[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11239-11243]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          HELPING THE ECONOMY

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today as we are beginning the 
discussion in earnest about how to create jobs in our country, how to 
help the economy, how to be responsible as we do that and how to help 
the States. Certainly my home State of Michigan, as most States, is 
finding financial crisis.
  As we do that, we hear a lot of words, a lot of rhetoric, a lot of 
slogans. One of those is that the President's proposal is a job and 
growth package and that colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
involved in a job and growth package. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. In fact, we have 450 well-known economists in the country, 10 
Nobel laureates, Chairman Greenspan, many around the country, saying 
this will not create jobs and it will not create growth. It is not a 
jobs program. It is not a growth program. We have 13 economists saying 
it is; 450 economists versus 13 economists.
  I suggest the overwhelming opinion of those who have studied this 
question of how to create jobs, how to move the economy, and how to do 
it in a responsible manner, without creating a sea of red ink as far as 
the eye can see, the majority of those who have locked at this issue, 
the vast majority have said the plan by the White House and by the 
Republican majority does not do that.
  In fact, it adds to what we unfortunately are on track to do, which 
is to see the worst job creation in 58 years. It is astounding what has 
happened in a very short time, going from budget surpluses, a boom in 
the economy in the 1990s, and now, in a very short time, to a 
turnaround where we are plummeting into debt. We are seeing close to 
the worst job creation in 58 years. What we are seeing from this 
record, over and over again, is the plan to give tax breaks for the 
privileged few will not create jobs. It did not create jobs in the 
1980s when it was done.

[[Page 11240]]

The bill that was passed 2 years ago, in 2001, was the first round of 
the Bush tax breaks for the privileged few, and it has not created 
jobs. Now they are saying do it again.
  In my home State just this last month, 17,700 workers lost their 
jobs. That is 17,700 families who lost income, possibly--probably 
losing health care, losing the opportunity to pay into a pension fund, 
losing the opportunity to buy that new home, that new car squeezing 
them in terms of being able to send their children to college.
  Mr. President, that is 17,700 people in just 1 month in Michigan. In 
fact, we have had, since this administration came into power, over 
178,000 people who have lost their jobs in my home State alone--
178,000-plus people. Again, many of them lost their health care, lost 
the ability to care for their families and do what they need to do to 
create opportunity and security for their families.
  In the last 2\1/2\ years we have seen an astounding 2.5 million 
private sector jobs lost. You have to go back over 50 years to see that 
kind of a record in this country. We certainly do not want to be going 
in that direction as a country.
  What should we do? We do need to work together. We need to work 
across the aisle to do what is necessary to get the economy going, 
create jobs, and protect Social Security and Medicare for the long 
haul. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is a replay of the 1980s that 
put us into double digit unemployment, double digit interest rate 
increases, and tripled the national debt. We are seeing a replay of 
what was passed 2 years ago now that has caused us to plummet in terms 
of the budget situation and the economy and unemployment.
  My question is, Why in the world are we going to do this again? Why 
in the world would we use the same policies that have not worked? We 
have this saying we use a lot in Michigan: The first step in getting 
out of a hole is to stop digging. What we are seeing is the digging of 
a deeper and deeper hole. In fact, we have seen a $7 trillion fiscal 
collapse in just the last 2 years. I find this most disturbing. It is 
extremely worrisome, and every single American I know shares this 
concern.
  When we combine the tax policies 2 years ago, the tax cut for the 
privileged few passed 2 years ago--and by the way, I am all for putting 
money in people's pockets. The question is, Whose pockets? We want to 
make sure it goes into the pockets of the majority of Americans who 
will spend and drive this economy. That is not what happened 2 years 
ago.
  But if we were to make that permanent and we were to take the other 
proposals that have come forward in some variation, certainly from the 
President, what we see as we look to the future is that $14.2 trillion 
is taken out of Federal resources. There is $14.2 trillion of projected 
loss or deficit.
  Compare that to the projected Medicare and Social Security deficit 
over the same time. That is $10 trillion. So we are talking about a 
hole that is bigger than Social Security and Medicare combined, in 
terms of the deficit for the future.
  I sit on the Budget Committee. We look at these numbers. We are 
seeing red ink proposed as far as the eye can see, red ink that is far 
greater than what is projected on Medicare and Social Security. We see 
the baby boomers retiring in just a few years in large numbers. Many of 
us ask the question: How in the world can this be justified? How in the 
world can anyone look at these numbers and say we are going to put our 
country in this huge debt, greater than the liability of Medicare and 
Social Security, and then meet our obligations to our seniors, to those 
retiring, those who have paid in throughout their working years into a 
system that has, in fact, brought people out of poverty and guaranteed 
health care once you are age 65 or are disabled?
  The pattern I have heard back too many times, and it is extremely 
worrisome, is that you assume Medicare and Social Security will be 
there as we know it.
  I do assume Medicare and Social Security will be there as we know it. 
Fundamental to this debate right now on this tax cut, when we know 
economists say overwhelmingly say it is not going to work, it is not 
going to create growth, it is going to give tax cuts to the privileged 
few in our country at the expense of everyone else--why in the world, 
then, would someone propose this? Why in the world would someone 
propose something that would create massive debt, jeopardize Social 
Security and Medicare, for a tax break for only a few people?
  I believe the real purpose is to privatize Medicare and Social 
Security. We see over and over again disparaging comments being made, 
particularly now, about Medicare. Just recently Tom Skully, the 
administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said 
when he was in Pennsylvania at a public meeting--this was quoted in the 
press and others who were there heard this and responded accordingly; 
many seniors were very upset and were disagreeing with this, but Mr. 
Scully said, when talking about the Medicare Program:

