Budget Crisis

Floor Speech

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there was an interesting letter to the editor in the New York Times over the weekend, and it was sent by two Minnesota State representatives. I apologize for not having the names at my fingertips. Democratic and Republican Minnesota State representatives wrote a letter to the editor. It was in response to an article written by David Brooks. Brooks, whom I respect very much, is a conservative and a very thoughtful man and I read him with a lot of interest. Brooks had written about what to do with the State and Federal challenges when it came to budget deficits.

What these two Minnesota State representatives said--a Democrat and a Republican--is, we acknowledge in our State and Nation what we face. We face a situation where we have a weak economy, and we face a situation where the debts that are being incurred by our levels of government are going up too fast, having acknowledged that we have to find a solution.

I am going to probably not say this as accurately, but I thought they said it so well. They said we have come to the conclusion that we cannot just cut our way out of the problem and we cannot tax our way out of the problem, we have to think our way out of the problem. We cannot lurch from one budget battle to another budget battle without looking at the fact that our challenge is a structural, long-term challenge. It does not relate to the immediate budget but to a lot of things that are happening over a long period of time.

I reflected on that for a minute. I thought: There is real wisdom in what they say because, if we look at what we face at the Federal level, there are reasons why we are running into these budget problems, not the least of which, as Senator McConnell mentioned earlier, is that the population of America is changing. Baby boomers have reached the point where they will be drawing on the government benefits they paid for over a lifetime. As more and more draw on these benefits, there is an obvious question as to whether the reserves will be there to take care of them. How do we deal with that?

Let me speak to two particular issues Senator McConnell raised. The first is Social Security. Is there a program that is more important to America? I cannot think of one. That was the starting point of the New Deal when President Roosevelt said: We have to give seniors in America some peace of mind that when retirement rolls around and their senior years roll around, they will, in fact, have enough money to live on, not in a luxurious way but the basics.

There is a time I can remember in my family and many American families where grandparents moved back in with the kids because there was no place to go. They could no longer work and they could no longer afford their homes and they became part of the larger family. It happened in my family and it happened in others.

Then came Social Security, and with a little planning and a little saving and Social Security checks, senior citizens had independence. It was a critically important

program. It was an insurance plan--not a welfare plan--an insurance plan that virtually every American paid into and from which every American drew.

Where are we today? I arrived in Congress in 1983 as a brand-new Member of the House from Illinois. They said: Welcome to Washington. Social Security is broke.

I said: Great. I thought I would get a little breathing space. But, in fact, there was not.

President Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neill--a political odd couple if you have ever seen one--got together and hammered out an agreement. The agreement we reached and voted for in 1983 resulted in Social Security remaining solvent from then until 2037. We wanted to buy 75 years of solvency, but we bought over 50.

Those who say today that Social Security is in trouble, I remind them, untouched with no action by Congress, Social Security will make every payment it has promised to every Social Security recipient with a cost-of-living adjustment every month of every year until 2037. There are not many things you can say that about in Washington; that for over 25 years, this program is financially sound.

The bad news is, in 2037, things change dramatically. Untouched at that point, Social Security benefits will go down 22 percent. That is a heavy hit on lower and middle-income retirees. We know that looming 25 years over the horizon is a terrific challenge.

President Obama created a deficit commission. Senator Harry Reid was kind enough--I guess ``kind'' is the word--was nice enough to appoint me to this Commission. I spent 10 months listening and then voted for the final Commission product. It went into Social Security, and it suggested some things that are inherently controversial. For example, if you are going to give Social Security a longer life, what is the mix? What will you cut in benefits? How much will you increase revenue? Those are the two things.

I said Social Security is basic arithmetic. Medicare is advanced calculus. Social Security is basic arithmetic, although those basic decisions get to the heart when you retire, how much you receive when you retire and how much you receive in your payroll deductions each month.

The Commission reached an agreement. There were parts I did not like, but it did buy 75 years of solvency for Social Security.

It is interesting that we brought it up then as part of the deficit commission because literally Social Security does not add to the deficit. Currently, there is a surplus in the Social Security trust fund, and that trust fund is being invested in government securities and being paid interest, but it does not add to the deficit.

Many of my colleagues have argued: Why are we debating Social Security as part of deficit reduction if it does not have a direct connection? That is a legitimate point. I have raised the same point myself. I think we should look at it. We should do it on a separate and parallel track to deficit reduction.

I welcome what Senator McConnell said. Let's have that conversation. But I do not think it needs to be the necessary starting point for deficit reduction because there is no connection between the two.

Then I heard Senator McConnell say the President has not shown leadership on Medicare. I respectfully disagree with Senator McConnell. The whole debate about health care reform was lowering the cost of health care. You cannot balance the budget of America with 13 million people unemployed without addressing the skyrocketing cost of health care. President Obama worked with Congress--the House and Senate--to reduce the growth in the cost of health care.

