[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4700-4702]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET--Continued


                           Amendment No. 2953

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2953.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     FEDERAL REVENUE TOTALS

       On page 4, line 3, decrease the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 4, decrease the amount by $4,843,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, decrease the amount by $35,146,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $65,248,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $99,450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $128,552,000,000.

     FEDERAL REVENUE CHANGES

       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $4,843,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $35,146,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $65,248,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $99,450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by 
     $128,552,000,000.

     NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY

       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $4,186,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $8,785,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $15,334,000,000.

     BUDGET OUTLAYS

       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $4,186,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $8,785,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $15,334,000,000.

     NET INTEREST BUDGET AUTHORITY

       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $136,000,000.

     FEDERAL REVENUE TOTALS

       On page 26, line 11, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by $4,186,000,000.
       On page 26, line 19, increase the amount by $8,785,000,000.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by 
     $15,334,000,000.

     NET INTEREST OUTLAYS

       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, increase the amount by $1,280,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, increase the amount by $4,186,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, increase the amount by $8,785,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $15,334,000,000.

     PUBLIC DEBT

       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $4,979,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $36,426,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $69,434,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $108,235,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $143,886,000,000.

     DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC

       On page 6, line 5, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 6, line 6, increase the amount by $4,979,000,000.
       On page 6, line 7, increase the amount by $36,426,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, increase the amount by $69,434,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $108,235,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by 
     $143,886,000,000.

     TAX CUT

       On page 29, line 3, increase the amount by $4,843,000,000.
       On page 29, line 4, increase the amount by 
     $333,239,000,000.

     DEFICIT INCREASE

       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $0.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $4,979,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, increase the amount by $36,426,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $89,434,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 
     $108,235,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $143,886,000,000.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the hour is late and I have a special 
sensitivity to the fact that many of the staff people have been here 
for a long time, and I know we will return to this amendment and debate 
first thing in the morning. I will make my remarks mercifully brief and 
just alert the Members of the Senate and those who follow this debate 
of the nature of the amendment I am offering.
  I think this amendment goes to the heart of politics, the best part 
of politics. It goes to a clash of ideas, a difference of opinion, a 
true choice for the Members of the Senate and for the people of the 
United States because the amendment I offer has become the cornerstone 
of the Presidential debate for the year 2000.
  The two candidates who are the likely nominees of their party, George 
W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore, have one marked difference. 
Governor Bush has proposed a substantial--some would say massive and 
risky--tax cut. Vice President Gore believes that, as do many of the 
Members of the Senate and the House, with this surplus we anticipate in 
the coming years, our first priority should be the reduction of the 
national debt so that our children don't bear that burden, and that we 
don't have to generate in taxes every day of every year the interest 
payments on old debt.
  Furthermore, Vice President Gore and many of us believe that we 
should take our surplus and dedicate it to preserving Social Security, 
making certain that Medicare will be there for many years to come. He 
believes, as many of us do, that we should have targeted tax cuts well 
within our means, consistent with our goal of reducing the national 
debt, and that we should then have specific spending priorities for 
education and health care.
  On the other side of the coin, there is quite a different proposal. 
Governor Bush has suggested perhaps the largest tax cut that has been 
proposed in recent memory. Every politician applauds a tax cut, and 
most of us like to offer one. But certainly we don't want to do 
something that is unrealistic. I suggest to my colleagues that the Bush 
tax cut being offered in the Presidential campaign is not only 
unrealistic; it is risky. And if we are not careful, if we follow his 
campaign pledge and his advice, we could jeopardize the economic growth 
that we have seen over the past 7 years.

[[Page 4701]]