       It was an unbelievable disaster.

  And:

       We think it's a dumb system.

  So we have a situation now where we are seeing a setup to create this 
huge debt and then we are being told we can't afford Medicare and 
Social Security as we know it. We can't afford to provide real 
prescription drug coverage for our seniors on Medicare right now. That 
is too expensive to do. We can't afford it. We can't afford Medicare as 
we know it.
  I believe what is fundamentally happening is a situation to set up 
the ability to eliminate Medicare as we know it because of a belief 
that it is ``an unbelievable disaster'' and ``a dumb system.''
  I do not believe Medicare is a dumb system. I believe that Medicare 
and Social Security are great American success stories. They have 
brought the majority of seniors out of poverty in this country. They 
have created a safety net so when an Enron employee finds that his or 
her entire life savings are wiped out, there is at least a foundation 
on Social Security that they have paid into throughout their life.
  I also believe that when we are seeing millions of Americans without 
health care, an explosion in prices on private sector health care for 
large and small businesses, Medicare seeing a smaller rate of growth--
the only part of universal health care we have where you are guaranteed 
that when you reach age 65, you will have health care, or if you are 
disabled, you will have health care--this is not the time to be rolling 
back that system or eliminating that system.
  When we hear the words ``reform,'' ``dumb system,'' it is a 
``disaster,'' it ``doesn't work and we can't afford it,'' I would say 
to my colleagues that the only reason we will have to have a discussion 
about the financial viability and whether or not we can afford it is 
the tax proposals currently on this floor. If we choose as an American 
value to put the quality of life of all of our citizens first and 
access to health care first for seniors, prescription drug coverage, a 
foundation of Social Security that will be there for all of us--if we 
put that as a value first, we can make sure that it is there for the 
future.
  I believe we need to modernize Medicare. I believe, as Secretary 
Thompson said in our Budget Committee, that we need to focus more on 
prevention. I share his belief that this is a system which needs to be 
moved and modified, focusing more on prevention; that there are ways to 
streamline it with less bureaucracy and paperwork for our doctors and 
hospitals and other providers. And it needs to be updated to cover 
medication. There is not a health care policy today that would be 
designed without prescription drugs coverage, if it is going to be a 
real health care policy. That is the major way we provide health care 
today.
  There is no question, it needs to be updated. But it is not a 
``dumb'' system, it is not an ``unbelievable disaster,'' and it is not 
unaffordable if we make the right decision.
  I ask my colleagues to consider what is really going on in the 
broadest sense

[[Page 11241]]

