[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3733-3737]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        THE BUDGET AND TAX CUTS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on February 28, 2001, President Bush sent to 
the Congress his fiscal year 2002 budget outline entitled, ``A 
Blueprint for New Beginnings.'' Sadly, this budget is a blueprint for 
putting tax cuts for the wealthy at the front of the line, above all of 
the needs of the American people.
  Now I say to my colleagues, caution, we have not yet seen the real 
budget. The President's budget will be sent up to the Hill in the early 
part of April. We have not seen it yet. So I would suggest to all of us 
that we go slowly until we see the fine print in the President's 
budget.
  What we have seen thus far is a mere blueprint entitled ``A Blueprint 
for New Beginnings.'' But I say again, this is a blueprint for putting 
tax cuts for the wealthy at the front of the line, above all other 
needs of the American people.
  The President's Budget allocates 80 percent, over $2 trillion of the 
$2.5 trillion non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus, on tax cuts.
  Two trillion dollars. Does anyone know how long it would take to 
count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second? It would take 32,000 
years--32,000 years--to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second.
  The President's budget allocates 80 percent, over $2 trillion--that 
would take 64,000 years to count at the rate of $1 per second--of the 
$2.5 trillion non-Social Security/non-Medicare surplus on tax cuts. I 
believe the President is not on the same page--I say this respectfully 
about the President--with the American people.
  I keep hearing this said: ``Give the money back to the people. Give 
the people their money back.'' Well, we are going to give a few of the 
rich people in this country a lot of money back, if this tax cut is 
passed as proposed. Don't we also owe the people clean water? Don't we 
also owe the people modern highways, safe bridges, a reliable energy 
supply, and modern school buildings for their taxes? It is their money. 
Yes. It is also their school buildings, also their highways, their 
bridges, their debt, the public debt. Isn't it true that this country's 
infrastructure, its supply of clean water, its sewers, its 
transportation capabilities, its energy delivery systems are vitally 
important to a healthy economy?
  These things are vital to support thriving businesses. They enhance 
productivity. They provide jobs. They are basic to the quality of life 
for our people. A strong infrastructure is basic to a strong economy.
  We can't continue to expect the performance of an eight-cylinder 
economy if we refuse to clean the spark plugs and tune up the engine. 
Our Nation's infrastructure is fast becoming a Model T, riding on 
retread tires. Yet, this administration seems to believe that the old 
buggy can continue to keep rolling with no maintenance and no repairs.
  I submit that putting a few dollars back into the pockets of the 
rich--and I have nothing against a person being rich; I wish I could be 
rich; that was never one of my fondest dreams, never one of my goals in 
life to become rich--is no substitute for addressing crumbling schools, 
outdated highways, and dirty drinking water, and on and on and on. Yes, 
it is the people's money, but it is also the people's dirty drinking 
water. It is also the people's crumbling schools.
  These things are the first responsibility of Government, and they are 
what we owe the people for their taxes. They are things the people 
cannot provide for themselves. I was a Member of Congress when 
President Eisenhower advocated legislation establishing the Interstate 
Highway System. I voted for that. I have voted for the taxes to build 
it. These are things the people cannot provide for themselves. People 
cannot provide interstate highways, a national system of highways for 
themselves.
  By putting tax cuts at the head of the line, the President does not 
leave enough of the surpluses--although he may say otherwise; he may be 
advised otherwise, but it is not true--to adequately fund programs that 
meet the needs of the Nation.
  You people out there watching through those electronic eyes, I am 
talking about you. You are the taxpayers of the country. It is your 
children in the dilapidated schools. It is your children who are in the 
crowded classrooms.
  The President's budget proposes to increase discretionary spending by 
just 4 percent, barely enough to adjust for inflation. Much of this 
increase, however, is for defense programs. I don't complain about 
national defense. I have helped to build this country's defenses with 
my votes and with my taxes, too. While defense programs are increased 
$3.1 billion, which is 1 percent above baseline--and baseline is last 
year's appropriation plus inflation, so the President's budget provides 
for 1 percent above that, above last year's budget plus inflation and 
then add another 1 percent; that is for defense--while defense programs 
are increased $3.1 billion above baseline for fiscal year 2002, 
nondefense programs are cut $5.9 billion or 1.6 percent below baseline, 
baseline being last year's appropriation, plus inflation. The 
President's budget is not going to add plus inflation. He is going to 
cut below baseline for nondefense programs.
  Senators, wait until you see this President's budget. Wait until you 
can see the fine print. In revolutionary war terms, ``wait until you 
see the whites of their eyes.'' I say to my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, wait until you see the fine print in this President's 
budget. When are we going to see it? It will be after April Fools' Day, 
sometime in early April.
  The Senate Budget Committee has estimated that domestic programs that 
are not Presidential initiatives--get that, domestic programs that are 
not Presidential initiatives--will be cut by 6.6 percent in fiscal year 
2002. Most of these cuts are not yet specified in the budget for 
review. They are not in that blue outline about which I am talking. 
This is what we have to go on up to now, ``a Blueprint for New 
Beginnings.'' I have read this thing from cover to cover, as they say, 
but that is not it yet. That is not the fine print. This is just the 
bare skeleton. You can see through it, as Paul said, ``through a glass 
darkly.''
  After 2002, discretionary spending grows with inflation, not 
population.
  This means we will be spending less on man, woman, and child in 
America. Despite the fact that the Census Bureau is predicting that the 
country's population will grow by 8.9 percent by 2010--that is not far 
away--the President's budget provides no resources--none--to deal with 
that growth.