  Twice in the Senate Budget Committee, I allowed my colleagues--both 
Republicans and Democrats--to go on record in reference to the Bush tax 
cut. I thought it was only fair that the Republican members of the 
Senate Budget Committee would have that opportunity to stand by their 
Presidential candidate and the cornerstone of his campaign, the Bush 
tax cut because, you see, the Senate budget resolution we are 
considering today, proposed by Senate Republican leaders, doesn't 
include Governor Bush's tax cut.
  I think this is a terrible oversight and omission that the standard 
bearer of the Republican Party would come forward with a vision of 
America that includes a tax cut, and for some reason the Senate 
Republicans don't want to include it in their proposal for the course 
of action in America for the next 5 or 10 years.
  So twice in the Senate Budget Committee I offered the Bush tax cut 
for an up-or-down vote, take it or leave it, stand by your man, the 
Republicans with the Democrats, make it clear you disagree.
  I was disappointed to find that my Republican colleagues in the 
Senate Budget Committee did not want to go on record when it came to 
the tax cut proposed by the standard bearer of the Republican Party, 
the possible Presidential nominee, Governor George W. Bush. I think 
there is good reason for that. I will explain it in a minute.
  But I said in the committee that if the Senate Republicans in the 
Budget Committee didn't want to vote for Bush's tax cut in the 
committee, I would feel duty bound to offer that same opportunity to 
all of the Members of the Senate here on the floor. After all, as we 
debate important policy questions such as funding and education and 
whether we are going to drill in ANWR, these are policy questions on 
which we go on record. We establish our positions by our votes.
  I am hoping by offering this amendment that the Senate will go on 
record. The Republican Members have their chance with this amendment to 
stand up for the tax cut proposed by their Presidential candidate. I 
think they should vote no. Above all, I hope they don't continue to 
duck this vote. They cannot duck this vote any more than Governor Bush 
can duck the responsibility to explain his tax cut and what it means to 
America.
  Take a look at where we have been in this Nation over the past 7 
years and the progress we have made. Record budget deficits have been 
erased. We have had the largest paydown of debt in the history of the 
United States with $297 billion in debt reduction. We are on the right 
track. We have seen the smallest Government in over three decades while 
we have increased key investments in education and in training for the 
people of this country. The typical family has seen their tax burden 
lowered to a level where you would have to reach back to the 1970s to 
find a comparison. Investment has boomed.
  Take a look at the investment that is mirrored by our stock exchanges 
and our investments across America and you will see that people have 
been putting money into companies for growth. It has paid off. 
Unemployment is the lowest in decades, the welfare rolls the lowest in 
decades, inflation under control, housing starts at record levels, and 
business creation at record levels.
  Frankly, everything you like to see that is positive in our economy 
has been moving forward under the Clinton-Gore administration. Of 
course, they can't take complete credit for that, but they can take 
some credit for it. They would certainly be blamed if we were back in 
the recessions of previous Presidents.
  We have to say as well that some credit should go to the Federal 
Reserve because they have tried to quell the flames and forces of 
inflation, and they have been very effective in doing so. The Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, deserves credit for his 
leadership. I was happy recently to vote to reconfirm him for another 
term as Chairman of that important body.
  But, on balance, most Americans believe we are headed in the right 
direction.
  One American who apparently does not believe that is the Republican 
candidate for President because George W. Bush has proposed a dramatic 
change and a drastic shift in America's economic policy. He said we 
should take the surplus we see coming because of a strong economy and 
dedicate it to a massive and risky tax cut primarily for the wealthiest 
people in America.
  If you take a close look at what this means, this chart shows our 
economy moving forward as a great ocean liner and a $168 billion 
proposed tax cut from the Presidential candidate, George W. Bush, that 
masks an iceberg of a tax cut that is so large, it would exceed the 
available surplus and force us to move into the Social Security trust 
fund to pay for it.
  Our fear, and the fear of Chairman Greenspan and many others, is that 
such a tax cut at this moment in history would fire up an economy, 
create inflation, force increases in interest rates, and, frankly, doom 
the economic expansion we have seen for over 108 months, a record in 
the history of the United States.
  Take a look at what the Bush tax cut would cost over a 5-year period 
of time based on research by the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities. It would be a $483 billion tax cut, and over 10 years it 
would be a $1.3 trillion tax cut.
  What would be the impact of a $1.3 trillion tax cut on the Social 
Security surplus? As you can see, the non-Social Security surplus is 
$171 billion. That is what we can consider using for such things as 
debt reduction, targeted tax cuts, and expenditures on education. But 
George W. Bush would take $483 billion out for his tax cut. You may 
note that is far in excess of the amount that is available outside of 
the non-Social Security surplus.
  The obvious conclusion is, to pay for the George W. Bush tax cut, you 
would have to raid Social Security. I find we have decided on a 
bipartisan basis that won't happen, that we will protect the Social 
Security trust fund.
  That is why I believe the Republican Members of the Senate, if they 
share that belief, as I do, that Social Security should be protected, 
should vote against the George W. Bush tax cut. My amendment gives them 
a chance to go on record against this tax cut to make it clear that 
they want to protect Social Security and avoid a raid on the Social 
Security trust fund to make up the $312 billion difference in the first 
5 years we would see if we followed George W. Bush's plan.
  The obvious question is whether this Bush tax cut is fair and whether 
it would help American families. As I said earlier, all of us would 
like to see tax cuts. We would certainly like to go back to families in 
Illinois and across America and say to them, We can give you a break to 
help pay for your bills. Most of them would welcome it. But if you take 
a close look at the proposal from George W. Bush for his tax cut, you 
will see that most working families and middle-income families in 
America won't even notice a change.
  If you notice, the bottom 60 percent of wage earners in America, 
those making below $39,300 a year, will see an average tax cut of about 
$249 a year, a little over $20 a month. That comes down to 75 cents a 
day they might see by way of George W. Bush's tax cut--60 percent of 
American families. But in the top 1 percent, the people who are making 
over $300,000 a year already, the George W. Bush tax cut is worth over 
$50,000 a year. Not only does this tax cut raid Social Security but the 
beneficiaries of it turn out to be wealthiest people in this country. 
Frankly, that isn't fair.
  If we are going to jeopardize our economic growth, if we are going to 
in some way avoid the debt reduction, which most economists agree is 
important for the growth of America, you would think a tax cut on the 
table would at least benefit most American families. Honestly, it 
doesn't or, if it does, it is so small, they wouldn't notice it. Twenty 
dollars a month? That is what 60 percent of the working families of 
America would see. As I mentioned earlier, it would be at great expense 
and peril to the Social Security trust fund and others.
  As I offer this amendment, I am hoping we can have a bipartisan 
consensus to tell Governor George Bush to go back to the drawing board, 
to come forward with a proposal, if you will, that

