[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5091-S5094]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             PUBLIC POLICY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I heard a discussion this morning about 
fiscal policy, about the future, about Federal deficits, about 
accountability, about jobs, about opportunity. All of those issues 
interest me and I think interest every Member of this Senate.
  Our country is, I think, unique in that we have a democratic system 
in which we create some pretty aggressive battles between the parties 
and between the individuals in political parties, contesting ideas. 
Even as we contest those ideas, differences in approaches, and 
different ideas, we essentially have the same goals.
  The Senator from Ohio, who is now the Presiding Officer, comes from a 
big State. I am from a small State. He is a Republican. I am a 
Democrat. I would guess, if we sat and discussed goals, he and I would 
have very few differences in the goals we have for our country. We want 
a country that expands and grows and provides opportunity. We want 
children to be well educated. We want our streets to be free of crime. 
We want our air to be air we breathe without getting sick. We want 
health care that is available to us at a decent price. The fact is, we 
would very quickly discover--as we do all across this country when we 
talk politics--that our goals are the same. But, our methods of 
achieving those goals take very different paths.
  Since the first of this year, we have been undergoing some very 
interesting times. We have, I think, because the American people 
registered a significant protest in the last election. Since then, we 
have passed more legislation on more significant issues than Congress 
has passed during any similar time period in the past.
  Now, how was that protest registered? What was the score in November 
1994? The American people said by their vote: 20 percent of us who are 
eligible to vote, voted for the Republicans; 19 percent of us who are 
eligible to vote, voted for the Democrats; and 61 percent of us who are 
eligible to vote decided it does not matter. They said, ``I am not 
going to vote.''
  So that is the score: 20 percent to 19 percent--but 61 percent said, 
``Count me out, I am not going to participate in that process.''
  As a result of the 20-to-19 victory, there is a great clamor about 
what in politics is called a mandate for the Republicans. Probably only 
in politics could you get a mandate from a 20-to-19 victory.
  You see, they had printed something called a Contract With America. 
In fact, on the House side, Speaker Gingrich--now Speaker Gingrich, but 
then Congressman Newt Gingrich--lined all the Republicans up in front 
of the Capitol, had the television cameras there, and had them all sign 
this little contract called the Contract With America which proposed 
some very substantial changes.
  Some of that Contract With America made eminent good sense. In fact, 
some of it embraced the very things we tried to pass in the previous 
session of Congress here in the U.S. Senate, that the Republicans 
filibustered and opposed. They prevented us from getting it passed.
  That is fine. Times change and so do opinions, and so the contract 
embraced some of the very things that we supported and tried to get 
done.
  Since that election and since this contract the Senate has passed 
some of those things that make good sense. I supported them, as did 
most of my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle.
  Unfunded mandates: Let us decide to stop telling everybody else what 
they have to do while saying to them you pay for it. Mandates are easy. 
Unfunded mandates are even easier. But it is irresponsible, and we 
passed legislation that says let us be more responsible when we talk 
about mandates. Let us find out what it is going to cost somebody and 
maybe let us decide, if we are going to stick them with a mandate, we 
have a responsibility to pay the bill. We passed an unfunded mandates 
bill that made good sense.
  Congressional accountability: In effect saying if you pass a bill in 
Congress you have a responsibility to live under that same law you 
passed. It made good sense. I supported that this year and I supported 
it in the previous Congress as well.
  Regulatory 45-day veto? That made good sense. I supported that. It is 
saying let us stop these unintended consequences. When we pass a law 
that we think is going to be a good law and somebody puts out a half-
goofy regulation, let us have the opportunity to veto the regulation if 
it does not work, if that is not what we meant. I voted for that as did 
almost all of my colleagues. It made good sense.
  Line-item veto: That was more controversial, but I voted for it 
because Governors have it--almost all Governors have a line-item veto.
 I have thought for 10 years that a President ought to have a line-item 
veto.

  That is a menu of things we have done that make good sense.
   [[Page S5092]] There are other things that have been done since the 
first of the year that make no sense at all. I want to talk about some 
of them as well. Because there is, it seems to me at least in some 
margins in this public policy debate, a mean-spiritedness, one in which 
people say, ``Well, I won, and what I intend to do now is help my 
friends and I do not care about the rest.''
  Unfortunately, some of those who won have very wealthy and very 
powerful friends, and those friends are getting some very big help.
  We also have in this country some very vulnerable people. We have 
homeless, we have poor, we have people who are down and out, people who 
are suffering, and we have a lot of children who count on us and look 
to us. The fact is too many of these constituencies have been given the 
cold shoulder in the last several months.
