[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6584-S6586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOOKING AT THE FEDERAL BUDGET
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to say to my colleagues that
the last time I looked at the Federal budget, which has been many times
in the last few days, I did not notice that spending was increasing
significantly in the discretionary domestic side of the budget. I did
not notice that Americans were coming up to any of us and saying to us,
Senator, we have too much drug treatment in America; we ought to cut it
so fewer addicts can get treatment.
I did not notice that a lot of people were coming up and saying, it
is already easy enough for me to send my kid to school, so why not cut
the tax deduction to send our kids to college and make it harder for us
to send our kids to school.
I did not notice people were suggesting that our train system is
comparable to the Japanese or the Germans or the French, and therefore
we ought to be reducing the investment in our railroads.
I did not notice that our colleges and universities were so fat with
money that their laboratories, which are 20 and 30 years old in many
cases, are state of the art and so they do not need additional Federal
funding to increase the science capacity or research of America.
I could run down a long list of things that I do not think Americans
are asking us to cut, but, Mr. President, we are cutting them. We are
cutting them. And I respectfully suggest we are cutting out of this
country the guts of our ability to be able to remain a great country
and guarantee that our kids, who are increasingly growing up in a
vacuum, are going to have the best education system in the world, the
kind of opportunity that we have promised through these years.
We had a period of know-nothingism in America once before, and I am
not sure that we are venturing close to a new period of sort of put
your head in the sand and pretend--pretend that a 15-year-old kid who
has an abusive parent or a drug addict parent and whose other parent is
absent, pretend that that kid, who is already at risk and dropped out
of school, is somehow suddenly going to be saved by cutting access to
the YMCA, YWCA, the Boys and Girls Clubs, Youth Build, the City Years,
the AmeriCorps of this country.
That is what we are doing. The one part of the budget that is
increasing is entitlements. It is the only part of the Federal budget
that is really increasing in real dollars. And the truth is that you
are not going to solve that problem just by whacking away at a fixed
amount of money when more and more Americans are turning 65, more and
more Americans are living longer, and more and more Americans have a
right to expect that they are going to get quality medical care.
What will happen if we just lop off several hundred billion out of
Medicare? Sure, we will cut out some waste. And, yes, some good
entrepreneurs will respond and there will be an increase in managed
care and HMO's, and so forth. But you will take the guts out of
teaching hospitals. You will take the guts out of research and
development. And those things that have provided the United States with
the most extraordinary advanced technology and medical care in the
world will suddenly begin to diminish, just like deferred maintenance
on a building. Sure, we can cut the maintenance today, and we have been
doing that, I might add, in many different sectors. But 5 and 10 years
from now, after 10 years of cuts and deferred maintenance, the
buildings begin to crumble, the bridges begin to fall down, the sewer
systems fall apart, the water treatment facilities are not there.
Mr. President, we have to stop and recognize that there are three
deficits in this country. There is a fiscal deficit, but there is also
an investment deficit, and there is a spiritual deficit. And we are not
going to address the investment deficit, which is critical to dealing
with the spiritual deficit, unless we treat all three of them
simultaneously. And all this budget that we will be presented does is
deal with the fiscal deficit.
What do I mean when I say an investment deficit? Well, Mr. President,
let me give you one example: railroads. The United States is ranked
34th in the world in our investment in our railroads. We are just
behind Ecuador and Bolivia and just ahead of Bangladesh. And there are
only seven countries I think with railroads that are behind us--34th in
the world.
Now, I can tell you that in Boston, in New England, along most of the
eastern seaboard and much of the west coast now, and in other parts of
this country, rail transportation is essential to moving millions of
people to their jobs, taking the burden off of our highways,
and yet, we are disinvesting in those railroads, Mr. President.
France has its TGF, Japan has a bullet train. And instead of thinking
about how we are going to provide millions of jobs for Americans
building an adequate transportation system, we are disinvesting.
No country on this planet has a railroad system that does not have a
subsidy. There is not a country in the world that does not subsidize
its railroad system. And yet the House of Representatives has zeroed
out--zeroed out--money for support of railroads.
Now I can give you dozens of other examples like that. Global climate
change. We do not know all the answers. We know that there is a
phenomenon taking place. We do not have a complete understanding of it.
We need to have an understanding of it, because the consequences could
be cataclysmic. And yet we are cutting that research.
The Coast Guard, the admiral in charge of the Coast Guard told me
they
[[Page S6585]] have a $600 million capital expenditure requirement
just to keep their ships running properly to stay current with the
demand--Cuba, Haiti, fishing enforcement, drug trafficking. But, Mr.
President, we are not providing that money. We have cut significantly
the amount that they need.
Science and research. There is not a public university in this
country that is not struggling to have the capacity to be able to raise
the standards of learning for our children. And yet, we are going to
have a harder time than ever before in providing the wherewithal for
those universities and for those entities to carry on to meet that high
standard.
Mr. President, there are so many examples like this that it defies
the imagination.
The last time I looked, this was a very rich country. And not only is
it a very rich country, but it is a country that is increasingly seeing
a huge division growing between those who have and those who do not.
