[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 84 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6004-S6009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       A DIFFERENCE IN PRIORITIES

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, it is easy to campaign as a champion of the 
middle class. As you know, President Clinton did it in 1992, when he 
made the middle-class tax cut the centerpiece of his campaign. His very 
first television commercial that year featured the candidate looking 
directly into the camera and telling the voters that they deserve a 
change. ``That is why I have offered a plan to get the economy moving 
again, starting with a middle-class tax cut,'' he said.
  Of course, we all know what happened to that tax cut a year later. 
The candidate who pinned his campaign to the hopes and dreams of the 
middle class became the President who let the middle class down once he 
moved into the Oval Office. His campaign promise of a tax cut was 
transformed into a $270 billion tax increase--the largest tax increase 
in American history. It was change, all right--but certainly not the 
kind of change the people had asked for or were promised.
  Everyone who drives a motor vehicle knows what the President's 4.3-
cent-per-gallon tax increase has done to their annual gasoline bills--
especially recently, with gas prices around the Nation at such high 
levels. By boosting the cost of gasoline by nearly $5 billion every 
year, the gas tax has been particularly damaging for truckers, farmers, 
and anyone who lives in rural areas of the country.
  Senior citizens, even those making as little as $24,000 a year, saw 
their taxes rise as well once the President's 1993 tax bill increased 
the taxable portion of their Social Security benefits by 70 percent.
  For the more than 80 percent of small business owners who file their 
income taxes as individuals, President Clinton's 1993 tax increase 
forced them to pay taxes at a rate as high as 44.5 percent. That is 
significantly above the corporate rate of 35 percent, and means the 
folks who run the local plumbing business or TV repair shops are paying 
taxes at a higher rate than Microsoft or General Motors.

  Families, job providers, retirees, motorists--all of us felt the 
pinch when the President signed his 1993 tax bill into law.
  Since President Clinton's election, the Government is taking more 
from the paychecks of middle-class Americans than it ever has before. 
The administration and the Democrats in Congress who voted for it and 
passed it say, but it was only targeted at the rich. But, today, the 
typical American family faces a total tax burden of 38 percent. In 
human costs, this means we taxpayers are turning more money over to the 
Government than we are spending for our family's food, clothing, 
shelter, and transportation combined. Tax freedom day--the day the 
American taxpayers are no longer working just to satisfy Uncle Sam and 
can begin keeping our dollars for ourselves and our families--has 
jumped ahead an entire week since President Clinton took office.
  The various budget plans the President has submitted to Congress over 
the last year and a half paint a very different picture of priorities. 
The priorities for which Bob Dole and our Congressional majority have 
repeatedly fought have been to protect families from the unreasonable 
demands of an unregulated Federal Government. The priorities of the 
President and the Democratic leadership have always been to protect the 
status-quo government, and too often, at the family's expense.
  In his State of the Union Address in January, President Clinton 
boldly declared that ``the era of big Government is over.'' ``Big 
Government'' presumably meant the high taxes that have squeezed the 
middle class--the gigantic bureaucracy that has made redtape synonymous 
with Washington inefficiency, and the wasteful spending that has 
drained the taxpayers of their precious dollars.
  But big Government remained alive and well in the budget the 
President submitted for fiscal year 1997.
  That budget was nothing more than the status quo the current 
administration continues to defend. It did not rein in the big spending 
that has generated our massive deficit and put our children and 
grandchildren on the line for decades of our financial mismanagement. 
It called for $60 billion in tax increases over the next 7 years.
  And where are the tax cuts the President has repeatedly promised 
American families? He offered nothing but token tax relief. His child 
tax credit began at just $300 per child, was slowly ratcheted up to 
$500, and then eliminated just 2 years later. By the way, teenagers 
were too old to qualify for that tax break.
  Under the guidance of President Clinton and the Senate Democratic 
leadership, my colleagues across the aisle attempted to break the 1993 
tax increase record when the President's budget came before this body 
in May. Had they prevailed, the amendments they offered during debate 
over the budget resolution, combined with the President's own tax 
mandates, would have amounted to another tax increase of $295 billion, 
dwarfing the $270 billion increase of 1993. Fortunately, the gentleman 
from Kansas has heard the demands of the American people in calling for 
fiscal restraint and relief from a crushing Federal tax burden, and 
under his leadership, we stood with the taxpayers in rejecting those 
attempts to further increase taxes on working-class families.
  If the majority leader's balanced budget plan, with its $245 billion 
in tax relief, had been signed into law instead of stopped with a 
Presidential veto last December, April 15 would have been very 
different for the millions of Americans who dread the annual arrival of 
tax day.
  Let me describe the tax day that could have been under the Republican 
balanced budget plan.
  A family sits down at the kitchen table to tackle their Federal tax 
return, but it is not with the sense of foreboding they usually feel 
this time of year. They have heard that when Congress and the President 
enacted a balanced budget, they created changes in the tax laws that 
are making a dramatic difference for middle-class families like theirs.
  Because both parents have jobs--let us say one owns their own small 
business and the other works part time at a local hospital--the first 
decision they have always had to make in the past was whether to file 
jointly or as individuals. Back then, filing as a family always came at 
a cost because of a glitch in the tax code called the marriage penalty. 
Because the marriage penalty required joint filers to pay higher taxes 
than if they had filed separate returns, it seemed as though the 
Government was discouraging family life, instead of trying to nurture 
it.
  But no longer, because they notice immediately under the balanced 
budget bill that Republicans passed, sent to

