May 1, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5865

was a young Army lieutenant assigned

to the unit. In the article, Paul reflects

on a small research project I conducted

for him involving the cost of fish in

Saigon. It just goes to show that we

never really escape the actions we take

in this life.

At any rate, Mr. President, the piece

brought back a great many memories

and I am flattered Paul remembered

such a small incident after all these

years. I ask unanimous consent that

the article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article

was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

COMMERCE OFFICIALS KNEW TWO

CONGRESSMEN ‘‘BACK WHEN’’

OLIA some time ago surveyed senior Commerce officials to determine if any had ever

had any particularly memorable personal

contacts with members of Congress. At least

two of them most certainly had. One of our

Commerce people had a hand in saving a

Congressman’s life. Another was a Senator’s

boss while both were young men serving in

Vietnam.

Larry Irving, assistant secretary for communications and information, was a member

of a delegation visiting Russia when Rep.

Dana Rhorabacher, R-Calif., became quite

ill. Irving administered some first aid procedures which helped bring him through the

crisis.

Paul London, deputy under secretary, was

a State Department aide seconded to the

Agency for International Development when

he first knew Larry Pressler, now a Republican Senator from South Dakota.

London recalls:

‘‘I was head of a unit concerned with economic affairs and Larry was a young Army

lieutenant assigned to us.

‘‘One time, there were reports that the

price of fish (a dietary staple in South Vietnam) might skyrocket because the Viet Cong

were threatening to cut a coastal highway to

Saigon. I had a feeling that most fish supplies to Saigon came from the Mekong Delta,

rather than from the coast and I asked Larry

to check it out.

‘‘A couple of days later he reported that

my surmise was exactly right. ‘Far and away

more fish on the Saigon market come from

the Delta than from coastal fishing boats,’

he reported.

‘‘‘How did you verify that,’ I asked.

‘‘‘I got up before dawn, went down to the

market and asked the people there where the

fish were coming from,’ he said.

‘‘Right then, I thought: ‘This guy is going

to go places. He does things personally,

doesn’t depend on paper shuffling or second

hand information to get to the heart of

something.’’’

The two have retained a cordial relationship ever since.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this

THE BUDGET

fweek and next week, we are going to

come down to the moment of truth on

two issues. One issue has to do with

putting the Federal Government on a

budget like everybody else. The other

issue has to do with fulfilling the Contract With America to let working people keep more of what they earn. I

would like to briefly address both of

these subjects.

In the 1994 election, in one of the

most remarkable political occurrences

in the postwar period, House Republicans did something that is very unusual in the political process and that

is they set out in plain English what

they promised America they would do

if the American people gave them a

majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

I would add that while many people

have forgotten it, Republican candidates for the Senate put out a joint

statement where virtually every Republican challenger for the U.S. Senate

in the country came to Washington and

released a ‘‘Seven More In ’94’’ document, where we outlined seven things

we would do if the American people

gave us a majority.

Two of those promised items had to

do with balancing the budget and with

letting working people keep more of

what they earned. The House of Representatives has done something even

more remarkable than making all

these promises—they have actually

done it. The House of Representatives

has adopted the Contract With America. They have adopted 90 percent of

the things they promised to simply

vote on. And at the best universities in

the land, you would grade that as an

‘‘A.’’

We are now down to the moment of

truth in the U.S. Senate and that moment of truth basically has to do with

whether or not we are going to pass the

Contract With America and whether we

can make the tough decisions necessary in order to do that. To balance

the Federal budget over a 7-year period

and at the same time to accommodate

the tax cut contained in the Contract

With America will require us, over a 7-

year period, to limit the growth in Federal spending to approximately 3 percent a year.

Over the last 40 years, Federal spending has grown at 21⁄2 times the growth

of family budgets in America. Over the

last 40 years, the Federal Government

has increased its spending 21⁄2 times as

fast as the average family in America

has been able to increase its spending.

Now what would America look like if

those trends had been reversed? Well, if

the average family in America had

seen its budget grow as fast as the Government has grown for the last 40

years, and the Government’s budget

had grown only as fast as the family

budget has grown over the last 40

years, the average family in America

today would be earning $128,000 a year

and the Government would be approximately one-third its current size.