[[Page 3734]]

  I have been around a long time. I can remember that when I graduated 
from high school, there were 130 million people in this country. When I 
was born, there were 100 million, in 1917. Today, there are 280 
million. The population, we hear, will grow by 8.9 percent by 2010. The 
President's budget provides no resources--none--to deal with that 
growth. Nor does the budget include resources to respond to a 
recognized long-term infrastructure deficit in this country. Over the 
next 5 years, nondefense programs are cut $24.5 billion below baseline.
  So, Senators, before we get on board for this colossal tax cut for 
the wealthy, just back off a little bit, just hold on and say, whoa, 
let's wait and see the fine print. Let's see how that affects the 
people back home, the people who send you here.
  The President calls the surplus ``the people's money.'' Have you 
heard that expression? You are going to keep on hearing it a lot. And 
he is right, it is the people's money. And we are elected by the people 
to make the right choices, the disciplined choices, about the use of 
their money.
  The Wall Street Journal of March 8, 2001, contained the results of a 
recent poll that asked this question:

       If taxes are cut this year, would you prefer a large tax 
     cut or a smaller tax cut and one of the following:

  I will read that again:

       If taxes are cut this year, would you prefer a large tax 
     cut or a smaller tax cut and one of the following:

  It goes on to enunciate as ``one of the following'': A smaller tax 
cut and more education. So would you prefer a large tax cut or a 
smaller tax cut and more education funding? Which would you rather 
have: A large tax cut, the so-called $1.6 trillion tax cut the 
President is talking about; or would you prefer a smaller tax cut and 
more education funding? Well, 64 percent of adults responded, yes, they 
prefer a smaller tax cut and more education funding; 64 percent 
preferred that against 30 percent who preferred a large tax cut.
  Now the next bars in the graph indicate a response to this question: 
Would you prefer a large tax cut or a smaller tax cut and more Social 
Security funding? The chart shows that 65 percent of the respondents 
answered they would prefer a smaller tax cut and more Social Security 
funding. Only 29 percent preferred to have the large tax cut.
  Then the third category: Would you prefer a large tax cut--let's say 
the President's proposed tax cut of $1.6 trillion--although it is 
growing every day--or would you prefer a smaller tax cut and paying 
down the national debt? Well, the respondents answered that question, 
and 60 percent said they prefer to pay down the national debt; 32 
percent preferred the large tax cut.
  So, again, I will say the President is not on the same page with the 
American people.
  We have had a series of hearings in the Senate Budget Committee that 
have exposed a number of important, unanswered questions about the 
President's budget. His tax cuts are based on highly uncertain 10-year 
surplus estimates. The Congressional Budget Office, which prepared 
those surplus estimates, projects that there is only a 10-percent 
chance their surplus estimates for 2006 will be correct. The CBO 
witness testified before the committee that the probability of the 10-
year surplus estimates coming through shrinks even further by 2011. Yet 
the costs of the President's tax cut proposal explode in the outyears--
meaning the years 2007 through 2011. Over 72 percent of the revenue 
losses from the tax cuts occur between fiscal years 2007 and 2011, and 
these cuts total at least $344 billion per year, beginning in fiscal 
year 2011.
  Let me say that again. If we take a microscope and look at these 
projections concerning surpluses and put them alongside the tax cut 
proposal, we find that the probability of the 10-year surplus estimate 
coming through shrinks. After having said there is only a 10-percent 
chance that that surplus estimate for 2006 will be correct, it goes on 
to say that the probability of the surplus estimate coming through 
shrinks even further by 2011.
