[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5865-S5869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this week and next week, we are going to 
come down to the moment of truth on two issues. One issue has to do 
with putting the Federal Government on a budget like everybody else. 
The other issue has to do with fulfilling the Contract With America to 
let working people keep more of what they earn. I would like to briefly 
address both of these subjects.
  In the 1994 election, in one of the most remarkable political 
occurrences in the postwar period, House Republicans did something that 
is very unusual in the political process and that is they set out in 
plain English what they promised America they would do if the American 
people gave them a majority in the House of Representatives for the 
first time in 40 years.
  I would add that while many people have forgotten it, Republican 
candidates for the Senate put out a joint statement where virtually 
every Republican challenger for the U.S. Senate in the country came to 
Washington and released a ``Seven More In '94'' document, where we 
outlined seven things we would do if the American people gave us a 
majority.
  Two of those promised items had to do with balancing the budget and 
with letting working people keep more of what they earned. The House of 
Representatives has done something even more remarkable than making all 
these promises--they have actually done it. The House of 
Representatives has adopted the Contract With America. They have 
adopted 90 percent of the things they promised to simply vote on. And 
at the best universities in the land, you would grade that as an ``A.''
  We are now down to the moment of truth in the U.S. Senate and that 
moment of truth basically has to do with whether or not we are going to 
pass the Contract With America and whether we can make the tough 
decisions necessary in order to do that. To balance the Federal budget 
over a 7-year period and at the same time to accommodate the tax cut 
contained in the Contract With America will require us, over a 7-year 
period, to limit the growth in Federal spending to approximately 3 
percent a year.
  Over the last 40 years, Federal spending has grown at 2\1/2\ times 
the growth of family budgets in America. Over the last 40 years, the 
Federal Government has increased its spending 2\1/2\ times as fast as 
the average family in America has been able to increase its spending. 
Now what would America look like if those trends had been reversed? 
Well, if the average family in America had seen its budget grow as fast 
as the Government has grown for the last 40 years, and the Government's 
budget had grown only as fast as the family budget has grown over the 
last 40 years, the average family in America today would be earning 
$128,000 a year and the Government would be approximately one-third its 
current size.
  I ask my colleagues, if you could choose between the America where 
the governments budget grew faster or an America where the family's 
budget grew faster--put me down as one who would favor having the 
average family in America make $128,000 a year and have the Federal 
Government one-third its size.
  Here is our dilemma. We have some of our colleagues who say, ``I did 
not sign any Contract With America. That was the House of 
Representatives.'' As I am fond of saying in our private meetings, that 
is a subtlety that is lost on the American people. They do not see this 
contract as having been a contract between just the House and the 
American people. They see it as a Republican contract. And, quite 
frankly, it is a Republican contract. It embodies everything that our 
party claims to stand for.
  But what I think is important for the Senate is not just that 
Republican candidates signed the contract, not just that every House 
Republican incumbent who signed the contract was reelected but I think 
what is significant to us is that the American people signed that 
contract when they gave us a majority in both Houses of Congress for 
the first time in 40 years.
  The question that we are going to have to answer in the next 3 weeks 
is, are we willing to limit the growth of Government spending to 2\1/2\ 
percent a year so that we can, over a 7-year period, balance the 
Federal budget and so that we can let working families keep more of 
what they earn? I believe that we can and I believe that we should. I 
think there are many Republicans in the Senate who sort of have a 
problem, in that they have one foot firmly implanted in the dramatic 
changes in Government policy that we promised the American people in 
1994, and they have the other foot firmly implanted in the status quo. 
And, as those two things have moved further apart, we have had the 
predictable result.
  I think it is time for us to choose. I believe in the next 3 weeks we 
are going to basically decide whether or not we meant it in November of 
1994 when we told the American people that we were going to 
dramatically change the way Government does its business. I think the 
American people are convinced that we can limit the growth of 
Government spending to 2\1/2\ percent a year so that we can let 
families and businesses spend more of what they earn.