I ask my colleagues, if you could

choose between the America where the

governments budget grew faster or an

America where the family’s budget

grew faster—put me down as one who

would favor having the average family

in America make $128,000 a year and

have the Federal Government one-third

its size.

Here is our dilemma. We have some

of our colleagues who say, ‘‘I did not

sign any Contract With America. That

was the House of Representatives.’’ As

I am fond of saying in our private

meetings, that is a subtlety that is lost

on the American people. They do not

see this contract as having been a contract between just the House and the

American people. They see it as a Republican contract. And, quite frankly,

it is a Republican contract. It embodies

everything that our party claims to

stand for.

But what I think is important for the

Senate is not just that Republican candidates signed the contract, not just

that every House Republican incumbent who signed the contract was reelected but I think what is significant

to us is that the American people

signed that contract when they gave us

a majority in both Houses of Congress

for the first time in 40 years.

The question that we are going to

have to answer in the next 3 weeks is,

are we willing to limit the growth of

Government spending to 21⁄2 percent a

year so that we can, over a 7-year period, balance the Federal budget and so

that we can let working families keep

more of what they earn? I believe that

we can and I believe that we should. I

think there are many Republicans in

the Senate who sort of have a problem,

in that they have one foot firmly implanted in the dramatic changes in

Government policy that we promised

the American people in 1994, and they

have the other foot firmly implanted in

the status quo. And, as those two

things have moved further apart, we

have had the predictable result.

I think it is time for us to choose. I

believe in the next 3 weeks we are

going to basically decide whether or

not we meant it in November of 1994

when we told the American people that

we were going to dramatically change

the way Government does its business.

I think the American people are convinced that we can limit the growth of

Government spending to 21⁄2 percent a

year so that we can let families and

businesses spend more of what they

earn.

I know if the President were here, he

would say this is a debate about how

much money we are spending on our

children; or how much money we are

spending on education; or how much

money we are spending on housing or

nutrition.

But that is not what the debate is

about. Everybody in America wants to

spend money on children, housing, education, and nutrition. The debate we

are about to have is not how much

money is going to be spent on those

things, but who is going to do the

spending. Bill Clinton and the Democrats want Government to go on doing

the spending. They want Government

spending to continue to grow 21⁄2 times

as fast as the family budget grows.

I want to put the Federal Government on a diet. I want to slow down the

rate of growth in Government spending

so that we can let working families

keep more of their own money to invest in their own children, in their own

businesses, and in their own future.
S5866 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 1, 1995

This is not a debate about how much

money we spend on the things that all

Americans believe we should spend

money on. It is a debate about who

ought to do the spending. Bill Clinton

and the Democrats want the Government to do the spending. We want the

family to do the spending. We know the

Government, and we know the family.

And we know the difference.

Since we are investing in the future

of America, I want to invest the future

of America in our families and not in

our Government.

I know that there is a lot of anguish

in the Senate, even on our side of the

aisle. But I think it is time to choose.

I wanted my colleagues to know that I

am for a budget that does two things:

No. 1, over a 7-year period, limit the

growth of Federal spending to about 3

percent a year so we can balance the

budget in 7 years and let our colleagues

do something that no current Member

of the Senate, save two, has ever done

before; that is, vote for a real honestto-God balanced budget. We literally

have the power, by having a 7-year

binding budget, to let Members of the

Senate vote to stop talking about balancing the budget and to start doing it.

Second, in addition to the controls

on spending necessary to balance the

budget, I want to limit the growth of

spending not to 3 percent a year, but to

21⁄2 percent a year so that we can let

families keep more of what they earn,

so that we can cut the capital gains tax

rate, so that we can eliminate the marriage penalty, so that we can let families have a $500 tax credit per child, so

that, rather than having our Government spend our money for us, we can

let working people spend their own

money on their own children and on

their own future.

