[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 4 (Monday, February 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S261-S263]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE BUDGET FOR 1999

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wanted to make a couple of comments 
following those of the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings. 
He knows that I certainly agree with him on the issue of the Social 
Security trust funds and the unified budget. There are some 
definitional issues about the budget.
  I was at the White House this morning, at the invitation of President 
Clinton, when he made a presentation on the budget that he released 
today. Frankly, the budget contains a lot of good news. The Senator 
from South Carolina is correct about the unified budget. But it is also 
correct to say that this President, beginning in 1993, said that we are 
going to change courses here and we are going to set this country on a 
different direction. Between then and now, we have wrestled the Federal 
budget deficit to the ground.
  Is our job over? No. There is more to be done because of the Social 
Security trust funds and some other issues. But this President deserves 
substantial credit for deciding that we are going to change courses, 
change directions, and wrestle this budget deficit to the ground. I 
must say that, in 1993, when he proposed to do that, it was very 
controversial because, up until then, we had seen budget after budget 
with deficits that continued to increase, year after year. It was 535 
bad habits around here, wanting to give tax cuts and spending 
increases. And the deficit continued to grow, and the Federal debt 
continued to escalate.
  In 1993, when President Clinton said let's change direction here, he 
proposed a couple of things that were very controversial. He said, 
let's really cut some Federal spending, let's really increase some 
taxes on a selected basis. And it became very controversial because all 
those folks who had stood up and talked the loudest about controlling 
the Federal deficit, when it came time to take the vote, where were 
they? They weren't here. We didn't get one vote from the other side of 
the aisle--even by accident. We won by one vote in the U.S. Senate and 
one vote in the U.S. House, and that set this country on a different 
course.
  Five years later, we now see daylight with the Federal deficits, and 
the deficits in future years are well under control. In fact, in the 
long-term, even with Social Security funds out of the calculation, we 
will reach a balanced budget.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield briefly?
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is right on target with respect to giving 
the President credit. There is no question, we increased taxes, cut 
spending, and cut the number of Federal employees. And in increasing 
the taxes, I will never forget the colleague from Texas, when he stated 
on the floor--regarding increasing taxes on Social Security--that they 
were going to be hunting us Democrats down in the streets and shooting 
us like dogs. I will never forget that. They not only projected a 
recession and a depression, but that Social Security tax increase, 
which I don't see anybody putting into a bill or talking about today--
but at that particular time, taking on that hard choice, as they talked 
about, without a single Republican vote, was very, very difficult. But 
we faced the fire, and to President Clinton's credit, now we have the 
economy headed in the right direction. My comments on the unified 
budget and deficit is to make sure we don't go in the other direction.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is certainly correct. The last thing we want 
to do is step back into the hole we were in before. Just the hint of a 
budget surplus in the future has persuaded a legion of people here to 
talk about new tax breaks on the one hand or new spending on the other 
hand. We ought rather to decide to have discipline. Let's accept the 
good news that we have wrestled the Federal budget deficit to the 
ground. Let's work to keep it there, instead of getting right back into 
the same fiscal mess we were in before.

  I know some will dispute my recitation of the facts. But there is no 
dispute that, in 1993, we had a huge vote in the Senate. And we passed 
that deficit reduction bill by one vote, which sent this country on a 
different course. That vote indicated that we cared

[[Page S262]]

