[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1549-S1552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
address an issue which is paramount now at this moment in time in this 
congressional session. Each year, we have certain things we have to do 
before we can go home. The first of those things is to pass a budget 
resolution.
  The President comes to Capitol Hill in January. He gives his State of 
the Union Address and suggests a legislative agenda, as Presidents have 
done, I believe, since President Woodrow Wilson. Then, shortly after 
that speech, the President's wishes are translated into a budget 
proposal submitted by the President to Congress.

[[Page S1550]]

  Of course, we have coequal branches of Government. We are very proud 
of our responsibility. We look at the President's budget as an 
indicator of where the country might be headed. Then we add our own 
priorities. We decide, if we agree with the President, that we will go 
forward with some of his spending plans. If we disagree, we come up 
with our own proposal. That proposal is known as the budget resolution. 
It is a resolution passed by the House, passed by the Senate, one we 
hope we can agree on, but it isn't signed by the President. It is 
really the Congress' view of how we should spend the money the people 
of America give us to supervise and maintain.
  The budget process is one where Congress has the burden on its 
shoulders. The President has met his responsibility. Now it is our 
turn. We usually try to make certain that before April 1 that budget 
resolution will be enacted so that then we can get to work on the 
Appropriations Committees.
  The budget resolution is like a blueprint. The Appropriations 
Committees take 13 different appropriations and spell out, in fine 
detail, what the budget resolution has instructed them to do.
  There are large-scheme things we consider and smaller things, as 
well. On the larger scheme, we want to continue to bring down the 
deficit that we have faced in this country for so long, and the 
national debt which we have accumulated. On a smaller scheme basis--
certainly not small in terms of importance, but in spending, we 
consider everything from the Federal prison system, education, the 
defense of the country, foreign aid--you name it--each of the 
appropriations bills takes that into account. The first step is the 
budget resolution.

  I am a member of the Budget Committee. I kind of jokingly say that I 
served a 6-year sentence on the House Budget Committee, and now I am 
back in the role of the Senate's Budget Committee serving my time as 
well. It is not as tough an assignment as that might lead one to 
believe. We have a wonderful chairman in Senator Pete Domenici of New 
Mexico; we have a great minority spokesman in Frank Lautenberg of New 
Jersey. But we do have differences of opinion.
  It appears this Presidential election year has made the budget 
process more difficult than ever. I think the majority party, the 
Republican Party, has a tough job on their hands. They now have a 
candidate for President, Governor George W. Bush, who has said his 
vision of America involves a substantial tax cut that goes primarily to 
the wealthiest people in America. Virtually every Republican Senator 
and Member of the House has closed ranks and said he or she supports 
Governor Bush, and that is the cornerstone of the Bush campaign, this 
large tax cut for upper-income Americans.
  It has become difficult to convert the Republican Presidential 
primary rhetoric into budget realities; in other words, to take the 
promises from the campaign stump by Governor Bush of a massive tax cut 
and turn it into a budget reality on Capitol Hill. I think that is why 
our budget process this week broke down. The Republicans canceled 
today's hearing to discuss the budget resolution. I am afraid the 
Republican majority can't quite get it together.
  I think they ought to think twice. I hope they do not include in 
their budget resolution Governor Bush's tax cut because, frankly, it is 
a tax cut America cannot afford. It is one thing for us to say it is 
only some $223 billion. In fact, it is much more over a 5-year period 
of time. If Leonardo DiCaprio and others will forgive me, we think the 
U.S. economy is doing very well, sailing along. In this Republican tax 
scheme, we see $223 billion up here that might be its cost over the 
first 5 years, but take a look at this iceberg below, which could sink 
this ship, the U.S. economy. Once you have played out the cost of the 
Bush tax scheme, it approximates $2 trillion; $2 trillion in an economy 
that seems to be doing quite well as is.
  Take a look last year at what was proposed by the Republicans as part 
of their tax relief. Over 5 years, it was $156 billion. Then as it grew 
over 10 years, it went to $792 billion. In this year's debate, the 
Congressional Republican budget plan is over $200 billion in the first 
5 years, and over 10 years, it just mushrooms and explodes in size.
  One might say: Well, frankly, I would like to have a tax cut. 
Wouldn't everybody, an individual, a family, a business? Of course. But 
we have to ask a harder question. Would we risk endangering the current 
economic growth in this country in order to pass a large and expanding 
tax cut that goes primarily to wealthy people? Would we be in favor of 
such a tax cut plan as opposed to paying down the national debt, a debt 
which, frankly, we have to raise tax money for every single day to pay 
interest? Wouldn't it be better--incidentally, Federal Reserve Board 
Chairman Alan Greenspan thinks so and I agree with him--to reduce the 
national debt as opposed to giving tax breaks to wealthy people?
  As that debt comes down, we are saying to our children: Here is an 
America that is strong, a great democracy, a leader in the world, a 
nation unencumbered by debt that has been accumulated over the last 
several decades.
  President Clinton's plan suggests that our first priority should be 
bringing down America's national debt before we start talking about 
massive, risky tax schemes. I think the President is correct because in 
bringing down that national debt, we invest money in Social Security, 
meaning that it is stronger longer, and we invest money into Medicare, 
the health insurance plan for the elderly and disabled in America, a 
plan which needs our assistance. That, I think, is the responsible 
course.

