[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1689-1691]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           THE FEDERAL BUDGET

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank you for yielding me this time in 
morning business to address the issue of the Federal budget. This time 
of year, as America starts to look forward to spring training in 
Florida and Arizona for the baseball season, Members of the U.S. Senate 
and House of Representatives get involved in their own grapefruit 
league, their own spring training, which starts with our speeches on 
the Federal budget process. And I am sure that many people who would 
witness this debate would scratch their heads and say, What can that 
possibly mean to my family in Chicago, IL, or Springfield, IL? In fact, 
it has a great deal of importance and not only defines who we are as a 
nation and what our priorities will be in the coming year, but it also 
affects a lot of programs and a lot of taxes that directly impact 
families across America. So this kind of runup to the serious debates 
on the budget resolution is an important part of the annual ritual in 
Congress. And I am happy to be part of it today.
  I have listened to my Republican colleagues, as they have spoken 
about their view of the budget, the budget process, and where we are in 
America, and it is a slightly--well, no, it is a significantly 
different point of view than I have. Because I take a look at this 
Nation and I do not see it in somber and serious terms. I don't find it 
depressing. I am not saddened by it. I really look at the state of 
government today in Washington, DC, and see so many hopeful signs that 
I wonder sometimes if my Republican colleagues are looking at the same 
picture that I am looking at.
  There are certain things which I think we ought to accept as a 
reality. The fact that two out of three Americans today say the Clinton 
administration is doing a good job suggests to me that most Americans--
Democrats, independents and even almost a majority of the moderate 
Republicans--have come to the conclusion that this country is on the 
right track, this administration is doing a good job. And there is 
ample reason for them to reach this conclusion.
  Think about where we were 6 years ago when this administration began. 
The budget deficit stood at nearly $300 billion a year with no relief 
in sight. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting 
that the deficit would reach $350 billion in 1998. At that time, no 
one--absolutely no one--would have expected, instead of a $350 billion 
deficit, we would be running a $70 billion surplus.
  The first step on our road to recovery and sanity in the budget 
process was the passage of President Clinton's 1993 Deficit Reduction 
Act. I remember that vote as if it were yesterday. That vote taken over 
5 years ago is imprinted in my memory, because we were told by our 
Republican critics that if we voted for this Clinton deficit-reduction 
plan we would drive this economy into a tailspin, we would have even 
deeper deficits, we would have a wholesale reaction from the American 
people against this new policy. And as a result of it, we didn't garner 
a single Republican vote in support of the Clinton deficit-reduction 
plan. Here in the Senate, before I arrived, when the vote was cast, it 
was up to Vice President Gore to cast the deciding vote for this 
deficit-reduction plan.
  It turns out the President and the Vice President were correct and 
the critics of the plan were wrong. Because, as you see, we have now 
reached the point where that deficit reduction put us on a road toward 
a balanced budget, which we enjoy today. Giving credit where it is due, 
there was a second installment on deficit reduction done on a 
bipartisan basis by Republicans and Democrats which completed this 
effort. I am glad that we were able to do that on a bipartisan basis. 
But history records that the first important and most painful step in 
this process began in 1993 with President Clinton's proposal.
  A lot of my friends on the Republican side have argued that we have 
been

[[Page 1690]]

