[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20739-20742]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   ISSUES IN THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my friend 
from Alaska. He has devoted a great amount of his time to this one 
issue; that is, drilling in ANWR. I have been present on the floor on 
many occasions when he has given basically the same presentation he did 
today. I do not mean to take away from the intensity of his belief, his 
passion, that there should be drilling in this pristine area. The fact 
of the matter is that the majority is wrong on this issue.
  The minority believes we do not have to pump every drop of oil that 
is on U.S. soil, that there are other things we should do. One of the 
things we need to do is develop alternative energy sources; that is, 
solar energy. We are not as a government doing nearly enough to develop 
this great resource.
  We have heard a lot of discussion on this floor about the Nevada Test 
Site where some thousand nuclear devices were exploded over the years. 
Solar energy facilities could be developed at the Nevada Test Site 
which could produce enough electricity to supply all the needs of the 
United States. The desert Sun would supply enough energy for the whole 
United States. That is what we should develop--alternate energy 
sources.
  I am very proud of the fact that this administration has decided they 
are going to go all out, and they have already begun to develop 
geothermal energy. All over the western part of the United States, 
there is geothermal energy potential. If one drives from the capital of 
Nevada, Carson City, to Reno, one sees steam coming out of the ground. 
That steam represents great potential for geothermal energy.
  There are powerplants in Nevada and other places in the western part 
of the United States that produce electricity from the heat of the 
Earth. Geothermal energy is available in various parts of the United 
States. There is tremendous potential there.
  If one drives in southern California, one sees areas where there are 
miles and miles of windmills. These windmills produce electricity, and 
we are getting better every day in developing more efficient windmills. 
That is where we should be directing our attention, not to producing 
oil in a pristine wilderness in Alaska.
  The fact of the matter is, we could produce millions of barrels of 
oil there for a very short period of time. The effect on our energy 
policy would be minimal. It would produce jobs for the people of 
Alaska--and I understand why the Senators from Alaska are pushing 
jobs--but it would be to the detriment of our environment.
  It was very clear in the debate last night that the Vice President 
said we should not be drilling in ANWR, there are other things we can 
do, and he mentioned, as I have, alternate energy policies. He also 
stated that we can do a lot of things in our country to conserve and 
reduce the need to produce more electricity. I hope we will focus on 
what we can do to make sure we are energy efficient and that we are not 
so dependent on importing foreign oil.
  One of the things I regret we did not do, because the majority would 
not let us do it, is to put more oil in our reserves. We have a program 
to begin pumping some of our reserves. That is a wise decision. Look at 
the results. There was a dramatic decline in the cost of oil, and OPEC 
suddenly decided it was the right thing to do to start producing more 
oil because they knew we would start pulling down our reserves and the 
cost of oil would go down anyway.
  The Senator from Alaska criticized the Vice President for his 
interest in improving energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy 
production. His criticism is not well taken. In my view, the Vice 
President has a balanced, healthy approach to reducing American 
dependence on foreign oil and big oil generally. He recognizes we can 
produce oil and gas more efficiently at home, we can expand our 
domestic production of renewable energy, and our economy can become 
more efficient.
  Vice President Gore has also realized, as he stated on a number of 
occasions and as I have already said, that we do not need to develop 
every drop of oil in the Earth. Unlike Governor Bush, Vice President 
Gore believes that in some cases special places, national treasures, 
should be off limits to big oil.
  We know there is a massive lobbying effort by big oil companies to 
drill in ANWR. It is the wrong thing to do. Clearly, the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge is one of those special places about which the 
Vice President talked. It is the last pristine Arctic ecosystem in the 
United States. It should be out of bounds for oil exploration. I do not 
care if the caribou can walk on pipelines because it is warm or they 
cannot walk on pipelines because they are cold. The fact of the matter 
is, we do not need to drill in ANWR. It should be out of bounds. Vice 
President Gore recognizes we can protect America's national treasures 
and satisfy our energy needs.
  I am disappointed that Governor Bush lacks, I am sorry to say, a 
notion about, or maybe even an understanding of, what energy policy is 
all about. His affiliation for so long with big oil seems to have 
tempered his views toward big oil. Of course, his Vice Presidential 
candidate has the same global view that big oil solves all problems. 
The only way for America to reduce its debilitating addiction to 
foreign oil is to develop alternative energy sources and to do a better 
job with our consumption. We do not solve our problems by drilling in 
our precious national wildlife refuge.
  Mr. President, not only do I believe that the Vice President was 
right last