[[Page S6005]]

the President and which he vetoed, they notice that under that plan the 
marriage penalty has been eliminated, meaning families are no longer 
unfairly penalized through higher taxes.
  That is the tax day I fought for. That is the tax day every 
Republican supported.
  That is hypothetically again under a tax date that could have been.
  As this family works through the form, they discover several other 
ways in which the Federal Government has rewritten the tax code to help 
bring families together and keep them strong.
  They are the proud parents of three children, the youngest of whom 
they adopted just last spring. To help defray the enormous costs a 
family can incur during the adoption process, the new laws allow them 
take a tax deduction of up to $5,000 for adoption expenses. By reaching 
out to families willing to make room for a child without a home, this 
new tax policy makes sense, they decide.
  To keep their family together, the young couple decided several years 
ago to move an elderly parent into their home and care for them there. 
They count themselves fortunate that they have been able to keep three 
generations together under the same roof, but it has stretched the 
family budget at times. They are pleased to learn that Congress has 
recognized this by allowing them to subtract $1,000 from their total 
tax liability to help offset the cost of caring for an older relative.
  For families, the cost of health insurance and medical care can be 
overwhelming, and the challenges are even greater when they own a farm 
or a business.
  While most working people receive their insurance through their jobs, 
small business owners and farmers usually purchase their own. Our 
mythical taxpayer has been able to deduct 30 percent of the cost of the 
health insurance premiums in past years, but they discover today that 
under the tax bill, the Balanced Budget Act that the Republicans 
passed, sent to the President, but again he vetoed, under that bill, 
the new tax rules would have allowed them a 50-percent deduction for 
self-employed individuals. It is still not the full 100-percent 
deductibility that large employers enjoy, but think it is a good start.

  One unanticipated expense that recently came their way was the 
purchase of a new home. That required dipping into an IRA to help 
finance the downpayment, which used to mean a hefty tax penalty. No 
longer--families are now allowed to withdraw up to $10,000, penalty 
free, for first-time home purchases and certain other expenses.
  And by the way, the student loan that helped finance a college 
education is no longer the financial drain it used to be, now that the 
Federal Government is allowing taxpayers to deduct up to 20 percent of 
the interest--as much as $500--every year for 5 years.
  As they reach the end of the tax form, they discover the best news 
has been saved for last. After they have calculated their total tax 
liability, they then subtract a $500 tax credit for each of their three 
children. That is $1,500 of their own money that Washington is not 
going to take, which they can put toward meeting the needs of their 
family, not merely feeding the Federal bureaucracy. And best of all, 
this $500 per-child tax credit comes in addition to the $2,500 tax 
exemption for dependents.
  They sign their 1040 and seal it away in its envelope, pleased that 
Washington is finally enacting tax policies that are putting families 
first.
  That is the tax day Bob Dole delivered to the American people by 
passing the Balanced Budget Act. Unfortunately, because President 
Clinton has an entirely different view of tax day--and proved it with 
his veto pen--the April 15 I have described is nothing more than the 
tax day that could have been.
  While this administration went on the offensive against families by 
vetoing the $500 per-child tax credit, elimination of the marriage 
penalty, adoption and eldercare tax credits, and tax incentives 
designed to create jobs and boost salaries, Republicans, Bob Dole, and 
Newt Gingrich put this Congress on record as standing squarely 
alongside the working families of America.
  As long as taxes keep rising, the dollars Americans have left over to 
provide for their families will keep falling. And so it has been the 
Republicans' goal--the Dole-Gingrich goal--to help Americans earn more 
money and keep more of the money they earn, so they can do more for 
themselves, their kids, their communities, their churches.
  I look forward to having a President who will sign legislation which 
helps the hard-working middle-class taxpaying families of America.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Faircloth pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1853 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, in just a moment I am going to yield up 
to 5 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. President, over the last couple of years--since August 1993 when 
we got the largest tax increase in American history--instead of the tax 
reduction that had been promised--the figure of about $250 billion has 
been used over and over, and we need to put that figure in context--the 
actual tax increase from 1994 to the year 2002, or the 7 years that we 
all talk about, is $500 billion--$500 billion in new taxes from this 
administration, half a trillion dollars; that instead of the tax relief 
that was promised. And that is why I say there should be a relevance 
between what one says as he seeks office and what he does if he is 
fortunate enough to achieve it.

