Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me first say that obviously Members can only answer for themselves. I would have no objection to trying to deal with a potential blue slip problem through unanimous consent. The House bill will almost certainly contain a provision related to access to health care, and so the two bills would be conformable in that way. Nor do I have any concern about taking up a House measure which would be a further guarantee against the blue slip problem. If we put in a quorum call and worked this out or had debate while we worked it out, all that could be worked out. Where I think we might run into problems is that there are two problems in terms of access to health care. One is the self-employed who have to pay both parts of their health care coverage. The other is very low income people who don't get health insurance through their jobs. You then have a very small--and I know the Senator is aware--you have a very small revenue component in medical savings accounts. I would not want to limit our ability to at least debate the other two parts of the problem. But within the constraints of those problems, I think there might be room to debate it. I don't want to preclude our ability to offer, for example, a medical savings account amendment because I think that is very important as part of this access. I understand this amendment. I very strongly support it. I want to be sure we have a chance, if we fix it for the self-employed, that we fix it for very low income people who don't get health insurance through their jobs. I can assure the Senator that for my part--and I am sure on behalf of every Republican--we are not trying to create a technical ``gotcha'' problem here. We can work together to fix that problem, if that would make this amendment more acceptable.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Let me say, we will have plenty of time to debate this and I will continue my examples later. However, the point I wanted to make now was that we need to see the final version of the bill so we can prepare to debate it. Maybe if we can take some of these inconsistencies out, we could be closer to having an agreement than we think we are. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I thank our dear ranking member for yielding to me. I wanted to come over today in the 15 minutes we have left to talk about this version of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Lest this stack of legislation on my desk fall over and kill me, let me make the point that it seeks to make. This stack on my desk demonstrates our big problem in trying to bring up one of the most important bills we are going to consider in this Congress; a bill that, by the definition used by its principal authors, will cause net pay of American workers to decline by $55 billion over the next 10 years. Senator Kennedy talks about the bill costing a Big Mac. It really is 25 billion Big Macs. It is a lot of hamburgers and a lot of dollars. Looking toward the debate on one of the most important bills that we will consider, after having spent several weeks trying to analyze and understand the old version of the bill, S. 872, we now have a new version, S. 1052, and we understand that there is yet another version which is coming. Why is this important? It is important because if we are going to debate an issue that will have a profound effect on every working American and every user of health care--which is everybody alive--it is vitally important that we know what the proposal is that we are going to debate. A perfect example of why that is important is the Clinton health care debate that we had in 1993 and in 1994. We kept hearing a debate from the White House about their bill, and what it did; but in reality, as that debate was in the process of beginning, we had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, then nine different versions of the bill. Why was it changing so much? It was changing so much because it was indefensible. The problem is--at least the problem I had--is that every time I studied a new version, by the time we got to the floor of the Senate to debate it, the version had changed dramatically. It was not an insurmountable problem because each and every one of these versions wanted the government to take over and run the health care system. When the American people knew what they were trying to do, they were not for it. But I think we can expedite this debate if we simply know what is being proposed. So I would like to propose to our colleagues a solution to our problem; and that is, if there is about to be a new version, and if the authors of the bill would give us their final version, then I believe that we could, with a couple of days' study, be in a position to debate the bill. And we could get on with it. Why is this issue so important? You are going to hear a lot of debate about what this could mean to health care in America, what it could mean to the availability of health insurance. Why is that so important? First of all, it is important because I think people need to realize that when we debated the Clinton health care bill in 1993 and in 1994, the argument that was made throughout that debate was: Don't worry about the right to have choices. Don't worry about a point-of-service option. Don't worry about the right to sue. Worry about access to health care because the figure that was used in that debate was the latest number we had, as a good number, which was that 33 million people did not have health insurance. Today, 42.6 million people do not have health insurance. What was the solution to that problem that Senator Kennedy proposed in presenting the Clinton health care bill? The solution was to have the Government, through health care purchasing collectives--which would be these giant HMOs run by the government that everybody would be forced to be a member of--that the government was going to set standards for health care, and they were going to give these 33 million people access to health insurance. The price we were going to pay was that you did not have any choice about joining this government-run HMO. You are going to hear Senator Kennedy and others talk about forcing these private HMOs to have a point-of-service option. But he is not going to point out that in the original Clinton bill, the point-of-service option was that if the health care purchasing collective in your area did not approve a treatment, and the doctor