[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 11 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S512-S514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I didn't want to take any time during

[[Page S513]]

the Democrats' timeframe because I am so appreciative of Senator 
Durbin's remarks. I have another perspective, which is just my own 
intellectually honest and, by the way, personally heartfelt analysis of 
the budget.
  I was struck when Senator Durbin was talking about: If not now, when? 
The words of Rabbi Hill, his third century admonition, were heard by 
many. Rabbi Hill, speaking to Jews, said: If we don't speak for 
ourselves, who will? And if we speak only for ourselves, who are we? 
And if not now, when?
  I think Senator Durbin was talking about this booming economy and the 
fact that with a booming economy and the business cycle up, we can make 
our very good country even better. I agree. Let me spell out my dissent 
from the President's budget. I did it yesterday, but today I want to do 
it in a somewhat different way.
  I do worry about the cynicism of people in the country toward 
politics and toward government. I think we all do, regardless of party. 
I think one of the ways we get ourselves into trouble is when there is 
such a disconnect or a gap between what we say and what we say we are 
going to do versus the actual budgets and what, in fact, we really are 
calling for by way of investment.
  As I hear the President talk about his budget and where we are 
heading as a country, I hear the President talk about the goal of 
ending child poverty; of making sure we have health care coverage for 
our children; of making sure every child comes to kindergarten ready to 
learn; making sure that when children are no longer children but young 
people, like our pages, they will eventually be able to afford college, 
if they choose to make that higher education decision; that there will 
be economic security for senior citizens.
  Then I look at the budget and this emphasis on Social Security, 
Medicare, yes, and basically paying down more of the debt. Frankly, 
when all is said and done--if somebody can prove me wrong, I am pleased 
to be proven wrong--the actual nonmilitary discretionary spending over 
the next 10 years is, in real dollar terms, cut. There is no additional 
investment at all.
  Now, the way in which we try to do this in this budget is through the 
tax system, because politically it seems as if Democrats are scared to 
death to talk about investment in people any longer for fear they will 
be accused of being a big spender. Therefore, we do it through the Tax 
Code, through deductions and tax credits.
  Let me give credit where credit is due, and let me tell you where I 
think there is this huge gap between what we say we are going to do and 
what we are really going to do. The earned-income tax credit is one of 
the best things we have done for poor people in this country, many of 
whom are children. Refundable tax credits makes a whole lot more sense. 
When we did the HOPE scholarship for higher education, we didn't make 
it refundable, so a lot of young people or not so young people who were 
attending community colleges, who had incomes under $28,000, $29,000 a 
year, got no help anyway. They had no tax liability from which to get a 
credit. Refundable tax credits help low- and moderate-income working 
Americans more.
  But with all due respect, we have made hardly any additional 
investment. Sometimes, if you are going to do it through the tax 
system, if you are going to talk about long-term care, I say to the 
Senator from Colorado--I know this is a huge issue in his State--
families are thinking long and hard. I have been through it. Sheila and 
I and our children, we went through it with my parents. They are no 
longer alive.  They both had Parkinson's disease. I know what it is 
like. You don't want your parent or parents to be in a nursing home. 
The United States of America is still the only country in the world 
where you have to go to the poorhouse when you are in a nursing home 
before you are going to get public help. You have to basically lose 
everything. You want your parents, or a loved one with a disability, to 
be able to live at home in as near normal circumstances as possible and 
with dignity.