about bringing down Federal budget deficits. We knew they hurt this 
country and we did something about it.
  Everybody else wants to talk about it and shout about it and chant 
about it. But when it comes time to vote, the question is, who is going 
to stand up and, on behalf of the country's future, say, count me in, I 
want to cast a vote that is tough; I am willing to cast a vote that is 
hard, politically. In fact, some colleagues who voted the same way I 
did are not here in the Senate anymore because they cast that vote.
  I just think it is important for all of us to understand that this 
President and enough Members of Congress, in the Senate and the House, 
5 years ago, said that we are going to change direction and put this 
country on a course of fiscal policy that will wrestle the Federal 
budget deficit to the ground, and we have done that.
  Now, the fact is, there are some people around here who handle good 
news like a chronic toothache. You could not get them to smile for any 
reason. But things are better. The budget is better, the economy is up, 
unemployment is down, inflation is down, the deficit is down, crime is 
down, welfare is down. Does that cause a smile? No. It is as if they 
are in a dental chair getting a root canal. They have to be crabby 
about something. I just saw a press conference by colleagues who are 
continuing to be crabby about what is going on in this country.
  The fact is, this country is on a better course, moving in a better 
direction, and the news is better. Most of the American people 
understand that.
  The President's budget, incidentally, is not perfect. I have some 
disagreement with portions of it. But, on the whole, I think it is an 
awfully good blueprint for this country. The President proposes some 
things that I think make a lot of sense.
  The President proposes that we increase some spending in certain 
areas, and he pays for it with cuts in other areas. Let me describe one 
area where he proposes an increase in spending.
  President Clinton proposes a 50 percent increase in funding over the 
next 5 years for the National Institutes of Health. There is not a 
family in this Chamber, or listening to these proceedings, that hasn't 
been touched by heart disease, stroke, cancer, AIDS, those scourges 
that kill Americans and ruin families.
  Guess what is happening down at the National Institutes of Health? I 
have been down there. I have gone through the Lung and Blood Institute 
and National Cancer Institute. It is remarkable what is going on. It is 
breathtaking. If you take a look at the money we are investing in 
research on heart disease, the money that we are investing in research 
on cancer, to find a cure for AIDS, arthritis, diabetes, and so many 
other things, it is breathtaking.
  One of the wonderful things I saw at the National Institutes of 
Health--without digressing too far--when I went into the building was, 
they had something called a ``healing garden,'' a little healing 
garden. They described the plants and vegetation they have collected 
from all over the world--50,000 to 60,000 plants and shrubs they have 
collected. They described the research they are doing to find the 
healing properties of plants.
  Two thousand years ago, in China, if somebody got a headache, like 
some of my colleagues have about the fiscal policy of this country, 
what did they do? They would chew on a little willow bark. We do the 
same thing today, except we get the willow bark in pill form and call 
it ``aspirin.''
  The most exciting thing is not the combination of chemicals and 
compounds, but the research on the healing properties of shrubs and 
bushes and plants. It is remarkable. It is wonderful what is going on.

  The fact is, when we invest a dollar, a million dollars, or a billion 
dollars in health research, we provide enormous hope for the people of 
this country that we can begin to cure cancer. And we have done that 
with respect to some forms of cancer. We provide enormous hope to 
people around the country that we can deal with heart disease and 
stroke, the biggest killers in this country, in a much different way.
  So in those areas of the budget--for example, the increase in direct 
investment in the National Institutes of Health--does that funding make 
sense? I think it does. Would people come here and say that the 
investment in medical research is worthless?
  What about the woman that stood up at a town meeting and said, ``I 
had new knees put in and a new hip and cataract surgery, and I feel 
like a million dollars.'' Where did all that come from?
  Fifty years ago, she would have been in a wheelchair, unable to walk 
or see. Now when someone's heart muscle plugs up and they have the 
breathtaking surgery that opens it up, they feel, when they are 
recovered, stronger than ever and they can go on for the next 10, 20 
years and extend their lives.
  The point is this: There are certain things we do that make a lot of 
sense. This President says, let's continue the investment in the 
National Institutes of Health and increase that investment and save 
lives in this country through the breakthroughs that will come from 
research and medicine. That makes a lot of sense to me.
  The President says, among other things, let us save Social Security 
first, a point just discussed by my colleague from South Carolina. I 
know there are some people who never liked Social Security, and have 
never thought it was a good program.
  They have a right to feel that way. But that is not the way the 
American people feel.
  About 60 some years ago, we created a Social Security program, and I 
must say that the mathematics of it were quite interesting. Life 
expectancy, then, was 63 years of age. Social Security was created with 
a retirement of 65 years of age. That all works out pretty well. If you 
are expected to live until 63 and get retirement at 65, that system is 
pretty well financed. Now the life expectancy is not 63; it has gone to 
77 or 78. So things have changed.
  There are future challenges to the Social Security system because of 
that. We have to make some changes to put it on a sound basis for the 
long term. But what the President has said makes a lot of sense as a 
matter of priority. He has an answer to those who would rush off to 
provide tax breaks because they are popular, or who want to take the 
best 10 programs and add funding to them. The President has said that 
we should, as a priority in fiscal policy, save Social Security first.
  That makes a lot of sense. We are going to have a debate on that in 
the Congress. Is that the priority? Or will we hear something 
different, as we have heard today, from those naysayers on fiscal 
policy, those who would be unhappy no matter what is happening? Will we 
hear that no, that is not a priority, saving Social Security is not a 
first priority, not even second or not even tenth priority? Will we 
hear people say that their priority is to give more tax breaks to their 
friends?
  Let us decide that the responsible thing for the future of this 
country would be to embrace the principle the President has put 
forward. Let us save Social Security first.
  The President talked in his budget message today about the priority 
for education. He is absolutely correct about that priority as well. He 
has talked about decreasing class size, and hiring 100,000 more 
teachers. He has talked about creating tax credits to help modernize 
crumbling schools. All of those things make sense to me.
  President Clinton has paid for these proposals by cutting other 
funding and rearranging priorities. Instead of in the aggregate saying 
we are going to add substantial funding, he has done it within the 
confines of what we can and should spend relative to the budget 
agreement, the bipartisan agreement of last year.