  As I have gone across my State of Illinois and met not just with my 
friends on the Democratic side but independent voters and Republican 
businessmen and businesswomen, they agree. The most conservative, the 
most disciplined approach is not a massive tax cut but rather bringing 
down America's national debt so that our children are not burdened with 
paying interest on that. That is why my friends on the Budget Committee 
on the Republican side are really having a tough time of it. They are 
trying to sell something to America it is not buying. This Governor 
George W. Bush tax cut is one that, frankly, could jeopardize our 
economic growth, could take money away from reducing our national debt. 
I think the American people understand that is just not a good thing to 
do.
  The President's proposal is to focus on bringing down that debt--in 
fact, at three or four times the rate of what has been proposed by the 
House Republican Budget Committee--and at the same time, the President 
says, with the surplus, without raiding Social Security, but with the 
surplus, let's try to deal with some of the priorities of our Nation.
  Take a look at our priorities: Save Social Security first; paying 
down the debt; protecting Medicare. Here is one I found across Illinois 
that is extremely important to people--providing a prescription drug 
benefit for elderly people. Medicare doesn't include it. A third of the 
seniors do quite well and have coverage. Another third have some 
coverage. But a third have none at all.
  I have met these people. These are men and women who have 
prescription drug bills of $200 a month and more, living on fixed 
incomes. Many of us believe Medicare should include a prescription drug 
benefit and some of the surplus should be dedicated for that. Sadly, 
some of the proposals coming from the Republican side provide not a 
penny for a prescription drug benefit.
  Then, from the same surplus, invest in education. I think we all 
agree and understand America is strong because we have a good 
educational system and a well-trained and well-educated workforce that 
can compete in the world in the 21st century. We want to be able to say 
this, too, can be an American century, and it means investing in 
education.
  What will we put the money into? Well, certainly to upgrade the 
skills of teachers so they can teach the latest in terms of science and 
math and the best approaches to learning; in addition, modernizing our 
schools, and making sure they are safe. We can bring computer 
technology to our schools for every kid in America. We talk about 
afterschool programs so kids don't have those idle hours without 
supervision. They have a chance to stay

[[Page S1551]]

after school, under supervision, to be tutored if they are falling 
behind, enrichment courses if they are good students, counseling if 
they are troubled. Those things are all helpful and move us in the 
right direction.
  President Clinton has suggested that we should reduce class sizes so 
that in the lower grades, when kids need more attention, we will have 
fewer kids in the classroom. I think that makes sense. I support the 
President on that. Those are investments in education with which most 
American families would agree.
  Then we think we can still have some money left for targeted tax 
cuts, not for the wealthiest people in the country but for working 
families.
  To give some examples, wouldn't it be great in America if working 
families, in sending their sons and daughters to college, could fully 
deduct their college education expenses? I think it would. I meet too 
many families and young people who graduate from college with massive 
debt. Sparing these young people and their parents this debt is a very 
worthy goal, indeed. I think the President's proposal of a tax cut for 
the deductibility of college education expenses is a good one.