  I know if the President were here, he would say this is a debate 
about how much money we are spending on our children; or how much money 
we are spending on education; or how much money we are spending on 
housing or nutrition.
  But that is not what the debate is about. Everybody in America wants 
to spend money on children, housing, education, and nutrition. The 
debate we are about to have is not how much money is going to be spent 
on those things, but who is going to do the spending. Bill Clinton and 
the Democrats want Government to go on doing the spending. They want 
Government spending to continue to grow 2\1/2\ times as fast as the 
family budget grows.
  I want to put the Federal Government on a diet. I want to slow down 
the rate of growth in Government spending so that we can let working 
families keep more of their own money to invest in their own children, 
in their own businesses, and in their own future.
  [[Page S5866]] This is not a debate about how much money we spend on 
the things that all Americans believe we should spend money on. It is a 
debate about who ought to do the spending. Bill Clinton and the 
Democrats want the Government to do the spending. We want the family to 
do the spending. We know the Government, and we know the family. And we 
know the difference.
  Since we are investing in the future of America, I want to invest the 
future of America in our families and not in our Government.
  I know that there is a lot of anguish in the Senate, even on our side 
of the aisle. But I think it is time to choose. I wanted my colleagues 
to know that I am for a budget that does two things: No. 1, over a 7-
year period, limit the growth of Federal spending to about 3 percent a 
year so we can balance the budget in 7 years and let our colleagues do 
something that no current Member of the Senate, save two, has ever done 
before; that is, vote for a real honest-to-God balanced budget. We 
literally have the power, by having a 7-year binding budget, to let 
Members of the Senate vote to stop talking about balancing the budget 
and to start doing it.
  Second, in addition to the controls on spending necessary to balance 
the budget, I want to limit the growth of spending not to 3 percent a 
year, but to 2\1/2\ percent a year so that we can let families keep 
more of what they earn, so that we can cut the capital gains tax rate, 
so that we can eliminate the marriage penalty, so that we can let 
families have a $500 tax credit per child, so that, rather than having 
our Government spend our money for us, we can let working people spend 
their own money on their own children and on their own future.
  As we look at this in perspective, let me give you three numbers. In 
1950, the average family in America with two little children sent $1 
out of every $50 it earned to Washington, DC, and thought it was too 
much. And it probably was. Today, that family is sending $1 out of 
every $4 it earns to Washington, DC, and if the Congress did not meet 
again for the next 20 years some people would applaud that prospect, 
but only because they do not understand our problems. If Congress did 
not meet again for the next 20 years and we did not start a single new 
program nor repeal any existing program, to pay for the Government that 
we have already committed to is going to require that in 20 years $1 
out of every $3 earned by the average family in America with two 
children come to Washington, DC, to pay for the Government.
  We are going to have to institute dramatic changes in spending simply 
to keep things the way they are. If we are to let working families keep 
more of what they earn, we are going to have to institute a dramatic 
change in Government policy. Mr. President, I am in favor of a dramatic 
change in Government policy. If our Budget Committee does not offer and 
adopt a budget that balances the budget and that provides for tax cuts 
for families and for job creation, I intend to offer a substitute for 
that budget. I think we have to stop cutting deals with America's 
future. I think we have to stand up and tell the American people we 
meant it in November 1994 when we said you give us a Republican 
majority in both Houses of Congress and we will change the policy of 
American Government.
  I think we are now down to a moment of truth. Are we going to fulfill 
the commitment we made in that election, or are we basically going to 
defend the status quo? The status quo means less opportunity, future 
jobs, and an America that is not the America that I want my children 
and my grandchildren to have. I am ready to change the status quo. I am 
ready to cut the growth in Government spending, not just to balance the 
budget, but to cut taxes. And what I want my colleagues to know today 
is I want to work with the Budget Committee, I want to work with our 
leadership. I am hopeful that we can put together as a party position a 
budget that balances the budget over a 7-year period and that mandates 
tax cuts contained in the contract. But, if our leadership is not ready 
to bring that budget forward, if they cannot muster the courage to 
control Government spending to make it possible, I will muster that 
courage, and will offer a substitute and give my colleagues the 
opportunity to join me, and to join America in that process.