  Mr. President, I yield up to 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator 
from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think there is nothing more important as 
we look toward an election, as we look toward closing this session of 
the Congress, as voters and citizens, than examining some of the things 
that are really important in making these decisions.
  I think I must tell you I have been distressed, somewhat, over the 
last couple of years about this tremendous communication system we have 
where, for the first time ever, whatever happens in the world, you just 
instantly know about it. I compare that to what it must have been like 
100 years ago. In my State of Wyoming, people did not know what in the 
world happened in Washington. They probably did not care very much, but 
they did not know for a very long time. Now we know and we have the 
greatest communications system, but I have to say I think we have 
developed this sort of spin process to where it is very difficult for 
us to know what the facts are so we can make decisions. That is really 
what this whole thing is about. That is what this Congress is about, 
what this Senate is about, is making choices, hard choices.
  I guess, again, I reflect on elections where--obviously, you are not 
able to talk with candidates about 800 different issues which will be 
talked about during the course of a year here. So, instead, you have to 
sort of talk about philosophy and talk about where you stand and talk 
about the values that you have that you measure the issues against so 
the people that you talk to can say, ``Yes, I understand. I understand 
that set of issues. So when I measure against that, I have a pretty 
good hunch as to how those decisions will be made.''
  Never have we had, I do not think, as clear a set of choices as we 
have had this year and will have in the coming year. I certainly 
respect that there are different philosophies and different points of 
view. We get up here and argue, often, the merits of the issues, which 
is valid, but when you really get down to it, what we are really 
talking about is the difference in philosophies.
  A balanced budget is probably the most significant item we have 
talked about this year, the most significant item that has been brought 
before all of us as citizens: Whether we are going to be responsible 
for the spending, whether we are going to be morally responsible to pay 
for it as we use it, whether we are going to be fiscally responsible, 
to not spend more than we

[[Page S6006]]

take in. Everyone says that is a great idea, but not everyone agrees 
with doing something about it. That is the choice you have. We have 
everyone saying, yes; we want to balance the budget. But then we have a 
vote and we do not have enough to get a constitutional amendment to do 
it.
  So I think we have some real choices. We have to decide for ourselves 
what it is that we think is important.
  Regulatory relief--I do not think anyone would reject the notion or 
resist the idea that we are overregulated. Overregulation is difficult 
for the economy, it causes fewer jobs, it causes less prosperity. We 
can change it. Everyone is for it, except when you get to it, and then 
they do not do it.
  Welfare reform--we all talk about welfare reform. Is there anybody 
who says, ``Oh, no, we do not he need to change welfare, it is 
perfect''? Of course not. Do we get it done? No; we sent it to the 
President, and he vetoed it. This is the same President who campaigned 
on welfare reform.

  So, these are the kinds of choices we have to make all the time. It 
seems to me it has become increasingly important that there is some 
credibility to where you stand, philosophically, on issues. Should we 
have less Federal Government or more? That is pretty basic, pretty 
basic stuff. When you talk about many of these issues, that is really 
the core issue. Should we do it here? Does it need to be done? Could it 
be done better? Could we, in fact, shift it to the States, closer to 
people, where it can better be done? That is a good issue. Less 
government or more? More regulation or less?
  There are even some more basic issues, I think. They have to do with 
personal responsibility. They have to do with whether or not you really 
believe--and I really believe, I do believe --that we are responsible 
for our own actions. My wife happens to be a high school teacher. She 
probably says more often than anything else, ``You are responsible for 
your own behavior. You are responsible for your own actions.'' If that 
is good enough for kids, it is good enough for us, too. That is how you 
build a strong freedom, a democracy, is people being responsible for 
their own actions.
  But when you take a look at some of the issues we find ourselves 
saying, discretely, ``Well, no, the Government really ought to be 
responsible for that. After all, there are a lot of things I am really 
not responsible for, so somebody else must be.'' That is pretty basic 
stuff.
  Bob Dole will be here for the last time tomorrow. I cannot help but 
think here is a man who has served his country for so long and has 
consistently been for the things that he said he was for, voted for 
them and supported them. He is not someone who has said, ``Yes, I think 
I am for that,'' and then shortly after, ``Well, I am not sure, I am 
really for something else. Yes, I am for it, but I am not going to vote 
for it, not that.'' Bob Dole has been consistent in what he is for.
  Responsible spending--throughout his career he has been for less 
government rather than more. He has been on the side of moving more and 
more government back to the States and local government, closer to 
people, so people can participate. He has been for self-responsibility, 
for sacrificing for his country. These are the things that--as I said, 
I think we had 800 votes or something last year on all these issues. 
But when you peel it all away, there is some pretty basic, fundamental 
stuff people either believe in or they do not.
  There is another legitimate point of view--more government. A lot of 
people think the Government does a better job of spending money, that 
the way to balance the budget is to raise taxes, not to decrease 
spending. That is a legitimate point of view. I do not happen to share 
it, but it is a legitimate point of view.
  I guess what I am really saying is, we are going to have another 
opportunity, our biennial opportunity, as citizens, to evaluate where 
we think we should go, in your Government--in our Government; what you 
think are the fundamental pillars of defending democracy and freedom.
  I have had a couple of chances the last couple of years to go some 
other places. Frankly, I come back feeling more strongly about the 
elements of democracy and freedom and self-government than I ever did 
before. So we have that opportunity now. We will be measuring all of 
our candidates and all of our issues based on what we think is right 
and who we think will follow what they said they were going to do, 
where the credibility lies; people upon whom you can depend to stay 
with what they say. Mr. President, it seems to me that is kind of the 
real, old-fashioned, fundamental issue of this country. I am excited we 
are getting onto it.

