[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 121 (Friday, September 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10013-S10016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         A COMPETITION OF IDEAS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I mention the issue of ideas. It is a 
Presidential year. The Constitution of our country, drafted a couple of 
hundred years ago in a little room over in Constitution Hall by the 
Framers of the Constitution, described that every even-numbered year in 
our country the American people would grab the steering wheel and have 
an election and the American people would decide in which direction 
this country moved. It was not going to be a decision by a bunch of 
elitists, a bunch of big business folks, a bunch of labor people, a 
bunch of investors. It was going to be a decision by the American 
people to grab the American steering wheel with their vote and decide 
which way this country would move. It was quite an extraordinary thing. 
The late Claude Pepper used to call it the miracle in the Constitution 
every even-numbered year.
  What I expect the Framers of this democracy hoped would be is that in 
these elections we would have a competition of ideas, ideas advanced by 
different candidates from different positions, saying this is what we 
believe will advance the interests of our country. This is what we 
believe will improve America.
  Regrettably, American politics and American elections have become 
much less a competition of ideas than a competition of slash and burn, 
30-second ads telling the American people or people in a State or 
district how awful someone might be, how terrible someone has been, 
instead of what are my ideas, what do I think will improve this 
country.
  I hope this election will be different. I guess there is no reason to 
believe it will be different until the American people decide to change 
elections in this country by saying to those who wage negative 
campaigns that we will not vote for you.

  The minute negative campaigns do not work they will not be used. 
People use what works. Negative campaigns work, and they are used 
extensively, with great devastating effect in our country these days.
  There was a debate about 2 years ago in a congressional district that 
I read about that I thought was quite fascinating. The two candidates 
for Congress came to the debate and were told by the debate organizers, 
by the way, we have a very simple, unusual rule that you will have to 
adhere to. The rule is in this debate between two people aspiring to be 
Members of Congress, you may not mention your opponent. You may not be 
critical of the other person in the debate, requiring therefore in this 
debate for you to spend your time telling the people what it is you 
stand for, what it is you intend to fight for, what you believe in.
  I understand it was a fascinating discussion because it moved from a 
debate about which is the worst candidate to a debate about ideas, a 
competition of ideas and issues. I would like to see if we cannot get 
our political system back to a description of that kind of politics.
  Having said all that, I am going to talk a little about the tax cut 
proposal offered by Senator Dole, not because I think Senator Dole is a 
bad candidate. I do not. I disagree with the ideas he is proposing, and 
I am going to describe why. Then I am going to talk about the ideas I 
think ought to be proposed to make this a better country.
  I have said many times and will again now that Senator Dole was a 
remarkable Senator and contributed a great deal to this country in his 
public service. I happen to think Jack Kemp was an excellent public 
servant and has contributed a lot to this country. It is a credible 
team competing for the Presidency. I happen to disagree with the 
central idea on which they are running. I am going to talk a little 
about it and then talk about what I think we ought to be discussing.
  The proposal that is advanced first and foremost is an across-the-
board tax cut. It is, 2 months from the election, a proposal that says 
vote for us because we propose a 15-percent across-the-board tax cut.
  That sounds attractive, and if we were not bound by issues like you 
should not increase the Federal deficit, I would propose a 25- or 50-
percent tax cut. Why settle for 15? Why not propose a 50-percent tax 
cut or 75-percent tax cut? But we are bound by something else. We are 
bound by a requirement that we have a fiscal policy that is in some 
reasonable balance.
  We are told that a proposal for a 15-percent across-the-board tax cut 
will result in a substantial benefit to all Americans and a balanced 
budget as well--a deficit that is coming down to a balance.
  I was thinking about that last evening, and I thought I would show my 
colleagues what some feel is believable in our country.
  I receive a lot of mail, as do all Americans. You open your postal 
box these days, and it is full of all kinds of unsolicited mail. Here 
is a letter I got from Dorothy Addeao. I do not know Dorothy Addeao 
from a cord of wood, never met her, never heard of her before. But she 
wrote to me to say this: ``It's my pleasure to be the bearer of glad 
tidings. In just 5 weeks, we are scheduled to announce Byron L. 
Dorgan''--that is me--``is the winner of the 1995 $10 million super 
prize in Publisher's Clearing House.''
  Now, it was not that she just wrote to me and said that they were 
going to announce that I had won $10 million, the super prize. She also 
sent me a certificate, and it is stamped, has my name right here. It 
says, ``$10 million.'' My number by the way was 00016780.
  Then she signed it.
  That was not all. I mean, that is pretty improbable, I suppose, that 
someone would write to me and tell me I won $10 million.
  But I got another letter. This one was from Sweepstakes Priority. 
They told me that Byron Dorgan wins a Hawaiian vacation and a new Lexus 
automobile. They have a number on it, and they said the Lexus 
automobile is set aside for my use, mine free. I thought that is pretty 
improbable--you win $10 million and then a trip to Hawaii and a Lexus.
  Then I got a letter from Time magazine, down in Tampa, FL. It says, 
``The results are in. Byron L. Dorgan''--that is me again--``has won 
one of our two latest $1,666,675.00 prizes.'' And then underneath it 
says, ``Byron L. Dorgan, winner, $1,666,675.00,'' and then it says, 
``payment ready. Elizabeth Matthews.'' I do not know Elizabeth Matthews 
from a cord of wood; never met her. But out of the blue she tells me I 
won $1.6 million.

