[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23065-23067]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 23065]]

                    THE TWO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last evening I watched the Presidential 
debate, as I am sure many other Americans did as well. I was thinking, 
after the debate, that those who claim there is not a difference 
between these candidates, and not a choice in this election, just have 
not been listening. There is clearly a choice and a difference between 
the two Presidential candidates.
  I happen to believe both are pretty good people. You don't get to the 
point where you achieve the nomination from your party for the 
Presidency of the United States without having some significant 
experience and talent. But there are vast differences in public policy. 
I want to talk just a little about this, and especially about one of 
the significant issues in this campaign: the proposals for tax cuts.
  Governor Bush has proposed tax cuts that are somewhere in the 
vicinity of $1.5 trillion over the coming 10 years.
  We have had a wonderful economy in recent years. This country has 
been blessed with economic opportunity and growth that is 
unprecedented. We have the strongest economy in the world. Virtually 
everything in our economy has been headed in the right direction. 
Unemployment has been down; inflation has been down; home ownership up. 
Virtually all of the indicators of economic health have been good. This 
economy has been heading in the right direction.
  One factor in that health is that Congress made some choices early 
on; difficult choices, to be sure, but ones that helped put this 
economy back on track. I worry very much that, as some economists tell 
us there will be surpluses for the next 10 years, this rush to enact 
$1.5 trillion in tax cuts even before the surpluses exist could lead us 
to a much different economic place. If we take that path, and if we 
don't get the surpluses we expect, then we will begin to experience, 
once again, Federal budget deficits. We will be right back in the same 
dark hole of budget deficits and lower economic growth and more 
economic trouble.
  I will read a couple of quotes.

       There is no cause for worry. The high tide of prosperity is 
     going to continue.

  September 1928, by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon.

       No Congress of the United States ever assembled on 
     surveying the state of the Union has met a more pleasing 
     prospect than that which appears at the present time.