able to eliminate the deficit but at the expense of raising taxes on 
ordinary Americans. I have heard this so often you almost start to 
believe it. And then you look at the facts. The facts are these: The 
Treasury Department shows that a median income family of four currently 
pays less in taxes as a percentage of their income than at any time in 
the last 20 years. It is also true for families of four at one-half the 
median income level and a family of four at twice the median income 
level.
  So the Republican claims that the President has balanced the budget 
on the backs of working people just simply are not true. Nor is it true 
that the administration has increased the size of government. All of 
these claims about big government and big taxing just do not wash when 
you take a look at the facts. According to the Center for Budget and 
Policy Priorities, spending has declined to its smallest share of our 
gross domestic product in 25 years. Furthermore, under the President's 
proposal, spending will continue to decline as a percentage of our 
gross domestic product to its lowest level in 33 years.
  Sound fiscal policy has translated into economic resurgence in 
America which still baffles even the experts. Here we are enjoying the 
95th consecutive month of economic expansion, the longest peacetime 
expansion in our history; interest rates stable and falling; 
unemployment rates coming down; welfare rolls coming down; inflation at 
its lowest combined rate with interest rates and unemployment in a 
generation.
  As the President announced to Congress 2 weeks ago, the state of our 
Nation is strong. As Vice President Gore often says, everything that we 
want to go down has gone down. We are talking about the unemployment 
rate and welfare rolls. And things we want to go up, like family income 
and housing starts and new businesses, continue to go up. So when I 
hear these funereal tones from my Republican colleagues about how sad 
it is that this administration just can't get it, can't get it right, I 
look around at our economy and I am baffled, I cannot find the evidence 
for their claim.
  Despite these promises of surpluses in our budget as far as the eye 
can see, we all know that budget projections in the future are a guess, 
an educated guess but a guess. Four years ago, the Congressional Budget 
Office forecast the deficit would exceed $300 billion this year and 
approach $500 billion by the year 2005.
  With $5 trillion of Federal debt hanging over our heads, now is not 
the time to abandon fiscal prudence in favor of tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans, as many of my colleagues have suggested. We 
should take advantage of the opportunity to redirect and invest our 
surpluses at this moment in history where they can pay off for America 
in the long run. We need a responsible fiscal course to begin with. The 
President's budget wisely preserves 62 percent of the projected surplus 
for Social Security and I hope both parties can agree to this. Let me 
say this: If at this moment in time--this year--as we debate the 
budget, as we envision surpluses for years to come, if we cannot muster 
the will, on a bipartisan basis, to save Social Security, we never 
will. It will be less painful now than any time in our future. And we 
have to accept the responsibility of dedicating the surplus to Social 
Security.
  The President said it last year, and repeated it again this year: 
``Save Social Security first.'' And those who want to embark on a 
different course, so be it. I believe the American people agree with me 
and the President that this money should go to Social Security, and 
also to Medicare. The Medicare Program, important to millions of 
elderly, is a program that is in trouble. There is no doubt about it. 
As health care costs go up, as the elderly population increases, 
Medicare faces strains and pressures never envisioned.
  The President has suggested taking 15 percent of the surplus and 
putting it into Medicare to make sure that we have an additional 10 
years of a solid Medicare system for senior citizens. That, to me, is 
eminently sensible. That, again, is an investment of the surplus in 
something good for the long-term benefits of our Nation, not just for 
elderly--of course it benefits them directly--but for their children as 
well.
  When senior citizens cannot pay their health care bills, many times 
they turn to the government but they often turn to their children. Let 
us relieve that generation from a burden they shouldn't carry, by 
investing a portion of the surplus in Medicare. Medicare and Social 
Security are entitlements but they are earned entitlements. Let's put 
the ``security'' back in Social Security and put quality health care 
into Medicare.
  When we think about what to do with the surplus, it makes sense to 
consider the perspective of Alan Greenspan. If there is one man who is 
credited with leading us through this out-of-the-deficit desert and 
into the sunshine of surpluses, it is the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, Alan Greenspan. In testimony to the Senate Budget Committee 
last week, the Chairman said that the single-best use of the surplus is 
to pay down the national debt. This is exactly what the President is 
doing by dedicating the surplus to Social Security and Medicare.
  There is also a proposal for tax relief. It is perfectly reasonable 
that once we have taken care of our obligations to save and preserve 
Social Security and Medicare and thereby reduce the national debt, we 
also help families in America who need tax relief. The President's 
proposal is a sensible approach which gives working families more 
income security, more spending power, and a greater ability to save for 
the future.
  The President's proposal finds $34 billion in tax relief to working 
families. His budget reserves 12 percent of the projected surplus to 
provide low- and moderate-income Americans with a tax cut to help fund 
personal retirement accounts. Millions of Americans and millions of 
Federal employees, including most of the people who work in this 
building, have availed themselves of savings opportunities for their 
retirement, whether it is the Federal Thrift Savings Plan, individual 
retirement accounts, or Roth IRAs--named after Senator Roth from 
Delaware. In order to make certain that low- and middle-income families 
have that same option, the President suggests that we create these 
personal retirement accounts that will help them. I think that makes 
sense.
  The President also suggests that we provide tax relief for child care 
costs for 3 million working families. A couple years ago, I went across 
Illinois and talked to working families and in particular, working 
mothers, about their major concerns. Do you know what the number one 
concern was? It was, what will I do with my kids when I go to work? I 
can't afford to send them to the very best day care, and I worry myself 
to death when I am on the job and I am not certain that they are safe. 
That is a natural human reaction. It is the right reaction from a 
parent. What the President is saying is that we need to be sensitive to 
these working families by giving them some tax relief to help pay for 
day care and child care.
  The same thing is true for many of the working families who have 
elderly parents or parents who are sick or disabled who need help with 
long-term care. Here again, the President's proposal offers tax relief 
to millions of Americans who want to provide for loved ones that are in 
their golden years.
  You will also hear a cry for tax cuts from our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. But it is almost as predictable as night 
following day that when you go beyond the surface appeal of tax cuts 
proposed by the Republicans, you find the same story year in and year 
out. Let me give you some graphic examples of what I am talking about.
  This chart which we had prepared looks at the proposed 10-percent tax 
rate cut that the Republicans have brought forward. Of course, we had 
to analyze it to see what it would mean to most families. This is no 
surprise if you have followed Republican tax breaks in years gone by. 
The bottom sixty percent of America's families, based on income, would 
see an average of a tax break of just $99 a year, roughly $8 and a few 
cents each month. Then