[[Page S10014]]

  If that was not enough, not knowing Ed McMahon or Dick Clark, having 
never met either, or never having received mail from either, they wrote 
me and said, ``Byron Dorgan, it's confirmed, you are our new 
$10,000,000 winner.''
  All of this for me.
  As you can see, I have not opened these letters. We have certain gift 
rules in the Senate. I think it is a $50 gift rule, and I felt I did 
not want to compromise anything here, so I have not mailed this thing 
in. But it looks to me like we are talking about $21,600,000, a trip to 
Hawaii, and a new Lexus.
  Improbable? Yes. I think all Americans know what I am talking about. 
I imagine there are 250 million winners of this $21 million and the 
Lexus and the trip to Hawaii. But I suppose that if Dorothy--is that 
her name? Yes, Dorothy--and Elizabeth and Time magazine and Ed McMahon 
and Dick Clark believe that I and millions of others will think we have 
won millions of dollars, I suppose there is a reason to believe, in our 
political system, that one can propose we will balance the budget by 
increasing defense spending and proposing substantial across-the-board 
tax cuts. After all, it has been done before and some believed it 
before.
  It is not much more credible than this. I kind of like Ed McMahon. I 
have not seen him for a while, but I used to like him on the ``Tonight 
Show.''
  The proposal of an across-the-board tax cut, which sounds attractive, 
and I think most people would enjoy having, and that with an across-
the-board cut in revenue, you will balance the budget, it could just as 
well be proposed by Ed McMahon telling us there is an easy way to solve 
problems. If your family has a deficit problem, you are spending more 
income than you have, what is the solution? Cut your income.
  Let me, if I might, suggest that I think we need to cut our 
expenditures, and we have, and the deficit has been reduced 4 years in 
a row; the first time in 40 years, 4 years in a row, the deficit has 
been reduced. It was cut in half. Was it because those who now propose 
a tax cut did something to make that happen? No, we did not get one 
vote to help us do that, not one, not even by accident.
  Those of us on this side of the aisle, including some who are no 
longer here, who lost their jobs because of it, voted to cut Federal 
spending and, yes, raise some taxes on the higher income people in this 
country. The result is, since that proposal, a very substantial 
reduction in the Federal budget deficit. I voted for that.

  Was it popular? No. Would it have been politically better to vote 
against it? Yes, of course. I voted for it, and I am pleased I did 
because it was the right thing to do. But the deficit is not erased or 
eliminated. The deficit has come down 4 years in a row. It has been cut 
in half, but it is not gone and the job is not done. The remainder of 
the job is to reduce that budget deficit to zero, to balance the 
budget, balance what we are bringing in with what we are spending so we 
are not saddling our children and grandchildren with debt as a result 
of our consumption today.
  That job is not done and that is why these proposals, 60 days before 
the election, for across-the-board tax cuts sound very attractive but 
are not going to be good for the American people and good for this 
country if we really want to balance the Federal budget.
  Yesterday we held a hearing in the Senate--the Democratic Policy 
Committee held a hearing. I want to share with my colleagues some of 
the testimony at this hearing. Benjamin Friedman, he is the William 
Joseph Maier professor of Political Economy at Harvard University, 
Benjamin Friedman says:

       The Dole-Kemp proposal is a reprise of a gamble that 
     failed. Our government tried that idea in the 1980's. The 
     result was record-sized budget deficits, borrowing, and 
     higher real interest rates, reduced investment and 
     disappointing productivity. And it left behind a legacy of 
     swollen government debt, a shrunken capital stock, depressed 
     productivity, and a large net balance that we now owe to 
     foreigners.