  Finally, let me say, Mr. President, I simply want to remind my 
colleagues that the Contract With America was in fact signed by House 
Members, but there are two additional points. First, it was not 
distinctly different from the ``Seven More in '94'' contract that our 
candidates agreed to here on the north front of the Capitol. Second, 
the important part of that contract is not the fact that the House 
signed it. The important part of that contract is that America signed 
it. The important part of that contract is it was the document that 
defined what the 1994 election was all about.
  The question now, the question that will be before us for the next 3 
weeks is, Did we simply want to be for dramatic changes in Government 
at election time, or are we willing to put our votes where our mouth 
is? Are we really more wedded to funding for programs such as public 
television, or are we more wedded to letting working people keep more 
of what they earn? Do we really believe that Government knows best and 
that we need not only a $1.6 trillion Federal budget but that we need 
it to grow by 7.5 percent a year while the family budget is growing at 
less than half that rate?
  I think that is the decision. I think the answer of every Republican 
in the Senate ought to be clear. And that answer ought to be we can 
change the status quo, we can limit the growth of Government spending, 
we can terminate programs, and we can and will not only balance the 
budget but let working families keep more of what they earn to invest 
in their own children, in their own businesses and their own future, 
and that we ought to cut taxes on American business to provide 
incentives for people to work, save, and invest. That is what I am for. 
I believe that is what America is for.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator form Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I thought I would take less than maybe 5 minutes to 
respond to my colleague from Texas.
  First of all, Mr. President, I look forward to this debate that we 
are going to have because I think what we have seen too much of here is 
an attempt to dance at two weddings at the same time, and I think that 
citizens in this country are going to hold us all accountable.
  As I said earlier, I do not understand how the arithmetic of this 
adds up, and I think there are colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who would agree with me. It is very difficult to talk about 
broad-based tax cuts, with the estimates that maybe this is up to $700 
billion over the next 10 years, and talk about no cuts in the Pentagon 
budget.
  Mr. President, I hear precious little discussion of what we call tax 
expenditures. And for those who are listening to this debate, I am 
talking about various loopholes, deductions, sometimes outright 
giveaways--oil companies, tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, 
insurance companies. I see precious little discussion about any of that 
being on the table. We are going to pay the interest on the debt. We 
are going to put Social Security off the table, Mr. President. 
According to some of my colleagues, in addition, we are going to 
balance the budget by 2002.
  I also hear the same colleagues saying but, students, do not worry 
about being able to afford higher education; veterans, do not worry, 
there will be no deep cuts there. I doubt whether senior citizens will 
take great comfort from the remarks of my colleague from Texas because 
it is quite one thing to talk about a 2-percent increase a year but 
when the trend line is in fact that more and more of our citizens are 
65 years of age and over with more serious health care costs going far 
beyond 2 percent, then what we are really talking about is eroding 
again what I talked about earlier here, a contract with senior 
citizens, the Medicare Program.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me make the point that to be 
proposing some rather deep cuts in some programs that are critically 
important to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives in our 
country all for the 
[[Page S5867]] sake of broad-based tax cuts flowing disproportionately 
to those on the top does not strike me as something that will meet the 
standard of fairness I think people demand of us.
  Second of all, Mr. President, let me just simply say that this 
argument that when it comes to the most pressing issues of people's 
lives there is nothing the Government can or should do is a wonderful 
argument if you own your own large corporation, but as a matter of 
fact, there are certain decisive areas of life, education being one of 
them, where we have decided we make an investment as a people to make 
sure we do live up to our dream of equality of opportunity.
  So I would simply say, Mr. President, because otherwise I will go on 
for hours and hours, if you want to talk about real welfare reform, the 
answer is good jobs and good education. If you want to talk about how 
to reduce poverty in this country--1 out of every 4 children are poor, 
1 out of every 2 children of color are poor--then the answer is good 
education and good jobs.