[[Page 1691]]

you get to the top 1 percent of incomes, people making over $300,000 a 
year, and look what their average tax break is under the Republican 
plan--$20,697. I just can't understand this. I can't understand why 
low- and middle-income families making below $38,000 a year should get 
an average annual tax break of a little over $8 a month while we turn 
around and give $1,600 or $1,700 a month to the wealthiest among us.
  If there is to be a tax break, if we are to use the surplus to help 
American families, should we not dedicate that surplus first and 
foremost to the low- and middle-income families who absolutely need it 
the most?
  When I take a look at where money can be spent in this Federal 
budget, I am sometimes troubled that my friends on the Republican side 
of the aisle suggest that spending on domestic priorities is creating 
wasteful, new programs. In one particular area I take exception; that 
is in the area of education and training.
  It was only last year that we had the major corporations in Silicon 
Valley and across the country lobbying Congress to change the 
immigration laws in America so that these companies could bring in 
skilled and trained personnel, immigrants from overseas, to fill gaps 
in their employment. That is a sad commentary on America's educational 
system. And it really troubles me that we have reached the point these 
companies cannot find within America the skills that they need to make 
a profit.
  Then we hear from the U.S. Navy that it is suggesting it needs a 
change in policy. The Navy, an All-Volunteer Navy, relies on those who 
come forward and those they can recruit, and they have fallen short of 
their goals. Some 22,000 seaman are needed and not available, 
particularly 18,000 for service on ships at sea. So the Navy has come 
to Congress and said we think the answer to this is for Congress to 
allow us to increase the number of recruits who don't have high school 
diplomas from 5 percent of the total to 10 percent. Now, that is a 
troubling admission to say that we have so many young people without a 
high school education that we need to turn to the Armed Forces to give 
these young people a basic education.
  When the President comes before Congress and says we can do a better 
job in our schools, I think most American families agree. And money 
invested there, I think, is money well invested. We have a skills gap 
in our country which needs to be addressed. We need a commitment to 
education that includes afterschool and summer school programs. We need 
100,000 new teachers. We need to improve teacher skills and hold them 
accountable to make certain that when they come into the classroom, 
they are prepared to teach. The vast majority of teachers will meet 
this threshold requirement without breaking a sweat. But you know as 
well as I that there are people standing in classrooms across America 
reading from textbooks on subjects they know little or nothing about.
  In my old home town of East St. Louis, last year or so I talked to 
some of the people on the school board and they say they will literally 
give a job to anyone who tells us they are prepared to try and teach 
science and math--``prepared to try and teach.'' They don't require any 
degrees, they can't, because they can't attract the people to do the 
job. We need to increase teacher skills and training to do so.
  In addition, I think we need to put more money into school 
construction, not just because the school-age enrollment is going to 
mushroom dramatically over the next several decades, but because our 
current school buildings in America for the most part are not prepared 
to accept the new technology necessary to educate our children. When 
President Clinton suggests $25 billion in tax credits for that school 
construction and renovation, I think he is talking about an issue that 
most Americans and most families can certainly understand.
  This is a time to invest in America, not a time to provide a windfall 
tax break for the wealthiest people in our country. The President 
maintains strong fiscal discipline, targets his tax relief to Americans 
who need it, and makes certain that our highest priority of preserving 
Social Security and Medicare and reducing national debt is met.
  There is also a suggestion that we increase defense spending. As a 
member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I am going to watch 
this carefully. I understand, as most people do, that national defense 
is one of our highest priorities. I want to make certain that we 
dedicate our resources, first and foremost, to the men and women in 
uniform to make certain that they are compensated well and have a fair 
retirement plan.
  It is a personal embarrassment to me, and it should be to every 
Member of Congress, to learn that so many members of the U.S. military 
today qualify for food stamps. That shouldn't be the case. We ought to 
make certain that the amount of money paid to our military personnel is 
adequate not only to maintain their families, but to attract and retain 
the very best in uniform across America. We owe our freedom to these 
men and women. We should compensate them accordingly. Of course, 
technology is part of that, but let's make sure the technology demands 
are consistent with the post-cold war world, that it is a technology 
demand that really envisions America's future role in the world in 
realistic terms.
  I conclude by saying that I think that the President's budget has 
areas where I might disagree and probably will. It has areas that 
Congress will certainly address in a different way, but it is a budget 
based on the right principles, a budget to keep America on a track for 
prosperity and economic improvement. When we look at the growth in our 
domestic product each and every quarter, the encouragement it gives us, 
I think it suggests that we ought to think long and hard before we 
abandon this course we have been on--a successful course, with 95 
consecutive months of economic expansion. Those who want to experiment 
with another approach, perhaps they can make that case to the American 
people; but, today, two-thirds of the American people say: Stay on this 
course, keep us moving forward in the right way, helping working 
families and preserving the programs that mean so much to America.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, in his capacity as a Senator from 
New Hampshire, suggests the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________