[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 10 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S458-S461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET MESSAGE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday, the President of the United 
States announced his budget message, which is also the last budget 
message of the Clinton administration. When you consider the history of 
this administration, beginning with deep deficits, and we are now at a 
point in our history where we have had the longest economic expansion 
in the history of the United States, it is an entirely different budget 
message.
  I still recall when only a few years ago one of our colleagues, the 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Orrin Hatch, came to the 
floor to say to the assembled Senators that we had reached such a 
desperate point in American history that we had to amend the 
Constitution of the United States to put in place what was known as the 
balanced budget amendment, so that Federal courts would have the 
authority to stop Congress from spending. It was a desperate move, 
supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. We had so many years of 
red ink and so many deficits that many people thought there was no way 
it was going to get better, short of creating a new constitutional 
force--the force of the Federal judiciary--to stop the Congress from 
spending and to require the kind of fiscal discipline for which 
American families were asking.
  What a difference 3 years later. We have debated, over the last year 
or so, what we are going to do with the surplus, not with the deficit. 
We are no longer walking around in sack cloth and ashes through the 
Halls of Congress saying another torrent of red ink is about to hit us. 
We are talking about an economy that continues to grow, with employment 
growing--unemployment, I think, last year was the lowest in 30 years in 
our Nation. People are buying businesses, building homes, and inflation 
is being held in check. It is a great period in our history for most 
families across the Nation. The President's budget message now says to 
us, since we have turned that corner, since we are no longer talking 
about deep deficits but, rather, a different era in Government 
spending, as well as our economy, let us look at it in a more positive 
fashion.

  I want to submit for the Record the following:
  In 1992, the deficit was a record $290 billion. The Congressional 
Budget Office projected that it would grow to $455 billion by this 
year. Instead of a $455 billion deficit, we have a projected $167 
billion surplus--the third surplus in a row. Almost from the moment we 
started our debate on the balanced budget amendment, we started 
generating surpluses in this Government. Those who said we had to amend 
the Constitution clearly--if they look back--now understand that it 
wasn't necessary. This represents $622 billion less savings, drained by 
the Government in 1 year alone. So rather than having a deficit of $455 
billion, borrowing from the American people, as well as foreign 
sources, to pay it off, we have the surplus.
  We also have something that I don't think anyone would have ever 
imagined. We have had the largest paydown of debt in the history of the 
United States--$297 billion. In 1998 and 1999, the debt held by the 
public was reduced by $140 billion. It is projected that the Government 
will pay down an additional $157 billion in debt held by the public 
this year.
  What does that mean? In taxes, each day we collect $1 billion from 
individuals, families, and businesses. That billion dollars is 
collected not to provide for any new educational opportunities or 
health care but to pay interest on the debt of the Government. About 
half of that is the publicly owned debt. Think of it--$1 billion in 
taxes is collected every day to pay interest on old debt. So as we pay 
down this debt, which we are currently doing, we are reducing the need 
for this money to be collected from families and businesses to pay down 
interest. This will bring the total debt paydown to $297 billion. It is 
the largest 3-year debt paydown in American history.
  In contrast, under the two previous Presidents, the debt held by the 
public quadrupled--400 percent and more. Under this President, we are 
seeing the debt coming down. And we are seeing the smallest Government 
in over three decades. Government spending has declined from 22.2 
percent of the economy in 1992 to 18.7 percent of the economy in 1999--
the lowest share in 33 years.
  If you take any rational measurement and look at the size of our 
economy and the percentage we spend on the Government, it has come down 
dramatically under the Clinton administration. To a great extent, that 
accounts for the savings about which we are talking. At the same time, 
the Government has made important investments, including nearly 
doubling investments in education and training.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Before the Senator moves on to the investment part, I 
think the points the Senator from Illinois is making are astounding. To 
me, particularly our friends in the business community, and all of the 
American people, ought to look at what the Senator from Illinois has 
said--deficits, biggest paydown ever--the usual criteria that 
conservatives use for how big and encroaching Government is, smaller 
than it has been in three decades, smaller under Bill Clinton than 
under Ronald Reagan.
  To reiterate, because the facts are astounding, Government spending 
as a share of the economy went from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 22.2 
percent in 1992. Under President Clinton, it has gone from 22.2 percent 
to 18.7 percent, which is lower than it has been under any year in 30 
years and under Ronald Reagan. Taxes and the number of jobs in the 
Federal Government are lower than anytime since 1966.

