[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 5 (Monday, January 31, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S127-S130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor as one who spent over
90 minutes on the floor of the House last week listening to the
President's State of the Union Message.
For a few moments, I would like to kind of analyze that State of the
Union Address as seen through the eyes of this Senator reflective of
what I believe to be, shall I say, self-evident truth.
There is no question that our President is a gifted speaker. He waxed
eloquently while spending our children's heritage and vastly increasing
the size and the parental meddling of our Government by all of the new
programs that he has proposed to create while claiming credit for
virtually every good thing that has happened in the last century,
including those things which were accomplished despite his opposition
and his veto.
I say: Lyndon Johnson, move over; you heard a speech the other night
that would cause your ghost to shudder. You had the record as being the
biggest spending Government creator since FDR. Let me propose that this
President is now vying for first place.
Let me start by analyzing his spending spree.
In his speech, President Clinton called for continued fiscal
discipline while at the same time suggesting that we do a lot of other
things and buying down the Federal debt.
I say, Mr. President, what hypocrisy. Until the Republican Congress
imposed fiscal discipline, until the American people demanded fiscal
discipline, the President consistently proposed budgets with spending
and debt and deficits as far as the average person's eye could see and
the greatest prognosticator of the Office of Management and Budget
could look in his crystal ball and predict. He didn't refuse to stray
from the path of fiscal discipline. He simply did it. We forced him to
get to that path. That election occurred in 1994. We know the rest of
that story. Yet what has he proposed in his last State of the Union
Message?
The Senate Budget Committee made a preliminary estimate of the new
spending proposed by the President at about $343 billion. That is about
$3.8 billion a minute for his 89-minute speech. Not bad spending, Mr.
President--the most expensive speech given in the history of this
country, I suggest. If the Treasury can only print about $262 billion a
year with the presses running nearly 24 hours a day, you even outspent,
Mr. President, the ability of the U.S. Treasury to print it.
[[Page S128]]
What about the taxpayers whose earnings the President would spend so
freely?
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office, using its most
pessimistic estimate, announced that there would be an $838 billion
non-Social Security surplus over the next 10 years. That is phenomenal.
That is wonderful for this country. Yet the Clinton speech mentioned he
would give back only about $250 billion of it. That is less than 30
percent of the excessive income tax paid by the American people who
that $838 billion represents. However, even this paltry $250 billion
tax cut wasn't real. Much of it is disguised in new spending. Even the
Washington Post, sometimes as difficult as it finds criticizing the
President, said that he has artfully couched many of these new tax cuts
in new spending programs. Thank you, Washington Post, for pointing that
out.
What is worse? This $343 billion in spending is just the tip of the
iceberg, and the American taxpayers are riding on a potential Titanic.
The Clinton version of government is not the end of big government as
we know it. That is what he said a few years ago. But then again let's
remember the source. It is Bill Clinton.
More intrusive government? How about that.
Less personal responsibility? I think that was the message our
President spoke to so clearly last week.
So let's talk about where he is, where I believe a Republican
Congress is, and what I hope in the end we are able to do about it.
The President says he wants to make schools accountable--but to the
Federal Government. The Republicans want to make schools accountable--
but to the parents and to the young people who will be educated there.
It takes Washington too long to realize the problems. Parents who deal
with their children on a day-to-day basis know what the problem is very
quickly.
According to the Heritage Foundation, one-third of college freshmen
take remedial classes because our elementary and secondary schools are
failing to teach them some of the basics. Those are the students lucky
enough to go on to college. These kids don't need the Princeton Review,
as the President suggests. They need quality teachers who are
accountable to parents and the local school board.
What about health care?
In 1994, President Clinton tried to remake a national health care
system in this country in the image of the U.S. Post Office. Thanks to
bipartisan opposition he failed. The world recognized it, and our
public cheered.
In 1996, he vowed to push for Government-run health care ``a step at
a time until eventually we finish this.'' Those are his words. He would
go after health care ``a step at a time''--that is Government-run
health care--until ``eventually we finish this.'' ``This'' meaning, of
course, his U.S. Post Office-style health care system. Now the
President has renewed his commitment to Government-run health care with
legislation that would cancel the private coverage of over 2 million
Americans so he can push them a step at a time into an expensive
Government-run program.
