[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17036-17037]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     LACK OF PROGRESS IN THE SENATE

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I listened intently as the majority leader 
spoke. I remind my colleagues, we are debating homeland security and 
that we are preparing for a debate and a vote on Iraq.
  I don't think it ever does any harm, however, to talk about the fact 
that the country has additional challenges. I guess I would express two 
sources of disappointment with the speech the majority leader gave. The 
first source of disappointment would have to do with the absence of a 
program to deal with a single one of these problems.
  Anybody who goes back and listens to that long litany of woe would 
say: What did the majority leader say we are supposed to do about it? 
One would search in vain, except for the hint of a program which I 
would have to say is sort of modeled after the Peronist economic 
program in Argentina today, which is to increase taxes and to spend 
more money.
  In fact, I remind my colleagues, if we are as concerned as we say 
about the economy and about the security of our people, the logical 
place to start doing something about it is in the Senate. The plain 
truth is, if there has been one place where there has been inaction on 
issues relevant to the economy and relevant to the American people, it 
is the Senate.
  In fact, the President proposed a budget in January. The House 
adopted a budget. The Senate not only has not adopted a budget, but we 
have made it eminently clear that we have no intention of adopting a 
budget.
  I would have to say that if the majority is concerned about all these 
problems and the majority leader has the ability to bring a budget to 
the floor of the Senate tomorrow, a logical place to show that concern 
would be to do something about it by adopting a budget.
  The plain truth is, we have adopted no budget, and we have continued 
to spend as if we still had the surplus that existed prior to the 
downturn and prior to the war.
  In terms of prescription drugs for seniors under Medicare, the 
President has proposed a program. The House has adopted a program. But 
in the Senate, there is no program. The Finance Committee was never 
allowed to meet on the subject to put forward a bill. A hodgepodge of 
ideas came to the floor of the Senate. No consensus was built. It 
became a partisan issue. There was no action.
  One thing that we could clearly do to bring stability to the economy 
and to promote job creation and economic growth would be to make the 
tax cuts permanent. What is more destabilizing to investment and 
economic growth than the fact that 9 years from today we will have the 
largest tax increase in American history? And it will occur 
automatically if we don't act.
  In terms of homeland security, the President proposed a bill. The 
House acted. In the Senate, we have had inaction. We have had endless 
debate. We have talked about working together. We have talked about 
bipartisanship, but there is no bipartisanship on this issue. In fact, 
the Democrats have come forward with a bill that takes power away from 
the Presidency and the national security powers that President Carter 
had, President Reagan had, President Bush had, President Clinton had. 
But now, in the wake of thousands of our people being killed in a 
terrorist attack, suddenly our Democrat brethren say the President has 
too much national security power and they want to take some of it away 
from him. The American people are going to go absolutely crazy when 
they realize that this is the case.
  In terms of welfare reform, the 1996 reforms were the greatest 
success in public policy in the postwar period. Now, the President has 
proposed a welfare reform bill. The House has adopted a welfare reform 
bill. But there is no action on welfare reform in the Senate.
  Finally, the President proposed appropriations. Not one 
appropriations bill in its final form has passed the Congress, and only 
three have passed the Senate.
  I would have to say there is a missing ingredient in the Majority 
Leader's speech when he talks about all the problems we face 
economically. When you look at the record of the Senate, let's begin at 
home. Let's begin to solve the problem where we live. That problem is 
in the Senate.
  I will address two other issues because I know our Republican Leader 
wishes to speak. I would have to take exception, as I said last Tuesday 
that I would, on the issue about deficits. I do not understand how our 
Democrat colleagues can continue to stand up and moan and grown and cry 
about deficits as if they come from heaven, as if somehow God just 
said: We are going to have deficits. Deficits don't come from heaven; 
they are created right here on the floor of the Senate.
  I would have to say that when we are talking about a commitment not 
to raid Social Security, when we are talking about concern about the 
deficit, I remind my colleagues, last Tuesday I stood right at that 
desk and raised a point of order that we were taking $6 billion right 
out of the Social Security Trust Fund. The Majority Leader led the 
fight to take it out.
  Today, he is alarmed about the deficit. Today, he is upset about the 
deficit. Today, he is bemoaning the deficit. But Tuesday he helped 
create the deficit.
  You can't have it both ways. You can't keep spending as if there is 
no tomorrow and then complain about the deficit.
  Let me remind my colleagues, lest they think that suddenly the 
Government has become so tightfisted we are hurting our people: Over 
the last 5 years, inflation has been 1.8 percent on a year on average. 
Average family income has risen by 4.5 percent. And yet the 
discretionary spending of the Federal Government, driven largely by 
actions in the Senate--I am not talking about Medicare and Social 
Security and mandatory programs; I am talking

