[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 3, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1130-S1132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FEDERAL BUDGET
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank you for yielding me this time in
morning business to address the issue of the Federal budget. This time
of year, as America starts to look forward to spring training in
Florida and Arizona for the baseball season, Members of the U.S. Senate
and House of Representatives get involved in their own grapefruit
league, their own spring training, which starts with our speeches on
the Federal budget process. And I am sure that many people who would
witness this debate would scratch their heads and say, What can that
possibly mean to my family in Chicago, IL, or Springfield, IL? In fact,
it has a great deal of importance and not only defines who we are as a
nation and what our priorities will be in the coming year, but it also
affects a lot of programs and a lot of taxes that directly impact
families across America. So this kind of runup to the serious debates
on the budget resolution is an important part of the annual ritual in
Congress. And I am happy to be part of it today.
I have listened to my Republican colleagues, as they have spoken
about their view of the budget, the budget process, and where we are in
America, and it is a slightly--well, no, it is a significantly
different point of view than I have. Because I take a look at this
Nation and I do not see it in somber and serious terms. I don't find it
depressing. I am not saddened by it. I really look at the state of
government today in Washington, DC, and see so many hopeful signs that
I wonder sometimes if my Republican colleagues are looking at the same
picture that I am looking at.
There are certain things which I think we ought to accept as a
reality. The fact that two out of three Americans today say the Clinton
administration is doing a good job suggests to me that most Americans--
Democrats, independents and even almost a majority of the moderate
Republicans--have come to the conclusion that this country is on the
right track, this administration is doing a good job. And there is
ample reason for them to reach this conclusion.
Think about where we were 6 years ago when this administration began.
The budget deficit stood at nearly $300 billion a year with no relief
in sight. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting
that the deficit would reach $350 billion in 1998. At that time, no
one--absolutely no one--would have expected, instead of a $350 billion
deficit, we would be running a $70 billion surplus.
The first step on our road to recovery and sanity in the budget
process was the passage of President Clinton's 1993 Deficit Reduction
Act. I remember that vote as if it were yesterday. That vote taken over
5 years ago is imprinted in my memory, because we were told by our
Republican critics that if we voted for this Clinton deficit-reduction
plan we would drive this economy into a tailspin, we would have even
deeper deficits, we would have a wholesale reaction from the American
people against this new policy. And as a result of it, we didn't garner
a single Republican vote in support of the Clinton deficit-reduction
plan. Here in the Senate, before I arrived, when the vote was cast, it
was up to Vice President Gore to cast the deciding vote for this
deficit-reduction plan.
It turns out the President and the Vice President were correct and
the critics of the plan were wrong. Because, as you see, we have now
reached the point where that deficit reduction put us on a road toward
a balanced budget, which we enjoy today. Giving credit where it is due,
there was a second installment on deficit reduction done on a
bipartisan basis by Republicans and Democrats which completed this
effort. I am glad that we were able to do that on a bipartisan basis.
But history records that the first important and most painful step in
this process began in 1993 with President Clinton's proposal.
A lot of my friends on the Republican side have argued that we have
been able to eliminate the deficit but at the expense of raising taxes
on ordinary Americans. I have heard this so often you almost start to
believe it. And then you look at the facts. The facts are these: The
Treasury Department shows that a median income family of four currently
pays less in taxes as a percentage of their income than at any time in
the last 20 years. It is also true for families of four at one-half the
median income level and a family of four at twice the median income
level.
So the Republican claims that the President has balanced the budget
on the backs of working people just simply are not true. Nor is it true
that the administration has increased the size of government. All of
these claims about big government and big taxing just do not wash when
you take a look at the facts. According to the Center for Budget and
Policy Priorities, spending has declined to its smallest share of our
gross domestic product in 25 years. Furthermore, under the President's
proposal, spending will continue to decline as a percentage of our
gross domestic product to its lowest level in 33 years.
Sound fiscal policy has translated into economic resurgence in
America which still baffles even the experts. Here we are enjoying the
95th consecutive month of economic expansion, the longest peacetime
expansion in our history; interest rates stable and falling;
unemployment rates coming down; welfare rolls coming down; inflation at
its lowest combined rate with interest rates and unemployment in a
generation.
As the President announced to Congress 2 weeks ago, the state of our
Nation is strong. As Vice President Gore often says, everything that we
want to go down has gone down. We are talking about the unemployment
rate and welfare rolls. And things we want to go up, like family income
and housing starts and new businesses, continue to go up. So when I
hear these funereal tones from my Republican colleagues about how sad
it is that this administration just can't get it, can't get it right, I
look around at our economy and I am baffled, I cannot find the evidence
for their claim.