As we look at this in perspective, let

me give you three numbers. In 1950, the

average family in America with two

little children sent $1 out of every $50

it earned to Washington, DC, and

thought it was too much. And it probably was. Today, that family is sending

$1 out of every $4 it earns to Washington, DC, and if the Congress did not

meet again for the next 20 years some

people would applaud that prospect,

but only because they do not understand our problems. If Congress did not

meet again for the next 20 years and we

did not start a single new program nor

repeal any existing program, to pay for

the Government that we have already

committed to is going to require that

in 20 years $1 out of every $3 earned by

the average family in America with

two children come to Washington, DC,

to pay for the Government.

We are going to have to institute dramatic changes in spending simply to

keep things the way they are. If we are

to let working families keep more of

what they earn, we are going to have to

institute a dramatic change in Government policy. Mr. President, I am in

favor of a dramatic change in Government policy. If our Budget Committee

does not offer and adopt a budget that

balances the budget and that provides

for tax cuts for families and for job creation, I intend to offer a substitute for

that budget. I think we have to stop

cutting deals with America’s future. I

think we have to stand up and tell the

American people we meant it in November 1994 when we said you give us a

Republican majority in both Houses of

Congress and we will change the policy

of American Government.

I think we are now down to a moment of truth. Are we going to fulfill

the commitment we made in that election, or are we basically going to defend the status quo? The status quo

means less opportunity, future jobs,

and an America that is not the America that I want my children and my

grandchildren to have. I am ready to

change the status quo. I am ready to

cut the growth in Government spending, not just to balance the budget, but

to cut taxes. And what I want my colleagues to know today is I want to

work with the Budget Committee, I

want to work with our leadership. I am

hopeful that we can put together as a

party position a budget that balances

the budget over a 7-year period and

that mandates tax cuts contained in

the contract. But, if our leadership is

not ready to bring that budget forward,

if they cannot muster the courage to

control Government spending to make

it possible, I will muster that courage,

and will offer a substitute and give my

colleagues the opportunity to join me,

and to join America in that process.

Finally, let me say, Mr. President, I

simply want to remind my colleagues

that the Contract With America was in

fact signed by House Members, but

there are two additional points. First,

it was not distinctly different from the

‘‘Seven More in ’94’’ contract that our

candidates agreed to here on the north

front of the Capitol. Second, the important part of that contract is not the

fact that the House signed it. The important part of that contract is that

America signed it. The important part

of that contract is it was the document

that defined what the 1994 election was

all about.

The question now, the question that

will be before us for the next 3 weeks

is, Did we simply want to be for dramatic changes in Government at election time, or are we willing to put our

votes where our mouth is? Are we really more wedded to funding for programs such as public television, or are

we more wedded to letting working

people keep more of what they earn?

Do we really believe that Government

knows best and that we need not only

a $1.6 trillion Federal budget but that

we need it to grow by 7.5 percent a year

while the family budget is growing at

less than half that rate?

I think that is the decision. I think

the answer of every Republican in the

Senate ought to be clear. And that answer ought to be we can change the

status quo, we can limit the growth of

Government spending, we can terminate programs, and we can and will not

only balance the budget but let working families keep more of what they

earn to invest in their own children, in

their own businesses and their own future, and that we ought to cut taxes on

American business to provide incentives for people to work, save, and invest. That is what I am for. I believe

that is what America is for.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

ABRAHAM). The Senator form Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr.

President.

Mr. President, I thought I would take

less than maybe 5 minutes to respond

to my colleague from Texas.

First of all, Mr. President, I look forward to this debate that we are going

to have because I think what we have

seen too much of here is an attempt to

dance at two weddings at the same

time, and I think that citizens in this

country are going to hold us all accountable.

As I said earlier, I do not understand

how the arithmetic of this adds up, and

I think there are colleagues on the

other side of the aisle who would agree

with me. It is very difficult to talk

about broad-based tax cuts, with the

estimates that maybe this is up to $700

billion over the next 10 years, and talk

about no cuts in the Pentagon budget.

