Patriot Sunsets Extension Act

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, came to Chicago to speak to the Economic Club and to articulate his vision--the Republican vision--on how to reduce our Nation's debt. It was an interesting speech because Congressman Ryan's budget--the Republican budget, which passed the House of Representatives--has become an object of debate and controversy.

I know Congressman Ryan. We served together on the President's deficit commission. I know he is a very thoughtful and learned and sincere individual, but I certainly have to say his approach to dealing with our budget deficit is one I believe falls short of the mark. It would seem to me, if we are serious about our deficit--and we should be--we should acknowledge the fact that for every $1 we spend in Washington, we borrow 40 cents. That is unsustainable, and we have to address it.

We should also look at the grim, recent reality of our budget. When President William Jefferson Clinton left office a little over 10 years ago and handed the keys to the White House over to President George W. Bush, the accumulated net debt of America was $5 trillion--$5 trillion. Eight years later, in the next transfer of power, when President George W. Bush transferred power to President Obama, America's accumulated net debt had reached a new level of $11 trillion, more than doubled in an 8-year period of time.

Ask yourself: How could that occur? Well, the answers are fairly obvious. When you wage two wars and don't pay for them, when you cut taxes in the midst of a war--the first time that has ever happened in our history--and when you pass programs that are not paid for, it adds to our debt. That is what happened.

President Obama inherited a dramatic increase in the national debt and a very weak economy, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. Now we find we are even deeper in debt--closer to $14 trillion because of this recession, despite the best efforts of Congress and the President to turn it around. We know that has to change.

The major creditor of the United States is China, and it is also our major competitor. Those two realities force us to look honestly at this deficit. I take exception to the approach the Republicans use in their deficit reduction plan, because when I took a look at Congressman Ryan's budget--the Republican budget--I find, at the end of the day, it nominally cuts spending by $4 trillion over a 10-year period of time. Yet it only cuts $8 billion a year out of the Defense budget. The Defense budget of the United States is over $500 billion every year, and they could only find $8 billion a year to cut? Not a very serious undertaking.

They raise no new revenues to help pay down the debt, while they dramatically cut taxes for the wealthiest people and companies in America. In the name of deficit reduction, the Republican budget would cut the top tax rate of the wealthiest individuals and corporations to 25 percent. The Tax Policy Center estimates this would reduce tax revenues by $2.9 trillion over the next 10 years, and virtually all the tax savings from that change would go to households making an annual income of over $200,000 a year.

What does a multitrillion dollar tax cut have to do with deficit reduction? Congressman Ryan, in his speech in Chicago, criticized the Democrats for engaging in class warfare, as if it is somehow inappropriate to point out that the Republican budget proposes a massive shift in wealth from the poor and middle class to those who are better off. Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway--seer of Omaha--answered that criticism best a few years ago when he said:

There is class warfare, all right. But it is my class, the rich class, that is making war and winning.

That is what happens with the Republican budget.

Then there is the issue of health care--an issue near and dear to every single American. A serious budget plan would address the largest cause of the projected long-term debt for the Federal Government--health care--by allowing dozens of cost-containment provisions in the affordable care act to take effect and then by finding even more to reduce the cost to the system. But the House Republican budget plan does the opposite. It repeals all the cost-containment mechanisms, which the Congressional Budget Office says in so doing will raise the debt of America.

Then the Republican budget goes a step further. It ends Medicare and Medicaid, as we know them--programs that have served America. Their budget would transform programs that seniors and the poor count on today to provide adequate health insurance and to programs that help to cover just some of the costs, leaving the rest of the bills to the families, individuals, and State governments. All that the Republican budget plan does under the banner of health care reform is to shift the cost of health care from American families who are paying taxes to other American families who are paying taxes in the private market. It would do nothing to reduce health care costs as a whole.

It is fair to ask me at this point: Well, if you are going to criticize the Republican budget, what do you suggest? I will tell you what I suggest. I have sat around for 4-plus months now, with five of my Senate colleagues in both political parties, working on these ideas. What I think is the path to a reasonable deficit reduction is one that literally involves shared sacrifice, where every American has to be prepared to step up and accept the reality that things will change.

There is one demographic reality that overshadows this conversation. Since January 1 of this year, every day 9,000 Americans reach the age of 65. That trend will continue for 19 more years. That is the baby boom generation. If you will do the math, you will see a dramatic increase in people under Social Security and Medicare, as those children born immediately after World War II reach retirement age. That is a reality.

What do we do about it? First, we make sure Social Security can be counted on. Social Security does not add one penny to our Nation's debt. It is a separate fund. It will make every promised payment for another 25 years, with a cost-of-living adjustment, but then runs into trouble. You will see a reduction--if we don't do something in the 26th year--by over 20 percent for each benefit payment. Unacceptable. So we should think in honest terms about what we do today--small changes we can make today in Social Security--which, when played out over 25 years, like the miracle of compound interest, will buy us an even longer life in Social Security.