  If you went to the business leaders and asked them what the Senator 
from Illinois is talking about, they would say no. The message sent to 
the business community in the budget of this last year of the Clinton 
Presidency is that the fiscally responsible party is the Democrats; we 
believe in investment. I know what the Senator is talking about. But we 
also believe in tightening the belt of Government. No one has done a 
better job of that than the President between 1993 and the present.
  I thank the Senator for yielding. I just wanted to underscore that 
point.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New York.
  Of course, we have our images--the Republican image and the 
Democratic image. We try to paint each other's image. In this 
situation, though, the Senator from New York makes the point: Just look 
at the facts. Don't look at the rhetoric or listen to the rhetoric. 
Don't look at all the things that are said in political campaigns but 
look at the facts. The facts show we are bringing down the debt at a 
faster rate than at anytime in our history.
  I think more Americans--and particularly business people--are 
interested in seeing the debt of this Nation reduced than some 
grandiose plan for a tax cut that benefits the wealthiest people in 
this country. They would rather see us take the fiscally responsible, 
disciplined approach of bringing down their debt because they know that 
reduces the burden on our children.
  Let me speak for a second about the tax burden for typical families 
in America. That is another thing that is often said. Of course, taxes 
are out of hand. But listen to this. At the same time all of these good 
things are happening to our fiscal house, the typical American family 
will shoulder the lowest Federal tax burden since 1978. It is amazing 
to them that their tax revenues are increasing because, frankly, people 
are making more money. You see it all the time for the middle-income 
and lower-income families--the lowest tax burden in over 20 years. That 
is something that is important to maintain.
  I think it is responsible for the President to come forward and say: 
if we are

[[Page S459]]