[[Page 20740]]

night about our energy policy, but I also believe he was right about 
education.
  I think, when we recognize that over 90 percent of our kids go to 
public schools, we have to do things to protect and improve our public 
schools. I think the Vice President recognizes the need for school 
construction.
  In Las Vegas, we have to build a new school every month to keep up 
with growth. We need help. I did not misspeak. We need to build a new 
school every month to keep up with the growth in Las Vegas. We have the 
sixth largest school district in America. We need help, as other school 
districts around the country need help. We need them for different 
reasons. The average school in America is over 40 years old. The Vice 
President recognizes that school districts need help in school 
construction. We need help in getting more teachers and better 
teachers.
  That is why the Vice President spoke so eloquently on the need to do 
something about prescription drug benefits. That is why he spoke about 
the need to do something about prescription drugs.
  It was very clear to all of us that his statements regarding 
international policy were certainly well made. The Vice President did a 
good job because he has a wealth of experience.
  But I also want to say this to the American people. I am not here 
today to diminish Governor Bush. We should be very proud in America 
that we had the ability last night to watch these two fine men debate. 
They are debating to become the President of the United States, the 
most powerful, the most important job in the whole world.
  I have to say I think the glass is half full, not half empty. I think 
these two men did a good job. Most of us who serve in the Senate--or 
everyone who serves in the Senate--have been involved in these debates. 
It is hard. It might look easy watching these men at home on TV, but it 
is hard. There is tremendous pressure on each one of them. Millions of 
people are watching each one of them.
  What is the criticism today? The Vice President sighed; and George 
Bush, when he was not speaking, his face was red and he snorted a 
couple times. If that is the worst we say about these two fine men, 
then we are in pretty good shape as a country. Al Gore is a friend of 
mine, Tipper Gore is a friend of mine. I think his debate was a slam 
dunk, as indicated in all the polls today. Al Gore won the debate. And 
I am very happy that he did.
  But do not diminish these two men by saying one sighed too much or 
one had a red face. They were in a very difficult situation last night. 
I am proud of the work that both of them did. I think we, as a country, 
should feel good about our country, that people who are running for 
President can be seen, their sighs and red faces combined. I think we 
should recognize that. If you look just across the ocean, you see what 
is going on in Serbia and Yugoslavia. That is what we do not want. We 
should be very proud of what we have here in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for giving me the 
time, and my good friend from Nevada, the assistant minority leader, 
for arranging our ability to speak.
  First, I say, as well, that I enjoyed the debate last night. I 
thought most Americans got to see, for 90 minutes, the candidates 
unfiltered. It was good for the country, whatever side one came down 
on. It is just one more step in the process of all of us educating 
ourselves about the very difficult problems this country faces as we 
move along.
  I would like to talk about one aspect of the debate which is very 
relevant to what we are doing here as we end our final 2 weeks on the 
budget. What we heard from the Vice President and from Governor Bush 
last night about the budget, about Medicare, and about taxes is exactly 
what the Senate is focused on as we move to wrap up the session. So I 
thought it would be a good idea for us to actually look at the numbers 
instead of the rhetoric.
  Last night it seemed to me Vice President Gore talked about a lot of 
numbers. Governor Bush did not answer any of his statements. He did not 
answer Jim Lehrer's questions. Instead, he resorted to this sort of 
catchall of ``fuzzy numbers,'' ``fuzzy math,'' ``fuzzy Washington 
numbers.'' I guess when you do not have the ability to answer or you 
are stuck, you go to rhetoric.
  I would like to examine those so-called ``fuzzy numbers.'' I do not 
think anyone who has examined them looks at them as ``fuzzy.'' But it 
is just that Governor Bush's plans for America are so skewed, and the 
numbers do not add up, that he cannot answer the questions directly and 
instead starts talking about ``fuzzy numbers.''
  I will admit, to the average American this is all sort of confusing. 
People are so busy with their jobs and their families and their hobbies 
and their avocations, they can't take out a magnifying glass and look 
at all the details. They have to go, as we always have in this 
Republic, with their instincts. Who is really right?
  But today I thought I might spend a few minutes of our time on the 
floor, which I am grateful for, to actually go over those numbers in as 
clear a way as I can.
  It is clear, once you look at the numbers, that what the Vice 
President was saying is true: That if we use Governor Bush's plan, a 
largely disproportionate share of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 
people; that there is no room for Medicare expansion, in fact Medicare 
must be cut, if we use Governor Bush's plan; that, in fact, you do go 
back to the old days of not only eating up the surplus but of deficit 
spending--if we do all of the things that Governor Bush has proposed.
  So let's look at the math.
  Let's start out with the basic foundation of our budget, the surplus 
projections. We all know they may not be accurate, but they may not be 
accurate on the low side or they may not be accurate on the high side. 
These are the best numbers we have from the Congressional Budget 
Office, which is generally regarded as fairly nonpartisan.
  They estimate that the surplus, over the next 10 years, will be huge, 
$4.6 trillion. I think that is because we finally have gotten it here 
in Washington that we can't go spending money we do not have. That is 
good. There is a consensus--I think both Democrats and Republicans 
agree--about that.
  There is a second agreement. We all agree right now that the money 
ought to go to Social Security first, that we ought to take the Social 
Security surplus, the amount of money that is in FICA, that you pay in 
in FICA, that every American worker pays in--their hard-earned dollars; 
and they pay what I guess many would think is a high percentage--my 
daughter had her first job over the summer. She is 15. She was amazed 
how much came out in FICA from her little meager paycheck. But we say 
all that FICA money should stay with Social Security; that no one in 
Washington should get their sticky little fingers on it and use it for 
something else. You take away the Social Security surplus and that 
gives us a total, over the next 10 years, of $2.2 trillion to spend.
  Last night, the Vice President said Governor Bush's plan would not 
only use all that but return us to deficit spending when you added 
everything up. He focused on the tax cut as much too large, if you 
wanted to do the other things.
  The Governor did not respond in point. He said: These fuzzy 
Washington numbers. This chart shows the numbers are not fuzzy. They 
are as clear as the nose on the Governor's face.
  You start with the $2.2 trillion, non-Social Security surplus. Both 
parties agree we have to preserve the Medicare trust fund, although 
last night the Governor did refuse to come out for his lockbox. But as 
you preserve the trust fund, if you do not cut into Medicare, which he 
says he will not do, you lose another $360 billion. Then you go $1.8 
trillion.
  Then there is the $1.3 trillion tax cut. We will discuss later to 
whom it goes. That was the No. 1 contention in the debate. But Governor 
Bush, by his own words, takes $1.3 trillion. He says it is a small 
portion of the total Government budget. It is. But it is a very