provided that treatment, he was fined $10,000. And if you paid him separately for the treatment, he was sent to prison for 5 years. You are going to hear a lot of debate about the right to sue HMOs, but you are not going to hear that 7 years ago, Senator Kennedy, on behalf of Bill Clinton, proposed a bill that severely limited the right of anybody to sue a doctor or any health care provider or any faceless bureaucrat running a health care purchasing collective. The argument 7 years ago was, forget about freedom. Instead, worry about the fact that 33 million people don't have health insurance and give up your freedom and let the government run the system, and we will solve that problem. That was the argument 7 years ago. When people understood it meant that when your mama got sick she was going to talk to a bureaucrat instead of a doctor, the American people killed that proposal. But notice the 180 that has occurred in those 7 years. Today 42.6 million people do not have health insurance, almost 40 percent more than in 1989. But now we have a proposal before us that simply assumes that every employer absorbs part of the cost of increased health care that will come from the bill before us, however, we know that the increased costs will guarantee at a minimum that 1.2 million people will lose their health insurance. Why, if we were willing to let the government take over the health care system 7 years ago because people didn't have health insurance, do we now, in the name of giving them the very rights we would have taken away from everybody 7 years ago, make it so that 1.2 million people, at a minimum, don't have health insurance who have it today? I will explain the answer. I am deeply worried about people losing health insurance and I want to preserve private medicine in America. But if 7 years ago you wanted the government to take over the health care system, then if you destroy the health care system we have today, if more people lose their health insurance 2 or 3 years from now, you can come back and say: let's allow the government take it over to solve a problem which, in fact, you have created with a bill like the bill before us that vastly expands lawsuits and expands cost. Now, why is this such a big deal? Why is there so much passion about this? Let me explain why. This simple chart explains why. This simple chart tells us how unique America is in all the world, and how different we are than any other developed country in the world. We have all heard of the G-7 nations. Those are the seven richest countries in the world. What I have done in this simple chart is to take the G-7 nations and ask a simple question: What percent of the population in the seven most developed countries in the world get their health care through the government and what percentage get it through private choice, private health insurance and decisions that they actually control that relate to their family and their children? If this chart does not scare you, then I think there is something wrong. What does this chart show? It shows that of the seven most developed and richest countries in the world, the United States is profoundly different in health care. Sixty-seven percent of Americans buy health care as a private purchaser through private health insurance and through individual choice; 33 percent of Americans get their health care through a government program. When you look at the next freest country in terms of private decision-making regarding health care in the developed world, next to America, which has 67 percent of its people buying health care through their choice, through private health insurance, and individual decision-making, the next freest country is Germany, where 92 percent of health care is purchased through government programs and government decision-making. As we go into this debate, why am I so concerned about driving up health care costs and forcing people to give up their private health insurance and forcing companies to cancel insurance? I can tell you why I am concerned. I don't want, 10 years from now, the United States to be up to 92 percent of its health care run by government or 99 percent of its health care run by government or 100 percent of its health care run by government. If you want America to be at the top of this list, then you don't care if the bill before us produces a situation where companies cancel health insurance because you have the answer already. The answer is government. This is a big issue. This is one I believe deserves thoughtful deliberation. Finally, I will pick three issues. I will use the old bill because that is the one I know. I have checked out the new bill and, with one exception, there is not a change. There has been one word dropped. I will explain why it is so important that we have a copy of the final bill so we know what is in it. Let me take three issues that will make my point. The first issue is the one that there was a lot of talk about on the weekend talk shows. In fact, one of our Democrat colleagues was asked about suing employers. He responded: under our bill, you can't sue employers. Sure enough, if you open their bill up to page 144, right in bold headlines, it says that you can't sue employers. In fact, in a super-bold headline it says: Exclusion of employers and other plan sponsors. And then a subhead line called paragraph (A), it says: Causes of action against employers and plan sponsors precluded. Gosh, it sure looks like it precludes suing employers. Then it says: Subject to subparagraph (B), paragraph (A) does not authorize a cause of action against an employer. But guess what. When you get down to paragraph (B), it says: Certain causes of actions permitted. Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a cause of action may arise against an employer or other plan sponsor or against an employee of such an employer or sponsor acting within the scope of employment. Why are we so concerned about getting to see the final bill before we debate it? Because the bill is full of these bait-and-switch provisions. Here in one paragraph it says you can't sue an employer, and then in another paragraph it says you can. Let me give two more examples. One is, can you force an insurance company to pay for a benefit that is specifically excluded in the policy? Let's say the policy says that the plan does not provide coverage for heart and lung transplants and, as a result, the plan is cheaper. And so my small little company I work for buys the plan, and I know in advance it does not cover that. So the question is, are you bound by the contract? If you look at the bill on page 35, it sure looks like you are. In fact it says no coverage for excluded benefits. And then it has a paragraph that tells you if they are specifically excluded, they are excluded. Until you turn over to the next page and it says: Except to the extent that the application or interpretation of the exclusion or limitation involves a determination under paragraph 2. Then you turn back two pages and you see that anything that is medically reviewable or has to do with necessity or appropriateness can be mandated, even if the contract specifically excludes it. In other words, another bait and switch.