[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 22 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1440-S1441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 MEASURE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 328

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk 
due for its second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 328) to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on the 
bill at this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the rule, the bill will be 
placed on the calendar.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York, Mrs. 
Clinton.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, as we begin our work on the 2002 budget, 
we find ourselves at a crossroads, facing a very big choice. The choice 
we make will determine whether we pay down our national debt. It will 
determine our investments in priorities like education, the 
environment, health care and Social Security. And it will define the 
quality of life for millions of Americans for years to come.
  The choice we face is this: Do we continue along the budgetary path 
that we, as a Government and a nation, have followed in recent years? 
Or do we make a break from that path, and return to the one we followed 
2 decades ago?
  Let's look, for a minute, at history. Eight years ago our budget 
deficit was $290 billion--the largest in our history. The national debt 
was $3 trillion and unemployment had surged to 7.8 percent. At the 
time, the Congressional Budget Office predicted that the deficit would 
reach $513 billion by this year.
  This year, the predicted deficit is, in fact, a surplus, likely to 
reach $281 billion. We are scheduled to pay off $600 billion of the 
national debt--concluding the largest three-year debt reduction in our 
nation's history. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once said, 
our ``commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in 
achieving the longest expansion in the nation's history.''
  Now debt reduction has meant lower interest rates for college, car 
loans and home mortgages. With Government no longer draining resources 
out of the capital markets, private investment in equipment and 
software skyrocketed, and productivity gains kept fueling prosperity.
  At the same time, we have invested in America's working families. We 
doubled student financial aid. In New York, for example, 45,000 more 
children enrolled in Head Start in 1999 than in 1993 and this year New 
York schools will receive an additional $100 million for renovations 
and repairs which, based on observations during my many visits, are 
very much needed.
  Democrats and Republicans have worked together to set aside the 
Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund surpluses to extend their 
solvency. Together, we put more police on the streets, more teachers in 
classrooms and moved people from welfare to work.
  And we have done all of this while holding Federal income taxes, as a 
percentage of income for the typical American family, to their lowest 
level in 35 years.
  And something else happened. As the information age exploded, America 
flourished, making itself a leader in new technologies and increasing 
our productivity so that once again we became competitive in this new 
world. It turned out that these policies were not only prudent--but 
they opened the doors to the changes that prepared us and our children 
to be successes in the 21st Century. Twenty-two million new jobs were 
created--nearly 1 million in New York alone--unemployment dropped to 4 
percent. And those jobs are pouring more than 900 billion dollars into 
our economy each year. That's how we have gone so quickly from deficit 
to surplus. But here's the catch: If we upset the careful balance of 
our economy, we can lose far more than the cost of the tax cut--a tax 
cut recession would cost us trillions more in lost income through lost 
jobs.
  Mr. President, I share the concerns of many of my colleagues that 
President Bush's extremely large tax proposal will take us back back to 
the days of big deficits, high interest rates, shrinking investment, 
and a growing national debt.
  I may be old-fashioned, but as the daughter of a small businessman 
who did not believe in living outside our means and who even paid cash 
for the house where we lived, I just don't believe we should spend what 
we don't yet have in the bank. President Bush's extremely large tax 
plan would spend trillions we don't have, and may never have.
  If we reverse the engines of economic growth by adopting President 
Bush's tax proposal, I fear that we will reverse the progress we've 
made--by increasing interest rates now and by saddling our children 
with big debts in the future.
  I know and respect that President Bush supports faith-based programs, 
but his tax plan should not be one of them. Going forward with a huge 
tax proposal now is like getting a letter from Ed McMahon and going out 
to buy a yacht. A surplus projection is not a promise. And if the past 
is any guide, it's not even a likely outcome.
  That is not my view alone. It is the view of many experts who have 
testified before the Budget Committee, on which I serve. It is the view 
of colleagues like the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd and the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Nelson, both of whom voted for President 
Reagan's tax plans in the 1980's, only to regret those votes when those 
cuts plunged us deep into debt.
  I encourage my colleagues to read the comments of both Mr. Byrd and 
Mr. Nelson in our Committee's proceedings, or speak with them 
personally about their historic and wise perspective.
  The question before us is not whether or not we should enact tax 
cuts. I support tax cuts. The question is: how do we structure a 
responsible tax cut? A prudent tax cut that will allow us to pursue our 
important national values while keeping interest rates down and 
encouraging economic growth.
  The path of fiscal discipline is marked by four signposts: It pays 
down the debt, it protects Social Security and Medicare, it invests 
wisely in children and families, and it reduces taxes in a prudent and 
sensible way.
  I do not believe President Bush's tax plan meets those tests. It also 
fails the fairness test. President Bush says that, under his plan, the 
typical family of four will be able to keep $1,600 of their money. 
Citizens for Tax Justice found that when the Bush plan is fully in 
effect, 85 percent of families would receive a nominal tax cut of less 
than $1,600 or no tax cut at all.
  Even if President Bush's proposal were fair to all Americans, it 
would not be prudent. During this time of surplus, it would leave 
nothing for the real reforms necessary to ensure that Social Security 
and Medicare are intact for future generations. The President's tax 
plan abandons the principle of putting first things first.
  Just yesterday, some of America's wealthiest citizens came out 
against President Bush's estate tax repeal, saying that it was ``bad 
for our democracy, our economy and our society.'' And I agree.
  A tax cut that is fair to all Americans needs to be part of a 
framework that strengthens, not weakens, our economy. In my view, we 
can and should have a tax cut that cuts income tax rates, but we have 
to give relief to those paying the payroll tax on their income as well. 
And I believe there is a bipartisan consensus for smart, responsible 
and fair tax cuts.
  It is smart to include a long-term care tax credit to provide relief 
for families caring for elderly and disabled family members. And the 
college opportunity tax deduction of $10,000 a year, championed by my 
distinguished colleague from New York, would enable families to pay for 
college, graduate study, or training courses. Tax cuts like these will 
bring tangible relief to New Yorkers and working families everywhere.
  It's also both smart and responsible to invest in our people, 
especially in building the knowledge economy. And I know that the 
President has had first

