Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act Motion to Proceed--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his comments. I share his concern about our deficit. I was a member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission, voted for the commission report, bipartisan effort to reduce the deficit by $4 1/2 trillion over 10 years. I think we set in place a description, maybe a guidepost for how we can do this.

I would agree with him that we need to take care in the money that we spend now which will add to the deficit, though I have to say my understanding is this transportation bill is paid for. There are revenue sources that are part of this. I know the student loan continued decrease in interest rates to 3.4 percent for student loans is paid for. I believe the changes within the Flood Insurance Program, which is part of this package as well, the Republican leader spoke to that this morning, reforms in that program will move it closer to sustainability and solvency. It is not where it needs to be, but it is moving closer.

But I want to address, if I can, for a minute what has been a topic on the floor this morning about the planned cuts in the Department of Defense. Let me say at the outset what we all agree upon. No. 1, we never, ever want to shortchange America's security, never shortchange our men and women in uniform.

A nephew of mine who serves as a doorman in the gallery recently returned from 1 year in Afghanistan. We were sending packages and were worried about Michael every day. He got home safely. That is happening over and over across America. I wanted my nephew to have all he needed to come home safely. I think everybody feels the same when it comes to the Department of Defense.

Let's step back and look at this deficit debate. Allow me to put it into perspective for a moment. The last time we balanced the Federal budget was not in the 19th century, it was about 11 years ago. It was a time when William Jefferson Clinton was President, and for 3 years we had a balanced budget under a Democratic President--3 years.

When we reach a balanced budget, if you said, ``What do you have in terms of spending and revenue?''--they are the same--here is what we found: Revenue and spending both equaled 19.5 percent of America's gross domestic product. The gross domestic product is the sum total of the goods and services produced in America every year. It changes and grows. The last year we were in balance, taxes equaled 19.5 percent of our GDP and Federal spending equaled 19.5 percent. We had a balanced budget.

Now we are in deep water. We saw the accumulated debt of the United States more than double under President George W. Bush, and it continues to grow, because of the recession, under this President. Our annual deficits are over $1 trillion and are unsustainable. We borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend, whether we are buying military equipment or paying for food stamps. That is unsustainable.

But now that we know there was a time when we were in balance, it is fair to say: What happened to spending since this budget was in balance? If you do it in constant dollars so there is no monkeying around with numbers, here is what happened since we were last in balance in our budget: Domestic discretionary spending equals student loans, medical research, transportation--all of the different things that don't fit into the Department of Defense. The spending in those areas since we were last in balance has been flat, with no increase.

What about spending for entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, programs such as those--and veterans' care? What has happened to that since we were last in balance? Since we were last in balance, the spending on entitlement programs has gone up 30 percent. Why? The baby boomers have arrived; 10,000 people a day reach the age of 65. They paid into Social Security and Medicare their whole life, and they show up now and say: It is our turn. Because of that, entitlement spending has gone up.

Let's look at the third part of the budget, which was addressed by my Republican colleague this morning--defense spending. What has happened to defense spending since the budget was in balance? Domestic discretionary flat; entitlements 30 percent. As of this year's budget, defense spending will have risen 73 percent since the budget was last in balance.

We created a supercommittee, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, who is here, was a member. They said: Let's find ways to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. They tried. I am sure Senator Kerry will speak to that effort. At the end of the day, they could not reach a bipartisan agreement on how it would be done. The law we passed said: If you cannot reach agreement, we are going to do it automatically. We are going to take $500 billion out of defense and $500 billion out of nondefense spending. That is what this is about. People are coming to the floor and saying that we cannot take another $500 billion out of defense spending.

I will tell you that I think that is a lot to be taken out in light of what we have already anticipated we are going to reduce in spending. I think it will cause some serious problems. But I reject the notion that that $500 billion, if it is taken out of domestic discretionary, won't have equally horrible results.

So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, when you had a chance in the supercommittee to deal with spending cuts of a lesser amount or deal with revenue, closing tax loopholes, you walked away from it. Now you are complaining that we may end up cutting defense spending.

Incidentally, if the sequestration number went through--the additional $500 billion in cuts over the next 10 years--it would bring the amount of money we spend on defense to the same percentage of the GDP as it was when the budget was in balance.

So my friends who are speaking for national defense, I join you, but I also speak for investments in America when it comes to education, innovation, and infrastructure. That will help our economy grow. And sequestration on the domestic side is unacceptable, from this Senator's point of view, as well.

We clearly need to get beyond this and talk about an honest answer to reducing the deficit. An honest answer, going back to Simpson-Bowles, puts everything on the table--everything. To my friends on the other side, I say that it puts revenue on the table, and it must. It puts entitlement programs and spending cuts on the table, and it must. That is the only honest way to address this issue. To pick it off and say that we are going to take the one area that has grown in spending by 73 percent and ignore it and then have them say that we don't touch revenue leaves two possibilities: If we are going to do anything about the deficit--deeper cuts in programs such as student loans, medical research, or cuts in Medicare--that is what it comes down to. They are hard choices, right? I think the Bowles-Simpson approach of putting everything on the table is the right approach.

I urge my colleagues on both sides to take this pain that we are facing December 31 and turn it into an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis to reduce this deficit.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source