  Let me start with a central question of deficits because the Senator 
from Ohio talked about that. I agree with him. I think the Federal 
budget deficit cripples this country's ability to grow, and we must 
deal with it. We had a proposal on the floor of the Senate to amend the 
Constitution to require a balanced budget. In fact, we had two votes on 
an amendment to the Constitution, one of which I voted for, one of 
which I voted against. I did not vote for the one that would loot the 
Social Security trust fund to provide the money to balance the budget 
because I do not believe that is honest budgeting.
  But it is interesting. I noticed yesterday in a publication called 
The Congress Daily that a Member of the Senate, one of leaders in the 
Senate, said that there is a feeling among some Senate Republicans that 
we should not move toward a balanced budget in our budget resolution--
which they are required to bring to the floor--because if we did, we 
would lose steam to move toward a balanced budget amendment in the 
Constitution.
  In other words, if the Senate shows it can achieve a balanced budget 
without changing the Constitution, that would be a problem. I read this 
last evening, and I could not believe anybody could really say that. 
But that's what was said: ``We should not try to balance the budget 
because, if we did, that would take the steam out of the initiative to 
change the Constitution.''
  Now, I ask you. What is the most important thing that we have facing 
us? Balancing the Federal budget or changing the Constitution? 
Balancing the Federal budget. We can do that without changing the 
Constitution.
  The fact is, if we changed the Constitution 2 minutes from now, 3 
minutes from now, we would not have made one penny's worth of 
difference in the deficit. We ought to, with every single budget 
resolution that comes to the floor of this Senate, grit our teeth and 
roll up our sleeves and start doing the heavy lifting that is required 
to balance the budget.
  But this sort of nonsense, saying as some say, that maybe we should 
not move toward a balanced budget with our budget resolution because 
that will take the steam out of this effort to change the Constitution 
is just ridiculous. What on Earth can they be thinking of? How absurd a 
position.
  Well, nothing surprises me much anymore.
  But the cynicism expressed by those who would argue that we should 
not balance the budget because that will take the steam out of our 
effort to change the basic framework of our government, the 
Constitution, is both amazing and appalling to me. It really ranks very 
high up there on the scale of cynicism.
  Our job is to do the work here, not to take the pose.
  So, the first requirement and first job for us is to address this 
budget deficit honestly, because to do that then opens up opportunity 
in the future and economic growth. Failure to do that means that we 
consign this country to slow anemic economic growth, an economic future 
none of us want for our children.
  Even as we do that, I want to say that the job requires spending 
cuts. Yes. It requires significant spending cuts.
  I am always interested in seeing how people characterize spending 
cuts because there is some notion around here that one political party 
wants a lot of spending cuts and the other political party essentially 
does not want any spending cuts.
  It is alleged that one side, the majority side, the Republican side, 
are tigers when it comes to cutting spending. The other side? Gee, they 
just want to spend more.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not a plugged 
nickel's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats in terms 
of how much money they want to spend.
  All you have to do is look at the record, and you can look at the 
record for 15 years. Oh, there is a substantial difference in what they 
want to spend money for, but there is not a plugged nickel's worth of 
difference in how much money they want to spend.
  During the last 15 years, we have had mostly Republican Presidents. 
Congress has spent less than Presidents have requested in their 
budgets. Translated--Republican Presidents have requested more spending 
than Democratic Congresses up until this Congress have actually spent.
  I see the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee is 
on the floor. I have heard him refer to this as well. The question is, 
``Who has the appetite to spend how much money?''
  There is some notion that the Republicans always want to cut 
spending, that they are for less spending and the Democrats are for 
more spending. The record does not show that to be true.
  Yes, there is a difference in how we want to spend money. The 
Republicans always want to pack more money into the defense pipeline. 
They say, ``You cannot spend enough in defense for us.''
  In fact, at a time when we have this massive deficit, at a time when 
the Soviet Union has evaporated and gone, the Republicans are saying 
what we really need to do now is we need to start building star wars 
once again. If we can just resurrect star wars, somehow we will all 
sleep better. America will have a better future.
  The fact is they will resurrect star wars and cut school lunches and 
say Democrats want to restore school lunches so they are big spenders. 
It does not wash. It does not work. The evidence does not demonstrate 
that what is being alleged on the floor of the Senate is true.