[[Page 4702]]

is consistent with continuing the economic growth in this country and 
that in fact identifies as the highest priority the reduction of our 
national debt and doesn't jeopardize Social Security. Frankly, his tax 
cut does. That is why I think this Senate should go on record in 
opposition to it on a bipartisan basis.
  There is a lot of criticism of current political campaigns across 
America: They are too long; they are too nasty; they are too negative. 
And virtually all of those criticisms are true. But if our political 
campaigns in this democracy are of any value, they are because we have 
a true clash of ideas, a difference of opinions, and a real choice for 
voters.
  When it comes to the George W. Bush tax cut, there couldn't be a 
clearer choice.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate will accept their responsibility, 
step up, and say whether they endorse the proposal of the Presidential 
candidate on the Republican side for this tax cut or whether they 
believe, as Chairman Greenspan does, Vice President Gore, and most 
American people do, that it is an unwise course of action.
  I understand, as most people do, that there are a lot of differences 
of opinion in the course of a campaign. But Governor Bush has been very 
specific in spelling out his tax cut. In order to achieve his tax cut, 
you not only have to raid Social Security, but when you go in the 
outyears beyond 5 years, to achieve it you have to cut dramatically in 
spending on very important programs for America.
  If that is something which the Republican side of the aisle wants to 
embrace, so be it. I, frankly, think it is shortsighted to take over 
$3.7 million low-income women and children off the WIC Program, a 
nutrition program for children and pregnant women so their babies are 
born healthy and get off to a good start.
  If you follow through on the George W. Bush tax plan, you see massive 
spending cuts in key programs such as WIC. There is a $4.8 billion 
cutback in the Pell Grant Program, meaning 784,000 college students who 
receive grants--not loans, because they are low income--would see those 
disappear.
  Mr. President, 400,000 kids, $2.9 billion cuts in Head Start--does it 
make sense to offer a tax cut of $50,000 a year to some of the 
wealthiest people in America and at the same time cut back and 
eliminate 400,000 kids from the Head Start Program?
  The community development block grant programs and so many other job 
training assistance and support programs would be decimated by the 
proposal of the Presidential candidate on the Republican side, Governor 
Bush.
  I believe if we are to stand on the record for this Bush tax cut 
plan, we have to answer to the voters in Illinois and across the Nation 
why we are prepared to threaten the future of Social Security and 
Medicare; why would we make deep cuts in Medicare spending; why would 
we fail to invest in debt reduction and help these important programs 
to provide the largest tax cuts in history to the richest people in our 
Nation.
  Eliminating the estate tax primarily benefits millionaires. I asked a 
group who came to my office recently who said they wanted to see the 
estate tax eliminated: What percentage of estates in America pay the 
tax? They didn't know. The answer is 1.3 percent. It is a very small 
percentage. It comes down to the fact that if we are going to eliminate 
those taxes on the richest people in America, we should only do it if 
we can justify it. I don't believe Governor Bush can justify it in 
terms of the benefits that it would mean for the rest of the people who 
live in this country.
  I hope we will not jeopardize our economic prosperity. I hope we will 
follow the model that has been suggested by Vice President Gore. I 
sincerely hope my colleagues in the Senate will not duck this 
opportunity to vote on the George W. Bush tax cut plan. If they are 
proud of their candidate, if they believe in his platform, if they 
share his vision, for goodness sake, have the courage to stand up and 
vote yes; if you disagree with his position, at least have the courage 
to go on the record and say so.
  I hope, as in the Budget Committee, we don't run into the same 
experience on the floor where the Republican majority refuses to go on 
the record when it comes to the cornerstone of the campaign of the 
Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________