as we debate the tax bill. We have an alternative. We don't have to set 
up a situation where we take $14.2 trillion out of Federal resources at 
a time when we will have a projected deficit in Medicare and Social 
Security of $10 trillion. We don't have to do that. We have an 
alternative.
  I am proud to be supporting the Democratic alternative that in fact 
creates more jobs, gives a tax cut to every taxpayer--not just a 
privileged few--and that helps our States so they don't have to raise 
local taxes, creates a situation where we can help small business and 
help individuals in the short run but does it responsibly. We can 
create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity without creating a situation 
where Medicare and Social Security are jeopardized for the future.
  That is what this is about. This tax bill cannot be debated in 
isolation. I know what is going to happen. If this tax bill passes, we 
will have another debate on Medicare, and we will be told we can't 
really provide prescription drug coverage to everybody, we don't have 
the money, and, by the way, we have to change Medicare, we have to 
reform Medicare, we have to privatize it, and we have to put it back in 
the private sector because we can't afford to provide Medicare as we 
know it anymore for our seniors. That debate will have been done after 
we have created this deep hole, which would be done on purpose.
  I urge that we take another look. There is a way to create jobs. 
There is a way to create opportunity. There is a way to create 
prosperity. We would very much like to join with our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to do that. There is a way to do that which is 
fiscally responsible and which protects Medicare and Social Security.
  I urge the support of all of my colleagues for that approach which 
will be put forward. I urge my colleagues to take another look at what 
is being suggested here and stand with us to protect the long-term 
solvency of Medicare and Social Security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Maryland is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I understand that the Republicans introduced the wrong 
tax bill yesterday. I think they got it right. I think the tax bill is 
the wrong bill. I don't think it was a drafting problem. I think it is 
an economic problem. I don't think this tax bill is the right solution 
to what our economy is facing. The tax bill is the wrong bill. It is 
the wrong bill because it does not create jobs; it adds to our 
structural deficit; and it doesn't deal with the other economic issues 
facing our country.
  I would like to have an economic package which clearly helps create 
jobs. If we are going to give tax breaks, they should be targeted to 
help families and small businesses. They should be temporary, such as 
aid to States and local communities that are reeling with their own 
problems. And they should not in any way weaken Social Security or 
weaken Medicare.
  I think the tax bill is the wrong bill.
  I believe if we put our heads together and think about targeted tax 
credits, we can help small business with health care and help families. 
Later on this week, I will offer an amendment to the tax bill to 
provide relief for family caregivers and help those who face the 
crushing consequences of caring for chronically ill family members.
  Families are hurting. There is a weak economy. They worry about their 
jobs. They worry about their pension. They worry about skyrocketing 
health care. They are often holding down two jobs to make ends meet or 
are going into debt in order to put their children through college. 
They are finding it more difficult to be able to afford health 
insurance.
  My targeted tax credit will give help to those who practice self-
help. I think that should be a guiding principle. Let us give help to 
those who practice self-help.
  My bill will provide a tax credit up to $5,000 for family caregivers 
who are caring for someone with a chronic condition.
  Who would that be? Some families are facing extraordinary 
challenges--caring for loved ones with special needs, a child with 
autism or cerebral palsy, a parent with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's, or 
a spouse with multiple sclerosis. Those are just a few examples of what 
I mean by a chronic and severe condition.
  My tax credit would help people pay for prescription drugs, home 
health care, specialized daycare, respite care, and specialized 
therapy, including occupational, physical, or rehabilitation therapy.
  Family caregivers face so many stresses. There is the emotional and 
physical stress of caregiving. Then there is the financial stress of 
caregiving, and the long days of raising a family while caring for a 
loved one with a chronic disease such as cerebral palsy or Parkinson's. 
A dad would have to work two jobs to meet the cost of care for a 
handicapped child, or a dad and mom might be working to be able to 
afford the special care for grandma. It places incredible stress on the 
family checkbook, and it places great strains on the family marriage.
  We need to give help to those families who are practicing self-help. 
If you took the total cost of caregiving, it would be $200 billion.
  The first caregivers are the families--not government. But government 
should help the family with its responsibilities. They face high costs 
for prescription drugs, home health, adult daycare or specialized 
daycare for a handicapped child, physical therapy, durable medical 
equipment such as a wheelchair, and medical bills for care by 
specialists.
  People who care for a chronically ill family member must often patch 
together whatever they can afford. They really go into debt. Many of 
them go into their college accounts or retirement savings or they go 
without in order to be able to care of their family.
  Example one: Let's talk about a family in Baltimore who has a child 
named Jackson. These are real families. They gave me permission to talk 
about them on the Senate floor so that we would again be focusing on 
what a family is facing. Family responsibility, yes, but a family's 
stress needs to be helped.
  This family has a 2-year-old son named Jackson. He was born with 
severe brain abnormalities. He has the motor skill development of a 4-
month-old. This little guy has daily seizures, so he needs total, 
round-the-clock care. The emotional costs of caring for a severely 
disabled child are incalculable. The financial costs are also crushing.
  It costs $650 a month for daycare for medically fragile children. His 
little wheelchair costs $1,400. Though his skills are not growing, he 
is growing, so they need to frequently replace his wheelchair. He even 
needs a special shower chair which costs $700. Then, of course, with 
all of those seizures and all the other complications, the cost of 
prescription drugs goes off the charts.
  Let's talk about another family.
  This is a family in Rockville. They have a 10-year-old girl named 
Rachel. She has autism. The mom does not work because the cost of 
specialized afterschool care would be so high; yet the family has very 
high costs, including $200 a month for medication, $150 a week for 
physical and speech therapy. That is $600 a month for physical and 
speech therapy. So that is $800 a month or $9,600 a year for just 
medication and physical and speech therapy.
  This father works 70 hours a week to provide for his family and to 
meet Rachel's special needs but also to save for college for his three 
other children. This places great stress on the family.
  Then there is a couple where the wife is in the advanced stages of 
Alzheimer's. She was a teacher and spoke five languages. Now she needs 
24-hour-a-day care, but the husband will not put her in a nursing home, 
which, by the way, would cost over $60,000 a year. This family is 
spending $3,000 a month or $36,000 a year. They have gone through their 
savings, but they took a vow, ``for richer or for poorer, and in 
sickness and in health,'' and that man intends to keep his vow to his 
wife.
  What is the social contract that we have with those families? These 
are real families. This is why we need to have a real tax bill that 
also gives help

