Bernie Sanders

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, it was my intention to offer a modification of the amendment I offered yesterday on Social Security. Given the parliamentary situation right now, I can't do that. I intend to do that as soon as I can. Mr. President, the original Social Security protection amendment that I introduced earlier would have prevented Congress from cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age or privatizing Social Security without the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senate and the House. I introduced this amendment because I strongly believe that Congress should not be able to cut the hard-earned Social Security benefits of current or future eligible recipients without a super-majority vote in both the Senate and the House, and I continue to hold those views. I have heard from some of my colleagues--colleagues who strongly support protecting Social Security--that adopting this amendment would have the effect of changing the rules of the Senate and establishing new precedents. While I do not share those views, I have 1istened to my colleagues' concerns and worked with the majority leader to modify this amendment. As a result, Majority Leader Reid is a cosponsor of this modified amendment. There is not one Senator or Member of the House who is more committed to protecting Social Security than Majority Leader Reid and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. The Sanders-Reid amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that, as part of any legislation to reduce the Federal deficit, Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries should not be cut and that Social Security should not be privatized. The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that Social Security has never contributed one dime to the Federal budget deficit or the national debt. The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to $4.2 trillion in 2023. The Sanders-Reid amendment makes it clear that it would be absurd to be discussing Social Security within the context of deficit reduction. Let me repeat what I said yesterday. Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit, and it makes no sense to conflate the serious problems of our deficit and national debt with Social Security. That is not an accurate projection of reality. As I think we all know, in 1983, Social Security did face a crisis. Within a 6-month period of that point, it would not have been able to pay out benefits it owed to eligible Americans. Today, Social Security can pay out all benefits owed to all Americans who are eligible for the program for the next 26 years. I will speak more about this issue. I wanted to inform my colleagues that we intend to modify the amendment we have offered. We will do that when the parliamentary situation allows us to do that. I thank the Senator from Louisiana for allowing me to say a few words.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Here is the story. I agree with you. I find it hard to understand that there are people who get up here--and we hear the speeches every day. They say we have a serious deficit crisis. It is unfair to leave that burden to our kids and our grandkids. We agree with that. We say, OK, let's address the deficit crisis. But let's do it in a way that is not on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children, the most vulnerable people in the country. So what this Senator is pointing out is that in the last number of years what we have seen is that the people on top have been doing very well--the top 1 percent now earns about 23 percent of all income, which is more than the bottom 50 percent. The effective tax rate for the very wealthiest people in this country is about 16 percent, which is the lowest in recent history. We have given huge amounts of tax breaks in recent years to these very same people. So what I think the Senator from Louisiana is saying, and I agree with her, is, if we are going to go forward with deficit reduction, which you and I agree we should, let's do it in a way that calls for shared sacrifices. The Senator from Louisiana knows that H.R. 1, the Republican House- passed bill, would throw over 200,000 kids off of Head Start. Millions of students who are trying to get through college would either get lower Pell grants or no Pell grants at all. It is an attack, a devastating attack, a cruel attack, against some of the most vulnerable people in this country. They are cutting back on the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. There are low-income women now, who are trying to make sure they do not give birth to low-weight babies--cut back on their program. But when we say, well, maybe billionaires--who are doing phenomenally well--might be asked to pay a little bit more in taxes, oh, my word. We will have none of that at all. So the issue is shared sacrifice. Do not balance the budget on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable.

