[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 186 (Monday, November 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17502-S17503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is very reassuring to this Senator to 
see the Congress work out this continuing resolution as it has done 
over this past weekend providing for the continued funding of the 
departments of the Government that had not been funded through the 
passage of regular appropriations bills.
  There has been a great deal of confusion over what the issues were 
and why the continuing resolution was needed. I think everyone in the 
Senate and certainly those who worked to put together the resolution 
which was adopted by the Senate fully understand it all, but the 
American people, who do not have access to the information that is 
available on a daily basis here, had to be confused by the procedures 
and what the issues were.
  One of the issues that can also be dealt with today is whether or not 
the bill that has been passed by Congress to fund the Department of 
Defense for the next fiscal year can be signed by the President so that 
not only can people who work for the Department of Defense be secure in 
the knowledge that they are going to be paid under the terms of not 
only employment arrangements but contracts, independent contractors, 
defense contractors, and the rest, but that we will be keeping a 
commitment to the military so that they can make plans, they can use 
the funds that are coming to them under the regular fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bill in a thoughtful way that does not actually end up 
costing money.
  What worries me is that the President is sending signals that he may 
veto this bill because he thinks it provides too much money for 
defense, more than he had requested in his budget submission. I will 
tell you a lot of things have changed in the world since the President 
submitted his budget to the Congress. For example, we are seeing 
negotiated right now among different factions in the former Yugoslavia 
an arrangement which the President says may require additional United 
States forces, activities under our NATO alliance on the part of United 
States defense forces that will require more money than had been 
anticipated when this budget was submitted.

  One of the provisions in the Defense appropriations bill which our 
committee approved was a contingency appropriation of $643 million 
which is made available to the administration, to the Commander in 
Chief for use by the Department of Defense for contingency operations 
that had not been anticipated when that budget had been submitted. If 
this bill is not signed, there will be prolonged negotiations among the 
committees of the Congress with jurisdiction over defense matters. We 
do not know what the next bill will provide. We do not know how much 
will be provided or denied for contingency operations. There is a great 
deal of controversy right now, and the President surely knows this, in 
the Congress over whether we ought to support and fund and provide the 
resources for a massive ground force in the former Yugoslavia as a part 
of any peacekeeping operation.
  So I am suggesting that is an issue which can be certainly dealt with 
in a way that ought to be pleasing to the administration and favorable 
to the administration's interests, if this Defense appropriations bill 
is signed.
  The President has stated in numerous public addresses his commitment 
to a strong national defense. As a matter of fact, in his second State 
of the Union Address on January 25, 1994, President Clinton said:

       The budget I send to Congress draws the line against 
     further defense cuts. It protects the readiness and quality 
     of our forces. Ultimately, the best strategy is to do just 
     that. I hope Congress without regard to party will support 
     that position.

  I suggest that this Defense appropriations bill does support that 
position. There are some in Congress and in the administration who are 
going to argue that the President should veto the bill because it 
exceeds his budget request, but there are things that have come to 
light in terms of threats against the security of our country, 
particularly the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the 
capabilities that some countries have now of sending such weapons over 
long distances with new missile technologies that are beginning to 
develop around the world. These are in countries that are historically 
not our most serious security threats, but have become so or are 
capable of becoming so through these emerging technologies and the 
ability to acquire technologies from countries willing to sell these 
weapons and sell these new technologies.
  So, provided in this Defense appropriations bill are some additional 
funds to help meet these new threats, and it seems to me that this is a 
matter of grave national concern. I hope that the President will sign 
the bill, not only because it takes the Department of Defense out from 
under the continuing resolution which we just adopted last night, but 
because it goes a long way toward meeting the challenge that the 
President himself laid before the Congress in his last State of the 
Union Address and the address in 1994.
  I hope we can resolve these issues as they develop. There are other 
bills that are contentious as well. The Senator from Vermont mentioned 
a couple of them. The distinguished leader mentioned the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill, which has not yet been brought to the floor of the 
Senate because the Democrats have been objecting and insisting on 
debating at length the motion to proceed to consider the bill. We hope 
that bill can be passed and the President will sign it as well.
  Mr. President, seeing no other Senator seeking recognition, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I understand we are in a period of 
morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes. 
Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  
[[Page S 17503]]


                   TAX RELIEF FOR THE AMERICAN FAMILY

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to listen to the 
remarks of the distinguished Senator from Vermont. And now that we have 
established this interim accord and agreement, thankfully, for the 
first time in decades we will have a balanced budget in the United 
States. Now will come the debate of the priorities within that balanced 
budget, and we saw a precursor in the remarks by the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The Senator takes exception to the tax relief proposal that is in the 
congressional budget that we will soon give to the President. Both the 
House and the Senate have approved $245 billion in tax relief for 
American families and communities and businesses over a 7-year period.
  Mr. President, just several weeks ago the President of the United 
States acknowledged to an audience in Houston, TX, that his 1993 tax 
increase, which was the largest in American history, might have been a 
mistake. In fact, he said it was a mistake. And it was indeed.