[[Page 11242]]

to those who practice self-help. There are 26 million people in this 
country who face those situations.
  My amendment has been backed by the Autism Society of America, the 
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Easter Seals, the National Organization for 
Rare Disorders, the United Cerebral Palsy Association, Arc of the 
United States, the National Health Council, the National Council on the 
Aging, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Family Voices, the National 
Respite Coalition, the National Family Caregivers Association, and the 
National Alliance for Caregiving.
  Mr. President, one of my first milestones in the Senate was the 
enactment of something called the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act. That 
changed the cruel rules of Medicaid so families would not go bankrupt 
before they could get help for nursing home care.
  I said: Family responsibility, yes, and always. Family bankruptcy due 
to the cruel rules of government, no.
  That has helped over 1 million people. Now it is our turn to also 
help the caregivers. They are the backbone of our long-term care in 
this country.
  I thank my colleagues, Senators Clinton and Sarbanes, and others, for 
supporting this amendment. If we really want to help the economy, let's 
start by helping the American family. I hope, when the Senate considers 
whatever is introduced, Senators will favorably consider my targeted 
tax credit to help family caregivers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I would like to 
take a few minutes today to discuss the state of the American economy 
and discuss why I believe new tax cuts are the wrong economic medicine 
right now.
  I was one of the 12 Democrats who voted for a major tax cut in March 
of 2001. And I want to just bring to everybody's attention what the 
situation was then.
  In March 2001 we were in our third year of surplus in the budget. We 
were projected to run a $5.6 trillion surplus through 2010. So it 
seemed an appropriate time to return some of that surplus to taxpayers, 
just as a business would do when that business was doing well. That is 
when a business would consider dividends for its investors or bonuses 
for its employees. That was 7 months before 9/11. Today we face 
cumulative deficits of approximately $2 trillion over 10 years. And 
that is the conservative estimate. Goldman Sachs estimates it at double 
that. We also face huge long-term shortfalls in the Medicare and Social 
Security trust funds.
  Since late last year, the administration has been pushing for a 
second large tax cut, some $726 billion in tax breaks that would 
actually provide little upfront stimulus. The centerpiece of the 
President's proposal is a plan to eliminate taxes on corporate 
dividends.
  Half of the benefits of that plan would be realized by taxpayers 
earning over $200,000 a year, and the plan would do nothing for the 
millions of Americans who hold stocks only through retirement plans 
that are already tax advantaged. At the same time, my State, 
California, would lose over $20 billion over the next 10 years as a 
result of lower direct tax revenue and higher interest rates on 
municipal bonds.
  State budgets cannot afford to lose these costs, and neither can the 
Federal budget. The budget report which recently passed Congress locks 
us into deficits for the next 10 years, totaling some $2 trillion over 
that period.
  In his State of the Union Message, the President stated:

       We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass 
     along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, 
     and other generations.

