Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Why don't we do the people on the floor. If others appear, let us do it, but that will run into hours. Let us let everybody on the floor file their amendment if they want to. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I send a modification to the desk to amendment No. 317. All the amendment says is it is a sense of the Senate that we need to move toward setting aside in advance funding for emergencies; that we ought to ask Presidents to submit budgets that prepare for emergencies. We know we are going to have them every year. We have averaged $7 billion in emergency spending for the last 6 years. We ought to go ahead and make it part of the process that these are funded in advance. This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Obviously, we will have to vote on this to get to appropriations, but it has been cleared on both sides. I thank our colleagues for accepting it.

Mr. GRAMM. There was a unanimous consent.

Mr. GRAMM. That would be fine.

Mr. GRAMM. And I asked unanimous consent that they might be recognized for that purpose. But then that I would be re-recognized to deal with these two amendments. Now, I am not trying to hog the floor. I thought that the amendment that had to do with paying for disaster was going to be accepted. Senator Domenici said he was for it. I thought people would just take it. Now, all of a sudden, there is some opposition to it. I think we can deal with it very quickly. Why don't I just set a time limit on it of 10 minutes and then we can either voice vote it or we can have a rollcall vote.

Mr. GRAMM. We had a unanimous-consent request whereby I had stopped, and we had about 20 people come over and do all kinds of things.

Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, I wanted to ask a question. We are finished with the debate on the tax amendment. We had a sense of the Senate about how we fund disasters in the future, which I thought had been agreed to. What I would like to do, if we can set it up by unanimous consent, is deal with that one, and then debate and vote on the tax amendment. But I would be happy to let Senator Brownback go with his amendment and then come back. If we can dispose of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, I would like to get it finished.

Mr. GRAMM. We can add Senator Thurmond to the unanimous-consent request and let both speak. I think it will be good.

Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, we have an agreement on the amendment that is pending subject to just a modification. Can we do the modification in 30 seconds and clear the floor and then let both our distinguished senior Senators speak, and then we can start the whole process again? We can do that in 30 seconds. Can we do that?

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Domenici. Let me simply reiterate a couple points I made early on. First of all, I am not claiming for a minute that even though we are spending $76 billion more than the President asked for last year--I am simply trying to take us back to a budget that last year he thought was adequate. There is no doubt about the fact that $76 billion is going to do a lot of things for a lot of people. I am not claiming there will not be programs that would have benefited with the $76 billion that will not be losers under my amendment. What I am saying is that I believe that working families can spend the $76 billion better than the Government can spend it, and that is really the choice that my amendment proposes. Let me also say to Senator Domenici that I am a firm believer in the old Jefferson adage that good men with the same facts often disagree. I think one of the good things about the Senate when we follow our rules--and sometimes we do not always do that here, we have certainly done it here today, I think--is that we can talk about what we believe in and what we want to happen, but the fact that people disagree with us does not in any way diminish their belief or say that we are necessarily right and they are wrong. Our system is a system of competing visions. I say going back to the point about freedom. I am very concerned when average working families find the Federal Government taking the amount of their income that is taken today in payroll taxes and income taxes. I am also concerned that if we do not do something about Medicare and if we do not do something about Social Security, in 25 years the average taxpayer in America will be sending about 50 cents out of every dollar they earn to Washington, DC. And I think you reach a point where the tax rate is so high that it does infringe on your freedom. Are we still the same America that Senator Domenici grew up in and that I grew up in if the Federal Government is taking 50 cents out of every dollar earned by the average family 25 years from now? That is the future that we are looking at if you do not dramatically change Government policy. My objective today is simply to offer an alternative. I am not for the underlying budget. It is clear that the adoption of my amendment would dramatically change that budget. And I want to change it, which is why I have offered the amendment. I don't deceive myself into believing that this is a majority view today. But I do believe it is a majority view in the country. And I believe that it will ultimately be a majority view here in American Government. It is obviously a question that we all have to ask ourselves. When you have a divided Government, what are the functions of the two parties? Are the functions of the two parties to try to get together and make an agreement? Or are the functions of the two parties basically delineated as presenting two competing visions for the future, and then letting America choose the clearer vision, presenting competing ideas and letting America choose the superior idea? These are obviously things that people have contemplated, thought about, and prayed over for many years in the U.S. Senate. I choose today to offer an alternative to the budget because this budget does not represent the vision that I believe in. This budget does not produce the America that I want produced. I believe that it is unwise in the America of 1997 to give the Government another $76 billion to spend on discretionary programs when that money could go to hard-working American families to spend on their children and invest in their future. But it is really a choice between two competing alternatives with the overlay that Senator Domenici talked about of where we are with the Democrat President. My objective in offering this amendment--and I thank the Senator for his kindness--was to simply give people an opportunity to know that there is an alternative, that there are people who believe that this budget does not move us in the right direction, and that the right direction is less Government and more freedom. I think the fundamental way we find less Government and more freedom is by having Government spend less so that people can spend more. I don't think anybody is in doubt about where they stand on this amendment. So I yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. GRAMM. I yield the Senator from Missouri additional time.