Mr. President, I hear precious little

discussion of what we call tax expenditures. And for those who are listening

to this debate, I am talking about various loopholes, deductions, sometimes

outright giveaways—oil companies, tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies. I see precious little discussion about any of

that being on the table. We are going

to pay the interest on the debt. We are

going to put Social Security off the

table, Mr. President. According to

some of my colleagues, in addition, we

are going to balance the budget by 2002.

I also hear the same colleagues saying but, students, do not worry about

being able to afford higher education;

veterans, do not worry, there will be no

deep cuts there. I doubt whether senior

citizens will take great comfort from

the remarks of my colleague from

Texas because it is quite one thing to

talk about a 2-percent increase a year

but when the trend line is in fact that

more and more of our citizens are 65

years of age and over with more serious

health care costs going far beyond 2

percent, then what we are really talking about is eroding again what I

talked about earlier here, a contract

with senior citizens, the Medicare Program.

Mr. President, first of all, let me

make the point that to be proposing

some rather deep cuts in some programs that are critically important to

the concerns and circumstances of people’s lives in our country all for the
May 1, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5867

sake of broad-based tax cuts flowing

disproportionately to those on the top

does not strike me as something that

will meet the standard of fairness I

think people demand of us.

Second of all, Mr. President, let me

just simply say that this argument

that when it comes to the most pressing issues of people’s lives there is

nothing the Government can or should

do is a wonderful argument if you own

your own large corporation, but as a

matter of fact, there are certain decisive areas of life, education being one

of them, where we have decided we

make an investment as a people to

make sure we do live up to our dream

of equality of opportunity.

So I would simply say, Mr. President,

because otherwise I will go on for hours

and hours, if you want to talk about

real welfare reform, the answer is good

jobs and good education. If you want to

talk about how to reduce poverty in

this country—1 out of every 4 children

are poor, 1 out of every 2 children of

color are poor—then the answer is good

education and good jobs.

If you want to talk about reducing

violence in our communities, talk to

your judges, talk to your police chiefs,

talk to your sheriffs, much less talk to

people in those communities, and they

will tell you we will never stop the

cycle of violence unless we invest in

good education and there are good jobs

for people.

If you want to talk about how to

build community, the same thing—

good education and good jobs. If you

want to talk about how we have a democracy where men and women are

able to think on their own two feet,

they understand the world they live in,

they understand the country they live

in, they understand the community

they live in, and they understand what

they can do to make it a better community or a better country or a better

world, then I am telling you, we have

to invest in good education.

I have to tell you right now that

when I travel around the State of Minnesota, a State which values education,

I meet too many students who sell

their plasma at the beginning of the semester to buy their textbooks; I meet

too many students who are going to

school 6 years because they are working 35 and 40 hours a week, and we hear

proposals that they are going to have

to start paying interest on their debt

throughout their years of graduate or

undergraduate work. In addition, we

hear about proposals of cutbacks in

work-study and various low-interest

loan programs, Pell grant programs.

I could go on and on. I could just tell

you, these are middle-class programs.

These are programs that have made the

United States of America a better

country, a more just country, a country with more fairness.

So let us be crystal clear. The issue

is, who decides who benefits and who is

asked to sacrifice? The question will be

asked, who decides to cut Medicare and

who has health care coverage that is

good coverage? All of us who are in the

Senate. And who decides to cut some of

the programs that enable students to

be able to afford higher education and

whose children get a decent education?

I could go right across the board, but

I simply say to people in this country,

hold us all accountable and make sure

you are good at addition and you are

good at subtraction and you are good

at arithmetic, because I think it is a

bit of a shell game here. We are going

to have broad-based tax cuts and, in

addition, we are not cutting the Pentagon budget, and we are paying the interest on the debt and not touching Social Security, but we are going to balance the budget, cutting, I do not

know, $1.3 trillion, $1.7 trillion, by the

year 2002. But, veterans, do not worry

about your health care; you do not

need to worry that you are waiting 21⁄2,

3 years for just compensation right

now with the veterans appeal board.

And, students, do not worry because we

are not going to cut into higher education and children. No, we would not

do anything that would affect nutrition programs, but we are going to balance the budget by 2002. We are not

going to make a distinction between

operating budget and capital budget.

