[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 28, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1660-S1663]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADDRESS TO THE NATION

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know there will be other Democrats 
coming to the floor to respond to President Bush's address last night 
to the Nation. I thought I might just take a few minutes. First of all, 
I want to start by congratulating the President. When it comes to 
delivery and a sincere presentation, he deserves very high marks.
  I am more worried about the substance. I am more worried about what 
the President was not very explicit about; in other words, what was 
left out of the speech, what were some unpleasant realities that were 
kind of put in parentheses.
  I would like to just make a couple of points--because I think the 
people in the country ultimately, where this budget debate becomes most 
important and where the rubber meets the road and how all of these 
priorities affect people where they work, where they live, where their 
children go to school--about what wasn't in this speech last night.
  In focusing on families and the benefits for families and children, 
the President neglected to say yesterday that one-third of all children 
in the United States of America live in homes that will not see one 
penny of the tax cut; about 56 percent of Spanish children in homes 
will not receive one penny of relief from the President's tax proposal, 
to the fact that over 40 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 
percent.
  That doesn't meet the Minnesota standard of fairness. I don't think 
it meets the standard of fairness for people in the country.
  What the President didn't really focus on was whether or not in his 
budget proposal he is committed to having the Federal Government live 
up to its commitment on a very important program called the IDEA 
program for kids with special needs.
  Governors talked about this at the conference. Our Governor from 
Minnesota talked about it. Every school, on demand, about every 2 weeks 
people talk about it. This is the program for children with special 
needs, the IDEA program that Senator Harkin and others fought so hard 
on.
  We are really supposed to be contributing 40 percent of the costs. I 
believe Minnesotans and people around the country, when they see the 
President's budget, are going to see a Robin Hood in reverse; a tax cut 
of 40 percent-plus of the benefits going to the top 1 percent, and 
crowding out any money or any investment or any commitment on our part 
to dramatically expanding our funding for the IDEA program. It is not 
going to be there. You are going to see no new significant investment 
of Federal resources in the IDEA program. The President didn't talk 
about that.

  What was left out? The President did not focus on his proposal to 
drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  In just a few minutes, I will be at a press conference with Senator 
Lieberman and others at which we are all going to support preserving 
125 million acres of the Coastal Plain, a very precious area, as a 
wilderness area. We are going to be proposing that we not drill our way 
to energy security. Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge would be similar to doing it in the Boundary Waters Conservation 
Area in Minnesota. It really defines the very value that we should have 
as to preservation and conservation. We are all but strangers, I guess, 
on this land, and we ought to leave it better for our children and our 
grandchildren.
  The President did not talk about his proposal for oil drilling in the 
ANWR, and he didn't talk about the cuts that are going to take place. 
Because if you have huge tax cuts, to be really honest about what it 
will cost and the surplus, and if you are not willing to raid the 
Medicare and Social Security trust fund--the President didn't talk 
about the fact that in order to make his numbers add up, they may very 
well have to do that--we are going to see some reductions.
  There was a piece yesterday in USA Today that the President intends 
to cut the budget for renewable energy policy by 30 percent. For States 
such as Minnesota, a cold weather State at the other end of the 
pipeline, we are interested in the environment. We are not interested 
in importing more barrels of oil or millions of cubic feet of natural 
gas. We are interested in biomass, electricity, wind, saving energy, 
and fuel efficiency standards which are clean technology, and where 
small business is more respectful of the environment and, indeed, where 
it would enable our country to be more energy independent. The 
President didn't focus on that in his speech last night.
  There were rumors--only rumors because we don't have the numbers 
yet--that the SBA is going to take a huge cut. I tell you that small 
businesses are similar to family farms. We love them in the abstract. 
But when it comes to actually making the commitment to small 
businesses, that is where we fall short. The 504 program has leveraged 
a tremendous amount of money in the State of Minnesota to enable people 
to start a small business and to grow that business. I feel an outrage 
in just telling you that when people get a chance to look at the 
specifics of these numbers, they are going to see a set of priorities 
that is not going to be pretty. And I don't think they are going to be 
consistent with what most people believe.
  Most people are saying tax cuts for all families. Don't do it 
disproportionately for the wealthy. Please make sure there is help for 
people who need help, and let's do it based on the standard of 
fairness. Most people are saying don't touch the Social Security and 
Medicare trust fund. Most people are saying we are interested in 
whether or not for our parents and grandparents we can cover 
prescription drug costs. We are committed to education and children. We 
want to see a commitment. What happened with expanded health care 
coverage?
  All of that prioritizing goes out the window when you get rigorous in 
your analysis. It is the Yiddish proverb, ``You cannot dance at two 
weddings at the same time.'' You can't have a tax cut over $2 trillion 
and do what the President says he wants to do and make these 
investments. It won't happen.
  Finally, I was at a joint congressional hearing where the VFW 
testified. There was a huge delegation of VFW representatives from 
Minnesota.
  I would like to put all Democrats and Republicans on alert. The 
veterans are already very focused on this budget. They came up with an 
independent budget proposal. We fell short. Senator Johnson and I had 
some comments on this. We were only partially successful.
  I will tell my colleagues that the veterans community wants us to 
live up to our commitment to them. This is a community that is getting 
older, and the issue is long-term care. In my State, it is an issue of 
whether or not our region gets its fair share of resources. There are 
too many veterans--about 2 percent of the homeless population in the 
United States--who are homeless, and many of them are Vietnam 
vets. That is a national disgrace.