[[Page 17037]]

about discretionary spending, something every family understands--at 
the time when family income was growing by 4.5 percent, discretionary 
spending, not counting the September 11 emergency funding, was growing 
by almost 7 percent.
  When you look at what that means by program, this is the inflation 
rate, this red line, and this, by parts of the Government, is how fast 
the Government has grown as compared to inflation: six times as fast 
for Labor-HHS; five times as fast for Interior, five times as fast for 
Treasury. It goes on and on.
  Yet the Majority Leader comes to the floor of the Senate today and 
says: We have a crisis. We need, in essence, to raise taxes--taxes are 
too low--so we can fund more spending.
  Anybody who looks at the facts is going to conclude that not only 
have higher taxes and higher spending never helped any economy 
anywhere, but that we already have the higher spending and that we are 
creating these deficits as we go every day in the Senate.
  Finally, I have to respond to this constant effort to try to pit 
people against each other based on their income. Envy destroyed ancient 
Athens; it destroyed ancient Rome. It is a dangerous thing for 
Americans to use, and it is outrageous, unfair, and unjustified.
  Look at the people who make up the Senate and look at the families 
they come from and give me an argument that somehow there is some kind 
of elitism in America. It won't hold water. And we hear all this talk 
that these rich people are getting all these tax cuts--the top 1 
percent. Senator Daschle reminds us they get the $50,000 tax cut. He 
didn't bother to point out that they are paying $400,000 in taxes. And 
as far as the low-income people who are not getting tax cuts are 
concerned, he didn't point out that they are not paying any taxes. 
Income tax cuts are for taxpayers. We have already been funding 
programs for nontaxpayers.
  We had not had a real tax cut of any significance since 1981. And the 
reality is that our tax cut made the Tax Code more progressive and not 
less progressive. Under our tax cut, the top 1 percent of income 
earners will pay more taxes as a percentage than they pay now.
  So I think what we are seeing here is that some of our colleagues are 
obviously embarrassed about the fact that we are not getting the job 
done in the Senate, and that the American people want a homeland 
security bill passed. I don't think changing the subject helps our 
effort.
  In the end, if we are really concerned about those things--and we 
should be--we ought to go back and adopt a budget. We need to address 
these concerns the American public has. But it is never going to be 
enough to say that there is unhappiness in the country. Ultimately, you 
have to say what your program is to deal with it. The only program I 
heard today is we need more spending.
  When Alan Greenspan was asked before the House Banking Committee what 
one thing we could do that would help the economy the most, he said: 
``Stop spending.'' Yet, last Thursday, we added $6 billion to the 
deficit, led by the very people who, today--last Thursday, they were 
for deficits; today, they are against deficits. But you cannot be for 
something on Tuesday and against it last Thursday and have any 
credibility in that debate.
  So, in the end, we have work to do here. In my opinion, we need to 
pass a homeland security bill. That is lives today. We have to deal 
with the Iraq situation. And nothing would make me happier than to do 
something to help the economy. But that something is not spending and 
it is not tax increases. In fact, it would be exactly the opposite.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time do we have in the designated 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes remaining.

                          ____________________