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I am glad that correction was made, but that does not change any of the other points I made. There is no enforcement mechanism here. We have a provision in the bill that does have an enforcement mechanism. So we are weakening our commitment to it by putting this amendment in the bill. Secondly, we do not have any guarantees that the Boy Scouts--while they might be permitted to come to the school grounds, they might be charged a higher fee or separate conditions may be imposed on them. And for both those reasons, I believe this amendment ought to be rejected. We have already acted on it. It was a tough vote. It was 51-49 as to who wanted to guarantee the right to the Boy Scouts. I think we have spoken. I think this is a weaker amendment. I hope we will not move away from the strong, unequivocal position we took that the Boy Scouts of America, and their commitment to God and country, is a commitment we believe belongs in every schoolhouse in America where they want to operate. So I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, responding very briefly, first of all, if you believe a provision is unconstitutional, in my opinion, you ought to vote against it. We sort of hide behind this idea of ``let the Supreme Court decide.'' But when we put our hand on the Bible and swear to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution, in my opinion, we are swearing to do that. I personally do not believe the Helms amendment is unconstitutional. We have passed amendments and bills all the time that deny or grant Federal funds based on what a school system does. But everybody has their own opinion about that. My basic position is that the Helms amendment is quite strong and has an enforcement mechanism. This amendment would require that the Boy Scout troops all over America get lawyers and go to court on an individual basis. It would be really unenforceable, except with the expenditure of tremendous amounts of money that the Boy Scouts don't have. I think we have a strong measure in the bill now. Fifty-one Members voted for it. My suggestion is, keep it strong if you want the Boy Scouts in schools, and I would vote no on this. Obviously, people have other opinions. That is why----

Mr. GRAMM. Maybe there will be a rush of people on your side, although I do not think so. I would not want to defend this amendment.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, if someone showed up from Mars and listened to this discussion, I am sure they would be convinced that this was somehow a simple amendment that was protecting the Boy Scouts. But they would be convinced only if they showed up in the last 30 minutes, because we spent much of this day debating and voting on an amendment by Senator Helms that said if a school system denied access of facilities on a nondiscriminatory basis to the Boy Scouts of America, they would lose Federal funds. In listening to our dear colleague from California, you would think Boy Scouts using public schools would be a noncontroversial amendment. Maybe if you came from Mars 30 minutes ago you would be convinced of that. But if you came from Mars an hour ago, you would realize that after a lengthy debate 49 Members of the Senate voted to not deny Federal funds to school systems that discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America. We had a vote on exactly this subject. The vote was 51-49. What is wrong with the amendment that is before us? There are several things that are wrong with it. I think I can explain it pretty simply. First of all, we have an unequivocal statement in the bill right now with a Helms amendment that says you lose Federal funds if you deny the Boy Scouts of America the ability to use your facilities after school on a nondiscriminatory basis. How does the Helms amendment work? It has an enforcement mechanism. That enforcement mechanism is, you lose Federal funds. So the Boy Scouts of America don't have to go out and hire a lawyer, go to the district court, the circuit court, and the Supreme Court to get to use the local schools for Scout meetings after school. The Helms amendment has an enforcement mechanism in it. Second, the Helms amendment says the Boy Scouts can use the schoolhouse on a nondiscriminatory basis, which means they cannot be charged a higher fee than anybody else. They cannot face separate rules than anybody else, where they could be denied the right to hand out material, for example. That is the Helms amendment. That is the position of the education bill as it now stands. We voted on that issue. The vote was 51-49. Where I come from, that is about as close as you can get and have a determinant result. Now in comes this amendment which says no public elementary school or public secondary school or local education agency or State agency may deny equal access. No one is opposed to this freestanding, but this now clouds the position of the underlying bill. Why is this amendment a very weak amendment which does virtually nothing to protect the Boy Scouts? Let me explain why. First of all, there is no enforcement mechanism. Unlike the Helms amendment, which is currently part of this bill, there is no enforcement mechanism if a school violates the law. What would that force the Boy Scouts of America to do? It would force the local troop to hire a lawyer and to go to court. You could literally dissipate the assets of the Boy Scouts of America in trying to enforce a bill that has no enforcement clause in it. The amendment which is now in the bill, which is undercut by adding this amendment to it, has an enforcement mechanism, because you lose funding, and any school faced with giving up Federal funding is