[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of
my staff, Nancy Lescavage, be granted the privilege of the floor during
the debate on this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] is
recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to offer, first of all, my thanks
to Senator Feinstein, my teammate here in the Senate. On this
earthquake issue, we have worked together, seriously, night and day,
and I am very gratified that we see perhaps a milestone here today that
we will get the help that is needed to our people, and not only to our
people in California, but to others in the country who rely on this
supplemental.
I also thank Senator Byrd, the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. He moved with deliberate speed--and that has meant a great
deal to Senator Feinstein and me--when we phoned him in the middle of
what has been a very shattering experience for so many of our people.
I want to say the same to Senator Mikulski, who placed a call to us
in the very early hours as we were just finding out how badly we were
damaged.
I also want to thank Senator Reid, if he would give me that
opportunity, because Senator Reid sat in on the first hearing in a
series of two that were held on the damage to California. This one was
in the Environment and Public Works Committee on which I have the
privilege to serve with him. He stayed through most of that hearing,
expressing his concern, and he himself actually felt this earthquake
all the way in Nevada and described that to us at the time.
I know that Senator Reid has proffered an amendment here today.
Senator Feinstein has addressed it, and I know he does not offer that
amendment in any way to inhibit our moving this bill. I have spoken
with him about it on the telephone. I then called James Lee Witt,
talked to him about Senator Reid's problem. I then phoned Senator
Feinstein and we talked about it. Senator Reid, I believe, is working
as hard as he can to reach some kind of an accommodation. I hope we can
do that, because I do not want to see anything happen in the course of
amending this bill that would slow it down in the conference committee.
So I am very hopeful that we can work it out.
Mr. President, with this emergency supplemental appropriation, we
seek to bind the wounds of southern California, as well as the wounds
that have still not healed in other parts of the Nation. These wounds
have been caused by Mother Nature.
Mr. President, the provision of emergency assistance in times of
disaster is a compact between the Federal Government and its people
wherever and whenever a disaster strikes. Only the Federal Government
has the ability to move quickly to protect lives and property during a
disaster and to help rebuild in its wake. That does not mean we do it
all. We look to the States and, of course, we look to private insurers.
But without our help, there can be no rebuilding, there can be no
binding of wounds.
Today we act, and it is our duty and responsibility to send relief to
the people of southern California in the same way we acted with all due
speed to aid South Carolina, Florida, Hawaii, and the riverside towns
of the Midwest.
That 6.8 Richter scale earthquake that erupted in the early morning
of January 17 dislocated the entire region. The earthquake crashed
through the Earth from a previously unmapped fault. And, Mr. President,
it had a vertical thrust to it. When I talked before about it, I talked
about the energy that was released from a 6.6 Richter scale earthquake,
and that alone would equal the thrust of about 2 million NASA space
shuttles going off at once. This is far more than that, Mr. President,
with a 6.8 Richter scale reading.
We believe this earthquake is among the costliest disasters in the
United States. I have to say to my colleagues that I pray for you,
wherever you live, be it in Nevada, be it in Nebraska, be it in New
York, I pray that you never have to deal with such a disaster.
I see the Senator from Hawaii here. He has been most supportive. He
knows what it means when people are completely stunned, thrust out of
their homes, with everything they lived for, everything they dreamed
about in those homes, and sometimes they lost relatives and friends.
James Lee Witt, the FEMA Director, told us that more people applied
for assistance in the first 12 days after this earthquake than all of
the victims of Hurricane Andrew and the Midwest floods did in 6 months.
We are talking about a disaster of enormous proportions.
When I was asked how did the Federal Government respond, I have said
``magnificently,'' as did, frankly, the State and the local people. But
everyone in the Federal Government underestimated the scope of this
disaster. I do not blame them for it. If you are not familiar with the
Los Angeles region, you do not understand the incredible density. There
are about 17 million people in the metropolitan area. My goodness, that
is larger than almost all of the other States in the Union, just in
that area. The economic tremors resound across the continent when
something happens in that size of an area.
California has provided 14 percent of the economic output of this
Nation. In a recent analysis by Dunn & Bradstreet, it showed that one-
third of California's manufacturing base lies within a 40-mile radius
of the earthquake's epicenter. As the President said in Los Angeles
when he was there 2 days after the earthquake, ``This is a national
problem; this is a national responsibility.''
California will pay its fair share, as it should.
Mr. President, Federal aid will provide needed relief for the State's
immediate needs. We will heal, and with our help here today, southern
California will once again retake its economic place in the Nation, and
the people will thrive.
I have right here behind me, Mr. President, a map of the city of Los
Angeles. You can see the red and yellow dots. Each one of those dots on
this map, Mr. President, indicates a home that has been either red
tagged or yellow tagged. Red tagged means you cannot go back in. Yellow
tagged means you have a problem and you have to fix it before you go
back in.
So what we are talking about here is a loss of perhaps 20,000 units
just in this area where people cannot go back into their homes and
live.
Now mind you, Mr. President, this is just Los Angeles. I am not
showing you a similar map for Santa Monica or the other cities, Santa
Clarita and many other cities. Many people think this was just the city
of Los Angeles, this was a Los Angeles regional disaster.
So every one of these tags, which show the wide spread of the damage
here, represents, Mr. President, a household, a family dislocated,
children dislocated, people at their wits' end. Today we have a chance
to move that help to them and move it quickly. I believe that as we
work with Senator Reid and we work with, hopefully, other Senators who
may have problems, we will in fact speed this through.
The funds we are voting on today will help to give temporary housing
to these good citizens so they can begin to get their lives back to
normal.
The funds here today, Mr. President, will rebuild the freeways. We
are talking about the busiest freeways in the country, if not the
world. Interstate 10 carries about 250,000, 300,000 cars a day. That is
what it carried before it was damaged. Interstate 5 is the link between
the San Joaquin Valley, where all the produce comes from for this
country. It goes through Interstate 5 into the ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach, and it gets shipped.
