[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4995-S4996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE DEFICIT
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to the
Senator from Iowa's speech, as I have listened virtually to every
member of the Republican Party of the Senate who has consistently
lamented the deficit-reduction package of 1993. I did not enjoy voting
to raise taxes in 1993 any more than I enjoyed cutting spending in
1993. But to set the record straight, that deficit-reduction package
was intended to reduce the deficit compared to what it would otherwise
be, by $500 billion over a period of 5 years.
It was a very dramatic time in the Senate. Fifty Democrats voted aye.
Every single Republican voted no. And Vice President Gore, who was
seated in the chair that day, voted aye and broke the tie. And so the
$500 billion deficit-reduction package became law. At least two
Senators on this side of the aisle lost their reelection campaigns
because they voted aye, a very courageous and responsible vote.
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that rather than
produce $500 billion in savings, but because interest rates came down
as a result of that package and because economic activity went up, the
1993 Clinton budget bill will actually reduce the deficit by $800
billion over the same 5-year period, 1993 to 1998.
So I ask my Republican colleagues who find that deficit-reduction
bill passed by 50 very courageous Democrats in 1993, I ask them to tell
all Americans as we start to work on the budget tomorrow, where you
would get that $800 billion if we had not acted so responsibly?
The budget we will debate tomorrow, which I have absolutely no
intention of voting for, again, has substantial cuts in Medicare and
Medicaid, and--listen to this--a $60 billion cut in education over the
next 6 years.
Who gets the money? Why, the Republican budget provides for an $11.3
billion increase next year alone in defense spending. Now, Mr.
President, for the edification of anybody who cares, out of a roughly
$1.7 trillion budget, less than one-third of that is for what we call
domestic discretionary spending--education; the environment; medical
research; medical care and a whole host of other things.
Mr. President, $515 billion is provided for discretionary spending,
but defense gets the bulk of that, including a nice, handsome $11-plus
billion increase, and everything else that makes us a great country
worth defending goes down. The environment, including funding for EPA's
enforcement, takes a whopping hit. In 1970, 65 percent of the lakes and
streams in this country were neither swimmable nor fishable. In 1995,
65 percent of the lakes and streams in this Nation are swimmable and
are fishable because EPA, through their enforcement acts, made people
quit dumping their sewage into the rivers and streams and made the soap
manufacturers come up with cleaner soaps without chemicals in them.
How does the Republican budget respond to that kind of progress? Why,
they cut EPA's enforcement because they argue the business community
just cannot take it. I am the first to admit that some regulations are
crazy and do not make sense. But nobody, Republican or Democrat alike,
in their heart of hearts wants to turn the clock back on cleaning up
the lakes and streams of this Nation, or polluting the air we breathe,
which is much, much cleaner now, principally because we made the
automobile industry put catalytic converters in their cars.
So when the Republicans talk about that big tax hike in 1993, what is
their answer? Maybe in their heart of hearts they are feeling a little
badly about having voted against cutting the deficit by an honest-to-
God $800 billion--not over 7 years; over a 5-year period. What is their
answer to it? Cut the gasoline tax 4.3 cents. I thought my good
colleague from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, had a great line. That is
like spitting in the ocean and trying to make it rise.
The gas tax did not cause the gasoline price increase and it is not
going to contribute to reducing it. It will go into the pockets of the
oil companies. Everybody says that by October, gas prices will be back
where they started from and we will be sitting here with $3 billion
added to the deficit.
What is it with the Republicans? They will not vote for deficit
reduction, they keep on increasing defense spending, they keep wanting
to repeal the gas tax. And their budget has an enormous billion tax
cut. I am not voting for any tax cuts until we get the deficit under
control.
You know what is really paradoxical about the proposed tax cut that
gives families a credit for each child? Listen to this: Six to nine
million people in this country work for anywhere from $4.25 an hour to
$6 and $7 an hour, 6 to 9 million of them. We give them a little check
at the end of the year called the earned income tax credit because we
believe that is preferable to their quitting work and going on welfare.