We are not going to go after corporate

welfare. Maybe we will. I hope we do.

Everything should be on the table. But

we are going to balance the budget.

I just simply say this argument

about there is the Government and

there is us, as a matter of fact, is a

wonderful philosophy. When it comes

to the issues important to your lives,

what the Government should do or

could do is great if you make $200,000 a

year. It is great if you own your own

large company. It is great if you are in

the Senate and make $130,000 a year. It

is not so great if you are a regular, ordinary American.

I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Mr. GRAMM. I am so moved that I

would like to just respond to that.

First of all, if you are rich, if you

own your own corporation, you are not

too much affected by these changes.

And let me explain why. In 1950, rich

people paid a lot of taxes. Rich people

pay a lot of taxes today. In 1950, poor

people did not pay any taxes. Poor people do not pay any taxes today.

What has happened since 1950 is that

the tax burden on average working

Americans has exploded to pay for all

of this Government that our dear colleague from Minnesota sees as the salvation of the American people. We

have spent more money on welfare

since 1965 than we have spent in fighting all the wars the Nation has been involved in this century, and there are

more poor people today than there

were when we started this program.

They are poorer today than they were

when we started this program. They

are more dependent today than they

were when we started this program.

The illegitimacy rate among the poor

is three times what it was when we

started this program. The crime rate

has exploded. And by every index on

the planet, they are worse off today

than they were when we started the

war on poverty.

But are my colleagues dismayed? Are

they the least bit unhappy? No. If we

could just spend another trillion, if we

could just let Government do more, everything would be wonderful.

There is only one problem that our

dear colleague has, and that is the

American people do not believe it anymore. The American people have rejected that idea.

In terms of health care, our colleague

last year, along with our President,

had an opportunity to convince the

American people it just made great

sense to tear down the greatest health

care system the world had ever known

to rebuild it in the image of the Post

Office. And remarkably, for a while, it

looked as if that was going to succeed.

But finally, a few Members—and I am

very proud to be able to say I was one

of them—stood up and said, ‘‘Over my

cold, dead, political body.’’

When we reached that point in the

battle when the American people came

to understand that this was not a debate about health care and jobs, but instead a debate about freedom, that one

little stone slew Goliath.

So I think we have had plenty of debate about health care. If I might say,

I reintroduced my health care bill. Bill

Clinton did not reintroduce his. Obviously, there was a belief that mine was

supported by the American people; he

concluded that his was not.

Now, in terms of this Pentagon budget issue, the plain truth, as we all

know, is that since 1985, we have cut

defense spending by over a third. If we

had cut Government spending in total

half as much as we cut defense budgets,

we would have a Federal surplus.

Even the President says today that

his defense budget will not fund the

level of defense that he claims the Nation needs.

So this idea that we can go around

talking about how can we write a budget without cutting defense, I remind

my colleagues we have already cut defense. The problem is we did not cut

anything else. We have already cut defense and raised taxes. The problem is

we spent every penny of the tax increase so that now the Congressional

Budget Office says that the underlying

budget and the underlying deficit is no

different today than it was before Bill

Clinton imposed the largest tax increase in American history.

Now, how can you have the largest

tax increase in the history of the country, the lowest levels of defense and

not have the deficit go down? There is

only one way. And that is you spend all

the money, which is exactly what we

have done.

In terms of Medicare, can anybody

stand here and say that we are going to

able to keep Medicare as it is? Last
S5868 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 1, 1995

year, Medicare spending grew by 10.5

percent a year. Last year, the average

insurance policy held by a worker in

the private sector did not have his premium go up. Competition improved efficiency. Cost consciousness meant

that the private sector part of medicine saw no cost increase and yet the

public sector part of medicine grew by

10.5 percent.

Does anybody believe that either the

taxpayer or our senior citizens can sustain that rate of growth in a program

that jointly they are paying for? Does

anybody believe that we should not try

to reform that program and bring efficiencies and economies and choices

into it or that we cannot do it?