  If you want to talk about reducing violence in our communities, talk 
to your judges, talk to your police chiefs, talk to your sheriffs, much 
less talk to people in those communities, and they will tell you we 
will never stop the cycle of violence unless we invest in good 
education and there are good jobs for people.
  If you want to talk about how to build community, the same thing--
good education and good jobs. If you want to talk about how we have a 
democracy where men and women are able to think on their own two feet, 
they understand the world they live in, they understand the country 
they live in, they understand the community they live in, and they 
understand what they can do to make it a better community or a better 
country or a better world, then I am telling you, we have to invest in 
good education.
  I have to tell you right now that when I travel around the State of 
Minnesota, a State which values education, I meet too many students who 
sell their plasma at the beginning of the semester to buy their 
textbooks; I meet too many students who are going to school 6 years 
because they are working 35 and 40 hours a week, and we hear proposals 
that they are going to have to start paying interest on their debt 
throughout their years of graduate or undergraduate work. In addition, 
we hear about proposals of cutbacks in work-study and various low-
interest loan programs, Pell grant programs.
  I could go on and on. I could just tell you, these are middle-class 
programs. These are programs that have made the United States of 
America a better country, a more just country, a country with more 
fairness.
  So let us be crystal clear. The issue is, who decides who benefits 
and who is asked to sacrifice? The question will be asked, who decides 
to cut Medicare and who has health care coverage that is good coverage? 
All of us who are in the Senate. And who decides to cut some of the 
programs that enable students to be able to afford higher education and 
whose children get a decent education?
  I could go right across the board, but I simply say to people in this 
country, hold us all accountable and make sure you are good at addition 
and you are good at subtraction and you are good at arithmetic, because 
I think it is a bit of a shell game here. We are going to have broad-
based tax cuts and, in addition, we are not cutting the Pentagon 
budget, and we are paying the interest on the debt and not touching 
Social Security, but we are going to balance the budget, cutting, I do 
not know, $1.3 trillion, $1.7 trillion, by the year 2002. But, 
veterans, do not worry about your health care; you do not need to worry 
that you are waiting 2\1/2\, 3 years for just compensation right now 
with the veterans appeal board. And, students, do not worry because we 
are not going to cut into higher education and children. No, we would 
not do anything that would affect nutrition programs, but we are going 
to balance the budget by 2002. We are not going to make a distinction 
between operating budget and capital budget. We are not going to go 
after corporate welfare. Maybe we will. I hope we do. Everything should 
be on the table. But we are going to balance the budget.
  I just simply say this argument about there is the Government and 
there is us, as a matter of fact, is a wonderful philosophy. When it 
comes to the issues important to your lives, what the Government should 
do or could do is great if you make $200,000 a year. It is great if you 
own your own large company. It is great if you are in the Senate and 
make $130,000 a year. It is not so great if you are a regular, ordinary 
American.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I am so moved that I would like to just respond to that.
  First of all, if you are rich, if you own your own corporation, you 
are not too much affected by these changes. And let me explain why. In 
1950, rich people paid a lot of taxes. Rich people pay a lot of taxes 
today. In 1950, poor people did not pay any taxes. Poor people do not 
pay any taxes today.
  What has happened since 1950 is that the tax burden on average 
working Americans has exploded to pay for all of this Government that 
our dear colleague from Minnesota sees as the salvation of the American 
people. We have spent more money on welfare since 1965 than we have 
spent in fighting all the wars the Nation has been involved in this 
century, and there are more poor people today than there were when we 
started this program. They are poorer today than they were when we 
started this program. They are more dependent today than they were when 
we started this program. The illegitimacy rate among the poor is three 
times what it was when we started this program. The crime rate has 
exploded. And by every index on the planet, they are worse off today 
than they were when we started the war on poverty.
  But are my colleagues dismayed? Are they the least bit unhappy? No. 
If we could just spend another trillion, if we could just let 
Government do more, everything would be wonderful.