So we say we will give you up to $2,800 at the end of the year if you
will just stay on the job. That is a lot cheaper than $9,000 a year on
welfare. It is a good investment for us.
What does the Republican budget do? It cuts investment tax credit by
approximately $20 billion. What does this mean to the 6 to 9 million
people who are working for essentially minimum
[[Page S4996]]
wages, up to $7 an hour? Effectively, they get a tax increase because
the earned income tax credit has been cut.
Do you know what else is really ironic about it? Those people do not
pay taxes. They do not make enough to pay taxes. So you know what? They
do not get a child tax credit. They are getting a tax increase by
cutting the earned-income tax credit, and they get nothing to offset it
because it is only if you pay taxes that you can offset the tax cut for
each child.
What kind of lunacy is this? What do the American people expect from
us? They expect a little decency and they expect fairness.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BUMPERS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first, I want to say to the Senator from
Arkansas, thank you for coming to the floor today and talking to us and
to whoever is watching here. As the Senator has a way of doing, he
finds the truth. He finds the truth in all of this. The truth that he
pointed out--and then I will ask a question--when you get through with
this Republican budget, what you realize is that it hurts the people of
this country. It hurts the hardest working people of this country. We
will bring that out in the next few days.
The question I want to ask the Senator is this: We know when the
Government shut down and we had that crisis, it was because the
President of the United States stood up and said to this Republican
Congress, ``I'm not going to back down. I'm going to stand up for
Medicare and the elderly who rely on it. I'm going to stand up for
Medicaid and the poorest children who rely on it, and the poorest
seniors in nursing homes who rely on it.'' He was going to stand up,
and he did, for the environment and for education.
I say to my friend, has he looked at this Republican budget that they
have just unveiled with great fanfare, and that budget which the
President vetoed, and does he see similarities between the two?
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to proceed for 4 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say to the Senator from California, this question
reminds me of something Franklin Roosevelt said. My father taught us
when we died we were going to Franklin Roosevelt's. He was the only one
who ever did anything for us.
This budget is a manifestation of almost total disdain for people
trying to reach for the first rung on the ladder. It is protectionism
at its worst of those who have much. Franklin Roosevelt once said, and
I know the Senator is familiar with the quote, ``The groans of the full
pocketbooks of the wealthy are louder than the churning of the empty
stomachs of hungry people.'' That is not so true now as it was during
the Depression, but the principle in this budget is the same.
You think about cutting education $60 billion. You think of how many
children will not be educated as a result of that. I have said time and
time again if it had not been for the GI bill waiting for me when I got
out of the service, I would not be standing here right now.
And that applies to millions and millions of people. There was a very
poignant story in the Post this morning about a woman who said, ``I
wouldn't be in this position if it hadn't been for student loans and
student grants.'' So what are we doing? We are cutting education $60
billion. Everybody wants clear air and clean water. So what are we
doing? Cutting the environment. Nobody wants to see a child go without
health care. So we are cutting Medicaid. I could go on and on. But I
find this budget almost identical to the budget we debated last year--
--
Mrs. BOXER. That is right.
Mr. BUMPERS. The one followed by a reconciliation which the President
had the good sense and the courage to veto. Had he not vetoed it, we
would be on our way to third-world status right now. That is how bad I
felt it was.
Mr. President, I know my time has about expired. Every time I think
of the fact that two of my very best friends and best Senators in the
U.S. Senate lost their seats because they cast a very courageous vote
here in 1993, it makes me sad.
So, Mr. President, there are going to be a limited number of
amendments. I have a number that I wish I could offer on the budget,
but I know time constraints will not permit that. However, I will offer
a few. One amendment would keep the U.S. Government from selling assets
to balance the budget. Think about selling the power marketing systems.
Think about selling the Elk Hills Petroleum Reserve. Sell everything.
What do you do for an encore when everything is gone?
A woman once said her husband came home from the law office and said,
``I had a great day today.'' She said, ``What happened?'' He said, ``I
sold my desk.'' That is what we are doing in this budget. I am not
going to vote for it. I am going to vigorously speak against it, and
there will be 53 Republicans that will vote for it. We are starting
down the same road we just left.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
____________________