Larry Pressler

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Why do you not offer it at 5 to 5?

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen D. Hanson, a detailee from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. 1396.

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote occur immediately after the vote on the Dorgan amendment which will occur momentarily, I understand.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.

Mr. PRESSLER. Just to explain, the times were reserved between 5 and 5:15. Some Senators have to go on to other schedules. We now will have two rollcall votes starting almost immediately. As far as I am concerned, I would suggest we could yield 2 minutes to the Senator. The Senators who had that time were not here. It might inconvenience other Senators is my point, but as far as I am concerned, I have no objection to 2 minutes being added on at this point.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I wish to amend my unanimous-consent request. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate adjourns, the Senate stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m., Wednesday, November 29, 1995, and that the 30 minutes for Senator Daschle be vitiated.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. I move that the Senate insist on its amendments, agree to the request from the House for a conference, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, we are engaged in an exercise of trying to balance the budget. That term has been on every Presidential candidate's lips since the 1970's. Indeed, in this Chamber, in my 21 years in Congress, we have had a number of speeches on proposals to balance the budget. We have had the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation that was supposed to balance the budget. We had the Muskie rules back when Senator Muskie was here--he used to sit right over here, I remember--to balance the budget. Then we have had numerous votes on the debt ceiling. We have debt ceiling legislation that we are supposed to provide as a vehicle that would force a balanced budget. This has gone on and on and on, and the American people are weary. Finally, today, we are faced with a situation where our Government is shutting down because we cannot reach an agreement on balancing the budget. I feel that there might be a better mechanical way of going about this. I would rather force the Congress to have a vote every hour and stay here, or I would rather that the President be forced to come and meet with the congressional leaders every 4 hours, something like they do in some of the railway labor negotiations where negotiations are forced rather than shutting down the Government. I have been trying to find some way of sponsoring legislation so we have an alternative vehicle to bring this type of impasse to a climax. I think it is a poor way to do business, that we are shutting down some of our services and that we are going through this exercise that will probably be costly in the long run, as a way of forcing the issue. But, nevertheless, we are here. This is where we are as of this hour. So where do we go from here? I hope our leaders do not compromise at this point on anything less than something that will really balance the budget with real numbers. If we come up with phony numbers and a more lengthy period of time, it will severely hurt the long-term bond market, in my opinion. It will mean that long-term interest rates will go up substantially. It will mean that mortgage interest rates will go up substantially. It will mean eventually that student loan interest rates will go up substantially. It will mean that farmers' and ranchers' interest rates will go up substantially. And it will mean that our economy will be subject to inflationary pressures with high interest rates. That would be very damaging to the prosperity that we enjoy. Let me say that I feel passionately that balancing the budget is a moral issue, and I am not one to come to this floor with a lot of moralistic speeches. But it is moralistic because it is right. It is the right thing to do to pay our debts. It is also moralistic because we are shoving a responsibility off to someone else, our children and grandchildren or future generations. We are not taking responsibility for what we are spending during our watch. That is a moral issue. It is also a moral issue because we are going to be robbing future middle-class wage earners and working people of part of their paychecks without consulting them. We are going to be robbing senior citizens of a standard of living that they have come to expect and enjoy in the future, and we are going to be robbing people who are poor, who expect to get Government benefits or jobs or whatever from an economy that is abundant. Therefore, I look upon this as a moral issue, as much as anything else. So I feel passionately that we must carry through at this time and do what we have to do. During this past year, I have voted for the Dole-Domenici budget in this Chamber. By that, I mean the Republican budget or the budget put forth by [[Page S 17482]] Senator Domenici and the Budget Committee of the Senate and Senator Dole, our leader. On all the votes that have come along, there have been efforts to untangle that budget that have been apple-pie-and- motherhood votes to add this on or add that on. I have voted with Senator Domenici to hold together that budget package because I feel it is the best budget we have had in my 21 years in Congress. It is the first time we have had a budget that has a vision to move us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. That