  Both sides of the political aisle in the U.S. Senate by and large 
propose about the same measure of public spending. We simply disagree 
on what the money ought to be spent for. That is a legitimate 
disagreement. It is a legitimate disagreement, it seems to me, for one 
side to say we want to cut our revenue base in a way that provides the 
bulk of the benefits to those families who make over $100,000 a year; 
to say, ``We want to increase spending for star wars because we think 
it is necessary for our Nation's defense.'' That is a legitimate thing 
to say and do. I do not happen to agree with it. But certainly it is an 
idea, a bad idea but an idea.
  On the other hand, they would say to us, as we intend to cut taxes, 
the bulk of the benefit of which will go to wealthiest Americans, and 
as we intend to start building a new gold-plated weapons system--which, 
in my judgment, we do not need--they would say, let us now, in order to 
pay for all of this, cut funding for foster care--as they have done--
let us decide that nutrition programs should go to the States in the 
form of block grants, and we will cut the block grants. Then we will 
let the States use 20 percent of the money we have now cut to do 
anything they want to do with, including creating pork projects or 
building roads, having nothing to do with nutrition.
  Then they say, Well, let us cut adult literacy grants for the 
homeless. Let us decide to eliminate funding for summer youth programs. 
Let us decide to end the entitlement or the requirement that poor kids 
ought to get a hot lunch at school. Let us decide, they say, to cut 
1995 funding for financial aid for needy students to attend college. 
Let us decide, they say, to cut legal services to the poor back to 
zero. Let us decide, they propose, to cut 1995 funding for the Healthy 
Start infant mortality initiative.
  This is a country, incidentally, that ranks way down, when you rank 
from best to worst in countries on infant mortality.
  They say, we do not have money here to fund that. Let us cut that 
because we want to go off and build star wars. We want to provide tax 
cuts, much of which will go to the wealthy. And of 
[[Page S5093]] course, my favorite, Let us propose--while we are 
cutting all of these things that would try to give a decent opportunity 
to those who are down and out, to those who are disadvantaged, to those 
who suffer, to those who are unfortunate enough to be young, the 
children in this country,--they say--We don't have enough money to 
respond to that, but maybe we should give them all a laptop computer.
  ``Let us give laptop computers to the poor. That will just sort of 
unleash a whole series of opportunities.'' They actually said that.
  The second prize, it seems to me, goes to the folks who say we should 
get additional revenue for the Federal Government by charging an 
admission fee to tour the U.S. Capitol. I only come from a town of 300, 
but I suspect if you proposed in a town of 300 that you should charge 
somebody to tour a house they own they would laugh you out of town, 
saying you were not thinking straight.
  My point this morning is if we are going to celebrate the first 100 
days, we ought to be look at what is really going on.
  When I started these remarks today, I said that I think there is 
merit in some of the proposals that have been passed by the Congress on 
a bipartisan basis during these first several months. I supported some 
of them because I thought they made a lot of sense.
  Now, some of those proposals, the current majority party filibustered 
against in the last session of Congress and would not allow to be 
passed. But then came this Congress, and they said, ``We want to pass 
them,'' and we joined them and said, ``This makes sense. We supported 
this before and support it now.'' And we passed unfunded mandates, 
congressional accountability, regulatory veto. All of those make sense, 
and I supported them.
  But there is much more to the story than just that.
  The first 100 days, when it is celebrated this week, will be 
accompanied by a chart that shows the first 100 ways as well. The first 
100 days and the first 100 ways in which the majority party in this 
Congress decided to use their power to help their friends, the wealthy 
and the big, powerful, economic interests in the country at the expense 
of a lot of vulnerable Americans.
  Those are exactly the priorities they have exhibited.
  Anybody who thinks that the priorities in this country should be to 
give a big tax break to very, very wealthy Americans so that we can 
justify taking a school lunch entitlement away from a poor kid, or to 
take opportunity away from America's children in dozens of ways--in 
nutrition programs, in education programs, and dozens of other ways--
does not understand there is still a lot of fight left in a lot of us 
who care about what is right for this country.
  This country, and this country's future rests on our ability and our 
willingness to invest in our children. It is that simple. A country 
that turns its back on its children and decides selfishly to provide 
more comfort to the already comfortable is a country that is not 
thinking ahead.
  We have before us in the Senate now a amendment offered by Senator 
Daschle on the rescission package. This is a proposal that is the first 
of a series of proposals that we will offer in this Congress that 
represents our commitment to kids.