The fact is, Mr. President, we have to move quickly. We have to
rebuild these freeways. They are the economic lifeline of California
and the personal lifeline of the people who live there and the regional
lifeline for their economy and the national lifeline for this economy.
Despite all the wonderful efforts that have been made by Secretary
Pena, and they are heroic--by the way, we had heroes here: Secretary
Pena, Secretary Cisneros, to name just two; James Lee Witt, to name a
third; extraordinary people who rose to the occasion. But they are
running out of money, and we have to move. That is why we need this
bill to pass.
So with these heroic efforts of Secretary Pena getting people on the
metro link, which is rapid transit--and they are going on the metro
link, they are finding alternate routes, they are doubling up and
tripling up in cars--we still can only accommodate, really, 50 percent
of the problems. We must rebuild these freeways quickly.
And we know when we rebuild them, they will stand up. That is the
good news of this quake. The only good news we could see is that where
seismic retrofit was done, it worked, it held. Under a bill that this
Senate passed--which I am very proud it passed--on Monday, all the
overpasses in the country will now be eligible for seismic retrofit. So
we are moving.
We need to rebuild these freeways swiftly. In this bill, we will fix
the Cypress Freeway, which collapsed during the Loma Prieta quake in
San Francisco. Most of the people who were killed in that quake were
killed because of that freeway. I will tell you we need to move on
that, and that is included as well. It is finishing up that disaster
that we had.
Mr. President, on the first day of the quake, they said to the
children, ``Don't come to school,'' and 800,000 kids were stranded.
After 2 days, they said 250,000 kids cannot come to school. Why?
Because there were 150 schools damaged, Mr. President, and that is what
this money is going to do. We will pay a share; the State and locals
will pay a share. It must happen.
I had one little boy came up to me. He was devastated. You know how
kids usually have the sparkle in their eye. This little child did not
have a sparkle. ``When are you going to fix my school? When can I go
back to school? I want to go to school.''
We always think that kids are happy when they cannot go to school.
They get to stay home and play. The kids want to go back to school.
This bill is necessary so that we can fix up those school rooms now.
Those kids are our future. They are counting on us. It is our
obligation.
We can fight over where we can cut the budget. As a matter of fact, I
just came from the Budget Committee. We are fighting now. We are
cutting this deficit. It is going to be $126 billion lower than we
projected; $176 billion rather than $302 billion. And, yes, I can enter
into a debate on where to cut more. I will tell you right now, I know
where you can cut more. But I do not think this is the moment to get
into that debate. This is the moment to pass this supplemental.
I think the committee found some very uncontroversial rescissions
that do not require a lot of debate. We should not begin a debate on
where to cut more or where to raise taxes more because, in my humble
opinion, that is not something you do in the middle of rebuilding a
part of this country that needs to be rebuilt.
Hospitals. Hospitals are damaged. Hospitals are closing. Wings of
hospitals are closed off. The money here will provide the match needed
to rebuild those hospitals.
Let me conclude, Mr. President, on this note. I look forward to a
budget debate on how we can cut more from this deficit, but I do not
think this is the time and place to do it.
I want to work with Senator Reid, but I hope and pray we can come to
an agreement. This is a man who has more sympathy for what happened to
us. He felt it, as he was sleeping, all the way in Nevada. He knows the
power of this quake and the devastation. I think we can make it work.
I am afraid if we do something different from the House, we will get
to a contentious conference. And, my God, what am I going to say to
those kids? What am I going to say to the people who need those
hospitals, the people in Santa Monica that saw their hospital so
severely damaged that it went from 500 beds to 100 beds? What am I
going to say to those people? That we could not work out our
disagreements, people of good will, good faith? That is who is here in
the Senate. We can do it.
We do not have the luxury of time. FEMA is essentially out of money.
When Senator Feinstein and I had an opportunity to question James Lee
Witt at Senator Mikulski's hearing, Senator Feinstein asked, ``Tell me
in straight talk, are you running out of money?'' He said, ``Yes.'' She
asked for a report. I joined in. We got that report. What do we know?
We know that FEMA is running out of money. The fact of the matter is,
they are not just running out for California; they are running out for
the Midwest floods. And if, God forbid, we had another tragedy or
disaster anywhere in this country from the State of Oregon to the State
of Florida or anywhere in between, FEMA would not have the money.
In 8 days, they tell us, in 8 days, they run out of cash. So, please,
I really make a plea to my colleagues here in the Senate. You have come
up to us. You have cared with us. You are compassionate about what has
happened. You have been with us in spirit. Today we ask for your help.
I believe with this supplemental we will deliver that help to people,
many of whom have never asked for one thing from their Government. This
is a time we should pull together.
Thank you very, very much, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 1436, as Modified
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I know my friend from Nebraska has been here for a long
time. I want to get to him real quick.
I send a modification to my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify the
amendment. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, reads as follows:
In title IV, section 403; insert at the end the following
paragraph:
``(3) Any federal entity or official who makes available
funds under this Act other than for the purposes set forth in
subsection (2) above shall take reasonable steps to determine
whether any individual seeking to obtains such funds is
lawfully within the United States.''
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am going to offer two amendments to this
dire emergency supplemental. On the one that requires us to pay for the
supplemental, I will not require a rollcall vote on. It can be disposed
of relatively quickly.
The second is an attempt to amend the rescission portion of this
bill. There are a number of us who have been working for quite some
time to try to develop an amendment to the rescission in the bill.
Rescission was incorporated into this dire emergency supplemental, and
thus our target is the rescission, not the supplemental.
I assure my friends from California that I have no desire to slow
down this supplemental bill. I have no opposition at all to the
supplemental. What the Senator from Nevada said, I think, is quite
accurate. This dire emergency supplemental is an expression of the
generosity of the American people. I have met few who are unwilling to
spend this money, few who are unwilling to acknowledge that significant
damage has been done, that the lives of the people of southern
California have been altered irreparably, and that we have an
obligation to move as quickly as possible.