does not say we are paying anything on the Federal debt. We are not. We still have that huge debt to deal with. It does not say anything that we are going to get into a balanced budget until 2002. We are still engaging in deficit spending until 2002. What is the big fight about here in town? The President of the United States campaigned on a platform to balance the budget within 5 years. I remember Jimmy Carter's was he was going to balance the budget in 4 years during the time he was President. Ronald Reagan campaigned on a program to balance the budget. Every Member of this Senate has run for the Senate on a program to balance the budget. The point is, it goes on and on and on, and there are excuses and there are phony numbers, there are CBO numbers, there are these numbers, that numbers. But the American people have said, enough is enough, get on with a plan. There are going to be some people in this segment of the economy angry, some people in that segment. I think it just takes an across-the-board approach. I think the Domenici-Dole budget has some flaws in it. There are some things in it I disagree with but, generally speaking, it cuts the rate of increase. Some of these programs have been increasing at 12 percent a year. This reduces the rate of increase to between 5 and 7 percent. With that rate of increase, we can absorb the increases and bring us to a balanced budget. So when we talk about cuts, for the most part, we are not talking about cuts at all. We are talking about increasing at a slower level, but still increasing probably at the rate of inflation. So at least let us get with it. At least let us do it. And I hope our leadership does not compromise away this work and these votes that we have cast this year. I hope we stick to our guns and stick to this plan that has been put forward, which I call the Domenici-Dole budget. Mr. President, let me say something about middle-class working people. One way or another, they end up paying most of the taxes in this country. I think that is unfortunate. I am a member of the Finance Committee, and I have tried to change that. There are promises about a flat-rate tax in the future, and there are promises about a tax on consumption instead of income taxes in the future. But it will still end up that those families or those individuals who work hard, obey the law, they end up pulling the wagon. They are the ones paying for this nonsense, and they are the ones out there who helped elect this new Congress. In frustration, they are saying, ``Let us do something about this.'' Mr. President, I think it is time for us to do something. I hope to continue to be a part of that. I ask our leadership not to make compromises that are unnecessary, that go beyond the framework of the Domenici-Dole budget, that would leave us, once again, going away from here with the American people being promised that there is going to be a balanced budget and there is not. I hope that the President and the Congress will heed the American people. I thank the Chair for this opportunity to speak.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the previous order, I be permitted to speak for up to 7 minutes.

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

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I understand that the Democratic leader no longer wishes to speak at this time. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, it does in all respects. As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I recognize that the issues addressed in the OPA-90 amendment clearly fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. I have appreciated the willingness of the chairman of that Committee to work with the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation so this amendment could be added to the Coast Guard reauthorization bill.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering S. 1004, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1995, along with a manager's amendment to the bill. The Coast Guard has broad ranging responsibilities--from enforcing America's maritime laws to ensuring the safety of recreational boaters. Like other Federal agencies, the Coast Guard faces the challenge of continuing to provide better government at less cost. It is clear the American taxpayers are demanding a smaller, more accountable federal government. At the same time, the demand for certain government services, including those provided by the Coast Guard, continues to be great. The Commandant of the Coast Guard, Adm. Robert E. Kramek, recently announced his national plan for streamlining the Coast Guard, which will save, on a cumulative basis, nearly $1 billion by the year 2005 and make available over $1 billion in property for other uses. Despite cuts of this magnitude, the Coast Guard will continue to perform all its current missions. I am pleased the Coast Guard is making a serious effort to improve it's efficiency while maintaining its effectiveness. The bill before us authorizes appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 1996 and authorizes several management improvements requested by the Coast Guard. Many members on both sides of the aisle have expressed interest in this bill and we have addressed their requests as best we could. The bill and amendment have broad bipartisan support. Mr. President, I would now like to make special mention of certain portions of the bill and amendment. The bill improves the management of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, a 36,000 member volunteer organization that provides the Coast Guard with low-cost assistance with its boating