Concurrent Resolution On The Budget, Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, when we look at budgets, we look essentially at two things. First off, we look at what the budget actually does, because it is a set of priorities, and we look at what the budget does not do.

Any sensible group of people, whether it is a family, whether it is local government, State government, whether it is a business--people sit around the table and say, OK, these are our needs, this is what we have to address or this is no longer relevant or this is wasteful and we have to get rid of it. That is what a budget process is about.

When you examine the Republican budget, it almost seems they turn that equation upside down and they do everything we should not be doing and they don't do what we should be doing. The overall reality of America that most people understand is the middle class of this country for the last 40 years has been shrinking. Yes, we are in a lot better shape today than we were when President Bush left office, but real unemployment is 11 percent. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. Despite the modest gains to the Affordable Care Act, 35 million Americans still have no health insurance. Millions of families--whether it is in Nevada or Vermont--are wondering how in God's name they are going to be able to send their kids to college when school is so expensive. What happens to those young people when they leave school deeply in debt?

People are working in Vermont, in Nevada, in Wyoming for horrendously low wages because we have a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, and people are wondering why it is that they work 40 hours a week and still have to go to the emergency food shelf to put food on the table. Those are some of the issues the American people are talking about and they are thinking about, and they wonder, How does it happen that while they are working longer hours for low wages, the people on top and the large profitable corporations are doing phenomenally well? How does it happen that in the last 2 years, 14 of the wealthiest people in this country have seen a $157 billion increase in their wealth? How does it happen that one family, the Walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the American people? How does it happen that 99 percent of all new income generated in America since the Wall Street crash goes to the top 1 percent?

Those are the issues the American people are wondering about. Why, with an increase in productivity, am I working longer hours for lower wages? Why, if I am a woman worker, do I make 78 cents on the dollar compared to a male worker? Those are the questions.

Then you look at the Republican budget. The Republican budget does nothing to address the real problems except to make them worse. One of the problems, to be very frank, and works to the Republicans' advantage--and I have to say this, frankly--the Republican budget is so outrageous that when we explain it, people don't believe what we are saying. Senator Durbin made the point--no debate here--if I am wrong, somebody jump up and correct me. The Republican budget eliminates the Affordable Care Act, right? It does that, and 16 million Americans lose their health insurance--16 million people have no health insurance. But that is not enough. The Republican budget cuts over $400 billion in Medicaid. That is another 11 million people losing their health insurance--16 plus 11 is 27 million people losing health insurance.

Does anybody in America think that makes any sense at all? These are men, women, children. You cut Medicaid and you throw people off. These are pregnant women who need to go to the doctor to make sure the baby they are carrying is healthy or little babies who are born. That is what they do.

But meanwhile, here is something they do not do. When they get up there and say this budget does not include any tax increases, they are right. I can see that. They are right. But what they are really saying is: We will not--we will never ask the billionaires in this country to pay a nickel more in taxes. We will not ask the one out of four major corporations that pay nothing in taxes to start paying their fair share of taxes. We will make it harder for kids to go to college, we will throw people off of health insurance, but we will not ask the rich and the powerful to pay more in taxes.

That is what this budget debate is about, and I hope the American people pay attention to that.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is a very simple, straightforward amendment. It calls for a substantial increase in the minimum wage. The simple truth is that in America, people working full time should not be living in poverty. Since 1968, the real value of the Federal minimum wage has fallen by close to 30 percent. People all over this country and in State after State on their own have voted to raise the minimum wage.

By the way, in State after State where the minimum wage has gone up, more jobs have been created. Let us stand today with the tens of millions of workers who are struggling to put food on the table, to take care of their families. Let us raise the minimum wage

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this budget makes massive cuts in Medicaid and will throw women, men, and children off of that vitally important program.

I strongly support the Wyden amendment. Let's protect Medicaid.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. This is truly a remarkable amendment because it runs directly in opposition to everything the Republicans have been talking about. They say we have to cut Medicare and Medicaid and education because of the terrible deficit. Do you know why we have a deficit and large debt? Because we went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and we forgot to pay for it.