I would point out that the time constraint here is as much driven by
our desire to leave on recess as it is by other considerations. What we
will attempt to do is to make sure that we deal with this in a
reasonable time. I have been here early, Mr. President, in part because
I wanted to get it up as quickly as possible and mostly to make sure
that there were no delays, to make sure that anybody who wanted to
speak for or against this attempt to amend the rescission package had
an opportunity to come to the floor and speak so we would have an
opportunity to get this rollcall vote out of the way.
As the distinguished Senator from Nevada has said and as I have just
reiterated, this is an act of generosity by the American people, an act
of generosity that requires us to say that we care about the damage and
that we are willing to respond to the damages detailed in this
legislation. Let me point out one thing that is required in addition to
generosity. Generosity alone is not enough. The people of Mexico are
generous, the people of Russia are generous. What is also required is
for us to have a sufficient amount of wealth for it to matter.
We will be taking from the national stock approximately $10 billion
for this piece of legislation and I support that. I make it clear I
think it is appropriate for us to do so. But there is a connection
between our capacity to be generous and our ability to generate wealth
and income in the first place.
That gets to the heart of what we are attempting to do with a larger
amendment, which is to reduce by $94 billion over a 5-year period the
spending of the U.S. Federal Government. In a couple of weeks' time we
are going to have a great debate here on the floor about amending our
Constitution. A large number of people on the Appropriations Committee,
and I suggest a majority of Senators--perhaps a sufficient number to
amend our Constitution--will stand on this floor and say we should
balance our budget by 1999 or the year 2001 or some other point out in
time.
In order to balance the budget we would have to take, over a 5-year
period, $600 billion out of this budget. This is merely an attempt to
take $94 billion. I say that because I am sure during the course of
this debate we are going to hear some who will come and say this
deficit reduction package, this second step as I see it, is going to be
hurtful to the economy--that somehow we cannot do it. I point out to
those who are prepared to make that kind of argument that if that is
the argument, stand ready to defend your belief that our Constitution
ought to be amended. That would require even more draconian action than
this.
The Federal Reserve last week raised the interest rates charged to
American borrowers. It is not apt to have a great impact upon the
economy at this point but it is a signal. The Federal Reserve is
concerned about a return of inflation to our economy. There are two
sides to this effort to keep our economy growing coming from
Washington, DC. One of them is the monetary policy of Mr. Greenspan and
the Federal Reserve. The other one is the fiscal policy that we put in
place here. Our spending and our borrowing has an impact upon the
economy. It has a direct impact upon the economy.
If we were successful in agreeing to this amendment, if we were able
to agree to it quickly--as it seems to me we ought to be able to, given
the rhetoric we had around here last August and the desire to cut
further and the enthusiasm for doing it, particularly the enthusiasm I
am quite certain will be here in a couple of weeks' time when we are to
debate an amendment to the Constitution. We will fill this room with
words, glorious words in tribute to balancing our budget, talking about
the urgent need, for tomorrow's generation, to take this action.
We are talking about a very small step in this regard. Yet I am
certain I am going to hear arguments that say, ``Now is not the right
time. Let's do it later.''
There has never been a better time. We have low interest rates, low
inflation rates, a growing economy. Now is the time to take the next
step. The only reason we resist it is it is unpopular. I note
particularly the unpopularity of the deficit reduction action taken in
1993 with President Clinton's courageous plan, as well as President
Bush's in 1990. It is never popular to come home to the American
people, to our constituents, to the people who have sent us here and
say we are going to cut spending and raise your taxes. It is never
popular to do that.
It is far more popular to vote for a balanced budget amendment. That
is what is popular, to stand here on the floor and say I am for
balancing the budget. But when it comes to actually going from theory
to the concrete--well, I have a reason why I cannot go along with it.
The General Accounting Office has done an evaluation of deficit
financing. I have previously had printed in the Record an analysis of
why we should do this. Let me say, this does require a strong belief.
You have to really believe the economy of the United States of America
is going to be stronger if we do this. If you do not believe it you are
not going to ``suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'' to
do this. If you do not believe it, you are not going to vote to cut
spending. Because many of these items we have on our list, the 57
specific items that total $94 billion over the next 5 years, are not
the sorts of things that win you popularity contests. You have to
believe it is worthwhile doing.
The General Accounting Office has done an analysis of what happens if
we were to bring our budget--not close to balance, but in balance,
slightly in surplus. So we could go home to our citizens and people and
say, ``We are paying off debt. We are not accumulating debt. We are
paying off debt.'' We do not have to pay off a lot. All we have to do
is be slightly in surplus, according to the General Accounting Office.
Their evaluation--I do not have one of the large economy-size versions
of charts--but the General Accounting Office has indicated that within
15 years of the balancing of the budget our economy would be
significantly stronger, the per capita income in America would be
significantly higher, that Americans would benefit.
One could question it. I will be glad to engage in a debate about
whether or not the GAO's analysis--the Federal Reserve's analysis,
which is the foundation of this report, is valid. There may be some who
come to the floor and say we think deficit financing is good and can
present facts and figures and charts as to why we ought to do it.
I am of the opinion and of the belief that our Federal budget should
not just be in balance but slightly in surplus so we are paying off
debt. I believe the economy of the United States of America would be
stronger. I believe our political system would work better. I believe
the American people would trust us more.
One of the reasons the American people do not trust us today is
because they hear us talking about deficit reduction and then giving
all kinds of reasons why this is not the right time. ``Let's do it
later. Let's wait until the economy has really kicked in. Another
couple of quarters maybe will do the trick. Maybe we can wait until
after 1994. Maybe 1995 is better.''
Mr. President, now is the time, in my judgment, to take that second
step.
The budget the President has submitted I think bears some examining,
as we consider this. The budget the President submitted calls for
$1.597 billion worth of spending. Let me say I believe the President
has his priorities right, first of all. He is talking about spending
more money on children, spending more money on families, trying to put
investment in people. It is key if we are going to have the capacity
for wealth-generating that we need so we can be generous where we feel
like, as we do today.