  It is 20 years of testimony telling us why this would not be good for 
our country.
  Dr. Joel Prakken, chairman, macroeconomic adviser, in many pages of 
testimony, tells us the same thing. This is a proposal that does not 
add up. This is a proposal that will increase the Federal deficit. It 
does not add up, and it is not good for this country.
  Charles Schultze, the Brookings Institution, testifies with exactly 
the same kind of testimony. First-rate economist, great economist, 
telling us this does not add up. Joel Prakken, Richard Cogan, all of 
them say this does not add up.
  We are talking about a proposal for a tax cut. I would like to see a 
tax cut in this country, when we finish the job of balancing the 
budget. Then we ought to talk about our tax system, and the tax cuts 
ought to go to working families in this country.
  I saw in the paper this morning Jack Kemp. I like Jack. He is a 
friend of mine, a good guy. ``Kemp Records Show Big Jump in Income, 
Candidate Has Earned $2 Million a Year Since Leaving Government.'' No 
wonder he smiles all the time. I wondered why he is always smiling, 
always so optimistic. With $2 million a year, you understand a little 
bit where people come from who are out there pushing for a flat tax or 
tax cuts. If you are making $2 million a year, I suppose you have a 
substantial interest in that.
  But I think, honestly, we would be better off addressing, perhaps, 
some targeted areas where we might be of help, in education, tax cuts, 
in some other areas, although I would prefer even to wait on most of 
those until we have solved the deficit problem completely. Let us not 
leave this job when it is half done. Let us finish the job of 
eliminating the budget deficit. This job is half done. Let us finish 
the job, and then let us talk about the Tax Code, and there is plenty 
to talk about in the Tax Code and plenty of changes we ought to make.
  Let me just, for a couple of minutes, talk about the things I hope we 
will hear about in the Presidential campaign, things other than a tax 
cut. I hope that one of the central questions in this campaign, and it 
ought to be a central question in the Presidential campaign in this 
country, is: What about America's education system?
  Is there anything that is more important to this country's future 
than its education system? Does anyone believe America's future is 
affected by anything more than it is affected by our education system?
  Thomas Jefferson said, anyone who believes a country can be both 
ignorant and free believes in something that never was and never can 
be. This country ought to aspire and our Presidential contest ought to 
aspire to have the finest education system in the world and debate 
policies that will accomplish that.
  What kind of policies will accomplish us having the best education 
system in the world, the feeling that at the end of the day we have 
sent our kids to the best schools anywhere in the world? There is some 
evidence that in some areas we have the best schools in the world. If 
you want to go to world class universities, most of them are in the 
United States, not elsewhere.
  We don't see people boarding planes to get educated elsewhere. 
America has most of the major world class universities in this country. 
There is a lot to commend this country's education system, and there is 
a lot to criticize.
  The central question, however, ought to be as we compete with shrewd, 
tough international competitors for economic growth and jobs and 
expanded economies in the future--and I am including Japan, Germany, 
and others--the central question is how do we do that in our education 
system?
  In Japan and Germany and other countries, kids are going to school 
240 days a year; in our country, 180 days a year. I can go through a 
litany of things that concern us relative to the question of 
competition and whether we are keeping pace in the education system. 
But I do know this. No one advances this country's education system by 
believing that we ought to decide to cut back on Pell grants, cut back 
on guaranteed student loans, decide to underfund the opportunity for 
kids to get an education.
  No one I know does a service by standing in this well of the Senate 
sying, ``By the way, tomorrow is Tax Freedom Day. The burden of paying 
taxes is now lifted from my shoulders. Hosanna.''
  I stand up and wonder, why do you consider it a burden to pay taxes 
to have a school your child can attend. Do you really consider it a 
burden to send

[[Page S10015]]

your kid to school? I happen to consider it an opportunity. Do I like 
paying taxes? No. Do I believe paying taxes to build good schools to 
educate my children represents a good investment for me and my country? 
Absolutely.
  I have two kids in school this afternoon, and they are wonderful 
young children who I want to have the best education in the world. They 
are in a public school system. It is a good public school system. Both 
have good teachers, and we do not advance the interests of that 
education system by tearing down those teachers.
  The way you fix an education system, the way an education system can 
work is if you have a parent who cares about their child's education, a 
child that is willing to learn and a teacher who really knows how to 
teach. Those combinations mean that kids advance in our school system 
and become the very best they can be.
  Last evening, I, like a lot of parents, put my children to bed by 
reading them a story. We do that every evening, but there are a lot of 
kids in this country, a lot of children in this country who have no one 
to read them a story. They have no books to read. Some have no bed to 
sleep in. Some I described before, like David Bright, age 10, a young 
man who lived in a homeless shelter in New York, told us some can't do 
well in school because they are hungry. David said, ``No child like me 
should have to put their head down on their desk in the middle of the 
day at school because it hurts to be hungry.''

