|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily <Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly
[Congressional Record: October 27, 2000 (Senate)]
[Page S11263-S11269]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr27oc00-143]
DIFFERENT APPROACHES
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I listened to the distinguished Senator
from Idaho and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, and I would
like to say that there is a real difference between the two candidates
for President. I think we in America can say that the candidates
running for President and Vice President are decent people. Their wives
are good people. I know them all very well. The differences between
them, however, are really stark.
I believe if you compare the Bush and Gore economic programs you will
find that the programs of George Bush have much more justification than
the other side.
We all know that these comments about reducing the national debt are
just a front. We haven't seen that happen since 1994 when the first
Republican Congress in decades took over.
The year 1994 was the first time in decades that we controlled both
Houses of Congress and since then we have balanced the budget three
times. We have paid down the debt $361 billion. By the end of next year
it will be $\1/2\ trillion. That would not have happened had it not
been for the first Republican Congress.
I remember as a Member of this body in 1994 when the President
submitted the budget for $200 billion in deficits well into this
century. President Clinton said at the time that nothing could be done,
there was no way we could have anything but those deficits for at least
10 years.
Of course, we have shown that good fiscal discipline can literally
balance the budget. I have to say what we are in right now is a mess. I
think it will take George Bush and Dick Cheney to straighten it out.
One of the things I like about George Bush so much is that he picked
Dick Cheney, who, without question, is head and shoulders over most
people who have served in Washington. Cheney is bright. He is extremely
intelligent. He is extremely knowledgeable and has a lot of experience.
He is honest to a fault, and he is straightforward. He is just the type
of a person we need in government today.
When you have a $4.6 trillion projected surplus, it is pretty clear
to me that taxpayers are being asked to pay too much in taxes. Frankly,
Bush's approach is to set aside $2.3 trillion for Social Security; he
has $1.3 trillion to give back to the taxpayers and use the other $1
trillion to pay down the national debt.
In order to have a $4.6 trillion surplus, we better pursue a wise
economic approach. This economic approach has reduced the marginal tax
rates from 70 percent down to 28 percent in 1986, and reduced capital
gains from 28 percent to 20 percent 3 years ago. We had to think
seriously about balancing the budget during our battles for the
balanced budget amendment. But the first Republican Congress in decades
managed to balance the budget. And we also had a wonderful head of the
Federal Reserve in Alan Greenspan, a Republican, who basically has done
miraculous work. There is no question that Secretary Robert Rubin did a
good job and helped to stabilize world markets.
In all honesty, if we want to keep this economy going, we have to
realize that marginal tax rates have jumped from 28 percent in 1986 up
to over 40 percent today. Of course, they are still 30 points below
where they were when Ronald Reagan took office with double-digit
inflation and double-digit interest rates.
I hope the American people realize we have to have a change in
Washington or we are going to go back to the old ways of deficits, high
interest, and high taxes.
I might also add that I get tired of this 1 percent business. Let's
face it, the top 1 percent of those who pay income taxes pay almost 35
percent of the income taxes in this country. The upper 50 percent,
which comprises people with incomes over $27,000 a year, pay 96 percent
of all taxes. The bottom 50 percent pay around 4 percent of all taxes.
Naturally, Bush wants everybody who pays taxes to receive some benefits
from having done so. Those who earn less than $35,000 a year are going
to have a 100-percent reduction in most cases. Since the average wage
in Utah is $37,000, it is easy to see we are going to have a lot of
people in Utah benefiting from the Bush tax cuts. If you make $50,000
or less, you
[[Page S11265]]
have a 50 percent or a 55 percent reduction in your tax burden. At
$75,000, you have 25 percent.
I felt it necessary to make these comments because the differences
between the two candidates are stark. I think both candidates are good
people. Vice President Gore and his wife Tipper are good people. There
is no question that Governor Bush is a very good person, and his wife,
Laura, is a wonderful person.
The difference is philosophy. It is time for us to get the country
going in the right direction. That is my view.
Mr. President, I make a few comments to discuss a matter of great
importance to immigrants and to all Americans.
President Clinton has repeatedly threatened to veto the Commerce,
Justice, State appropriations if it does not include his proposals for
immigration amnesty for undocumented aliens, or in most cases, illegal
aliens. He calls it the Latino Immigration Fairness Act.