I do not think anybody is going to vote against this dire emergency
supplemental bill. That is not the issue: Are you for or against
helping California? Are you for or against adding another $700 million
to the Midwest, to a region that I come from, that will benefit? That
is not the issue.
The question is where are we getting the money? This budget calls for
about $273 billion of spending on Medicare and Medicaid; $177 billion
on Medicare, $96 billion on Medicaid.
It calls on the retirement accounts for $400 billion to be spent:
Social Security gets $335 billion, military and civil retirement is $65
billion--$400 billion.
Other entitlements, all the other entitlements that are typically
targeted when people stand up and talk about mandatory programs--the
farm program, AFDC, food stamps--all the rest of them are $171 billion.
(Mrs. FEINSTEIN assumed the chair.)
Mr. KERREY. For the record, those other accounts decreased from last
year. Those who are looking for sort of an easy way out of the
entitlement program need to be alerted to that fact. There is unlikely
to be an easy solution to this problem. That totals $844 billion. Net
interest, Madam President, is estimated to be $212 billion.
It would be significantly higher were it not for low interest rates.
We are getting a bonus today, as the President has talked about. The
reason that interest rates and low inflation stay in place is that we
had the courage last August to vote for deficit reduction. That is what
is producing it, on top of the deficit reduction action that occurred
in 1990 that I voted for as well.
So we are going to spend $1.56 trillion on Medicare, Medicaid, Social
Security, civil, military, retirement, other entitlements, and the
interest accounts; $541 billion is left for discretionary spending,
approximately half of that going into this Nation's defense.
I am merely laying that out so we get an understanding that we are
about, this year, to spend $1.6 trillion, $1.597 trillion with the
press releases, $1.970 trillion with the proud statements about
investments. But, understand, as I said in the beginning, that in order
for us to be generous, in order for us to build schools, to build
roads, to have a health care program, a safety net of any kind, this
Nation has to generate wealth. That is the source of our capacity to
spend anything in Washington, DC.
I would like to read the accounts where we are going to get the
money, just so colleagues understand there are patriotic Americans out
there who are going to be shipping checks to Washington, DC on April
15: $500 billion with individual taxes--three-fourths of the people in
Nebraska do not even itemize, they patriotically send their check into
the IRS because they believe it is their obligation--82 percent
compliance in this country, and I point out, unfortunately, on the way
down--$131 billion of corporate taxes being paid; $428 billion of
social insurance taxes being paid.
I made the point before, I will make it again. We are overtaxing
people who get paid by the hour. For the first time in the 50-year
history of our Social Security Program, we broke a pay-as-you-go system
and began to generate a surplus. Fifteen percent payroll taxes are
collected on the American people today. If you are self-employed, as 15
percent of the work force is in the State of Nebraska, you paid 15
percent of your wages. That accumulates as $428 billion estimated
between October 1, 1993 and September 30, 1994.
We will go beyond that. We have $55 billion in excise taxes, $13
billion in estate taxes, $19 billion collected by Customs, and $20
billion miscellaneous. That is a lot of money we are collecting from
the American people. If they do not have income and wages, we do not
collect anything. If there are no jobs, we do not collect anything. All
of us understand that. The President most particularly understands
that. He has made a point to say that we have to invest in the American
people, invest in their capacity to increase their earning power. That
is the key to our being able to have any kind of revenue.
I pointed out before, and I will do it again, the most important
fact, I think, of all in 1993 that has contributed to our capacity to
be able to stand here and say that the economy is growing and
everything looks good is that the productivity of the American worker
increased 4.7 percent, reversing a 20-year decline and outstripping all
of our OECD competitors--a significant fact.
Yes, I believe the reconciliation bill that we passed on August 5 was
extremely important. But were it not for the increase in productivity
of the American workers, were it not for increased productivity of men
and women who are out there on the shop floors today, we would not be
enjoying a reduction in the deficit. We would not be enjoying growth in
the economy. We would not be sitting here right now feeling a sense, I
think, of false security and satisfaction that we no longer have to do
anything more, the deficit is going down--$176 billion, Madam
President.
I ask you to get a round of applause from a town hall meeting saying,
``Congratulations, the deficit is only $176 billion.'' I give President
Clinton full credit for getting it down to that. If the allies had
stopped at the Rhine River, had MacArthur stopped at the Philippines,
World War II would have been much different.
This is a war, and if you do not believe it, if you do not believe we
ought to balance our budget, that is fine, say so, declare your
opposition to balancing the budget and we can have a good debate.
I believe that the standard of living of our children, I believe the
economic security of this country, I believe, in fact, our capacity to
govern ourselves is in jeopardy unless we take this action.
(Mr. GRAHAM assumed the chair.)
Mr. KERREY. The total amount of revenue, Mr. President, we are
collecting from the American taxpayers, we are estimating to be
collecting, is $1.249 trillion against $1.5 trillion in receipts. We
have some offsetting accounts to get the deficit number down. The fact
of the matter is, we are not going to collect enough money to pay the
bills and, thus, what we have to do is sell Treasury bonds. We borrow
from the already too small pool of savings, restricting the growth of
the economy, restricting our capacity to invest, restricting our
ability, Mr. President, to grow and generate the wealth and income that
we need to be generous.
It makes no sense for us to sit here in Washington, DC, and say that
we are the source of power just because we are willing to come and
spend money. It is not our money. The money comes from the American
people. And I believe that our fiscal policies, long-term, are
undercutting our ability to be generous, undercutting our capacity to
build a social safety net, undercutting our ability to be competitive
and, in fact, we drain the hard work that produced the 4.7 percent
increase in productivity. How can we stand in front of workers and say,
``We're providing you all that you need to be competitive,'' when we
know, in fact, that we are eroding that capacity with the fiscal
policies of the U.S. Government?