  December 4, 1928, President Calvin Coolidge.
  Economic forecasting is a tricky business under the very best of 
circumstances. But it is particularly suspect in the political arena, 
when partisan agendas are at stake and when the forecasts purport to 
show whether someone's agenda can work or not work. We have two classes 
of forecasters, according to one economist: those who don't know, and 
those who don't know they don't know. We might want to add a third 
class of economist: those who don't know but don't care because they 
have an agenda to justify in the political arena with their forecasts.
  The problem with economic forecasting is not just uncertainty around 
the edges. The problem goes to the very core of the endeavor. Most 
forecasting is simply linear; that is, it assumes that tomorrow will be 
pretty much like yesterday with just a little something added on. Of 
course, life is not linear. There are sudden lurches and jolts which 
none of us can anticipate. Yet forecasters always have a model they use 
that anticipates tomorrow will reflect the experience of yesterday.
  If we start writing tax refund checks with money we don't yet have 
and return to the staggering deficits of recent times--a $290 billion 
deficit the year this administration took office 8 years ago--we will 
have a much less certain economic future. All of us should understand 
that.
  The reason I want to talk about this is that it is at the core of the 
debate in the Presidential contest. The question for me is, Are we 
going to move forward and build on our economic success, or are we 
going to risk slipping back into big deficits?
  How much budget surplus is there? We hear candidates talk about 
trillions, $3 trillion, $4 trillion, $4.5 trillion. I went to a high 
school with 40 kids in all four grades. My class was ninth. We didn't 
have a lot of advanced math. We never studied trillions, I confess. I 
am not sure I understand what a trillion is. I know how many zeros 
exist in a trillion, but I am not sure I, nor anyone else in this 
Chamber, knows exactly what a trillion is.
  So we hear the Congressional Budget Office say, you have an estimated 
$4.6 trillion surplus in the coming 10 years. Then we hear candidates 
say, if we have all this surplus, let's propose a $1.5 trillion tax 
cut, most of which will go to the upper income folks, which I will talk 
about in a moment. The problem here is this: We may never have this 
surplus.
  First of all, $2.4 trillion belongs to the Social Security trust 
fund. It has to go there and should not be touched by anyone for any 
other purpose. Another $360 billion goes to the Medicare trust fund. It 
ought to be put away and not touched for any other purpose. Realistic 
spending adjustments will be about $600 billion; we are making these 
right now to exceed the budget caps because the budget that was passed 
earlier this year was wildly unrealistic in terms of what is needed for 
education and health care and a range of other issues, just to keep 
pace with increased population needs. These figures, incidentally, are 
from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This organization says 
that, if you also include amounts necessary for Social Security and 
Medicare solvency, which you are going to have to do, you have probably 
a $700 billion estimated surplus. That is if everything goes right--
$700 billion, not $4.6 trillion.
  Now, with this prospect, if you add a $1.5 trillion tax cut, what do 
you have left? Almost a $1 trillion deficit.
  Should we be a bit cautious? Should we be concerned about talk of 
giving back taxes on a permanent basis based on surpluses that don't 
yet exist? The answer is yes. We would be, in my judgment, far better 
off if we decided to establish some basic principles for the use of any 
estimated surplus.
  The priorities I think are these: First, we ought to pay down the 
Federal debt. Second, we ought to ensure the long-term solvency of 
Social Security and Medicare. Then we ought to address the urgent needs 
of this Nation, such as repairing our schools and making sure our kids 
are walking through classroom doors in the best schools in the world; 
and dealing with the prescription drug prices that are too high for 
many of our senior citizens to afford. Then we should provide targeted 
tax relief for working families.
  There is a very big difference in the agenda of the candidates for 
President. Governor Bush says his priority is to provide a very large 
tax cut. The risk is that we won't have the money for a $1.5 trillion 
tax cut. The risk is that we may well go into a $1 trillion deficit 
because of that proposed tax cut. I hope that will not be the case, but 
it is certainly possible.
  The problem with the tax cut itself is, even if you decided we should 
cut some taxes, the question is for whom and which taxes. Here is the 
proposed tax cut by Governor Bush. You can see the lowest 20 percent 
get $42 apiece a year, and the top 1 percent get $46,000 each.
  In the debate last night, Governor Bush said: Well, of course, the 
wealthy, the upper income people get most of the tax cuts; they pay 
most of the taxes.
  You can say that only if you are using a magnifying glass to suggest 
that the only taxes people pay are income taxes. I have a chart that 
shows something interesting. People pay $612 billion in payroll taxes 
in this country. Go to a convenience store somewhere. Maybe you will 
run into a person working in that convenience store for the minimum 
wage, working 40 hours a week, trying to raise two or three kids. They 
pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes. Yet that 
doesn't count, according to Governor Bush. All that counts is this: 
Let's give money back based on income taxes.
  How about proposing a tax cut to the American people based on their 
real

[[Page 23066]]