The CJS conference report does far better than the Latino fairness
bill that the President is advocating. This CJS Report includes
provisions that will restore fairness to immigrants from all countries,
including hundreds of thousands of Latinos. The CJS bill contains a
proposal carefully crafted by myself and others and we call it the
Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, the LIFE Act. Our proposal has at
its foundation a simple goal--to take a much needed step toward
bringing fairness to our Nation's immigration policy by reuniting
families and helping those who have played by the rules. Our proposal
does not pit one nationality against another, nor does it pit one race
against another. Our legislation provides relief to immigrants from all
countries involved.
By contrast, the Clinton-Gore proposal would grant a blanket amnesty
to millions of undocumented aliens--many or most of whom have broken
our immigration laws. It also picks out specific groups of immigrants--
namely, Central Americans--for special treatment. Unlike the Clinton-
Gore proposal, our plan does not provide relief to those who have
violated our laws at the expense of those who have played by the rules.
Instead, it restores due process to a class of immigrants wrongly
denied the ability to apply for residency nearly 15 years ago and
expeditiously reunifies husbands, wives, and children of resident
aliens. In other words, legal aliens.
It is important to bear in mind that at the same time the
administration wants to grant amnesty to millions of people, it cannot
even tell us how many people are waiting in line to come here legally.
The administration's best guess on the number of immigrants waiting in
line--a figure which is nearly four years old--is that over 3.5 million
people are waiting to immigrate to the United States. Over 1 million of
these applicants are spouses and children of permanent residents, that
we take care of in our bill. The others we will look at, but not in the
context of this bill. No; instead, the administration proposes to move
to the front of our immigration lines those who have violated our
immigration laws.
That doesn't seem right to me. We have to focus our efforts on
helping reduce this backlog in addressing any legitimate due process
issues. Our proposal does these things to accomplish these goals. The
first part of our LIFE Act creates a new form of visitor visa for
spouses and children of permanent residents. Our plan puts our Nation's
resources behind reuniting families, instead of processing amnesty
applications. Eligible applicants would be allowed to reunite with
their families residing in the United States, and work legally while
awaiting a decision on the merits of their petitions.
Our proposal would allow approximately 600,000 over the next 3 years
to come to the United States legally, ahead of schedule, to be reunited
with their immediate families.
Second, the LIFE Act further strengthens family and marriage by
permitting spouses of U.S. citizens married outside the United States
to obtain visas allowing spouses to enter the United States to await
immigrant visa processing. Before the Clinton-Gore White House proposes
that we give residency to those who have broken our minimum immigration
laws, shouldn't we first be in the position of letting the wives of our
citizens into this country, those who are legal?
Third, the LIFE Act restores due process to immigrants who are
wrongly denied adjustment of status because of an INS administrative
error.
My proposal allows the late amnesty class of 1982 to pursue their
legalization claims under the original terms of the 1986 Act. We
restore fairness to this group of individuals that has spent over 10
years in litigation.
This portion of the LIFE Act would assist approximately 400,000
immigrants in the class of 1982 who have played by the rules and now
deserve the chance to legalize their status in accordance with law. Our
proposal is strongly supported by those who lived through this
litigation and fought against the Clinton administration's INS for
fairness--not the political interest groups that would prefer to divide
our country over this issue. Members of the class of 1982 prefer our
solution to the administration's. One member of the class recently
pleaded:
We urge President Clinton to now call upon his INS to lay
down its arms, to stop its decade-old battle to block our
legalization, to comply with the numerous court orders we
have won.
In short, our LIFE Act will help close to one million people who have
been treated unfairly by our nation's immigration laws.
But Republicans have not stopped there. We recognize that there is a
serious need to reform the Immigration and Naturalization Service in
both its mission and its structure. We have complaints all the time
about it. It is time to reform it. The INS should offer better service
and a culture of respect for our newest Americans. Many Republicans and
Democrats have worked hard toward promoting these broad goals.
Although we have yet to receive any written or formal response from
the administration concerning the LIFE Act, we have presented the White
House with language that says we should hold hearings and consider
legislation that addresses the backlogs in applications for lawful
permanent residency, furthers keeping families together, and addresses
whether there are worker shortages in different sectors of our economy.
Further, we have proposed that the Attorney General prepare a report to
Congress no later than March 1, 2001, addressing facts relating to the
administration's proposal.