going to allow the Boy Scouts to use their facility. Second, this amendment does not guarantee that the Boy Scouts would be able to use the facility on an equal basis. They couldn't discriminate against the Boy Scouts or anybody else in terms of using it. But it does not have a provision, as the Helms amendment does, to guarantee that you don't have to pay a higher fee or that you wouldn't get to use it on an equal basis or you wouldn't be able to hand out materials I am not saying this is a bad amendment. If this had been offered freestanding, if we had not debated the other amendment all day long, I think some might have found some merit in it. My point is, we have a provision in the bill that has an enforcement mechanism, which this does not. We have an unequivocal statement in the bill that was passed 51-49. My basic position is that this actually weakens the bill by putting two provisions in it, one which is strong and enforceable and has an enforcement mechanism, and one which does not. Therefore, my view is, with all due respect, that we have already decided this on a 51-49 vote, and if your objective is to guarantee that the Boy Scouts of America get to use the schoolhouse like other organizations, then the thing to do would be to leave the provision which is currently in the bill there and to reject this amendment. If we adopt this amendment, then we have two amendments in the bill that are very different. Then you are going to leave it up to conferees to decide which one they want to take. If your objective is to have the strongest possible language for the Boy Scouts, I assert--this is a free country, and people have their own opinions--that the way to keep the strongest language is to not dilute it by putting weaker language without an enforcement mechanism next to it. With all due respect, that is why I am going to vote no on it. I would be very happy to yield to my dear friend.

Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.

Mr. GRAMM. May I respond to that?

Mr. GRAMM. Let me respond by saying, remember Senator Byrd got up and asked that we change the Helms amendment because it had language in it that said ``or other groups.'' So the argument was made by Senator Byrd that the language in the Helms amendment that said ``other groups'' was so vague that it could include Nazis, skinheads. My point is, this language is at least as broad as the language we took out of the Helms amendment because this requires that they open it up to any youth group, including the Boy Scouts. And the question is, Do we want to force public schools to open up to skinheads? Or to the Ku Klux Klan? I do not think we do. Senator Byrd made the point. I supported him in changing the Helms amendment because it said: Boy Scouts or other groups. And we made that change by unanimous consent. Now we have this amendment before us that says that we open it up ``to any youth group, including the Boy Scouts'' without regard to their view on sexual orientation. But what about their view on America or race or numerous other things? I am saying that the criticism Senator Byrd raised of the Helms amendment--that it opened it up for all these hate groups--that same criticism can, and I think should, be leveled against this amendment. Maybe it should be corrected by modifying these other youth groups to assure they are groups that have a Federal patent, for example. But I simply say that the point Senator Byrd made was as valid against this amendment as it was against the Helms amendment and we changed the Helms amendment. Amendment No. 803, As Modified

Mr. GRAMM. No, let's not object.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, as far as I am aware, I am the last speaker. I was just waiting to get an opportunity to speak. I do not know. There may be someone else over here who is welling up in their chest with a speech, but as far as I know, I am it.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I had the great good fortune of being here 20 years ago and being involved in the Reagan tax cuts--tax cuts that let working people keep more of what they earned and ignited the golden economic age in which we live. One of the advantages of living a long time and serving in public office a long time is that you get an opportunity for a day such as this when, 20 years later, we are cutting taxes again. This is a great day for the people who do the work and pay the taxes and pull the wagon in America and who often get forgotten by their Government. It is obvious in listening to our colleagues that it is a sad day for those who desperately wanted to spend this money here in Washington, DC, but I hope my colleagues find some solace in the fact that working men and women sitting around their kitchen tables trying to make ends meet will use this money far more effectively to promote their interests and America's interests than we would use it spending it here in Washington, DC. I thank our distinguished chairman, Senator Grassley, for his leadership in making this day possible. I reserve the remainder of the time for Senator Grassley.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this amendment raises the whole extender question, something the Finance Committee will be looking at later this year. The bipartisan bill before us does not address this issue. This amendment is nongermane to the bill, and I raise a point of order that it is nongermane.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, obviously the minority leader has a right to offer this amendment, even at this late hour and even as thick as it is. We all know under the rules of reconciliation you can offer amendments forever. But I want to remind my colleagues that in 1993 when we were on the floor of the Senate and we were considering, under reconciliation, a massive tax increase that was proposed by then-President Clinton, we could have followed the same strategy. We could have offered amendments endlessly. We hated that tax increase as much as some of your colleagues hate this tax cut. But I think wiser heads prevailed, recognizing that in doing that we were trying to do two things that were bad: First, we were corroding the basic structure of the Senate in using our rights in ways that really undercut how the system works in reconciliation; and, second, we were trying to win on the floor of the Senate what we had lost in the election. I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute under the leader's time.

