Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S287-S292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, over the last several days, there has
been considerable discussion about the State of the Union Address and
the general framework of the President's new budget and subsequent
presentations that have been made to the Congress and to the American
people about this budget. Over the next several months, we are going to
entertain a lot of hyperbole, a lot of rhetoric, and probably a lot of
finger pointing, but I have a business background--bottom line. The
bottom line here is that the celebration conducted on the White House
lawn last year for the first balanced budget in 30 years and the first
tax relief in 16 years, if we accept the President's presentations, is
being canceled. It didn't last a year. Just take an x and mark it out
and take all those films and set them aside. It didn't happen, because
the tax relief--the first significant tax relief in 16 years--was $110
billion over the next 5 years. The President's budget envisions tax
increases of $106 billion over the next 5 years. So the tax relief is
crossed through, gone.

Now, it's true that there will be a different set of winners and
losers, which is unfortunately the type of thing that happens in the
Capital City. The point is, they made huge fanfare that we were giving
$110 billion in tax relief. We have gone home and talked about it, and
we are right back here raising it again, canceling it out.
Now, the balanced budget--the first in 30 years--the balanced budget
agreement, which was a very hard-fought battle, finally secured and
signed with great celebration on the White House lawn, envisioned a cap
of expenditures over 5 years. In other words, we came to terms about
how much we were going to spend between the signing of that and the
year 2002. Preset. We told the American people that we are on a
glidepath and we have decided what we are going to spend. Well, the
fruits of this have been enormous. The world has looked at us and said
that this is a very positive thing. The President's budget takes that
and sets it aside and says, no, we are going to go back to the days of
tax and spend, and he is proposing $150 billion in new spending, added
on above those caps that we agreed to.
So, in short, bottom line, you take the budget deal and tax relief
and throw it out, cancel it. That is where the debate starts this year.
I think that is unacceptable.
Mr. President, we have just been joined by my good colleague from
Missouri. He is operating under a real scheduling problem here. I am
going to yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri. He is
dealing with another matter, but we want to facilitate the Senator's
schedule, and it is a very important initiative that he is going to be
talking about this morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Bond and Mr. Frist pertaining to the introduction
of S. 1599 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we have now been joined by the senior
Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, an acknowledged expert on economics
and the budget. I welcome him to the floor to discuss the President's
budget. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank our dear friend and leader from
Georgia, Senator Coverdell, for yielding. Let me first say that this is
a very happy occasion to me because I have come to the floor of the
Senate to talk about a budget where in the one provision that Americans
clearly understand best, and based on the historical problems we care
about most, we have a unanimity of purpose with the White House, with
the Democrats. In fact, this is the first time in my career in Congress
that we have a President, a minority party, and a majority party, all
of which have committed to balancing the Federal budget.
It is a certainty that if the economy stays as strong over the next
18 months as it is today that we will balance the Federal budget in
fiscal year 1999, which is October of 1998 through September of the
year 1999. That, obviously, is good news.
So I think the first thing we need to do is we don't need a debate
about balancing the budget. We don't need a debate about how we differ
with the President on this subject. Some people will want to debate
about how it happened. Some people will want to debate who should have
the credit. But it seems to me that the good news is given the economy
stays as strong as it is we are going to have a balanced budget, and
the President and the Congress--Democrats and Republicans--agree on the
bottom line of that budget.
So given all of that happy news, I think we should just simply take
it to the bank, so to speak, and move ahead on that front.
Now the question comes: Where do we disagree? That is what I would
like to talk about today because I think those disagreements are very,
very important. How did we get to where we are today? It seems to me
that it started in 1985 when for the first time we really started to
try to gain control of spending. It has been fiscal responsibility--
often a battle between the President and the Congress, Democratic
Presidents, Republican Presidents, Democratic Congresses, Republican
Congresses. But the basic fact of life is that since 1985 we have
limited the growth of Government for the first time really in the
postwar period.
Where does the President want to take us from this happy moment, and
where do Republicans want to take us from this happy moment? Given that
together with a strong economy we are going to balance the budget,
which road does the President want to go down? And which road do
Republicans in Congress want to go down? Then it seems to me that it is
up to us to define those paths as we come to this fork in the road
where people need to choose which path they want to follow.
The President is proposing in his budget $115 billion of new taxes
and user fees. These taxes entail many different provisions from taxes
on airline tickets to changing the way we deal with life insurance--
numerous provisions. But when you add up all of the taxes and user
fees, the President's budget over the next 5 years will take $115
billion out of the pockets of Americans and transfer that money to the
Government. The President will then use that money to fund in part a
$130 billion increase in Government spending. Anyone who heard the
State of the