Why do we need a report? Well, before the Congress is asked to
proceed to grant separate treatment to different nationalities, or
consider a blanket amnesty, I think it might make some sense to know
how many people would be covered by the proposal. We have repeatedly
asked for such information from the administration--they have yet to
provide it. Let's be clear: the Clinton-Gore administration cannot even
tell us how many people will be covered by their proposal. Why can't
they tell us? Either they do not know the answer or they do know the
answer but don't want the American people to know it. They would rather
play politics with this issue.
I have no objection to seriously considering immigration reforms
during the next Congress. I am chairman of the Republican Senatorial
Hispanic Task Force. I have worked very hard for Latinos throughout our
country--frankly, throughout the world, and will continue to do so. But
such major reforms should not be pursued in an election year rush to
create wedge issues that divide, rather than unite Americans. Real INS
reform requires that we proceed in a responsible way, after we know the
facts.
Unfortunately, the President appears not to care about the facts. If
he did care, he would not threaten to veto this important bill since a
veto jeopardizes funding for some of our most crucial government
programs.
This chart shows just some of the many programs funded by the CJS
appropriations bill--programs which the President threatens to cut off
funding for with his veto. The CJS appropriations bill allocates $4.8
billion for the INS. If those funds are cut off by that veto we are
going to be in a bigger mess on immigration then ever before, as bad as
some think INS is. It contains an additional $15.7 million for Border
Patrol equipment upgrades. How will President Clinton explain to
Americans that he wants to shut down the INS and Border Patrol in order
to
[[Page S11266]]
force Congress to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens? What
kind of a message does this send to the men and women of the Border
Patrol who risk their lives doing their job each and every day? I would
note that the Border Patrol officers oppose his amnesty proposal--or
should I say the proposal of those on the other side.
This appropriations bill also contains $3.3 billion for the FBI, and
$221 million for training, equipment, and research and development
programs to combat domestic terrorism. How will President Clinton
explain to the families of those killed in the U.S.S. Cole bombing that
FBI agents may have to be brought home because he has cut off funding
for the FBI in order to grant amnesty to millions of undocumented
aliens who violated our immigration laws?
This appropriations bill contains $4.3 billion for the federal prison
system and $1.3 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration. How
will President Clinton explain to the American people that funding for
Federal prisons and drug enforcement and drug interdiction will be put
at risk because he wants to grant amnesty to millions of people who
have violated our immigration laws?
We do not even know how many millions because they will not give us
the figures. I suspect the reason they will not give us the figures is
because it amounts to more than 4 million people.
Let me just put another thing up here. At the end of this Congress,
we got into an awful bind that threatened to stop us from reauthorizing
the Violence Against Women Act--for which we allocate $288 million.
This is the Biden-Hatch bill. We passed it 6 years ago, as I recall. It
has worked very well to help Women In Jeopardy Programs, legal aid for
battered women and children, and a whole raft of other things to help
cope with the problems of violence against women. This all goes down
the drain if the President vetoes this bill. It is a matter of great
concern. Like I say, this bill allocates $288 million for the Violence
Against Women Act Program, legislation that I strongly supported and
helped to break free at the end of this Congress.
Does President Clinton want to cut off funding for assistance to
battered women and their children in order to grant amnesty to millions
of illegal aliens? It does not sound logical to me. I know we are weeks
away from an election. I also appreciate the desire of the Clinton-Gore
White House to play wedge politics. But I feel it is incumbent upon me
to note this White House, indeed, some White House officials involved
in this immigration effort, have a pretty poor record when it comes to
letting political motivations cloud their judgment on matters,
important matters of public interest and public safety. Let's not
forget how the Clinton-Gore White House granted clemency to convicted
FALN terrorists in order to, in their words, ``have a positive impact
among strategic Puerto Rican communities in the U.S. (read voters).''
The White House consciously targeted Puerto Rican voters and, it
seemed to me, under the worst of circumstances and in the worst way.
Actions have consequences. If President Clinton vetoes this bill, he
is putting the public safety and well-being at risk, both at home and
abroad. He is doing this all in an effort to play wedge politics. The
President's veto threats ring especially hollow because this
appropriations bill provides many proposals to help immigrants. The
President himself has stated that he wants, ``to keep families
together, and to make our immigration policies more equitable.''
