Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this point, I certainly want to thank Senators for their cooperation on the passage of the Commerce, State, Justice bill. I, obviously, especially thank the Senator from South Carolina without whose expertise and input we could not have moved this bill in such an aggressive and bipartisan manner. He has a huge institutional knowledge, which he used in a most constructive and effective way in allowing us to pull together a bill that can work and that has passed with an exceptionally strong vote. I thank him for all his assistance.

Mr. GREGG. It could not have been done without the Senator's efforts and especially the assistance of the staff, which worked overtime on both sides of the aisle. I especially want to thank Scott Gudes, who is the minority staff leader, and his assistants, Emily East and Karen Swanson Wolf, for their exceptional work on our side of the aisle. We had a wonderful team that worked literally hundreds of hours and did an exceptional job: Jim Morhard, who is the clerk, Kevin Linskey, Paddy Link, Carl Truscott, Dana Quam, and Vasiliki Alexopoulos. I can't say enough about the extraordinary effort that these people put in, and it certainly reflects in their expertise. I would have to say that actually I am not sure we had a majority that passed this bill at one point earlier this year. So, the fact that it was passed in this way reflects the fact that a lot of extraordinary work went into it. Again, I thank everyone for their participation.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send a managers' package to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are going to have some further discussion on this bill, the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill, and I understand there are at least a couple of votes. This package of amendments has eliminated four of the votes. In fact, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendments Nos. 992, 996, 997, and 998.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, just for the information of the Members, we are now down to what appears to be final passage, plus potentially four votes. Hopefully, we can reduce that further. We are certainly going to work on that. And then we can complete the bill. I understand we are going to proceed to these votes and final passage around 3:15. That is the plan presently.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me speak briefly on the budget agreement which was reached late last night, and mention my thoughts on this. This agreement is obviously not everything that everybody wanted. But it is a giant step in the right direction. It is especially a giant step on the issue of cutting taxes for the working American family, or that group of Americans in the middle-income brackets who are struggling with the costs of raising children and sending those children to college. For a family whose income is in the range of $32,000 or $35,000, this tax cut could well represent a tax cut of almost 50 percent for a family of four. That is a big tax cut. For that same family, should they have a child who is headed off to college, this could represent a tax cut of up to 75 percent. That is a huge tax cut. In addition, if you are in a working family situation and you are trying to make ends meet, you are going to be able to take advantage of this child credit coming to you to help you support the cost of raising your children--$500 per child. And all of these tax cuts that I am talking about are directed at middle-income Americans. In fact, almost all of them phase out as you get into incomes over $100,000. Further, if you are a family where one of the spouses is staying at home to try to raise your children, under today's law, you can't have an IRA account that is deductible. That stay-at-home spouse can't have an IRA account that is deductible. Under this bill, the mother that is home raising the children will have the opportunity to have an IRA account that will be deductible and safe for her retirement. That is a major step forward. In addition, there is a significant estate tax savings, especially for small business people and for farmers. Estate tax savings, which means that when somebody works all their life to build up a grocery store, a restaurant, or a gas station business, or some other small business, they are not going to lose that business to taxes when they die. They are going to be able to pass on that business to their children. That is very important. So this is a major step forward. It is the first significant tax cut--it is the first tax cut for middle-income Americans in 16 years. It should have been done a long time ago. But it has taken a Republican Congress and a commitment of a Republican Congress to have this as our No. 1 goal, and a commitment to accomplishment. While we have accomplished this tax cut, we have at the same time put in place a spending pattern which controls the rate of growth of Federal spending so that we can reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. We may even reach it before that, according to present estimates. But that was another major goal of this Republican Congress--to balance the budget. So we have done two very significant things here. We have balanced the budget, and we managed to cut taxes for working Americans, and especially for working Americans who have families to raise. That is good news. Is it everything we want? Of course not. I would like to see more action in the area of Medicare, for example. But the will wasn't there--both at the White House and, unfortunately, in the other body. But as a practical matter, the spending restraints in this bill are very significant. The rate of growth in spending in this bill is approximately one-half of 1 percent over the next 5 years in discretionary nondefense accounts--one-half of 1 percent. That is the lowest rate of growth of spending that has occurred in the last 20 years in this Government in the area of discretionary accounts. That is significant. Because we have that low rate of growth of spending on the discretionary side of the ledger, we are able to bring into balance the budget agreement of this Government by the year 2002. We will have to go back and we will have to revise the issue of Medicare. There is no question about that. That remains a big issue of public policy. But within the Medicare accounts we made some very substantive and positive changes in this bill. In the spending package is the proposal for Choice Care. Choice Care gives seniors approximately the same type of options which we as Members of Congress have--the ability to go out into the marketplace and choose from a variety of different health care plans. The practical effect of that is to bring the market forces into play to control the rate of growth of the cost of Medicare and, at the same time, give seniors much more choice, many more options, in the way they get their health care provided. Choice Care is a very positive, substantive, long-term reform for the Medicare system, and it is in this bill. So there were significant steps taken in that account, too. But, most importantly, you have to return to the fact that not only do we balance the budget, but we give these very significant tax cuts to working Americans--especially working Americans who are trying to raise a family. Isn't it about time? This is relief that is long overdue. As this Government finally gets its fiscal house in order, as we move toward a balanced budget, who should be the recipient of that positive event, of that good fiscal management? Well, the people who paid for the Government should be the recipient of that. That is what this bill essentially does. It turns back to those folks who are paying the cost of the Government some of their hard-earned dollars so that they can make the decision as to how they are spent rather than having that decision made here in Washington. We do not happen to believe, those of us who support this tax cut, that the Federal Government is a better manager of your dollars if you are running a household than you are. We think that if you have money to decide how you want to raise your children and to use it on spending for your children's education, you are going to do a better job of spending that in educating your children than if the Federal Government takes your money, brings it here to Washington, and then redistributes it to you. So this tax cut is a very important event, and a big win--a big win-- for the working American family. Thus, I am certainly hopeful that we will pass this package later this week and make that major step forward, or that significant step forward, in assisting families in this country meet the costs of raising kids and see that at the same time we move this Government toward a balanced budget.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think it is an excellent amendment, and it is an appropriate amendment. We have no objection to it. I urge its adoption.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 967, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, and for other purposes, and S. 1015, a bill to provide for the exchange of lands within Admiralty Island National Monument, and for other purposes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 1997, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 1997, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a House/Senate Conference.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee Special Investigation to meet on Tuesday, July 29, at 10 a.m., for a business meeting on campaign financing issues.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on improving educational opportunities for low-income children during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 1997, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 1997, at 2 p.m., to hold a closed briefing on intelligence matters.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 29, 1997, at 2 p.m., to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Building, on: ``Judicial Activism: Potential Responses.''

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I now ask for its second reading, and object to my own request on behalf of the other side of the aisle.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 24, 1997, at 1:30 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Building, on: ``Defense Consolidation: Antitrust and Competition Issues.''

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for bringing this project to my attention. I agree that many small businesses do not have adequate access to information on building an export market for their goods. A demonstration of the importance of this assistance by the Vermont World Trade Office would benefit other States considering a similar system. I urge the SBA to consider providing the Vermont World Trade Office with $150,000 to conduct such a demonstration. violence institute

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

Mr. GREGG. I could not agree more with the Senator from Utah. In my home State of New Hampshire, we are now experiencing our own influx of methamphetamine. I am seriously concerned about the effect that the proliferation of this drug is going to have upon the children of this Nation, particularly in New Hampshire.

Mr. GREGG. I yield the balance of our time to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator plan to close? We have one additional speaker. I will have that speaker go if the Senator is planning to close as the final speaker.