tax burden? Let me show you that burden. The fact is, 99 percent of the 
people in the bottom fifth income bracket in this country pay more in 
payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. As to the second fifth, 92 
percent pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. Those 
folks work hard every day. They get a check that is less than their 
salary because money is taken out. Why is money taken out? For taxes. 
Which taxes? Payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Then they are told 
that when it comes to tax cuts, they don't count because we are going 
to give tax cuts based solely on who pays income taxes.
  So the wealthiest get the biggest tax cuts. Is that fair to the 
people at the bottom of the economic ladder who work hard every day and 
who pay heavier payroll taxes than they do income taxes? The answer is 
absolutely not. That is another difference in philosophy.
  There are people in this Chamber and people who are advisers to 
Governor Bush and others who believe that the proper approach to 
taxation is to tax work and exempt investment. That is their 
philosophy. Why? It is a typical political debate that has gone on for 
decades. Do you believe this economy works best by pouring something in 
at the top--that is called trickle down--or by nurturing something at 
the bottom, called percolate up? Do you believe America's economic 
engine works best if you just get some cans and pour it in the top? Or 
do you believe that if you give everybody at the bottom a little 
something to work with, that this economic engine works because things 
percolate up? It is a difference in philosophy.
  Governor Bush believes, as do those who control the Congress, in the 
trickle-down approach.
  I received a note from a North Dakotan one day, a farmer. He said: I 
have been living under this trickle-down stuff for 15 years, and I 
ain't even got damp yet.
  Of course, Hubert Humphrey used to describe the trickle-down approach 
in his famous quote: That is where you give the horse some hay to eat, 
hoping that later the birds will have something to nibble on.
  So we have this debate in the country. Who is right? It seems to me 
that if we are going to do this in a conservative, thoughtful way, we 
ought to decide the following: We don't know what the future holds. Let 
us hope the future is as wonderful as the last 6 or 8 years have been 
in terms of economic performance. Things are better in the country; 
everyone understands things are better.
  You can stand on this floor and say, like the rooster taking credit 
for the sunup, that this person or that person should get the credit 
for the success of the economy. The fact is, we were headed in the 
wrong direction. This economy was in deep trouble. We had run up a $5.7 
trillion in debt, and we had a $290 billion annual deficit in 1992. We 
were moving in the wrong direction very rapidly.
  We in this Chamber, and over in the House--by one vote in each 
Chamber--passed a new economic plan. It was controversial as the 
dickens. It was not easy to vote for. In fact, let me read a couple of 
statements that were made at the time on the floor of the Senate. I 
will not read the authors, but we had people stand up on the floor of 
the Senate, and they had their own predictions regarding what this 
economic plan would be for our country.
  On August 6, 1993, one of my colleagues stood up and said:

       So we are still going to pile up some more debt, but most 
     of all, we are going to cost jobs in this country [with this 
     plan].

  Another Senator, another colleague, said:

       Make no mistake, these higher rates will cost jobs [in this 
     plan of yours].

  Another one said:

       When all is said and done, people will pay more taxes, the 
     economy will create fewer jobs, government will spend more 
     money, and the American people will be worse off.

  Another said:

       It will flatten the economy.

  That was at a time when we had an anemic economy, with slow growth, 
huge deficits, and moving in the wrong direction. And where are we in 
the year 1999 and the year 2000, after 8 years of that experience? We 
have an economy that is the envy of the world, growing faster than any 
other industrial economy in the world. Unemployment is down. More 
people are working. Welfare rolls are down. Inflation is down. Home 
ownership is up. Almost every indicator of economic health describes a 
country that is doing better. What should we do at this point? Some say 
give huge tax cuts, right now. Let's put them in law right now, lock 
them down.
  If during good economic times you don't use the opportunity to pay 
down the Federal debt, you are never going to be able to pay down the 
debt. When you run up debt during tougher times, you ought to pay it 
down during better times. That is as conservative an ethic as you can 
have, it seems to me.
  Why this Congress would not embrace that is beyond me. Why we would 
not agree together that it is our responsibility to pay down the debt 
during better times--what greater gift could there be to America's 
children than to unsaddle them from the debt, the $4.7 trillion that 
was added between 1980 and the late 1990s? What better gift could we 
give to them than to say our first job is to pay down this Federal 
debt? But, no, there is some political attractiveness, I guess, to say 
we want to give tax cuts. Gee, that is an easy thing to say, but it is 
not at this point a very responsible fiscal policy--especially when the 
largest portion of those cuts would go to the wealthiest Americans who 
have done the best in this economy.
  It seems to me that tax cuts ought to come after the paydown of the 
debt and a number of other obligations. But second, when we do them--
and we should if we have surpluses--we ought to do them based upon the 
burden the American families have in the workplace, which includes not 
just the income tax but also the payroll tax. Those are the things I 
think we ought to consider.
  Now, the other issue in the debate last night was, whose side are you 
on? I know there is a difference between the two candidates. Let me say 
I am not here to say one candidate is bad and the other is good. That 
is not my role. My role is to say there is a very significant 
difference in what they believe and how they approach public policy. I 
think on the key issues the American people ought to evaluate these 
matters that were before this Congress.
  A Patients' Bill of Rights: Who is on whose side on the Patients' 
Bill of Rights? Does anybody really believe that with the growth of the 
HMOs and managed care organizations that patients are just fine; let 
them fend for themselves? Or do people really understand it is time to 
do something to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights? And if they believe we 
ought to, why has this Congress not been willing to do it? I will tell 
you why: because too many in this Congress stand with the insurance 
companies and the managed care organizations, and too few have been 
willing to stand on the side of patients.
  We have heard story after story of people who have had to fight 
cancer and fight their HMOs at the same time. These stories have been 
told on the floor of this Senate. I will state again that at one 
hearing I held on this issue with my colleague from Nevada, a woman 
stood up and held a picture of her son. She began crying as she 
described her son's death on his 16th birthday. Her son suffered from 
leukemia and desperately needed a special kind of treatment in order to 
have a chance to live. But he had to fight his cancer and fight his 
managed care organization at the same time because the managed care 
organization withheld that treatment. She said her son looked up at him 
from his bedside and said: Mom, how can they do this to a kid like me?
  It is not fair to have a child or have parents fight cancer and the 
insurance company at the same time. That is not a fair fight. Should we 
pass a Patients' Bill of Rights? Yes, we should. It is what Vice 
President Gore said last evening. It is what we said in this Congress. 
Why don't we do it? Because too many stand on the side of the bigger