This is exactly what my LIFE Act does. In order to get that done, I
have had to bring together people with all kinds of varying viewpoints,
from those who do not want any immigration changes at all to those
others who do not care about immigration.
I believe in the Statue of Liberty. I believe this is a country that
ought to be open for legal immigrants.
I believe we ought to do everything in our power to solve these
problems. I am willing to hold hearings right to see if we have not
covered some of the problems that need to be covered. More than 1
million people are going to be covered by the LIFE Act. We have been
able to bring together both Houses of Congress, as far as Republicans
are concerned, and I think a lot of good Democrats when they look at
this will be very impressed that we have been able to get this much
done. I cannot go beyond that because there are people who just will
not go any further.
I am willing to commit to holding hearings right after the first of
the year to determine what else needs to be done. I am not prepared
today, without all the facts, without hearings, without knowing where
we are going, to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and put
them on the list ahead of those who need their spouses and families to
be brought together.
When we fought these matters on the floor, there was a lot of anguish
and whining by some on the other side that we were not taking care of
families and children. I said we would try to do that and we have done
it.
This bill does more than the President's bill, and it does it legally
in the right way, giving preference to the people who have played by
the rules rather than those who have not.
Most Americans descend from someone who came to this great country in
the hope of pursuing a better life, in the hope of fulfilling the
American Dream. I believe the American Dream is still alive and that we
in Congress should try to serve as its custodians. For this reason, I
believe it is not right to penalize families and to disadvantage those
who have played by the rules. Indeed, I believe most current and future
Americans--most Hispanics, most Asians, most Africans, and most Arabs--
do not want to see people who play by the rules disadvantaged in an
election year rush to help those who have not. And if you put the
question to those the administration seeks to help, I think they would
agree as well.
A veto of CJS appropriations and the LIFE Act would elevate political
posturing above immigrant families and would place interest group
politics over protecting the health and well-being of all Americans.
We have brought a lot of people together on this bill. I call upon
the President to look at that. It is quite an achievement under
circumstances that have been difficult for people such as myself.
It surprises me that the administration has suddenly called for
urgent immigration reform for fairness' sake. It was 4 short years ago
that the President eagerly signed the Illegal Immigration Reform Act of
1996. The President's current proposal stands the 1996 law on its head.
Here is what the President said then about the 1996 Act in his signing
statement:
This bill also includes landmark immigration legislation
that reinforces the efforts we have made over the last 3
years to combat illegal immigration. It strengthens the rule
of law by cracking down on illegal immigration at the border,
in the workplace, and in the criminal justice system--without
punishing those living in the United States legally, or
allowing children to be kept out of schools and sent into the
streets.
I think the President ought to live by those words, instead of
undermining existing law through Latino fairness. Getting our LIFE bill
together has taken a lot of effort on my part and on the part of others
under difficult circumstances. We have been able to bring together
people who almost always have difficulty with immigration laws.
Our proposal has something that will solve the 1982 problem of due
process rights. Those people have not been treated fairly by the INS.
The INS keeps appealing their cases even though they win them every
time. We will solve that problem for them.
It solves the problem of reuniting minor children with their parents
in this country. It does it in the best of ways, and it does it
expeditiously. It solves the problem of bringing spouses together with
their husbands and wives who are legal, and it will help close to 1
million people. That, to me, having worked on immigration matters over
the last 24 years, is a pretty darn good accomplishment if we can get
it done.
I do not want to have this process break down because politics are
being played. I know there will never be an agreement to allow up to 4
million people who are illegal aliens into this country in preference
over these three categories of people I have talked about, these 1
million people who deserve to be treated better.
I hope the President will listen to what I have said. I have not had
a chance to personally chat with him, but I have talked with his Chief
of Staff who is a good friend and decent
[[Page S11267]]
man and who I think, having served on the Senate Judiciary Committee
for all those years on the Democratic side, understands how difficult
these matters are to put together.
I believe it is time to resovle these problems. I have done my best
to do it. This is as far as we can go now, but we make a promise to
look into every issue that is raised in hearings as soon as we get
back, assuming we are still in the majority. Even if we are not, I will
cooperate in seeing those hearings are held in an orderly and
intelligent way.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold for a moment?