Mr. GRAMM. I object.

Mr. GRAMM. I think, second, we would have been trying to win on the floor of the Senate what we had lost in the election. I am no happier about the Clinton tax increase today than I was 8 years ago. But I believe we did the right thing 8 years ago and I would just like to say to my colleagues, the Senate has worked its will. We know in the end what the outcome is going to be. We voted on virtually every amendment that can be imagined, at least by the minds of Senators--maybe not the mind of man but Senators. I ask my colleagues to let us bring this to a conclusion and to have the vote. That is the plea. I simply ask people look at where we are and ask are we serving our institution and are we, in the process here, really abusing a right that every Senator has. Nobody is saying they do not have it. Nobody is saying this is foul play. I just think what goes around comes around. I urge my colleagues to remember, 8 years ago when we did not do this, when you had a President and when you were taking the country in a different direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. My amendment is now pending, and in order to try to in some small way expedite getting on with the business of the American people, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRAMM. First, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, this is a very simple amendment. There will be a vote on a trigger amendment later. I am adamantly opposed to that. It is very poor economic policy for the Congress to put itself in a straitjacket where if we were in a recession in the future, we could lock America into a tax increase and, in the process, make the economy worse and potentially turn a recession into a depression. Secondly, the trigger amendment which will be voted on later tonight, in addition to holding out the prospect of putting us in a straitjacket and having an automatic tax increase in a recession, holds out the prospect that Congress could literally spend itself into a tax increase without ever having to vote for the tax increase. What the amendment actually says is, if we are not meeting our deficit reduction targets, taxes would go up automatically. There are only two reasons you would not meet the targets. One is you are spending a lot more money than you said you were going to spend in the budget, in which case we ought not to be rewarding profligate spending by pouring more gasoline on the fire with a tax increase to fund more spending. Or, two, we are in a recession and we don't want to turn a recession into a depression. Knowing that my colleagues are determined to deal with this issue, I have put together an amendment that does it in a rational way. It has two mid-course reviews--one in 2003, one in 2010--that if we don't meet our debt reduction targets, if the Secretary of the Treasury certifies we don't, on a highly privileged basis a resolution would come before the Senate that would allow us to debate controlling spending and deferring the tax cut, but there would be a rational decision. And the tax cut would not become permanent until we have at least exercised that decision in terms of the decisions we make in the Senate to act or not act. It is the rational way to do something. I hope my colleagues will look at doing it in that rational way. I have covered triggers in my remarks. I am hoping that if the trigger amendment fails, that my amendment would be accepted. In fact, if the trigger amendment passed, I would still hope my amendment would be accepted. There is an amendment before us that tries to say that there is something wrong with the way the President gave the tax cut to the lowest bracket. What the President did, instead of cutting the 15- percent rate, he gives enough money in tax cuts for the 15-percent bracket to cut it to 14 percent and then ultimately to 13 percent for everybody. But in trying to help lower income people, he creates a new bracket at 10 percent. The net result is, for the people in the lowest income part of the 15-percent bracket, he gives a 33-percent tax cut. For the people in the highest part of the 15-percent bracket, he gives a 9-percent tax cut. But the effect is exactly the same in terms of the dollars you pay in taxes as if you had lowered it from 14 to 13 percent for people in the highest part of the income bracket. We have an amendment before us that has been offered by two of my Democrat colleagues that creates the impression that somehow there is something wrong with the President's plan because some people don't get a reduction in rates. The fact is, they get a dramatic reduction in rates with the new 10- percent bracket. It is an incredible paradox that something that was aimed at helping the poorest workers in America the most is now held up by Democrats as an excuse to raise marginal