  There is only one problem that our dear colleague has, and that is 
the American people do not believe it anymore. The American people have 
rejected that idea.
  In terms of health care, our colleague last year, along with our 
President, had an opportunity to convince the American people it just 
made great sense to tear down the greatest health care system the world 
had ever known to rebuild it in the image of the Post Office. And 
remarkably, for a while, it looked as if that was going to succeed. But 
finally, a few Members--and I am very proud to be able to say I was one 
of them--stood up and said, ``Over my cold, dead, political body.''
  When we reached that point in the battle when the American people 
came to understand that this was not a debate about health care and 
jobs, but instead a debate about freedom, that one little stone slew 
Goliath.
  So I think we have had plenty of debate about health care. If I might 
say, I reintroduced my health care bill. Bill Clinton did not 
reintroduce his. Obviously, there was a belief that mine was supported 
by the American people; he concluded that his was not.
  Now, in terms of this Pentagon budget issue, the plain truth, as we 
all know, is that since 1985, we have cut defense spending by over a 
third. If we had cut Government spending in total half as much as we 
cut defense budgets, we would have a Federal surplus.
  Even the President says today that his defense budget will not fund 
the level of defense that he claims the Nation needs.
  So this idea that we can go around talking about how can we write a 
budget without cutting defense, I remind my colleagues we have already 
cut defense. The problem is we did not cut anything else. We have 
already cut defense and raised taxes. The problem is we spent every 
penny of the tax increase so that now the Congressional Budget Office 
says that the underlying budget and the underlying deficit is no 
different today than it was before Bill Clinton imposed the largest tax 
increase in American history.
  Now, how can you have the largest tax increase in the history of the 
country, the lowest levels of defense and not have the deficit go down? 
There is only one way. And that is you spend all the money, which is 
exactly what we have done.
  In terms of Medicare, can anybody stand here and say that we are 
going to able to keep Medicare as it is? Last 
[[Page S5868]] year, Medicare spending grew by 10.5 percent a year. 
Last year, the average insurance policy held by a worker in the private 
sector did not have his premium go up. Competition improved efficiency. 
Cost consciousness meant that the private sector part of medicine saw 
no cost increase and yet the public sector part of medicine grew by 
10.5 percent.
  Does anybody believe that either the taxpayer or our senior citizens 
can sustain that rate of growth in a program that jointly they are 
paying for? Does anybody believe that we should not try to reform that 
program and bring efficiencies and economies and choices into it or 
that we cannot do it?
  I remind my colleagues that the Medicare trustees, appointed by 
President Clinton to look at the financial problems of Medicare, 
concluded that Medicare was going to be broke by the year 2002, the 
year that we hope to balance the Federal budget. What we are asking is 
that we respond to the urgent call by the two independent members of 
the Commission who urge Congress to address this problem.
  Now, as for the old tax-cut-to-the-rich song, let me remind my 
colleagues that we are talking about a $500 tax credit per child so 
that families can invest their own money in their own children. No one 
has failed to conclude that at least 75 percent of that tax cut will go 
to families that make $70,000 or less.
  But look at the capital gains tax rate. I know my colleagues will 
say, ``Well, if you cut the capital gains tax rate, rich people are 
going to immobilize their capital and they are going to invest and they 
are going to create jobs and, if they are successful, they are going to 
earn profit.''
  Welcome to America. Welcome to America. That is how our system works. 
If America is going to be saved, it is going to be saved at a profit.
  I was thinking the other day, as I listened to our President make a 
similar statement to that our colleague has made, I have had a lot of 
jobs in my life. When I was growing up, I was very fortunate to have a 
lot of jobs. I worked for a peanut processor, I worked in cabinet shop, 
I worked in a boat factory, in addition to the same jobs we all had, 
throwing papers and working at the grocery store.
  No poor person ever hired me. Never in my life has a poor person ever 
hired me. Every job I ever had, and I suspect the same is true for 
virtually every American, every job I ever had I got because somebody 
beat me to the bottom rung of the economic ladder, climbed up, invested 
their money wisely, created jobs, and made it possible for someone like 
me to get my foot on the bottom rung of the economic ladder and climb 
up.