  Let me share another example. The largest and fastest growing group 
in America's population are people over the age of 85. People are 
living longer. As our parents and grandparents live longer, they run 
into problems. Sometimes they need long-term care, and that can be 
expensive. Many people don't have insurance to cover it. The President 
wants to give a targeted tax cut for working families to pay for this 
long-term care for that parent or grandparent we love, that is the kind 
of targeted tax cut that makes sense. It doesn't jeopardize our 
economic growth. It says let's help the families who are really 
struggling to get by.
  When we take a look at the tax cut that comes from the Republican 
side of the aisle, we can see that because it is so large, because it 
explodes in the outyears, it is going to raid the Social Security trust 
fund. Take a look at this. Congressional Republican plans really could 
include a Bush tax cut that would raid Social Security to the tune of 
over $372 billion over a 5-year period. I thought that was something we 
all agreed, not too long ago, that we would not do again. We would 
protect the Social Security trust fund. Yet this Bush tax cut plan 
endangers that trust fund--another reason I am sure the Republican-
controlled Budget Committee is having a tough time getting started.
  Take a look at the tax cut. I have said it helps the wealthiest of 
Americans. Let's show this chart which proves it. When you take a look 
at the George W. Bush tax cut plan and the people who benefit from it, 
if you happen to have an income over $300,000 a year--and you don't 
have to hold up your hand--you are going to see a tax cut of $50,000 a 
year under Governor Bush's tax cut plan.
  If you are a family with an income below $39,000 a year, it comes out 
to $249. That is about $20 a month. That is the Bush tax cut plan--$249 
for working families and $50,000 for the folks who are making over 
$300,000 a year.
  So the Republican Presidential candidate would have us jeopardize our 
economic growth, and would reach into the Social Security trust fund to 
create a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America of $50,000 a 
year.
  I have to tell you, quite honestly, if you are making $300,000 a 
year, I am sure you can figure out what to do with another $50,000; but 
you are probably pretty well off. If you have invested in the stock 
market during the Clinton-Gore administration, you have probably done 
pretty well with your investments. I can't understand why George W. 
Bush is focusing his tax cut on the wealthiest people in America.
  Look at the prescription drug benefit plan. We understand what it 
will cost. We understand under the House Republican budget what they 
think it will cost for us to have a prescription drug benefit plan. The 
problem is, in the House Republican budget no money is available for 
that. Once you have dedicated yourself to the George W. Bush tax cut, 
you lose the resources to provide for prescription drug benefits for 
the elderly people in America.
  For a moment, let me go back to education because I think this is 
worth repeating. What we are talking about under the President's plan 
is investing money in education. It is no surprise to me that everybody 
asked in national polls about the top issue facing Government will 
answer that it is education. That is the No. 1 area that should be 
funded and the No. 1 area we should pay attention to in Washington and 
in the State capitals. Now we are talking about making good on the 
promise to America that we elected officials will help out with 
education.
  Look at the President's plan: increasing education funding by 12 
percent; making certain we prepare young children for school by 
expanding the Head Start Program, one of my favorites; reducing class 
size and training teachers.
  As I go around in my State, I find this is something teachers want to 
have--help and assistance to make sure they understand the technology, 
which changes almost on a weekly basis. Building up-to-date schools or 
modernizing them is part of the President's investment for education 
plan; money invested in education technology so there is no digital 
divide, so whether you are in a poor district, wealthy district, rural 
or urban, you will have the same access to technology. Kids coming out 
of the classroom will be part of our national workforce and they should 
all have the needed skills. Other priorities: helping the disabled, 
promoting afterschool learning, and improving college access and 
affordability by improving Pell grants, which help lower-income 
students complete their education, as well as the deductibility of 
college education expenses.
  Let me say that the targeted tax cuts proposed by the Clinton-Gore 
Administration and the Democrats, as I mentioned before, include 
helping families care for elderly parents; targeting the surplus so it 
goes to expanding educational opportunities; providing marriage penalty 
relief, which both parties support; helping people prepare for 
retirement with new basic pension plans; and expanding the earned-
income tax credit, a benefit we give to a lot of working families who 
otherwise might not be able to succeed. We want them to succeed.
  The basic question we have to ask and answer during this budget 
debate is whether America is headed in the right direction. You would 
expect me, on the Democratic side and being proud of the record of the 
last 7 years in terms of where our economy has come, to say, yes, I 
think America is moving in the right direction. But as we ask American 
families across the Nation, they agree; they know the Dow Jones 
Average, which we follow now on a regular basis, has risen from some 
3,000 to over 10,000 in the last 7 years. They understand, as well, 
that we have been able to see more businesses created across America, 
particularly businesses owned by women. More people are building and 
owning homes than ever in the United States. Inflation is under 
control. We see reductions in unemployment, reductions in the welfare 
rolls. We have the smallest welfare rolls in America in 30 years and 
the lowest overall crime rate in 25 years. There are 20.4 million new 
jobs under this administration.

