[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 94 (Friday, June 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8125-S8126]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


     EXPLANATION OF SELECTED VOTES TO THE SENATE BUDGET RESOLUTION

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, just prior to the Memorial Day 
recess, the Senate considered a near-record number of amendments to the 
Senate budget resolution. Since many of these amendments were offered 
after time had expired and voted upon without debate, I want to take 
some time now to offer explanations for several of the more critical 
votes about which I was unable to comment at the time.
  During the budget markup in committee the focus of many amendments 
was the so-called fiscal dividend reserve fund. This fund was 
established to incorporate the estimates of the Congressional Budget 
Office regarding the benefits of balancing the budget. According to the 
CBO, if Congress successfully balances the budget over the next 7 
years, we will experience lower interest rates and lower costs to the 
Government--about $170 billion over the next 7 years. It was the 
position of the chairman--a position I strongly support--that any 
fiscal dividend resulting from balancing the budget should be given 
back to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts.
  One amendment offered on the Senate floor was the Feingold amendment 
to strike the budget surplus from the resolution. Instead of using the 
surplus for more spending--as previous amendments had--this amendment 
would have killed it outright, striking at the heart of efforts in the 
Senate to provide tax relief for American families. I opposed it for 
that reason. Over the next 7 years, the Federal Government will spend 
approximately $12 trillion. Much of this spending will take the form of 
transfer payments from those people who are working and paying taxes to 
those less fortunate. I believe it is important for a compassionate 
country to take care of the elderly and the poor, and I support many of 
these programs. However, I also support those families who are not 
receiving Federal assistance but rather are working hard and paying 
taxes. The fiscal dividend is about 1\1/2\ percent of total Government 
spending over the next 7 years. In my mind, this tiny surplus belongs 
to the taxpayers who make all the other Government programs possible.
  One amendment I did support was the Hatfield amendment to restore $7 
billion in spending reductions to the National Institutes of Health by 
cutting all other discretionary accounts across-the-board. As Senator 
Hatfield made clear during the debate, the United States is suffering 
from epidemics of cancer, Alzheimer's, and AIDS. The research conducted 
by the NIH is instrumental in fighting these diseases, and it is 
important that their efforts be fully funded.
  Another amendment I supported was the McConnell amendment to restore 
funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. Under the Senate 
budget, all funding for ARC would have been eliminated over 5 years. 
Rather than eliminate the entire program, this amendment will reduce 
the program's funding by 35 percent in 1996 and 47 percent overall. I 
believe it strikes a careful balance between cutting spending and 
hurting economic development in specific regions of the country. In 
recent weeks, I have been working on a task force to determine the 
efficacy of Federal agencies. Should that effort conclude that the 
Appalachian Regional Commission is duplicative, wasteful, or has 
attained its objectives, [[Page S8126]] then my position regarding 
funding for ARC may change.
  One budget area where I have special concerns is education. As 
reported out by the committee, the budget reduces mandatory education 
spending by a considerable amount--and these reductions could affect 
student loan programs. Although I had previously supported restoring 
education funding through offsetting spending cuts, I did not support 
any amendment that attempted to increase education spending through tax 
increases. This opposition included both the Dodd and Kennedy 
amendments. These amendments would have restored $28 billion in 
education spending over the next 7 years by raising taxes. While the 
authors argued that the offsetting tax increases would only come from 
the elimination of certain tax preferences targeted at large 
corporations, their practical effect would be to instruct the Senate 
Finance Committee to raise tax revenues by $28 billion through any 
means, including the elimination of tax provisions which I support, 
such as the home mortgage interest deduction. As I have stated 
previously, while I am willing to establish education spending as a 
priority, I believe its enhancement should be achieved by reducing 
spending in other budget areas.
  Similar reasoning was behind my vote against the Bradley amendment 
targeting so-called tax expenditures. The underlying premise of this 
amendment is that the Federal Government, not the taxpayer, has the 
first right of refusal to all income. In my judgment, the whole concept 
of tax expenditures is misguided, since the logical conclusion of the 
argument is that all income not taxed still belongs to the Government. 
I believe the real purpose behind the tax expenditure concept is to 
provide ammunition for those Members who wish to raise
 taxes. As I have said before, I support reviewing corporate tax 
loopholes within the context of overall tax reform. However, I do not 
support targeting these loopholes if their result is to increase 
spending elsewhere.

  One of the more positive signals coming from the budget debate was 
the rejection, across-the-board, of numerous amendments to reduce our 
defense budget. It is important to note that the bipartisan rejection 
of these amendments represents the Senate's recognition that investment 
in our national security is as low as it can possibly go. In my 
opinion, it is already too low to ensure the continued security of the 
country and, for that reason, I oppose amendments to reduce it further 
and supported efforts by Senators Thurmond and McCain to raise defense 
spending above the President's levels.
  One extremely close vote took place on the Baucus sense of the Senate 
amendment to encourage the use of the highway trust fund to support 
Amtrak. While the issue of Federal subsidies for interstate passenger 
rail service is extremely contentious and involved, using the highway 
trust fund to support Amtrak clearly undermines the integrity of the 
fund and should be opposed. If Congress chooses to continue its support 
for Amtrak, it should be done through general revenues and subject to 
the same review process to which other discretionary spending is 
subject.
  Two substitutes were offered during debate of the budget which I 
believe merit comment. First, Senator Conrad offered his substitute to 
balance the budget over 10 years without assistance of the Social 
Security surplus. While I applaud Senator Conrad's commitment to the 
Social Security system, his budget falls short of the standard 
established by the Republican budget. Under the guise of balancing the 
budget, this amendment is old-fashioned tax-and-spend politics.
  The Conrad budget raises taxes by $228 billion over 10 years. We 
don't have a budget deficit because Americans are under-taxed. We have 
a deficit because the Federal Government spends too much. Yet the 
Conrad budget ignores the history of over-spending by concentrating on 
the revenue side of the ledger. At the same time, discretionary 
spending under the Conrad substitute will be $190 billion higher than 
under the Republican budget while mandatory spending will be allowed to 
grow at several times the rate of inflation. In other words, the Conrad 
substitute would allow Government spending to continue to grow 
unchecked by raising taxes on Americans--just the opposite of the 
limited Government message sent to Washington by last November's 
election.
  The second substitute was offered by Senator Bradley. The Bradley 
amendment balances the budget over 7 years through a combination of 
spending freezes and tax increases. It raises taxes by $197 billion 
over the next 7 years while reducing discretionary spending by $25 
billion. In other words, while the Bradley amendment reduces Government 
discretionary spending a little, it raises taxes a whole lot more. And 
we witnessed with the earlier education amendments, many Senators still 
find it easier to raise taxes than to cut spending.
  Finally, Senator Bradley also offered a sense of the Senate amendment 
expressing support for eliminating tax loopholes and using the money to 
lower individual tax rates. While I agree with the premise that our 
current Tax Code is hopelessly complicated and that a major reform of 
the Code was in order, Senator Bradley's amendment would preclude 
certain deductions which I support. Efforts to target tax benefits at 
depressed or blighted areas through enterprise zones--or tax free 
Renaissance Zones recently announced by Governor Engler--would not 
conform with the Bradley amendment and it jeopardizes the home mortgage 
interest deduction that homeowners rely upon in order to make the 
payments on their homes. For those reasons, I opposed it.


                          ____________________