  We say there will be economic security. We are now concerned about 
long-term care and that people should be able to live at home. Do you 
know what. In this budget proposal--maybe I am wrong--when you finally 
get down to it, you are probably talking about a couple thousand 
dollars a year that a family can get on a tax credit.
  For my mother and father, and other mothers and fathers and 
grandparents, if we want to make a commitment to people being able to 
live at home with dignity, it is going to cost them more than $3,000 a 
year to have some people come in and help them do that.
  We are so much for the children, and we have all this irrefutable 
medical evidence about the development of the brain. Last night, I was 
lucky enough to have dinner with Rob Reiner. He is so committed to 
this, and I thank him for his work. We know we have to get it right--
prekindergarten. The Federal Government should be a player. It should 
be centralized, and we should get funds to the neighborhoods and 
community level and have really good developmental child care.
  We have a pittance in this budget. Yes, we add more money for Head 
Start. I guess we should since, right now, we have been covering, under 
the age of 3, only 2 percent of the kids who are eligible. That is 
hardly much of a commitment to give children from poor income 
backgrounds. We have additional money, but in terms of the need, we 
only cover 20 percent of low-income families in America. This is a huge 
issue for middle-income and working families. We are talking about good 
child care, not unsafe child care. It is a pittance. It is a pittance.
  So my point is--and the Presiding Officer is Republican, so don't 
take this the wrong way; we like each other--I think and I hope we like 
each other. I think what the President has proposed is better than what 
the Republicans propose for sure. The Republican view, when it comes to 
these issues, is that there is not much the Government can or should do 
but give people a tax break, most of it going to the people on top. 
That doesn't meet the needs of working families in this country anyway. 
If you don't own a large corporation and you are not wealthy, there is 
a role for Government by way of getting some resources down to the 
community level that can make a real difference to families. But where 
I dissent from this budget is where the polls say emphasize this, so we 
talk about it. The polls say it is a hot issue, so we talk about it.
  But the truth of the matter is that when people hear us, they 
actually think what we are proposing is going to make a huge 
difference, so that children won't be in poverty. We have more children 
in severe poverty today--one-half the poverty income --than we have 
ever had. We still have about 13 million poor children.
  People think a budget is going to help us end child poverty and make 
a commitment to prekindergarten and good child care, so that every 
child who comes to kindergarten is ready to learn, or the budget will 
help the elderly with health care. There is a little bit, but most 
families will find out there isn't going to be nearly enough--not if we 
truly want to live up to the goodness of America.

  Every child should have the same opportunity to do well. People who 
have worked hard and built this country and are on their backs at the 
end of their lives ought to have decent coverage. They ought not to 
have to worry about going to a nursing home and losing everything.
  Higher education should be affordable. People should not fall between 
the cracks in health care. I was at a dramatic hearing yesterday on 
suicide. Dr. Jameson from Johns Hopkins and many other people 
testified. People need coverage because of a struggle with mental 
illness. I argue that it is politically unsafe, and because there is 
substance abuse and addiction, they should not be discriminated against 
and denied coverage. We could save so many lives with the dollars if we 
did better.
  People who work hard but don't have any coverage at all ought to have 
coverage for themselves and their loved ones. That is not in this 
budget. We hardly make a dent. So I take the words of my colleagues, 
the Democrats with whom I work, who say the economy is booming and we 
can do better, and I say I agree: So why are we not doing much better?
  I think we have been taught to think small. I think that, 
unfortunately, part of what has been going on over x number of years is 
that we Democrats have decided we should think small. The

[[Page S514]]

conventional wisdom is that that is the way to win--think small; come 
up with programs that people think are popular, and then appropriate, 
get some money, and do it through the Tax Code so nobody can say you 
are spending money. But you are, either way. But you don't even come 
close to meeting the needs of the people to whom I say you are going to 
respond. I think it invites cynicism. No wonder people say Government 
programs don't work. They hear all this fanfare in press conferences, 
and, frankly, the investment isn't there. The people aren't helped very 
much.
  I say to the Democrats--and I get to do it because I am a Senator and 
I get to speak to the floor to whoever wants to listen--I think 
everybody says the reason you have a 50-percent hole in the electorate, 
with 50 percent of the people voting in a Presidential election, much 
less a congressional election, much less a local election, is because 
of money, politics, and disillusionment. That is true. But the other 
part is that we aren't necessarily standing for politics that really 
speaks to people's lives, where ordinary citizens can say: Yes, the 
party, the Democratic Party, the party of the people, is behind us. We 
know it. Here is what they say they stand for, and they are willing to 
make the investments to make sure that, for parents and grandparents, 
our children and grandchildren can do better. I think that is the void 
in American politics.
  I think it is a shame that this budget doesn't do a better job of 
filling that void. Frankly, I don't think we Democrats are doing the 
job we should do.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________