Now Senator Rubio says, hey, let's continue spending more money on war but just put it on the credit card. We don't have to pay for it. Enough is enough. If you want to go to war, start paying for that war. Let the American people know what the cost of war is.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Republican budget throws 27 million people off of health care. It denies nutrition programs for hungry kids and pregnant women. It cuts $90 billion from the Pell program, making it harder for young people to get a college education, and it raises the price of prescription drugs for the elderly. For Senator Paul, that is apparently not enough. He wants, over a 2-year period, $189 billion in cuts to discretionary programs, which will be devastating to the working families of this country.

Stop the war against working families. Vote no on the Paul amendment.

I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Moran raising this issue. Last year we wrote the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. We included language to allow veterans living at least 40 miles from a VA facility to access care in the community.

Like Senator Moran, I represent a rural State. I am the first to understand the unique needs of rural veterans. I have spoken with Senator Moran and understand his intention is to ensure that veterans living at least 40 miles from a facility that provides the care they need can seek care in the community through the Choice Program on a case-by-case basis.

If that is his intention, I think it is a good amendment. I think we should all support it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, dynamic scoring is nothing more than an accounting gimmick that makes tax cuts appear at least partly pay for themselves. It is an attempt to make it seem like the failed policies of trickledown economics work, but we know better.

According to the CBO, the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 are responsible for more than 13 percent of the increase in our national debt from 2001 to 2011.

Tax cuts did not grow the economy; they just grew our debt. The fuzzy math of dynamic scoring may get to a different answer, but the reality is that tax cuts for large profitable corporations and the wealthiest Americans do not pay for themselves. They just make the rich richer.

Once again, Republicans are opting for accounting gimmicks to cover up their real intentions. Dynamic scoring will rig the scoring process in favor of legislation that benefits those who are already doing very well.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this amendment is not about family farms or small business. This amendment benefits exclusively the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the families in this country--the very, very wealthiest people--and 99.7 percent of the families in America will not benefit by 1 nickel. By the way, for those concerned about the deficit, this will cost us $250 billion over a 10-year period.

Ironically, the Republican budget raises taxes for lower income families who are on the earned-income tax credit program and the children's tax credit program. So what we are doing now is giving tax breaks to billionaires in the same bill that we are raising taxes for low-income working families, and adding significantly to the deficit.

I think this should be a ``no'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. This deficit-neutral reserve fund would prevent the Postal Service from shutting down 82 processing plants in 37 States. It would restore delivery standards which have been slowed down and protect rural postal services.

The Postal Service is vital to the well-being of our Nation and economy. This is especially true in our rural areas. This is an issue that has had bipartisan support for the last number of years.

Senator Collins is a cosponsor of this amendment. She has been very active on this issue, and I would hope we could pass it with a voice vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment, as I understand it, is to prevent American jobs from being moved overseas. I think if we are serious about this, we may want to change our disastrous trade policies, which have led to the shutdown of thousands of factories in this country and millions of decent-paying jobs. In my view, at a time when we have an $18 trillion national debt, the last thing we need to do is to cut corporate taxes on profitable corporations that in many cases pay little or nothing in Federal taxes.

We have major corporation after major corporation making billions of dollars. They pay zero in Federal income taxes. I don't quite know how you can lower their taxes below zero. We need real tax reform in this country that ends corporate loopholes that is costing us well over $100 billion a year.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Frankly, I don't quite understand this amendment. This is what it says: This amendment would ``establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund'' to reaffirm that States can raise minimum wage while providing tax relief and eliminating excessive government mandates.

States do not need permission from the Federal Government to raise the minimum wage. In fact, 29 States have already raised the minimum wage. And in the last election, when that question was on the ballot in four States, all four of those States voted to raise the minimum wage.

People all over this country want us to raise the Federal minimum wage, which is now a starvation wage of $7.25 an hour.

So this amendment, quite frankly, does not make a whole lot of sense to me. I would hope it will be defeated.

States are looking to the Federal Government to raise the minimum wage. We don't have to tell them what to do. They are doing just fine.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source