The amendment that we have prepared calls, as I said, for 57 specific
items totaling $94 billion over 5 years. Again I say with all due
respect, compare $94 billion of what is going to have to happen if we
enact a balanced budget amendment. I know there are going to be some
who will come here and have great arguments about why they cannot
support this, and 2 weeks from now they are going to talk about their
support for amending the U.S. Constitution, saying essentially this,
Mr. President: ``Look, we know this deficit financing is wrong, it's
bad, we shouldn't do it and we would like to stop, but we can't. But in
order to solve this problem, we will amend the Constitution to prevent
us from doing what we know is wrong.''
On that basis, we would have great constitutional debates about
shoplifting or any other sort of behavior we think is wrong that we
cannot stop. Why do we not amend the Constitution to make it illegal
for any crime? This is a crime. We ought to stop it. We ought to simply
say we have the courage to take the second step. I believe the third
step is going to come with entitlements, to keep moving toward the goal
of having our fiscal accounts in balance.
There are 57 items that we have listed, some not terribly
controversial, some extremely controversial. Perhaps I might begin with
the most controversial.
I believe that we have to set an example in Washington. We call for
reductions in spending not just for the purpose of eliminating the
deficit, moving closer to being in balance, but we also call for
reinforcing what the President is trying to address by saying that we
have to have priorities, by doing what Vice President Gore is talking
about as well by saying we have to reduce Government overhead, we need
to reduce the size of the bureaucracy and duplication and we need to
increase accountability. We have to address the mandatory programs. We
have to ask the American people essentially to take less. But if we are
going to ask the American people to take less, in my judgment, we have
to demonstrate our willingness to take less.
This amendment does call for a reduction in Members' pay, as well as
all other executive pay over the $100,000 level, of 5 percent, not what
I would call a draconian cut, not what I would call an unreasonable
reduction given what we are going to be asking the American people to
accept from us.
This has a proposal to address the COLA's for retired military and
civil retirees over $30,000 a year. In good faith, I have to come to
them and say I have given up something.
We reduce the Executive Office of the President appropriations by 5
percent. We limit departing Members' purchase of office equipment. We
reduce the legislative branch appropriations by 7.5 percent. We reduce
the franking account by 20. We freeze the 1994 COLA for Members and
Members' future COLA's. We reduce travel accounts by 15 percent and, as
I said, take a 5-percent pay cut as well.
Mr. President, this does not add up to a lot. I am sure there will be
plenty who will point out, ``For gosh sakes, that is only $1.8 billion
over a 5-year period. On the order of things, $1.8 billion is not much.
The proposal on salaries is only $297 million. But more important to
me, this has us coming forward and saying, as I said, that we are
prepared to set an example. We are prepared with our own pay, we are
prepared with our own benefits, we are prepared to set an example for
the American people that in order to get the deficit not just under
control but eliminated so we are in the surplus and paying off our
debt, to arrive at that point we all have to take a little less.
Unless you are prepared to come to the floor and say that the way to
do it is to take a little more from the American people in taxes--and I
do not hear a lot of enthusiasm for that these days--unless you are
prepared to say somebody is going to pay a little more, then all of us
have to take a little less, Mr. President.
I see the distinguished Senator from--
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KERREY. Yes.
Amendment No. 1438
Mr. REID. My amendment is pending. I know the Senator wants to offer
his amendment. What I would do--the Senator has yielded to me--I send
an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield for the
purposes of the Senator from Nevada offering an amendment?
Mr. KERREY. I do yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 1438.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment strike all after the first word and insert
the following: ``federal entity or official who makes
available funds under this Act, other than for the purposes
set forth in subsection (2) above, shall take reasonable
steps to determine whether any individual or company seeking
to obtain such funds is lawfully within the United States.''
Amendment No. 1439
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that disaster relief
assistance provided by this bill should be funded through the enactment
of a temporary Federal tax on gasoline)
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have a second amendment that I would
like to send to the desk. My first amendment I am not prepared to send
to the desk yet, but I send my second amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself and Senator Robb.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have no objection to my amendment being
set aside for his offering the amendment.
Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of the Senator
from Nevada be set aside for the purpose of considering these two
amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendment is set aside for purposes of considering the amendment
offered by the Senator from Nebraska. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself and Mr.
Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 1439.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the------, insert the
following:
Sec. . It is the sense of the Senate that disaster relief
assistance provided by this bill should be funded through the
enactment of a temporary Federal tax on gasoline.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, as I said, I would like to deal with this
relatively quickly. I may have to wait until the managers of the bill
come back. This is identical, almost an identical amendment to one I
had last year to the disaster assistance which went to the Midwest. It
merely requires us--I should not perhaps say ``merely''--it requires us
in our moment of generosity to declare that we are going to pay for
this appropriation. I do not believe that we should look for offsets. I
am not an advocate of offsetting in order to pay for this disaster.
What we have is I think a situation where we are responding generously,
and we ought, in my judgment, to pay for it.
This particular amendment is merely a sense of the Senate that, as I
said, I offer on behalf of Senator Robb and myself. Last year, we
actually had an amendment that I offered which directed the conferees
to include a gas tax. This year, I am merely offering a sense of the
Senate. I think last year I got eight votes. I do not intend to ask for
a rollcall on this particular year.
But I do, Mr. President, point out that I think this is a very needed
and healthy check. I appreciate very much that the chairman and the
ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Oregon, have asked for a
special commission to look at disaster programs and make
recommendations about how disaster programs ought to be addressed in
the future.
One of the things I would urge and hope is included is that if we
have a disaster and we appropriate money, we ought to designate a
source of those funds. In this particular case--as I said, I also did
this last year--I am asking for a gasoline tax to be levied on a
temporary basis to generate such funds as necessary to pay for the
disaster. It is a very important check to make sure that our
generosity, indeed, is in line with what the American people are
willing to pay.
We can come here, as I do, saying that the people of Nebraska want to
help the people of California, that the people of Nebraska want to help
the people who were damaged by the Midwest flood, that the people of
Nebraska want to help the people of Hawaii who were damaged by the
hurricane, or the people of South Carolina, or the people of Florida. I
can say that we want to be generous, and we want to extend our
generosity. But if I do not have a requirement to pay, if there is no
requirement for me to actually collect the money, it is a hollow
extension of generosity because all we are doing is borrowing the
money.