  I appreciate my friend from Georgia having this conversation about 
where we are going, his conversation of credibility, of being able to 
rely on what we say we are going to do, and do it. We have set about to 
do that this year. I am pretty proud about what we tried to do. I am 
sorry we have not come to closure on more things, but we have changed 
the total debate here.
  Two years ago, no one was talking about balancing the budget. Now it 
is not a question of whether we are going to do it, it is a question of 
how we are going to do it. And that has been because I think we 
brought, from the last election, many of us, a message that said: 
``Look, we expect you to make some changes. You say you are going to 
have less Government, it is going to cost less and have less 
regulation. Do it.'' That is what we are seeking to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer would like 
to make some comments. In a moment, I will replace you so you can do 
that.
  I want to thank the Senator from Wyoming, once again, for the 
excellent presentation he makes over and over on the Senate floor.
  Just a moment ago, I mentioned this $500 billion tax increase that 
occurred in August 1993. The point I am making, Mr. President, is in 
1992, the President said this:

       I've offered a plan to get the economy moving again, 
     starting with a middle-class tax cut.

  ``Starting with a middle-class tax cut.'' Within 8 months, it became 
the largest tax increase in American history on the middle class. An 
average family in my State is paying $2,600 more in taxes and economic 
burden as a result of the actions and policies of an administration 
that promised just the reverse. With that, I will be glad to relieve 
the Chair.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Georgia for his courtesy and 
his support and his leadership in putting together this afternoon's 
objectives.
  As I understand it, we are talking this afternoon about the 
crossroads that America finds itself at in this quadrennial year, 1996. 
It is leap year; it is the year for the Olympics; and it is the year 
Americans decide who gets to stay in the White House until the next 
leap year and the next Olympics.
  As I look back on 1992, the last time we had one of these elections--
I have a very clear memory, because 1992 was the year that I ran for 
the Senate. It was a very interesting year. President Clinton was then 
Governor Clinton, and he was attacking an incumbent President. 
Ultimately, the Clinton message in 1992 came down to a single word. The 
word was ``change.'' President Clinton was campaigning in favor of 
change and was calling upon Americans to vote resoundingly for change. 
I had a very strong reaction to that, because ultimately my campaign 
for the Senate came down to a single word, and that word was 
``change.'' I campaigned for change.
  I got here and met the other freshman Senators in that group and 
found that virtually every one of them, regardless of party, had 
campaigned for change. I remember one of my colleagues on the 
Democratic side saying that she received a phone call some 3 weeks 
after the election and the voter said: ``I voted for change. Where is 
it?''
  She said: ``I haven't even taken office yet.''
  The caller said: ``Well, you promised me change, and you haven't 
produced, and I'm impatient.''
  What kind of a change did President Clinton give us once he did take 
office and take the oath of office? It was very interesting here as a 
Member of this body to see what happened. He became, if you will, co-
opted by the Democratic leadership in this House and in the other one.

[[Page S6007]]

  Senator Mitchell said, ``You don't need to talk about reducing the 
size of the congressional staff, we already did that.''
  ``Oh,'' said President Clinton, ``I didn't know that, so we'll allow 
spending as usual to go on in the Congress.''
  ``Well, what about changing the Tax Code?''
  ``Oh, you don't need to do that,'' said Senator Mitchell and Speaker 
Foley, ``we've already taken care of the Tax Code. As a matter of fact, 
what changes you do need in the Tax Code should be on the upside rather 
than the downside.''