  Frankly, we are enjoying the first back-to-back budget surpluses in 
43 years. Not long ago, we were debating on the floor of the Senate 
about amending the Constitution, a balanced budget amendment, so 
Federal courts could force Congress to stop spending into red ink and 
deficits. Now we are talking about what to do with the surplus. Seven 
years ago, in the era of spiralling budget deficits, who in the world 
would have believed we would be talking about budget surpluses today? 
Amazing. And this has all occurred under the watch of the Clinton-Gore 
administration. Most of us believe our country is moving in the right 
direction and we should not launch some untried, unproven, new approach 
that may jeopardize that economy.
  I think the proposal by Gov. George W. Bush for massive, risky tax 
cuts for wealthy people does just that. You expect to hear that from a 
Democrat. But go to somebody who might be dispassionate in this debate, 
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. He has basically said it 
is the wrong thing to do to give a massive tax cut. You could 
jeopardize this economic growth. We don't want to see that happen.
  Is America perfect? No. We don't like the cost of gasoline and 
heating oil today. We know we can do better in

[[Page S1552]]

education. We know we can help families pay for some of their basic 
expenses, take care of their parents and grandparents. So we continue 
to look for ways to provide that assistance to families. But we do 
believe we have made great progress over the last 7 years.
  Now, the Budget Committee in the Senate has to try to calculate a way 
to put together a budget resolution, and they are in a dilemma. Are 
they going to stand by their Presidential candidate, George W. Bush, 
and support a tax cut that risks the economic progress we have made? Or 
will they turn their backs on their candidate and say, no, let's keep 
going on the right course and keep America moving forward?
  I understand why they postponed this week's hearing, and I hope they 
can resolve it in their own caucus. Let's bring this issue to the floor 
and let every Member of the Senate vote on the George W. Bush massive, 
risky tax cut scheme. If they want to go on record supporting it, so be 
it, then they stand by their candidate. But they can step back and 
explain how we are going to pay for it and why people making over 
$300,000 a year need a $50,000 tax cut. I don't think they will.
  I think this country is moving in the right direction. I certainly 
hope Members of the Senate and the House, perhaps even on a bipartisan 
basis, will say that continuing this economic progress in America is 
more important than a ringing endorsement for any Presidential 
candidate.
  Mr. President, I 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
speak for 15 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________