[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 83 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5964-S5968]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        REPUBLICAN GRANDCHILDREN

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have listened this morning to some of 
the discussion on the floor of the Senate. I felt I needed to come over 
and speak, at least for historical records, speak to the Republican 
grandchildren a bit, because the Republican grandchildren have been 
spoken to on the floor of the Senate about a range of issues. They have 
been described on the floor of the Senate as victims of legislative 
problems created this week by a vote on the constitutional amendment to 
balance the budget.
  All grandchildren are affected by what happens in these Chambers, in 
the Chambers of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. Grandchildren will 
ask the tough questions in the years ahead about the country in which 
they live, the country in which they are growing up. They might ask 
some questions about what has made this a wonderful place. There are 
some who simply cannot concede this is a worthy place to live. They 
talk about how awful America is. America has gone to hell in a 
handbasket, they say. America has gone to the dogs.
  It is interesting, we have people talking about building fences to 
keep people out of America because we have so many people who want to 
come here. This country is a remarkable place, with enormous 
challenges, to be sure. We have faced challenges before. We faced a 
Civil War and survived it and came back together. We faced the threat 
of Adolph Hitler. We faced the threat of a depression. We have survived 
all of those threats and all of those challenges. Do we have challenges 
now? Of course; enormous challenges, substantial challenges. But is 
this a remarkable, wonderful country that the rest of the world looks 
up to, the rest of the world wants to come to? Of course it is.

[[Page S5965]]

  At the turn of the century, if you were living in America, you 
expected to live 48 years. That was the lifespan. Now, at the end of 
the century, you are expected, as an American, to live approximately 78 
years. What accounts for that? A number of things. I have spoken 
previously about some of them, but let me just describe a few again, at 
the risk of being repetitious. Our grandchildren and the Republican 
grandchildren will read the history of these, of course.
  The history is well documented of one thing that makes this a better 
country in which to live, one of the reasons we are living longer. 
Upton Sinclair did the research at the turn of the century and wrote a 
book about it. He did the research in the meatpacking plants in our 
country, in Chicago, and discovered in the meatpacking plants they had 
problems with rats. How did they deal with the problems of rats in 
meatpacking plants? Well they took loaves of bread and would lace the 
slices of bread with arsenic and poison, and lay them around the 
meatpacking plants and the rats would eat the bread and the rats would 
die and the dead rats and meat would all go down the same chute and 
come out the other end as something called mystery sausage and be sold 
in the supermarkets. Upton Sinclair wrote his book about what he found 
in the meatpacking plants and, guess what, the American people said, we 
want to be assured we are eating safe products. And guess what, the 
American Congress said we are going to make sure when meat is processed 
in this country it will be inspected. We are going to make sure we are 
not pushing meat and dead rats down the same chute and pushing it out 
of the plant and selling it to the American people.

  A step forward? Sure. Government intervention? You bet, at the turn 
of the century, saying this country deserves to have a safe supply of 
food.
  That is one thing that has made this a little better place. There are 
thousands of others. We constructed, some long while ago in this 
country, something called the National Institutes of Health and also 
created something called Medicare. The combination of funding in 
Medicare and the funding of research in the National Institutes of 
Health and the genius of some health care professionals around this 
country have created breathtaking technology that saves people's lives.
  It allows people to live longer. People who get old and have trouble 
with their knees now get new knees. When they have trouble with their 
hips, they get new hips. When they have trouble seeing, cataract 
surgery. When their heart blood vessels get plugged up, they get open 
heart surgery. So we live longer and it costs more. But it comes about 
because of these breathtaking changes in health care, most of which 
came as a result of investment by, yes, this Senate, this Congress, the 
American people, saying we want to make life better for people in this 
country.
  I could go through a litany of things that have changed to make 
things better, but I will not go through the whole list. I want to say, 
as you fast-forward to a point in time at which we face these enormous 
challenges, but at a time in which Americans are living to an average 
age of about 78 years, a time in which, after 20 years, when we have 
doubled our use of energy in the last 20 years we have cleaner air and 
cleaner water--why? Why would we have cleaner air and cleaner water 
when we have doubled our use of energy in the last 20 years? Because 
the Congress said to polluters: ``You are not going to be able to 
pollute anymore. You're going to pay a penalty if you pollute. We 
demand on behalf of our kids and grandkids that we have clean air and 
clean water in our country.''