[[Page 20741]]

large portion of the surplus that we have. Of the $2.2 trillion that is 
left after you save Social Security and preserve Social Security, he 
would take $1.3 trillion of that--more than half of it--and put it into 
tax cuts. That brings us down to $500 billion left over the 10 years.
  Then there are the other tax breaks that the Governor has supported 
which have been talked about on this floor. He supports cutting the 
marriage penalty. He mentioned that last night. He supports the estate 
tax reduction. He has mentioned that at other times. You take that, 
that is another $940 billion. So now we are already in deficit by $400 
billion; no longer having the surplus that we struggled to attain after 
so many years of deficit spending. So then we are in deficit.
  But he doesn't stop there. Then there is spending. The Governor 
proposes some spending for education and for other things. Every day we 
hear of a new program he is coming out with. I support some of them, as 
I support some of the tax cuts, but not all because together, when you 
add it up, it is too much.
  He has proposed $625 billion in spending. That brings our deficit to 
$1 trillion. Then he proposes that we take $1 trillion out of Social 
Security and let people invest that in the stock market or whatever 
else. Of course, he said, it will go up three times; that is, if the 
stock market triples. I don't put my daughter's college money that my 
wife and I save each month in the stock market for fear, even though it 
might triple, it might go down. And then how are we going to pay for 
her college?
  He takes the money out, wherever you put it, and that is another $1.1 
trillion. Now we are at a $2.1 trillion deficit. Finally, because you 
are not getting interest on all this money; you are spending it, so to 
speak, in terms of tax breaks and in terms of spending programs, you 
lose another $400 billion of foregone interest. When you add it all up, 
the deficit, with the Governor's plan, is back to the bad old days of 
$2.5 trillion.
  This is not fuzzy Washington math. These are not fuzzy numbers. These 
are the numbers the Governor has proposed. No wonder he didn't answer 
Vice President Gore's retort about going back and where all the money 
is coming from. No wonder he had to use this rhetoric. The only people 
these numbers are fuzzy to are the people who don't want to add them up 
because they lead to deficit spending: the Governor of Texas and his 
supporters.
  The other big issue was where does the tax cut go. Again, Vice 
President Gore said seven, eight, nine, ten times--I lost count--that 
the top 1 percent of the people in America get a huge proportion of the 
tax cut. And Jim Lehrer asked Governor Bush whether that was true, and 
Governor Bush would not answer the question. Do you know why? Why 
didn't Governor Bush answer the question as to where the tax cuts go? 
Because he knew the Vice President was right. He knew it went 
disproportionately to the wealthiest people in America.
  Here are the numbers, plain and simple. This is data from Citizens 
for Tax Justice, not a Democratic or Republican group.
  The top 1 percent of America, those are people--I wish the Vice 
President had said this--the top 1 percent is not you or even me, and I 
make a good salary as a Senator. You have to make $319,000 to be in the 
top 1 percent. If you average it out, the income of the top 1 percent 
is $915,000. These people are not just millionaires; they make almost 
$1 million a year on average. They get 42 percent of the tax cut. 
Almost one of every $2 we are cutting in taxes goes to people whose 
average income is $1 million or close to $1 million a year. How many 
Americans want that? If I were confronted with that fact, I would 
``rhetorize,'' as they say, I would give what the Governor himself 
might call Washington rhetoric and say: That is fuzzy mathematics.
  It is not fuzzy. Here it is, Governor Bush: The top 1 percent get 42 
percent of the tax cuts. The people whose average income is $915,000 
get $46,000 back in tax cuts.
  Let's take the people in the middle, the middle 20 percent, people 
making between $25,000 and $40,000 a year. They get about 8 percent of 
the tax cuts or $453. Of course, low-income people, the Governor said, 