tax rates on the highest income workers. I trust my colleagues will not fall for that poor, weak argument and that it will fail. Here is my point. A, this is not a huge, irresponsible tax cut, this is a modest tax cut. Of every dollar we are going to send to Washington in the next 10 years under this bill, how much do we get back? If we had adopted the President's entire package, we would have gotten 6.2 cents. We are now talking about roughly 5.2 cents out of every dollar. How does that compare with the Kennedy tax cut? That was 12.6 cents out of every dollar, so it is less than half that size. The Reagan tax cut of 1981 was 18.7 cents out of every dollar. It is roughly a third that size. So we have a tax cut in 1961, 1981, and now in 2001 it is time for America to have a tax cut. This is a prudent, responsible tax cut. It sounds large if your objective was to spend all this money. And we know our Democrat colleagues offered $1 trillion of new spending proposals above the budget this year alone. Also, in the last 6 months, the Clinton administration approved, with the Congress, $561 billion in new spending over the next 10 years--almost a third of the tax cut. This is a tax cut America can afford. Even with a trillion dollars of new spending contained in the budget President Bush has proposed, we have a $5.6 trillion surplus. When you take out the amount of the surplus that belongs to Social Security, it is $3.1 trillion. The President asked for $1.6 trillion. We are giving $1.35 trillion. This tax cut is less than half of the unclaimed surplus of the Federal Government. Since when is giving half the money back to the people who earned it irresponsible? I say only if you intended to spend it is that irresponsible. You have heard a lot of talk here about 45 percent of Americans get no income tax cut. Well, 45 percent of Americans don't pay any income taxes. Income taxes are for taxpayers. You have heard our colleagues talking about, the President of Microsoft is going to get a Lexus. He already has a Lexus. What we are trying to do is reduce the tax burden to promote investment and boost the economy. Let me talk about the richest 1 percent, the most maligned people in America. The only kind of bigotry that is still acceptable in America is not bigotry based on race, or ethnicity, or religion; you are rightly ostracized by every right-thinking American if you have bigotry on that basis. But you can be bigoted on the basis of success. You can be bigoted against the successful and be not only accepted in America but embraced. I believe it is an outrage. In 1981, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 17.9 percent of the tax burden. By 1989, it was 25.2. By 1993, it was 29. Today, 35.6 percent of all income taxes are paid by the top 1 percent of income earners. They earn 17 percent of the income, and they pay 35.6 percent of the taxes. Now the President did not propose to reduce that percentage, he proposed raising it, because he cut the bottom bracket twice as much as the top bracket. So under his bill this would go up to over 36.5 percent. Do you know what our Democrat colleagues say? It is not enough. They want to pile a heavier and heavier burden on successful Americans. I think enough is enough. That ought to be rejected. We have reduced the top rate to 36 percent here. It will go down in conference. I have tried, finally, to the extent I have had the time, to explain the fallacy of their proposal in terms people could understand. Here is a chart representing an alumni meeting, a class reunion of Dimmitt High School, class of 1951. They met in 1991, and they had a $100 lunch. They had five people show up, and they decided to divide the cost up. Do you remember Kent Hance from the House? He is rich now. Kent paid $60; Sally paid $20; Lamont paid $10; Sue paid $10; and Joe, who has done poorly, paid zero. Now they meet again, 10 years later, for their 50th reunion. The restaurant says: We are going to cut the rate $50 because, gosh, it is their 50th high school reunion. They were paying $100, and now they are only paying $50. They say: All right, let's cut everybody's cost by 50 percent. So Kent pays $30, Sally pays $10, Lamont pays $5, Sue pays $5, and Joe doesn't pay anything. The Democrats say this is an outrage because poor Joe gets nothing back, even though the lunch cost has been cut in half, $50, and $30 went to Kent, $10 went to Sally, $5 went to Lamont, Sue got $5, and poor Joe got zip. Is that not an outrage? So they want to break up the class reunion. Their proposal is: Let Kent pay $50, Sally pay $10, Lamont and Sue pay zero, but they have to give Joe $10 back. Would that make any sense to anybody? No. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached chart be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Motion to Commit