Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Then I will take 5 minutes, and I will yield 5 minutes to my colleague. Mr. President, I could not help but hear Senator Kennedy talking about the need for education. I would like to remind my colleagues that we and a Republican Congress spent more on education last year than the President asked for. Our colleague from New Mexico talks about priorities. Bill Clinton, in his budget, calls for over a trillion dollars of new spending over the next 10 years. Not one Democrat raises any concern about spending the surplus. We propose $100 billion to eliminate the death tax, one- tenth the amount Bill Clinton wants to spend on new programs, and they are up in arms, outraged. Now, this is about priorities. What are we trying to do? We are trying to eliminate a situation where, every day, working Americans build up farms and build up businesses with sweat equity. They save and sacrifice, and they work long hours. They pay taxes on every dollar they earn. And then, when they die, the Government comes in and forces their children to sell the business or sell the family farm, and we think it is wrong. We think it is un-American, we think it is immoral, and we are going to eliminate it. When you get down to the bottom line, there are two reasons our Democrat colleagues disagree. Number one, our Democrat colleagues exactly within the context of this amendment say: Look. Force people to sell the family farm when papa dies. Force people to sell their business because by them giving that money to the Government, the Government can spend it better. We don't agree. We think families can spend it better--not the Government. The second argument is an argument we often hear from the Democrat side: We are talking about rich people. These are rich people. I don't understand our Democrat colleagues. They profess to love capitalism but they hate capitalists. Many of them are rich but they hate rich people. Let me try to boil this down to its basic point because I only have a couple of minutes. The only thing I was ever bequeathed in my life and ever will be was when my great-uncle Bill, my grandma's brother, left me a cardboard suitcase full of yellow sports clippings. If it had been baseball cards, I would be a rich man today. Our agriculture commissioner in Texas owns a ranch that her family worked for four generations. When her dad died, she had to sell a third of that ranch to pay a death tax. How does that help me? How did forcing her to sell off her family's ranch that had been in her family for four generations help me or help my family? How does tearing down one family build up another? We don't think it does. That is what this issue comes down to. We believe when people work, build up a business, or build up a farm, or build up assets, and they pay taxes on it, that it ought then to belong to them and to their children, whether they are rich or whether they are not rich. I think it is important to note that our colleagues, when they use all of those little examples, leave out one important thing. Over the next 10 years, the revenues collected on this tax are going to quadruple. Why? Because of all of those teacher retirement programs. Many college professors are going to retire with $1 million in their investment accounts. I thank God for it. If they die before they can spend it, under current law, their children are going to end up having to give part of that retirement program to the Government. I think it is absolutely wrong and outrageous. We are down to making a choice. They say don't eliminate the death tax--just raise the cap a little. Why do we need to eliminate it? When you have a cancer, you don't cut out half of it. You cut out the whole thing. Have we forgotten that when Bill Clinton was writing the 1993 tax bill he floated trial balloons about lowering the deduction from $600,000 to $200,000? Does anyone doubt, if we don't repeal the death tax and if we ever have a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress again, that the first thing they are going to do is lower the deduction back down to the point where ordinary working families, farmers, ranchers, and small business people will pay this tax? I don't doubt it. I want to cut it out by the roots. That is what this vote is about.