  ``Oh,'' said President Clinton. ``Well, as long as you tell me that's 
what it ought to be, I will do it.''
  I remember the first major battle we had in this Chamber on the issue 
of change. The President proposed an emergency appropriations bill. 
Now, Mr. President, what does it mean when you say ``an emergency 
appropriations bill''? I had to ask that question. I was new; I didn't 
understand. They explained it to me. If you have an emergency 
appropriations bill, that means it does not have to fall under the 
restrictions of the reconciliation bill or the budget bill. That means 
it goes directly into the deficit without stopping any way through. We 
had a $19 billion emergency appropriations bill on this floor that we 
had to have to meet all the emergencies.
  What were the emergencies? Well, there was a warming hut that needed 
to be built by a skating rink somewhere in New England. Great 
emergency. Somehow they had gotten by skating on that pond or that 
local rink for a long time, but now there was an emergency; we had to 
have that warming hut. We had to have a whole series of things that 
were in that genre, and Bob Dole from this desk stood up and said, 
``No.''
  I realized, from that desk way over there, as a very new freshman, 
that what we were seeing was not change; it was business as usual. 
Promise one thing, then when you get to the Congress, when you get in 
office, cloak everything you do in confusing terms, call this an 
emergency; but basically pork-barrel spending for the President's 
political base in the same pattern as it had always been.
  What we were seeing was an attempt at business as usual and from 
Senator Dole an attempt to stop business as usual and produce change in 
the way things were done. From this very desk where I stand today, Bob 
Dole organized the Republicans in this Chamber who stood together in 
defiance of business as usual and brought about the first demonstration 
of real change in the way business is done when, by use of the 
filibuster, they stopped the President's stimulus package and insisted 
that those spending items had to be put in the budget.
  I remember, Mr. President, we wore buttons that said, ``Just pay for 
it.'' Do not let it go directly to the deficit and borrow money. Find a 
place where you would pay for it with some kind of spending cuts 
someplace else for these emergencies.
  When it finally happened, the Presiding Officer remembers, we ended 
up passing that portion of that appropriations bill that was really 
needed, but somehow the rest of it disappeared and the Republic 
survived. The emergency passed and no dire consequences occurred.
  I must confess, I do not know if the warming hut on the skating rink 
ever got built. I rather suspect that it did, if the local community 
that wanted it wanted it badly enough. But somehow we saw the beginning 
of real change by virtue of Bob Dole's leadership standing up to 
political business as usual in that circumstance, and that went on all 
through the 103d Congress, until in the election of 1994, the American 
people said, ``We want change,'' even more loudly than they said it in 
1992. Only this time the President got the message in a different 
fashion. Not one single incumbent of the party opposing the President 
was defeated in that election. Not one. That is an extraordinary 
historical fact. This has never happened before, that I know of, in 
American history.
  The Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress and the 
President suddenly got very, very nervous on the issue of 
change, because the Republicans were determined to produce change, the 
change that President Clinton promised before he slipped into the 
control, if you will, of the Democratic leadership of the Congress, and 
blame the advocate of business as usual.

  As I say, we are coming up to another election. I was at a dinner 
party a month or so ago where a number of people were talking politics. 
It is hard to go to a dinner party in this town where people do not 
talk politics. The host said, ``I want to pose a couple questions.'' He 
said, ``If Bill Clinton is reelected, what will he do in his second 
term?'' or, conversely, ``If Bob Dole is elected, what will he do in 
his first term?"
  Interesting. No one at the party had the slightest idea what the 
answer to the first question was. Nobody knew what Bill Clinton will do 
in his second term. Will he revive health care as a major issue? No one 
knew. Will he try to restructure the Tax Code, either raising or 
lowering? Nobody knew. What will he do about balancing the budget? 
Nobody had the slightest idea.
  Then someone said, ``Well, what would Bob Dole do if he got 
elected?'' ``Oh, he'll work on restructuring the Tax Code. He'll work 
toward a balanced budget.'' He will do a whole list of things. I said, 
``Wait a minute. Bob Dole is supposed to be the candidate with no 
vision. Bill Clinton is supposed to be the candidate that has a clear 
idea where he wants to take the country. Why can't any of you tell me 
what Bill Clinton will do in his second term, but you all can give me 
answers to what Bob Dole would do in his first term?"
  We all looked at each other as if we made a great discovery, that 
Bill Clinton talks about this and he talks about that, and he gives 
speeches saying we have to reform welfare, and he says the Republicans 
are right on a whole bunch of issues, and he seems to be co-opting all 
of the Republicans' positions, but he never really makes it clear what 
he intends to do if he gets elected.
  In the language of the business world, he is keeping his options 
open. In other words, he is keeping himself in a circumstance where he 
can go wherever he wants if he gets elected without ever tipping his 
hand as to what his intentions really are.
  Mr. President, let me tell you what I think his intentions really 
are. I have tried to examine the entrails of this particular owl and 
see if I can read them and come up with a prediction of the future. So 
let me take a stab at it.
  I believe Bill Clinton does have a clear idea of where he wants to 
take America. I go back to the 1992 campaign when he was asked for his 
vision and he said, ``I am concerned about the security of every 
American, the security of their job, the security of their income. I 
want an America that will make everyone secure.''
  Have we heard this before? Yes, Mr. President. This sounds like the 
rhetoric of most European politicians. I believe Bill Clinton wants to 
make the United States a modern European industrial state. Let us pick 
one as an example. I do not know whether he has this one in mind.
  Germany is a modern industrial European state. I think it is no 
accident that the first priority that President Clinton had was to give 
America a health care system modeled on the German model. What happens 
in a modern European industrialized state? Well, there is a lot of 
security. If you lose your job in Germany, the Government steps in and 
you can live for a long time on the kinds of payments the Government 
will give you.