  The budget is not perfect. There are things in it that I don't like 
and there are some things not in it that should have been in it.
  But this President has submitted a budget plan that is a responsible 
set of priorities for this country's future. This President should get 
some credit. And those in this Congress who have supported deficit 
reduction, both the 1993 bill and the bipartisan agreement last year, 
deserve some credit too for a budget outlook that is much, much 
different now than anyone would have expected 2 or 3 years ago.


                            The Highway Bill

  Madam President, let me make one further point about the priorities 
for the Congress this year.
  We must bring to the floor of this Senate, sooner rather than later, 
the

[[Page S263]]

highway funding bill. I know there has been a lot of juggling back and 
forth about whose fault it is that we haven't considered this bill 
sooner. But the fact is, the highway bill was supposed to have been 
done last year by the Senate, and it ought to be done now.
  We were told it was going to be one of the first items of business. 
Now we are told by the budgeteers that it must wait to follow the 
budget. To me, that approach is a big mistake. Let me tell you why.
  If we delay the highway bill until after we have finished the budget 
this year, we will have delayed the highway bill, which we should have 
passed last year, until well after the middle of this year.
  States like mine, North Dakota, in the Northern region of this 
country, will be terribly disadvantaged once again if we do not pass 
this bill soon. Northern states have a short construction season. They 
need to commit most of their money in the spring in order for necessary 
work to get done before winter sets in again. The plans for highway 
building and bridge building, in my state and many other states, are on 
hold because this Congress has yet to pass this bill. That is why the 
Congress must act quickly in this matter.
  This is a jobs issue. It is an issue about investment in our 
infrastructure. Highways and bridges are vitally important to economic 
development in every state. The longer the highway plans are on hold, 
the longer people have to wait to make their investment decisions.
  So I say to the majority leader and others, when the leaders of the 
Senate are planning what the Senate should do tomorrow, the next day, 
or the next week, I hope they will decide to bring the highway bill to 
the Senate floor.
  This country needs a highway bill. We have it in our grasp to bring a 
highway bill to the floor and to debate it and pass it.
  Someone said, ``Well, gee, there are 100 or 200 amendments to the 
highway bill.'' So that means it should have been brought up yesterday 
or the day before, and maybe we would have gotten rid of 20 of those 
amendments.
  Let us, day by day, make progress on the highway bill so the American 
people know that this Congress views transportation investment as a 
high priority.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I make a point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________