Mr. GRAMM. I can live with that. The world won't come to an end if I don't speak for 10 minutes. As I understand it, the agreement on the time would not include this amendment.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this has been a great debate. I count myself privileged to have the opportunity to close it. I am proud of my colleague from Texas. If Members were not moved by the story the Senator portrayed, of people being forced to sacrifice their homes to keep their family farm together, then they don't have a heart and they don't care about the values that at least I consider to be the underpinnings of America. No issue better defines the difference between the two great political parties than this issue. I am prepared to have every election in American history determined on this issue and this issue alone. The issue is very simple. People work their whole lives, they pay taxes on every dollar they earn; they scrimp, they save, they sacrifice, and they build up a business or they build up a family farm, and, when they die, they pass that business or that farm on to their children. In fact, that is the reason many people work and sacrifice. My mama didn't graduate from high school, but she had a dream I was going to college. She sacrificed her whole life to achieve that dream. We don't believe that, when people have worked a lifetime to build up a family farm, or family business, or family assets, that their children ought to have to sell off their parents' life's work to give the Government up to 55 cents out of every dollar of everything they have accumulated in their lives. We think it is fundamentally wrong. We think it is un-American. And we believe it ought to end. When we cut through all the political rhetoric of everything our Democrat colleagues have said in this debate, their reasons for opposing repeal of the death tax come down to two arguments. The first argument is, force people to sell off that family business, force them to sell that family farm, force them to sell off the lifework of their parents because Government can spend the money better. We reject that. We believe that is a clear indication that somehow the opponents of repeal don't understand what America is really about. Those of us who favor repeal of the death tax don't believe Government can spend that money better. And we don't think it is right to take it from the people who built those assets up. The second argument our Democrat colleagues make in opposition to repealing the death tax is that repeal would help rich people. When we reduce this argument down, it is an argument that the Government ought to level families, that somehow if a person were born in a family that owned a family business or family farm, that is not fair--the fact that your parents sacrificed and worked and scrimped to build it, it is still not fair for you have it, and at least part of it ought to be taken away from you. Let me explain why I reject this logic. First of all, the only thing I have ever been bequeathed or expect to be bequeathed was, when my grandmama's brother, my great uncle Bill, died, he left me a cardboard suitcase full of sports clippings. Had it been baseball cards, I would be a rich man today. The family of our agriculture commissioner in Texas, a lady named Susan Combs, owned a ranch that had been in the family for four generations. When her father died, she was forced to sell off part of that ranch to pay death taxes. Now our Democrat colleagues would have us believe that is good because that levels society. How did it help me? How did making Susan Combs sell off ranchland that her family had owned for four generations help me because my family didn't own a ranch or didn't own a business? I cannot see how I was helped, or how my children are helped. How does tearing down one family help build up another? How does destroying the life dream of one family build a life dream for another family? We do not believe it does. We think this is fundamentally wrong. Granted, some rich people may benefit. But so will a lot more people who are not rich. I do not have any inherent objection to people being rich. If they didn't steal the money, if they worked hard for it, if they created jobs for people from families like I am from and they benefited from it, that is what America is about. I do not have a hate for rich people. I do not understand our Democrat colleagues who say they love capitalism but seem to hate capitalists, who claim to love progress but appear to harbor a distaste for the people who create it. We do not believe we can build up America by tearing down families. We believe we can build up America by giving people a chance to compete and use their God-given talents. But we don't want people to have to sell off their farm or sell off their business to give Government a new tax on money that has already been taxed. We do not think death ought to be a taxable event. I congratulate those who have been involved in this debate. I think it is a good debate. I think it is a debate that defines what we stand for and what our Democrat colleagues stand for. We believe when you work a lifetime to build up a business or a family farm, it ought to be yours for keeps. If we are successful, we are going to kill the death tax--yes, you will still have to pay taxes on any gain if the business or farm is sold--but when you build up a family farm or build up a family business, it is yours for keeps. When you die, the people you built it for, your children, are going to get it. If you want to give it away, if you want to donate it to Texas A&M, that is God's work; or if you want to contribute it to trying to cure cancer, but you ought to get to decide how it is disposed of, not the Federal Government, not some bureaucrat at the IRS, and not some politician in Congress. That is what this debate is about. It is an important debate. I urge my colleagues, when we cast our votes on this bill, to vote to kill the death tax.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I renew my point of order.

Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3699

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. An SSI pay shift of $2.4 billion; a VA compensation pay shift for $1.9 billion; and the third item is moving the defense firewall, which would transfer $2 billion from defense to nondefense.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the conference report before us, I am unhappy to say, makes a mockery out of the budget. In fact, if we adopt this conference report, I think there is no need that we should ever adopt another budget. This conference report violates every tenet of the budget we adopted. This conference report has two major phony spending shifts where we shift payments from the fiscal year we are appropriating for backwards into year 2000 so that we can spend an additional $4 billion in clear violation of the budget. I am sure you will hear Senator Stevens saying that the defense of the Nation will be imperiled if we don't pass this bill. Yet while we are providing money to defense through this bill on an emergency basis, this bill takes $2 billion out of defense and gives it to nondefense, a total violation of the budget agreement that we struck. It is Friday. My wife is waiting at the corner of First and C. But if we look the other way on this bill, then there is no budget, and we are going to totally lose control of spending.

Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.

Mr. GRAMM. I appreciate that. If my wife were a liberal, I would really be nervous. When she figures out that I am here doing God's work, she is going to figure that the time is better spent than with her.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will be brief. If we weren't at the end of the session with people on the way to the airport, I think we could have a debate on this issue and we could begin to raise 47 points of order against this bill. The problem is that people would come in wanting to leave for the recess and basically understand that if they vote to override the points of order, they could go home for a week. Whereas, if they sustain the point of order, they could end up being here for further debate. So I urge my colleagues to allow us to agree that we will allow the bill to come up, waive all of our rights to have it read, and to delay it by other motions, have it come up the day we get back and we will have a debate. If we stay here and ruin everybody's week, we are going to harden hearts. When we get back to this bill--and it will not pass today. This bill is not going to pass today. If we harden hearts, we are going to come back here and spend a week when we might have a chance to work some of these things out, basically, in a strong-worded debate that will serve no interest. I urge my colleagues to let us step aside, let the bill be brought up, waive reading it, but have it be brought up on Monday when we come back so we have an opportunity to legitimately make our case. If these were little trivial matters, then I would look the other way, swallow hard, and let it go. But these are not trivial matters. This is basically eliminating the entire budget that we adopted. I think if we do that, we are making a mockery out of the whole process. I am not going to do it. So I object.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be read.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded so I may simply make a statement as in morning business.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the request be revised to allow me to raise the point of order. I think that was always the intention, but I would like to be sure that is the case.

Mr. GRAMM. I thank Senator Nickles, whose leadership on this issue I think is without equal on any issue on which I have worked since I have been in the Senate. I know the people of Oklahoma, who Senator Nickles represents, watch this on television at home. They wonder, what is this all about? You did, you didn't; you did, you didn't. This has to be confusing. In the limited time I have, I want to set this debate in historical perspective so everybody knows what this is about. When Bill Clinton was elected President, he had a goal of having the Government take over and run the health care system. In fact, I have before me the Clinton health care bill. This would have mandated one giant, national HMO run by the Government; HMOs would set up health care collectives, and of course the right people would be chosen to decide what health care we all needed. If you went to your doctor, he would have dictated, under the Clinton plan, the kind of treatment he could give. If he violated their guidelines because he thought you needed it, he would be fined $50,000. If, under the Clinton health care bill, you went to a doctor and said, I don't think all these experts are right and my baby is sick, my baby could be dying, I will pay you to treat my baby, if the doctor did it, he could go to prison for 5 years. That is the health care system my Democrat colleagues are for. The Members who were here voted for it and supported it. They know what they want. They want the Government to take over and run the health care system. They want to herd Americans into health care purchasing cooperatives, or collectives, as they call them, and you have to be a member or else you don't get health care in America. That is what they want. That is where this debate started. Now, we are trying to give patients rights in dealing with HMOs. We want internal and external review. We want the external review to be independent. We want to guarantee them