Mr. SANDERS. I did wish to make a few points. No. 1, the Senator from Oklahoma gave his understanding about what the debt commission would do to Social Security. I do not agree with his characterization. In point of fact, what the debt commission does do is cut retirement benefits by more than 35 percent for young workers entering the workforce today. Today's 20-year-old workers who retire at age 65 would see their benefits cut by 17 percent if their wages average $43,000 over their working lives, by 30 percent if their wages average $69,000 over their working lives, and by 36 percent if their wages average $107,000 over their working lives, according to the Social Security Chief Actuary. The proposed cuts would apply to retirees, disabled workers and their families, children who have lost parents, widows, and widowers. It is not accurate to say that the debt commission left unscathed workers--quite the contrary. There are devastating cuts to young workers. If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to make sure Social Security is financially solvent for the next 75 years--and I want to see that as well--there is an easy and fair way to do it. It is a way that doesn't require slashing benefits for younger workers. When Barack Obama ran for President, he had a pretty good idea. I hope he still has that idea. What he said is that it is important to understand that right now somebody making $1 million a year pays the same amount of money into the Social Security trust fund as somebody who makes $106,000. If we lift that cap, start at $250,000, ask those people to contribute into the Social Security trust fund, we will go a very long way to solving the financial solvency of Social Security. I think we should do that. That is certainly not what the deficit reduction commission recommended. We keep hearing that the Social Security trust fund has a pile of worthless IOUs. The fact is, Social Security invests the surplus money it receives from workers, from the payroll tax, into U.S. Government bonds, the same bonds China or anybody else purchases. These bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. And in our entire history--and many of us want to make sure this continues--the U.S. Government has never defaulted on its debt obligations. The point is, to say these are worthless IOUs is not dissimilar to saying: Guess what. Because we have a deep deficit and a deep national debt, we don't have any money to fund equipment for soldiers who are in the field in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are just worthless IOUs, and we can't fund them. That is, of course, nonsense. Do we have to address the deficit crisis? Yes, we do. But my friend from Oklahoma did not respond to the issue of why, if he and his friends are so concerned about our deficit crisis, they vote year after year for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest people or why they want to repeal the estate tax, which will provide $1 trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top three-tenths of 1 percent. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS. Will my friend yield?

Mr. SANDERS. I think it is a hair higher than that. I think it is about $14,000 a year. But the point is, I would say to the Senator from Louisiana, there are millions of seniors for whom that is either all or almost all of their income. That is it. That is it. In this day and age, that is the average. So your point is, there are people certainly below the average.

Mr. SANDERS. I sure would.

Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 207.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask the Senate set aside the pending amendment so I can call up amendment No. 207.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me make a few points, if I may. Is the Senator leaving?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to the Social Security Protection Act I introduced yesterday with Senators Mikulski, Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Blumenthal, Stabenow, Akaka, Whitehouse, Begich, and Lautenberg. This legislation has the strong support of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the American Federation of Federal Employees, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Jewish Veterans of America, among others. Social Security is the most successful and reliable Federal program in our Nation's history. For 75 years, through good times and bad, when the economy was strong and when the economy was weak, Social Security has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible American. While we take that for granted, that, in fact, is an extraordinary accomplishment. It is all done at very modest administrative costs. Social Security has been enormously successful in accomplishing exactly what its founders hoped to accomplish. Before President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law in August of 1935, approximately half our senior citizens lived in poverty. Before Social Security, about half our seniors lived in poverty. Today, fewer than 10 percent of seniors live in poverty. That number is too great, but it is a significant improvement over what occurred before the establishment of Social Security. What we should be very clear about, given the volatility of today's economy--there is a great deal of anxiety among the American people about whether they are going to be able to retire with dignity. At a time when millions of Americans have seen the value of their private retirement plans plummet, at a time when major corporations have significantly cut back on the defined benefit pension plans and 