[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21847-21848]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]





        CORRECTING THE RECORD ON THE REPUBLICAN EDUCATION BUDGET

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to correct the record, 
because I know I heard a number of my colleagues say the Republican 
budget is slashing education, it's at the lowest end, it's the last 
appropriation bill we are taking up. Let me correct the record. Let me 
give you some facts.
  One, the budget the Republicans passed earlier this year had an 
increase for education, not a decrease. The Appropriations Committee 
has yet to mark up the Labor-HHS bill. They are going to mark it up 
next week. I understand from Senator Specter and others they plan on 
appropriating $90 billion. The amount of money we have in the current 
fiscal year is $83.8 billion. So that is an increase of about $6.2 
billion for FY2000. That is an increase of about 9 percent. That is 
well over inflation. I think it is too much. I think we should be 
freezing spending. We should not be increasing spending. But I just 
want to correct the record. It bothers me to think some people are 
trying to manipulate the facts, to build up their case.
  The Democrats are well aware that the Appropriations Committee is 
going to be marking up a bill that is going to have at least as much 
money this year as we spent last year in education. I hope we change 
the priorities. I hope we follow the guidance of my colleague from 
Washington, the Presiding Officer, and give the States some 
flexibility. I haven't heard anybody say ``Let's cut the total amount 
of funds going to education,'' but I have heard, ``Let's give the 
States, Governors and school boards more flexibility so they can do 
what they need to do in improving quality education. Let's hold them 
accountable to improve the quality of education. Let's not just come up 
with more Federal programs.''
  I heard both of my colleagues say, ``Boy, we need more Federal 
teachers or more school buildings.'' Is that really the business of the 
Federal Government? Are we supposed to make that decision that this 
school district or this school needs more teachers, or this school 
should be repaired, or this school should be replaced? Is that a 
Federal decision? I don't think so. It just so happens that within the 
last hour I met with the Governor of Oklahoma, the Governor of Nevada 
and the Governor of Utah. They say they have already reduced class size 
and some of them have already made significant investments in schools. 
But, they need more help. They want flexibility. They want to be able 
to use the money for individual students with disabilities. We should 
give them that flexibility. But our colleagues seem to think, ``Oh, no, 
we have to have 100,000 Federal teachers. The Governor of Nevada said 
that in the city of Las Vegas alone they hire 18,000 new teachers every 
year. Why in the world should we be dictating? In last year's budget 
agreement we needed 30,000 teachers. Now we need to go to 100,000 
teachers? Is that the Federal governments responsibility? I don't think 
so.
  I don't think the Federal Government should be dictating that this 
State or this school district needs to hire more teachers or build more 
buildings or put in more computers. Let's give them the money we 
spend--and altogether the Federal Government spends over $100 billion 
on education--let's give the States the flexibility to spend that money 
in ways that will really improve the quality of education. Maybe that 
will go to increasing the number of teachers or to buildings and 
construction. Maybe it will be in computers and in training. Maybe it 
will be in retention or it will be in bonuses for the best teachers. 
Why should we be making that decision? We don't know those schools. We 
don't know those districts. We don't know those superintendents. We are 
not serving on those PTAs. This really should not be a Federal 
responsibility. Let's give that responsibility to the local school 
boards and to the States and not have more dictates and more Federal 
programs.

  There are already over 760 Federal education programs to date. Our 
colleagues on the Democrat side would like to add even more programs, 
as if that is going to improve the quality of education. I don't think 
so.
  Just a couple more facts: Labor-HHS funding, which is the 
appropriations bill we are talking about, has been rising and growing 
dramatically. Yet I