Then there was that great but very soft and smooth Federal land grab
statement he made the other evening. The President said:
Tonight I propose creating a permanent conservation fund,
to restore wildlife, protect our coastlines, save our
national treasures. . . .
What he wants to do is annually take several billion dollars of oil
and gas royalties paid to the Federal Government and buy more land and
make it Federal Government land. If he is successful, it means Congress
will have to find $2 billion elsewhere to fund programs. But more
importantly, the ratios of private versus public ownership would
change. The Government already owns 1 out of every 4 acres of the
landmass of this country, primarily in Western States; 63 percent of my
State is owned by the Federal Government. Idahoans do not want Bill
Clinton buying one more acre of Idaho. Why? That is the tax base that
funds our local governments and funds our schools. So, Mr. President,
we won't give you that money. We should not give you that money. If the
environment needs protection, we can find the necessary resources
without giving you a blank check to buy more Federal land.
Mr. President, the very infrastructure of our National Park System is
falling apart. How about putting some money there? That is where the
American public wants to go recreate. Give our parks a chance to catch
up with the traffic instead of shutting them down or closing people out
of them. Let's let people into our parks. Let's invest in them. We
don't need to buy more property; we need to take care of that which we
have.
The President said:
The major security threat this country will face will come
from enemies of the nation state: the narcotraffickers and
the terrorists and the organized criminals.
He boasts about ``agreements to restrain nuclear programs in North
Korea''--a program for direct U.S. subsidies for one of the most
vicious, anti-American, terrorist-supporting, drug-trafficking regimes
in the world, responsible for deaths of millions of its own people? Mr.
President, I don't quite understand your priorities.
He is patting himself on the back for victory in Kosovo, a victory
that means planting American troops in an alliance with what is known
to be an organization of narcotrafficking terrorists and organized
criminal cartels.
Mr. President, I am not quite sure you have made yourself quite clear
to the American people. I think you are saying one thing when your
actions clearly demonstrate you are doing something else.
The President highlights the needs for ``curbing the flow of lethal
technology to Iran.'' The Republican Congress passed a bill that would
have done just that, the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of
1997, that is H.R. 2709. And what happened on June 23 of 1998? The
President vetoed it. Remarkably, President Clinton continues to support
paper agreements rather than U.S. actions to keep Americans secure.
Although he outlined real threats from ballistic missile proliferation
in his speech, President Clinton refuses to deploy a national ballistic
missile defense system to protect Americans from ballistic missile
attacks. He even signed legislation calling for the deployment of such
a system, although, in typical Clinton fashion, he has found many
excuses to reinterpret the straightforward language of that
legislation. Instead of defending America against a clear and present
danger, the President hides behind outdated, ineffective, and obsolete
arms control treaties.
Because of President Clinton, Americans remain defenseless against
ballistic missile attack. It is interesting; the President is now
calling for ``constructive bipartisan dialog'' on a Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty when the administration turned a deaf ear to the critical
national security concerns being voiced by Republicans for the last
good many months.
Despite President Clinton's best efforts to underfund and overextend
U.S. military forces, it has been a Republican Congress that has
consistently sent the President bills to keep our forces well trained
and well equipped and properly paid. It was a Republican Congress that
initiated the bill to improve the quality of life of our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and Marines, and helped retain those who were leaving
who had already gained the kind of special skills that are so necessary
in our military.
Hyperbole? Hypocrisy? Exaggeration? Shame on me for even suggesting
that.
The President claimed credit in his speech for most of the good news
in America for the past several decades--the healthy economy, welfare
reform, falling crime rates, balanced budgets, a cleaner environment,
smaller Federal workforces, and social progress. Anybody who sits in
the Presidency and possesses the bully pulpit when times are good can
make claim and take credit, but just for a few moments let me talk
about how it got done.