I remind my colleagues that the Medicare trustees, appointed by President

Clinton to look at the financial problems of Medicare, concluded that Medicare was going to be broke by the year

2002, the year that we hope to balance

the Federal budget. What we are asking is that we respond to the urgent

call by the two independent members

of the Commission who urge Congress

to address this problem.

Now, as for the old tax-cut-to-therich song, let me remind my colleagues

that we are talking about a $500 tax

credit per child so that families can invest their own money in their own children. No one has failed to conclude

that at least 75 percent of that tax cut

will go to families that make $70,000 or

less.

But look at the capital gains tax

rate. I know my colleagues will say,

‘‘Well, if you cut the capital gains tax

rate, rich people are going to immobilize their capital and they are going

to invest and they are going to create

jobs and, if they are successful, they

are going to earn profit.’’

Welcome to America. Welcome to

America. That is how our system

works. If America is going to be saved,

it is going to be saved at a profit.

I was thinking the other day, as I listened to our President make a similar

statement to that our colleague has

made, I have had a lot of jobs in my

life. When I was growing up, I was very

fortunate to have a lot of jobs. I

worked for a peanut processor, I

worked in cabinet shop, I worked in a

boat factory, in addition to the same

jobs we all had, throwing papers and

working at the grocery store.

No poor person ever hired me. Never

in my life has a poor person ever hired

me. Every job I ever had, and I suspect

the same is true for virtually every

American, every job I ever had I got because somebody beat me to the bottom

rung of the economic ladder, climbed

up, invested their money wisely, created jobs, and made it possible for

someone like me to get my foot on the

bottom rung of the economic ladder

and climb up.

What is wrong with encouraging people to invest to create jobs, growth,

and opportunity?

In terms of corporate welfare, if my

colleague means by that subsidizing

corporate America to invest in a technology the Government chooses or subsidizing American business to invest in

areas that the Government chooses,

one of the things that I want to do in

the budget, and one of the things I will

do if I have to offer a substitute, is dramatically cut the $86 billion of Government spending where Government tells

business where to invest. That is how I

would like to fund cutting the capital

gains tax rate and indexing so that we

can let the market system and not the

Government decide where that investment will occur.

As far as children, it is interesting to

me that after all these years of exploding Government, after all these years

of the failure of Government, that we

still see Government as the solution to

every problem involving the American

child.

In fact, American Government is

doing such a great job that now President Clinton wants the United Nations

to get into the act. His administration

has now signed the U.N. Convention on

the Rights of the Child and he is going

to ask us to ratify it. And it supersedes

State law. So now not only are we

going to help raise every child in

America by the Federal Government,

but we are going to let the United Nations do it. We are doing such a great

job now, I guess we think the United

Nations can help us do even better.

Forgotten in this whole argument is

that child rearing is a parental concern. Parents ought to make decisions

about children. And part of our problem is over the last 40 years we have

taken more and more money from parents, we have spent their money on

their own children, and we have done a

much poorer job than they would have

done had we simply allowed them to

spend their own money on their own

children.

In terms of good jobs, where do good

jobs come from? Does anybody believe

that Government can create jobs? Does

anybody believe, as Bill Clinton says,

that Government can empower people?

Freedom empowers people. Government entraps people.

Finally, in terms of this whole debate

about Government, we are not talking

about eliminating the Government. We

are talking about a budget that, if we

fulfill the Contract With America, Government will spend about 21⁄2 percent

more each year for the next 7 years.

Now I know, for those who want Government spending to grow at three or

four times as fast as the family budget,

that that is cruel and unusual punishment. It means Government has to

make decisions.

But there are a lot of businesses in

America that have had to make a lot

tougher choices than limiting their

budgets to 21⁄2 percent growth a year.

And they have had to do it just to keep

their doors open. There are a lot of

families in America that make much

tougher choices than that.

All we are asking Government to do

is to live in the real world with everybody else where you have to make

tough decisions.

So, I think that we can see that this

is going to be an interesting debate.