hear, ``Oh, they are slashing this bill by 17 percent.'' Wait a minute, 
let's get the bill on the floor before we start saying we are slashing 
the bill. What we passed and appropriated and spent in 1997 was $71 
billion. In 1996, it was $64.4 billion. It went to $71 billion in 1997, 
that's over a 10 percent increase. From 1997 to 1998 it went from $71 
billion to $80.7 billion, again well over a 10 percent increase. Last 
year it went from $80.7 to $83.9 billion, plus there were some advanced 
appropriations of about $6 billion.
  So, again there was a big increase from last year and we are talking 
about increasing it even further for next year, for the year 2000. So 
this rhetoric by the Democrats that is designed to scare people and to 
get people activated on the education bill, is not substantiated by the 
facts.
  I want to address a couple of other things we can do for education 
and for the American taxpayer. But the President has to help us do it 
by signing the tax bill that is now before him. We have $11 billion of 
tax relief targeted towards education in the tax bill. If the President 
wants to improve education he can sign the tax bill and I hope he will. 
We allow for student loans, greater deductions and we provide extended 
assistance for education. Right now, people can save $500 on 
educational savings accounts. We increase that to $2,000.
  It is vitally important that the President sign the tax bill. In 
addition, we have a lot of relief for taxpayers in the bill. I will 
just mention a couple of them.
  I have heard a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans, say the 
marriage penalty is unfair. It's unfair for the present day Tax Code to 
penalize a couple because they happen to be married. In other words, 
when they get married their combined tax load should not be greater 
then when they were single and paying separately. And it is. The 
marriage penalty averages out about $1,400. For the privilege of being 
married you have to pay an extra $1,400. A lot of us think that is 
grossly unfair. We want to change it.
  The President can change it. We, in Congress, have changed it. We 
sent the bill to the President's desk. If he signs it we will be 
eliminating the marriage penalty, for all practical purposes, for 
almost all married couples.
  We also want to give relief to individuals who, in many cases, are at 
the lowest end of the economic ladder in the tax bill. I have heard 
some people say, ``Oh, that tax cut package, that's a tax cut for the 
wealthiest people.'' That's hogwash. We cut taxes for taxpayers, people 
who are in the lowest end of the income-tax schedule. They get a 7 
percent reduction because we reduced the rate from 15 percent to 14 
percent. It doesn't sound like much, but that is a 7 percent reduction 
for somebody on the lowest end of the economic ladder. That is a 
significant tax reduction.

  Wait a minute, what are you doing for the wealthier people? We are 
reducing the rate from 39.6 to 38.6, and we do not do that until the 
outyears. That doesn't happen until several years later. That would 
amount to a little less than 3 percent. So we give a much greater 
percentage reduction in tax cuts to the people on the lower end of the 
scale. We actually make the tax schedule a little more progressive.
  We provide a tax cut for taxpayers, and honestly it is not very much 
of 

[[Page 21848]]

one. Somebody says that's too much, you have cut taxes too much. 
Think about this for a second. When President Clinton was sworn into 
office in January of 1993, the maximum tax bracket for any American, 
personal income tax, was 31 percent. The Democrat controlled Congress, 
with a tie vote broken by Vice President Gore acting as President of 
the Senate--increased the maximum tax bracket from 31 percent to 39.6. 
So, at the end of 10 years we reduce that 39.6 to 38.6, wow, we have 
reduced it about one tenth as much as he increased it. And that is too 
much? We are being too fair to the rich? Wait a minute, they increased 
the rate from 31 percent to 39.6 percent; and we reduce it to 38.6 
percent. It is still a whole lot higher than it was when President 
Clinton was elected. That is too much? The President claims that if you 
cut taxes that much, you won't be able to pay for all these programs.