Mr. President, you are entitled to take credit but you can't steal
Republican principles, Republican ideas, and the kind of work that went
on in the Congress to make it happen. The President claimed that he
ended welfare as we know it--after he vetoed it twice. Shame on you,
Mr. President. It was a Republican Congress but, more importantly, it
was Republican Governors out in the States who reformed welfare. We
copied them. We didn't have the genius here. We were stuck in the old
bureaucracy. We wanted to talk about reform but we took the ideas of
[[Page S129]]
the States, implemented them into the Federal program, and it worked.
So, yes, you can take credit for it but you didn't do it. You vetoed
the bills, you kept vetoing the bills, and on the very day that you
signed them, you said we will be back to change them because we don't
like this.
But, of course, it was an election year. You knew you had to sign it,
and you took credit for it while at the same time you were criticizing
it. I am sorry, Mr. President; I happen to read history and I happen to
remember what you said. Shame on me.
On the environment, the President said:
. . . one of the things I am grateful for is the
opportunity that the Vice President and I have had to finally
put to rest the bogus idea that you cannot grow the economy
and the environment at the same time.
He said:
. . . we have rid more than 500 neighborhoods of toxic
waste, ensured cleaner air and water for millions of people.
In the past 3 months alone, we have preserved over 40 million
roadless acres in the national forests. . . .''
Mr. President, here is the rest of the truth. Those 500 neighborhoods
you claim are a product of the Superfund laws that were passed long
before you got here. Also, you are taking credit for cleaner air and
water. Congress passed the Clean Air Act and Congress passed the Clean
Water Act under Republican direction, and subsequently amendments to
change that in a way that would make it more operative--and it has
worked. But you are the one who ruined regulation, through ozone and
particulate matter rules, for example, that have tried to pull it down
and make it less operative.
Mr. President, why don't we both take credit for the environment:
past Congresses, current Congress, past administrations, current
administration. We have worked together and our environment is cleaner,
and we are proud of that.
In 1995, President Clinton said balancing the budget was a bad idea.
Let me repeat that. In 1995, Mr. President, you said balancing the
budget was a bad idea, it was bad for the economy.
Going into 1996 and faced with poll data that indicated the American
people were demanding a balanced budget, you decided to surrender on
principle and argue about the details later. The size of our economic
boom today is because Bill Clinton reluctantly went along with the core
principles that swept Republicans into control of the Congress in 1994.
That balanced budget did not happen until there was a Republican
Congress shaping it and, Mr. President, you know it. Social Security
taxes today are being locked up and protected to secure Social Security
and, Mr. President, that was not your idea. In fact, you wanted to
spend a big chunk of that money last year, and we simply would not let
you do it.
President Clinton's greatest success story--the continued economic
boom--is a direct result of the Republican fiscal policies enacted over
the consistent objections of the President and his Democratic
colleagues in the Congress. No, we will stand toe to toe on that
debate. You cannot hide from your rhetoric and your actions of the
past. Those were your policies before the American people said: We have
gone too far; let's bring our Government under control.
President Clinton is a President who claims he wants to protect
Social Security, but in 8 years, he has failed to submit a serious
Social Security protection plan. And President Clinton is a President
who claims he wants to protect Medicare, and yet, last year--we all
know it--he whispered in the ears of those he put on that conference
and said: Don't vote for it. That was a bipartisan proposal, and that
is the way reform of Medicare must come.
Why didn't he want them to support it and to get it all wrapped up
and finished in an election year? Because one could go out and point
fingers and politicize Medicare and prescription drugs. Shame on you,
Mr. President. Come back and work with us on that. Let's reinstitute
the bipartisan agreement on which Democrats and Republicans stood. We
will vote for it and you ought to sign it, Mr. President. And if you
do, that could be your legacy. On that I would give you some credit.
We have reinvented Government, transforming it into a
catalyst for new ideas. . . . With the smallest Federal
workforce in 40 years, we turned record deficits into record
surpluses. . . .
I was quoting the President. Our record surpluses have little to do
with the size of the Federal workforce. Record surpluses were created
by hard-working Americans earning money and paying taxes and a highly
productive economy. That is what has produced the surpluses, Mr.
President, and it also produced record high taxes.