rights. But there is one fundamental difference between the Democrats and us. We think this is a delicate balance, because we don't want to drive up health care insurance costs so much that millions of people lose their health care. Senator Kennedy's bill was scored as driving up the cost of every person's health care in America by over 4 percent and costing 1.2 million American families their health insurance. What patient right is more basic than having health insurance? They give you lots of rights, but if you lose your health insurance, how do you pay for your health care? There is the difference between them and us. We have to be concerned about 1.2 million people losing their health care; they don't. When Clinton said, let us take over and run the health care system and put everybody into these health care collectives, what did he say the problem was? The problem was that we had too many people without health insurance. So if their bill passed and millions of people lost their health insurance, what do you think they would say? They would say: We have a solution; the solution is a government takeover of health care. This job is easier for them than it is for us because they don't care if the baby dies, because they want to replace it. It reminds me of that story in the Bible. Some of you may remember it. Two ladies had gone to bed, and during the night one of them's baby had died and the other one had taken the baby. They come before Solomon. Solomon, in his wisdom, after listening to their arguments, says let's just cut the baby in half. That is what they are saying--cut the baby in half. Then one lady said: OK, cut the baby in half; and the other said: No, let her have the baby. Then Solomon knew whose baby it was. This is our baby. We love freedom. We love the right of people to choose. We love the greatest health care system the world has ever known. We are not going to let the Government take over and run the health care system. That is what this debate is about. That is what our Democrat colleagues want. They are willing to destroy the greatest health care system the world has ever known because they want the health care system where the Government runs it. They think it would work better. We don't. Neither did America in 1993 and 1994, which is why we have a Republican majority today. The second issue is scope. What does that mean? For those watching this on television, what does ``scope'' mean? What it means is, what should this Federal law do as it relates to the State in which you live? Our Democrat colleagues believe with all their heart--they are as sincere as they can be--that there is only one place in the world where people have really any sense: Washington, DC. They think people in city governments and county governments and State governments are ignorant and uncaring. They believe Washington is brilliant, all-knowing, and all-caring. So what they want to do is write one bill in Washington and impose it on every living person in America. We do not agree. We do not believe that just coming to Washington all of a sudden makes you brilliant. In fact, it is a long way from Washington to Wyoming. It is a long way from Washington to Texas. We joined the Union in Texas because we wanted freedom. We didn't join the Union to give it up. What is the difference between the two bills? Their bill says we are going to write things the way we want them, and you are going to do it that way or we are going to come to your State, we are going to cut off your money, we are going to cut off your health care, and in some cases we are going to put you in jail. That is their way of doing it. You remember, in their bill if you went to this doctor, got down on your knees and begged that he take your money and treat your child, he went to prison for it; That was in their bill, the Clinton health care bill. What we say is: Look, we will write a basic standard for patient protections. But what if the people in Wyoming decide, since they don't have any HMOs--and this bill is about dealing with HMOs--that they should not have to come under the Federal Government to deal with a problem they don't have? They don't think they should. I don't they should either. People in Tennessee and Texas were protecting patients before we got into this business. They passed comprehensive bills. All we are saying is our bill applies to those not already covered. But if people in Texas, through their government, through their elected Representatives, decide they appreciate our help, they appreciate our caring, they know we love them, they kind of figure we know everything--but just in case we are wrong, they would rather implement their own program for their own jurisdiction, our Democrat colleagues say: No, they don't care enough, they don't know enough, they are ignorant. We do not agree. We want people in Wyoming to be able to say: Look we really appreciate the bill, we know you guys want to help us, but we don't have any HMOs; we say they ought to have the right to opt out. If Tennessee says: Look, we set up TennCare because we adopted the Clinton health care bill in Tennessee--they wish they hadn't done it, but they did--if they say we would rather do it our way than your way, our Democrat colleagues say: What do you know? What do you know in Tennessee? You people in Tennessee don't know and don't care about people. We want to do it for you. We are going to tell you how to do it. What we say is: Look, we have written a good bill. We want everybody to look at it very closely. In those areas where only Federal law applies, the bill applies. You can't get out from under it because there are no other protections. But if Tennessee decides in areas where they have already passed a Patients' Bill of Rights that they would rather do it their way than our way, we say if their elected Representatives, their Governor, decides to do it that way, they have the right to do it. Is that an extreme view? Is that somehow denying people protection? Is freedom a denial of protection? Is keeping the right to choose denying people a basic health right? I don't think so. I think it enhances rights. And that is what this debate is about. Our Democrat colleagues with all their hearts believe that the Government ought to take over the health care system and they think everything should be done in Washington. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, as I read this unanimous consent request, the phrase ``without intervening business'' suggests to me that possibly the point of order that has been set aside against the bill could not be raised. I would like to ask if that is the case.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to remind my colleagues that sustaining this point of order does not bring down the bill. Under the unanimous consent agreement the bill is being considered under, sustaining this point of order would simply strike section 515. I am perfectly willing to let the Senate go on with other amendments. I am going to insist on this point of order at some point, and it will have to come to a resolution. But if we can do other business while this is being discussed, I think that is a good idea. The point of order is a very targeted point of order against section 515, not against the bill.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request and will then reclaim the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for the purpose of propounding a unanimous consent request.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, before we break down in the tears and the shock that would come from not shifting spending from one year to another to break the budget by $2.4 billion, let me remind my colleagues that with this shift and with the entitlement changes that Senator Stevens has said we are not going to make, this bill will grow by 20.5 percent over last year. You can't find that growth rate even going as far back as the Carter administration. You have to go all the way back to when L.B.J. was President to find a bill growing that fast. If the point of order is sustained eliminating the phony pay shift and an adjustment is made in spending, this bill will still be growing by 17.7 percent. Granted that we each look at the world through different glasses. I don't see that as cataclysm; I see that as somewhat of a movement toward fiscal restraint. But the important point is this provision violates the Budget Act. We considered this payment shift in the budget. We specifically rejected it. We set out numbers that were meant to meet the targets for spending that were agreed to. This provision violates the Budget Act, and it should be stricken. I will insist on the point of order against it, but I am perfectly willing to let amendments move forward. If the minority doesn't want amendments to be considered, it is up to them.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the comments made by our colleague from Iowa. My point of order can be called many things, but calling it mischievous--not that there is anything wrong with being mischievous in defense of the public interest--but my point of order is anything but mischievous. Our colleague from Iowa would have us believe that shifting SSI payments from fiscal year 2001 to 2000 does not increase spending. Nothing could be further from the truth. Under current law, the payments for SSI will be made on October 2 and they will be part of the 2001 budget. What this illegal--under the Budget Act--payment shift does is shift this payment back into fiscal year 2000 and raids the surplus that we have all pledged to protect by a total of $2.4 billion, freeing up $2.4 billion more to be spent next year. So the first point is, sustaining this point of order will mean we will spend $2.4 billion less. Second, a point of order was not raised against the D.C. appropriations bill last year on the pay shift because there was no point of order available. That pay shift did not violate the budget in effect at that time. This SSI payment shift was considered in the budget and it was rejected, specifically rejected. Let me explain exactly the arithmetic of where we are. In allocating spending for this fiscal year, the Appropriations Committee allocated to Labor-HHS appropriations, a subcommittee that funds many important programs for America, a 13.5-percent increase in spending. That was far and away the largest increase in spending of any budget allocation. You would have to go all the way back to when Jimmy Carter was President to find that level of spending. The first thing this committee did was it put some entitlement reforms in the bill, which the chairman of the committee has already said are not going to be made. They are going to be taken out in conference. But by claiming that they are going to be made, they magically raised their increase in spending from 13.5 percent over last year's level to 17.7 percent over last year's level. You are now in the range where going back to when Jimmy Carter was President does not hold up. We are getting to the point where you have to go back to the time when Lyndon Johnson was President to find increases like that. But even