safety mission. The bill also improves recreational boating safety by restructuring the process for providing States with recreational boating safety grants and stimulating nontrailerable vessel facility construction. These provisions will help ensure the safety of recreational boaters throughout the Nation, including places like Lewis and Clark Lake in my home State of South Dakota. Mr. President, I believe the Coast Guard is up to the challenge of maintaining its status as the world's premier maritime organization despite the intense budget pressure. It is my belief this authorization bill provides the Coast Guard with the support it needs to meet that challenge. Let me take this opportunity to thank the very capable Senator Stevens, who is Chairman of our Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, for his leadership in developing this bill and amendment. I would also like to recognize Senator Hollings, the ranking Democratic member on the full committee for his bipartisanship throughout this process. And finally, I wish to thank my colleagues for their contributions and support and I urge the adoption of the manager's amendment and passage of S. 1004.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and my friend from Alaska. I appreciate the majority leader's consideration of our request and look forward to working with him on this matter of great importance to South Dakota, Alaska, and all other States with significant native American populations. Dairy Provisions in Reconciliation Reveal Hypocrisy

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 extends the FCC's auction authority for the first time to any situation in which the FCC must choose between mutually exclusive applications-- including applications for broadcast facilities. For this reason, Mr. President, I want to take just a moment to explain the actions and intentions of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I want all my colleagues to understand the auction authority extends only to mutually exclusive applications for new facilities not already pending at the FCC. Applications for renewal, modification, or upgrade of existing facilities are not covered under this provision. Similarly, the committee does not intend--in cases in which an application has already been accepted by the FCC--that auctions be used to resolve that proceeding. I understand that, as the result of a court decision, the FCC has not technically accepted certain applications. The committee's intention is that if any application in a proceeding has been accepted, the proceeding will be resolved under the provisions of existing law.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader on the floor and I would like to yield to him to make a brief statement regarding Medicaid payments made to Native American health programs serving Medicaid eligible native Americans.

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to discuss several important Medicaid provisions in the Balanced Budget Act that will have an impact on my home State of South Dakota. The Medicaid reform proposal, as contained within the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, would maintain current law that requires the States to pass through to Indian Health Service facilities funding from the State's federal Migrant allotment. For a State such as South Dakota-- with 37 percent of its Medicaid beneficiaries being Native Americans-- this creates a highly problematic situation. Let me explain. Presently, the IHS budget is funded at an amount less than actual need. To deal with this shortfall, Federal funds have been made available through State Medicaid programs. As my colleagues know, the proposed Medicaid reform provisions would cap Federal Medicaid funds to the States. As a result, States with IHS and significant Native American populations facilities would be forced to use limited Federal funds to supplement the intentional shortfalls in the IHS budget, which could limit Medicaid service availability to Medicaid eligible Native and non- Native Americans. To compensate, States may need to limit payments to IHS facilities to conserve Federal dollars, or utilize limited State resources to make up shortfalls for non-Indian people. In short, the Medicaid reform proposal would unfairly single out those States--37 in all--with a significant Indian population. The majority leader has requested from me and the Governor of my State suggestions as to how we may rectify this situation. I believe three possible solutions exist: First, the creation of a separate tribal allocation equal to \1/2\ of 1 percent of the budget for the new Medicaid Program that would assure reimbursement for services to Native Americans through their Indian health programs. This allocation could be provided either through a direct billing mechanism between the tribes and the Federal Government, or through the current pass-through structure. Second, a repeal of the current Federal statute that requires States to serve as a pass through for IHS Medicaid funds. This would release States of what I believe to be an improper involvement in the special relationship that exists between the Federal Government, the Indian Health Service and Native American citizens. This repeal would require the establishment of a direct billing mechanism to satisfy existing requirements of 100 percent Federal reimbursement; or third, to satisfy those States desirous of maintaining current law, a structure that would allow States the option to either continue serving as a pass through, or to insist on a direct Federal-tribal relationship. Mr. President, at issue is the