[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7494-S7496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           REPUBLICAN AGENDA

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week will be the last week before we 
break for the party conventions--the Republicans in Philadelphia; the 
Democrats in Los Angeles. We have a full array of legislation that 
could be considered this week. I am not sure, being a member of the 
lowly minority, as to what issues we will actually address, but the 
American people should pay close attention to what has occurred in this 
Chamber in the last 2 weeks.
  A little bit of history puts it in perspective. Not that many years 
ago, we were struggling with annual deficits. It was crippling the 
economy of the United States and certainly causing a shockwave across 
America as families had to step back and consider the impact of a huge 
national debt that we passed on to future generations. In fact, our 
national debt now is approaching $6 trillion, and we collect $1 billion 
in taxes every single day in America to pay interest on our old debt.
  That $1 billion in taxes does not educate a child; it does not buy a 
tank or a gun; it does not provide health insurance for anyone; it does 
not improve Social Security or Medicare. It pays interest on old debt.
  It is debt that was accumulated primarily during the period when 
Presidents Reagan and Bush were in office and some partially during the 
period when President Clinton first began, but we have turned the 
corner. People have come to understand a dramatic thing has occurred. 
We are now reaching a point where we are not talking about deficits and 
debt but about the possibility, the opportunity of a surplus. This is 
something which America's families and businesses have worked hard to 
earn: a surplus that reflects a strong economy with more and more 
people working, which reflects the fact we have had the greatest period 
of economic expansion in the history of the United States. In fact, I 
hope we do not become blase about this. This is something that was hard 
to achieve and American families and businesses working with our 
Government leaders reached this new point.
  Having reached the point where we can look ahead and say we have a 
strong economy and a surplus coming, it is now up to the Congress to 
decide what to do with that surplus. There are two very different 
approaches as to what to do with the surplus.
  During the last 2 weeks, the Republican Party has come to the floor 
of the Senate and suggested they know what to do with this surplus. 
They have suggested we take $1 trillion, approximately half of the 
projected surplus over the next 10 years or so, and dedicate it to tax 
cuts. Tax cuts are a popular proposal for politicians. Any of us would 
like to stand before a crowd in our States or hometowns and talk about 
cutting their taxes. But the honest question is, Is that the best thing 
for us to do at this moment in time?
  On the Democratic side, we believe that there is a better approach. 
We believe our first obligation is to pay down the national debt, 
strengthening Social Security and Medicare and making certain that our 
children carry less of a burden in the future. The Republicans say give 
tax cuts, primarily to wealthy people, over $1 trillion worth. We say 
take that money and pay down the debt. We are not sure if that surplus 
is actually going to be there 2 years, 4 years, 6 years from now. 
Wouldn't every family and business in America agree it is more sensible 
to first retire this huge debt that looms over America and its future? 
That is the Democratic position.
  Most people believe we should deal with the national debt. The 
Republican position, with notable exceptions, including the Presiding 
Officer, who has taken a more conservative approach when it comes to 
dealing with the surplus--is, no, we should cut taxes on a permanent 
basis and hope for the best. The tough part of it, too, is that this 
cutting of taxes is primarily going to those at the highest income 
levels.
  I had a chart last week which showed that 43 percent of the estate 
tax cut proposed by the Republicans went to people making over $300,000 
a year. For people with an average income of $900,000 a year--a show of 
hands is not necessary--the Republicans proposed a $23,000-a-year tax 
break. If one is making somewhere in the neighborhood of $75,000 a 
month, will another $2,000 a month really make a difference in their 
life? I find that hard to imagine. Yet when it comes right down to it, 
that is what we hear from the Republican side: Give the tax breaks to 
the wealthiest people in America.
  On our side, we believe this surplus should be used to pay down the 
debt, strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and then find those 
targeted tax cuts that can make a real difference in a person's life.
  Let me give a few examples of targeted tax cuts that cost far less 
than what the Republicans have suggested but would mean dramatic tax 
relief to working families. I start with middle-income families worried 
about paying for college education expenses, as well they should be. 
Between 1990 and 1998, average tuition and fees increased 79 percent at 
public universities, 56 percent at private 4-year institutions, 
compared to a 23-percent increase in the Consumer Price Index and a 41-
percent increase in per capita disposable income. Families know this. 
When children are born, they think ahead: How are we going to pay for 
this kid's college education?
  On the Democratic side, we believe if we are talking about changing 
tax policy, let us give to middle-income families the deduction of 
college education expenses, a helping hand so that if a son or daughter 
is accepted at a good university, they don't have to make the decision 
that they can't go because of money. That is our idea. We would have 
deduction for college education expenses.