Another area on which I want to comment is foster care. It was
fascinating to me and frustrating when the President talked about
foster care. I know how that happened. I know Republicans and Democrats
have their differences. We came together and we worked on it in
Congress. It was not in the White House nor was it the President's
idea. But because it was a strong bipartisan effort here, we happened
to pass it. Democrats and Republicans at the congressional level did
that, and the President has ridden on it ever since. Why? Because it
worked, because children are less in foster care today, and we are
finding them permanent, loving homes. No longer is the bureaucracy
harboring them. Foster care is a good institution, but it is an
institution that was reshaped.
Mr. President, because you signed the bill, I am willing to give you
some credit for it, but that is all you did and that is all you
deserve.
Then, of course, there is that issue of guns. Last June, the
President said: I will not send up a licensure bill on guns because the
Congress won't pass it.
Even on less controlling issues, a Democratic vote in the House
killed gun control ideas of this administration. So why did the
President do it this time? For Bill and Al; that is Bill Bradley, of
course, and Al Gore. They are out on the stump talking about it. His
party failed to make guns a national issue, and the reason they failed
is because the American people know there are over 40,000 gun control
laws on the books today, and the American people have grown wise. If
you do not enforce the laws, the criminal element still runs rampant
and commits crimes with guns.
The American people are not asking for more gun control laws. They
are asking for a Justice Department that will prosecute those who
violate the law. Mr. President, that is the message and, of course,
that is what we will do as a Congress. We are not going to stack up
more gun laws; we are going to cause the Justice Department to enforce
them.
There are myriad other points of discussion, but I wanted the public
and the record to show there is a very real difference between what
this President said in his State of the Union Address and what actually
happened and what is happening because we do not stand with this
President on a variety of his ideas, and Congress and the public have
largely rejected them.
Republicans will not stand for a Government-run health care system.
We will pass a Patients' Bill of Rights this year. We will allow
citizens to be in control of their health care and their health care
delivery, and we will enhance education this year. We will send it back
to the States and local communities to control. We will save Social
Security, as the Senator from Wyoming said, and I hope we can deal with
Medicare.
Mr. President, what is important is that if you want to work with us
to resolve these problems in the final hours of your administration,
then let us sit down and begin to talk because the hour is late, and I
believe you have already written your legacy. I do not think there are
enough Federal dollars for you to buy a new one. The American people
are going to remember Bill Clinton not for his big government ideas and
his big spending but for something entirely different.
Let us begin our work in this Congress in the last session of the
106th Congress to balance the budget and to secure Social Security. I
hope we can deal with a Patients' Bill of Rights. I would like to see
us deal with pharmaceutical drugs for our elderly. I hope we can also
deal with our farm crisis and assure a strong military.
I am not going to promise we can do all that Bill wants done and give
tax cuts and buy down the debt because we cannot do all those things.
Most important, we should not. I hope we can give
[[Page S130]]
a tax cut. We are buying down the debt. Most importantly, I say to the
American people: We are not going to allow Government to grow in the
image of Bill Clinton just for a legacy he would like to establish.
I thank my colleague from Wyoming for the liberty he has allowed me
in the use of time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Idaho. Certainly,
we share all those thoughts and ideas. I want to expand in the few
minutes we have remaining in our allotment of time the public land
issue the Senator mentioned.
Public lands, of course, are very important to those of us in the
West. As was pointed out, 1 out of every 4 acres in this country is
owned by the public. My State of Wyoming is 50-percent owned by the
Federal Government. Idaho is some 63-percent owned by the Federal
Government. Nevada is 83-percent owned by the Federal Government. The
management of these lands then, rightfully, is a public issue and one
with which all of us need to be concerned.
It would not be a surprise to know that some of the issues with
regard to the management of those lands are seen differently by the
people who live there and who have access to the lands as opposed to
those who equally own them and live many miles away. The fact is it is
a public issue and it deserves public input.
There is a system that has been set up by the Congress and happens to
be followed by everyone, except the administration, which allows for
public input. It requires that all ideas be set forth so that they can
be considered and there can be statements made on all these issues.