And it is a defining debate. I respect

my colleague from Minnesota because,

basically, his view is the view of his

party. Not all the members of his party

are so honest as he is to basically point

out that they believe that Government

is the answer; that they really believe

that if we can make Government bigger, if Government could make more

decisions, if we could spend more

money at the Federal level, that America could deal with every problem we

have.

I do not believe that. I believe that if

we can put the Federal Government on

a budget, if we can let working people

keep more of what they earn, if we can

make hard choices at the Federal level,

if we can reform welfare to demand

that people, able-bodied people riding

in the wagon get out of the wagon and

help the rest of us pull, if we can demand that we end this situation where

we are subsidizing people to have more

and more children on welfare, and if we

can end the absurdity where millions of

people are getting more money riding

in the wagon than millions of other

Americans are getting for pulling the

wagon, then I think we can make

America right again.

The point is, we have two distinct visions for the future of America. Our

dear colleague from Minnesota and

most Democrats, including the President, believe that the vision that leads

us home, the vision that brings back

the American dream, the vision that

shares the dream with people who

missed it the first time around is more

Government, more spending at the

Federal level on education, more

spending at the Federal level on

health, more spending at the Federal

level on nutrition and housing and

training.

Of course, how are we going to pay

for it? Well, of course, we are going to

raise taxes. And who are we going to

raise taxes on? Rich people. And who

are rich people? Anybody who works.

That is their vision.

My vision, the vision of most Republicans, is exactly the opposite. We want

less Government and more freedom. In

fact, I would not want the Government

we have today even if it were free. If

you could give us this Government, I

would not want it because I think the

Government is too big and too powerful. It makes too many decisions.

Free people should make more decisions for themselves and they should

not have their Government making decisions for them. And we are not just

talking about freedom and efficiency,

we are talking about virtue.

It is not good that people turn to the

Government to fix every problem they

have, to indemnify every mistake they

make because in turning to Caesar,

they turn away from God, they turn

away from their family, they turn
May 1, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5869

away from themselves as problem solvers for themselves. As a result, they become dependent, and when they become dependent, they become less free.

That is what this debate is all about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I

actually promised my colleague from

Illinois that I would limit my response

to 5 minutes, but I am so moved by

what my colleague from Texas had to

say, I would like to respond.

Mr. President, I hardly know where

to start, but I can assure my colleague

that it is quite possible to turn toward

God and to turn toward religion and to

have values and spirituality in your

life and believe, as the Committee on

Economic Development believed, a

business organization which issued a

report a few years ago, that one of the

ways that we do well with an effective,

successful private sector is to make

sure that we invest in our children

when they are young.

It is simply the case that if we do not

invest in our children when they are

young, making sure that each and

every child has that equality of opportunity, which is what my parents

taught me was what America was all

about, then we pay the interest later

on with high rates of illiteracy and

dropout and drug addiction and crime

and all of the rest.

Mr. President, when we talk about

will there be a higher minimum wage,

the answer from my colleague from

Texas is no. From what I think I just

heard my colleague say, when we talk

about whether or not higher education

will be affordable, for some sort of reason there is nothing the Government

can do, we do not really need to have

Pell grants or low-interest loans or

work study, but, Mr. President, what

has made this country a greater country is to make sure that each and every

young person has that opportunity.

Nobody talked about the Government

doing everything. That is a caricature.

That is just sort of political debate.

We have a strong private sector, and

that is what makes this country go

round, but we also think there is a role

for the public sector, and that is to

make sure that we live up to the promise of this Nation, which is equality of

opportunity.

I do not think the people in the United States of America believe that

whether or not you receive adequate

health care or not should be based upon

whether or not you have an income. I

think people believe that each and

every citizen ought to have decent

health care. I heard my colleague criticize the post office. I can tell you one

thing, at least they do not deliver mail

according to your income. Everybody

gets their mail regardless of their income.

I heard my colleague talk about welfare. My God, you would think AFDC

families caused the debt, caused the

deficit. I was not here during the years

some of my colleague served here, but

if my memory serves me correctly, in

the early 1980’s, we were told what you

want to do is dramatically reduce

taxes—that was euphemistically

called—I ask my colleague from Illinois, I think I am correct—the Economic Recovery Act. What happened

was we eroded the revenue base and

moved away from any principle of progressivity, I say to my colleague. I am

sorry he is not here.