  The Republican idea is an estate tax cut that would give an average 
$23,000-a-year tax break to people making $900,000 a year. What is of 
more value to the future of America: Someone who gets $2,000 a month to 
put it in an investment or another vacation home or a family who takes 
a tax break offered on the Democratic side and helps their son or 
daughter go to the very best college or university into which they can 
be accepted?
  Secondly, working families I know are struggling with the concept of 
day care, what to do with the children during the day so they have 
peace of mind in that the children are safe in a quality environment. 
Some working people choose day-care centers in their hometowns. They 
can be very expensive. I know my grandson is in day care, a very good 
one. I am happy he is there. Many families don't have that luxury. They 
can't turn to good day care because they can't afford it. What about 
the family who decides that instead of both parents working, one will 
stay home to care for the child? That is a good decision to make, if 
one can afford to make it.
  On the Democratic side--this is another change in tax policy that is 
far better for America than to give tax breaks to wealthy people--
Senator Dodd of Connecticut came to the floor and said: Let's help 
families pay for

[[Page S7495]]

day-care center expenses with a tax credit or offer a tax credit to 
mothers who will stay at home with children so they will get a helping 
hand, too. I think that is eminently sensible.
  We know that children in the early stages of their life really are 
forming their minds and their values, and we want them to be in the 
very best environment. If they get off to a good start, many kids will 
do well in school and have a great future ahead of them. But on the 
other side of the coin, if children are being pushed and shoved from 
one incompetent and dangerous babysitter to the next, it is risky. It 
is something no family would want to face. On the Democratic side, 
instead of tax breaks for the wealthy, we want to target tax breaks for 
those who are struggling to find a way to keep a parent at home to 
watch a child or to pay for day care.
  A third area we have worked on is the whole question of long-term 
care. Baby boomers understand this. Their parents and their 
grandparents are reaching an age where they need special attention, 
special help, special care. Much of it is expensive. Families are 
making sacrifices for their parents, the elderly, and their families. 
We think they deserve a helping hand. We understand people are living 
longer and have special needs. We have proposed a tax break that will 
help families who are concerned about long-term care and caring for 
their parents and elderly people.
  These are the types of targeted tax breaks which the Democrats 
support: Deduction of college education expenses; help for day care, to 
keep parents at home so they can watch their children; help for long-
term care, to take care of our aging parents. This is our concept of 
targeted tax relief. The Republican concept of tax relief is a $23,000 
annual tax break for people making over $300,000 a year.
  Frankly, I will take this issue anywhere in my home State of 
Illinois. I would like to argue this point as to whether we take a 
handful of people and give them the most exceedingly generous tax 
breaks or look at 98 percent of America's families who are struggling 
with the realities of life.