  Yet, on the other side of the coin, the costs of the President's tax 
cut proposal explode in the outyears. They are backloaded, you see--the 
years 2007 through 2011. Over 72 percent of the revenue losses from the 
tax cuts occur between fiscal years 2007 and 2011, and these cuts total 
at least $344 billion per year beginning in fiscal year 2011.
  Let me ask you, the public out there, as I look through these 
electric eyes here: If we can't project 24 hours in advance that the 
stock market is going to drop 436 points--in 1 day, within 24 hours--if 
we can't project 24 hours ahead that we are going to have this big loss 
in the stock market of 436 points, how can we project 10 years out and 
say the surpluses will be this much, or that much, or some other 
amount? We are living in a fool's paradise when we gamble on such 
estimates.
  My good friend, Howard Baker, referred to the Reagan tax cut of 1981 
as a riverboat gamble. That is what they were talking about. Apparently 
gambling is not out of style. This is another riverboat gamble.
  This administration's plan would sap the budget of the resources 
needed to solve the Social Security and Medicare crises that loom just 
over the horizon due to the impending retirement of the baby boom 
generation. The baby boom generation--it just started about the time I 
got into politics, about 1946. That was the beginning. So the baby boom 
generation will really be retiring about 10 years from now.
  Currently, 45 million people receive Social Security and that number 
is expected to grow to 60 million in the year 2015. Yet the Social 
Security trustees estimate that Social Security expenditures will 
exceed receipts in 2015. Currently, 40 million people receive Medicare, 
and the number is expected to grow to 46 million in 2010. Yet the 
Medicare trustees estimate that Medicare expenditures will exceed 
receipts in 2010. That is just 9 years away.
  Despite the 407-2 vote in the House last month and similar votes in 
the House and Senate last year to protect the Medicare hospital 
insurance trust fund, the budget does not even project the existing 
$526 billion Medicare surplus for Medicare, instead putting it into a 
fantasy reserve, an Alice in Wonderland reserve, a fantasy reserve, to 
be used for ``unspecified purposes.'' Now, does that cause you to 
remember anything about the Reagan tax cut in 1981 where they had a $44 
billion magic asterisk--$44 billion magic asterisk. Those were 
``unspecified'' cuts. Nobody knew what cuts. But really in the minds of 
the planners back then they had Social Security in mind, Social 
Security and Medicare. That is what they had in mind. But they didn't 
quite have the nerve to come out and say so. So they just put a little 
asterisk down at the bottom of the page. The ``magic asterisk'' it was 
called.
  We are seeing the same thing over again. History does repeat itself. 
The American people expect the President--here is what they expect the 
President to do--to put forward a serious, disciplined budget that 
addresses their long-term needs. That is what they expect. Yet the 
President is offering the people candy first, putting tax cuts in front 
of the hard work of fixing Social Security and Medicare. That is hard 
work. That is going to take some political capital, and politicians 
will have to expend some of that political capital when it comes to 
fixing Social Security and Medicare. But just hold on a moment, we will 
wait on that. Put the tax cuts first. We will give them the candy 
first.
  It is very disturbing that Congress is moving ahead on the tax cut in 
the absence of a complete budget. A few days ago, the House of 
Representatives passed the first of several bills that cut taxes. The 
first bill alone cuts taxes by almost $1 trillion; yet the House has 
not taken up a budget resolution. We do not even have a full budget, as 
I said earlier, from the President. Most of the details of the 
President's budget are not expected to be sent to Congress until after 
the debate on the budget resolution next month.
  The President is telling the American people, in essence, let's serve 
up the candy now and put off the tough