From 1940 to 1950 to 1960 to 1970, Americans all grew simultaneously,
at every sector of American society. If you were at the lowest quintile
of earnings in America, your income grew in 10 years by 138 percent. If
you were in the next two quintiles from 1940 to 1980, for 40 years, if
you were in those middle two quintiles, you grew at 98, 99 percent over
a 10-year period. And if you were in the top quintile, Mr. President,
you grew at about 98 percent.
In the last 12 years in America, the bottom quintile went down 18
percent, the next quintile went down 4 percent, and the top quintile
went up 105 percent.
Now, while income has become tougher and tougher for the average
American to earn, they have been witnessing the phenomenon of
globalization and technology, where more and more the labor of human
hands and hearts is not applied to work. You have automation, robotics,
artificial intelligence, and technology advancements which are what
provide most of the productivity increases of this country.
It is very clear that America is not going to compete, by and large,
except for niches here and there with low-wage, low-scale jobs.
Increasingly, Americans are being forced into low-wage, low-scale
service sector jobs. And we are not increasing the manufacturing base
of this country in a way that creates the high value-added jobs that
allows an American to earn more money and be able to move up the
ladder.
That, Mr. President, accounts for most of the anger that we feel in
America today; that, coupled with the accompanying disintegration of
families and communities.
Now that gets you to the spiritual deficit.
Mr. President, in 1965, our colleague, Pat Moynihan, warned us about
what happens in America when children are having children out of
wedlock--children born into a single-person family. In 1965, Senator
Moynihan told us of a 27-percent-out-of-wedlock birth rate in the inner
city. He was accused of being a racist. Most of America put its head in
the sand and did not pay much attention.
Today that 27 percent is 80 percent. Thirty-six percent of all
American children are born out of wedlock.
And I ask my colleagues how they think they are going to deal with a
15- or 16-year-old kid who has already dropped out of high school, who
does not relate to their home, who has no organized religion, who does
not have in his or her life any of the normal ingredients of teaching
values--family, church, synagogue, school--how are you going to reach
that 15-year-old in order to prevent that 15-year-old from becoming the
next inhabitant of a $50,000-a-year jail cell?
I am not proposing to my colleagues that Government ought to do it or
that Government is the solution. But I do know that Government can make
a difference in helping to create a framework which will allow those
kids to have a shot. And that framework can be the support that we give
to nonprofit entities, the support that we give to a boys club, a girls
club, support we give to the YouthBuilds, the Americorps and other
efforts that try to intervene where there has been such a total failure
otherwise.
As I listen to my colleagues in the House and elsewhere, they say,
``Well, it is the family's responsibility. Cut it off and people are
going to have to take care of themselves.''
The problem is, Mr. President, that this country already has a track
record of doing that. In the 1920's, 1930's, 1860's, 1870's and 1880's,
we saw what happened when everybody was left to their own devices. That
is when we had sweatshops. That is when we had slums and squalor. That
is when we had no ability to cure half of these things.
The truth is, Mr. President, that over the course of the last years,
in the last 40 years, particularly, in America, we have learned that
some of these interventions truly make a difference in the lives of our
communities and of our kids.
I respectfully suggest that the U.S. Senate, the House, the Congress,
the country, are on their way to creating a clash unlike any we have
ever known before in this country.
The summer job money has been cut. Let me ask you: What are those
kids going to do this summer in the heat of New York City or Los
Angeles or Detroit or Chicago or Boston when they have no job? The
Government said, ``We don't care. We're taking the money away. Go fend
for yourself.''
But we all know that the economy, historically, carries 6 percent
unemployment or more. So even though we, the leadership, know that
America is going to have at least 6 percent of its country unemployed,
are we still going to say, ``Go take care of yourself,'' and cut them
off? What are they going to do?
So I think, Mr. President, we are heading for a cropper. I remember
the 1960's, when I came back from Vietnam. I can remember people out in
the streets with guns. I remember cars being overturned. I remember
bombs. I remember firestorms of automobiles burning. I respectfully
suggest that we better stop and think carefully about the consequences
of the steps we take and the choices we make.
Those children that Pat Moynihan talked about in 1965 turned 15 and
16 in 1980. All you have to do is go and look at the increase of
juvenile violence in America in 1980, and you can begin to project what
those children born today in the 80-percent category are going to do in
the year 2010 when they turn 15 and 16.
The increase of murder among juveniles is up 250, 260 percent. There
were 29,000 juveniles murdered in America in the last 10 years, and
4,000 juveniles are currently under arrest charged with murder. The
highest level of murders in America today are juveniles between the
ages of 14 and 25 who are murdering other juveniles between the ages of
14 and 25.
I absolutely guarantee you, it is inescapable, unavoidable,
incontrovertible that if you have a kid born today in a country that is
providing less work, in a country where information and education are
more important to your ability to work than ever before, in a country
where it will be harder for these kids to get that education, not
easier, there is an absolute predictability to what those kids will be
like 15 and 16 years from today.