Mr. KERREY. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized for 20 minutes following
the Senator from Nebraska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, my good friend from Utah just described
two things that I see much differently than he does. The conflict we
are having right now over Commerce-State-Justice is occurring as a
consequence of the House and the Senate not finishing their
appropriations work. They are supposed to be done by the first of
October. We are supposed to have all 13 bills passed. Our work is
supposed to be done and all the bills sent to the President for
signature. We were not able to get the work done. We are not able to
look much further than what has happened to fiscal discipline around
here to discover why we have been unable to get our appropriations
bills done, why there have been delays on the appropriations bills. The
answer is we are spending a lot more than the budget caps allow.
According to Bill Hoagland, who in the New York Times lays it out as
accurately as anybody--I consider him to be an extremely reliable
analyzer of the numbers--the appropriations bills we are going to pass
will be $310 billion over the caps as estimated by CBO over the next 10
years, and that presumes that only inflation will be allowed over the
next 10 years in growth in appropriations which we did not do this
year. We are way beyond inflation this year. It is probably not $310
billion. It is probably much more than that. That is the problem.
It is very much a case where we had a glass slipper that was too
small for our great big foot, and we could not get all the things we
wanted to spend into that shoe. The Republican majority, facing that
problem, had to decide what it was going to do. It has delayed,
delayed, delayed, and as a consequence, we are now in a situation
where, if we attach anything to it that is objectionable to the
President, it is going to provoke a veto.
You know what you have to do to get the President to sign it. He will
tell you what to do to sign it. If you are 27 days late, do not be
surprised if you have lost leverage. Of course you have lost leverage;
you are 27 days beyond the battle line, what the law tells us we are
supposed to be doing with our appropriations bills.
There are two things I want to talk about as we head toward the end
of this session that I find to be very troubling. The first is what we
are doing with the surplus itself. Again, the second thing the Senator
from Utah said earlier is we balanced the budget in 1997 and that it
came about as a result of the election of a Republican House and Senate
in 1995.
I voted for a Republican budget in 1995. I voted for a Republican
budget in 1997 in order to balance it. But we began down this trail in
1990. That is when the budget caps were enacted. That is when we
established sequestration to put in automatic across-the-board cuts if
we were unable to get our budget inside the caps. There was a purpose.
Balancing the budget was not an end in itself; it was a means to an
end.
What was the end? The end was growth in the economy. We believed that
if you balanced the budget--in other words, if you spent less than you
taxed--that that would produce growth in the economy. That was the
argument, not just in 1990, but way long before that.
I recall, when I was Governor, signing a letter in support of what
the Republican Senate was doing in 1985 to try to balance the budget.
It included a freezing of the COLA, which some say contributed to the
loss of the Republican Senate in the 1986 election. I do not know if
that is true or not. It was tough medicine. It would have balanced the
budget. It is not easy to balance the budget.
I remember voting in 1990, 1993, and 1997--and the criticism is
always the same: I want to balance the budget. I believe deficit
reduction is important. I just don't want to pay any more or take any
less. The only objection is, you cut my program and increased my taxes.
Other than that, I liked what you did.
We had tough medicine in 1990, tough medicine in 1993, and tough
medicine in 1997. All during those years, we had a means to say to our
citizens: Look, I have to say no; I have a spending cap up until this
year. If you came to this floor, and there was a motion to waive the
Budget Act, it was tough to get 60 votes. Not anymore. Today, it is
relatively easy to get 60 votes. I am not even sure we are going to
have a vote to break the budget caps on appropriations.
Listen to what Mr. Hoagland says: This year we started off with a
$2.4 trillion general fund surplus. The appropriations is going to
reduce that surplus by $310 billion. An additional $295 billion in
surplus goes for two tax cuts: the $240 billion package we are battling
over right now and a separate $55 billion reduction in taxes on long
distance telephone calls.
I listened to the argument. This is a Spanish-American War tax. For
gosh sakes, the income tax is a World War I tax. Let's get rid of that,
too, if that is the basis of why eliminating a tax makes good sense.
But we are going to eliminate a $55 billion tax. We are going to
increase payments to Medicare. That is $74 billion more in the surplus,
another $44 billion going to increased pension benefits to military
retirees. Tax cuts and spending increases come to $723 billion over 10
years. The surplus is actually reduced by an additional $187 billion
because of interest costs, bringing the total to $910 billion.
Since the 1990 Budget Act, signed by President Bush--all through the
1990s--we had to come to the floor, and if you wanted to offer
something that spent more money, you had to have an offset. It was
called the pay-go system.