  What is wrong with encouraging people to invest to create jobs, 
growth, and opportunity?
  In terms of corporate welfare, if my colleague means by that 
subsidizing corporate America to invest in a technology the Government 
chooses or subsidizing American business to invest in areas that the 
Government chooses, one of the things that I want to do in the budget, 
and one of the things I will do if I have to offer a substitute, is 
dramatically cut the $86 billion of Government spending where 
Government tells business where to invest. That is how I would like to 
fund cutting the capital gains tax rate and indexing so that we can let 
the market system and not the Government decide where that investment 
will occur.
  As far as children, it is interesting to me that after all these 
years of exploding Government, after all these years of the failure of 
Government, that we still see Government as the solution to every 
problem involving the American child.
  In fact, American Government is doing such a great job that now 
President Clinton wants the United Nations to get into the act. His 
administration has now signed the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the 
Child and he is going to ask us to ratify it. And it supersedes State 
law. So now not only are we going to help raise every child in America 
by the Federal Government, but we are going to let the United Nations 
do it. We are doing such a great job now, I guess we think the United 
Nations can help us do even better.
  Forgotten in this whole argument is that child rearing is a parental 
concern. Parents ought to make decisions about children. And part of 
our problem is over the last 40 years we have taken more and more money 
from parents, we have spent their money on their own children, and we 
have done a much poorer job than they would have done had we simply 
allowed them to spend their own money on their own children.
  In terms of good jobs, where do good jobs come from? Does anybody 
believe that Government can create jobs? Does anybody believe, as Bill 
Clinton says, that Government can empower people? Freedom empowers 
people. Government entraps people.
  Finally, in terms of this whole debate about Government, we are not 
talking about eliminating the Government. We are talking about a budget 
that, if we fulfill the Contract With America, Government will spend 
about 2\1/2\ percent more each year for the next 7 years.
  Now I know, for those who want Government spending to grow at three 
or four times as fast as the family budget, that that is cruel and 
unusual punishment. It means Government has to make decisions.
  But there are a lot of businesses in America that have had to make a 
lot tougher choices than limiting their budgets to 2\1/2\ percent 
growth a year. And they have had to do it just to keep their doors 
open. There are a lot of families in America that make much tougher 
choices than that.
  All we are asking Government to do is to live in the real world with 
everybody else where you have to make tough decisions.
  So, I think that we can see that this is going to be an interesting 
debate. And it is a defining debate. I respect my colleague from 
Minnesota because, basically, his view is the view of his party. Not 
all the members of his party are so honest as he is to basically point 
out that they believe that Government is the answer; that they really 
believe that if we can make Government bigger, if Government could make 
more decisions, if we could spend more money at the Federal level, that 
America could deal with every problem we have.
  I do not believe that. I believe that if we can put the Federal 
Government on a budget, if we can let working people keep more of what 
they earn, if we can make hard choices at the Federal level, if we can 
reform welfare to demand that people, able-bodied people riding in the 
wagon get out of the wagon and help the rest of us pull, if we can 
demand that we end this situation where we are subsidizing people to 
have more and more children on welfare, and if we can end the absurdity 
where millions of people are getting more money riding in the wagon 
than millions of other Americans are getting for pulling the wagon, 
then I think we can make America right again.
  The point is, we have two distinct visions for the future of America. 
Our dear colleague from Minnesota and most Democrats, including the 
President, believe that the vision that leads us home, the vision that 
brings back the American dream, the vision that shares the dream with 
people who missed it the first time around is more Government, more 
spending at the Federal level on education, more spending at the 
Federal level on health, more spending at the Federal level on 
nutrition and housing and training.
  Of course, how are we going to pay for it?
   Well, of course, we are going to raise taxes. And who are we going 
to raise taxes on? Rich people. And who are rich people? Anybody who 
works. That is their vision.

  My vision, the vision of most Republicans, is exactly the opposite. 