401(k) contributions, it makes no sense to me that anybody in this Chamber would contemplate dismantling the one retirement program that has been there for 75 years and has worked for 75 years. There was an interesting article in USA Today yesterday. These are just a couple facts they threw out in yesterday's USA Today. The percentage of workers who are not at all confident about saving enough money for a comfortable retirement reached 27 percent in 2011 compared with 22 percent just last year--a significant increase in a 1-year period. When combined with those who said they are ``not too confident,'' the total reaches 50 percent of workers. So we are in a situation, according to USA Today, where almost 50 percent of American workers lack confidence about whether they are going to have enough money to retire with dignity. There is another point that the article made. This is what they say: Quite a few workers virtually have no savings or investments. In 2011, 29 percent said they have less than $1,000. Well, you are not going to go too far in your retirement with less than $1,000. 56 percent said that their savings and investments, excluding their home value, totals less than $25,000. The bottom line is, for a variety of reasons, A, the Wall Street collapse of a few years ago, the fact that wages for millions of workers have not kept up with inflation, a significant part of our older workforce today is extremely worried about what will happen to them when they retire. Within that context, why there are people in the Congress who would want to start dismantling the one program that has, without fail, been there for 75 years, makes no sense to me at all. Let me also make another point. I think it is important to make this point 24 hours a day because we hear so much misinformation coming to us from pundits, from the media, and from Members of Congress. So let me be very clear. This country has a very serious national debt problem and a very serious deficit problem. We just heard about that, a $1.6 trillion deficit. That is serious business. In my view, Congress has to be aggressive to address that issue. But here is the point. Social Security has not contributed one nickel to the Federal deficit or the national debt--not one penny. So when you hear people say we have a serious deficit problem, therefore we have to cut benefits in Social Security or raise the retirement age, what they are saying makes no sense at all. These are two very separate issues. In fact, Social Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus. Let me repeat that. Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus. That is projected to grow to $4.2 trillion in 2023. In 1983, when we look back a little bit, it turns out that Social Security did face a crisis. At that point, in 1983, if the Congress and then-President Reagan had not acted, Social Security was projected to run out of necessary funding in 6 months--6 months. That is a crisis. As a result of the discussions and negotiations and a committee put together by the President, Tip O'Neill, et cetera, a resolution was reached to that problem. The Congress overwhelmingly voted for it. Today is not 1983. Today the Social Security Administration has estimated that Social Security will be able to pay out 100 percent of promised benefits to every eligible recipient for the next 26 years. This country does face a whole lot of crises: Unemployment is off the wall; childhood poverty is too high; we have serious deficit problems; two wars; we are worried about global warming. We have a lot of problems. But it seems to me to be totally absurd that people would say: Oh, my goodness, we have to cut Social Security because it can only pay out benefits for the next 26 years. Go to Minnesota and say to a business person: If you could pay out all that you owe for the next 26 years, do you think it is a crisis? People would be shaking their heads. I should point out that after those 26 years, if nothing is done--and I think something should be done--Social Security will be able to fund about 78 percent of promised benefits. So it seems to me that given the enormous importance of Social Security not only to the elderly but to people with disabilities, to people who are widows and orphans who have lost the income that a bread winner had brought into the family, we have to do everything we can to protect Social Security. We have to make it very clear that Social Security is strong, can pay out every benefit for 26 years, that has not contributed one nickel to the deficit. And that is the amendment that I will be bringing up as soon as I possibly can.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think we all know elections have consequences. I doubt seriously, however, that when most voters went to the polls last November, they were voting for more of their kids to get aggravated asthma or more people to go to the hospital with respiratory problems or more people to get sick in general. I do not think the people went to the polls this past November to vote to put big oil and big polluters in charge. I didn't see those TV ads. But make no mistake. People may not have voted for a polluter poison agenda, but that is exactly what they are getting from Republicans in the House and their colleagues in the Senate. Their agenda is to deregulate polluters, even if it harms our national security. They want to gut the bipartisan Clean Air Act, even if doing so harms public health. Republicans claim the Inhofe amendment would lower gas prices. That claim was found to be false by politifact.com. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act is actually raising fuel economy standards and is projected to save drivers $2,800 on gas for new vehicles. The reason for that is pretty obvious. We are making an effort to see that cars manufactured and sold in this country get decent mileage per gallon. We wonder why all over the world people are driving cars that get 40, 50, 60 miles per gallon, and we are stuck with cars that get 15 or 20. We can, we must, and we are doing better in that area. We have to continue to go forward. The Clean Air Act standards are projected to save 2.3 billion barrels of oil. When we get cars that are energy efficient--hybrids, electric cars--we are not consuming oil from Saudi Arabia. We all talk in the Senate about the need to move this country toward energy independence. But the Clean Air Act is actually helping to deliver it. That is good news for our national security but not for polluters. The Inhofe amendment would keep us dependent on foreign oil, something we certainly do not want to be the case. My Republican friends claim the Clean Air Act regulations are destroying the economy. That claim is also false. This chart shows that even as we have reduced pollution in the air by 63 percent since 1970, our economy grew by 210 percent and added nearly 60 million jobs. In fact, the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs in environmental technologies and pollution control industries. If we invest properly in energy efficiency and in such sustainable energies as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, over a period of years we will, in fact, not only clean up our environment, not only move toward energy independence but create millions of good-paying jobs. For every $1 invested in clean air, we see up to $40 in return in economic and health benefits to America. We should all understand, however, that while big polluters may not like the Clean Air Act, it benefits every American. Why is it that after we have made significant progress in beginning to clean up our air, there are people who want to bring us back to the days when polluters could fill the air with all kinds of soot and other harmful products which cause disease all over America? Thanks to the Clean Air Act, we are actually saving 160,000 lives each year. People are not dying from premature deaths, as they would have if the air they were breathing was dirty. We are literally avoiding sending tens of thousands of people to the hospital and emergency rooms every year, avoiding thousands of cases of heart attacks, skin cancer, aggravated asthma, and lung damage thanks to the Clean Air Act. Senator Merkley made the point a few moments ago about the view of the American Lung Association on this issue. They have strong concerns as to what will happen to respiratory illnesses if we weaken the Clean Air Act. We are currently reducing toxic pollution such as mercury that the CDC has said causes major developmental problems for children. Our Nation's leading public health experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Preventative Medicine, the American Public Health Association, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Heart Association, and the American Lung Association, recently said the Clean Air Act's continued implementation is ``quite literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of people and will mean the difference between chronic debilitating illness or a healthy life for hundreds of thousands more.'' That is what is at stake. I will vote against the Inhofe amendment and urge my colleagues to vigorously oppose this attack on our public health. While this amendment may benefit wealthy oil companies, it is an attack on the health of all Americans who want to breathe healthy air and drink clean water. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Fiscal Year 2012 Budget for the Sec.''

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 3 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Information Sharing in the Era of WikiLeaks: Balancing Security and Collaboration.''

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Innovations in Child Welfare Waivers: Starting on the Pathway to Reform.''

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 10, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Bridgepoint Education, Inc.: A Case study in For-Profit Education and Oversight'' on March 10, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I will try to bring this budget debate down to Earth and talk a little bit about the reality of what is happening and go beyond the amount of numbers that are out there. My good friend from Alabama who sits with me on the Budget Committee makes the point that this country has a severe budget crisis. He is right. The question is, How did we get to where we are today and how do we go forward in a way that is fair and responsible to address it? In that regard, the Senator from Alabama and I have very strong disagreements. How did we get to where we are today when not so many years ago, the day George W. Bush became President, we had a significant surplus? We had a surplus when Clinton left office. Now we have a major deficit crisis. There are a number of reasons: No. 1, against my vote, we are fighting a war in Iraq which, by the time we take care of our last veteran, is going to cost us some $3 trillion. I didn't hear any of my Republican friends saying we can't go to war unless we figure out a way to pay for it. No. 2, my Republican friends for years have been pushing huge tax breaks for the very wealthiest people. I didn't hear them ask how that was going to be paid for. No. 3, under President Bush, with strong