One area was in Medicare. Time and again, the Senator from Kentucky and his colleagues came to the floor and gave critical speeches saying: ``The Obama plan is going to take $500 billion out of Medicare.'' Day after day, ``$500 billion out of Medicare.'' If we are seriously talking about budget deficit reform, if we are talking about Medicare reform, we are talking about reducing the anticipated expense of Medicare and reducing at least $500 billion in costs.

What will that mean to Medicare recipients across America? Does it mean less coverage, less care? It does not have to. I always use as an illustration, the average cost of a Medicare beneficiary in my hometown of Springfield, IL, the average annual cost is $7,000 to $8,000. Go up to Chicago, where there are more speciality hospitals and a little higher cost of living and it is not $7,000 to $8,000, it is $8,000 to $10,000 a year for the average Medicare beneficiary. Then go down to Miami and the number is $14,000 to $15,000 a year.

Why the dramatic difference between Chicago and Miami? That is the question we ought to ask. Is there better care in Florida or more expensive care? Can we bring the cost of that care down and not compromise the quality of the care? These are hard questions but the only questions that count if you want to have reform in Medicare that does not sacrifice the basic benefits.

What I would say to Senator McConnell is this: He quoted me early in his statement, and I was not on the floor. Yesterday, I said I was supporting not the House Republican budget but the budget proposed by Senator Inouye. This budget, for the remainder of this year, the next 6 1/2 months, would cut about $10 billion more. We would cut $51 billion below what President Obama asked for this year. In the Senate, we will have reached $51 billion. In the House, they went $100 billion below what the President asked.

I think there is a qualitative, not just quantitative but qualitative, difference in the approach. I think the House Republican budget went too far. I do not believe we need to cut the basics in education for lower income families across America, and that is exactly what the House Republican budget does.

Let me give an illustration. They reduced dramatically the amount of money going to be spent on Head Start. I do not know how many Members have had a chance to visit Head Start Programs. I did a couple weeks ago in Chicago. These are kids who are most likely to drop out without some intervention, most likely to struggle in pre-K and kindergarten and most likely to have a difficult time learning.

So they bring them into Head Start at an early age and they learn. The one I visited in Chicago is nothing short of amazing. They were teaching these little kids--and they were so impressive--Chinese as well as a Nigerian dialect, and these kids were chattering away. I thought this experience--being together, learning, singing, being so happy about it--cannot help but prepare these kids for a classroom setting where they are going to learn in just a couple years.

The House Republican budget dramatically cuts the Head Start Program. These kids and the teachers and staff who support them will be gone under their proposal, and what will happen to those kids? I am not sure. I don't know if there will be a babysitter down the street or whether someone else will intervene. But it is possible, without early intervention and early training and education, these kids will show up in a year or two for prekindergarten or kindergarten and not be as far along as they should be. Does that make their chances at success better? No, of course not. We know that. The studies have shown it.

The second area the House Republican budget cuts is the money to school districts in the poorer parts of America. In my home State there are plenty of those--my hometown of East St. Louis, IL, for example. To cut back on Federal assistance to that poor community at this moment in time would be a mistake. We need to make sure these young people have good teachers and good resources and can learn, even though they live in a town that is economically poor. The House Republican budget cuts that money and cuts the teachers for these school districts.

Then it cuts the money for Pell grants. Pell grants are the college aid grants given to students from lower income families. Many of them don't have a chance to go to school unless they get a grant so they can proceed with their education. The House Republican budget cuts $850 a year out of the Pell grants for lower income students--students from lower income families. That, unfortunately, will mean many of them will drop out.

When I went to visit with the president of Augustana College, a private Lutheran college in the quad cities area, he anticipated they would lose 1 out of every 20 students because of this cut in Pell grants. So if students--when we have high unemployment in a recession--are dropping out of college because of House Republican budget cuts, the obvious question is: Does that make America's workforce any better? Are we in a better position to compete with China and the other countries of the world or will we sacrifice our advantage because students have to drop out of school? I think the answer is obvious.

That is why the House Republican budget, which some support, goes too far. It cuts too much in education. It would cut dramatically medical research. What were they thinking in the House of Representatives, that we would cut the National Institutes of Health, medical research in critical areas--Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, diabetes, cancer--at a time when we know research and innovation are critical for America's success. Why would the House Republican budget cut back so dramatically in areas we know pay off?

I think they made some poor choices, and that is why I support the Senate Democratic approach--$10 billion in cuts but preserving in education, worker training, education research, innovation, and infrastructure the investments we need at this moment in our history, with the recession we face and 13 million Americans out of work. That, to me, is why the difference is so stark in contrast.

Senator McConnell spoke with the President and said he needed to show more leadership. I know where the President is on this. He wants us to reach an agreement in terms of the decisions which we need to make to move us toward a balanced budget, but we need to do it in a thoughtful way, first, coming out of the recession making America's workforce stronger for the future, helping small businesses create jobs, and investing in infrastructure which creates good-paying jobs right here in America.

Mr. President, I understand we are going to go into executive session, and I am going to pause at this time and ask if the Chair is ready to report executive session so I can discuss two judicial nominations.

Source