they are going to do better--yes, $42 a year better. So it is true, as 
the Governor said, everyone gets a tax break. He wants to give the 
money to everyone. The trouble is, he wants to give most of the money 
to the wealthiest few.
  He is right. The wealthiest people have most of the money, and they 
pay a lot of the taxes. That is true. But we have a policy choice, Mr. 
President. Do we want the wealthiest of people to get most of the money 
back or do we want to do targeted tax cuts for the middle class and 
spend more of the money than the Governor does on education, on a 
prescription drug plan, on health care?
  This is not fuzzy Washington math. These are facts. I don't blame 
Governor Bush for running away from them and hiding behind rhetoric.
  One final point. Vice President Gore, in the debate, said that he 
wanted targeted tax cuts for the middle class. And George Bush said: 
You need an accountant to figure this out. Well, tell a family who is 
making $50,000 a year, whose oldest child is 17, and the husband and 
wife are up late at night worrying: How in the heck are we going to pay 
for Johnny's college. How the heck, on an income of $50,000 a year, are 
we going to come up with $10,000 a year after paying our mortgage and 
buying the food and payments on the car? How are we going to do that?
  Well, you don't need an accountant with what Vice President Gore 
talked about. You simply need to put on your tax return that your child 
is going to college, that you are paying $10,000 a year, and you deduct 
that from your taxes. It is as simple as deducting your mortgage 
interest. It is as simple as deducting your health care costs. You 
don't need an accountant.
  We all believe in tax cuts; I do. Is it better for all of America to 
give that wealthiest family $46,000 a year, when their income is 
$915,000, or is it better to say to middle-income families who are 
struggling with the cost of college that we ought to make college 
tuition tax deductible, a proposal that has had bipartisan support in 
the Senate? The Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe; myself; the Senator 
from Indiana, Mr. Bayh; and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith--two 
Democrats and two Republicans--have championed that. I learned how much 
people struggled with that when I ran for the Senate 2 years ago. It is 
one of my passions to get it done.
  You don't need an accountant. Those are not fuzzy Washington numbers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 2 
minutes from our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. It is not fuzzy math. It is plain and simple.
  The bottom line is, last night Governor Bush could not argue facts. 
He could not argue the merits. So he ran away from the argument by 
claiming fuzzy numbers.
  The debate was a great success for the Vice President because, as 
people examine what I have talked about--the huge deficit spending the 
Governor would have us engage in, again, the fact that a 
disproportionate share of the tax cuts go to the wealthy; the fact that 
the middle-income tax cuts proposed by the Vice President are very 
simple and easy to use and desperately needed by the American people--
the Vice President will score points.
  More importantly, he will win the election on that basis, and America 
will finally spend our surplus on the priorities we need and return 
taxes to the middle class who need them more than anybody else. Our 
country will continue the prosperity that, praise God, we have seen in 
the last 8 years.
  Mr. President, these are not fuzzy Washington numbers. These are 
facts. They are facts that show that the Vice President is far more in 
touch with what the average American wants and needs than is Governor 
Bush.
  I don't believe in class warfare. I respect people who have made a 
lot of

[[Page 20742]]

money. That is the American dream. I hope my children will.
  But when you do deep tax cuts, who should get it when you only have a 
limited amount? When you have a surplus, why should it be squandered? 
Governor Bush, these are not fuzzy numbers but hard, cold facts that 
help the American people.
  I yield back my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.

                          ____________________