increased flexibility we promised our Nation's Governors in return for their acceptance of a revised Medicaid funding formula. Obviously, maintenance of the current system would severely hamper the flexibility of States with significant Native American populations. Two factors are involved: A capped Medicaid grant, and a 100-percent Federal reimbursement requirement for Medicaid eligible Native Americans. Without additional Federal funds under the current system, or a direct Federal-tribal billing system, the result will be added pressure on States to use its own funds to maintain services for Medicaid eligible non-Indians. The majority leader has indicated his interest and support for finding an appropriate solution. Unfortunately, this issue was left unresolved prior to the completion of conference. On behalf of the numerous Senators and Governors who have contacted the majority leader on this issue, it is my hope we will find a fair solution once the President vetoes this legislation. Mr. President, I see the senior Senator from Alaska on the floor. I know my colleague shares my concerns regarding the current Medicaid reform proposals and would yield to him to make any comments on this subject.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Prisoner Fraud Prevention Act. This legislation would crack down on prisoners who continue to commit crime from behind bars by cheating American taxpayers and our welfare system. Recently the Senate passed H.R. 4, comprehensive welfare reform legislation. This bill would go a long way toward reducing fraud and abuse in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The legislation I am introducing today would take our anti-fraud efforts one step further. Under current law, it is illegal for prisoners to receive SSI payments while incarcerated. To carry out this mandate, the Social Security Administration enters into agreements with federal and state prisons to collect the names of inmates. However, these agreements do not completely prevent inmates from fraudulently receiving benefits, because about one-third of prisoners in the U.S. are held in county [[Page S 17337]] jails. Unbeknownst to the Social Security Administration, these local prisoners often continue to receive SSI payments. The legislation I am introducing today would offer local sheriffs an incentive to work with the Social Security Administration to stop payment of these fraudulent benefits. The bill would reward sheriffs who voluntarily turn inmate lists over to the Social Security Administration by allowing them to keep one-half of the value of the first checks that are intercepted. This would speed up the process of removing prisoners from SSI rolls as well as catch those prisoners who slipped through the system. This is a money saver for American taxpayers. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that this proposal would save $127 million over five years. Additionally, this legislation would bar anyone who received SSI fraudulently while in prison from receiving benefits for the next ten years. By allowing sheriffs to collect a ``bounty'', we can do a number of positive things: we can provide some seed money for local law enforcement and help put an end to the abuse for which the SSI program unfortunately has become famous. This type of abuse is an insult both to hard-working taxpayers who struggle daily without government assistance as well as families on assistance who play by the rules. Congress must take a no-tolerance stance toward fraud and abuse of public assistance. This bill establishes the get-tough approach we need. I am pleased that the National Sheriffs Association has endorsed this legislation. I hope my colleagues will join me in sponsoring it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Prisoner Fraud Prevention Act. This legislation would crack down on prisoners who continue to commit crime from behind bars by cheating American taxpayers and our welfare system. Recently the Senate passed H.R. 4, comprehensive welfare reform legislation. This bill would go a long way toward reducing fraud and abuse in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The legislation I am introducing today would take our anti-fraud efforts one step further. Under current law, it is illegal for prisoners to receive SSI payments while incarcerated. To carry out this mandate, the Social Security Administration enters into agreements with federal and state prisons to collect the names of inmates. However, these agreements do not completely prevent inmates from fraudulently receiving benefits, because about one-third of prisoners in the U.S. are held in county [[Page S 17337]] jails. Unbeknownst to the Social Security Administration, these local prisoners often continue to receive SSI payments. The legislation I am introducing today would offer local sheriffs an incentive to work with the Social Security Administration to stop payment of these fraudulent benefits. The bill would reward sheriffs who voluntarily turn inmate lists over to the Social Security Administration by allowing them to keep one-half of the value of the first checks that are intercepted. This would speed up the process of removing prisoners from SSI rolls as well as catch those prisoners who slipped through the system. This is a money saver for American taxpayers. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that this proposal would save $127 million over five years. Additionally, this legislation would bar anyone who received SSI fraudulently while in prison from receiving benefits for the next ten years. By allowing sheriffs to collect a ``bounty'', we can do a number of positive things: we can provide some seed money for local law enforcement and help put an end to the abuse for which the SSI program unfortunately has become famous. This type of abuse is an insult both to hard-working taxpayers who struggle daily without government assistance as well as families on assistance who play by the rules. Congress must take a no-tolerance stance toward fraud and abuse of public assistance. This bill establishes the get-tough approach we need. I am pleased that the National Sheriffs Association has endorsed this legislation. I hope my colleagues will join me in sponsoring it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a great South Dakotan--James Rothstein. I was saddened to receive word that James passed away recently. He was my friend, and I will miss him. James spent his life in the Midwest. Though born in Eden Valley, MN, and a high school student in Haynes, ND, James Rothstein spent most of his life in Mobridge, SD. He played a vital role in his community, where he served on many local and State boards. He dedicated his life to the development of his State and community. Indeed, James Rothstein was a leader who cared deeply about the people of South Dakota. For years, James served in the South Dakota House of Representatives. He was a vocal member of the South Dakota legislature. In fact, he served as majority leader of the State House from 1969 until 1973. James worked hard all his life. He devoted his time to building the economy in Mobridge. He helped the city grow, develop, and prosper. I am privileged to have known James. His leadership, good will, and service have inspired me in my own life. He will be missed. Mr. President, the Sioux Falls, SD, Argus Leader newspaper recently printed an article praising James Rothstein's life-long accomplishments. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Teri Ellis, an exceptional South Dakotan. President Bill Clinton recently named Teri the travel and tourism employee of the year. Teri is executive director of the Sioux Falls Convention and Visitors Bureau. I am not at all surprised that Teri has been chosen for the award. Teri has shown extraordinary dedication and service in promoting the South Dakota tourism industry. Teri also has been a tireless promoter of the convention center currently being built in Sioux Falls, SD. She believes that the tourism industry must remain competitive, convenient, and have a thorough marketing plan. She is absolutely right. The tourism industry plays a vital role in the economic development of South Dakota. Tourism has been very important to my State in the past and will continue to be in the future. I can say with confidence that South Dakota tourism will thrive for years to come because Teri Ellis will continue to be a strong force in a thriving and productive tourism industry for South Dakota and the Nation. I thank Teri for her great work on behalf of South Dakota tourism and wish her continued success. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article be printed in the Record from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader acknowledging Teri Ellis' recent award.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor S. 1043, the Natural Disaster Insurance and Protection Act. Our country's present method of addressing natural disasters makes no sense. Natural disaster relief has cost taxpayers $45 billion over the past 6 years. Too much of our Federal efforts are spent on dealing with damage after it has occurred rather than undertaking mitigation efforts to prevent as much damage as we can. The only way to reduce the total social cost of natural disasters is mitigation undertaken before natural disasters occur. The Natural Disaster Insurance and Protection Act is designed to foster these mitigation efforts. Presently, when a natural disaster occurs, relief efforts often are a political game: especially when the disaster impacts populous, politically important States. In addition, some areas of the country are particularly prone to natural disasters. Taxpayers from the rest of the country end up subsidizing residents of those disaster-prone areas through ever-increasing disaster relief payments. This subsidy must be reduced. Taxpayers simply should not be asked to continue to bear such high relief costs. The need for natural disaster relief funds can be reduced if individuals in disaster prone areas are properly insured. S. 1043 seeks to establish a mechanism to assure both that insurance is available in disaster-prone areas and to encourage individuals to purchase that insurance. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which I chair, has already held one hearing on this bill. At that hearing some raised concerns about the insurance entity the bill establishes. This is a complex and important bill. It will be further examined by Commerce Committee. As that examination proceeds, we need to make certain the insurance entity functions as intended. The insurance entity established should place private capital at risk and use market- based methods to achieve appropriate pricing of the insurance offered. Furthermore, that insurance entity should not need, or in any way obligate, the infusion of Federal funds to maintain solvency. This bill attempts to put our policy on better footing. The Commerce Committee will continue its work on this legislation and it is my hope we can address the concerns raised and pass a bill that will establish a program to help victims of disaster recover while limiting the exposure of other taxpayers to pay for a Federal bailout every time disaster strikes.