Republican support and against my vote, Congress passed a $400 billion-plus Medicare Part D prescription drug program, written by the insurance companies and the drug companies. It drove up the deficit. No. 4, against my vote, Congress voted for a massive bailout of Wall Street. I didn't hear too many people talking about how we would pay for that, $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I didn't hear them arguing that it was too much money and it would drive up the deficit. Yesterday, the Republicans brought forth and voted on H.R. 1. Almost all of them voted for it. Those who did not actually wanted to go further. The main point I wish to make is, A, we do have to address the deficit crisis, but, B, we have to address it in a way that is fair and responsible and not solely on the backs of working families, the middle class, the elderly, the sick, and the poor. That is immoral. That is wrong. That is bad economics. To my mind, it is absolutely absurd that when my Republican friends talk about deficit reduction, they forget to talk about the reality that the wealthiest people have never had it so good; that the effective, the real tax rate for the richest people is the lowest on record; and that the wealthiest people, the top 2 percent, have received many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks. I ask my Republican friends, why do they want to balance the budget on the backs of low-income children, low-income senior citizens, those who are sick, those who are vulnerable, without asking the wealthiest people who have never had it so good to put one penny into deficit reduction? I think that is wrong, and the American people think that is wrong. When we talk about deficit reduction, we have to talk about shared sacrifice, everybody playing a role, not just little kids, not just the elderly, not just the sick, but even--dare I say it--people who have a whole lot of money and who have never done so well. I have not been impressed at how the media has been covering this issue. They have not made it clear to the American people how devastating the cuts are that Republicans want to impose on working families. Let me briefly tick off some of them. The Republicans want to throw over 200,000 children off of the Head Start Program. Every working family in America knows how hard it is today to come up with affordable childcare, early childhood education. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. The Republican solution is to slash Head Start by 20 percent, cut 218,000 kids off of Head Start, and lay off 55,000 Head Start instructors. The cost of college education today is so high that many young people are giving up their dream of going to college, while many others are graduating deeply in debt. Republican solution: Slash Pell grants by $5.7 billion and reduce or eliminate Pell grants for 9.4 million low- income college students. Middle-class families, working-class families, do they hear that? We are going to balance the budget by either eliminating or lowering Pell grants--the ability of young people to go to college--for over 9 million college students. I know in my office we get calls every week from senior citizens, people with disabilities, widows who are having a hard time getting a timely response toward their Social Security claims. It takes too long to process the paperwork. What the Republicans want to do is slash the Social Security Administration, the people who administer Social Security for seniors and the disabled, widows and orphans, by $1.7 billion. That means half a million Americans who are legally entitled to Social Security benefits will have to wait significantly longer times in order to receive them. We have 50 million Americans with no health insurance today, and 45,000 Americans die because they don't get to a doctor in time. Last year, as part of health care reform, I worked very hard with many Members to expand community health centers so that more and more low- and moderate-income people could walk into a doctor's office, get health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, mental health counseling. In H.R. 1, the bill they voted for yesterday, Republicans want to deny primary health care to 11 million Americans at a time when State after State is cutting back on Medicaid. What are you supposed to do if you are 50 years old, you have a pain in your chest, and you don't have any health insurance? Where do you go? Republicans want to deny health care to another 11 million Americans. For the poorest people, community services block grants provide the infrastructure, the ability to get out emergency food help, emergency help to pay the electric bill, LIHEAP. They are the infrastructure of this country that protects the poorest and most vulnerable. Republicans want to slash $405 million from the Community Services Block Grant Program. That is wrong. And the President's proposed cut to the community services block grant is also wrong. In real terms, 16 percent of our population today is really unemployed, if we add together the official unemployment--those people who have given up looking for work, those people who work part time and want to work full time. Republicans want to slash $2 billion in Federal job-training programs. Republicans want to slash $400 million in LIHEAP. That is the program that in my State and all over the country enables people to stay warm in the winter. We have a lot of senior citizens in Vermont getting by on $13,000 or $14,000 a year in income. They need help. It gets cold in Vermont. It gets 20 below zero. People don't have the income. LIHEAP is a very valuable tool. Republicans