  How do you learn in that environment? Those are the issues we ought 
to discuss in the Presidential campaign.
  What about our education system, not just for kids who are 
privileged, but for all children? This country does not move ahead by 
leaving some behind. What do we do about our education system to make 
it the best in the world and to guarantee that it is available for all 
Americans?
  I think it is interesting that we hear now on the news and read in 
the newspapers about an athlete who is 7 feet 2 inches tall who can 
dunk a basketball. He is going to be paid $115 million over 7 years to 
play basketball. Do you know what $115 million will pay for? Nearly 
4,000 elementary schoolteachers, for one 7-foot-2-inch basketball 
player. Think of what historians will understand about that 100 years 
from now looking back and trying to understand what was our value 
system.
  The point of all this is to say I hope that the Presidential campaign 
centers not just around an idea about a tax cut that is going to 
increase the deficit and retard our economic future, but the ideas of 
education, what do we do about advancing our education system, 
investing in education, making our education system the best in the 
world.
  How about crime? Let's have a Presidential campaign waged on the 
issue of what really to do about crime. We have done a lot, and 
Republicans and Democrats have joined together to do a fair amount on 
the issue of crime. But much remains to be done, and some simple things 
can be done.
  We ought to distinguish instantly, right now, in both the Federal 
system and in the State and local criminal justice system, that there 
is a difference between those who commit violent acts and those who do 
not. Those who commit violent acts we send to prison in order to keep 
them away from others, to provide for the safety of other Americans, as 
well as to punish them.
  We ought to decide immediately those who commit violent acts in this 
country will go to prison and not get out before the end of their term. 
Period. People who commit violent crimes ought not get time off for 
good behavior, early release, early parole. People who commit violent 
crimes in the Federal system and the State and local justice system 
ought to stay in prison until the end of their term. I can cite chapter 
and verse about dozens of murders.
  In fact, there are 3,000 murders that have recently been committed by 
people who should have been in jail but let out early to murder 3,000 
innocent Americans. We ought to make a decision on dealing with violent 
criminals in this country in a manner differently than we deal with 
other criminals.
  We ought to have instantly in this country a decision by our entire 
country that we will put on a computer list the name and the record of 
everyone who has committed a felony in America. If you go downtown and 
buy a shirt in the department store, they will run your credit card 
through a magnetic imager, and they will find out in 20 seconds whether 
your credit card is good.
  There is nowhere in America you can type in the name of an individual 
and find out if this individual has committed 6, 8, 10 felonies in 5 
different States, because we do not have a composite list of criminals 
who committed felonies in this country. We have a list, the NCIC, at 
the FBI. It does not contain 80 percent of the records it would have to 
contain to be an accurate list of an updated computer list of all those 
who committed felonies in our country. We ought to have that.
  Crime ought to be part of the Presidential campaign. How we address 
crime ought to be the competition of ideas in a Presidential campaign.
  Jobs. That also ought to be part of the Presidential campaign. I 
intend to offer a proposal which I offered before which the Senate has 
rejected. It is a very simple little proposal.
  We have a tax incentive in this country that is $2.2 billion in tax 
forgiveness for companies who move American jobs overseas. Now, is 
there any reason, can anyone sober in this country give me one reason 
that we ought to have any incentive at all for any company to move jobs 
from America to a foreign country?
  Can anyone give me one reason for that? If so, I would like to hear 
it. And if not, we ought to change the Tax Code to stop providing tax 
incentives for those who move jobs out of this country.
  Why does that proposal fail when it comes to the floor of the Senate? 
Because the biggest corporations in America lobby furiously to keep 
that tax break. They lobby furiously to keep it, and they are all over 
this town now rallying to defeat a proposal like that once again.
  I hope we will have a discussion about values in the Presidential 
campaign. In fact, Senator Dole and President Clinton have talked about 
television, the menu of violence and trash on television that is 
offered to our children. Does that advance the interests of our 
children? No. Do I believe in censorship? No, I don't, but I believe in 
responsibility, and there are things we can do in this country as 
parents, as communities and, yes, even as a U.S. Senate and, hopefully, 
as President to deal with this issue of what is television doing in 
this country to our children.
  It is one thing to entertain adults. It is another thing to entertain 
adults and hurt our children at the same time. You all know the 
statistics that persuaded a number of us, including my colleagues, 
Senator Conrad from North Dakota, Senator Simon, and others to push a 
bill providing for a V-chip and to push bills providing for television 
violence report cards and other issues to deal with this matter. Some 
cry censorship. It has nothing to do with censorship. I am not 
interested in censoring. I am interested in providing there be 
responsibility by people who produce this and send it into our living 
room and to our children.
  Let me just conclude. I wanted to visit a bit today about the tax 
proposals because a number of Members of the Senate came, in a rather 
orchestrated attempt today, to make a case for it. I understand the 
case, and I just disagree with it. I want to just finish with another 
comment.
  I had some town meetings recently during the August break in North 
Dakota. In the middle of them, I suggested that while we would likely 
spend a fair amount of time at the town meeting talking about what was 
wrong, what was broken, what needed fixing, what did not work, and why 
America was moving backward, I said, let us do something else, just for 
a few minutes, let us train ourselves to think just for a minute, why 
do some people talk about building a fence to keep people out of 
America because too many people want to come here? Why would that be? 
Because this country is a remarkable beacon of hope for the rest of the 
people around the world. They see it as a country full of opportunity, 
and they all want to come here.
  If that is the case, we must be a country full of things that work 
and we must be a country full of good news as well. So I have told the 
town meetings at times, let us spend the next 30 minutes talking about 
what works, just for