going to have tax cuts, let us target them to these middle- and lower-
income families. Let's look at things such as a long-term care tax 
credit because the largest growing segment of our population in America 
is those over the age of 85. Roughly half of them will need some 
specialized medical assistance for problems they are going to face. 
Their children and grandchildren need help in paying for that. The 
President's long-term care tax credit is a step in that direction.
  I would like to ask my colleague from New York if he would yield. He 
has a proposal embodied in the President's budget that tries to help 
families pay for college education expenses, another one of the 
President's targeted tax cuts.
  Would the Senator from New York be willing to explain that?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for asking me. Yes.
  What we are trying to do overall, as the Senator from Illinois has 
stated in his proposal the President is trying to do and we are 
supporting, is not a huge across-the-board tax cut, which generally 
benefits the wealthiest people, the people who need it the least, but, 
rather, targeted tax cuts for the middle class.
  The Senator has correctly pointed out, for instance, long-term care. 
My parents are 76 and 71 years of age. Thank God--knock on wood--they 
are in decent health. But they were debating the other week whether to 
pay a massive amount of money down now, which is hard for them to 
afford, so they will get long-term care if, God forbid, they become ill 
in later life.
  The proposal I have been championing--I am delighted and grateful 
that the President has put it in his proposal--another burden that 
middle-class families have is waking up at 2 a.m. in the morning 
worrying about young families who have kids who are about to go to a 
clinic.
  We all know that college is a necessity these days if you want your 
children and grandchildren to have a better life. Yet it is so 
expensive. Tuition has gone up more than any other portion of the 
family budget--over 250 percent since 1980. Even for a family that is 
making $50,000 or $60,000 a year, people are often neglected by the 
Government, and neglected by the kind of grandiose tax plans we have 
seen from the other side. College tuition bills bring shivers down 
their spine.
  What we are saying, at the very least, is that Uncle Sam ought not 
take his cut. If you are going to pay for tuition, which is good for 
your children but also good for America--you ought to be allowed to 
deduct that, or take a tax cut, whichever you prefer. This for the 
first time brings relief to middle-class families who really do not 
need the Government day to day but who are worried about the big 
financial nugget such as long-term care and such as paying for college 
tuition. Our proposal would benefit them in ways they have never seen.
  This is again a theme of the budget--not a broad, across-the-board 
tax cut that will benefit the top 5 percent, at most, and give a few 
crumbs to the struggling middle class but, rather, target that part of 
the middle class. There is no better target than college tuition.
  I thank the Senator for asking me to extrapolate on that point.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New York, because I think when 
we talk about tax cuts, most Americans will, of course, applaud the 
idea of tax cuts, but they want to have responsible, targeted tax cuts 
to address specific problems, as the Senator from New York addressed 
with his suggestion about deducting college education expenses and the 
long-term care concerns of virtually every family across America.
  We are also talking about increasing the earned-income tax credit 
under the President's budget. What is that all about? If you are a 
working person in a low-income situation with a family, we want to give 
you a helping hand. We want to reward work. We want to strengthen 
families. That is what the earned-income tax credit is about.
  Let me mention two or three other points, and then I will yield the 
floor to my colleague from Washington, who is also here to speak on the 
President's budget.
  The benefits of fiscal discipline for our economy have been enormous. 
This budget continues the idea of fiscal discipline leading to a 
stronger economy with targeted investments and the things Americans 
hold dear--targeted tax cuts to help families in difficult 
circumstances.
  Interest rates are lower than they would have been otherwise because 
we have reduced the debt of this Nation, helping to fuel 7 consecutive 
years of double-digit investment growth for the first time in our 
Nation's history.
  When I first came to Congress under President Reagan in 1982 and 
1983, virtually every problem in America was blamed on Jimmy Carter. It 
was said that the Carter administration had left such a terrible legacy 
that America was just deep in the mire and would never be able to get 
out. I thought that was a reasonable thing to say for a while. But the 
Republicans continued to say it year after year. Pretty soon we were 5 
or 6 years into the Reagan administration, and they were still blaming 
Jimmy Carter. I wonder what the Republican Party will say now about the 
record under the Clinton administration.
  This President can't take credit, nor does he try, for all of the 
economic goodness in this country. But certainly his leadership has 
provided a role, with the Congress, with the Federal Reserve, and 
brought us to this position in our history.
  We have seen this dramatic increase in our Nation's economic growth 
of a 4.7 annual growth rate from 1981 to 1992, and now a 12.1 percent 
real annual increase in investment in business equipment and software 
since 1993. Unemployment is the lowest in a generation--4.0 percent. We 
are also seeing the longest economic expansion in our Nation's history.
  The bottom line is this. We believe the President's budget--the one 
he comes forward with now, this positive message of continued economic 
growth--says keep the fiscal discipline for a strong economy and make 
strategic investments, not in big government but smart government.
  Take a look at the President's budget over a 10-year period of time. 
You will find that he is slightly below the funding for current 
services. That means, if you apply the rate of inflation for every 
single year to last year's budget, just keeping up with inflation at 
the end of 10 years, the President's proposal for defense and 
nondefense spending is less than the increase for the rate of 
inflation. He is asking for not big government but smart government 
investments in education, health care--things families hold dear--and 
attractive, targeted tax cuts that American families applaud from 
Illinois and across the Nation.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I didn't have the opportunity to hear the initial 
comments of the Senator, but I appreciate very much his calling 
attention to many of these issues. What an appropriate time to do it as 
we consider the budget. The budget was just released yesterday.
  Did the Senator from Illinois make comment that we actually have a 
lower percentage of Government spending as a percentage of GDP than at 
any time in the Reagan administration or, for that matter, any time in 
modern days? Did the Senator state that?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is exactly right. The Senator from South Dakota, the 
minority leader, has made the point. I think it is one that bears 
repeating. Those who argue that we are ``growing'' the Government at 
the expense of family needs across America just don't have the facts 
straight.
  Our gross domestic product, the sum total of goods and services in 
this country, continues to show a decline in the percentage spent on 
Government.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Did the Senator from Illinois also make the point 
earlier that we actually don't go into the non-Social Security surplus 
with this budget, that we keep approximate current services, but we 
dedicate many of these new investments to areas that directly affect 
working families? Did the Senator make that comment?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senate minority leader is correct. I think it is a 
sharp contrast to some of the rhetoric we hear on the Presidential 
campaign trail from the Republican candidates. Some have suggested 
again this theory of massive tax cuts that go way beyond our ability to 
pay without raiding the

[[Page S460]]