want to slash $100 million for LIHEAP. They want to slash the EPA by 30 percent. These are the people who have successfully enforced the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, so that the air we breathe does not give us asthma, doesn't provide us with the soup that makes us sick. The Clean Air Act has been an enormous success in cleaning up our air. Republicans want to slash that by 30 percent. Republicans want to cut the WIC Program. This is the program that provides supplemental nutrition for women, infants, and children. They want to cut that by $750 million. Poverty in America is increasing. What we understand is that if pregnant women and little kids do not get good nutrition, the likelihood is that births might be low weight or the little babies might come down with illnesses if they don't have good nutrition. Poverty is increasing. Yet the Republicans want to cut the WIC Program by $750 million--10 percent. Title I education funding. Everybody understands we have problems with education right now, with large dropout rates. Republicans want to cut $5 billion from the Department of Education. On and on and on it goes. What do I think? Do I think it is appropriate we balance the budget on low-income pregnant women and infants who need nutrition? Do I think you should throw 200,000 kids off the Head Start Program? Do I think we cut the Social Security Administration severely? Do I think we cut Planned Parenthood, which has done such a good job in preventing unwanted pregnancies? Does that make sense? I do not think so. I do not think that is good for America. But I do believe we have to move toward a balanced budget. So what is one way to go forward, other than savage cuts on programs for the most vulnerable people in this country? That is, I think we have to begin talking about revenue, not just cuts. Today I am introducing legislation which does two things. No. 1, it creates a millionaire's surtax, which will be used strictly for deficit reduction. It will be a 5.4-percent surtax on income over $1 million. That says that all households that have income over $1 million will pay a 5.4-percent surtax on that income, which will go into an emergency deficit reduction fund. Just doing that--asking millionaires to pay a little bit more in taxes, after all the huge tax breaks they have received--will bring in approximately $50 billion a year. I think that is a good idea, but it is not just me who thinks it is a good idea. Recently, last week, there was an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, and they asked the American people: What is the best way to go forward on deficit reduction? Mr. President, 81 percent of the American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to impose a surtax on millionaires to reduce the deficit. The American people get it. They understand you cannot move toward deficit reduction just by cutting programs that working families, the middle class, and low-income people desperately need in order to survive in the midst of this terrible recession. They understand serious, responsible deficit reduction requires shared sacrifice. It is insane--and I use that word advisably--it is insane to be talking about deficit reduction, as my Republican friends do on one hand, and then say: Oh, yes, we have to give hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent, the top 2 percent, when those guys are doing phenomenally well, are seeing an effective tax rate lower than it has been in decades and have received huge tax breaks already. Why does anyone think it is moral or right to move toward deficit reduction on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable? I understand-- and I know something about politics--I do understand the parents of kids who are in Head Start do not make large campaign contributions. I know the senior citizens of this country who need some help with Social Security do not make large campaign contributions. I understand that. I understand college students, desperately trying to go through college on a Pell grant, do not make large campaign contributions. But there is a sense of morality we have to deal with. I think it makes no sense, I think it is immoral, I think it is bad economics to balance the budget on the backs of working families, while we give continued tax breaks to those people who do not need it. So today we are introducing a piece of legislation which I hope will have strong support. I think it paves the way for us to go forward with serious deficit reduction in a way that is fair. Do we need to make cuts? Absolutely. But do we also need to ask the wealthiest people in this country to start contributing toward deficit reduction? I think we do. Once again, the legislation I am introducing today creates a millionaire's surtax of 5.4 percent, which would bring in about $50 billion a year, to be used exclusively for an emergency deficit reduction fund. We also end tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, which will bring in about $3.5 billion a year. Over the past decade, the five largest oil companies in the United States have earned nearly $1 trillion in profits. Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the very largest oil companies in America have paid absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes. In fact, some of them have actually gotten a refund, a rebate from the IRS. So that is my plea. My plea is that, yes, the need for deficit reduction is real. It is urgent. Let's go forward, but let's go forward in a way that is fair and responsible and not simply on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this country.

Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I will try to bring this budget debate down to Earth and talk a little bit about the reality of what is happening and go beyond the amount of numbers that are out there. My good friend from Alabama who sits with me on the Budget Committee makes the point that this country has a severe budget crisis. He is right. The question is, How did we get to where we are today and how do we go forward in a way that is fair and responsible to address it? In that regard, the Senator from Alabama and I have very strong disagreements. How did we get to where we are today when not so many years ago, the day George W. Bush became President, we had a significant surplus? We had a surplus when Clinton left office. Now we have a major deficit crisis. There are a number of reasons: No. 1, against my vote, we are fighting a war in Iraq which, by the time we take care of our last veteran, is going to cost us some $3 trillion. I didn't hear any of my Republican friends saying we can't go to war unless we figure out a way to pay for it. No. 2, my Republican friends for years have been pushing huge tax breaks for the very wealthiest people. I didn't hear them ask how that was going to be paid for. No. 3, under President Bush, with strong Republican support and against my vote, Congress passed a $400 billion-plus Medicare Part D prescription drug program, written by the insurance companies and the drug companies. It drove up the deficit. No. 4, against my vote, Congress voted for a massive bailout of Wall Street. I didn't hear too many people talking about how we would pay for that, $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I didn't hear them arguing that it was too much money and it would drive up the deficit. Yesterday, the Republicans brought forth and voted on H.R. 1. Almost all of them voted for it. Those who did not actually wanted to go further. The main point I wish to make is, A, we do have to address the deficit crisis, but, B, we have to address it in a way that is fair and responsible and not solely on the backs of working families, the middle class, the elderly, the sick, and the poor. That is immoral. That is wrong. That is bad economics. To my mind, it is absolutely absurd that when my Republican friends talk about deficit reduction, they forget to talk about the reality that the wealthiest people have never had it so good; that the effective, the real tax rate for the richest people is the lowest on record; and that the wealthiest people, the top 2 percent, have received many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks. I ask my Republican friends, why do they want to balance the budget on the backs of low-income children, low-income senior citizens, those who are sick, those who are vulnerable, without asking the wealthiest people who have never had it so good to put one penny into deficit reduction? I think that is wrong, and the American people think that is wrong. When we talk about deficit reduction, we have to talk about shared sacrifice, everybody playing a role, not just little kids, not just the elderly, not just the sick, but even--dare I say it--people who have a whole lot of money and who have never done so well. I have not been impressed at how the media has been covering this issue. They have not made it clear to the American people how devastating the cuts are that Republicans want to impose on working families. Let me briefly tick off some of them. The Republicans want to throw over 200,000 children off of the Head Start Program. Every working family in America knows how hard it is today to come up with affordable childcare, early childhood education. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. The Republican solution is to slash Head Start by 20 percent, cut 218,000 kids off of Head Start, and lay off 55,000 Head Start instructors. The cost of college education today is so high that many young people are giving up their dream of going to college, while many others are graduating deeply in debt. Republican solution: Slash Pell grants by $5.7 billion and reduce or eliminate Pell grants for 9.4 million low- income college students. Middle-class families, working-class families, do they hear that? We are going to balance the budget by either eliminating or lowering Pell grants--the ability of young people to go to college--for over 9 million college students. I know in my office we get calls every week from senior citizens, people with disabilities, widows who are having a hard time getting a timely response toward their Social Security claims. It takes too long to process the paperwork. What the Republicans want to do is slash the Social Security Administration, the people who administer Social Security for seniors and the disabled, widows and orphans, by $1.7 billion. That means half a million Americans who are legally entitled to Social Security benefits will have to wait significantly longer times in order to receive them. We have 50 million Americans with no health insurance today, and 45,000 Americans die because they don't get to a doctor in time. Last year, as part of health care reform, I worked very hard with many Members to expand community health centers so that more and more low- and moderate-income people could walk into a doctor's office, get health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, mental health counseling. In H.R. 1, the bill they voted for yesterday, Republicans want to deny primary health care to 11 million Americans at a time when State after State is cutting back on Medicaid. What are you supposed to do if you are 50 years old, you have a pain in your chest, and you don't have any health insurance? Where do you go? Republicans want to deny health care to another 11 million Americans. For the poorest people, community services block grants provide the infrastructure, the ability to get out emergency food help, emergency help to pay the electric bill, LIHEAP. They are the infrastructure of this country that protects the poorest and most vulnerable. Republicans want to slash $405 million from the Community Services Block Grant Program. That is wrong. And the President's proposed cut to the community services block grant is also wrong. In real terms, 16 percent of our