We discovered that tucked in this little $247 billion tax bill that
we are arguing about is a provision that waives the pay-go provisions.
I mean, we are abandoning everything that got us to where we are today.
Again, I emphasize to people who want to know, what is this all
about? Twenty-one million dollars have been created. The recovery, in
my view, started prior to 1993. It started in 1991 and 1992. The
deficit started coming down in 1992, and in no small part because of
what we did in 1990. The full story did not begin in 1997. It did not
start in 1993. It started in 1990. And now we are just throwing it all
out the window, saying: It does not matter anymore; we have a great big
surplus. That is why the American people are distrustful. That is why
they are saying to us: Take that surplus and pay down the debt. That is
why they are not supporting big tax cuts.
I voted for the Republican tax cut the first time it came up. Then I
went home and the people of Nebraska said to me: We don't want it. We
don't want it. Pay down the debt.
This fiscal discipline has been good for us. It has created jobs. It
has promoted economic growth. There has been a positive result.
So I say, especially with the Governor of Texas saying he is
committed to a $1.6 trillion income tax cut and a $1.1 trillion payroll
tax cut, that on top of what we have already done, in my view, that is
unquestionably going to put us right back in the soup. That is the
failed policy of the past.
The failed policy of the past is when we said it doesn't matter if
our budget is balanced. The failed policy of the past is when we were
taking 22 percent of our income and spending it with 18-percent taxes
coming in. Now it is the opposite. Spending levels are at 18 percent--
the lowest level they have been since the middle of the 1970s, before
this year, before what we have been doing in the past week or so--
heading to 16 percent. It has not been at that level since Dwight
Eisenhower was President.
[[Page S11268]]
I have to say that given what Congress is doing, and what we are
seeing at the Presidential debate level, my hope is the American people
will wise up and say: We got to where we are with tough choices. We are
about ready to throw it all down the drain.
My belief is that fiscal discipline has not just been good for us
here domestically, it has given us the strength to do an awful lot of
things throughout the world as well. That is our greatest source of
strength, our capacity to keep our economy growing.
You do not have to look any further than the former Soviet Union and
Russia. They have a GDP that is $30 billion less than we have for
defense. I am not saying our defense ought to be lower. I support
taking it higher. I do not compare our defense against Russia, but
their GDP is so low they cannot take care of submarines such as the
Kursk.
I took a trip to Africa. Of the 11 nations we visited, they spend
less than $10 per person on health care and $10 per person on
education. The reason is their income is insufficient. They do not have
the growth and are not producing things that the world wants to buy,
and the United States of America does.
So I do not want to go back to the failed policies of the past. I do
not want to go back to ``voodoo economics.'' I do not want to go back
to those days when we said to the American people that it does not
matter whether or not our budget is balanced.
We paid too big a price to get to where we are today. The American
people not only are more prosperous and more enthusiastic about their
economy and their future, but they have an awful lot more confidence in
democracy as a result of our finally being able to do something about
what was public enemy No. 1, all the way through the 1980s, and all the
way through the 1990s.
I am sure former President Bush remembers what happened in 1992. He
had a guy by the name of Ross Perot who made the deficit a battle cry
and enabled him to have an impact upon that Presidential election, and
probably enabled then-Governor Clinton to win that election, with 43
percent of the vote.
So you do not have to go back very far to see why it is that we have
to reestablish fiscal discipline. We are going in the wrong direction.
To get rid of the pay-go provisions is reason enough to vote against
this tax bill for anybody who went all the way through the 1990s in
this Congress. And that is the reason we are struggling with Commerce-
State-Justice.
The dirty little secret is that our spending appetite exceeds the
budget caps that got us to where we are today. As I said, this sounds
like all process arguments. But there was a big payoff in eliminating
that deficit, paying down the public debt, and relieving the pressure
upon the private sector of borrowing, as we have done.
It did not just enable the economy to grow, it lowered the cost of
borrowing money for a house, lowered the cost of borrowing money for an
automobile, and lowered the cost of borrowing money for a business. In
my view, at least as one former businessperson, it promoted an awful
lot of economic growth. It has a huge impact on our capacity to create
the kind of jobs that the American people want.