  Is it perfect? No, but would anyone 21 years ago have predicted if we 
doubled our use of energy we would have cleaner air and cleaner water? 
No one would have predicted that. It has happened. Why? Because the 
Congress said to those who were polluting America's air and water, 
``You can't do it anymore.''
  Interference? Regulation? Yes. Are some people angry about it? Yes. 
Some of the largest polluters in our country are angry about it. In 
fact, they have office space over in the House of Representatives.
  The majority party in the House said to those folks, ``You all come 
in here and help us write new regulations that allow you to pollute. 
Let's retract what we have done on clean air and water regulations. We 
want to give you more freedom to pollute.''
  It is called Project Relief by the majority party. Thank God for the 
U.S. Senate that it has not gotten its way through this Congress, 
because some of us here value clean air and clean water.
  I said I wanted to, for historical purposes, speak as well to 
Republican grandchildren, because we heard this morning about the 
burdens of Republican grandchildren.
  Some grandchild is going to be asking grandpa some day on that side 
of the aisle: ``Grandpa, I read in the books that the Social Security 
system was actually collecting enough money for Social Security; in 
fact, collecting more money than was needed in the late 1990's and the 
early 2000's, and yet, why isn't there money available for Social 
Security now when I reach retirement age?''
  And that Republican grandpa or grandma, if he or she served in the 
Senate, would probably have to say: ``Well, Grandson, that's because we 
decided that we would take that money that we promised we would save 
for Social Security and we would use it over here for something else. 
We wanted to say we balanced the budget, and we also wanted to build a 
star wars project and we wanted to provide tax breaks and we wanted to 
give fairly significant tax cuts, half of which would go to people 
whose incomes are over $100,000 a year, and we couldn't do all that 
unless we took the Social Security money and used it over here as 
operating budget revenues so we could claim we balanced the budget. So, 
Grandson, in short, those were our priorities.''
  Maybe they would say, ``Grandad, what happened to the jobs? I went to 
school, I got my college degree and, Grandad, I don't understand, 
there's not a good job here.''
  Maybe the grandad would say: ``Well, you know what happened to us is 
we felt we needed to help big business when we were in Congress. So 
what we decided to do is provide a big, juicy tax break to businesses 
who would move their jobs from the United States overseas.''
  And they are going to say: ``Grandad, that doesn't make any sense, 
why would you do that? Why would you encourage people to move jobs out 
of the country? You knew I was in your family, you knew I was going to 
go through the school system, you knew I was going to need a job some 
day. Why would you encourage corporations to move American jobs 
overseas?''
  ``Well, that's just our philosophy,'' they would say, ``because we 
think the big, big corporations are what make the world tick. It is our 
trickle-down/supply-side notion: If you make the big bigger and the 
rich richer, somehow everybody else would be better off. So we gave tax 
breaks to companies who would move jobs overseas.''

  I have a hunch some of these grandkids who were discussed earlier 
this morning on the other side of the aisle are going to be enormously 
puzzled.
  They might look at the Record here--because we were told that the 
majority party had offered a balanced budget and were upset the 
President vetoed it--they might look at the Record and they would say: 
``But, dad, I don't understand. I looked at the Record, and you know 
what you all did? What you all did was you took a little program called 
the Star Schools Program, which was designed to target investments in 
math and sciences and certain star schools to enhance America's 
education system, and you slashed that at the same time that you said 
you needed to increase, by over 100 percent, a star wars program. Why 
was star wars more important than star schools?''
  So the father is going to explain to the son or daughter that choice.
  ``But, grandpa, what about the Head Start Program? Didn't all the 
evidence suggest the Head Start Program really did work where you make 
available to a 3- or 4-year-old child who comes from a low-income, 
disadvantaged family the opportunity to go into a Head Start Program? 
Didn't all the evidence show that that investment in that 3- and 4-
year-old produced enormous rewards, enormous returns?''
  ``Yes; yes, they did.''
  ``Well, then, why did you tell 60,000 children that they were no 
longer