[[Page S1441]]

hand knowledge of that in his former position. We have to bring new 
technology to smaller communities across the country so they can take 
advantage of the well-educated workforce and higher education 
infrastructure that already exists in or near so many of these smaller 
communities.
  And, we have an obligation to ensure fairness. We should not favor 
the richest Americans at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.
  So how should we go forward? Will President Bush try to push through 
his one-sided and lop-sided proposals with the votes of his own party? 
If he does, I will respectfully have to dissent. Or will he sit down 
and negotiate to reduce its size and make it fairer to more Americans? 
If he does this then I hope I can support the outcome. Bipartisanship 
is a two-way street--it's not about Democrats supporting Republican 
proposals or even Republicans supporting Democratic proposals. It's 
about Republicans and Democrats working together to do what is right 
for the country. And the true test of leadership is not appealing to 
the people under the guise of bipartisanship, but actually hammering 
out a bipartisan compromise bill that merits the support of both sides 
of the aisle. That's the right way to pass a tax cut and protect our 
budget priorities.
  And it is certainly what I hear when I meet with business leaders, 
workers and civic leaders in places like Rochester, and Rome, and 
Brooklyn and Watertown, just to name a few of the places I've been in 
the last week. They want a tax cut, but they also want to make sure we 
make the right choices for our budget.
  History calls us to reject a spendthrift tax plan that would threaten 
our efforts to reform and modernize Medicare--including a long overdue 
prescription drug benefit that is voluntary, affordable and available 
to all beneficiaries.
  I also fear a spendthrift tax plan would hurt our ability to invest 
in the military. As the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, said 
this week, ``the President's tax plan would consume more than 80 
percent of the on-budget surplus, leaving nothing but fiscal leftovers 
for national security.''
  I don't think any of us want that.
  For me, the details of the 2002 budget have to be negotiated. But the 
big choice is clear. We must pass a budget that keeps paying down the 
debt, provides sensible tax cuts and invests in priorities that matter 
to the people we represent. We must stay the course that has helped us 
build the longest economic expansion in our nation's history. And we 
must avoid a course that takes us back, throws caution to the wind and 
risks mortgaging our children's future.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Under the previous order, 20 minutes shall be under the control of 
the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. Carnahan.
  The Senator may proceed.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Carnahan pertaining to the introduction of S. 
342 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, is there an existing order with respect to 
morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, has 15 minutes under his 
control.

                          ____________________