  I cannot agree with that sentiment more, but that is not what has 
happened. Exactly the opposite has happened.
  Whether the tax cut ends up at $150 billion or $350 billion or $550 
billion, it will all be financed by deficit spending. Every dollar in 
new tax cuts that passes this Chamber is a dollar we cannot afford to 
spend. We will not pay for it now, but our children are going to pay 
for it later.
  Our current deficit is projected to be $347 billion this year, 
although many estimate the number will more likely be closer to $400 
billion by the end of the fiscal year. And it is estimated to be $385 
billion next year. These estimates do not include additional costs of 
rebuilding Iraq or new legislation not included in the President's 
budget.
  The deficits now projected are neither small nor are they short term. 
Rather, they are the largest in history. The only way that the budget 
resolution which came out of conference committee achieves balance is 
by expecting unrealistic cuts to discretionary spending after 2008.
  To put some perspective on the size of the deficits expected this 
year, it is useful to compare it to nondefense discretionary spending. 
This year we are projected to spend $385 billion for everything outside 
of entitlement programs and defense. That includes funding for 
education, law enforcement, transportation, environmental protection, 
and hundreds of other uses.
  If the Federal Government were required to balance its budget each 
year, as do 49 of our 50 States, it could cut nondefense discretionary 
spending by 90 percent--by 90 percent--and only just manage to reach 
balance. Imagine the impact that would have on Government services that 
we rely on every day.
  Let me explain that further. If you look at a pie chart for the year 
2003, 64 percent of all of the expenditures, the outlays this year, is 
for interest on the debt and entitlement programs. Entitlement programs 
are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veterans benefits, and 
welfare. If you are entitled to them, you get them. They cannot be cut 
in the budget process. So 64 percent of all of the expenditures cannot 
be controlled. Defense is 17 percent, and nondiscretionary--every other 
department--is 19 percent. That is why you could cut 90 percent of that 
19 percent, and you can't really bring the budget into balance because 
of these other items in the expenditure area.
  The only reason the Federal Government is not facing cuts in service 
is because it can take on new debt to cover the shortfall in tax 
revenue. When the occupant of the chair was mayor of a great city and I 
was mayor of a great city, we couldn't do this. We had to balance our 
budgets. The Federal Government can do this.
  Should the President's proposed tax cuts be adopted in their 
entirety, our public debt would nearly double over the next 10 years, 
from $6.7 trillion today to $12 trillion in 2013.
  Later this month, the Senate will take up a bill to increase the 
Federal debt ceiling by almost $1 trillion--$984 billion, to be 
precise. That is the largest increase in our Nation's history. That 
increase represents $3,400 in new debt for every American citizen, 
whether they pay taxes or not. That increase is shocking, but the 
unfortunate truth is that the $1 trillion in new debt Congress is set 
to authorize will cost Americans much more than $3,400 each because 
interest in our debt drives up interest rates, because there is a 
limited appetite for debt at home and abroad, and investors must be 
given incentives to take on new debt in the form of higher interest 
rates.
  Those interest rates are not just paid by the Government; they are 
also paid by homeowners who take out a mortgage. Look at the low 
mortgage rates today and what they are worth to an individual. William 
Gale, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, predicts that 
interest rates could rise by as much as four-tenths of a percent due to 
the effects of the President's proposal.
  What does that do to the average citizen? I will tell you. An 
increase of that magnitude would add $800 to the cost of a $200,000 
home mortgage in the first year alone. It would increase costs by 
thousands of dollars more over the life of the mortgage.
  I have always believed for many Americans low interest rates are much

[[Page 11243]]