[[Page 3735]]

questions on what programs will be cut until later. Instead of a menu 
designed to nourish the Nation with the vitamins needed for healthy 
growth, I can see only a sweet snack of tax candy.
  The President's tax cut proposal could put us back on the course 
toward deficits, returning us to the days when we had to spend the 
Social Security surplus for day-to-day Federal operations. By 
undermining fiscal discipline, this could return us to the days of high 
interest rates, making the average wage earner's mortgage, education, 
and automobile more expensive.
  We should not return to an era of deficits like the 1980s. We have 
been down the road of big tax cuts and promised surpluses, and we ended 
up where? In the ditch.
  When President Reagan presented his first budget to the Congress, he, 
too, proposed big tax cuts and future surpluses. There are not many in 
this town who remember that President Reagan's 5-year budget plan 
projected surpluses for fiscal year 1984, $1 billion; fiscal year 1985, 
$6 billion; and fiscal year 1986, $28 billion. Those were the projected 
surpluses. Congress passed a tax cut bill that reduced revenues by over 
$2 trillion from fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 1991.
  Did the Reagan administration projections of surpluses come to pass? 
No. In fact, precisely the opposite occurred. The fiscal year 1984 
deficit was not a surplus of $1 billion but a deficit of $185 billion. 
The fiscal year 1985 deficit was not a surplus of $6 billion, but a 
deficit of $212 billion. And the fiscal year 1986 deficit was not a 
surplus of $28 billion, which we were promised, but it was a deficit of 
$221 billion.
  That was an error, that was just a small error amounting to $653 
billion over just 3 years.
  How much is $1 billion? $1 billion is a dollar for every minute since 
Jesus Christ was born. That is $1 billion. It doesn't sound like that 
much when it is jingling in your pocket, or you are making big promises 
to the taxpayer. But it is $1 for every minute since Jesus Christ was 
born. We are talking about an error not of $1 billion but of $663 
billion over 3 years.
  The President asked his Secretary of Defense to undertake a thorough 
review of the defense needs of the Nation. I am for that review. I 
support the President's proposal. As he stressed in his address to the 
joint session last month, he wanted a policy first, with a budget to 
follow. In fact, the President said, these are his words ``our defense 
vision will drive our defense budget. Not the other way around.''
  It makes sense to me. I also think the President should have the same 
philosophy for our domestic needs. Our domestic vision should drive our 
domestic budget, not the other way around. If the defense review 
results in further proposed increases for defense, the budget is not 
clear on whether those increases will have to be absorbed within the 4-
percent increase proposed in the budget. If that is the case, domestic 
programs, which are already $5.9 billion below baseline, will have to 
be cut even more. Already, this budget leaves infrastructure needs, 
education, science, technology, and many other domestic programs, 
behind. This budget continues to let the underpinnings of our economy 
slide into disrepair and neglect. No help is on the way in this budget 
blueprint.
  According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, one-third of 
the nation's roads are in poor or mediocre condition, costing American 
drivers an estimated $5.8 billion and contributing to as many as 13,800 
highway fatalities annually.
  As of 1998, 29 percent of the Nation's bridges were structurally 
deficient or functionally obsolete. It is estimated that it will cost 
$10.6 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies.
  Capital spending on mass transit must increase 41 percent just to 
maintain the system in its present condition.
  Airport congestion delayed nearly 50,000 flights in one month alone 
last year.
  Seventy-five percent of our nation's school buildings are inadequate 
to meet the needs of schoolchildren. The average cost of capital 
