[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16621-16622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 16621]]

                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Wyoming, it is true 
we have the second largest surplus in the history of this country; 
however, it is all Social Security money.
  The administration keeps talking about this huge surplus. They never 
give a caveat, saying, yes, we have the second largest surplus, but the 
reason we have that is because in 1983, the Congress, with Thomas 
``Tip'' O'Neill, Claude Pepper, Senator Byrd, and President Reagan, got 
together and said, let's forward fund Social Security. In fact, Social 
Security has been forward funded, recognizing the baby boomers would 
have to receive large sums of money up front. So when the baby boomers 
come, there will be money. If we did nothing with Social Security, 
everyone would draw 100 percent of their benefits until about the year 
2030. After 2030, if we did nothing, they would still draw 75 to 80 
percent of benefits. The debate is to make sure after the year 2030 
Social Security recipients receive all their benefits.
  For Members to say President Bush is such a great guy, he has the 
second largest surplus in the history of the country, is disingenuous. 
It is not factual. The surplus is as a result of Social Security.
  My friend from Wyoming said we should move forward. We have been 
trying to move forward. We would have already completed the 
appropriations bills but we have been prevented from moving forward on 
them. When we finished the legislation last week that we worked so hard 
to complete, the Export Administration legislation--which, by the way, 
was held up strictly by people from the Republican camp, totally, for 
weeks and weeks, and months, and more than a year; we were finally able 
to get to that legislation after being held up for several days--after 
we finished that bill we wanted to go to Commerce-State-Justice but 
they would not let us. There was an objection to a motion to proceed.
  Members can come to the floor all they want to talk about what is 
going on, but Members should state the facts. The facts are, we have 
been trying to move forward. If it had been up to us, we would have 
completed all the appropriations bills.
  The economy is in trouble. Whether we like it or not, the President 
of the United States is seen to be the person directing the economy of 
the country. Basically, that is true.
  Over the weekend, the press reported all over America a conversation 
between Speaker Hastert and the President of the United States, George 
W. Bush. I quote Speaker Hastert: A year from now is when it matters. 
He is talking to the President about the terms of the economy. A year 
from now is when it matters.
  Let's see, a year from now is real close to midterm elections. Is 
that what they are talking about? Of course it is.
  President Bush responds: ``It's my timeframe, too.'' So we have the 
Speaker and the President saying they are not concerned about the 
economy now, but they are concerned about what happens a year from now. 
That is too bad. We have to be concerned about the economy today, not a 
year from now. We have an economy that is in real trouble. That is a 
fact. Rarely do all economists agree on everything, but when it comes 
to the current state of our economy, there is uniform agreement that 
things are getting worse instead of better.
  As a result of the 1993 Budget Deficit Reduction Act, which was a 
very difficult vote, President Clinton gave us that budget. It was a 
tough vote for all Members. In the House of Representatives, without a 
single Republican vote, it passed by one vote. Courageous people lost 
their seats in the House of Representatives. The hero that I look to is 
Maria Cantwell. She served one term in the House of Representatives. 
She knew if she voted for that Budget Deficit Reduction Act it would 
hurt her in reelection, and it did, but she did the right thing and now 
is a Member of the Senate. Not all people were as fortunate as Maria 
Cantwell. Some lost and their political careers ended.
  In the Senate of the United States, the vote was a tie and the Vice 
President of the United States came over and sat where the Presiding 
Officer is now sitting and cast a tie-breaking vote to allow that 
budget deficit plan to go forward. As a result, we had 7 years of 
really good times in this country. The votes were tough. We reduced 
unemployment by over 300,000 people, excluding the military. We had the 
lowest inflation, lowest employment in more than 40 years, created 25 
million new jobs, reduced the deficit from $300 billion a year to 
surpluses.
  Now, with this great budget we have been given by George W. Bush, we 
are in trouble already. Everyone acknowledges that we don't have the 
money for these tremendous tax cuts in the future. It has put a real 
damper on our economy.
  Since the passage of the President's budget, we have witnessed a 
steady decline in the number of economic indicators. Each week there is 
a new economic indicator indicating we are in trouble. Majority Leader 
Daschle said this weekend, when you take a U-turn on economic policy, 
you can expect a U-turn in the direction of the economy.
  That is what we have. The problems we face because of the President's 
budget deserve immediate attention.
  My friend from Wyoming said it is really not the President. It is the 
President. He got us into this mess. He needs to give us a blueprint 
for trying to get out of this mess. We are going to go ahead and do the 
country's business and work our way through the appropriations bills 
the best we can. We have a one-vote majority. That makes it tough in 
the Senate. We need some leadership from the President of the United 
States, other than saying ``a year from now is when it matters.''
  It matters right now. The current state of the economy is one of 
people losing jobs; the surplus has already disappeared. We are going 
back to the days of deficits already. And the fact that the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee, my friend from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, was quoted in the press, saying maybe we should spend Social 
Security surpluses.
  To show the disarray on the other side, we have some who are calling 
for more tax reductions to solve the problems of this economy and to 
reduce the capital gains taxes. The thing we are now hearing is the 
Republicans are fighting among themselves as to whether that is a good 
deal.
  The President of the United States today, as we speak, is in Florida 
talking about the need to pass an education bill. The first thing the 
Democrats did upon taking power in the Senate was pass the education 
bill. We did that. Senator Daschle could have brought up all kinds of 
other legislation, but the majority leader placed education on the 
agenda. And we worked our way through that and passed it. There were 
some battles as to whether we should do this or that, but it was 
passed. There was compromise. Legislation is about the art of 
compromise.
  For the President of the United States to be in Florida saying, 
``Pass my education bill,'' which is now in conference, takes money, 
dollars, not to just go around talking about what a great bill we have.
  I can remember when I was not as educated in ``things Washington,'' 
and I would read in the newspapers that someone in the Nevada 
delegation issued a statement that some bill had passed. Oh, I thought, 
good times are here. Little did I know that what you needed was an 
appropriation to go along with that authorization. I do not think the 
President of the United States is being fair to the American public by 
not recognizing that you need to do more than authorize; you need to 
appropriate. And he will not help us with that. So to go down to 
Florida today and have a big cheerleading session with students about 
``I am the guy who is going to help you with education'' when he is 
unwilling to help us finance education is wrong.
  I don't know how many more people have to lose their jobs, lose their 
cars, lose their homes. How many will it take before we have the 
President telling us we need a new budget? The old

[[Page 16622]]

budget will not work. The economy will not be fixed by hastily arranged 
press conferences such as we had last week when they found there was a 
4.9-percent unemployment rate. There was a quick press conference held, 
and all the congressional leadership ran to the White House, and that 
is where they came up with this brilliant statement; it doesn't matter 
what is happening now; what we need to look at is what going to happen 
a year from now.
  We need to work with the President in righting this problem, but we 
need some direction from the White House.

                          ____________________