[[Page S5966]]

going to be eligible for Head Start? If that was a good program, why 
did you tell 60,000 kids that they don't matter, that star wars was 
more important, or a tax break to a company that was going to move 
their jobs overseas was more important?''
  Or maybe they will read the Record and they will say, ``Well, 
grandma, I was reading about that budget debate you all had, and the 
one thing I don't understand is with all the problems you had with kids 
and youth crime, you cut 600,000 summer jobs for disadvantaged youth. 
Why would you do that? Why would you believe that summer work for 
disadvantaged youth somehow was not in this country's interest?''
  And they are going to have to explain that, I guess.
  But mostly they are going to have to explain, it seems to me, the 
contradiction between their assertion that their demand that they 
change the Constitution now in a way that misuses Social Security funds 
followed by an agenda that immediately brings to the floor a program 
that will cost up to $60 billion more to create a star wars program, 
immediately bring to the floor a proposal that will cut gas taxes some 
$30-some billion in 7 years, a proposal that will substantially cut 
taxes somewhere in the $180 to $200 billion range, much of which will 
go to upper income people, they are going to have to answer as to how 
that adds up. How does all that add up so that those children can 
understand that this was a menu that made sense, and, of course, it is 
going to be hard for any child to understand that because this does not 
make sense.
  I want to reinforce this, not with my words, but I would like to 
reinforce it by quoting some others.
  David Gergen, who worked for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill 
Clinton, writes the following, speaking of the Republican majority:

       In their eagerness to satisfy one principle, fiscal 
     responsibility, the Republicans would ask the country to 
     abandon another, equally vital principle--fair play. This is 
     a false, cruel choice we should not make.
       When Bill Clinton achieved large deficit reductions--

  And they have been reduced substantially--

     we pursued the idea of shared sacrifice. Not this time. 
     Instead, Congress now seems intent on imposing new burdens on 
     the poor, the elderly and vulnerable children, while, 
     incredibly, delivering a windfall for the wealthy.
       Proposals passed by the House and Senate would rip gaping 
     holes in the Nation's safety net, already low by the 
     standards of advanced nations and once considered sacrosanct.

  This from a fellow who has worked for both Republican and Democratic 
Presidents.
  Another quote from David Gergen:

       U.S. News reported last week the lowest 20 percent of the 
     population would lose more income under these spending cuts 
     than the rest of the population combined. At the other end, 
     the highest 20 percent would gain more from the tax cuts than 
     everyone else combined.
       No one disputes the basic contention that the burdens of 
     benefits are lopsided. In a nation divided dangerously into 
     haves and have-nots, this is neither wise nor justified.

  Let me describe what he is saying, because I think it is important. 
Consider this room is the United States and then say, ``All right, the 
20 percent of you with the lowest incomes, you move your chairs over 
here,'' so we have the 20 percent with the lowest incomes sitting on 
this side of the room.
  ``Now we have a deal for you. You're going to have 80 percent of the 
burden of all the spending cuts. You 20 percent with the highest 
incomes, you all move your chairs to this side of the room, and we have 
something that is going to make you smile, because you are going to get 
80 percent of our tax cuts.''
  That is the problem with this agenda.
  Let me quote extensively from someone who has not worked with both 
Democrats and Republicans. This is a Republican, Kevin Phillips, a 
Republican political analyst, who has written extensively on economic 
issues, written a couple wonderful books.
  He speaks of this agenda:

       Remember, at the same time as the Republicans proposed to 
     reduce Medicare spending by $270 billion over 7 years, they 
     want to cut taxes for corporations, investors, and affluent 
     families by $245 billion over the same period. This is no 
     coincidence.