  What is interesting is the size of that tax increase that the 
President has now suggested was a mistake was about $250 billion. It is 
interesting to note that this tax relief that we are talking about is 
$245 billion. One cannot miss the similarity of the two numbers. In 
fact, Mr. President, what you are about to have here is a Congress 
acknowledging that that tax increase was a mistake and is in the 
business of refunding it and undoing it and fixing it.
  I am rather new here, Mr. President, but I am always amazed by the 
idea that you hear expressed here that the best way for the resources 
of America to be managed, in the minds of so many people in Washington, 
is that everybody gets a wheelbarrow out and ships everything they have 
earned up here so that a policy wonk can decide what the priorities are 
of American families and businesses and communities. I do not think our 
forefathers had that in mind, Mr. President.
  I was just over at the first Senate Chamber a moment ago. I like to 
walk by there and think about Thomas Jefferson giving his inaugural 
address there. He did not have in mind that all the fruits of labor of 
American families was supposed to be shipped up to the capital and 
reconfigured and sent back according to the priorities of somebody 
here.
  That is not what they had in mind. In fact, he is very quotable on 
this subject, almost refers to it as treasonous when the fruits of 
labor are taken from the person who earned it, removed from them and 
given to somebody else to pursue another set of priorities.
  Mr. President, just 40 years ago--we do not have to go all the way 
back to Jefferson--just 40 years ago American families, in 1950, were 
sending 2 cents--2 pennies--out of every dollar they earned to 
Washington, to defend the Nation, to build the ports, the roads, the 
basic functions of the Federal Government. Today, that same family 
sends virtually a quarter of their labor to Washington, and then almost 
that again to local and State governments. But the important point I am 
addressing here today is that a quarter of all the earnings of an 
American family are removed from the family.
  We hear about, and heard it all through this debate, about how we 
have to have program after program for the benefit of the American 
family. And I can tell you, Mr. President, that if you line the 
American families up and ask them, ``Would you rather have the 
resources yourself to decide how to best house and educate, provide for 
the health of your family, or would you rather send the check in to the 
Federal Government and let them decide how to manage your family,'' the 
crescendo in chorus of Americans would be, ``We can do it better.''
  The leader just referred to the gentleman that had 10 children who 
under this tax relief proposal would have $5,000 more to provide for 
those children. He is so right when he says, Mr. President, ``I can do 
it better than you or the Federal Government.''
  In general, this tax relief will put $2,000 to $3,000 on the kitchen 
table of every average American family--$2,000 to $3,000. That is a 
combination of lower interest rates and an expanding economy that comes 
from the balanced budget and the tax credits and the tax relief.
  Now, after we get through raking the Government through these 
families, they end up with about $25,000 to $27,000 that is left for 
them to run the average American family. That is disposable income, 
money that we have not taken away. That is not very much.
  We have marginalized middle America. We have pushed them to the wall. 
So a proposal that gives $2,000 to $3,000 represents virtually a 10- to 
15-percent pay raise and one they get to keep.

  This money all becomes disposable income. That is a dramatic infusion 
of resources that will improve that family's ability to care for 
itself. In the end, Mr. President, it is the family we count on to 
raise America, not the Government. It is the family we count on to 
nurture and grow America and work and build a home and heat it and 
educate their children and care for the older members of the family. It 
is the family unit that we depend on to build America. That is where 
the resources need to go.
  America will prosper from this because we will make those families 
stronger, more able to do the very jobs we want them to do for us. That 
is where America is built, in those average, hard-working families from 
my State to yours, Mr. President.
  This proposal produces so much good for them. It means we will enter 
the new century with our families in better condition. We will relieve 
the burden on them. We will have an expanding economy, and the world is 
watching us--the world is watching us. You suggested that in your 
remarks--the dangers of the world. We will be most able to be the 
superpower we are if we are financially healthy, and these balanced 
budgets do just that. These balanced budgets mean America will march 
into the new century, not stumble into the new century.
  Mr. President, this Senator, and I know many, many others, like 
yourself, have waited long, long years for a Congress to seize our 
financial affairs and do the kinds of things that will make us a strong 
nation, because in the end, none of us know a family or a person or a 
business or a community that can do the job it is supposed to do if it 
becomes financially decrepit, which is the path we are on. You do not 
know people like that, nor will you ever, and this is true of nations 
as well, Mr. President. A nation must first be financially healthy, and 
then it can carry out its duty honorably and appropriately.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and in that no other Senator is 
present, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________