[[Page S288]]

Union has heard the long list of things that the President wants to
spend money on.
The first thing I want people to understand is that this represents a
dramatic change in policy. The President is contemplating from this
point where we have all come together to balance the budget taking a
leftward path at this fork in the road that entails a very substantial
increase in taxes, and a very substantial increase in Government
spending.
Let me tell you why I am concerned about the increase in taxes and
user fees. I am concerned because never have Americans paid more taxes
than they do today. American families all over the country--when you
add up the total taxes they pay--are paying about 31 cents out of every
dollar they earn to the Government in taxes. We didn't pay 31 cents out
of every dollar at the peak of the war effort in 1944 and 1945. We
didn't pay 31 cents out of every dollar at the peak of the Civil War
effort. Never in the history of the country have taxes been higher than
they are today. Yet, in the President's budget under his own numbers,
the percentage of the income of Americans who work for a living that
goes to the Federal Government in taxes rises for 1998 over 1997 and
rises for 1999 over 1998.
For 3 years in a row, despite the fact that we are at the highest tax
level in American history, the President would raise taxes again,
meaning that Government would be spending more of our income than at
any time in American history. And the only other times in American
history that we have even rivaled this level of taxes were times when
defense spending was at a record high. And today defense spending is
lower than it was when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7,
1941.

Now it seems to me that what Republicans have to do--and I think we
need to do it in a very open way because this is a public policy
choice--is we need to go through and look at all of the $115 billion in
taxes and user fees, loophole closures, whatever euphemism the
President may have for them, and we need to make a judgment. Are these
good things, are they bad things, should they be done, are they
equitable, and do we want to take that much in revenues? That is the
first question we have to answer. I think we do it by looking at each
individual program and making a decision.
Then we come to the decision as to what you would do with this money
if you had it. If we had $115 billion of new revenues, would we want to
go out and undertake $130 billion of new spending programs, or would we
want to give that $115 billion back to the American people by cutting
taxes?
It seems to me that the difference between Republicans and the
President at this sort of defining moment where we are on the verge of
achieving a balanced budget and facing this fork in the road that the
President wants to go left in raising taxes to increase spending even
though the tax rate is at a record high. I believe Republicans think
that we should look at each one of the President's revenue proposals.
But, if we believe that they merit our action, our support, we think we
ought to take that money and give it back to working Americans in terms
of tax cuts.
We have had proposals by the President, for example, to spend $21
billion on child care, a new massive program at the Federal and State
level in block grants. Republicans believe there is a child care
problem. Today the average American family sends one out of every four
dollars it earns to Washington, DC. In 1950, when I was a baby, the
average American family was sending one out of every forty dollars it
earned to Washington, DC. Today working wives in two-parent families
where both parents work outside the home are paying 55 percent of their
earnings in taxes that didn't exist when I was a baby.
So, obviously, working families do have a problem paying for child
care and raising children. But is the answer another $21 billion
Federal program? Or is the answer, for example, to double the dependent
exemption from $2,500 a year to $5,000 a year so that instead of taking
$2,500 off your income before you figure your taxes per child for those
under 6 you take $5,000 off per child. So you could keep more of your
own money and invest it in your own decision about child care, whether
it is professional child care, whether it was church based child care,
or whether it is grandma keeping the children, or whether it is mom
staying home with the children. You would have a choice. That, it seems
to me, is a legitimate choice that Americans can look at.
The President believes the answer to child care is $21 billion of new
Government spending. We believe the answer is to take the $21 billion,
double the dependent exemption for children under 6, and let working
families decide how to spend the money. I think the advantage of our
program is you don't have to use child care to get benefits. If you
stay home with your children, you get the benefit. If you work outside
the home and grandma takes care of the children, you get the benefit
and you decide how to spend it. Who says one is better than the other?
I think that is up to the American people. But that is the decision we
are making at this crossroads where the President says the answer is
more Government, and we say the answer is more freedom--in this case
freedom to spend your own money.
If you ask American families that are in that income level--between
$25,000 a year and $50,000 a year--so that their tax rate is popping up
from 15 percent to 28 percent, if they would rather the Government
spend $130 billion on their behalf, or would they rather say that if
they can work and make more money we will tax them at 15 percent
instead of 28 percent, what if we could say for single people that they
can earn $34,000 and still be in the 15 percent bracket, and we could
say to working families that they can earn $50,000 and still be in the
15 percent bracket instead of $40,000? If we could do that for the same
cost that the President is going to incur in funding all of these new
Government programs, would working families rather keep that extra
money and spend it themselves on many of the same things we say we are
going to spend it on their behalf, or would they rather us do it?