  Kevin Phillips, a Republican political analyst.
  Kevin Phillips:

       Today's Republicans see federal Medicare outlays to old 
     people as a treasure chest of gold for partial redirection in 
     their favorite directions; towards tax cuts for deserving 
     corporations, families, and individuals.

  Again, Kevin Phillips, a Republican analyst:

       Further, [Kevin Phillips says] the revolutionary ideology 
     driving the new Republican Medicare proposal is also simple. 
     Cut middle-class programs as much as possible and give the 
     money back to private-sector businesses, finance and high-
     income taxpayers.

  Not a Democrat speaking; Kevin Phillips, a Republican analyst.
  Again, Kevin Phillips:

       If the budget deficit were really a national crisis instead 
     of a pretext for fiscal favoritism and finagling, we'd be 
     talking about shared sacrifice with business, Wall Street and 
     the rich, the people who have the biggest money making the 
     biggest sacrifice. Instead, it's the senior citizens, the 
     poor, the students and ordinary Americans who'll see programs 
     they depend on gutted, while business, finance and the 
     richest one or two percent, far from making sacrifices, 
     actually get new benefits and tax reductions.

  Again Republican political analyst Kevin Phillips:

       If the U.S. budget deficit problem does represent the 
     fiscal equivalent of war--maybe it does--then what we are 
     really looking at is one of the most flagrant examples of war 
     profiteering this century has seen.

  I know these are controversial and very strong, assertive 
statements--not from a Democrat--from a Republican political analyst 
about the Republican agenda.
  Kevin Phillips again:

       Spending on Government programs, from Medicare and 
     education to home heating oil assistance, is to be reduced in 
     ways that principally burden the poor and middle class, while 
     simultaneously taxes are to be cut in ways that predominantly 
     benefit the top one or two percent of the Americans.

  Finally--Kevin Phillips--this is the last quote I will use from him. 
But as you can see, this Republican analyst has had a very harsh view 
of the Republican agenda.

       In short [he says] aid to dependent grandmothers, children, 
     college students and city dwellers is to be slashed, while 
     aid to dependent corporations, stock brokers and general and 
     assorted James Bond imitators survives or even grows.

  Then William Kristol, who is the contemporary philosopher behind the 
Republican agenda these days, at least the principal spokesperson on 
television.

       Someone needs to stand up [he says] and defend 
     the establishment: In the last couple weeks, there's been 
     too much pseudopop- 
     ulism, almost too much concern and attention for the, quote, 
     the people--that is, the people's will, their prejudices, 
     their foolish opinions. In a certain sense, we're all paying 
     the price for that now. . . After all, we conservatives are 
     on the side of the lords and barons.

  William Kristol.
  I would not even bother to come to the floor today except I sat and 
watched almost 2 hours of the other side saying, ``Gee, our agenda's 
right for America. We have the right menu. We're doing the right thing. 
It's a bunch of other slothful people around here who can't get their 
acts straight. It's people who have changed their mind, people who 
won't stand and support a balanced budget.''
  I have heard almost more of that than we care to hear from people who 
say they want to change the Constitution but whose every action on the 
floor of the Senate is that they want to spend more money.
  I say this to them, those who spoke this morning and others, when you 
come to the floor of the Senate next week, if it is a defense 
authorization bill you bring to the floor of the Senate next week--I 
think it probably will be; we have not yet been informed--if it is, and 
if you are intending to spend, I believe, between $11 and $13 billion--
I think $11 billion more than the Pentagon asked you the spend--would 
you also come to the floor of the Senate and tell the American people 
who you want to tax for the extra $11 billion? Who is going to pay the 
extra $11 billion? Why, do you think generals do not know enough about 
how many trucks they want to buy?
  You say, we want to buy more trucks than the generals ask for, buy 
more ships than the generals ask for, more airplanes than the generals 
need. Last year you did the same thing. You said the Defense Department 
did not know enough. We insist on buying more submarines, trucks, 
ships, and planes than the Pentagon wants, needs or asks for.