Social Security trust fund. I think that has become an accepted premise 
for all budgets on Capitol Hill, Republican and Democrat alike: We are 
going to say the Social Security trust fund is not going to be raided; 
we will set it aside. We hear candidates on the campaign trail calling 
for tax cuts that require raiding the Social Security trust fund.
  The President does not. He says we will hold to that basic principle. 
I think in so doing, he is standing for principles Americans believe 
in: Protect Social Security and make certain we bring down the debt 
incurred by Social Security as a way of forcing fiscal discipline in 
the process.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the answer from the Senator from Illinois.
  The debt, under this budget, would be completely retired by the year 
2013; Medicare solvency would be extended to the year 2025; Social 
Security solvency would be extended through the year 2050; we broaden 
health care coverage; all of these plus maintain the kind of commitment 
we have begun to make in areas such as investments in education and in 
increased law enforcement activity that have made a real difference in 
this country.
  Did the Senator from Illinois talk about those things as well?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from South Dakota has been on Capitol Hill a 
few years longer than I have. I cannot recall a budget such as this 
budget, one that is so positive, that looks to the future with such 
optimism, a budget based on reality and on fiscal discipline.
  Many politicians on Capitol Hill throw charges around about 
irresponsible people, favoring increased taxes, big government spending 
and new programs. This budget says to America, we can continue this 
economic expansion if we are careful, if we make sure we bring down 
this debt and do it in a responsible way, with a targeted investment, 
so America can grow, so our families are healthy, so our children are 
educated.
  I believe the Senator from South Dakota has made that point again. I 
hope during the course of this debate on the budget our friends across 
the aisle will be as honest with this side as we will be with their 
side. We should accept the premise that we are not going to raid Social 
Security, that we are going to reduce the publicly held debt of this 
Nation to zero by 2015 while making sure Social Security and Medicare 
are strong for years to come.
  Often our friends on the Republican side of the aisle do not want to 
mention the word ``Medicare.'' Yet for tens of millions of Americans, 
Medicare is crucial. We need to make it part of this debate as well.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the leadership of the Senator 
from Illinois in bringing Members to the floor for a colloquy of this 
import as we consider the extraordinary implications of this budget.
  I was disappointed this morning to read in one of the newspapers some 
of our Republican colleagues have already pronounced this budget dead 
on arrival. What is there not to like about this budget? This is a 
budget that protects the Social Security surplus, a budget that ensures 
we protect the non-Social Security surplus for other commitments we may 
want to make in tax cuts or in dedicated investments, a budget that 
ensures the solvency of the Social Security trust fund through the year 
2050 and Medicare through 2025, a budget that understands, as the 
Senator from Illinois said, there is a prudent middle-center approach 
that recognizes the importance of ensuring the tremendous strides we 
have made in reining in Government and doing what we must to make the 
efficiency of the Government our task. All this is in this budget, and 
we are told it is dead on arrival.
  I am somewhat stunned and disappointed that some of our colleagues, 
who I am sure have not thought through the implications of their 
statement, would comment without a more careful consideration of the 
extraordinary impact that this budget could have if we pursued it this 
year.
  I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I close by saying the old cliche, ``If it ain't broke, 
don't fix it,'' applies to this situation. Our economy isn't broken; it 
is strong. This budget will continue our economic growth as a nation. 
In this budget I can say to my children and grandchildren: We are doing 
the right thing. We are reducing the debt of the Nation so that your 
burden is reduced as well. We are providing for Social Security so that 
this Senator and many others, when it comes time for retirement, will 
have Social Security to turn to. A strong Medicare will be there as 
well. We are going to invest in our future in terms of education, 
health care, the things Americans value, and provide tax cuts targeted 
for middle- and low-income families to deal with long-term care 
expenses as well as college education expenses and the other burdens 
they face.
  I challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle, in the true 
spirit of this deliberative body, to come forward with a better budget. 
Let's debate it on the floor. I am prepared to say at this moment that 
the principles behind the President's budget are principles I endorse. 
They are principles I think most of the American families endorse.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from South Dakota a 
question. In his questions to the Senator from Illinois, he has pointed 
out the core of this budget is balance. It is a balanced budget in the 
traditional sense that we are not spending more than we bring in. In 
fact, we are doing the opposite, by paying down the debt. However, it 
is also balanced in terms of the needs of the American people.
  The No. 1 priority we have is to save Social Security by buying down 
the debt; second, target tax cuts for middle-class people who need 
help. They don't need help day to day. People are doing fine making 
$40,000, $50,000, or $60,000 a year, but they do need help with the big 
financial notes such as college tuition costs and long-term care.
  Finally, spend in a careful way in areas where we have to, such as 
education, where everyone knows we have to do better. I know the 
Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, has been a leader on this issue. 
I am sure we will hear from her.
  I ask the Senator from South Dakota, our minority leader, in his 
years of experience, has he seen a budget as balanced as this, that 
cares for the American people in a thoughtful, rational way, that is 
built on a platform of prudent Government responsibility?
  Mr. DASCHLE. In answer to the Senator from New York, I have to say 
no. What a contrast from the 1980s when we made the huge cuts in taxes 
and then ran up the huge trillions of dollars in a deficit we are still 
trying to pay off today. What a remarkable contrast this is. This 
recognizes the importance of fiscal responsibility. First and foremost, 
it says we have made some tremendous strides in our budgetary and 
fiscal policy in the last 7 years. This will build on it.
  It is no accident today that we are seeing the economic achievement 
in this country with the fiscal and monetary policy. This says we want 
to build on that, we want to continue in this coming decade what we 
have pursued in the last decade: We have the lowest number of Federal 
employees since 1962, with the lowest percentage of spending for GDP 
since 1967. We recognize we can do a lot more with a lot less. We 
recognize we can still target tax cuts to the middle class. We 
recognize the importance of education by providing the largest single 
Head Start expansion in history in this budget.
  How remarkable it is in this budget we are able to keep our current 
services at below the cost of inflation in the coming year and still 
provide the largest Head Start expansion in history or deal with child 
care by providing low-income families with more affordable child care 
than they ever had in any other budget.