Poor people do pay taxes. Many people are poor in the United States of

America, work 40 hours a week, if not

more, 52 weeks a year, and they pay

Social Security taxes. More wage earners, more ordinary Americans pay

more in Social Security taxes than in

taxes. We have dramatically reduced

the corporate rates and, indeed, there

has been too much of a pressure on

middle-income and working families.

But this argument that the problem is

that we have relied too much on an income tax just simply does not hold up

by any kind of standard if you look at

it with any rigor.

I think the welfare benefits, the

AFDC benefits in some States—I cannot remember Texas—are about 20 percent of poverty. People in the United

States of America believe the children

have a right to be all that they can be.

People in the United States of America

believe we should invest in higher education. People in the United States of

America believe that an educated,

high-morale work force is critical to

economic performance. And people in

the United States of America believe

that it is a combination of a strong private sector and also a Government that

can effect good public policy that can

lead to the improvement of lives of

people in our communities that makes

the difference. That is what this debate

is about.

I yield the floor.

Several Senators addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

BATTLE AGAINST POVERTY

fMr. SIMON. Mr. President, I will try

not to strain the patience of my colleague from Washington.

First, in response to the dialog that

has just taken place between the Senator from Texas and the Senator from

Minnesota, the Government clearly is

not the answer for all of our problems.

But I would point out that when we

had what was called a war on poverty—

which was really not a war on poverty,

but at least a battle against poverty—

we ended up at one point with 16 percent of the children of America living

in poverty, down from 23 percent. We

are now back up to 23 percent, and we

ought to do better. That is Government

policy, it is private sector, it is all of

us working together.

PEACEKEEPING CONTRIBUTION

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, Sunday’s

New York Times has an article entitled

‘‘Poll Finds American Support for

Peacekeeping by U.N.,’’ written by

Barbara Crossette. It is a poll conducted of 1,204 people by the Center for

International and Security Studies at

the University of Maryland and by the

Independent Center for the Study of

Policy Attitudes in Washington.

Let me just read a couple of paragraphs:

There was a general perception among

those polled that about 40 percent of United

Nations peacekeeping troops are American,

and that this should be halved to 20 percent.

In fact, 4 percent of peacekeepers are American.

I do not know where the 4 percent

figure in the Times comes from. The

last figure I saw was as of March 6 and

at that point, the United States was

No. 20 in its contribution and less than

4 percent. Jordan, with 3 million people, was contributing more than twice

as many peacekeepers as the United

States with 250 million people. Nepal

was ahead of us at that point.

The article also says:

Asked about the cost of the Federal budget

of international peacekeeping, half of the

sample in the poll gave a median estimate of

22 percent. Less than 1 percent of the military budget is actually spent on these

operations . . .

Mr. President, we do have a choice

here, and that is whether we are going

to work with those countries or whether we are not. To use the old overworked phrase, if the United States is

not going to be the policeman of the

world, we have to work with other

countries.

Here let me add that one of the

things that we get all emotionally

hung up about is whether U.S. troops

can be under a non-U.S. commander.

The reality is that back since George

Washington had troops under a French

commander, we have had troops under

foreign commanders. I do not know

why we get so hung up on this. It does

not bother me, frankly, if the next

NATO commander should be a Canadian, or a Brit, or an Italian, or one of

the other NATO countries. I think that

is a perfectly plausible thing.

If we want other countries to work

with us around the world, we will, on

occasion, have to have American

troops under foreign commanders.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the

New York Times article.

There being no objection, the article

was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Apr. 30, 1995]

POLL FINDS AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR

PEACEKEEPING BY THE UNITED NATIONS

(By Barbara Crossette)

UNITED NATIONS, April 28.—As Congress

considers making significant cuts in contributions to United Nations peacekeeping,

the findings of a new study show that Americans may not only be supportive of such operations but are also willing to see missions