was compensated to the tune of $15.2 
million. Consider that for a moment when we talk about the unfairness 
of corporate taxes. The biggest multinational corporations in America 
are escaping the 35-percent rate. Some are actually getting money back, 
and they are paying their executives money in reward for coming up with 
these tax strategies under our current Tax Code.
  Do you want to clean up the Tax Code? Stop imposing the highest 
corporate tax rate on middle and small businesses, and impose it on the 
large corporations, the most profitable corporations in America.
  The other idea is this repatriation tax holiday. We should take care 
here. Before we allow major corporations to bring their profits back 
into the United States tax free or at lower tax rates, which is what 
they are asking for, look at what happened when we tried that under the 
Bush administration. There were $362 billion of earnings repatriated 
under the holiday, and $312 billion qualified for the tax break, but we 
didn't see a corresponding increase in employment of those 
corporations. They brought back the money they earned in profits 
overseas and declared it as dividends and profits, and gave it in 
compensation and bonuses to their executives. They did not create jobs. 
Now the Republicans are pushing for that same strategy. They want to 
give this tax holiday to these major corporations with no strings 
attached. I think we have learned our lesson under the Bush 
administration. If that money is coming back to America, it should be 
dedicated to growing the corporations in America and growing good-
paying jobs right here at home. It shouldn't go out the door in 
executive compensation, dividends, and profits.
  The Tax Code is unfair, but it is primarily unfair to working 
families. We have got to do everything we can to make it fairer for 
them. Secondly, we have got to make sure we eliminate some of the 
loopholes that are stacked in the Tax Code today. I have been in favor 
of tax reform and think it is an essential part of fairness in America, 
getting the economy moving forward, and dealing responsibly with our 
deficit.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________