[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E431-E432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 23, 2000

       The House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
     of the Union had under consideration the concurrent 
     resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 290) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 
     2002 through 2005:

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act 
of 1978 provides for the members of the Joint Economic Committee to 
come before the House and present their views on the current state of 
the U.S. economy, to serve as input in the debate we are about to have 
on the budget resolution before us. I rise today to report that while 
there are many economic achievements to celebrate, there is also a lot 
more to do in order for everyone to share in the current prosperity.
  For the first time since the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act 
was passed in 1978, the U.S. economy has met the goals

[[Page E432]]

which Senator Hubert Humphrey and Congressman Gus Hawkins set out in 
the original bill: 1. The unemployment rate for individuals over 20 is 
just \1/2\ percentage point above the goal of 3 percent. 2. The 
unemployment rate for individuals over 16 has met the stated goal of 4 
percent. 3. Inflation has remained below the goal of 3 percent since 
the beginning of the Clinton Administration, 7 years ago. 4. And all of 
this has been achieved while balancing the federal budget, for the 
first time in over 40 years.
  It is a shame Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins could not 
witness these achievements.
  The great irony is that Senator Humphrey and Congressman Hawkins saw 
these goals as part of the path toward achieving full employment and 
balanced economic growth. Today, 20 years later, Alan Greenspan views 
them as dangerous signs of an overheating economy! I agree with 
Humphrey and Hawkins--low employment and inflation, and rising wages 
are always good for an economy.
  Currently, unemployment and inflation are low, average wages are 
rising, and productivity is growing. There is cause to celebrate these 
achievements, which are due, in large part, to the economic policies of 
the last 7 years. But the Humphrey-Hawkins bill also called for 
establishing a national goal to fulfill the RIGHT of all adult 
Americans who are able, willing and seeking work to find employment at 
fair compensation. We may have met the numerical targets set out in the 
bill, we still have a lot to do in order to meet their overarching 
goal.
  Despite the historic economic prosperity we are currently 
experiencing, the average after-tax income of the wealthiest families 
continues to grow faster than that for all other Americans, causing the 
income gap to continue widening. Some of my colleagues like to argue 
that the tax code should not be used to redistribute income to the 
poor. Well, I say we should stop using the tax code to redistribute 
income to the rich, like we have been doing!
  Consider the following: Just the richest one percent of Americans--
2.7 million people--took home as much after-tax income as the lowest 38 
percent--or 100 million people--combined. In 1998, the average income 
of the wealthiest 20 percent of families was 14 times higher than that 
of the poorest 20 percent. After adjusting for taxes, the top 20 
percent of U.S. households experienced a 43 percent increase in average 
income from 1977 to 1999, while the average income of the lowest 20 
percent experienced a 9 percent decline. In 1999, almost 13 percent of 
total national after-tax income was concentrated in the top one percent 
of Americans.
  The foundations for this disparity were laid during the 1980s, when 
average after-tax income for the wealthiest fifth of households 
increased by 33 percent.
  The Republican budget does nothing to narrow the growing gap between 
the rich and the poor, and in fact would actually make it worse. Tax 
breaks for multi-millionaires do not help the millions of average 
Americans or narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.
  In addition, the Republican budget would jeopardize the economic 
prosperity we are currently enjoying.
  In 1992, President Clinton inherited budget deficits for ``as far as 
the eye could see.'' In contrast to his predecessors, President Clinton 
and the Democrats in Congress implemented policies which eliminated the 
budget deficit. And contrary to what the critics predicted, we balanced 
the budget while experiencing the longest period of prosperity in U.S. 
history.
  The Republican budget would put all of this in jeopardy. The 
Republican budget calls for large tax cuts, increases in defense 
spending, and drastic reductions to non-defense discretionary spending. 
Where have we heard this before? This precise mix of policies brought 
us the record budget deficits of the 1980s, which contributed to a 
decline in living standards for the vast majority of Americans.
  My colleagues claim that their budget fixes Social Security and 
Medicare, creates a prescription drug insurance program, and does all 
this while keeping the budget in surplus. Well, this sounds like de ja 
vu all over again. To paraphrase this month's testimony of Nobel 
Laureate Robert Solow before the Joint Economic Committee--if you 