Worse than that, as I indicated, there is no check, there is no way
for me to measure whether or not I am asking for something that the
American people or the people of Nebraska would support. We all know
that basically what we have done is we have taken the disaster in
California now, we have looked back, and we have added some additional
things. I have been invited to participate in a number of meetings
dealing with the Midwest: Should we add additional money?
One of the suggestions was that we use this opportunity with the
disaster in California to add money so that we can pay for nurseries
and orchards that were destroyed in the flood of 1993.
Perhaps we should. Perhaps that is something we ought to do. But I am
just saying that unless I have some kind of funding mechanism which
requires me to collect the money--to pass the collective hat, Mr.
President--I must say all I am really doing is trying to sort of
satisfy some additional requirements for spending without being
terribly responsible.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. KERREY. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to most
respectfully suggest that this amendment be temporarily set aside and
the Senator bring up the second amendment. I make the suggestion
because it includes a tax, and I believe as a matter of courtesy the
chairman of the Finance Committee should be advised of this, because we
have been advised by the leadership of the House that if this is
presented as an amendment, not as a sense of the Senate, we will not go
to conference because of the tax feature involved.
That being the case, I think it would be most appropriate if we could
advise the chairman of the Finance Committee of this development; and
therefore I suggest, if we can, we set this aside and the second
amendment may be considered.
Mr. KERREY. I say to my friend from Hawaii out of respect for that
particular consideration, this is merely a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution.
Mr. INOUYE. I realize that.
Mr. KERREY. It does not instruct the committee to designate a tax for
this effort. Is the Senator from Hawaii still of the opinion that--
Mr. INOUYE. Because of the tax feature, whether it is a sense or not
a sense of the Senate, I hope that we will be given the opportunity of
advising the chairman of the committee. I think it is just a matter of
courtesy.
Mr. KERREY. Very well. I would be pleased to.
I will say, Mr. President, we did notify the Finance Committee. They
were concerned about language that would instruct the conferees, so we
changed it to a sense of the Senate in part to accommodate that
concern; but I must say in part out of recognition that it was very
unlikely this amendment was going to be accepted.
All I am trying to do in making this proposal is make a suggestion to
this task force that in the process of considering the recommendation,
one of the things we consider is, rather than getting in this debate,
should we have an offset, which I think is not right--I do not think we
should in the case of a disaster in California say that we are going to
make somebody else suffer as a consequence of the suffering that is
going on out there. I am merely trying to make the point, and I will be
glad to set it aside for the purpose of informing and allowing the
chairman of the Finance Committee to come to the floor.
Mr. President, I should like to get back and discuss again precisely
what it is this proposal does. I saw earlier the distinguished Senator
from Colorado come to the floor, and there will be others who want to
come and speak in favor.
Again, it is not my desire nor my intent to slow down this dire
emergency supplemental, a supplemental that I believe is needed and a
supplemental that I intend to vote for, as I did last year with the
disaster programs of the Midwest. But, Mr. President, because a
rescission package was attached to the dire supplemental bill, I have
an obligation as a consequence of believing that the rescission should
go further, to attempt to amend that rescission which is now a part of
this dire emergency bill.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KERREY. I will be glad to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. I am trying to follow the Senator's
reasoning. I completely respect the dedication of the Senator from
Nebraska to reach a balanced budget at the earliest possible moment.
I share that desire, and I have my own ways of how to get there. The
Senator at the same time says he does not want to slow down the
supplemental, for which I am indeed grateful. As I understand the
Senator's proposal--and if you could clarify it for me--is it $94
billion overall in rescissions? And how much in tax increases?
Mr. KERREY. There are no tax increases. They are all rescissions.
Mrs. BOXER. How much would that be?
Mr. KERREY. Ninety-four billion dollars.
Mrs. BOXER. In terms of the sense of the Senate on the gas tax, is
that the part that you would be offering next?
Mr. KERREY. No. There are two--that is correct--amendments. One is a
sense-of-the-Senate resolution on the gasoline tax, and the other is an
amendment to the rescission portion of it.
Mrs. BOXER. I would like to say to the Senator that although I
completely believe that he is genuine when he says he does not want to
slow this down, I believe that if you were to change the rescission and
if this were to pass, to go from $3 billion to $94 billion, and the
unbelievable impact that would have on this economy, having listened to
Treasury Secretary Bentsen, OMB Director Panetta--what they are trying
to achieve is a very good balance between growth and stimulation of
this economy, as well as, frankly, streamlining. They have worked hard
to do that.
I would say that passage of this amendment of $94 billion would in
fact slow the supplemental down dramatically, absolutely, because the
difference between the $2.5 billion in the House, and if we were to
achieve this amendment and it were to pass, $94 billion in rescission,
I would venture to say knowing the way things work around here, that
would be an enormous difference and would take a great deal of time. I
have never seen a conference that would be so disparate in rescissions.
So I would just say to my friend and my colleague that I know he does
not want to slow the supplemental down. But the impact of this passing
would slow this supplemental down very, very much. I would hope that
perhaps he could reconsider offering this at this time. We will have
the budget debate. God knows, we will have many debates. We are just
getting down to the Budget Committee, and it will flow to all the
committees.
I would respectfully make the comment that, with all due respect, I
think passage of it would slow the supplemental down. It would hurt the
people not only in California but in the Midwest, Hawaii, and other
places where they are anxiously awaiting this help.
Mr. KERREY. I say to my friend from California in response, Mr.
President, that I would vastly prefer to have a rescission bill before
me. Indeed, we indicated that it was not our intent to try to amend the
supplemental. But the rescission bill was placed and the supplemental,
and thus we are now in this particular position.