[[Page S5967]]

  I just encourage this: If you say you are for balancing the budget, 
the place to balance the budget is in individual spending decisions 
here on the floor of the Senate, not in the Constitution. If in the 
next piece of legislation that comes to the floor of the Senate, you 
have decided that the Pentagon needs to spend more money than they have 
asked to spend, tell us who is going to pay for that. How much are you 
going to increase the debt to accommodate that?
  Then when the next bill comes following that, which you say is not 
star wars, but which in fact is a new $60 billion program--the 
Congressional Budget Office says $30 to $60 billion-- you show me a 
program that comes in at the low end, I will show you every program 
that comes out in the high end. When you bring the next one on the 
floor to spend $60 billion on a new star wars program, you tell us, 
again, how much you favor a balanced budget and you tell us who you 
intend to have pay for that. Or do you intend to charge that?
  I do not have today the charts that show the budgets that were 
submitted by President Reagan and President Bush in 12 years. But I 
will bring that to the floor at some point because the implication of 
the debate on the floor of the Senate is that somehow it is the 
Democrats that want to spend money. No one has asked for more deficits, 
no one has requested higher deficits in the history of this country 
than the combination of Ronald Reagan and George Bush in the budgets 
they have asked for Congress to pass. No one.

  I am not talking about accidents. I am talking about deliberate 
requests, asking Congress for budgets that create deficits that have 
been the highest in the history of this country. I will bring those to 
the floor and demonstrate that. So it is not a case where one party is 
all right and one party is all wrong. The only reason I stand to 
respond to 2 hours of constant finger pointing is that people need to 
understand that what the Republicans have complained about this morning 
is they have not been able to get their agenda through the Congress 
because this President has vetoed an agenda that their own Republican 
colleagues and their own Republican authorities have said is a terrible 
agenda. It is, take from the have-nots and give to the haves. Some of 
us are unwilling to go along with that. I know that that forces some of 
you to complain.
  So I come to the floor to say it is not the way you suggested. It is 
not a case where you can point fingers across the aisle and say, 
``They're at fault. They're responsible.'' We have plenty of blame on 
our side of the aisle. Democrats have plenty of blame to spread around 
on our side of the aisle.
  Let me take some credit for being part of a party that says, we want 
to build a Medicare program in this country, and we did it. No thanks 
to some people who are still bragging they voted against it. Medicare 
has made this a better country and a better life for a lot of people in 
this country. I am proud to be a part of a party with a legacy that is 
a wonderful legacy that has made life better in this country.
  But we also have some responsibility. We have created too many 
programs. I do not disagree with that. We have been concerned about 
solving problems. Sometimes we create a program that we think will 
solve a problem, and it does not work. We have not, in my judgment, 
been aggressive enough in getting rid of those programs.
  But I do not believe the record will show that those this morning, 
who spend 2 hours pointing fingers, are going to come to the floor of 
the Senate in the next couple weeks with a menu of proposals that 
really balances the budget, especially without misusing the Social 
Security trust funds. They are going to come instead to the floor of 
the Senate with proposals to increase Federal spending, increase 
Federal spending on a star wars program and increase Federal spending 
on defense programs. They will make a case where it is necessary. I 
will not discredit them for doing it. They have every right to do that. 
I will not question their motives. I will not discredit them. We 
disagree on the agenda. I will not discredit them.

