[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 126 (Friday, September 24, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S11428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               PRESIDENT'S VETO OF THE REPUBLICAN TAX CUT

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about President 
Clinton's veto of the Republican-sponsored $792 billion tax cut. I 
commend the President for vetoing this bill because it would have taken 
us down the wrong path:
  The path to huge budget deficits;
  The path to higher interest rates; and
  The path that fails to protect Medicare and Social Security;
  In vetoing this bill, the President has taken us down the fiscally 
responsible path toward:
  Paying down the $5.7 trillion national debt;
  Lowering interest rates and continuing our economic growth; and
  Protecting Medicare and Social Security in anticipation of the baby 
boom generation.
  Republicans claim the projected surplus over the next ten years is 
large enough to give taxpayers a $792 billion tax cut and still make 
$500 billion worth of investments in domestic priorities.
  They claim that there is an estimated $1.4 trillion worth of surplus 
funds available for tax breaks and whatever else needs attention.
  But their surplus projection is based on a fantastic, unrealistic, 
and unwise assumption about domestic discretionary spending: It is 
based on the assumption that Congress will enact drastic cuts in 
domestic services over the next ten years .
  The New Republican Baseline is the amount of Total Discretionary 
Spending over the next ten years as figured by the Congressional Budget 
Office at the request of Senator Domenici. It is the level of spending 
that Senator Domenici said on the Senate floor on July 29, 1999 would 
allow for the Republican tax cut and $505 billion to be added back. It 
was also posted on the Budget Committee Website.
  This proposal assumes that Congress will cut discretionary spending 
in accord with the budget caps through 2002 and then freeze 
discretionary spending at 2002 levels for the years 2003 through 2009.
  In other words, while the price of a home, car, food goes up; while 
the cost of health care and tuition go up, the level of domestic 
services such as Head Start, student loans and economic development 
grants remains frozen in nominal dollars.
  A freeze in nominal dollars means a decrease in real dollars. So the 
Republicans are proposing real, severe cuts in domestic services in 
order to make their tax cut seem feasible.
  Huge cuts--tens of billions of dollars below current 1999 levels--are 
totally unrealistic (and a bad idea).
  This chart shows that the Republican proposed reductions in domestic 
services defy history.
  This chart shows the trend in domestic discretionary services over 
the last 15 years (in terms of actual outlays) in real 1999 dollars.
  The trend--(regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans controlled 
Congress) is upward--and sharply upward over the last ten years--during 
a period of serious efforts to reign in spending.
  Looking forward, the trend (on which the Republican tax cut and 
proposed investments in domestic priorities are based) is sharply 
downward with domestic services slashed by over a third by the year 
2009.
  A reversal in domestic discretionary services of this size just won't 
happen--and it shouldn't happen--we shouldn't slash head start, and 
Pell grants, and community development block grants, and safe drinking 
water programs by tens of billions of dollars over the next ten years. 
And history tells us we won't.
  The current budget process tells us we won't: Newspaper editorials 
across the country are chiding Congress for already having spent next 
year's surplus.
  I support the President's veto because it recognizes our collective 
responsibility to get America's fiscal house in order and because the 
Republican tax cut plan and the assumptions that underlie it are 
unwise, unrealistic and would have squandered this historic 
opportunity.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the chart to which I 
referred.
  There being no objection, the chart was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY SPENDING: PROPOSED REPUBLICAN PLAN COMPARED TO 15
                    YEAR HISTORY IN CONSTANT DOLLARS
              [Outlays in billions, constant 1999 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Year                               Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984.........................................................        227
1989.........................................................        235
1994.........................................................        282
1999.........................................................        307
2004.........................................................        226
2009.........................................................        195
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CBO. Projection assumes Domestic Discretionary Spending for FY
  2000-2009 = $2.968 trillion: the level of the New Republican Total
  Discretionary Spending Baseline ($5.707 trillion over ten years),
  minus Defense Discretionary Spending at the Budget Resolution level
  ($3.062 trillion over ten years). Figures do not add to totals due to
  rounding.

  

                          ____________________