Again, we are at that fork in the road where we came together to
balance the budget. But the President and the Democrats say let's spend
this money on more Government programs. We say let's let working
families keep more of what they earn, and for middle-income families
who have seen all the Reagan tax cut eaten up by an increase in payroll
taxes, let's stretch out this bracket at 15 percent.
Let's go up to $34,000 for single, and $50,000 for working couples
where they will still be taxed at 15 percent, not 28 percent. Would
they prefer having that, or $130 billion worth of new Government
spending? No one says the President is wrong and we are right. What we
are saying is America, which do you want? Do you believe Government can
spend your money better than you can spend it? Do you think we are
wiser than you? Do you think we know your needs better than you know
your needs? Do you think we have this wisdom and insight and
perspective that you as fathers and mothers, grandmothers and
grandfathers lack? Well, if you do--and that is a perfectly legitimate
view; it is not one I share, but it is legitimate--then you want to
support the President's program. But if you believe you could spend the
money better, that you know a little bit more about taking care of your
children and raising your family than the Government does, then you
want to support what Republicans want to do. You want to support going
down the fork in the road that we choose from this point. That is
basically the choice that we have.
Let me address two additional issues very briefly. If we have a
tobacco settlement where we agree with the tobacco companies that they
are going to pay the Government money--and the whole purpose of the
settlement that everybody forgets in this rush to spend the money is
that if there is a settlement the settlement is that the tobacco
companies owe the taxpayers for the medical costs that have been
imposed on the Federal Government as a result of people smoking--where
have those costs been imposed? Those costs have not been imposed on
school buildings or teachers. I'm not sure that smoking stunts your
growth when you are a child but we know that it raises the probability
that you will have lung problems, heart problems, and numerous other
health problems when you get older.

[[Page S289]]