I am prepared to agree to a time agreement at some point. I am not
standing here and filibustering this bill. I want the bill to pass. But
the driving force here is our desire to get out of here on Friday. What
is causing the potential dilemma is that we have a recess. We want to
go home. I am conscious of that. I know many of my colleagues who
either want to vote for or against are not going to be able to vote
because many of them are planning to leave early.
So I say with great respect that I think that there will be many who
will vote against this amendment because they will say it is going to
slow down the supplemental. There will be many who will vote against
this amendment for all kinds of other reasons.
But the truth of it is, Mr. President, when it comes time to spend
money, we can do things in record time. When it comes time to spend, I
say with great respect--I made this exact point last year when it
affected the Midwest. When the Midwestern flood was the issue, I have
never seen anything like it. At a time when every single person in this
body almost was coming to the floor saying we have to have more cuts,
then that flood hit. There was bipartisan enthusiasm to spend money
because we knew it was not going to be accounted for.
We could load that thing up and spend money however way we wanted. We
can ask for 100 percent funding. We could ask for things because we
knew that we were not going to have to pay for it.
So we had extraordinary speed, extraordinary bipartisan cooperation.
There was no gridlock last year when it came time for the supplemental
disaster program for the Midwest. We had no excuses then, no procedural
reasons then, no sense of ``I have to get this sort of considered.'' We
had to have it done right now.
So as I said, I am not going to slow this down. I will agree to a
time agreement. I will make certain that this supplemental is done, and
in an expeditious fashion. There will be plenty of other reasons that
people who will oppose this package.
I would vastly prefer to have a straight up-or-down vote on the
rescission bill, and would love to hear the arguments against it then,
Mr. President. Because there will be plenty of arguments against it on
that basis. There will be lots of reasons why those who are for a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget who are not going to be
able to vote for $94 billion over 5 years. There are lots of ways to
change it.
There are lots of ways to amend it, and lots of ways to add to it,
and alter it. Indeed, that is precisely what we have done in the dire
emergency supplemental. We marked it up in the Appropriations
Committee. The distinguished Senator from Oregon has already indicated
if anybody wants to amend title II they have to have an offset if they
want to spend more money. When it comes to trying to spend less money,
we have all kinds of procedural reasons why it cannot be done, why it
should not be done.
So I say I have great respect for the distinguished Senator from
California. I am 100 percent behind this supplemental. I will do
nothing to slow this up, including allowing a time agreement so this
amendment can be considered so that Members have the opportunity to
vote on it.
Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question--
--
Mr. KERREY. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. INOUYE. The Senator mentioned $94 billion. I have gone to the
clerk and requested to have a copy of your amendment. The amendment is
not here yet. Am I correct?
Mr. KERREY. That is correct.
Mr. INOUYE. I have before me a 3-page or 4-page listing of 57
proposals. Was this prepared by the Senator's office?
Mr. KERREY. It was prepared not just by my office but by a number of
Senators who participated in the bipartisan effort.
Mr. INOUYE. I bring this up because I just got hold of this about 15
minutes ago. This constitutes the amendment?
Mr. KERREY. No. It does not. Legislative counsel is preparing the
amendment. As a consequence of weather and other considerations, they
have not completed the drafting of the amendment.
Mr. INOUYE. I thought the preparers of the amendment of the Senator
were aware of what is involved here. There are 57 proposals. They range
anywhere from reducing Public Law 48, titles 1 and 23 by 20 percent;
reduce RDA to the Senate level; means test unemployment compensation;
allow industry to cogenerate power at DOE labs. It just goes on and on.
If we are to seriously consider these amendments in this process, we
would be lucky if we are concluded in a week's time.
There are some matters in here that I am certain would evoke much
controversy. For example, I am certainly Alaskans would like to know
what this business about selling the Alaska Power Administration is all
about, what eliminating funds for the high-temperature gas reactor is
all about. We have TVA involved; eliminate reports on Davis-Bacon
projects; phase in 10 percent reduction in arts and humanities;
terminate the honey program. We have no honey program in Hawaii but I
suppose this is important for some.
Is the Senator from Nebraska seriously hoping that the Senate will
consider these amendments today?
Mr. KERREY. I say to my friend from Hawaii, Mr. President, that is
precisely what I hope. I would have preferred, as I indicated, that we
would be offering this amendment to a clean rescission bill only that
the President introduced last fall and was voted on the House side. I
say with great respect that on the details of this amendment, the
printed copy, the Senator from Hawaii is quite correct because we have
been making some alterations in this and was just debatable this
morning.
We have had this amendment out to the American people since last
fall. Indeed, I say, Mr. President, that I have had phone calls,
letters, lots of opposition to this amendment. I am quite clear that
there is opposition. There is opposition from some people in Nebraska,
who do not want to terminate the hunting program. There is opposition
from people in Nebraska who do not want reductions here in this farm
program. There is opposition from people who say, ``Can you not make a
reduction someplace else?'' ``Is it not possible for you to find a
reduction in some other area?''
Well, Mr. President, again I point out what is going on here. We can
demonstrate how easy it is to put together a Republican and Democrat
coalition and get things done in record time if there is an urgency, or
a dire supplemental appropriation. But it is difficult to come up with
a list. We tried, I say to my friend from Hawaii, to be as specific as
possible so we would not be standing here with an across-the-board cut
or some other sort of thing like that. We tried to be as specific as
possible. We put out a request to any Senator that wanted to
participate in the development of this amendment. There are
disagreements within the group itself. Occasionally, we have one person
fall off as a result of something being included, or we have a person
fall off as a result of something not being included.
The whole process of cutting spending is a difficult process because
you must--if, in the end, you believe we ought to arrive at a point
where we are paying off debt, you must inescapably say ``no'' to a
friend. You must inescapably say that you are going to reduce--or in
some cases eliminate--programs that you can make a good case for in
isolation.
Mr. INOUYE. I understand what the Senator is trying to achieve. But,
first, we have no amendment before us. We are not able to submit this
to CBO and ask for their opinion. We have no idea whether the numbers
presented in this four pages are correct or incorrect, and this is an
almost impossible task for the Senate, if I may most respectfully say
that.