  They are interested in the commitment to those veterans. They are 
interested in making sure we can do good outpatient care. They are 
interested in

[[Page S1661]]

making sure there are not long waits for veterans who need health care. 
They are interested in whether or not we are going to fund veterans' 
health care. They are interested in whether or not this budget is going 
to make any sense.
  Frankly, in the context of all these tax cuts mainly going to the 
wealthy, I am going to go on record today on the floor of the Senate to 
say that this administration will not be able to follow through on its 
commitment to veterans, its commitment to children, its commitment to 
leaving no child behind, its commitment to education, its commitment to 
covering prescription drug costs for senior citizens.
  My mom and dad both had Parkinson's disease. Don't say to a couple: 
You make $20,000 a year or $21,000 a year; therefore, you make too much 
money to get any help. You are not making much money when you try to 
live on $21,000 a year, or whatever it is.
  So I simply say, I think ultimately what we have before us could be a 
grand and important debate. I am absolutely confident as to where 
people in the country will come down on this matter when they see the 
specifics and how it affects them, their children, where they live, 
where they work, where their children go to school. It is a value 
question. I think it is a spiritual question. We have done well. We 
have the prosperity.
  The question is, What decisions do we make as a nation and as a 
community? What are our priorities? Is it going to be mainly Robin-
Hood-in-reverse tax cuts, with the top 1 percent getting over 40 
percent of the benefits or will we be talking about tax cuts that 
benefit all families? And will we be talking about making sure we 
protect Social Security and Medicare? And, yes, will we live up to our 
words, to our commitments for children, for education, for prescription 
drug costs, for expanded health care coverage? That is what we are 
about. That is what this debate is about.
  I think it is more of a conservative saying, but I like it as a 
liberal, as a Senator from the State of Minnesota: There is no such 
thing as a free lunch. We can't do it all. So we need to make our 
priorities clear. We are going to have to make value choices.
  I make a choice, as a Senator, for children and education. I make a 
choice for affordable prescription drugs. I make a choice for expanded 
health care coverage. I make a choice for two very important social 
insurance programs: Social Security and Medicare. And I make a choice 
for tax cuts that benefit all families, not just having benefits that 
disproportionately go to the top 1 or 5 percent.
  I think that is what this debate is about. I think we are ready for 
it. I think the outcome of this debate is going to be hugely important 
to people in Minnesota and all over our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, are we in morning business? That is my 
understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois controls the time 
from 11 until 12 o'clock.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I salute my colleague from Minnesota. I know he is 
leaving the floor. I came in at the end of his remarks. I know he was 
responding to the President's State of the Union Address and probably 
has another meeting to go to, but he captured my sentiment on this 
completely.
  I think what we have to look at now is what is in the best interest 
of this Nation in terms of the long haul. We have just finished the 
20th century which we called the ``American Century.'' Will the 21st 
century be an American century? I think some of the decisions we are 
making today will decide that.
  I think the Senator from Minnesota put his finger on it: What are the 
most important things for the future of families in America? I think 
over and over they tell us: Education, Senator, Congressman, Governor. 
We want you to do something about education.
  I heard the President talk about education last night. I think the 
Senator from Minnesota believes, as I do, there is a lot we can do to 
make this a stronger nation in this century, but it means an investment 
in education. If we decide, instead, that we are going to give a tax 