  If this country cannot afford to decide to invest in its kids, to 
take care of its children, to care about its children; if we cannot do 
that in a whole range of areas, from school financial aid, to giving 
kids the opportunity to go to college if they do not have any money, to 
school hot lunches to allow poor kids the only hot meal they are going 
to eat during that entire day, to money that protects children against 
family abuse and violence; if we do not have the capability as a 
country to decide that these are our priorities, then this country, in 
my judgment, does not have its heart in the right place.
  I think this country understands what the priority is. The priority 
is our children, because our children are our future. The amendment 
that has been offered by Senator Daschle in this Chamber to the 
underlying legislation talks about these programs: Women, Infants, and 
Children--the WIC program. Anyone who has seen anything or knows 
anything about the WIC program understands it is a program that works.
  I almost hesitate to describe it again because almost everyone should 
know it. But here's how it works. A low-income mother who does not have 
resources and does not have money but is pregnant, is going to have a 
baby. She needs help feeding it, both before it is born and after.
  WIC provides that help.
  We understood a long time ago that if you provide the correct 
nutrients and provide nutritious help to that young mother, she is 
going to have a child that will not have to spend an extra 4, 5, or 10 
days in the hospital because the baby was a low-birthweight baby 
because she was unable to provide needed nutrition to that fetus while 
she was carrying it in her.
  We have discovered that for just a few dollars a month--for only a 
few months--we will save an enormous amount of money and provide an 
opportunity for that poor woman to have a healthy child.
  That is a wonderful program. There is no waste. It is not money. It 
is certificates to buy juice and eggs and specific kinds of nutrients. 
It is one of the best programs the Federal Government has ever offered 
and it saves enormous amounts of money and is very helpful to children.
  The Head Start Program. Gee, I do not think anybody who has toured a 
Head Start center can adequately debate any longer whether that program 
is helpful to children who come from families that are disadvantaged, 
low-income families. You see these young boys and girls at Head Start 
centers getting a head start in circumstances where they would 
otherwise be left behind. You see their mothers and their fathers 
there, some of them, getting an education, also at this Head Start 
center. They are learning about nutrition programs, about hygiene, 
about how to raise children. It is a wonderful program that produces 
enormous rewards.
  We ought to understand by now what works and then invest in it, not 
cut it. We ought not cut the WIC Program--Women, Infants, and Children 
feeding program--or cut Head Start in order to fund a tax cut for some 
of the wealthiest Americans. We ought not to cut Head Start in order to 
fund the Star Wars Program. That does not make any sense to me.
  I could go on, and there are about 10 or 15 similar initiatives that 
we have that I think represent the best in this country, an impulse and 
a determination to make life better for our children, to decide that 
you cannot move ahead as a society by leaving some else behind.
  You just cannot do that. You have to care about people, especially 
the most vulnerable people.
  I started by talking about how we in this Chamber share largely 
similar goals. I think that is true. I think most of us would agree 
that there is a requirement and an incentive in this country that must 
be exhibited to say to people,''You have a responsibility for 
yourselves as well.''
  ``Yes, we are going to help. We will extend a helping hand when you 
are down and out, but you have a responsibility to pull yourself up and 
step up and stand up and create opportunity for yourself.''
  That is true. I understand all that.
  But it is hard to say that to an 8-year-old kid. It is hard to look 
in the eye of a kid, as I did one day, a 9-year-old kid from New York 
City named David, who said to us that it hurts to be hungry. He said, 
``No kid like me should have to lay their head down on their desk at 
school because it hurts to be hungry.'' You cannot look a child like 
that in the eye and say it does not matter.
  These programs do matter. The choices being made here during the 
first 100 days have real consequences in the lives of young children. 
And that is what this debate is about. It is about what are our 
responsibilities and how do we meet those responsibilities.
  I start with the understanding that there is good will on all sides. 
I am not claiming one side is all wrong and one side is all right. In 
fact, I think a lot of new ideas that have been generated and developed 
will advance the interests of this country.
  But there are also some timeless truths that we ought to understand.
   [[Page S5094]] New ideas will never replace the timeless truth that 
we have a responsibility for our children in this country.
  Time and time again this year, some of us will come to this floor to 
talk about our commitment to children, our commitment to our kids, 
because that is a commitment to America's future. But it needs to be 
more than talk.
  If we decide that we do not have adequate resources to invest in our 
children's lives, in our children's opportunities, in our children's 
potential, then this country will never achieve its full potential.
  That is what the debate will be about on the Daschle amendment. It 
will be a debate that will recur and recur and recur throughout this 
year as those of us who believe kids are a priority come to the floor 
to fight for kids and for their future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  

                          ____________________