[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 70 (Friday, May 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5097-S5098]
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, now that the budget resolution has been 
adopted, I wanted to take a few moments to discuss several of the more 
important votes that took place.
  The first of these was the Hatch-Kennedy amendment. This amendment 
was characterized as an effort to raise cigarette excise taxes in order 
to provide health care for low- and moderate-income children. I take 
exception to that description. There was nothing in the Hatch-Kennedy 
amendment to ensure that the new taxes would be imposed upon cigarettes 
or that the additional revenues would be spent on children's health. 
The net effect of this amendment would have been to raise taxes by $30 
billion and spending by $20 billion, period. I have several reasons for 
opposing an amendment of this sort.
  First, I am not opposed to taxing cigarettes in order to either 
reduce taxes elsewhere or fund important programs, and this vote should 
not be interpreted as such. The net effect of this amendment, however, 
would be to reduce the net tax cut contained within this resolution--
tax cuts targeted at families, education, and pro-growth policies--by 
$30 billion. The tax cut contained in this resolution is already less 
than 1 percent of the total Federal tax burden over the next 5 years, 
barely adequate to provided badly needed tax relief to families and 
small businesses. I believe that level is already too low, and I 
certainly do not support making it smaller.
  Furthermore, nothing prevents Senator Hatch, as a member of the 
Finance Committee, from offering his proposal as part of the 
reconciliation process. An amendment offered in the Finance Committee 
to increase tobacco taxes in order to provide additional Medicaid 
funding for children's health insurance would be in order. I might 
support it. The amendment considered by the Senate Wednesday, however, 
does nothing to further the prospects of such an effort.
  On the other hand, this amendment does expand the reconciliation 
instructions of the Labor Committee, where Senator Kennedy is the 
ranking member. This amendment would provide the Finance Committee an 
additional $2 billion and the Committee on Labor a whopping $18 
billion. Not withstanding the debate over taxes or children's health, 
there is no disagreement that both these issues belong in the Finance 
Committee--not Labor. The construction of this amendment appears 
motivated more by the jurisdictional concerns of Senator Kennedy than a 
concern for children's health.
  Finally, Mr. President, this amendment ignores the $16 billion 
already

[[Page S5098]]

provided by the resolution for children's health insurance. Neither 
Senator Kennedy nor Senator Hatch adequately explained why it was 
necessary to spend $36 billion for a problem the President had agreed 
could be addressed with $16 billion or why undermining an agreement 
that already addresses this problem is superior to working through the 
usual committee process. As was made clear during the debate, the $16 
billion provided by the budget is more than enough to provide 
children's health insurance as requested by the President.
  In summary, Mr. President, this amendment does nothing to further the 
cause of providing health care to America's children. It reduces the 
tax cuts for families and small businesses by 35 percent, it does 
nothing to assist the Finance Committee in its work to address this 
issue, and it endangers the $16 billion already provided for children's 
health.
  I would also take this opportunity to speak about the Gramm amendment 
to reduce discretionary spending by $76 billion and increase the net 
tax cut in the resolution by a like amount. Mr. President, the Federal 
deficit this year will be below $70 billion for the first time in 
almost 20 years, largely because Congress over the past 2 years held 
the line on Government spending and taxation. We resisted efforts to 
raise spending above reasonable levels and we opposed efforts to raise 
the already record tax burden on American families. And while I intend 
to support this resolution because I believe, on balance, that it will 
result in a smaller, more efficient Government, I am concerned that the 
spending proposed by this agreement is too high, and that it plants the 
seeds for ever-expanding Government down the road.
  How much spending does this resolution contain? For discretionary 
spending, this resolution spends $212 billion more than the 1995 budget 
resolution, $189 billion more than last year's budget resolution, $75 
billion more than the moderate group's budget alternative last year, 
and just $16 billion less than the President's budget this year--
without the triggered cuts he proposed to ensure his budget gets to 
balance. With regard to the Gramm amendment, the underlying resolution 
spends $76 billion more than the President proposed just last year. 
Hence, the Gramm amendment to reduce overall spending levels by $76 
billion and to target that savings toward tax reduction.
  Mr. President, last Congress I collaborated with a group of Senators 
and Representatives to make the Federal more efficient by eliminating 
wasteful programs and consolidating duplicative agencies. In our work, 
we proposed to eliminate three Cabinet-level agencies--HUD, Commerce, 
and Energy. Moreover, we advocated targeting both spending and tax 
provisions which provided unwarranted benefits to corporations, so-
called corporate welfare. The point of this effort, Mr. President, was 
to make the Federal bureaucracy more rational and efficient and to 
reduce the burden of government on Americans.
  Mr. President, I believe the Gramm amendment is in line with our on-
going efforts to streamline the Government and make it more responsive 
to Americans. The discretionary spending levels it provides--the same 
spending levels as supported by the President last year--are sufficient 
to increase funding for important programs like health research, 
transportation infrastructure, and insuring children while forcing 
Congress to turn a critical eye towards the waste and inefficiency 
prevalent in the Federal bureaucracy. Through my work at eliminating 
wasteful Government agencies, I am convinced that we can save $76 
billion over 5 years by targeting corporate welfare without harming 
important Federal programs.
  Just as important, the Gramm amendment provides significant tax 
relief for American families and businesses. As I said previously, the 
tax relief contained in the underlying budget resolution is less than 1 
percent of the total Federal tax burden over the next 5 years. It is 
barely sufficient to provide families with a pared-down $500-per-child 
tax credit, a reduction on the capital gains tax rate, estate tax 
reform, and an expansion of IRA's.

  Mr. President, the tax burden is at its highest level in American 
history, with the typical American family paying almost 40 percent of 
their income to State, local and Federal governments--more than they 
spend on food, clothing, and housing combined. With the Gramm 
amendment, the tax relief contained in this resolution would still be 
modest--less than 2 percent of the total tax burden--but it would allow 
us to fully fund the $500-per-child tax credit, cut the capital gains 
rate in half, provide relief from the onerous estate tax, and expand 
eligibility for IRA's. These are important reforms that I have been 
working on for my entire tenure in the Senate, and I will continue to 
work to provide meaningful tax relief to American families beyond the 
tax cuts included in this resolution.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________