cut primarily to the wealthiest people in America instead of investing 
in education, instead of expanding health care coverage, instead of 
protecting Social Security and Medicare, then it is very shortsighted.
  The President's remarks were well received. I thought he did an 
excellent job in his first State of the Union Address. But now it is 
time to step back and reflect. We not only reflect on his remarks, but 
we reflect on his record in Texas where he tried the same thing--a tax 
cut that did not work, a State that is now out of money. We do not want 
to go down that same road.
  I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his remarks.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I apologize; I am 
going to be with other Senators at a gathering that will focus on oil 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to which we are 
opposed. That is the only reason I leave the floor.
  One thing I wish to say to my colleague from Illinois, I congratulate 
the President's delivery, and I think he is sincere in what he said. 
That is the good part. I think there is one maybe bad part to last 
night, and I think it is a very important challenge for President Bush, 
which is, that if you talk about education and children and leaving no 
child behind and you talk about covering prescription drug costs for 
elderly people and helping people with that hardship--to use but two 
examples--then people hear that and they say: You know what, this is 
going to be a Government that responds to us. The hope builds up, and 
ultimately, if you are not able to back that with the investment of 
resources, and it is just symbolic because you basically put it all 
into a tax cut, mainly going to the wealthy people, the top 1 percent 
or 5 percent, then that really invites--mutiny is too strong a word--
anger.
  You can't play around with those issues. You have to back the 
rhetoric with the resources. If I had to critique the President's 
speech last night, to me that is the disconnect. I am troubled by that 
because these issues affect real people and their lives. And why are we 
here except to do better for people.

  I think we have to back up our speeches and our rhetoric with our 
priorities.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
  Really, after the President's speech last night, the question most 
people in America are asking is, Can we have it all? Frankly, last 
night the President said: Yes, we can have it all. We can have a tax 
cut for the wealthiest people in America. They receive 43 percent of 
the Bush tax cut. Sadly, there are literally millions of families that 
receive no benefit from the President's tax cut. They are people who 
pay a payroll tax and not an income tax. They are taxed families. They 
need relief. They need help with heating bills and paying education and 
health care expenses. There is no help for them in the President's tax 
cut package.
  We on the Democratic side believe we have to take a sensible, 
fiscally responsible approach to this. We have been down this road 
before. It was not that many years ago that we were deep into deficits. 
We had these deficits that now have accumulated into a national 
mortgage, a national debt of $5.7 trillion. It is still there. When the 
President says we are going to pay off $2 trillion on the national 
debt, the debt is $5.7 trillion.
  We on the Democratic side believe that we have a responsibility to 
continue to bring down that debt even more. We collect $1 billion in 
taxes a day--every day--to pay interest on the old debt. It does not 
educate a child, pay for a teacher, or make America's defense stronger. 
It is money paid to bondholders all over the world who own America's 
mortgage.
  We believe the President, in saying he would spend $2 trillion in 
paying down the debt, has really broken a promise. If he is going to 
keep the promise that Congress has made to keep Social Security first, 
to protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, the $2 
trillion paydown does not do it. In fact, it requires the President, 
under his projections, to reach into the Social Security and Medicare 
trust funds to create his so-called rainy day fund. I do not think that 
is going to work.
  As someone said yesterday, if a businessperson wanted to reach in the 
pension plan of his employees for some