There is a second troubling thing that I have heard said over and
over during this tax debate and the debate on the Medicare balanced
budget give-backs as well. Those are both provisions we have,
recognizing in 1997 we took almost $300 billion out of Medicare for
providers instead of the $100 billion that we thought. So we are trying
to adjust that a bit and make things a little easier for--in my State,
especially the rural providers--the providers, but also home health
care people and long-term care providers, and so forth, that are in
that package.
I have heard it said over and over that, gee, this was largely
bipartisan. Many of the provisions in this bill are provisions that
were supported by Democrats. That is absolutely true. There are many
provisions that are in this bill that were supported by Democrats. That
is not the issue. The problem is, I heard one of my colleagues say
earlier--he was describing negotiations with China--an agreement is
just a temporary interruption in the negotiations.
We had an agreement on pensions. We had an agreement on pension
reforms. Democrats came on board saying: We recognize that in order to
do pension reform, you are going to have to provide changes in the law
that are likely to benefit upper income people.
The distinguished Senator from Utah earlier talked about the 1
percent. He is absolutely right.
Almost 40 percent of the swing in the deficit from 1992 to today, 43
percent, an estimate made by Bill Hoagland of the New York Times--43
percent of that came because income tax rates were higher, and we had a
big run-up in the stock market, a big cashing out of stock options, and
a big cashing out of pensions as well. So upper income people are
paying more taxes, especially Americans who have more than $1 million
of taxable income. They are paying a lot of taxes.
So Democrats--I for one--acknowledge that if you are going to do a
pension reform bill, it is likely to benefit upper income people. We
are not going to demagogue that. It is likely to be that that is the
case. But we asked for a couple little provisions to help that low- and
moderate-income worker. They were tax credits.
The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Archer, doesn't
like tax credits. So he stripped the two provisions out that we had in
there for small businesses to help them defray the cost of start-up
pensions. He stripped the provision out that had a matching in there
for this low- and moderate-income worker who is working for small
businesses that have fewer than 100 employees. He stripped that out
because he doesn't like tax credits. We had a deal. So when the
Republican leadership got together, they yielded to Mr. Archer and
stripped out provisions of the pension bill we wanted that made it more
fair.
I said last night, God created Democrats so we can ask the question:
Is it fair? Sometimes we don't ask: Can we pay for it? That is
something we have to train ourselves to do, and I thought we had
through the 1990s with the budget caps. I talked about that earlier.
But we asked the question: Is it fair? If we are going to spend money
and try to increase the amount of pension coverage we have in the
United States of America, shouldn't we try to do it for low- and
moderate-income working people in the workforce with employers who have
fewer than 100 employees? Shouldn't we do that? We answered yes. And
Republicans in the Finance Committee agreed with us. That is what we
got.
Mr. Archer said he doesn't like tax credits. So when the Republican
leadership all got together--without a hearing--they stripped it out.
Guess what. With it stripped out, Mr. Archer still votes against it.
So they took something out of the pension bill they now want us to
pass, that we had insisted on in order to get Mr. Archer's support, and
he still votes against the darn thing.
That is why we are pushing back. That is why we urge President
Clinton to veto this thing. We would like to get most of the things
that are in this tax bill. We believe Vice President Gore is correct
when he says we ought to make careful decisions and selections about
whose taxes are going to get cut. That is what we ought to attempt to
do. We ought to target those tax cuts.
But you have to target the tax cuts, especially when you are dealing
with pensions and health care, as much of this does, you ought to
target it so as to increase the number of people who have pensions.
All of us here in Congress aren't going to have any difficulty
contributing to get another $5,000. We have plenty of disposable income
to come up with the money to be able to increase our contributions. The
problem is for that minimum-wage, or slightly over, individual in a
small business who is struggling to get it done.
The same on health insurance: If you are trying to increase the
number of people who have health insurance, you have to do more than
what is in this tax package. My friend from Texas, Senator Gramm, was
talking about the value of the tax deduction. The value of the tax
deduction is much greater the higher your income. I get a 40-percent
subsidy as a consequence of the level of my income. But if my income is
$16,000 a year, I don't get any deduction. If I am paying at the 15-
percent
[[Page S11269]]
rate, I get a 15-percent deduction. That is how it works.
The Joint Tax Committee estimates that 26 million people will get
benefits as a consequence of the health care provisions, but only 1.6
million of those people are people who currently don't have health
insurance.