  Indeed, unemployment in Europe is twice as high as it is in the 
United States and four and five times as long. If you lose your job in 
the United States, statistically you are likely to find a new one in 6 
months. The majority of people who are unemployed find a job within 6 
months or less in the United States. Something like 60, 70 percent of 
the people who are unemployed in Europe stay unemployed for 4 and 5 
years.
  This is the kind of country we would have if we were a modern 
European industrialized state: Unemployment twice what it is in the 
United States today, a tax burden of higher income taxes, higher 
payroll taxes, and consumption taxes, to boot, that would be close to 
something like a 14 percent national sales tax--that is the value-added 
tax level in Europe, different maybe in different countries, but 
basically around 14 percent--a much higher

[[Page S6008]]

deficit, and a much higher national debt in proportion to the size of 
our economy.
  As concerned as we are about our national debt, our national debt is 
the lowest of all of the industrialized countries in the world. 
President Clinton would like to take us in that direction. I sit on the 
Joint Economic Committee. President Clinton's principal economic 
adviser, Dr. Laura Tyson, testified before the committee after the 
Clinton administration took power.
  She said to us on that committee--I still remember it very clearly--
she said, ``Compared to the other industrialized nations of this world, 
the United States is seriously undertaxed,'' and then implied this 
administration is going to fix that.
  No. I think we know the direction in which President Clinton would go 
in a second term. It is the direction toward turning the United States 
into a North American version of Germany or France or Sweden, just as 
those countries are desperately trying to get out from under the kind 
of governmental control that has grown up there since the Second World 
War and are grasping to become more like the United States.
  There is an alternative, of course, in November. That is the 
candidate for whom, in my belief, the principal interest is not 
security, but opportunity, an opportunity for a good job, an 
opportunity for a good education, an opportunity to contribute, to 
build, to save, to create circumstances for one's family that can make 
those circumstances better.
  Opportunity is a little scarier than security. But throughout 
history, opportunity pays better. Countries that are built on 
opportunity do a whole lot better than countries that focus entirely on 
security.
  So, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for giving us 
this opportunity to talk about the differences that are going to be 
starkly portrayed between now and November.
  As I get ready for the November election, I am going to go back to 
1992 in my old play book and pull out the word ``change'' that worked 
so well in 1992 for all of us, and recognize that in 1996 Bob Dole will 
be the candidate of change and Bill Clinton will be the candidate of 
the status quo. Bob Dole will be the one who wants to take the Tax Code 
and turn it into an engine of opportunity. Bill Clinton will be 
defending the Tax Code and saying, it is just fine except it needs to 
be a little higher here or there.
  Bob Dole will be the one who is saying we must change welfare so 
these people have an opportunity to get off of it. Bill Clinton is the 
one who will be saying, no, let us hang on to the basic principles of 
the status quo and across the board.

  In 1992, the American people said, ``We want change.'' They got 
business as usual. In 1994, the American people even said more loudly, 
``We want change.'' Unfortunately, they have gotten gridlock because 
the White House has not gone along with the change that came by virtue 
of the Congress.
  In 1996, the American people will have one more opportunity to say, 
``We want change,'' and this time achieve it if they give Bob Dole the 
opportunity to carry out that which he has told us he will do instead 
of voting to keep the status quo.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  (Mr. BENNETT assumed the chair.)
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator 
from Utah. The Senator brings a very interesting perspective when he 
points to trying to determine what the administration's plan would be 
in that second term. When you alluded to the industrialized societies 
of Europe, I was particularly taken with the comment about 
unemployment, I think running around 12 percent, in Germany today. What 
was once an enormous competitive force, and we have all thought of as a 
competitive force, is now struggling with the burdens of a government 
that ensnares every facet of life for the people of Germany.