more worthwhile than a tax cut that they may only see slightly. But 
when they refinance their house, they see it big time, or when they are 
able to draw out from the accrued equity of the house. So interest 
rates not only affect homeowners, but they also affect businesses 
seeking to make new capital investments in the cost of money they 
borrow. The effect is to crowd out private investment and stifle 
economic growth.
  Let's talk for a moment about the 2001 tax cut that I voted for, that 
12 of us on my side of the aisle voted for, when times were good, 
before 9/11, with a $5.6 trillion surplus and a surplus in our budget 3 
years in a row.
  At the same time that the administration pushes for new tax relief, 
it does little to acknowledge that tax relief already scheduled to 
occur is, in fact, taking place. I don't understand. If I were 
President of the United States, I would be out on the hustings saying: 
The Congress, in 2001, gave you tax relief, Mr. and Mrs. America, and 
this is what it looks like: In 2001, $41 billion was paid out to 
taxpayers. In 2002, $71 billion was paid out in tax cuts to taxpayers. 
In 2003, $90 billion is going to be paid out in tax cuts to taxpayers. 
That totals, Mr. and Mrs. America, $202 billion that you have already 
or are getting from the 2001 tax cut. And next year, 2004, you will get 
another $100 billion. That totals over $300 billion being paid out in 
tax cuts today from the 2001 tax cut.
  Why, in our current fiscal circumstances, should we add on such a 
large amount of tax relief when that relief is now beginning to take 
effect from the 2001 tax cut? Next year, which is the earliest a new 
tax cut could reasonably take effect, we are already scheduled to see a 
1-percent drop in marginal income tax rates, an increase in the 
individual estate tax exemption from $1 million to $1.5 million, and 
relief from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. So these things are 
happening as a product of our 2001 tax cut. Why doesn't the President 
speak about them? That would reassure the American public, I believe.
  Today I have heard two primary arguments in favor of this tax cut. I 
have found neither argument to be logical or persuasive. The first 
argument is that the tax cut will be stimulative. In fact, we know it 
will have little or no stimulative impact as it is currently 
structured. Let me mention a few of the reasons why.
  Less than 20 percent of the tax cut can take effect within a year. 
Less than 20 percent of it can take effect within the next year. 
Economists agree that in order for tax cuts to be stimulative, they 
must be front loaded, and they must be large enough to make a 
meaningful impact.
  The President's package fulfills neither requirement because its 
benefits largely accrue in the outyears. They would amount to a 
stimulus of less than 1 percent of GDP over the next 12 months.
  A dynamic analysis of the effect of the package on the economy 
predicts it will generate little or no economic growth. The newly 
appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holz-Eakin, 
recently conducted CBO's first foray into dynamic scoring. Dynamic 
scoring is a method of economic analysis that looks at the ripple 
effects of tax and spending bills on economic growth beyond their 
direct cost or benefit.
  The results of the CBO study were eye opening. The President's tax 
cut proposal was projected to have little or no impact on economic 
growth and could actually reduce growth in the later years. The 
administration's own economic team released data indicating that over 
the long term, the plan creates few new jobs.
  The tax cuts included in the plan provide very little bang for the 
buck.
  The second argument in favor of the President's tax cut is that 
without the threat of large budget deficits, Congress will never act to 
rein in spending. Therefore, large budget deficits are actually a tool 
of responsible government. To me, this argument boggles the mind. Far 
from reining in spending, large deficits will actually increase 
spending by sending interest costs on our debt skyrocketing. 
Discretionary spending over the past several years has, in fact, been 
held tightly in check, and nearly all new discretionary spending is 
allocated to defense and homeland security.
  Mr. President, the only way I believe we can return to the path of 
long-term growth is by balancing our budget and by proving our ability 
to act as long-term stewards of our economy. Right now, the biggest 
drags on this economy are uncertainty and distrust. Corporate leaders 
remain uncertain about geopolitical developments, such as the war 
against Iraq, North Korea, India/Pakistan, and what might happen next, 
and the risk of domestic terrorism. They are holding off investments 
until those concerns abate. Consumers share similar concerns and fear 
the loss of jobs or further deterioration in their retirement savings. 
Remember, large companies have crashed--Enron, Arthur Andersen, Global 
Crossings--and with them went retirement benefits. People have fear, 
and fear has entered the marketplace.
  At the same time, small investors show little inclination to get back 
into the stock market as corporate scandals continue. So I believe the 
appropriate medicine for this uncertainty and distrust is strong 
regulatory action by agents such as the Securities and Exchange 
Commission and the Accounting Oversight Board, to increase accounting 
transparency and to stop corporate criminal behavior before it begins.
  In the Senate, I have tried to push for corporate accountability in 
the energy sector. God knows it is necessary, and I hope to introduce 
an amendment on the energy bill.
  The return of investor confidence will have a positive impact on our 
markets and our economy. Coupled with strong congressional leadership 
committed to keeping our budget in balance, I believe we can quickly 
return to healthy rates of economic growth.
  What will not work, however, is further deficit spending for tax cuts 
we cannot afford. When I last voted for a tax cut in March of 2001, we 
were projected to run a $5.6 trillion surplus through 2010. Our 
economic outlook at that point could not be more different than our 
current circumstances.
  Now we face cumulative deficits of approximately $2 trillion over 10 
years, if interest costs are included. Those are unified deficits and 
do not reflect the one-time boost we are getting from surpluses in the 
Medicare and Social Security trust funds. If those surpluses were not 
included, our deficits over 10 years would add up to over $3 trillion.
  Unfortunatey, Congress cannot ensure an immediate return to economic 
growth. What we can do, however, is prove to those Americans who 
contribute to the economy that Congress can properly manage the 
government's finances. Yet our current course is taking us in the 
opposite direction.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose any new tax cuts, no matter what the 
size, and focus on laying the groundwork for a return to long-term 
economic growth.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________