The cost of smoking borne by Medicare has been probably six dollars
for every one dollar that the States have spent on Medicaid because of
smoking. So if we are going to have a tobacco settlement, the cost that
the tobacco companies are paying to the Government is really to
compensate for the cost of Medicare.
So I don't think it is unreasonable that we ought to take that money
and use it to save Medicare--not just for our parents but for our
children.
So if there is a tobacco settlement, the money ought to go where the
settlement agrees it is for, and that is to compensate the taxpayer for
medical costs. And almost all of those costs at the Federal level are
borne by Medicare.
Finally, if we are just simply going to raise taxes on cigarettes,
then we get back to the decision at this fork in the road as to whether
if we are going to raise taxes on cigarettes to discourage people from
smoking, should we give the money back to Americans by cutting tax
rates, or lowering the taxes in some way, or should we have the
Government spend it and let the taxes which are already at historic
highs rise even further?
Again, there is no right or wrong here. It is a question of what
Americans want.
Finally, in protecting Social Security, I went to the State of the
Union Address, and I guess many people tuned in excited to hear what
the President was going to say about Social Security. The plain truth
is, to my disappointment, the President said almost nothing about
Social Security. He has proposed no program whatsoever. He just simply
outlined the $130 billion worth of new spending and then said to
Republicans, do not dare talk about cutting taxes because you need the
surplus to save Social Security.
The point is, if we want surpluses to save Social Security, we should
not spend the $130 billion to begin with.
How would you save Social Security? First of all, over the next 5
years, $600 billion is going to be paid into Social Security above the
level that we are actually paying out for Social Security benefits.
Under the President's budget, we spend $400 billion of it on general
Government. I think we ought to take that money and invest it in Social
Security. How would you do it? Let me tell you very briefly how I would
do it. Currently, workers pay 12.4 cents out of every dollar they earn
in wages to Social Security. None of it represents a real investment,
and it is all either paid out in benefits or spent on general
Government. There is no trust fund. The trust fund exists as only a
paper accounting system where the Government claims it owes money to
Social Security, but it does not count it as an external debt and when
it pays interest, it does not count it as an expenditure of the
Government.
What I would do is take that $100 billion a year being paid in above
what we are spending and actually make investments that would be owned
by individual workers. By doing that we can cut in half the long-term
liability of Social Security.
So to sum up, since I know one of my other colleagues is here to
speak, we have come together on a bipartisan basis, Democrats and
Republicans, the President and Congress, with a unity of purpose to
balance the budget. We agree on that, and we are going to do it, and
that is no longer something we are debating. The question is where do
we go from here. Do we need more Government even though we have a
record high tax rate, or do we need to let people keep more of what
they earn? That is the choice we face. That is what the debate is
about. And I hope people will understand it and make their choice. I
believe they will choose freedom. They always have when they have had
the choice and when they have understood it. I believe that is the
choice they will make.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I appreciate very much the thoughtful remarks by the
Senator from Texas.
We have been joined by our colleague from Arizona, and I yield 7
minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia and, of
course, second the remarks just made by my colleague from Texas.
Mr. President, with the Federal Government apparently on the verge of
its first unified budget surplus in nearly 30 years, many people are
beginning to ask what comes next, what should happen to the budget
surplus if and when it materializes. Should we spend it? Should we
begin to pay down the national debt? Should we provide hard-working
American families with some meaningful and, I would say, long overdue
tax relief?

Before we try to answer those questions, I think it is worthwhile to
recall how we got here. Remember, it was not that long ago--in fact, it
was as recently as February of 1995--that President Clinton submitted a
budget that would have locked in annual deficits in the range of $200
billion in the foreseeable future. A unanimous Senate rejected the
Clinton budget on May 19, 1995, and from that point on the debate took
a fundamental turn from whether to balance the Federal budget to how to
balance it.
During the last 3 years, we began to slow Federal spending growth. We
have eliminated 307 mostly small Federal programs. But perhaps the most
decisive factor has been what we did not do. We did not impose another
large tax increase on already overtaxed families and businesses. And
that gave people enough room to do the things that they would naturally
do to result in an invigoration of our economy. In fact, the economy
has outperformed everyone's expectations, producing tens of billions of
dollars in unanticipated revenues to the Treasury which has helped to
close this budget gap.
When the budget agreement passed last year, for example, deficits
were projected to go from $67 billion to $90 billion. The budget
agreement allowed for substantial amounts of new spending before
starting down the path to balance in the year 2002. It was the
expectation of deficits in the interim that were higher, not lower,
that contributed to my decision to oppose last year's budget deal. It
now turns out that the 1997 budget deficit came in at only $22 billion
and is projected to amount to about $5 billion in the current year, all
because of the economy's robust performance and it comes in spite, I
would note, of the substantially increased spending allowed by the 1997
budget.
So what ultimately we decide to do with the surplus--and again I
caution that projections are just that, projections--we ought to be
sure that it sustains the economic growth that has gotten us to where
we are today. And that is why of the three possible approaches to
utilizing this budget surplus, it seems to me the one that makes the
most sense is to return what we do not need to spend at the Federal
Government level back to the hard-working families who earned it so
that they can make the decisions in their own lives as to how to spend
that surplus, thereby enabling us to continue the long term of economic
growth which this country has been on now for the last many months and
to ensure that robust economic growth continues to produce more
revenues to the Treasury in the future that can help us sustain both
the Federal budget and ensure that we do not have deficits in the
future.
The President, of course, has taken a political road here. He is
suggesting that we should use the surplus for Social Security purposes.
As Senator Gramm pointed out, there is no indication as to how he would
do that, and as a matter of fact since the money going into the Social
Security trust fund amounts to an IOU to the Social Security trust fund
because it is then immediately spent by the Federal Government, we do
not put Social Security money in a shoe box here at the
Federal Government level. What the President in fact is saying is
simply allow that money to be spent by the general fund of the U.S.
Government, and I think that is unacceptable.