Sometimes it takes an excruciatingly long time to do it, but
nevertheless it is a vital concept.
Now, of course, we have a different thing going on in the
administration. They call it a land legacy, an effort by the President
in these remaining months to leave a Teddy Roosevelt land legacy for
himself and his administration. In so doing, he has done a number of
things quite different from what we have seen done before and, quite
frankly, has created a good deal of controversy, particularly in the
West.
There are different kinds of lands, of course, set out for different
purposes. I happen to be chairman of the Parks Subcommittee, so I am
very interested in that. I grew up right outside of Yellowstone
National Park. As you know, Wyoming has several famous national parks.
We are very proud of them. Those lands were set aside for a particular
purpose. They were set aside because they were unique and they were
different. They are used for a limited number of purposes.
We have the forest reserve which, by its nature, was set aside, was
reserved for special uses. Although there are many, part of them are
wilderness areas set aside by the Congress in specific acts that limit
the use, and properly so, in my view.
Then there is the Bureau of Land Management, which has a very large
section of lands. Those lands, rather than having been set aside for
some particular purpose, were generally what was left after the
Homestead Act was completed. They were sort of residual lands that were
managed, first of all, by a different agency but now by the Bureau of
Land Management--clearly multiple use lands. They are used for many
things.
These are the kinds of things we have. We have seen suddenly a rush
for doing something in public lands. The system being used now by the
administration completely ignores the Congress, which should have a say
in these kinds of things, and as a matter of fact generally ignores
people. One of them is the 40 million acres of roadless areas
nationwide that were declared by the Forest Service.
Frankly, I have no particular quarrel with the idea of taking a look
at roadless areas in the forests, but each forest has a very extensive,
very expensive, very important forest plan, a process that has been
gone through that requires studies, that requires proposed regulation,
that requires statements, that requires hearings. That is where those
things ought to be done rather than having one EIS over the whole
Nation, not for the Secretary of Agriculture to just come out and
declare that there are going to be 40 million acres, and not even
knowing exactly where they are.
As a matter of fact, we had a hearing with the Secretary and with the
Chief of the Forest Service in which they could tell us very little
about it.
Another is the $1 billion from offshore oil royalties that the
administration has asked to be given to it to spend, without the
approval of Congress, to acquire additional lands.
As the Senator from Idaho said, in the Western States the acquisition
of new lands is not the issue. The care of those lands, the investment
in parks, the investment in forests is where we ought to be, in my
view.
The Antiquities Act, which is a legitimate act, has been on the books
since 1905. Teddy Roosevelt put it there. As a matter of fact, Devils
Tower, in my State, was put in by the Antiquities Act and was part of
Teton National Park. But times have changed, and we understand now the
President is going to have 18 different land areas changed in their
designation without, really, any hearings--we had one last year in Utah
that the Governor and the congressional delegation did not even know
about until it was done. That is not the way to do these kinds of
things.
They have a proposal to change the way the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is allocated. It was set up by Congress to go half
and half--State and national. Now the administration wants to spend all
that money for land acquisition.
BLM now has a nationwide roadless plan in which there is very little,
if any, input. They have the Clean Water Action Plan, which is
something done by EPA, which has to do with the control of water, which
is really a way of controlling land.
Each of these things probably has some merit, but they ought to be
examined. They ought to go through the system. They ought to be talked
about. They ought to be agreed to, rather than imposed unilaterally by
an administration.
We can preserve public lands, and, indeed, we should: they are a
legacy for us. We can have multiple use on those lands. We need them
for the communities. We can have public involvement. That is the way it
ought to be. We can have cooperating agency agreements in which the
State and the local communities ought to have a real voice in doing
this.
I hope we do not politicize public lands simply because it is an
election year, to the distraction of public use, to the distraction of
the economies that surround them. The purpose of public lands is to
preserve the resources and give a chance for the owners to enjoy it.
The owners, of course, are the taxpayers.
It is an issue on which I think we will have more and more input
throughout the year. I hope we do.
Mr. President, our time is nearly expired. I yield the floor and
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I think we are in morning business, right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
____________________