[[Page S1662]]

other purpose, he would find himself in a Federal institution, and it 
would not be the White House. In this situation, we believe that paying 
down that debt and protecting the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds is really a solemn obligation and a first priority.
  We also believe that if there is to be a tax cut, it should not be 
one that primarily benefits the wealthy and leaves millions of families 
behind. We believe there should be a tax cut for everyone in this 
country. And we believe the tax cut should be fair. If you talk about 
43 percent of his tax cut going to the top 1 percent in income, these 
are people who make over $319,000 a year. People who have an income of 
over $25,000 a month receive the most benefit from President Bush's tax 
cut.
  I would like to see our tax cut be something we can afford, something 
that is sensible, consistent with debt reduction, consistent with 
important investments in this country, and one that really focuses on 
families.
  I just did a radio talk show with WLS Radio in Chicago. They asked 
me: What are you thinking about when you talk about these families? I 
said: I think about a couple who are Chicago public school teachers, 
and their combined income might be $100,000 a year. I do not consider 
them to be a wealthy family. They are the type of family that struggles 
with mortgage payments and school expenses and all the things that go 
with bringing up a family.
  If we focus our attention on people with family incomes below 
$100,000 and say these are the folks who need a helping hand, that is a 
sensible starting point. Yes, there will be a tax break for the 
wealthiest among us, but why should they take 43 percent of the total 
tax cut?
  People believe they are overtaxed. I think we can help them. In time 
of surplus, we should help them. We also should help them to understand 
that we want America's economy to start moving again. We hope this 
slowdown will come to an end soon, that we will turn away from this 
downturn, or recession, or whatever it might be, and once again get on 
the path of prosperity on which we have been for the last 8 or 10 
years. If we are going to return to that path, we have to make the 
right decisions now. The President's tax cut, sadly, is not the right 
decision.
  Unfortunately, he will spend over 90 percent of the projected surplus 
over the next 10 years on this tax cut and leave little or nothing for 
prescription drug benefits under Medicare, for investments in 
education, for expanding health insurance coverage for more American 
families, or for putting more money in our national defense.
  We cannot have it all. Last night the President told us: You can have 
it all. You can give a tax cut to the wealthiest in America, primarily; 
you can go ahead and spend all this money I am promising and everything 
is going to be fine.
  Those of us who have studied the history of our Nation know that 
sometimes the most pleasing and appealing political promises don't pay 
off for America. I am afraid what the President has proposed is just 
such a promise.
  I understand the President is now going out, touring America, to sell 
the idea of a tax cut. I can't imagine this political assignment. The 
President has to convince America we need a tax cut. If the President 
were going out trying to sell a tax increase, I could understand it. 
That is a tough job. You have to explain the circumstances and try to 
convince the American people you are right. Here he is, trying to sell 
the American people on the idea of a tax cut. They are reluctant; they 
are not buying it. They want to have some questions answered.
  One of the questions they ask is, How do you know we are going to 
have a surplus? If we are not going to have a surplus next year, 5 
years, 10 years from now, why would you change the Tax Code in a 
permanent way and give a tax cut that gives away a surplus that you are 
not sure of? That is a valid question.
  What it boils down to is that a lot of people think the President is 
gambling with the economy on budget predictions that are no more 
reliable than weather forecasts. These people who make these 
predictions have been wrong in the past, consistently wrong. Many of us 