Mr. President, I used to prosecute some of those kids. I used to be a
prosecutor, and I talked to some of them back then. It was OK, you
could have a conversation and you could learn something about what they
felt and about their anger. In the last 2 years, I have spent time
going to some of the at-risk programs that we are now running, which
are the last link between these kids and total loss. I have never, ever
in my life heard such a level of anger that is without explanation.
They cannot explain it to you. They do not know where it is coming
from. But you can hear those kids talk about being runaways in Florida
or New York, about how they left their families at age 10, 11, 12.
Mr. President, do you know that the median age of handgun ownership,
or gun ownership, in America today, the median age of first-time gun
ownership is 12\1/2\ years old?
So as we think about the budget choices that we are going to face
over the course of this next 1\1/2\ or 2 weeks, it is my prayer that we
are not going to put our heads in the sand and ignore the other two
deficits this country faces: The investment deficit and the spiritual
deficit.
[[Page S6586]] In the end, I have no question that Government is not
even the right entity to ``deal with the spiritual'' or attempt to. But
Government needs to understand the connection with those entities that
should be doing it, or can be doing it, and their capacity to do it, in
the world that we are creating.
Government needs to be an empowerer of the local community to reach
these children. For example, in Brockton, MA, there is a Boys and Girls
Club, but only 10 percent of the kids in that community get access to
that club. Simple question: What happens to the other 90 percent of
those kids? They are out on the streets, nobody is there, there is no
connection.
That is our responsibility, it seems to me, to try to empower the
communities to be able to help create the civic reaction that will
begin to deal with these children. And the ultimate response will come
from churches and synagogues, spiritual organizations, nonprofit
agencies, schools, and parents, but you have to have a place to begin.
You have to start somewhere. It seems to me, that if you have a kid
sitting in front of you who is 12 or 13 years old and they are already
dabbling in drugs, and they are already in trouble at home, and they
are already disconnected to the school, we have a fundamental choice:
Are we going to turn our back on that kid and cut that kid off, or are
we going to try to channel that child toward some group or organization
that will bring the child in, embrace the child with a notion that the
child has a stake in the community and the community cares? I think
this budget is draconian with respect to those efforts. I am not sure
how in the next days, given the choices we have, we are going to fix
it.
Mr. President, none of what I am saying should be interpreted to mask
over the deficit that we do face on the fiscal side. I am prepared to
make tough choices about cuts that we ought to make and even reordering
priorities to try to balance the budget, which I think we ought to do.
But nobody has ever convinced me of why we absolutely have to do that
in 6 years versus 8 or versus 10 years. Nobody has convinced me that
there is some economic virtue in picking a target date that is so
arbitrary that may wind up cutting capacity to meet other needs that we
have.
One other point, Mr. President. Increasingly in America, we are
seeing the cash economy of this country grow. It is now, I am told,
about a $600 billion economy. That means that we are losing annually
about $100 billion of revenue because people just choose not to pay
taxes. In fact, as a nation, we have gone from voluntary compliance in
our income tax of 96 percent down to 81 percent. Each loss of a point
of voluntary compliance is the loss of $5 billion of revenue. So your
good taxpaying, hard-working family that is earning $25,000, $30,000 a
year and paying their taxes is slugging it out to make ends meet, to
pay for fire, police, schools, roads, everything we do, while an
increasing number of American citizens are getting away with not paying
their taxes.
We have a choice. I read in the newspaper the other day that we are
going to have a new thing called a lifestyle audit, and people in
America are now going to be able to anticipate the IRS jumping into
their driveways and asking them why there is a certain kind of car in
their driveway, how they manage to go ski somewhere, what their
vacation style is, why they eat at certain restaurants, and that is the
way we are going to supposedly enforce the Tax Code. I do not think
Americans are going to tolerate an IRS gestapo-like entity of people
intrusively moving into their lives.
So, Mr. President, if we are really going to make this system work
and recapture that cash economy, we have to talk about changing the tax
structure of this country and moving away from a dependency on income
and into consumption where it is the only place that you can begin to
shift to a reflection of what the cash transaction is while
simultaneously, I think, increasing people's savings and moving in a
new direction.
Mr. President, I see that the manager of the bill is on his feet. If
he has an amendment, I am prepared to conclude.
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, Mr. President, we have a couple of amendments we
would like to have accepted, then the Senator is free to continue.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what I would like to do--the Senator from
Wisconsin has been waiting patiently. I talked longer than I told him I
intended to--I will just conclude my comments. I will have more to say
on this in the course of the next weeks. But I believe we are at a
crossroads, and I think that the choices that I have outlined are only
a few of the choices. But we cannot look at the needs of this country
exclusively in terms of an arbitrary approach to the deficit reduction.
We have to look at the other two deficits that the Nation faces.
There is such a thing as investment, and there is such a thing as a
return on investment, and there is such a thing as multiples of return
on investment. I think that most people in the Senate understand that.
The question is whether or not we are going to make those wise
judgments.
I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his patience, and I thank the
distinguished managers for their courtesy. I yield the floor.
____________________