The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“FEMA FUNDING” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S5736-S5738 on Sept. 20, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
FEMA FUNDING
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I would like to talk a little about the upcoming FEMA bill. As I understand it, the House intends to send us a CR with FEMA funding only at the level of $3.65 billion, which is a level that is completely inadequate to meet FEMA's needs. They intend to put $1 billion in for 2011, which is more than is actually needed in 2011, but then they ask that it be paid for with
$1.5 billion, which is not the way mathematics is supposed to work.
The real problem is that the total amount of $3.65 billion is inadequate given the terrible tragedies we have had over the last several months and years. We are still rebuilding from Katrina, the Joplin tornado was devastating, and, of course, the storms that hit the Northeast, including my beloved State of New York, were just awful. Just in New York State alone, it is estimated that cleanup costs will be closer to $2 billion. So you can imagine that $3.65 billion is not even close to enough.
The good news is what we intend to do here under the leadership of Majority Leader Reid, which is to take the CR they send us and add to it the very bill that passed last Thursday night, which adds approximately $7 billion to FEMA. That is the amount of money that is needed. It adds some money to the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other places the Governors of the States have told us are needed. And given the fact that 10 Republicans voted for it, we have every expectation that amendment will pass and we will send it back to the House. So the House should understand there will be a measure to adequately fund FEMA, and we will do that this week. Again, we have every expectation that the 10 Republican Senators who voted with us last Thursday night will cast the same vote on the same exact measures because the disasters in their States are not any less this week than they were last week.
Budget Deficit
I also wish to address the President's proposal on the budget deficit, particularly on the tax side, and the many arguments being tossed around by many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Yesterday, the President put forward a blueprint for the joint committee to consider this fall, and it included a very commonsense principle; that is, those very few among us who are fortunate enough to make over $1 million a year should pay the same effective tax rates at the end of the day as middle-class households.
A number of Republicans rejected the President's plan before he even announced it. As soon as it was suggested that we should ask the wealthiest few among us to pay their fair share, many on the other side began labeling it class warfare. Apparently, they think they can slap that old label on the President's proposal and be done with it. But their refusal to address the proposal on the merits is revealing. They know they will lose any argument about the policy itself because it makes sense economically and because the American people support it. Even Republicans in the country--59 percent in a recent poll I saw--
support the wealthiest among us paying a fair share and support not giving them the continued Bush tax breaks at a time when we have record deficits and we are asking everybody else to sacrifice.
This is, emphatically, not class warfare. It is not class warfare to fight for the middle class, that is for sure. It is not class warfare to say we need funding for roads and bridges and teachers and that the wealthiest among us should pay their fair share to do it. Let me ask a question, Madam President. Is it class warfare when Republicans advocate tax cuts for the wealthy? Do we call that class warfare?
The debate about the progressivity of the Tax Code has existed for over 100 years in this country, and there are different policy prescriptions. Most Democrats and most Americans believe the wealthy don't pay their fair share. That is not to begrudge the money they have made. There are a lot of wealthy citizens in my State, and I am proud of them. I am proud they made a lot of money. And many of them believe they should pay a fair share. It is not just Warren Buffett. It is not class warfare to ask that. It is not class warfare to advocate tax cuts for the wealthy or tax increases for the middle class. That is not class warfare. To try to call it this name is unfair.
Let me make a second point. We have a need to do this. The President is not proposing things such as the Buffett rule out of vengeance. He said yesterday: ``It's not because anybody looks forward to the prospects of raising taxes or paying more taxes.'' But we do have a consensus that has been reached here--it is one of the few--that we should reduce the deficit. We all know we have to. There are two ways to do it. One is by cutting spending, and when we cut spending, it hurts middle-class citizens. Middle-class citizens need help to pay for college; wealthy people don't. So if you cut student loans or Pell grants or Stafford loans that go to the middle class, it is not going to affect wealthy citizens--they can afford college themselves--but it does affect the middle class. When you cut Medicare, it doesn't hurt the wealthy. They can afford any doctor or hospital they want. God bless them. They have earned their money, and they deserve that. We don't have a system that mandates everyone must have the same. But it sure hurts the middle class.
So the bottom line is very simple: If everyone has to pay their fair share so we can get the deficit down, the only way the wealthy pay their fair share is by making sure their tax rates are at least the same as average Americans, and perhaps they should be a little bit higher. So there is a choice.
We don't do this because we want to raise taxes and certainly not because we think the wealthy have gotten an unfair advantage. That is a different argument, and I don't believe that. I am proud when New Yorkers or Americans climb the ladder and make a lot of money due to hard work and their ideas. We do it because we don't want to lay off more teachers, because we don't want to see our infrastructure crumble, because we don't want to say we can't create jobs, and yet we don't want to increase deficit spending. If we want to keep the deficit down but keep our schools good and our infrastructure good and our basic research good, the only way to do it is to ask the wealthy to pay a fair share. That is why we do it. And that is not class warfare; that is a policy debate which we welcome.
To sum up that point, either we ask big oil companies to give up special subsidies or we gut education or medical research. Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share or we will have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can't do both if we want to keep the deficit in line. America's middle class knows this. We know their median income is declining. We know the only place on the economic spectrum where incomes are going up is at the high end, and we know the right policy is to make those folks at the high end pay their fair share.
My colleagues are in for a rude awakening. I have talked to a couple of the people who study the polling data and what the average American thinks. And let me tell you, they think the phrase ``class warfare'' means war on the middle class. They think it means the wealthy get away with what they do not. So when our colleagues talk about class warfare, maybe it resonates with a few on the hard right among the very wealthy who don't want to pay any taxes at all--and Lord knows we have heard enough from them in this place--but to the middle class, it means the middle class is being beleaguered, not being helped, and even being attacked by circumstances beyond their control. So when we say the wealthiest should pay their fair share, middle-class Americans will not see that as class warfare. They will not. They will understand what we are doing.
I am so glad the President has decided to take this fight to the American people. It is a fight where we are on their side. That is what all my experience shows when I go around New York, and that is what the polling data shows. We are doing what is right for the future of this country and for our children and grandchildren.
So let's have the debate and let's dispel this idea that simply because we want the wealthy to pay a fair share, we dislike them and it is class warfare, that it is negative toward them. It is not. It is the right way for all Americans to make the pie grow in America and not have the various parts of America fight with one another because Medicare is being cut, because teachers are being cut and the deficit is going up and hurting our children and grandchildren.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague from New York, and I would ask the Chair how much time is remaining in morning business on the Democratic side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Nineteen minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
____________________