We want less Government and more freedom. In fact, I would not want the 
Government we have today even if it were free. If you could give us 
this Government, I would not want it because I think the Government is 
too big and too powerful. It makes too many decisions.
  Free people should make more decisions for themselves and they should 
not have their Government making decisions for them. And we are not 
just talking about freedom and efficiency, we are talking about virtue.
  It is not good that people turn to the Government to fix every 
problem they have, to indemnify every mistake they make because in 
turning to Caesar, they turn away from God, they turn away from their 
family, they turn 
[[Page S5869]] away from themselves as problem solvers for themselves. 
As a result, they become dependent, and when they become dependent, 
they become less free. That is what this debate is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I actually promised my colleague from 
Illinois that I would limit my response to 5 minutes, but I am so moved 
by what my colleague from Texas had to say, I would like to respond.
  Mr. President, I hardly know where to start, but I can assure my 
colleague that it is quite possible to turn toward God and to turn 
toward religion and to have values and spirituality in your life and 
believe, as the Committee on Economic Development believed, a business 
organization which issued a report a few years ago, that one of the 
ways that we do well with an effective, successful private sector is to 
make sure that we invest in our children when they are young.
  It is simply the case that if we do not invest in our children when 
they are young, making sure that each and every child has that equality 
of opportunity, which is what my parents taught me was what America was 
all about, then we pay the interest later on with high rates of 
illiteracy and dropout and drug addiction and crime and all of the 
rest.
  Mr. President, when we talk about will there be a higher minimum 
wage, the answer from my colleague from Texas is no. From what I think 
I just heard my colleague say, when we talk about whether or not higher 
education will be affordable, for some sort of reason there is nothing 
the Government can do, we do not really need to have Pell grants or 
low-interest loans or work study, but, Mr. President, what has made 
this country a greater country is to make sure that each and every 
young person has that opportunity.
  Nobody talked about the Government doing everything. That is a 
caricature. That is just sort of political debate.
  We have a strong private sector, and that is what makes this country 
go round, but we also think there is a role for the public sector, and 
that is to make sure that we live up to the promise of this Nation, 
which is equality of opportunity.
  I do not think the people in the United States of America believe 
that whether or not you receive adequate health care or not should be 
based upon whether or not you have an income. I think people believe 
that each and every citizen ought to have decent health care. I heard 
my colleague criticize the post office. I can tell you one thing, at 
least they do not deliver mail according to your income. Everybody gets 
their mail regardless of their income.
  I heard my colleague talk about welfare. My God, you would think AFDC 
families caused the debt, caused the deficit. I was not here during the 
years some of my colleague served here, but if my memory serves me 
correctly, in the early 1980's, we were told what you want to do is 
dramatically reduce taxes--that was euphemistically called--I ask my 
colleague from Illinois, I think I am correct--the Economic Recovery 
Act. What happened was we eroded the revenue base and moved away from 
any principle of progressivity, I say to my colleague. I am sorry he is 
not here.
  Poor people do pay taxes. Many people are poor in the United States 
of America, work 40 hours a week, if not more, 52 weeks a year, and 
they pay Social Security taxes. More wage earners, more ordinary 
Americans pay more in Social Security taxes than in taxes. We have 
dramatically reduced the corporate rates and, indeed, there has been 
too much of a pressure on middle-income and working families. But this 
argument that the problem is that we have relied too much on an income 
tax just simply does not hold up by any kind of standard if you look at 
it with any rigor.
  I think the welfare benefits, the AFDC benefits in some States--I 
cannot remember Texas--are about 20 percent of poverty. People in the 
United States of America believe the children have a right to be all 
that they can be. People in the United States of America believe we 
should invest in higher education. People in the United States of 
America believe that an educated, high-morale work force is critical to 
economic performance. And people in the United States of America 
believe that it is a combination of a strong private sector and also a 
Government that can effect good public policy that can lead to the 
improvement of lives of people in our communities that makes the 
difference. That is what this debate is about.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________