population today is really unemployed, if we add together the official unemployment--those people who have given up looking for work, those people who work part time and want to work full time. Republicans want to slash $2 billion in Federal job-training programs. Republicans want to slash $400 million in LIHEAP. That is the program that in my State and all over the country enables people to stay warm in the winter. We have a lot of senior citizens in Vermont getting by on $13,000 or $14,000 a year in income. They need help. It gets cold in Vermont. It gets 20 below zero. People don't have the income. LIHEAP is a very valuable tool. Republicans want to slash $100 million for LIHEAP. They want to slash the EPA by 30 percent. These are the people who have successfully enforced the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, so that the air we breathe does not give us asthma, doesn't provide us with the soup that makes us sick. The Clean Air Act has been an enormous success in cleaning up our air. Republicans want to slash that by 30 percent. Republicans want to cut the WIC Program. This is the program that provides supplemental nutrition for women, infants, and children. They want to cut that by $750 million. Poverty in America is increasing. What we understand is that if pregnant women and little kids do not get good nutrition, the likelihood is that births might be low weight or the little babies might come down with illnesses if they don't have good nutrition. Poverty is increasing. Yet the Republicans want to cut the WIC Program by $750 million--10 percent. Title I education funding. Everybody understands we have problems with education right now, with large dropout rates. Republicans want to cut $5 billion from the Department of Education. On and on and on it goes. What do I think? Do I think it is appropriate we balance the budget on low-income pregnant women and infants who need nutrition? Do I think you should throw 200,000 kids off the Head Start Program? Do I think we cut the Social Security Administration severely? Do I think we cut Planned Parenthood, which has done such a good job in preventing unwanted pregnancies? Does that make sense? I do not think so. I do not think that is good for America. But I do believe we have to move toward a balanced budget. So what is one way to go forward, other than savage cuts on programs for the most vulnerable people in this country? That is, I think we have to begin talking about revenue, not just cuts. Today I am introducing legislation which does two things. No. 1, it creates a millionaire's surtax, which will be used strictly for deficit reduction. It will be a 5.4-percent surtax on income over $1 million. That says that all households that have income over $1 million will pay a 5.4-percent surtax on that income, which will go into an emergency deficit reduction fund. Just doing that--asking millionaires to pay a little bit more in taxes, after all the huge tax breaks they have received--will bring in approximately $50 billion a year. I think that is a good idea, but it is not just me who thinks it is a good idea. Recently, last week, there was an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, and they asked the American people: What is the best way to go forward on deficit reduction? Mr. President, 81 percent of the American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to impose a surtax on millionaires to reduce the deficit. The American people get it. They understand you cannot move toward deficit reduction just by cutting programs that working families, the middle class, and low-income people desperately need in order to survive in the midst of this terrible recession. They understand serious, responsible deficit reduction requires shared sacrifice. It is insane--and I use that word advisably--it is insane to be talking about deficit reduction, as my Republican friends do on one hand, and then say: Oh, yes, we have to give hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent, the top 2 percent, when those guys are doing phenomenally well, are seeing an effective tax rate lower than it has been in decades and have received huge tax breaks already. Why does anyone think it is moral or right to move toward deficit reduction on the backs of the weak and the vulnerable? I understand-- and I know something about politics--I do understand the parents of kids who are in Head Start do not make large campaign contributions. I know the senior citizens of this country who need some help with Social Security do not make large campaign contributions. I understand that. I understand college students, desperately trying to go through college on a Pell grant, do not make large campaign contributions. But there is a sense of morality we have to deal with. I think it makes no sense, I think it is immoral, I think it is bad economics to balance the budget on the backs of working families, while we give continued tax breaks to those people who do not need it. So today we are introducing a piece of legislation which I hope will have strong support. I think it paves the way for us to go forward with serious deficit reduction in a way that is fair. Do we need to make cuts? Absolutely. But do we also need to ask the wealthiest people in this country to start contributing toward deficit reduction? I think we do. Once again, the legislation I am introducing today creates a millionaire's surtax of 5.4 percent, which would bring in about $50 billion a year, to be used exclusively for an emergency deficit reduction fund. We also end tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, which will bring in about $3.5 billion a year. Over the past decade, the five largest oil companies in the United States have earned nearly $1 trillion in profits. Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the very largest oil companies in America have paid absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes. In fact, some of them have actually gotten a refund, a rebate from the IRS. So that is my plea. My plea is that, yes, the need for deficit reduction is real. It is urgent. Let's go forward, but let's go forward in a way that is fair and responsible and not simply on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this country.