I think there are reasonable ways to do that. For example, when we passed Social Security reform in 1983, we said 90 percent of wages in America should be subject to Social Security taxation. Over the years, by not raising the ceiling on wages that could be taxed for Social Security, we have fallen behind in the 90-percent standard. I think we are close to 84 percent now. If we were to go back to the 90-percent standard, which I think is reasonable, and raise the eligible income in America for Social Security deductions up to 90 percent, it will move us toward solvency--more solvency--for Social Security. It is money that will not be used to reduce the deficit but will be used to invest in Social Security. I think that makes sense.

There are other changes we can do that are reasonable. We also have to look at Medicare and Medicaid and acknowledge the obvious. The cost of health care is going up too fast. We can't keep up with it, neither can State governments, local governments, businesses, unions or families. So the cost containment in health care reform is just the beginning, but we need to continue the conversation, and we need spending cuts.

Let's be very honest about it. We have taken a pretty significant cut in domestic discretionary spending just this year--even more than the Bowles-Simpson commission envisioned. There is some risk associated with spending cuts in the midst of a recession. But now we need to ask the defense or military side of discretionary spending to also make some sacrifice.

I think one obvious way is to start bringing our troops home from overseas--bring them home from Iraq. It is estimated it costs us $1 million per year for every soldier in the field--for all the support that goes into training and sustaining and protecting our men and women in uniform, which we must do. It is an expensive commitment. As we reduce our troop commitments overseas, the amount of money being spent through the Pentagon will be reduced as well.

We need to take a close look at all the private contractors working for the Pentagon. We had a hearing of this deficit commission and asked the expert: Can you tell us how many employees there are at the Department of Defense--civilian, military--how many private contractors are working for the Department of Defense? The expert said: I have no idea. I can't even get close to giving you an estimate, but it is a dramatically larger number. We can reduce that spending, and we should.

The point I am making is that after we have taken care of the entitlement programs and the spending issues, that isn't enough. We need to talk about revenue--revenue that can be brought into deficit reduction. Every year our Tax Code gives deductions and credits, exclusions and special treatment that account for $1.1 trillion that would otherwise flow to the Treasury. Instead, it is money that isn't paid into taxes and into our government. We can reduce that tax expenditure and do it in a fair fashion by reforming the Tax Code in a meaningful way--as the Bowles-Simpson commission suggested, bring down tax rates as part of this conversation.

That, to me, is a reasonable approach. It parallels what was done in the Bowles-Simpson Commission, putting everything on the table and reducing our deficit over the next 10 years by at least $4 trillion. I think we can do it, and we should do it on a bipartisan basis.

The Republican budget plan, unfortunately, takes the wrong approach. The House Republicans have proposed, among other things, a fundamental change in how we pay for health care. It turns Medicaid into a block grant program, and it eliminates the affordable health care act. One of the sources of pride we all shared was the notion that 30 million Americans currently uninsured would have insurance protection under the affordable health care act. What the Republicans do in repealing it is to add to the number of uninsured in America, thus making it clear they have no place to turn in their extreme situations but to Medicaid. So on top of eliminating the affordable health care act, adding to the number of uninsured Americans, the Republican plan then limits the amount of money to spend on Medicaid. The net result is more and more people uninsured seeking Medicaid help with no funds to pay for their medical treatment. That is not a good vision for the future of America.

We had a presentation today at our Democratic caucus lunch. The presentation was made by Senator Kent Conrad, the chairman of our Budget Committee. He and Senator Stabenow of Michigan talked about what the Medicare changes would mean in America, and what it basically means is the average senior citizen, under the Republican budget plan, will see their Medicare benefits cut and will find their out-of-pocket expenses to maintain current Medicare protection double--over $12,000 a year.

There are many seniors in Oregon and Illinois and across the Nation on fixed incomes. That is not a reasonable alternative--$1,000 a month on Medicare insurance premiums? That is the Republican budget plan. It is not a reasonable way to deal with our future challenges in health care.

We will have a chance to vote this week on the Republican budget plan, and it will be interesting to see how many on the other side of the aisle want to support the approaches I have just described. Already, some of them have announced they will not. They think it goes too far. I do too.

I hope we can reject the House Republican plan on a bipartisan basis, but then let's come together in a bipartisan fashion and try to find a reasonable way to deal with this deficit. I hope we will use the Bowles-Simpson Commission as a starting point because I think it is a good one. Let's maintain some fealty toward our values, our values as a country that take care of the vulnerable whom we will always have among us, and make a pledge that our Tax Code will be progressive so working families have a fighting chance, and try to at least share the burden of sacrifice in a reasonable and just manner.

Those who are better off should pay more. Those who are less well off should pay less. I don't think that is an extreme position. I think it is a sensible, humane position.

Our debate begins this week on the budget. We have a great challenge ahead of us. I hope some of the work we did on the deficit commission will help us reach a positive conclusion.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source