investment needed is $3,800 per student.
  The nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face an annual shortfall 
of $11 billion needed to replace facilities that are nearing the end of 
their useful life and to comply with Federal water regulations.
  In 1955 I traveled around the world in an old Constellation. We 
traveled for 68 days, I believe it was. They call that a junket these 
days. We went to the Middle East and we saw people there carrying their 
water around in what appeared to be gasoline cans.
  We traveled around the world. I saw the Taj Mahal; I saw the pyramids 
of Egypt; I saw many beautiful sites in many lands. But the most 
beautiful site I saw on the whole trip was the little red lights 
flashing on the top of the Washington Monument on the night I returned.
  I was able to go to the house, turn the faucet, and get a drink of 
good, clean water. I had been in many countries where we couldn't drink 
the water--couldn't drink the water. So we take our blessings for 
granted--clean water. Yet there are places in this country where the 
water is not clean. There are places in the great cities of this 
country where the water is not clean. And some sewer systems are 100 
years old or over 100 years old. Currently, there is a $12 billion 
annual shortfall in funding for infrastructure needs in this category.
  Give the people back their money? Yes. Remember, it is their dirty 
water, also; their sewer systems. Right here in the District of 
Columbia, take a look at the potholes. Read about what happens to the 
sewer system in this city.
  There are more than 2,100 unsafe dams in the United States. There 
were 61 reported dam failures in the past 2 years.
  Since 1990, actual capacity has increased only 7,000 megawatts per 
year, an annual shortfall of 30 percent. More than 10,000 megawatts of 
capacity must be added each year until 2008 to keep up with the 1.8 
percent annual growth in demand.
  President Bush's budget does not respond to these needs.
  The Bush budget could leave billions of dollars of gas tax receipts 
sitting in the Highway Trust Fund rather than helping us develop our 
highways, bridges and mass transit systems for the 21st century.
  According to the Federal Highway Administration, less than half of 
the miles of roadway in rural America are considered to be in good or 
very good condition. Of the road miles in rural America, 56.5 percent 
are in fair to poor condition. The people's money? Yes. Whose highway? 
The people's highway. Conditions are even worse in urban America, where 
64.6 percent of the road miles are considered to be in some level of 
disrepair, and only 35.4 percent of urban roadways are considered to be 
in good or very good condition.
  Violence pervades our schools. Our students score poorly when pitted 
against students from other countries. Seventy percent of our 4th 
graders have difficulty even reading. The people's money? Yes, it is 
the people's money. But we are talking about the people's children. 
While the President takes credit for proposing an 11.5 percent increase 
in education programs, the Education Secretary has testified that the 
actual increase is just 5.9 percent. The President's increase of 5.9 
percent just doesn't make the grade.
  A study by the National Center for Education Statistics, in June, 
2000, the ``Condition of America's Public School Facilities: 1999,'' 
estimated that the total cost of putting the nation's public schools in 
good repair is $127 billion. The people's money? Yes, it is the 
people's money. But it is the people's school buildings. A 1994 General 
Accounting Office study put the cost of school renovations at $112 
billion.
  Of the schools surveyed in the more recent study, half reported at 
least one building feature, such as heating, plumbing, roofs, or 
sprinklers and fire alarms, in less than adequate condition, and nearly 
half reported at least one environmental factor, such as ventilation, 
security or indoor air quality, in unsatisfactory condition. The 
average age of a public school is 40 years;