  We take two-thirds of the surplus and use it to pay down debt, to pay 
down our national debt by over $2 trillion. We take two-thirds of it 
and we pay down the national debt with the Social Security surplus. You 
cannot spend one dime of it for anything else.
  In the President's original budget he said he wanted to spend 
billions for other things. We said, no we are not going to do that. We 
want to use 100 percent of the Social Security surplus to pay down the 
debt, period--no ifs and or buts about it. The President wanted to try 
to raid the fund and we said no.
  Then we said, out of the surplus we want two thirds of it to pay down 
debt, one-fourth of it can go back to taxpayers. We do not want the 
taxpayers to have to send all of their hard earned money to Washington, 
DC. We certainly do not want to have to return it, we want them to keep 
it in the first place. It is theirs. It is not ours. It is not the 
Government's to spend. If they are sending in too much in taxes, let 
them keep it, why should they have to filter it through Washington, DC, 
and hope they get something back in the form of a so-called targeted 
tax cut?
  President Clinton--his definition of ``targeted'' means: It applies 
to somebody--not you, not me, not anybody I know--so targeted that, in 
effect it is Government deciding who wins and who loses. It is 
Government making economic decisions. I think that is a mistake.
  I would hope the President would sign the tax bill that we have on 
his desk that makes these changes and includes many more. I also 
believe we should be repealing this so-called death tax. I do not think 
it is right to have a death tax of 55 percent on somebody's estate that 
they worked their entire life on, and the Government comes in and says: 
Because you passed away, and you are trying to give this to your kids 
or grandkids, the Federal Government is entitled to take 55 percent of 
it. That is the present law.
  If you have a taxable estate of $3 million, the Government gets 55 
percent. So people who have those estates, they spend their lives 
trying to figure out ways to minimize this tax or get around this tax.
  You do not have to be very wealthy to be paying a lot. You can have a 
taxable estate of $1 million, and the Government gets 39 percent. So 
that is 39 percent for a taxable estate of $1 million. Uncle Sam says: 
Hey, give me about half of it. This tax bill repeals that.
  Mr. President, I urge you to sign this tax bill. I know you have said 
that you are going to veto it. I know you would rather spend the money. 
You think you can spend the money better than the taxpayers. I remember 
the statement you made in New York, in February I believe, that said: 
Well, wait a minute, I guess we could give it back to the taxpayers, 
and let them keep it, but what if they don't spend it right?
  Obviously, there are lots of ways that this President wants to spend 
the money. There is no limit. And there is no doubt Congress will find 
lots of ways to spend the money as well.
  A lot of us believe it is the people's money. They should be the ones 
making the decision. If they want to spend it on education, or if they 
want to spend it on housing, or if they want to spend it on a vacation, 
or if they want to spend it on helping their family in different ways, 
let people make that decision instead of Washington, DC. We think it 
would help the economy more and certainly be more pro-family. Let the 
families make those decisions, not politicians.
  So, Mr. President, again, I urge you to sign this bill. I do not have 
any doubt you are going to veto the bill and the real losers are going 
to be the taxpayers.
  I also remember we passed a tax cut in 1995. The President vetoed it. 
We came back in 1997 and passed another tax cut, and he eventually 
signed it. He did not want to sign it, but he did.
  As a matter of fact, in that tax bill, in 1997, we reduced the 
capital gains from 28 percent to 20 percent. Secretary Rubin was 
against it and the President was against it although he eventually 
signed it. He did not want to increase the estate tax exemption. We had 
a small exemption rate from $650,000 to a $1 million. He was not in 
favor of it, but he eventually signed it. Those very things have helped 
the economy. They have helped grow the economy at a faster rate than 
people



anticipated. And now we are in a position to make further gains.
  In the bill we have on your desk, Mr. President, we cut capital gains 
from 20 percent to 18 percent, and index it for inflation in the 
future. That will help the economy. That will make the economy grow 
faster. That will increase jobs. That will probably raise more money 
for the Federal Government.
  So, Mr. President, we once again, urge you to sign this tax bill. It 
will be a good thing for the economy. It will be a good thing for 
American taxpayers. It will be a good thing for American families.
  Let's get rid of the marriage penalty. Let's get rid of the death 
tax. Let's cut taxes across the board for taxpayers. We do that in the 
tax bill and still save over two-thirds of the budget for debt 
reduction.
  So, Mr. President, let's allow taxpayers to have one-fourth of the 
surplus. Let's let them keep it. I urge you to rise to the challenge 
and sign the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. First, Mr. President, I thank Senator Nickles, the 
assistant majority leader, for the speech he just delivered. Probably 
more of us should be making those points on the floor of the Senate 
today about the importance of the tax cut proposal, what it means to 
working Americans, and the fact that the President could sign it so it 
would become the law and we would have a fairer Tax Code. But if he 
vetoes it, it is going to be a real shame. I appreciate the specifics 
Senator Nickles pointed out.

                          ____________________