The other thing the President has said is, let's spend about $130
billion on new programs. That is not what to do with the budget surplus
that may or may not materialize, and that in any event would put us on
a road to spending that money every year in the future. Clearly, we
cannot sustain forever the kind of economic growth we

[[Page S290]]

have today, and as a result we should not be embarking on new spending
programs that we are going to have to find new sources of revenue to
support in the future.
Another thing we can do is to begin to pay down the national debt.
Given the fact we are paying almost $1 billion a day on interest on the
national debt, it makes sense for us to do that. So to the extent we do
not need the revenues for other purposes, we can devote part of that to
paying down the national debt. But I suggest that the best way to
ensure that we can continue to have a robust economy, continue to gain
the receipts that we need to pay for Federal Government programs and
also to ensure that American families continue to receive some benefit
from this economy is to provide that hard-working American family with
tax relief to the extent that the budget surplus permits us to do so.
Clearly, the most effective from an economic point of view, what Alan
Greenspan testified to the other day, if we are going to provide tax
relief, it should be in terms of marginal relief for all Americans. But
to the extent that politically we are not able to do that this year and
that we need to do something in a targeted fashion, I think most of us
agree the most beneficial kind of tax relief would be aimed at
eliminating the current marriage penalty which in effect has the
Government of the United States supporting a policy which encourages
people who are living together, working but who are not married, to
continue to stay unmarried because, after all, if they marry, then the
second person's income is immediately put into the top bracket and they
end up paying a lot more in taxes than they would if they remained
unmarried. It should not be Government policy to be fostering that kind
of family situation, and as a result the marriage penalty ought to be
one of our first targets for elimination to the extent we can spend any
of this surplus for tax relief.
I use the word ``spend,'' Mr. President, and in closing I want to
make this point. That is the term that the budgeteers use, that the
people inside the beltway use when they talk about a surplus and
putting it to ``good use.'' They talk about spending as if it were
Federal Government money. And in the beneficence of the Federal
Government we are going to give it back to the American people. The
truth of the matter is we should not have taken it from the American
people in the first place because, as it turns out, we did not need it
and as a result the only right thing to do is for the Federal
Government to return it to the American people in the form of tax
relief.
Again, I conclude by saying the benefits of that are twofold and
significant. No. 1, American families are already way overtaxed, and
this enables them to provide more for their families in a way that they
deem most effective rather than somebody here in Washington, DC. But
secondly, because there is more family income at their disposal, to be
spent, to be saved, and in saving to be invested in the American
economy, we can ensure that the economy continues to perform as it has
with the result that not only do we all have a better standard of
living but, of course, the Federal Government continues to get more
revenues because we have not changed basic tax rates. As long as those
rates remain where they are, a robust economy is going to continue to
allow the Federal Government to do just fine in terms of its
collections of revenue. That is why we can ensure that we can balance
budgets in the future, we can have plenty of money to begin paying down
that Federal debt, and we can provide tax relief to families and
encourage a robust economy if we will use whatever surplus exists to
return to the American people so that they can then spend it as they
see fit.