Republicans in Congress, I think correctly, are saying that what
Governor Bush said in the third debate, ``That is the difference
between my opponent and I;'' he wants Washington to decide and select
who gets a tax cut. Republicans apparently are saying that the Governor
is wrong, because we are going to select who gets the tax cuts.
If you are going to have a tax cut right now, it seems to me one of
the things we ought to try to do is to say: This remarkable recovery we
are having right now has been fabulous, but there are some people who
have been left behind. Let's try to help them acquire pensions in their
part of the American dream. Let's try to help them acquire health
insurance in their part of the American dream. We don't do that.
As I said, I heard my Republican friends assert several times that
Democrats were on board and support many of the provisions. That is
true. But we added provisions that were stricken out. We added
provisions that would have made the proposal much more fair. I believe
you cannot apply a fairness test every single time you are doing
things. There are times when life isn't fair. But when you are giving
tax cuts to American working families, it seems to me a test of
fairness is appropriate. When you are trying to increase the number of
people who have pensions in the workforce, when you are trying to
increase the number of people who have health insurance, a test of
fairness is appropriate for Members of Congress to try to apply to the
piece of legislation we are considering.
Those are the two objections I have to what is going on right now.
The first is, I think we have lost our way when it comes to fiscal
discipline, the discipline that enabled us to say to a citizen, when a
citizen comes and says, Senator, it only costs $100 million over 10,
would you offer an amendment, and I would always say in the 1990s,
well, I have to have a ``pay for.'' I have to find an offset.
Not anymore. If the pay-go provisions of the Budget Act are repealed,
as is proposed in this tax bill, no longer will that be necessary. It
used to be I would say: Look, this is going to be tough because it is
beyond what we authorized in the Budget Act and to get 60 votes to
waive the Budget Act is going to be hard.
Not any longer does it appear to be difficult to waive the Budget
Act. That discipline that enabled us to get where we are today is at
risk in the closing days of the 106th Congress.
I hope that in this election the American people will say loud and
clear we recognize the value of that fiscal discipline. We benefited
from economic growth. We benefited from lower mortgage payments. We
benefited from greater opportunity as a consequence of Congress getting
its act together, all the way through the 1980s and 1990, 1993, and in
1997.
Secondly, I have great objection, as I look at especially the tax cut
proposal, but also the BBA give-back proposal, that we simply haven't
applied a test of fairness. That is why it was a mistake for
Republicans to have a meeting with only Republicans. If you want
something to be bipartisan, you have to let Democrats in the room.
Likewise, Democrats can't hold a meeting and expect it to be bipartisan
if we are the only ones in the room, and then go out and say: Gee, I
don't understand why Senator Hatch won't sign on board. It is something
he supported years ago. I don't understand why he won't support this.
It is similar to something he was talking about. The answer is, he
wasn't in the room. He didn't have an opportunity to voice his concern.
He didn't have an opportunity to say what he liked or didn't like.
What the Republicans did is they brought something that stripped out
things we had agreed to, and they did not apply a test of fairness. As
a consequence, I am pleased, especially connected to the loss of fiscal
discipline, that in the closing days of the 106th the President has
indicated he is going to veto these two pieces of legislation. I think
the American people will be the beneficiaries of it.
My hope is, on both of them, that it will result in bipartisan
negotiation and producing something the President can sign. It can be
done. We don't have to run out of here over the weekend. We know
exactly what to do. It would take us about 30 minutes to put together a
tax bill and a BBA give-back bill that would get 80 votes on this
floor. We wouldn't have to sit and say, I wonder if the President is
going to sign it. We would know he would sign it. If we have 80 votes,
he is going to sign it. The last time I checked, that is still enough
to override a veto. But we didn't do that.
As a result, we are left here on October 27, 27 days beyond the time
we were supposed to be done and home, we are left here, still a long
way to go before we have an agreement, a long way to go before we will
be able to say we have closed up shop and we have finished the people's
business.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague made some pretty good points
on fairness, except we asked ``is it fair,'' too. Is it fair to allow
3.5 million legal immigrants to be held in line so that we can take
care of approximately 4 million illegal immigrants? That is the point I
was making earlier in the day. Frankly, it is a matter I find of great
importance.
____________________
 Share this page | Bookmark this page | Print this page |  Add to del.icio.us
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995-2008 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM |