Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. GRAMM

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me make a very brief comment on this issue that the minority leader has raised. Then I want to turn to the real purpose that I have come to the floor to speak on today. What we have done in this bill, recognizing what happened last year when the Government shut down, is simply say to the President that if we have an impasse in deciding on how much money we are going to spend in any given area, while we are working out those differences, the Government, in that area, will have the same level of funding that it had this year, and so the Government will not be shut down and services won't be disrupted. There is only one reason the President would refuse to go along with this imminently reasonable proposal, and that reason is that the President believes that by having the leverage of shutting down the Government, he can extract additional spending from the Congress. That is what happened in the last week of the session last year. We increased spending by about $7 billion in that year, and about $20 billion over the next 4 years, basically because of the power of the President to intimidate a Congress that was frightened because the Government might shutdown. So I hope nobody is confused. This issue is about spending money. The President wants to spend more of it. We would like to begin by saying that while we negotiate on that subject, we will not shut the Government down; we fund it at the existing year's level. I am sorry to have to come over to be, apparently, the last speaker of the day on a bill that everybody will rejoice in and pound on their chest and say, ``Look what we have done for our fellow citizens who had the misfortune of having terrible floods.'' We have all seen the pictures, and those of us who represent States that weren't flooded have all been thankful that it didn't happen to us. Our hearts have gone out to those who have been victims. I want to end this debate today by pointing out why this bill represents a failure. It represents a failure for the Congress and the American people, not because we are helping people who suffered from a disaster, but because we are not paying for it. We want to get all this credit for being compassionate. We want to fulfill the obligation that the Government has taken on itself to help people who suffer from natural disasters. But when it comes right down to it, we don't want to do what families have to do in America, or what businesses have to do when they undertake similar activities--that is, we don't want to spend less money on other things. In fact, when we considered this disaster funding bill on the floor of the Senate, I offered an amendment to reduce spending across the board in other areas by .7 percent--hardly massive cuts--so that we could help those who suffered from natural disasters, but do it in such a way as to pay for it. I am sorry to say that my amendment got only 38 votes. I personally believe that if the American people had the right to vote on paying for the disaster assistance by cutting other programs, they would have voted for that amendment and it would have passed. So I somewhat feel here in the Senate as if my views on this subject are kind of hopelessly out of fashion. But I do believe that when families sit around kitchen tables every night and write their budgets and make tough decisions when they have emergencies, they have to take money away from things they want to do, and I believe they would have been on the side that I took on this issue. This bill, as now written, with all the good things it will do, will raise the deficit this year by $760 million. It will raise the deficit, over the next 5 years, by $6.6 billion. We are going to adopt a budget resolution. We have already adopted it in both Houses of Congress--we are going to work out the differences and adopt it shortly--that is going to set out the claim of balancing the budget. I am not going to drag that dead cat back across the table by pointing out again in great detail that 97 cents out of every dollar of deficit reduction in that budget is simply assumed. It doesn't represent any policy change. But I have to lament, in passing, that before that budget is adopted, we are already busting that budget by $6.6 billion. The deficit spending in the Senate and the deficit spending in Washington never comes to an end. I wish we were having a different battle today rather than fighting over continually funding the Government--which I think we should-- instead of allowing it to be shut down. But I wish we were having a fight about the fact that this bill doubles the level of funding that was originally requested. I wish we were having a battle about the fact that this bill spends $8.6 billion --twice as much as originally requested--for flood damage and for replenishment of money for Bosnia. I wish there were greater concerns about the fact that this bill will raise the deficit by $6.6 billion. But that concern today, while it exists in the Senate, is certainly a minority view. I think it is important on these occasions to simply point out that we have done the right thing in helping our fellow Americans who have had terrible things happen to them that were beyond their control. But we have done the wrong thing by not paying for it, because in helping people that have suffered from a natural disaster, we are contributing once again to not only a man-made, but a Government-made disaster called the deficit. I simply want to predict that this problem is not going to go away and that we are going to be back here some day worrying about the deficit again, and that we might wish that we had not raised it by $6.6 billion today. I thank our distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for giving me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, last week, Senator Strom Thurmond became the longest-serving U.S. Senator in American history. That, in itself, is an amazing feat--42 years tirelessly representing his home State of South Carolina and our Nation. While this milestone rightly garnered much attention, it is because of Senator Thurmond's many accomplishments in and out of this Chamber, not simply the length of his tenure, that he will always be remembered as one of the true giants of this institution and why he will go down in history as one of the most important figures in 20th century American politics. I am proud to serve in the Senate with Strom Thurmond and glad to have this opportunity to honor him and his continuing record of achievement. We all know of Strom Thurmond's legacy. Teacher, State senator, judge, soldier at Normandy, Governor, Presidential candidate, and U.S. Senator. Always guided by principle and a strong devotion to service, Strom Thurmond's life and career are an example to each and every one of us and are a poignant realization of the American dream. Strom Thurmond grew up on a farm in Edgefield, SC, not far from where William Barret Travis, the heroic commander of the Alamo, was born. He began his career as a teacher and athletic coach and his strong love of education soon led him to be the youngest person ever to become superintendent of education for Edgefield County. In the ensuing years he would further serve the people of South Carolina as a State senator and a circuit court judge. When World War II came, Strom Thurmond chose to leave the State he so loved to defend democracy overseas. As a judge, he was exempt from military service, but Senator Thurmond relinquished his robe and volunteered for active duty in the military. His war record is the stuff of legend: he fought in five battles, landed by glider at Normandy on D-day and was ultimately awarded 5 battle stars and 18 decorations for his service. After the war, Strom Thurmond came home and was elected Governor, and in 1948, he ran for President. Soon after, he was elected as a write-in candidate to the U.S. Senate, becoming the first person ever elected to the Senate by this method. Newly-elected Senator Thurmond, drawing upon his firsthand experience in the armed services, quickly became an expert on military and defense issues, beginning a lifelong dedication to our fighting men and women and an unwavering stand in favor of a strong national defense. Senator Thurmond began his political career as a Democrat. But when he concluded that the national Republican Party better embodied the principles and values he held and cherished, he made a bold decision to become a Republican in 1964. I know from experience that there are many pressures and difficulties you face in leaving the party you grew up in, but I know that Strom has never regretted his decision. Throughout his historic tenure in the Senate, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and as President pro tempore, Senator Strom Thurmond has served the people of South Carolina--and America--with uncommon distinction and honor. I congratulate Senator Thurmond today. It is an honor to call him a friend and colleague, and I look forward to his continued strong leadership in the U.S. Senate. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I think this is a defining moment for the Congress. I think it is a defining moment for those who believe in less Government and more freedom. I think it is a defining moment for people who are concerned about spending. In 1993, on the floor of the Senate, on a straight party-line vote, with a Democrat majority in both Houses of Congress, and a Democrat President, we set out spending totals, including a cap on spending for fiscal year 1998. Today, in this budget, we are going to bust that spending total by $8.795 billion. As far as I am aware, this will be the first time ever that a Democrat Congress has set a spending cap that a Republican Congress has come along and waived and violated, in this case by almost $9 billion. I think that nothing could say more clearly what the problem is with this budget than the fact that we, as the first act in this budget, will be busting a spending cap and setting it aside, violating the rules of the budget in order to bring to the floor a new budget that spends more than the budget it seeks to replace. I think it tells you something about our commitment to enforcing these numbers that our first act in adopting this budget is going to be to break the very caps that we claim will enforce the new budget. So I simply want to ask my colleagues to remember, in 1993, when we had another budget on the floor, when it was adopted, we set out a procedure to enforce that budget by setting a cap on spending. Today, we are going to vote, on this vote, whether we are going to waive that spending cap or whether we are going to live up to it. I hope my colleagues will vote against the motion to waive this budget point of order.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, under section 601(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, I raise a point of order against the pending budget resolution, as it violates the discretionary spending caps for fiscal year 1998 as previously set in the 1993 budget resolution and reconciliation bill.

Mr. GRAMM. I do.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Well, let me say that I do not have the listing before me, but I can certainly tell you that it would be my intention to go through the list and to look at many of the areas where we are funding programs that are of a lower priority than the National Institutes of Health. When a family decides they are not going to go on vacation, that is not because it is not important. It is just because they have other things that are more important.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to go back to this issue a moment because I think it makes my point. I was thinking in terms of yesterday in talking about $60 billion for this subcommittee. They are now up to $74 billion. They blew through $60 billion in a hurry, and then another $14 billion. My point is this--and I stand by the point--if they wanted to give this project more money, they could do it. But the point is they have got to take it away from somebody else. Actually, they could increase it fivefold. I was being overly conservative, as usual. But let me just give you an example. I do not have the list in front of me. I will have to have the list when I offer the amendment on the floor to provide this money. I will have to cut some. Let me give you one example. $491 million for Goals 2000. Maybe local education could do without Federal Government telling them how to run the primary and secondary schools. Maybe we could sacrifice and not obligate that $491 million of budget authority. That would be about half of the way home toward meeting this goal. So I just begin with that one example. I will start that out of the bidding process. You can have all $491 million of that project. My guess is with the list before me, in another 45 seconds I could probably come up with the other funds it would be required to do this. But the point is, not that it is easy, not that you want to do it, but the point is, their argument is sort of like the parent saying, ``Well, you know, I'd really like my child to go to college but, you know, I've got to buy a new refrigerator. We have been planning to go on vacation.'' The point is, families make those decisions; why cannot Government?

Mr. GRAMM. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 320 with a modification in its stated purpose.

Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 330

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to amendment No. 320. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMM. Five minutes.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside so that I might present an amendment, which will only take 5 minutes, and then we can go back to the amendment, unless the Senator just wants to wait for someone else to speak.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we established the highway trust fund in 1956, and under that trust fund, when people paid taxes on gasoline, it was a user fee to build roads and to build mass transit. In 1993, in the tax bill, for the first time ever, we had a permanent tax increase on gasoline that went to general revenues. What this sense-of-the-Senate resolution says is that it is the sense of the Senate that on the budget reconciliation, on any appropriation, or any tax bill that we should put this 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline back into the highway trust fund so that it can be spent for the purpose the tax is collected. I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. We are going to have an opportunity to vote on the real thing later this year, but this vote will put people on record. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAMM. Yes.

Mr. GRAMM. Yes.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to congratulate our colleague from Missouri. This is a very important amendment. Quite frankly, the only reason anybody would oppose this amendment is if they don't believe that this budget agreement is going to produce a balanced budget. I think this budget agreement is really short on enforcement. I think enforcement is very important in a budget because you are talking about what you are going to do 5 years from now. We all know the old adage: ``After all is said and done more is said than done.'' And in politics that adage should grow by some multiple. In fact, we have stood on the floor of the Senate on many occasions and pounded our chests and said we balanced the Federal budget. It is not balanced yet. And, in fact, we are a long way from the goal line. As I pointed out yesterday, 97 cents out of every dollar of deficit reduction, as compared to current discretionary spending and current law, in this budget comes from assuming good things are going to happen in the future. What the amendment of the Senator from Missouri does is say that is just great, but, if it doesn't happen, we are going to have an enforcement procedure that says you have to have a three-fifths vote to raise the debt to pay for this deficit, that you have to balance the budget by the year 2002 unless 60 percent of the Senators vote to waive it. Obviously, they are going to be under political pressure to live up to their promise--and that you have to have a rollcall vote and a constitutional majority on raising taxes. These provisions weren't made up by the Senator from Missouri last night. These provisions weren't simply dreamed up or written on the back of an envelope. We enshrined these agreements forever when 66 Members of the Senate voted to make this part of the Constitution of the United States of America. In fact, had two of our colleagues, who had pledged to vote for it, not changed their votes it would be part of the Constitution today, and this wouldn't even be needed. If 66 Members of the Senate were willing to make this the Constitution, why couldn't 51 of them vote to make it part of this budget agreement, that for the next 5 years as a part of this budget agreement we have the same enforcement procedures we would have had had one more person voted for the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? So I want to congratulate our colleague from Missouri. I think this is a very important amendment. If you have any concerns that Congress may not live up to what it said, if you have any reason to be suspicious that all may not go well or as planned and you want to buy a little insurance policy that says there is something different about this budget than all of the others that we have adopted, vote for this amendment. I intend to vote for it. I think it is a very important amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I thank our colleague for yielding me this time.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, there is a 601(b) point of order against this budget because it raises spending above the spending caps set in the 1993 budget. My remaining business with the budget is I want to raise this point of order. We are going to have 1 minute a side tomorrow, I guess, to do closing. I would like to ask unanimous consent that tomorrow I be recognized for the purpose of making the point of order. I can make it within the minute, and then we will have the vote.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we set up the highway trust fund in 1956, and from 1956 until 1993, every time we had a permanent gasoline tax, that gasoline tax as a user fee for use of the highways was deposited in a highway trust fund that was spent largely for highway construction, though in recent years some portions of it have been dedicated to other purposes like mass transit. But from 1956 to 1993, when somebody went to the filling station and stuck that nozzle in their gasoline tank and filled up their car or truck, they were paying a tax on gasoline that was used to build the roads that they would drive over using that car or truck. In 1993, in the budget and subsequent tax bill that flowed from it, for the first time in American history since the adoption of the highway trust fund, we had a permanent gasoline tax of 4.3 cents a gallon that went not into the highway trust fund but into general revenues, so that for the first time since we set up the trust fund we had a gasoline tax that was adopted for the purpose of paying for general Government and not building highways. We know from the vote in the House on the Shuster amendment, we know from the vote in the Senate on the Warner amendment that there is a strong belief that money collected on gasoline taxes ought to be used to build roads and it should not be taken to fund other programs of American Government. I have put together and sent to the desk in my modification to amendment No. 320 a very strong sense-of-the-Senate resolution that simply makes note of the fact that this 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline, which has been diverted for the first time ever from the highway trust fund, should be returned to the highway trust fund, and that as we move on to consider our Budget Enforcement Act, as we consider ISTEA reauthorization, as we consider appropriations acts, and as we consider other revenue bills, all revenues coming from a gasoline excise tax, including the 4.3 cents a gallon that currently goes to general revenues, should be deposited in the highway trust fund and should be used for the purposes that the trust fund has been historically dedicated to: building roads and paying for other modes of transportation. This is the first of many amendments that we will have, aimed at moving the 4.3-cent a gallon tax on gasoline out of general revenue, where it funds general Government, into the highway trust fund so that this roughly $7 billion a year can go for the purpose that the gasoline tax was collected. I know this is a controversial amendment in some areas, but I believe there is a strong consensus in Congress that we need to move in this direction. I do believe that later this year, when we do a tax bill, that this will be done. So my purpose here is simply to begin the process of putting the Senate on record. Let me also say, and I discussed this with Senator Domenici, and I feel a little sheepish about doing it, but when we had so many people who felt so strongly about this issue, one of the things that I promised them was that they were going to get an opportunity to vote on it. So, what I would like to do is simply ask that this be put with another amendment, possibly a unanimous consent that this be a 10- minute vote following some other vote that we would have, so we might actually give people a chance to be on record on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am in favor of doubling funding for NIH, and I am going to vote for it. When the appropriations bill comes to the floor and we are shooting with real bullets, as I like to say, I am going to offer this amendment if nobody else does. I think we ought to vote on funding NIH, but I want to make it clear that we are not voting to fund NIH here. We are voting to give the Labor-HHS Subcommittee another $1.1 billion, with no guarantee where that money is going to go. I would like to make this point: There is no program under their jurisdiction that is more popular than the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health is going to end up getting this $1.1 billion no matter what we do here, but if we did transfer this money and if the Appropriations Committee actually decided to do it, something we cannot mandate they do, what we are doing is larding the very social programs that make up the biggest growth in this budget. The President of the United States said, in one of his most honest statements, this budget provides the largest increase in social spending we have had since the 1960's. The point is, most of those programs are under the jurisdiction of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, chaired by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. All we are asking is that we not give that subcommittee more money; that they have to set priorities, and if we are for the National Institutes of Health, we have to decide that there are other programs that are less important than it is. I remind my colleagues that the discretionary allocation alone to the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee is going to be at least $60 billion. The National Institutes of Health gets about $13 billion. So we could quadruple funding for the National Institutes of Health in 1 year if we were willing to take it away from other programs. So I am glad we are voting on this amendment now because when we have this appropriation come to the floor of the Senate, if NIH does not have this money and nobody else on the committee and no one who is on the subcommittee offers an amendment to give it to them by taking it away from other social programs, I intend to offer the amendment to see that NIH gets the $1.1 billion. But let us not today give the fastest growing part of the domestic budget, Labor, Health and Human Services, another $1.1 billion with no guarantee that we are protecting the National Institutes of Health but every guarantee that we are larding programs that many of the Members of the Senate do not even support, much less do not support giving more money to. So if you want to raise funding for NIH, vote for it when the appropriations bill is on the floor. But there is over $60 billion in discretionary funding under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. If they want to quadruple NIH next year, they can do it. But they have to do it the way families make a decision about sending their child to Texas A&M University. They have to say, ``Well, look, I wanted to buy a new refrigerator. That was great. I wanted to go on vacation. That was even better. But I didn't do those things in order to send my child to college.'' If we want to fund NIH, let us fund it. And let us do it by giving less money to things that are less important. I think that basically is what this amendment is about. That is why I am going the oppose it.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, if all this has come apart, I would like to remind the Chair that when I recognized Senator Dorgan and the cast of thousands here, in that unanimous-consent request was the request that we first consider, we deal with two amendments of mine, one that I thought was agreed to and one that I knew was going to be somewhat controversial. I just simply want to reaffirm, if all these other deals are off, that that unanimous-consent request is still there, and that after this vote the pending business would be my amendment. Now, I am perfectly willing to let the Senator from Illinois go before me, but if that is not going to work out, I want to go ahead and claim the right that I had under that unanimous-consent agreement.