These are the options. I think that the Republican plan, which
focuses on debt reduction and tax relief, is the right way to go and
that the President's ideas for more spending, while they will get a
courteous listen here on Capitol Hill, are in the end not the best way
to deal with the surplus that we might have and ultimately will have to
be rejected by the Congress.
I thank my colleague from Georgia for making this time available to
discuss these important issues and look forward to our continuing
discussions.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona for
his remarks and yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
I, too, thank the Senator from Georgia for getting the time in the
Chamber to talk about the President's budget submission and some of the
things that we hope Congress is willing to do in working with the
budget that we have. I concur with my friend from Arizona who just
spoke and, before that, my senior colleague from Texas who talked about
the very clear choice we have in dealing with the budget issues.
The clear choice is, do you believe that we should increase
Government spending by $123 billion this year or do you think the hard-
working American family should get back more of the money it has earned
and worked for. And do you think we have a responsibility to our future
generations to pay down the $5 trillion debt that has accumulated over
the last 40 years in our Congress.
That is the clear choice. I come down very strongly on the second
choice. The choice should be that we would do what is responsible for
ourselves and for future generations, and that is to pay one-half of
any surplus we might have on the debt so that we start whittling it
down to a reasonable, manageable size. We cannot turn over to our
children and grandchildren a bill of $5 trillion, that if we are in a
recession, will skyrocket their taxes in order to pay. The other half
should go back to the people who earned it. I never cease to be amazed
at the way people who want to have more Government spending talk about
tax cuts. They talk about tax cuts in terms of what is it going to cost
the Federal Government. I talk about tax cuts in terms of what is it
going to cost the American family if we don't give back to them the
money they worked so hard to earn, for them to decide what they would
like to spend it for in their own families. That is the difference in
framing the question. And I am for the hard-working American family.

Most families in this country--in fact, the average family in this
country pays 38 percent of what it earns in taxes. That is wrong. We do
not need to have that much Federal Government encroachment into the
pocketbooks of the American people. We do have responsibilities in
Government, but we do not have to take such a chunk out of the hard-
working American's pocketbook if we manage our taxes and our spending
responsibly and if we are efficient in spending the taxpayer dollars.
So I would just say that I think the President has gone on the wrong
track when he says we are going to have a surplus and therefore I want
to increase spending by $123 billion. He is mortgaging the future of
our children and he is saying I want to spend today and let's not think
about tomorrow. That is not what our responsibility is, as the stewards
of our country and our Government.
So I am hoping we will do the right thing. I am hoping that as we are
looking at a level budget that we will also prioritize within that
budget and I hope we will remember, on the eve of potential problems
and conflicts in the Middle East--that we will remember one of the main
roles of the Federal Government is to provide for the national defense.
In fact, this budget does begin to stop the decline in spending for
procurement in our national defense. It does provide for a 3.1 percent
increase for our military personnel--well deserved. But it continues to
decrease the personnel strength. In fact, in this year's budget it
decreases another 43,000 in our troop strength from 1997 levels. We are
already at the lowest levels this country has been since the Korean
war.
There was the assumption after the cold war that somehow the world
was safer. But now, because we see escalating tensions in the Middle
East, because we know the North Koreans continue to train and build up
their military, we see the conflicts around the world and the potential
conflicts--and it is clear the world is not a safe place from which we
can retreat.
So I hope we will look at this drawing down of our strength. From
Desert Storm levels, we will be down half a million in troop strength,
from roughly 2 million, drawing down under this budget request of the
President to 1.4

[[Page S291]]