believe that their budget will do all that, I must be Alice and this 
must be wonderland.
  The Reagan supply-side policies were a complete failure. While a few 
got rich, the vast majority of American workers and their families 
suffered as the country was saddled with an enormous debt, which those 
working families are still paying off.
  The nation made the mistake of buying that snake oil once, why should 
we do it again? I am not about to put the incomes of American families 
at risk once again, especially as they are just beginning to recover 
from the last Republican attempt to ``save'' the economy.
  The Republican budget includes a ``Bush-lite'' tax cut. I must at 
least give my colleagues some credit for rejecting the full Bush tax 
cut proposal completely. Their tax cut would only go half as far--which 
is still way too much. The Republican's current tax cut proposals cost 
more than the bloated tax cut proposal from last year, which the 
American people clearly rejected.
  There are two fundamental things wrong with their tax proposals. 
First, they benefit the rich and don't help the vast majority of 
Americans. Second, these tax cuts, together with the rest of the budget 
package, are certain to get us back into the mess we were in during the 
1980s, which caused real economic hardship on workers and their 
families.
  The Republican budget calls for increasing defense spending by $17\1/
2\ billion above the caps, which is even more than the Administration's 
request. According to the Children's Defense Fund, just this additional 
spending alone would be enough to: Provide Head Start to 1.7 million 
additional children; and Provide child care to more than 8 million 
additional children; and Provide 21st Century After-School programs for 
close to 35 million additional children.
  Just think what we could do for our children if we were willing to 
forgo just one new major weapon system. In addition to being a budget-
buster, excessive defense spending forces us to shift our priorities 
away from feeding, clothing and educating our children and caring for 
the sick, the elderly and
  The Republican budget has a solution to this problem--cut non-defense 
discretionary spending by 6 percent or $114 billion over 5 years. Where 
is this money going to come from? I'll tell you. The Republicans want 
to drop 310,000 low-income women off of WIC, just next year. The 
Republicans want to deny child care to over 12,000 children of working 
parents in 2001. The Republicans want to eliminate Head Start services 
for more than 40,000 children and their families by 2005. The 
Republicans want to cut off energy assistance to 164,000 low-income 
families next year, precisely at the same time oil prices are rising. 
And the list goes on and on.
  The Republicans call their budget ``senior-friendly.'' Well, with 
friends like them, who needs enemies?
  The Republicans set aside $40 billion for reforming Medicare and 
establishing a prescription drug program, yet they fail to provide us 
with the details of how they plan to do so. There are reports that the 
Republican's prescription drug program would only cover low-income 
Medicare recipients. Do they actually think that only the poor take 
prescription drugs? In fact, over half of Medicare beneficiaries who 
lack prescription drug coverage have incomes above 150 percent of 
poverty. The cost of prescription drugs is the fastest growing part of 
health care, and it affects all Americans. We must establish a 
comprehensive prescription drug plan which covers all seniors, 
regardless of income, as they are the ones suffering the most from 
rising drug costs.
  The Republicans claim to put aside funds to shore-up Social Security. 
But in fact, if they do everything they promise, the Republican budget 
will actually spend the Social Security surplus. We need to protect 
Social Security, not put it under any more risk. It seems like everyone 
has learned the clear lessons of the last 7 years except my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle.
  Over the last 20 years we have put off addressing some of the major 
economic problems affecting American workers and their families. Now, 
during this time of unprecedented prosperity, it is time to begin 
dealing with these issues. If we can't do it now, then when can we?
  Instead of debating tax cuts which favor the rich and will put us 
back in the fiscal straight-jacket of massive debt, we should be 
discussing how to provide quality health care for all Americans, while 
controlling costs.
  We should be discussing ways to protect the most vulnerable 
Americans--the sick and the elderly. We should pass a strong patient's 
bill of rights, which includes a patient's right to sue for damages, 
that is not cynically loaded with poison bills--like Medical Savings 
Accounts, which are nothing more than tax cuts for the rich.
  We should raise the minimum wage without having to buy-off the 
wealthy by providing them close to $80 billion in estate tax cuts. 
Working full-time at the current minimum wage is not even enough to 
keep a family of 3 or 4 out of poverty. Raising the minimum wage is 
long overdue and should be done with no conditions attached.
  For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to reject the 
Republican budget resolution.




                          ____________________