  You can look all the way down the list of opportunities this budget 
presents: Helping working families with greater EITC, helping working 
families with greater opportunities for college through deductibility, 
helping working families by providing safer communities. This is a 
budget of which we can be proud. It builds on what we have already 
done. Are there going to be naysayers? Of course. There always are. We 
have overcome them for 7 years. We will have to do it again.
  But it is here. I ask my colleagues to look at it. My colleague from 
New York asked exactly the right question:

[[Page S461]]

 Is this a balanced budget? By any definition of that word, this is a 
balanced budget.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from South Dakota and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wonder if my leader, Senator Daschle, will engage in 
just a bit more of a colloquy at this point?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have been on budget committees for years, 6 years in 
the House and now, since I came to the Senate, it is a total of 13 
years. This is a remarkable moment in history, as my friend has pointed 
out. I wanted to talk to him about why we are where we are.
  It has been very difficult for quite a while, back to the days of the 
burgeoning deficits that started under President Reagan and escalated 
under President Bush and only were brought under control with the 
Clinton-Gore team. Finally, we now can do something for the American 
people, do something they need. Now we can do something they need in 
education. We talked about Senator Murray's push to reduce class size. 
We see in this budget the ability to do that. We see in this budget $1 
billion for afterschool care, for which we have struggled mightily, 
which means millions of kids are going to have that. We see the 
targeted tax breaks.
  So my question to my friend is, we are at this point and we are at 
this point for a reason. It was hard to get here. Fiscal responsibility 
does bring rewards. We tell that to our children: Save for the time you 
need to spend; be careful with your resources. We have done that. I 
wonder if my friend can recall the key vote, back in 1993, when, 
without one Republican vote, we were able to get through a budget which 
has led to these kinds of surpluses and the surpluses, in turn, are 
giving us the ability to pay down the debt, save Social Security, save 
Medicare, and make these targeted tax cuts and investments? Could he 
recall for us what it was like to get that through?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator from 
California, under the previous order she has a minute and a half 
remaining.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the colloquy be taken off my leader 
time, if I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am done with my remarks. I want to get my friend to 
evoke for us how hard it was to get to this particular point in which 
we find ourselves.
  Mr. DASCHLE. It was so hard that there are some colleagues who are no 
longer here because they paid the price. Before we could see the 
results, of course, there were some across the country who made a 
judgment about the prudence of their very difficult decisions in 1993 
and chose not to send them back to Washington. They paid the ultimate 
political price so we could enjoy the fiscal glory we are enjoying 
today.
  I can recall so vividly talking to some of my colleagues who, up 
until the very last moment, weighed whether this was the right thing to 
do. Only in the last few moments they made the decision to take the 
chance. But this was in the face of tremendous opposition, vocal 
opposition from the other side, projecting recessions and unemployment 
and extraordinary fiscal repercussions that we would feel for perhaps 
the rest of our professional lives. There were warnings, extraordinary 
in their scope and depth and visceral disgust, for what we were 
attempting to do.
  It was an overpowering moment, to see the Vice President cast that 
tie-breaking vote to give us the opportunity to put this budget on the 
fiscal path, a moment that we now look back on with great pride. What 
remarkable opportunities it presented. Twenty million new jobs--how do 
you put a value on that? We have an economy that has taken the stock 
market to heights we never dreamed. We have more homeowners than at any 
time in our history; two out of every three people have their own homes 
today, in large measure because of our fiscal responsibility and the 
incredible success we have enjoyed. I would say these did not come 
easy.
  Maybe the fight this year will not be in any way near the proportions 
or depth of feeling as when it was fought out on the floor of the 
Senate back in 1993. But it has the same repercussions. How fragile 
this all is. How easy it would be to go back and cast our votes for a 
huge tax cut that would destroy all of this in one fell swoop. It could 
happen again. If we don't understand the repercussions of a tax cut by 
now, it could happen again.
  I urge my colleagues to read this budget, to think carefully about 
what it is we have been able to do and how we have been able to do it, 
and make absolutely certain, before we depart from a blueprint that I 
think demonstrates remarkable balance, that we think long and hard 
about alternatives.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the question proposed by the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10:30 
a.m. shall be in the control of the Senator from Wyoming.
  The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________