million. I do not think that is responsible. In fact, at a time when
the Army had its worst recruiting year since 1979, I do not think it
would be prudent to put more responsibility on the thinning ranks of
our troops who are leaving our armed services because of the overseas
deployments. So, I am going to stand for the strength of our national
defense, for that priority in our spending. I want to keep the other
side, the increase in bureaucracy down, so our national defense stays
up and so we can return to the taxpayers the hard-earned tax dollars
that they deserve; and that we start paying down the debt. That would
be my approach and I hope that is what Congress will do in the budget
deliberations.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I understand the Presiding Officer, the Senator from
Wyoming, is our next presenter, and will soon be approaching his desk.
I yield up to 7 minutes to the Senator to make his presentation on
the budget, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). I recognize the Senator from
Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for
arranging for our discussion this morning. It seems to me it is one of
the most basic discussions that we will have during the year. Budgets,
after all, are sort of a map as to where we go. They are without great
detail, but sort of limit where we are going. They have to do with the
revenue that we anticipate raising. They have to do with the
expenditures, and generally where those expenditures will be. So, in
terms of direction, in terms of what we really expect the Federal
Government to do, the budget is extremely important.
Let me mention that the budget basically is done by the Congress. The
President has been very outgoing in claiming credit for all the things
that have happened over the last few years, but the fact is the
Congress is responsible for the spending. No spending can occur unless
the Congress agrees to it. No spending can be made in the Federal
establishment unless approved by the Congress. So the responsibility is
here, and I guess also you could say if there is any credit for having
done some downsizing over the past few years, it also goes here.
But I wanted to talk about something just a little bit different and
that is, frankly, my disappointment in the approach that is taken in
this case, and other cases as well; I am disappointed that when we have
something to decide in our Government, all of our Government, that we
are not more willing to lay things out as they are. I am, frankly, a
little exasperated with all the spinning that goes on from almost
everyone here, but frankly particularly from this administration, in
sort of trying to say that things aren't really what they are. That is
so discouraging, especially when we are in a time when there is greater
communication availability to all the world, and certainly to the
American people, than there ever has been. So that if you ever thought
of having Government of the people, for Heaven's sake, now we can do
that because everyone can know what the facts are. They are there
automatically.
Yet, as we go through these things, it is really difficult to
understand what is being done because they are described one way at the
White House, you know, as if this is a wonderful breakthrough and we
are going to contain the size of the Government; that this is the end
of the era of big Government. But the fact is, it is not. It is a
growth. It is larger Government. It is more taxing. But it is hard to
kind of decipher these things.
Let me read some material from James Miller, who was the OMB head in
the Reagan years. He is talking about the things that have been said,
and what he thinks, at least, the real facts are. Miller says we have,
in ``. . . the president's words, `the smallest government in 35
years[.]' '' And yet, in 1963, ``at the height of Camelot,'' he calls
it, ``total federal spending (in 1997 dollars''--1997 dollars, adjusted
for that--was $580 billion, with 48 percent going for defense. For 1998
the federal government will spend $1,625 billion, of which 16 percent
is for defense. And the President says ``the smallest Government in 35
years.''
You know, that just is not the way it is. Now we are spending 15
percent for defense, as the Senator from Texas just described. Federal
spending per capita was $3,069 in 1997 dollars in 1963. It is, today,
$6,000. Spending per capita has doubled. The President says we have
``the smallest Government in 35 years.'' The comparison is even more
telling when you include State and local governments--$4,100 per capita
in 1963; $9,500 per capita now.
You know, it is really discouraging to try to deal and get people
involved in making decisions as to what they think is best for this
country when the facts are so distorted. There is nothing wrong with
having it laid out there in real terms. This is a legitimate decision.
There are those who want more Government and more taxes and more
expenditures. That is a legitimate point of view. I don't happen to
share it. That is the liberal agenda. That is what we debate all the
time. The other alternative, of course, is to have less taxes, less
spending, a less large Federal Government and move, more and more
governmental functions closer to people. Those are legitimate debates.
Why it is, frankly, that we tend to hide those all the time under
rhetoric I am not certain.
Let me give you another example. The President says, ``Under the
leadership of Vice President Gore we have reduced the Federal payroll
by 300,000 workers.'' According to the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, between January 1993 and September 1997, Federal civil
employment fell by 254,000; 217,000 of that was attributable to
defense, the closing of bases, civilian workers in defense; 17,000 came
from downsizing the Department of Veterans Affairs; and 14,000 more
from completing the work on S&L's. This is not a reduction in the size
of Government. But, you know, we are told that.