  I am glad my colleague from Massachusetts is here. I will be happy to 
yield to him at any point. I want to make one point before I do.
  There are many other issues which are languishing in this Congress 
which need to be addressed, issues to which the American people look to 
us for leadership. I will cite a few so one can understand the 
frustration, many times, of dealing with real-life problems at home and 
this Disneyland situation on Capitol Hill. The people need to be 
represented in this Chamber, not the powerful. The powerful have their 
lobbyists. The special interests have their political action 
committees. They have shown extraordinary strength when it comes to 
stopping issues about which people really care. Allow me to address a 
few.
  A prescription drug benefit under Medicare: Is there another action 
we can take in America that is fairer or better for our seniors and 
disabled than to give them the opportunity to afford prescription 
drugs?
  Is it not scandalous that senior citizens in many States get in buses 
and take 100-mile trips over the border to Canada to buy their 
prescription drugs? The same drugs manufactured in the United States, 
approved for sale in the United States, can be purchased in Canada for 
a fraction of the cost.
  Is it not scandalous and disgraceful that senior citizens across 
America, when they receive the prescriptions from their doctor and are 
told, take this medicine; you will be strong and healthy and 
independent if you do, can't afford to fill the prescription, go to the 
store and find they have to choose between food and medicine, fill the 
prescription and take half of what they are supposed to because they 
can't afford it? That is a reality of life. It is something we should 
address.
  The simple fact is, this Congress has failed to come up with a 
prescription drug benefit under Medicare. We have talked about it for a 
year and a half or longer. The President has called for it for years. 
The Republican Congress says no because the pharmaceutical companies, 
which are enjoying some of the greatest profits in their history, don't 
want to see this prescription drug benefit. They know that if we have 
the bargaining power under Medicare to keep prices under control, their 
profit margins might slip.
  So, once again, the powerful and special interest groups are the ones 
that are prevailing. The Republican answer to this is, well, why don't 
we turn to the same insurance companies that offer HMOs and managed 
care and ask them if they would offer a prescription drug benefit. 
Excuse me if I am skeptical, but we know what these companies have done 
when it comes to life-and-death decisions on medical care. Too many 
times they say no when they should say yes. People are forced into 
court before judges to plead and beg and do their very best to get the 
basic care they need to survive.
  Is that what we want to see when it comes to life-saving prescription 
drugs, another battle between America's families and these insurance 
companies?
  We received a report recently about over a million people who have 
lost their HMO Medicare policies--cancelled--because the companies 
didn't think they were making enough money. The Republicans say that is 
the answer. We don't think so. It should be a universal, guaranteed 
program under Medicare, one that you are confident will allow your 
doctor to give you a prescription that you can fill and will allow you 
to be able to afford to fill it. That is another issue stopped in this 
Congress by the special interest groups.
  The Patients' Bill of Rights would let the doctors make the 
decisions, not the insurance companies. We have lost that issue on the 
floor of the Senate. We raised that issue and the insurance companies 
prevailed. They would not let Senator Kennedy's bill come forward to 
give people the peace of mind that they were getting the best medical 
care and that they would not have to fight with a clerk from an 
insurance company when it came to what they and the people they love 
might need.
  As at Columbine High School, all of the press reports about shootings 
in schools and in other places shock America from one coast to the 
other. Can this Congress pass commonsense legislation for gun safety 
for a background check at gun shows, to make sure criminals and 
children don't get their hands on guns? Can we pass legislation to 
require a child safety device on every handgun so that kids don't 
rummage through the closet, find a handgun, and shoot themselves or a 
playmate? No. The answer is we can't because the powerful gun lobby 
stopped that legislation from being passed as well.
  Prescription drug benefits, Patients' Bill of Rights, commonsense gun 
safety legislation, and an increase in the minimum wage--Senator 
Kennedy has fought for that for years. The minimum wage is $5.15 an 
hour in this country. Imagine trying to live on that, on the $10,000 or 
$12,000 a year in income that it generates. That is next to impossible. 
We have tried to raise the minimum wage because we believe it is not 
only fair but it gives people who go to work every day a chance for a 
livable wage. The Republicans say, no, we can't afford a livable wage; 
we can't afford to increase the minimum wage, but we can afford to give 
a trillion dollar tax break to the wealthiest people in this country.
  Does that make sense? Is it fair or just? I don't think so.
  The issues of education and health care, compensation for working 
people, a Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drug benefits, none of 
these have been addressed. The Republicans will be off to their 
convention in Philadelphia in a few days. They will take great pride in 
talking about what they have achieved in Washington. I hope the 
American people will take a look at the list of issues I have referred 
to and ask themselves how many of those issues are important to their 
families. I think many of them are. All of them are stalled because the 
people don't rule in this Chamber, the powerful do. Those powerful 
special interests have stopped our attempts to try to make sure we have 
sensible fiscal policy to keep this economy moving forward, to pay down 
our debt, strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and to make sure 
that tax cuts help the people who deserve them.

  We have a big agenda in this town and very little of it has been 
addressed. I think it is a commentary on this Congress and its 
leadership that we have failed to respond to the issues that families 
in America care about.