[[Page 23067]]

economic interests and are unwilling to stand on the side of patients.
  They say the Senate passed a Patients' Bill of Rights. No, the Senate 
passed a ``patients' bill of goods.'' It was like playing charades, 
pulling on your ear and saying: It sounds like. Those who wrote it knew 
what they were doing. Republicans in the House of Representatives say 
it not only is not worth anything, it is a giant step backwards. The 
Republicans in the House who support the bipartisan Dingell-Norwood 
bill know what we ought to do, and this Senate has been unwilling to do 
it.
  Minimum wage: We have people every day who are working their hearts 
out trying to take care of their families at the bottom of the economic 
ladder. Somehow, while this Congress is in a rush to help those at the 
top of the income ladder with tax cuts, these folks who are working at 
the bottom of the economic ladder, trying to get ahead, are left 
behind. They deserve an increase in the minimum wage. They deserve to 
keep pace. It ought to be a priority in this Congress to say work 
matters and we value you. If you are struggling to work and take care 
of your families--good for you. We want to do something to make sure 
you keep pace with that minimum wage.
  Other issues include prescription drugs and Medicare. Of course we 
ought to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, but this Congress 
does not seem to want to get there.
  Helping family farmers: You can't say you are pro family and not 
stand for family farmers.
  Education: We have not even passed the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  We have a lot to do. There are big differences between the political 
parties. That doesn't mean one is good and one is bad. It simply means 
there are significant policy choices the American people have an 
opportunity to make. We have been struggling mightily on these issues. 
We are a minority on my side of the aisle. The debate last night 
highlighted some of the differences. And America needs to make a 
choice. Which path do they want to choose? One with more risk that 
might upset this economy of ours and throw us back into the same 
deficit ditch we were in before, or one that is more cautious, that 
says one of our priorities is to pay down the debt? Or will we choose a 
course that says we want to stand with the American people against the 
larger economic interests?
  It is not a myth that the economic interests are getting bigger and 
bigger. Open the paper today and see who merged today. Yesterday it was 
two big oil companies. Tomorrow it will be two big banks. Every day the 
economic enterprises are getting bigger. And what is happening is every 
day the American people are finding they have less power in dealing 
with them, they have less power in confronting the prescription drug 
prices because the pharmaceutical manufacturers decide what the prices 
are, and they tell the American people: Pay up. If you don't like it, 
don't buy it. And they will charge ten times more for a cancer drug in 
the United States than the same drug they sell in Canada.
  The American people need some help in confronting these 
concentrations of economic power. That is what we have been fighting 
for. My hope is that the next time someone says there is no difference 
in these campaigns, there is no difference between the two candidates 
for President, no difference between the Republican and Democrats, I 
hope they look at the record. There is a big difference. I hope they 
make a choice that says that difference matters in their lives, as 
well.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________