[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.
____________________