[[Page S7496]]

  Before yielding the floor to the Senator from Massachusetts, I ask 
unanimous consent that this editorial from the Chicago Tribune of 
Sunday, July 23, 2000, entitled ``Budget Surplus Induces Frenzy,'' be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     Budget Surplus Induces Frenzy

       Congressional Democrats have likened the Republicans' tax-
     cutting frenzy to a ``legislative Wild West.'' But a growing 
     number of Democrats, too, are hitching up their britches and 
     joining the roundup, crossing the aisle to vote for tax cuts 
     as well as their own spending increases. What is prompting 
     all this activity is a federal budget surplus that seems to 
     have taken on a magical life of its own.
       Capitol Hill is awash in money. Why make hard choices when 
     you can have it all? Blink and you just may have missed the 
     latest incredibly rosy forecast of that gargantuan budget 
     surplus. The economy is now approaching $10 trillion in size 
     and more Americans are working than ever. That means federal 
     tax receipts are soaring--the prime reason that the budget 
     surplus keeps growing.
       The latest revision by the Congressional Budget Office 
     estimates the surplus at $232 billion for the fiscal year 
     ending Sept. 30--$53 billion higher than the April estimate. 
     Through 2010, the surplus is forecast to be $2.2 trillion. 
     Include Social Security surpluses and it grows to $4.5 
     trillion. If your mind isn't boggled by these sums, you just 
     aren't paying attention.
       But before Congress proceeds to spend every last red cent 
     of this money, here are a few cautionary red flags.


                           pay down the debt

       The national debt totals $5.6 billion. Reducing the 
     publicly held portion of it--about $3.6 trillion--is akin to 
     giving the whole nation a tax cut because it reduces future 
     debt service. This must be the No. 1 priority.


                      get real with spending caps

       They were imposed in 1997 when it looked like the only way 
     for America to dig itself out of a swamp of red ink was to 
     strictly limit discretionary spending. That's what gets spent 
     on everything else after defense, debt service and 
     entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are 
     paid for. Well, the deficit swamp has been drained. The caps 
     remain, but that doesn't mean Congress complies with them. 
     The Republicans have been moving spending in or out of the 
     current fiscal year or calling it an ``emergency,'' allowing 
     them to technically meet the caps but still spend lavishly.
       This is worse than having no caps at all. It is time to be 
     honest about these spending caps. Establish a new baseline 
     cap; allow for minimal annual increase, then stick to it.


              remember projections aren't real money--yet

       That doesn't mean the projected surplus won't become real 
     money. But 10 years is a long time and a lot can change over 
     a decade. If you don't believe that, just remember back to 
     1990 and the projected deficits that seemed to stretch 
     endlessly into the future.


              social security and medicare still need work

       Neither presidential candidate has addressed the core 
     demographic problem that looms for these programs: the aging 
     of the giant Baby Boom generation. The Concord Coalition 
     refers to both their Social Security reform plans as ``free 
     lunch proposals.'' There is no free lunch. Expanding tax-free 
     retirement accounts--as Al Gore proposes--or allowing market 
     investment of some portion of Social Security taxes--as 
     George Bush proposes--won't change the fact that the system 
     will become actuarially unsound unless benefits are cut, 
     taxes raised or the retirement age delayed.
       Add to Medicare's shaky fiscal foundation some looming big 
     ticket items--a prescription drug benefit and some provision 
     for long-term care--that will have to be financed if, as 
     seems increasingly likely, the nation decides they are 
     essential to have.


                        listen to alan greenspan

       The spending and tax cut ``debates'' under way now have 
     little to do with the soundness of overall fiscal policy. Is 
     this a good thing to consider? Should we do this? These are 
     not the questions being asked. There is an assumption that 
     the money is there, so why bother with that debate? If 
     they're politically popular--and what's not to like about a 
     tax cut or higher spending--put 'em in the pot. The most 
     recent example of this is the metamorphosis of the GOP drive 
     to end the marriage tax penalty. This has now grown into a 
     generous tax cut for all married people, with a total 10-year 
     price tag of $292 billion.
       No one can guarantee the economy will continue to prosper 
     as robustly as it has. ``A number of the potential programs, 
     both expenditures and tax cuts in the pipeline, do give me 
     some concern,'' said Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan 
     Greenspan, at his mid-year economic review on Capitol Hill 
     last week. ``The growing surplus has kept the expansion 
     stable. Tax cuts or spending increases that significantly 
     slow the rise of surpluses would put the economy at risk.''
       Listen to the man.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). On the Democratic side, the 
time is until 10 o'clock.

                          ____________________