that was not enough. What they did was include a phony payment shift--by taking SSI payments, which by law are to be made on October 2, which is after the beginning of the new fiscal year, in other words, money they would have had to have funded in the 2001 budget--by taking that payment and moving it into fiscal year 2000, they can rob the surplus by $2.4 billion and spend $2.4 billion next year. By doing that, they would then raise the increase in spending over last year's level to 20.5 percent. These tears that are being shed about my point of order, which simply calls on the Senate to live up to its budget, these tears are being shed because by doing that we could increase spending in this area only by 17.7 percent. By enforcing the budget, rather than increasing spending by 20.5 percent, we would increase spending by 17.7 percent. How many working families have seen their income go up by 17.7 percent in the last year? I submit, not very many families. So what I have done is simply said: When we adopted a budget we meant it. When we set out what we were going to spend in this coming year, we meant for those constraints to be binding. What is literally happening in the Congress is that this surplus is burning a gigantic hole in our pocket. We are seeing spending increases at levels that have not been approached since Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States. It is very dangerous for two reasons. No. 1, if we have a downturn, those surpluses are not going to be there. Second, some of us had hoped that we would repeal the marriage penalty, so we do not have to make people in America who fall in love and get married pay $1,400 a year in additional income taxes for that right. We had hoped to repeal the death tax so your family would not have to sell off your family farm or your business that your parents worked a lifetime to build up, simply because they died. But if we are going to be increasing spending like this and busting the budget, we are never going to have an opportunity to share the benefits of this prosperity with working Americans. When our colleague says this point of order does not save money, that is simply not true. It saves $2.4 billion. Second, I am going to raise a point of order on the supplemental appropriation for military construction. I am going to raise it because what we are doing is obscene in terms of spending, and the bill does violate the Budget Act. I intend to raise the point of order. Let me finally say that this point of order is important. In fact, we have used it five times today to prevent new spending from being added. The amazing thing is that we have before us an appropriations bill that grows by one-fifth, over 20 percent, and yet we have spent all day long where the minority has been trying to add more and more and more spending. You begin to wonder when is it enough? Is there any appropriations bill that could have been written that would have been enough? Yet with all this spending, we are all talking about locking away money for Social Security, locking away money for Medicare, but the spending goes on and on and on. I raised the budget point of order. If Senator Stevens comes over and reallocates money and takes it away from another use so the total level of spending does not rise, he certainly has a right to do that. That will mean this point of order will stand. This phony payment shift will be stricken. But the money will be allocated to be spent on these programs and taken away from something else. That is how the budget is supposed to work. We are supposed to make decisions like American families make decisions. If they want a new refrigerator they don't buy a new washing machine. If they want to go on vacation, they don't buy a new car. They set priorities. Our problem is we never set priorities. So I think this point of order is important. This point of order is an enforcement of the budget. We ought to be holding the line on spending. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I know we are in a hurry. We are trying to get through with this bill. I think that is important work, and I am for it. Let me make my point very succinctly. This bill, in section 515, has a provision that changes current law and shifts the payment date for SSI, the Supplemental Security Income program, from October back to September. What that does is shift $2.4 billion worth of spending out of the budget year for which we are writing this appropriation back into the previous fiscal year. In the process, it allows $2.4 billion more to be spent this year by spending $2.4 billion in the previous fiscal year. This payment shift was specifically debated during the budget resolution debate. It was rejected. Part of the agreement that was made that passed the budget was that there would be no payment shift on SSI. This provision is subject to a point of order because it violates the budget agreement. It shifts spending into fiscal year 2000 and drives up spending in that year $2.4 billion above the level provided for in the budget. If we are going to write budgets, they have to have some meaning. This is not just some minor provision. The debate on this issue was a key element of the debate on that budget, and the Budget Committee and the Senate specifically rejected this payment shift. So on the basis of that, Mr. President, I make a point of order that section 515 of the bill, as amended, violates section 311 of the Budget Act, since it would cause fiscal year 2000 budget authority and outlays to exceed the spending aggregates in the budget resolution.