So, Madam President, I am hopeful, too, we can hold the caps we
agreed upon last year, that the President agreed upon. I hope we can
continue to move towards making the Government smaller and more
efficient. I hope we do not continue to grow and to bring in new fees
that we don't recognize as taxes, although they are. So we have a great
opportunity. All I ask is let us get it out there, debate it on the
face of the real facts and not disguise it, trying to act as if it is
something that it is really not.
Madam President, I yield now to the Senator from Kansas to complete
our discussion for this morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I appreciate the recognition and the
statement of the Senator from Wyoming, with which I associate myself.
I rise to make a few remarks on the President's $1.7 trillion budget
proposal. Most people can't even recognize exactly what $1.7 trillion
is, as a size, a quantity of money.
I believe one of the biggest challenges facing this second session of
the 105th Congress is to maintain the fiscal discipline that we
exercised during consideration of the historic bipartisan budget
agreement. Unfortunately, after reviewing the budget it appears that
the administration wants to walk away from that challenge, and that is
truly regrettable for Americans today, for Americans born in the
future, and certainly for the baby boomers soon to be retiring--in less
than 15 years.
In this budget the President pretends to be fiscally responsible
while at the same time calling for massive new spending programs, new
programs in many areas that he says were directed towards helping
families. But if the President really wants to help families, why
doesn't he propose ending the marriage penalty that penalizes people
for being married? Why doesn't he ask for marginal tax rate reduction?
But, instead, it's just proposing more of the same tax-and-spend
policies that have given us the era of big Government, which was
supposedly over. It appears as if the era of big Government is back
with a vengeance.
In contrast to the President, I believe that we must hold the line on
the size of the Government and reject attempts by this administration
to bolster spending in violation of our bipartisan budget agreement.
Remember, this bipartisan budget agreement was not just the product of
last year. It was something we have been struggling for

[[Page S292]]

3 years, to get an agreement on the budget. For 3 years we have been
fighting about how can we restrain Federal spending, get it in line
with receipts so we could get to a balanced budget agreement. We have
been struggling for 3 years on that, yet now, less than 7 months after
the agreement, the President is walking away. This is in gross
violation of this agreement. We cannot let the administration mortgage
away our children's future in order to help satisfy this insatiable
appetite for big Government spending. We must be able to deal with
these problems within the framework that we have already agreed to.
I just want to point out a few things, and I know some people have
already done this but in case we get carried with away with the idea
that now we have these surpluses and everything is rosy, we can spend
to our heart's content, I don't know how many people realize, I hope
most do, that once we get to a balanced budget it has nothing to do
with the mortgage we already have on the country, which is $5.4
trillion, over $20,000 per American. It has nothing to do with the
unfunded obligations that we are on the hook for when the baby boomers
and others start retiring, that extend to about $14 trillion in
addition to the $5.4 trillion.

Here we are talking about being responsible for Medicare payments for
when the baby boomers start retiring. We are talking about other
entitlement programs that people have paid into, that there is an
obligation by the Government, but we do not have funds set aside to
take care of these obligations.
So you are looking at taxing future generations more and more and
more to be able to meet those obligations at a time when, if we would
exercise a minimum amount of fiscal discipline, just do the budget
agreement we have already agreed to, we can start to deal with some of
these unfunded obligations.
In case people think this is a long way off in the future, the baby
boomers start retiring in less than 15 years, and they are going to be,
instead of pulling the wagon, in the wagon saying, ``You obligated
yourself, I paid into these funds, now I am calling on these.''
The percentage of the Federal Government, as a percentage of the
overall economy, is at historically high levels, nearly 20 percent of
the economy. If the President wants all these new spending programs,
why doesn't he propose equal cuts to other Government programs? Does
anybody in this body allege that we don't have significant amounts of
Government waste in spending? Let's cut those programs if he wants the
new spending programs, rather than adding more and more taxes and fees
and burdens on the American public. That would be the way to deal with
this, is to try to get at some of the wasteful spending programs that
we already have.
I look forward to working with the administration on this budget, but
we cannot break this hard-fought bipartisan budget agreement on the
altar of just more and more taxing and spending that keeps driving up
the cost of Government, keeps taking more and more from taxpayers,
keeps making it harder and harder for the average family to make a
living and to be able to support their own children like they would
like to do.
So I have great disappointment with what the administration has put
forward in growing and in getting back to the era of bigger Government.
I am afraid we are just going to have to push to maintain what our
agreement was this past year. I think it is regretful that we are at
that point. Madam President, it seems as if we are. Thank you very
much. I yield the floor.

____________________