  If you are going to propose new spending programs, you have a 
responsibility to tell us who will pay for it. The majority leader was 
asked at a press conference in the last week, when they propose this 
so-called star wars program, how much will it cost and who will pay for 
it? The answer was, ``We will leave that to the experts.'' That is the 
kind of answer that has given us the debt that we have and the deficit 
that we have in this country.
  I want to make one additional point, and then I know my colleague 
from Kentucky wishes to say a few words.
  We have $21 trillion in debt in this country. I heard one person 
today say, ``I started a business and I had to balance my budget.'' I 
bet--and I do not know anything about that person's business--I bet 
$1,000 that person started that business with debt, had debt financing. 
How many people in here paid cash for their house? How many people 
bought a car with cash?
  Mr. President, $21 trillion in debt in this country, almost $5 
trillion in corporate business debt, $4.3 trillion in household debt, 
including home mortgages, a little over $5 trillion in Federal debt. Is 
the Federal debt too high? You are darn right--far too high. Do we need 
to do something? You bet. This is a very serious problem. But what you 
do to solve the deficit problem is what we started doing in 1993 and we 
did not get one vote for it on the other side of the aisle. We cut 
spending in a real way, and we increased taxes.
  I understand, some people would not increase a tax under any 
condition, even if their kid did not get education. They say, ``I am 
against taxes.'' I am perfectly willing and was willing in 1993 to vote 
for a piece of legislation that substantially cut the Federal deficit. 
Yes, it increased the 4.3-cent gas tax. I did not like that. I would 
have preferred we not do that. I am glad I voted for it because it 
reduced the deficit substantially.
  That deficit has been coming down, way down, and I am glad we did 
what we did. We did not even get one vote on the other side of the 
aisle by those who try to reach 10 feet in height and crow about how 
much they want to reduce the deficit. They care so much they want to 
enshrine in the Constitution of the United States a practice taking 
trust funds from the Social Security trust fund and use them over here 
to balance the budget.
  Let me finish with this point. I heard this morning, again, that they 
have passed a balanced budget and sent it to the President. I would 
like one Member of the majority party to explain this chart to me--just 
one, just once. One Member explain it just once.
  This is the chart that you say is a balanced budget. Mr. President, 
$108 billion in deficits in the year 2002. Either you balanced the 
budget or you did not. If you did not, why do you call it a balanced 
budget? If you did, why is $108 billion here?
  Now, I see our friend from Wyoming has entered the Chamber, and we 
will probably have a discussion about Social Security, which I am 
delighted to have because we have not had an opportunity previously to 
have any substantial time on the floor to address the issue. I hope 
maybe we will today because I have a fair amount of time and a fair 
amount of interest. I say at the start that I do not discredit his 
motives at all, but we have a deep disagreement about a vote I cast, to 
say to people you pay higher payroll taxes, you pay higher payroll 
taxes, and those payroll taxes will be dedicated to paying for Social 
Security. The fact is, you will enshrine in the Constitution a 
requirement they be used in the operating budget.

  I know the Senator from Kentucky wants to say a few words first, and 
I would like to let him speak. I do not have any place to go. I am 
happy to have a discussion with the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Briefly, but I would like to yield to the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. INHOFE. One quick question. Earlier today I quoted you. Did I 
inaccurately quote you in any way?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would not have any idea what you said. I did not hear 
you.
  Mr. INHOFE. It was a statement made. Put it this way: Is it not true 
in 1994 you voted for and supported and totally supported the balanced 
budget amendment that was then before this body? Is that not the same 
exact balanced budget amendment you voted against yesterday?

[[Page S5968]]

  Mr. DORGAN. I am pleased the Senator has asked the question. The 
circumstances are quite interesting about this. I think the Senator 
from Kentucky will probably respond to it.
  In 1993, we had a balanced budget amendment on the floor of the 
Senate. I raised the same question there that I raised 10 years 
previously, in 1983, in the Ways and Means Committee, about using the 
Social Security trust fund. If you will go back and read the dialog, 
you will read that the Senator from Illinois and others with whom we 
had a substantial discussion about this, said, ``No, no, we do not 
intend after we pass this amendment to use Social Security trust funds 
to show a balanced budget. In fact, we intend to do something 
statutorily to prevent that.''
  Two years later, instead of a promise by the promoters of the 
constitutional amendment that they would not use the Social Security 
trust fund, there was a guarantee by a vote of the Senate that they 
would use the Social Security trust fund.
  So you ask, is it the same vote? No. One was a promise they would not 
use them, and the second was a guarantee by a vote of the Senate that 
they would.
  No, it is not the same vote, not the same circumstances. The 
difference might seem small to some, but when you come from a town of 
300 people, $700 billion is a mountain of money.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 27 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.

                          ____________________