[[Page S10016]]

a moment let us think about what works in this country, what is good in 
your life, in your home, in your family, in your community, your city, 
what is good in the Federal Government, what programs work, what makes 
life better.
  It is fascinating, once you start thinking in those terms, how you 
get people to start evaluating what is of value. You never think about 
the kind of road system we have in this country. But drive anywhere 
else in the world, and then drive in most parts of this country and 
take a look at the transportation system. Mail a letter in Tegucigalpa 
or Krakow, and then mail a letter in Chicago, and see which postal 
system gets it there. I mean, I could go through chapter and verse of 
the discussions.
  One woman at a town meeting said to me, ``Well, I'll tell you what 
works, my son's teacher. She called me and had a long discussion with 
me about the circumstances of my son in her class and really helped us 
a great deal. He has a wonderful teacher.'' I said, ``Have you called 
the teacher and told her how you feel about that? You ought to do 
that.'' But it is a fascinating thing to discuss, not about what is 
wrong, but about what is right, not what needs fixing--and we spend 
almost all of our time on that--but what works in this country.
  I hope in the context also of these political campaigns we can engage 
in a bit of hope and a description of opportunity in a way that 
emphasizes the good things, not just what is wrong.
  I talked about Jack Kemp. Jack Kemp is an effervescent optimist. We 
need more effervescent optimists talking about the potential of this 
country and the future of this country. If I did not think that we were 
going to have a better future and that our best days are still ahead of 
us, I would hardly have the energy to be in public service. But I, 
every single day, take a look at my 9-year-old son who trudges off to 
school now in September, and I think, what a remarkable opportunity it 
is for us to be here, for him to go to that school, what a remarkable 
opportunity he is going to have, hopefully in a country that is going 
to continue to lead the way in this world.
  This week, this President took action in Iraq. I know there is a real 
disconnection. People say, what on Earth do we have to do with Iraq? 
This country is a world leader, and it will be a world leader, and it 
must take responsible action in dealing with international outlaws like 
Saddam Hussein. And we will, it seems to me, under the stewardship of 
Democrats and Republicans who come together at the right time, 
believing through aggressive debate we can find better ways and we can 
find things that at the end of the day when the dust settles that will 
advance this country's standard of living, we will continue to maintain 
a country that most people see as the beacon of hope all around the 
globe.

  Mr. President, I have covered a fair amount of ground. And I notice 
my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, is here, and other colleagues 
I believe are coming to speak on other issues. I intend to continue to 
visit about a couple of these issues next Monday. But with that, I 
yield the floor. I thank the President for his attention.

                          ____________________