Mr. GRAMM. I yield to the Senator so long as he might speak.

Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator. Let me conclude and yield the floor, because I know others want to speak. This is a pretty simple amendment. It says that we are giving the Government $76 billion more than the President said that he needed last year for these same years to do everything he wants to do from child health care to education. Much of this spending increase occurred when we discovered miraculously--and I hope in fact we discovered it instead of making it up--that the future looked brighter. What I am saying is, do not give this additional $76 billion to Congress and the President. Give it back to families and let them invest it in their future and their children. I believe this amendment represents a different vision than the budget before us. I think it represents a vision that believes that the future is going to be brighter if we have more opportunity and more freedom. What freedom is more basic than the right of families to spend their own money? Should Government grow every year even if working families see their budgets declining? I do not think so. So, as a result, I have offered this amendment. I want people to know that there is support for having Government tighten its belt a little so that families can loosen their belt a little. That is what the amendment is about. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. Yes. Again, if you believe that Government can spend it better than families, if you believe--some of our colleagues do--if you believe that Government knows what is better for families, that Government is a good steward of their money, you might want to say, ``Well, these families might waste it. If we gave them this $500 tax credit, a family of four getting to keep $1,000 more to invest in their children and family, their future, they might make bad decisions,'' and leave it here with President Clinton and the trustworthy Congress, if you believe that this is a bad amendment.

Mr. GRAMM. The tragedy is, 10 years ago, after taxes and being adjusted for inflation, the average working family made over $28,000 a year, $28,300. And 10 years later, after inflation and taxes, they are making $27,700. The average working family has less to spend today than they did 10 years ago. Government spending has grown every year for 10 years. And now, rather than letting working families keep more of what they earn, we are letting Government grow more.

Mr. GRAMM. When they are working, they are not doing it so the Government can spend it. I think they are doing it so they can spend it.

Mr. GRAMM. Under the unanimous-consent request, the first amendment is a disaster amendment that has been accepted by Senator Domenici. I do not think that will require much debate. The amendment that we will debate and we will vote on is the amendment having to do with taxes. And so what I would like to do is to set aside the other two amendments and go ahead and begin the debate on the amendment on taxes.

Mr. GRAMM. Basically what happened was that they said, ``Well, now that we've got all this money, let's let Government spend more of it.'' The President is actually asking for--and we are giving him--$76 billion more to spend for the same years that he said last year he had enough, but now because of this bird's nest on the ground, this new discovery of revenues, what is happening is we are getting ready to let the Government spend $76 billion more, but never once apparently did anybody say, ``Hey, maybe with this new money we ought to let families spend it.'' What my amendment says is, look, give the President everything he asked for last year, but do not go up another $76 billion simply because there is more money there. Let us give it back to working families.

Mr. GRAMM. The person who earned it will end up keeping more of it because with this we will guarantee that we have enough money--unlike the current bill which has a net tax cut of $50 billion--to fund a $500 tax credit for every child in a working family in America, which costs $105 billion, and capital gains tax cuts and changes in death duties. The problem is, we have $188 billion of promises and a $50 billion net tax cut. It is like trying to pour 188 pounds of sugar into a 50-pound bag. What we are doing here is, we are raising the tax cut by not letting Government spend this money so families can spend it.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, having been patient, I want to send four amendments to the desk.

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

Mr. GRAMM. Including New York.

Mr. GRAMM. I would be happy to include it.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have had several people--I think under the previous order I was to be recognized.