  I yield up to 10 minutes to the good Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                 the void in moral leadership--part xi

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we now have the classic example of 
duplicity in budgeting. It's the first clear example of budgetary 
duplicity since the infamous magic asterisk made famous by David 
Stockman. This time, it is by the President himself.
  The example is revealed courtesy of my colleague from Missouri, 
Senator Bond. He has laid out a compelling case that shows when the 
White House speaks about its budget, it speaks with two voices. One 
voice emanates from the left side, the other from the right side. Not 
surprisingly, this is so the President can have it both ways. They can 
have their cake and eat it too.
  The consequence of this duplicity is continued public cynicism. These 
days, that's a cardinal sin of any political leader. it undermines the 
confidence of our citizenry in its political leaders and in our system 
of government.
  Those watching from their homes, Mr. President, often get confused by 
our arcane budget process and terminology. So I want to explain this 
duplicity in normal, everyday language.
  As a big taxer and big spender, the President's political strategy is 
to spend money to make all his special interests happy. He already 
passed the largest tax increase in the history of the country back in 
1993. Now, he wants to use those revenues to spend more just before 
he's reelected.
  The problem is, his budget would deficit-spend forever. It would 
never be in balance.
  More than 80 percent of the American people want a balanced budget. 
Republicans criticized the President for not having a balanced budget. 
The criticism worked. It was scoring points with the public. That's 
because they support a balanced budget overwhelmingly.
  The President was on the political run. So he had a decision to make. 
He still wanted to spend all the money necessary to make his special 
interests happy. But he also wanted the public to think he had a 
balanced budget. That way, he could put a stop to all the criticism 
about not having a balanced budget. And, he would also not offend his 
political supporters. In other words, he could have his cake and eat it 
too.
  There's only one problem with this. To pull that off, the President 
would either have to make tough choices, or he'd have to use some 
sleight-of-hand. Sleight-of-hand won out.
  And so, the President presented his budget to Congress and the 
public. In doing so, he presented two budgets. One was $67 billion more 
expensive than the other.
  Depending on who he was talking to, he would reference one budget or 
the other. For instance: If he was talking to critics who said his 
budget didn't balance, he'd point to the one that's $67 billion 
cheaper. If he was talking to his special interest friends whom he 
didn't want to offend, he'd point to the one that had $67 billion more 
in it.
  That way, the President hoped to satisfy everyone, and offend no one.
  There's evidence of this.
  Senator Bond received testimony from their different heads of 
agencies that confirm the budgetary shell game. EPA Director Carol 
Browner, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala, and NASA Administrator Dan Goldin 
each suggested that the White House told them not to worry about future 
budget cuts in their agencies that would occur under the balanced 
budget version.
  In other words, the White House fully intends to honor the more 
expensive budget, rather than the balanced budget. But the President 
doesn't want to say that before the election so he can't be criticized 
for having a bloated budget.
  What this shell game shows is a White House that plays fast and loose 
with honesty. It is duplicitous. It's saying one thing out of one side 
of the mouth, and another out the other side. In the final analysis, 
the President intends to abandon a balanced budget, should he survive 
his effort for a second term.
  There's an even more serious and destructive game the White House is 
playing in its budget. The issue is the veterans' budget. The Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs is the Honorable Jesse Brown. Mr. Brown confirmed 
this before Senator Bond's subcommittee.
  He confirmed that, even though the President's budget would decimate 
veterans, the President has assured him he will renegotiate the 
veterans' budget every year. In other words, veterans funding, too--
just like all the others--

[[Page S6009]]