[[Page 3736]]

the functional age, that is, the age since the last major renovation, 
is 16 years. Yet the Bush budget proposes to eliminate the Federal 
program that is specifically designed for renovating schools.
  Our needs for clean water projects are growing. Wastewater treatment 
plants prevent pollutants from reaching America's rivers, lakes, and 
coastlines. They prevent water-borne disease, keep our waters safe for 
fishing and swimming, and preserve our natural resources like the 
Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Colorado River. However, the President 
proposes only level funding for the national program and he proposes to 
eliminate about $350 million of projects that were earmarked by 
Congress last year.
  We have learned that just through this outline, this blue book, ``A 
Blueprint For New Beginnings.'' That is the large print, and not all 
the large print. Wait until we see the budget; just wait until we see 
the small print. Then I will make another speech, if it is the Good 
Lord's will, and I am still here.
  Energy programs are proposed for over $700 million in cuts this year, 
including steep cuts in programs designed to promote energy 
independence, such as energy efficiency and renewable programs and 
fossil fuel programs.
  The President's Budget proposes cuts below baseline of 2 percent for 
the National Science Foundation, 2 percent for NASA and 7 percent for 
the Department of Energy. In the March 9, 2001 New York Times, Dr. D. 
Allan Bromley stated that the major driver of our nation's economic 
success is scientific innovation. He stressed that many economists 
attribute much of America's 1990's boom to increased productivity 
stemming, in large part, from scientific research. He concluded that 
the cuts proposed in the budget are, ``a self-defeating policy''. Dr. 
Bromley was the science and technology adviser to President George H. 
W. Bush from 1989 to 1993. I could not agree with him more.
  What are we leaving to America's children? How much longer can we 
afford to ignore the infrastructure needs of this nation? If we hand 
them a worn out 19th century infrastructure which cannot support a 
vital economy, what do we tell them.
  We can tell them: We gave your parents a tax cut. That is what we can 
tell our children.
  I am not against tax cuts. I want to see us wipe out this marriage 
penalty that subsidizes the cohabitation of people who are not married. 
I want to wipe that out, or at least cut it. So I am for some tax cut.
  But if we leave our children with dirty water, antiquated schools, 
poor mass transit, rusting bridges, what do we tell them? We gave your 
parents a tax cut. Can't you be happy with that?
  If the projections are wrong, and we go back in debt, bequeathing our 
children nothing tangible except red ink and interest payments, will 
they really appreciate the government's generosity in giving their 
parents a tax cut?
  Instead, as I look at the President's budget priorities we haven't 
seen them up close; we just see them through a glass--and that is what 
a budget is, a statement of priorities--I see a plan that focuses on an 
enormous tax cut instead of supporting efforts to promote school 
safety. After the school shooting in California last week, one of the 
students commented that he believed that the presence of a police 
officer who is regularly on campus helped to save lives when the 
gunfire broke out. The ``COPS in Schools'' program has been a valuable 
resource for students, teachers and school administrators. It has 
helped to stop would-be violent acts at schools before they start. Yet 
the Bush administration's budget proposes to ``redirect''--.
  Remember that word ``redirect.'' I find that word in this so-called 
``A Blueprint for New Beginnings.'' I find that word ``redirect'' in 
that blueprint more than once. It is an interesting word. See how it is 
used.
  I have strong concerns about the word redirect--to redirect $1.5 
billion from Department of Justice grant programs like COPS. The 
President is not on the same page with the American people.
  Mr. President, we are a nation of dreamers. We dream of a better life 
for all of our people. We dream of a brighter future for all of our 
children. We are inspired by a challenge--we rise to it, we embrace its 
promise, we enjoy righting wrongs, breaking new ground, achieving the 
impossible. When our collective will is engaged, and we agree to put 
resources behind a challenge, the United States can be an awesome force 
for remarkable progress and for good in the world. We need leadership 
to fully galvanize our attention. Yet, when that combination of 
American determination and drive is motivated by a vision, great things 
can be achieved. Witness space exploration and putting a man on the 
moon; witness beating the old Soviet Union in the arms race; witness 
mapping the human genome for which the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr. Domenici, 
is to be given great credit. This is something that originated in the 
brain of a Member of this body to support this research.
  Witness the mapping of the human genome and all of the other mind-
boggling advances in science and medicine over the last 50 years.
  But, where is the leadership and inspiration for this new millennium? 
I find none in the trumpeting of a tax cut, and this tax cut in 
particular. I see no call to make the world a better place for our 
children. I see no appeal to mount a massive effort to beat cancer or 
aids. I see no drive to make our children the best educated in the 
world. I hear no determination to make us energy independent.
  I hear nothing about a Moon shot to make our Nation energy 
independent. I hear nothing about a Moon shot to make our children the 
best educated children. I hear nothing about a Moon shot to conquer 
cancer. I was here when Sputnik burst forth from the headlines of the 
Nation's newspapers and the world's newspapers. I heard John F. Kennedy 
say, ``We are going to put a man on the Moon,'' and we did that. We put 
a man on the Moon and brought him back safely to Earth again.
  Yes. We made the world safer for democracy. We participated in two 
world wars. We had the dream of the Marshall Plan. We had the dream 
finally culminating in the breaking down and the tearing down of the 
Berlin Wall.
  We remember the Berlin airlift. President Harry Truman was determined 
to break that Soviet ring that had Berlin enclosed. We didn't back away 
from that challenge.
  The Interstate Highway System was another dream.
  We hear no determination to do great things today. The centerpiece of 
this administration is not a dream. It is not a great dream. It is not 
a great call for a Moon shot to beat back the ravages of cancer, 
tuberculosis, sugar diabetes, and the other diseases that confront our 
people. We hear only a call for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
  I hear no appeal to American pride to repair our dilapidated system 
of transportation. Our roads, our bridges, our mass transit systems, 
our airports, our national parks should be the envy of the world. What 
has happened to our pride in American know how, American skills, 
American research, and America as a show place to inspire visitors to 
our shores with the tangible achievements of this great experiment in 
representative democracy? Are we to forgot our glory days? Are we to 
settle for smaller dreams, and more limited horizons.
  Is this what we are going to settle for? Do we tell our children that 
we didn't want to go for bigger things because we gave their parents a 
tax cut?
  I hear no call to greatness in this peddling of massive tax cuts. I 
hear only a veiled appeal to greed and to distrust of government.
  The President is not on the same page with the American people. The 
American people, according to these polls, are not asking for a refund. 
They are not asking for a refund. They want their government to lead. 
They want their government to inspire. They want their government to do 
the great things for the country, the very things

[[Page 3737]]

they pay their taxes for. That is what they want. In short, they are 
not asking for their money back. They want their money's worth. And a 
king's ransom of a tax cut will be worth nothing to them if it 
shortchanges our Nation's children and downsizes our dreams.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________