believe we should deal with a tax cut and a spending program phased in 
to make sure there is always enough money for America's priorities, 
priorities such as Social Security, Medicare, education--to make 
certain that if we have a surplus, the tax cut is really shared by all 
Americans and does not go just to the wealthiest among us.
  We are facing a balloon payment in Social Security in just a few 
years. The baby boomers are going to turn up at the Social Security 
window. When they do, there will be a lot of them, a lot more than we 
have ever had in our history. If you know that balloon payment is 
coming, should you not plan ahead?
  Remember what the President said last night. He is going to appoint a 
Social Security commission to look into the future of Social Security.
  Time out. He appoints the commission after he has already announced 
the tax cut. He will have used up the surplus and then said to the 
commission: How are we going to take care of Social Security? Wouldn't 
responsible leadership suggest we do it just the opposite, that we have 
a Social Security evaluation or commission, decide what we are going to 
need, and make sure the money is there, that if there is a surplus, it 
will be there for Social Security and for Medicare, and then decide if, 
with the remaining surplus, we can afford a tax cut? Not so. The 
President wants the tax cut first. That is the mistake he is making.
  It also troubles me that after all of the years or promising that the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds would be sacred and inviolate, 
the President's approach calls for taking out $1 trillion from these 
trust funds. That is going to be a hard sell. Somebody said: Is the 
President going to be grabbing the third rail of politics if he does 
that? I think he will.
  Many of us on both sides of the aisle believe you do not play with 
the Social Security trust fund. This is part of a sacred contract, a 
promise we made to people, an investment that today's wage earners are 
making in a trust fund so the money will be there when they need it as 
well.
  Taking money out of the trust fund, as the President's proposal would 
lead us to, to create a rainy day fund or whatever it is is not going 
to fly. Congress is going to resist it. We are going to insist that 
those trust funds be protected.
  On Medicare, the President, unfortunately, has not proposed any new 
spending. These baby boomers and others who retire count on Medicare to 
pay for their health care bills. If we don't take Medicare seriously, 
we will find ourselves facing budget shortfalls in that critical 
program, and 40 million Americans today and even more in the future 
will wonder whether or not there are adequate funds in Medicare to pay 
for their medical expenses.
  In making this commitment to our future, we have to talk sense to the 
American people. Maybe we won't say the most popular things on Capitol 
Hill, maybe we won't hold out the prospect of the big tax cut 
immediately, but we do believe that a tax cut is something we can 
support, as Democrats and as Republicans, once we put it all in 
perspective. The perspective is, what is a realistic projection, a 
realistic prediction in terms of the surplus we are going to have? What 
is the safe way each year to decide how much we can afford to put in a 
tax cut? How can we take care of other priorities such as paying down 
this national debt in a systematic way, a way that brings us to a point 
where we can say to our children: We just burned the mortgage. It is 
your America now, mortgage free. Make your own plans for your own 
future, and you won't have to compete with the Federal Government when 
it comes to interest rates, because we are not borrowing money any 
longer for a $5.7 trillion national debt. We are not competing with you 
when you want a mortgage for your home or a loan for your car or your 
credit bills, whatever it is.
  These things are good for the future of this country. Although they 
may not be as popular as the two words ``tax cut,'' they offer things 
Americans will look forward to.
  When it comes to education, people always say: That is our highest 
priority. If it is our highest priority, are we willing to set goals 
for this Nation and live up to them? Are we willing to