Mr. PRESSLER

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the American people want and deserve an end to shameless, wasteful spending programs. They want a reduction in taxes for working middle-class families and a balanced budget so we finally live within our means--as people in my home state of South Dakota do every day. I feel passionately that we must give the dream of America back to our children. That is why I support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. The working men and women in America are fed up with politics as usual in Washington. They have spoken loudly that they want us to cut wasteful spending, reduce taxes for working middle-class families, and finally balance the budget. The Republicans in Congress have heard this call for change. We, too, are tired of business as usual. That is why we have proposed tax relief for working, middle-class Americans so they can keep more of what they earn, rather than leave it in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. Recently, an editorial in the Rapid City Journal praised the current Republican tax plan. This editorial is right on target. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place this editorial in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. PRESSLER. Why do middle-class, working Americans want us to cut spending and provide tax relief? The reason is obvious. The Federal Government wastes billions of their tax dollars every year on more and more programs that do less and less to meet the needs of average Americans. Working Americans are paying more and more for less and less. Now we have the opportunity to cut taxes and in the process make government more efficient and effective, smaller and smarter. It is time to give the American people what they want--a balanced budget, an end to wasteful spending, and a reduction of taxes for wage-earning, middle-class working families. Exhibit 1 Wide Appeal in Tax Breaks The tax breaks included in congressional budget proposals will benefit middle-income Americans most In the great budget debate of 1995, congressional Democrats and President Clinton have continually argued that Republicans are targeting the poor and elderly with spending cuts to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. Hmmm. Tax breaks for the wealthy? There are flaws in this argument. For one thing, the $500-per-child tax credit under the expected budget compromise would go to families with incomes under about $100,000. That means the wealthiest Americans-- those with taxable incomes over $100,000--wouldn't qualify for it. And it means most families that pay taxes would pay lower taxes. A second tax break included in both the House and Senate budget bills would reduce the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 19.8 percent. Although this tax break would result in wealthy taxpayers paying a lower rate, it could very well mean their total tax bills would be higher. The lower tax rate likely would motivate sales of investment assets that otherwise wouldn't be sold and thus wouldn't generate any tax revenue. Plus, the increased economic activity that a lower capital gains tax rate would generate would result in increased capital for job-creating small businesses and a healthier economy that produces more tax revenue. Besides, a cut in the capital gains tax rate doesn't apply only to wealthy individuals. It applies to everyone who increases their taxable income by selling a home or some other investment. In today's economy, that takes in a lot of people. One study showed that in 1990, when the top capital gains tax rate was lowered from 33 percent to its current 28 percent, 70 percent of the tax returns reporting capital gains were from people with taxable incomes below $75,000. So, while it may be correct that House and Senate budget proposals include some benefit for the wealthy, it's the middle income taxpayers that benefit most. On the other side of the budget's impact on taxpayers are proposed reductions in the Earned Income Tax Credit, a tax break for workers with low incomes. The House bill proposes decreasing planned EITC spending by $23 billion over the next seven years, while the Senate bill proposes $43 billion. Some of this reduction is justified. EITC eligibility requirements need to be tightened so people with low taxable incomes but high nontaxable incomes, from sources such as tax-free annuities, don't qualify. And in a program with a high rate of fraud--the Internal Revenue Service estimates up to 40 percent of the tax returns claiming the EITC contain errors or fraudulent claims--the plan to double penalties for fraudulent EITC claims is justified. But because the EITC program is, in effect, a reward for people who work rather than rely on welfare assistance, the budget proposals should be scaled back so as not to affect the people the EITC is intended to help. Of course, these changes in tax credits and tax rates would increase the complexity of a federal tax code that is already too complicated. We should really be going in the opposite direction, toward a simpler tax code. And on the other side of the budget proposals, the decreases in proposed spending, there is room to argue whether the decreases are targeted fairly. But the tax breaks included in Republican budget proposals aren't as hideous as they've been made out to be. A lot of hard-working, middle-income Americans would benefit.