will also go up, allegedly. That would put even more pressure against a 
balanced budget.
  The problem with this example, Mr. President, it's more than simply a 
shell game. It's a total disavowal of the President's veterans budget, 
by the President's own people. Worse, by the President himself. It's an 
official budget that's not official. And that, Mr. President, is a 
matter of budget integrity. And this budget lacks integrity.
  The budget of the United States represents the official statement of 
policy of a President. If that is true this President's statement of 
policy is one of duplicity. And it lacks credibility and integrity.
  And that, Mr. President, is the mark of a failed leader. A leader who 
undercuts his own moral authority to lead the Nation. You cannot be a 
leader if your policies reflect duplicity, a lack of credibility, and a 
lack of integrity.
  This is the 11th in a series of talks, Mr. President, that I have 
shared with my colleagues on my observations about the President's 
failure to lead by example. His failure of moral leadership.
  If our leaders continue to lead this way, public cynicism--already at 
dangerous levels--will reach critical mass. We cannot continue to serve 
the people of our country in this way.
  Republicans have tried to lead by example. We put our money where our 
mouths were. We passed congressional accountability, putting Members of 
Congress under the same laws as we passed for the rest of the country. 
We passed a balanced budget last year. And, we'll pass another one 
later this week.
  But the President will veto a balanced budget again, without an 
honest alternative of his own. This is failed leadership of the worst 
kind, Mr. President.
  Finally, Mr. President, I commend Senator Bond for his outstanding 
detective work in surfacing this budget duplicity on behalf of the 
American people.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I believe we have gone past the 
allotted time by several minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed up to 15 more minutes to 
conclude our remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I commend all the Senators who have 
come to the floor and discussed the general premise that there should 
be a relationship between what officeholders say during the course of 
seeking the office and what they do once they achieve it.
  We talked about the fact that the administration talked about a tax 
reduction to the middle class and then raised taxes on them up to $500 
billion. We have talked about this budget duplicity, which we just 
heard about here today. We talked about the issue of being for a 
balanced budget, but then coming foursquare against the balanced 
budget, an amendment to the Constitution that would do nothing more 
than allow the issue to go to the several States. Yet, there was fear 
even of letting that go to the people.
  I am going to mention one other, as we close out, because the 
administration has talked frequently about its concern over crime in 
our country. By anyone's observation today, you cannot separate crime 
from drugs. And if there is one thing laying at the foot of this 
administration, it is the fact that they altered dramatically the drug 
policies that governed from 1980 to 1992--that 12-year period that saw 
massive reduction in the use of drugs at all levels.
  Between 1979--to give some examples, Mr. President--and 1992, drug 
use was cut in half in America. There is no way we will ever know the 
millions of families--sisters, brothers, friends, next-door neighbors--
that were saved from tragic consequences because of policies that 
discouraged the use of drugs.
  Under this administration, marijuana use among young people has 
increased an average of 50 percent across all age groups. Teenage drug 
use has risen every year under this administration. In 1992, at the 
beginning of the administration, 2.4 million of our youth used drugs. 
Today, the figure is 3.8 million--up 58 percent. This, Mr. President, 
is an epidemic.
  Use of marijuana, ages 14 to 15, is up 200 percent since 1992. 
Marijuana use among eighth graders was 3.7 percent in 1992. Today, it 
is 7.8 percent--a 110-percent increase.
  Hallucinogens, LSD and PCP, were at 5.8 percent up to 1992, and now 
it is 9.3 percent--up 60 percent.
  There were 146 people in the office of the drug czar when the 
President took office. He took it down to 25 people and has only 
recently discussed increasing it--I am sure as a result of these 
epidemic numbers that I am describing to you here today.
  The list goes on and on. But what has resulted, Mr. President, is 
that the combination of changing the policies, moving away from 
interdiction--those budgets went down--and moving away from law 
enforcement, emphasizing rehabilitation, I would have never believed, 
Mr. President, that those changes in policy could have such a massive 
and rapid response. Remember, we had a Surgeon General that was 
suggesting, early in this administration, that it was OK to legalize 
drugs.
  The fact that these drug policies changed was de-emphasized, and the 
White House never talked any more about drugs. Some made fun of Nancy 
Reagan's ``Just Say No,'' but we can use a little bit more of that now. 
What happened was our youth, very quickly, began to believe that drugs 
were no longer a problem.

  The result has been that, thinking it is no longer a problem, they 
are more willing to experiment with drug use. The result of that is 
that we have recreated a drug epidemic in our country of immense 
proportions, and there are millions of families that are going to 
suffer the consequences because we have not put up the fight. Whether 
it is a sister, a brother, a neighbor, someone in our town, someone 
across the hall in the workplace, we have created millions of 
casualties in America.
  The administration is talking more about drugs, but it is still not 
getting the job done. President Clinton requests 19.4 percent less 
funding for prevention in 1997 than he requested in 1996. So we still 
have a pattern that is ignoring this crisis.
  Now, this crisis reverberates through our hemisphere. Our fellow 
countries in the hemisphere are now coming under a deluge from the drug 
cartel. President Zedillo of Mexico said that there is no greater 
threat to his Republic than the drug cartel.
  This is a massive crisis that must be confronted very quickly in the 
balance of this decade as we move to the new century, if we are going 
to save millions of American casualties, from crack babies to drug use. 
This is the first time in my life that we have actually witnessed a war 
that is directed at kids--people 8 to 12 years old.
  The last drug crisis focused principally on people who were 16, 17, 
18, 19, and 20 and now it has moved down to 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, and 
this ought to command the attention of every policymaker--a mayor, a 
Governor, a county commissioner, and, yes, the President of the United 
States.
  Mr. President, I am about to yield the floor. I want to reiterate 
what I said when we began--that there should be a relationship between 
what policymakers say to our citizens and what they do. You ought not 
to promise tax relief and then raise taxes. You ought not say you are 
for a balanced budget and then fight it at every turn. You ought not to 
say that you are fighting to win this drug war and then turn a lot of 
it off, because that creates cynicism in our country. It really does. 
It makes people sit back and wonder about their Government. In every 
way that we can we ought to stress that relationship between what we 
run for and what we stand for and what we do. There should not be a 
great distance in the rhetoric and the deed. As near as possible they 
should match. We have emphasized here this afternoon that in all too 
many cases in the last 36 months they have not.

                          ____________________