[[Page S1663]]

say that the schoolday our children live through each day should be a 
complete day that is positive and constructive, that from the moment 
those children are left at school until they can be returned to a 
parent, they are going to be in a positive, safe, and learning 
environment?

  That isn't the case today in schools across America. Children are 
turned loose at 2:30, 3, 3:30 in the afternoon, long before their 
parents come home. Afterschool programs should be part of a schoolday. 
Maybe it will not be tutorials for kids who are doing well. It might be 
enrichment classes or art classes or music classes--even sports, for 
that matter--but something that is constructive and positive. America's 
schools should reflect America's families.
  When we talk about a vision for the 21st century in education, our 
schools have to be part of that vision. They ought to be safe 
buildings, too. In my home State of Illinois, we have many great school 
districts but a lot of them where the schools are just crumbling around 
the students. Schools are not what they should be so the students are 
able to learn in a safe, clean, and healthy environment. The Federal 
Government should make that investment with the States, with the local 
school districts, to make those schools safer.
  In the classrooms themselves, our teachers are facing a lot of 
challenges. I think about how little I know about computers, though I 
tried to learn a little bit more. I wonder if I could ever teach a 
course in computers even to a youngster. Most kids know a lot more 
about computers than I do. If our teachers are going to be able to use 
computers and teach our kids technology that will make their lives more 
meaningful, teachers need training and opportunities and they need 
adequate pay. We should treat them as the professionals they are and 
hold our schools accountable.
  I agree with the President on this: Let's make sure our schools are 
productive. If we have testing, it is a good way to see whether or not 
the kids are making progress. I believe in tests. The President was 
right last night: You can overdo it in teaching to a test. However, if 
you are teaching to a standard of learning so that a child can move to 
the next grade successfully, I support it. We did it throughout my 
school career many years ago, and we do it now in the city of Chicago 
and across the State of Illinois.
  It makes sense; I support the President's proposal, but if we are to 
leave no child behind, if we are going to invest in education as we 
should, then certainly we have to step back and say, is this tax cut of 
$1.6 trillion--primarily for the wealthiest people in this country--the 
first thing America needs in the 21st century?
  I don't believe it is. I think the first thing we need to do is 
carefully look at the books, see what is on hand, and then a tax cut 
across the board for all families, pay down the national debt, and 
invest in these priorities--Social Security, Medicare, and education.
  Finally, I will mention the issue of health insurance. It is almost 
disgraceful that at this moment in our history, with our prosperity, 
over 43 million Americans have no health insurance at all. I can't 
imagine getting up and going to work as the head of a household with a 
family without the protection of some type of health insurance. Yet we 
know that happens day after day.
  I was glad to see the National Governors' Association come together 
in Washington this last week. They are proposing changes in Medicaid--
changes that could lead to universal coverage so that every family in 
America would at least have a primary health insurance plan. I think we 
ought to move in that direction--not a Government plan or a Government-
run program but a program that opens up to private health insurance 
sources and others so we can allow people to have that basic protection 
and peace of mind.
  That is not the case today. As a consequence, many kids in America go 
without immunization. People with basic care who can live a long period 
of time don't have the chance. I am sorry that the President's speech 
last night really didn't address this. I think if the President, as he 
moves around and talks to working families, sits down and asks families 
about their priorities, they will tell him that health care is one of 
the most important, and that they are worried about the cost and 
availability of it.
  The last point is this. Last night the President brought in from 
Philadelphia a family who seemed to be two people who were working very 
hard to make a good living. We stood and applauded them as the 
President described them as a ``typical American family.'' I am glad 
they were with us as a reminder of why many of us serve in the Senate 
and in the House of Representatives. The President said this lower 
income family is going to need the help of a tax break. I think lower 
income families do need the help of a tax break.
  I remind the President and his party that for the last 6 years they 
have consistently resisted every effort to raise the minimum wage in 
America. It has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for 14 million Americans. 
So if we have sympathy for these families, if we value hard work, if we 
believe in the dignity that comes with those activities, for goodness' 
sake, why aren't we increasing the minimum wage? We have waited too 
long. That wage is continuing to deteriorate because of inflation, and 
we should be sensitive to it.
  I hope as we get into this tax cut discussion we will not forget the 
basis--that is, that these folks who get up every morning and go to 
work, to clean off the tables in restaurants, make the beds in hotels, 
tend to our parents and grandparents in nursing homes, to be there to 
make sure the workplace is safe for kids in day-care centers, are the 
people making $5.15 an hour.
  The Republican Party has resisted for 5 years now every effort to 
raise that minimum wage. For that family in Philadelphia, for 350,000 
Illinois families that are working for a minimum wage, I implore the 
President and the Republican Party not only to think of tax cuts but to 
think about increasing the minimum wage to show that they value work, 
as we all should in America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________