Despite these promises of surpluses in our budget as far as the eye
can see, we all know that budget projections in the future are a guess,
an educated guess but a guess. Four years ago, the Congressional Budget
Office forecast the deficit would exceed $300 billion this year and
approach $500 billion by the year 2005.
With $5 trillion of Federal debt hanging over our heads, now is not
the time to abandon fiscal prudence in favor of tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans, as many of my colleagues have suggested. We
should take advantage of the opportunity to redirect and invest our
surpluses at this moment in history where they can pay off for America
in the long run. We need a responsible fiscal course to begin with. The
President's budget wisely preserves 62 percent of the projected surplus
for Social Security and I hope both parties can agree to this. Let me
say this: If at this moment in time--this year--as we debate the
budget, as we envision surpluses for years to come, if we cannot muster
the will, on a bipartisan basis,
[[Page S1131]]
to save Social Security, we never will. It will be less painful now
than any time in our future. And we have to accept the responsibility
of dedicating the surplus to Social Security.
The President said it last year, and repeated it again this year:
``Save Social Security first.'' And those who want to embark on a
different course, so be it. I believe the American people agree with me
and the President that this money should go to Social Security, and
also to Medicare. The Medicare Program, important to millions of
elderly, is a program that is in trouble. There is no doubt about it.
As health care costs go up, as the elderly population increases,
Medicare faces strains and pressures never envisioned.
The President has suggested taking 15 percent of the surplus and
putting it into Medicare to make sure that we have an additional 10
years of a solid Medicare system for senior citizens. That, to me, is
eminently sensible. That, again, is an investment of the surplus in
something good for the long-term benefits of our Nation, not just for
elderly--of course it benefits them directly--but for their children as
well.
When senior citizens cannot pay their health care bills, many times
they turn to the government but they often turn to their children. Let
us relieve that generation from a burden they shouldn't carry, by
investing a portion of the surplus in Medicare. Medicare and Social
Security are entitlements but they are earned entitlements. Let's put
the ``security'' back in Social Security and put quality health care
into Medicare.
When we think about what to do with the surplus, it makes sense to
consider the perspective of Alan Greenspan. If there is one man who is
credited with leading us through this out-of-the-deficit desert and
into the sunshine of surpluses, it is the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, Alan Greenspan. In testimony to the Senate Budget Committee
last week, the Chairman said that the single-best use of the surplus is
to pay down the national debt. This is exactly what the President is
doing by dedicating the surplus to Social Security and Medicare.
There is also a proposal for tax relief. It is perfectly reasonable
that once we have taken care of our obligations to save and preserve
Social Security and Medicare and thereby reduce the national debt, we
also help families in America who need tax relief. The President's
proposal is a sensible approach which gives working families more
income security, more spending power, and a greater ability to save for
the future.
The President's proposal finds $34 billion in tax relief to working
families. His budget reserves 12 percent of the projected surplus to
provide low- and moderate-income Americans with a tax cut to help fund
personal retirement accounts. Millions of Americans and millions of
Federal employees, including most of the people who work in this
building, have availed themselves of savings opportunities for their
retirement, whether it is the Federal Thrift Savings Plan, individual
retirement accounts, or Roth IRAs--named after Senator Roth from
Delaware. In order to make certain that low- and middle-income families
have that same option, the President suggests that we create these
personal retirement accounts that will help them. I think that makes
sense.
The President also suggests that we provide tax relief for child care
costs for 3 million working families. A couple years ago, I went across
Illinois and talked to working families and in particular, working
mothers, about their major concerns. Do you know what the number one
concern was? It was, what will I do with my kids when I go to work? I
can't afford to send them to the very best day care, and I worry myself
to death when I am on the job and I am not certain that they are safe.
That is a natural human reaction. It is the right reaction from a
parent. What the President is saying is that we need to be sensitive to
these working families by giving them some tax relief to help pay for
day care and child care.
The same thing is true for many of the working families who have
elderly parents or parents who are sick or disabled who need help with
long-term care. Here again, the President's proposal offers tax relief
to millions of Americans who want to provide for loved ones that are in
their golden years.
You will also hear a cry for tax cuts from our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle. But it is almost as predictable as night
following day that when you go beyond the surface appeal of tax cuts
proposed by the Republicans, you find the same story year in and year
out. Let me give you some graphic examples of what I am talking about.
This chart which we had prepared looks at the proposed 10-percent tax
rate cut that the Republicans have brought forward. Of course, we had
to analyze it to see what it would mean to most families. This is no
surprise if you have followed Republican tax breaks in years gone by.
The bottom sixty percent of America's families, based on income, would
see an average of a tax break of just $99 a year, roughly $8 and a few
cents each month. Then you get to the top 1 percent of incomes, people
making over $300,000 a year, and look what their average tax break is
under the Republican plan--$20,697. I just can't understand this. I
can't understand why low- and middle-income families making below
$38,000 a year should get an average annual tax break of a little over
$8 a month while we turn around and give $1,600 or $1,700 a month to
the wealthiest among us.
If there is to be a tax break, if we are to use the surplus to help
American families, should we not dedicate that surplus first and
foremost to the low- and middle-income families who absolutely need it
the most?
When I take a look at where money can be spent in this Federal
budget, I am sometimes troubled that my friends on the Republican side
of the aisle suggest that spending on domestic priorities is creating
wasteful, new programs. In one particular area I take exception; that
is in the area of education and training.
It was only last year that we had the major corporations in Silicon
Valley and across the country lobbying Congress to change the
immigration laws in America so that these companies could bring in
skilled and trained personnel, immigrants from overseas, to fill gaps
in their employment. That is a sad commentary on America's educational
system. And it really troubles me that we have reached the point these
companies cannot find within America the skills that they need to make
a profit.
Then we hear from the U.S. Navy that it is suggesting it needs a
change in policy. The Navy, an All-Volunteer Navy, relies on those who
come forward and those they can recruit, and they have fallen short of
their goals. Some 22,000 seaman are needed and not available,
particularly 18,000 for service on ships at sea. So the Navy has come
to Congress and said we think the answer to this is for Congress to
allow us to increase the number of recruits who don't have high school
diplomas from 5 percent of the total to 10 percent. Now, that is a
troubling admission to say that we have so many young people without a
high school education that we need to turn to the Armed Forces to give
these young people a basic education.
When the President comes before Congress and says we can do a better
job in our schools, I think most American families agree. And money
invested there, I think, is money well invested. We have a skills gap
in our country which needs to be addressed. We need a commitment to
education that includes afterschool and summer school programs. We need
100,000 new teachers. We need to improve teacher skills and hold them
accountable to make certain that when they come into the classroom,
they are prepared to teach. The vast majority of teachers will meet
this threshold requirement without breaking a sweat. But you know as
well as I that there are people standing in classrooms across America
reading from textbooks on subjects they know little or nothing about.
In my old home town of East St. Louis, last year or so I talked to
some of the people on the school board and they say they will literally
give a job to anyone who tells us they are prepared to try and teach
science and math--``prepared to try and teach.'' They don't require any
degrees, they can't, because they can't attract the people to do the
job. We need to increase teacher skills and training to do so.
In addition, I think we need to put more money into school
construction,
[[Page S1132]]
not just because the school-age enrollment is going to mushroom
dramatically over the next several decades, but because our current
school buildings in America for the most part are not prepared to
accept the new technology necessary to educate our children. When
President Clinton suggests $25 billion in tax credits for that school
construction and renovation, I think he is talking about an issue that
most Americans and most families can certainly understand.
This is a time to invest in America, not a time to provide a windfall
tax break for the wealthiest people in our country. The President
maintains strong fiscal discipline, targets his tax relief to Americans
who need it, and makes certain that our highest priority of preserving
Social Security and Medicare and reducing national debt is met.
There is also a suggestion that we increase defense spending. As a
member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I am going to watch
this carefully. I understand, as most people do, that national defense
is one of our highest priorities. I want to make certain that we
dedicate our resources, first and foremost, to the men and women in
uniform to make certain that they are compensated well and have a fair
retirement plan.
It is a personal embarrassment to me, and it should be to every
Member of Congress, to learn that so many members of the U.S. military
today qualify for food stamps. That shouldn't be the case. We ought to
make certain that the amount of money paid to our military personnel is
adequate not only to maintain their families, but to attract and retain
the very best in uniform across America. We owe our freedom to these
men and women. We should compensate them accordingly. Of course,
technology is part of that, but let's make sure the technology demands
are consistent with the post-cold war world, that it is a technology
demand that really envisions America's future role in the world in
realistic terms.
I conclude by saying that I think that the President's budget has
areas where I might disagree and probably will. It has areas that
Congress will certainly address in a different way, but it is a budget
based on the right principles, a budget to keep America on a track for
prosperity and economic improvement. When we look at the growth in our
domestic product each and every quarter, the encouragement it gives us,
I think it suggests that we ought to think long and hard before we
abandon this course we have been on--a successful course, with 95
consecutive months of economic expansion. Those who want to experiment
with another approach, perhaps they can make that case to the American
people; but, today, two-thirds of the American people say: Stay on this
course, keep us moving forward in the right way, helping working
families and preserving the programs that mean so much to America.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in his capacity as a Senator from
New Hampshire, suggests the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________