Mr. KERREY. We have run into a problem, and counsel is saying that
within 15 or 20 minutes we are going to have an amendment here. We
expected to have it by 10 o'clock when we started business. Actually,
in previous conversations with the leadership, I was under the
understanding that the rescission bill was going to be offered later
and not attached to the dire emergency supplemental. We have been under
some time constraint, in part, as a consequence of the unexpected
acceleration of the consideration of this bill.
We will have an amendment for Members to consider. I say again that
this amendment has been under deliberation since last fall. And the
proof of that is, I say to any American who happens to be listening to
this thing at 12:20 in the afternoon, I have been receiving letters,
and I received phone calls from people all over the country saying,
``Do not cut NEA.'' I have received angry phone calls from people who
do not like the adjustments we are making in the COLA for military and
civil retirees. I have heard protests from people who do not like
specific parts of this list.
This has not been a proposal that has any stealth qualities about it.
We have been working on it in a very open, deliberative fashion since
last summer, and the details of it are well known by the people who
oppose it. The administration came out in opposition to it last year.
They began to organize that opposition, to generate enthusiasm amongst
a variety of groups, describing how this is going to bring the Republic
to an end.
I say, Mr. President, the opposition is itself an illustration of the
fact that we have had an open process and have declared that we believe
we have to cut spending if we are going to get the budget in balance
and be able to keep our economy growing. It is a very difficult
proposition to say no in this fashion. I say, with great respect to the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the ranking member, and the
distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii, who know far more about this
process than I, I appreciate that they have been through the battles on
this thing before. But those of us who feel strongly that this ought to
be done get very frustrated when we are told: Well, the process does
not allow it.
Mr. INOUYE. My only concern, Mr. President, is that we have nothing
to deal with. We have not seen the amendment. I am certain the
amendment is not at the clerk's desk. When will that amendment be here
so we can debate it?
Mr. KERREY. Counsel has assured me that it will be here within 15 or
20 minutes now. They told me 15 or 20 minutes ago that it would be
within a half an hour.
I emphasize that our initial understanding was that the rescission
bill would come up later. We have had to accelerate the detailed
writing of the amendment, and I alert those who wonder about this kind
of a process that when you are not on the Budget Committee you are not
in a position to be able to command the staff to do this sort of thing.
It is very often more difficult to get that job done.
I say to my friend, he has raised another point having to do with
CBO. We have very explicitly not lowered the caps because there was
disagreement about whether we ought to do that. As a consequence of not
lowering the caps, we are in the position of not, under any
circumstances, being able to get a score from CBO on this. Regardless
of what is on the amendment, as a result of not lowering those caps, we
are not in a position to have a score from CBO.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Nebraska yield for a question?
Mr. KERREY. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. I wish to commend the Senator for his initiative, and I
can understand the concern of the Senator from Hawaii about being
familiar with the specifics. I acknowledge the fact that this has been
publicly presented. I believe it was last September that there was a
formal presentation of this package. It has been discussed at
considerable length in the press and, of course, a lot of this package
is drawn from a proposal of Congressman Kasich and Congressman Penny on
the House side, and much of it is drawn also from proposals of Vice
President Gore and from the proposals of the President himself in the
area especially of the 252,000 reduction in the area of personnel.
So the elements of this package were put together by a fairly large
group of Senators from both sides of the aisle, and it was publicly
discussed with considerable exposure throughout the fall. It has come
forward today because the manner of procedure around here requires that
it be brought forth today, because this is really the only vehicle, as
I understand it--and that is the element of my question to the Senator
from Nebraska--we are going to have available to us for a long time if
we want to address this type of spending restraint. Is that not
correct?
Mr. KERREY. That is correct.
Mr. GREGG. So the appropriate manner in which this body functions
requires us to bring it forth today. I certainly congratulate the
Senator from Nebraska for his energy and initiative in putting this
package together and bringing together a large number of Senators who
support it.
It is a logical step in the process which we have been trying to
undertake here as a Government and as a Congress in our efforts to
reduce the cost of the Federal Government and to get under control the
spending of the Federal Government.
Last year, Congress passed the President's package. That included $5
billion of spending restraints in the first year of a 5-year period.
That $5 billion is going to be completely eliminated by today's
supplemental emergency appropriation, which is going to require us to
spend upwards of $10 billion to help out the folks in California,
primarily. And that is an understandable and necessary expense. But the
fact is that if you undertake the California expenditure--and I think
we should, obviously, in order to benefit the people who suffered from
the earthquake--you are essentially creating a situation where there is
no spending restraint this year within the President's budget, because
the $5 billion would have been wiped out. In the outyears, there was
also not a great deal of spending restraint in the budget. This is an
attempt to address the spending side of the ledger of the Federal
Government through a bipartisan package of spending cuts.
And, yes, all of these spending cuts will be unpopular to the
constituencies that are impacted. There is no question about that. That
is always the case. But if we are going to be true to the directive
which I believe the American people sent us here with, which is to
bring under control the Federal budget hemorrhaging which has occurred
over the last few years, we have to address not only the revenue side
of the ledger but also the spending side. And this is a legitimate
attempt to do that.
If you go down through the list of issues which are raised here, I
think the Senator from Nebraska deserves a significant amount of
commendation for having pulled together ideals for which there is
strong bipartisan support. He has not chosen to target, through this
proposal, one specific area which might be egregious to a certain
region or to a certain group of Senators of a political philosophy.
You look at this proposal and everybody gets their toes stepped on,
and in some cases their ox is gored. This is a bipartisan effort, and
it is one which impacts a large spectra of functions of Federal
activity. It is, therefore, in my opinion, a legitimate and honest and
fair attempt to bring under control the Federal deficit.
So I just want to commend again the Senator from Nebraska for
bringing this item forward. I hope he will offer it as an amendment to
the supplemental, because that appears to be the only vehicle
available. As such, it is the only game in town. And if that is the way
the process works and if we are going to be participants in that
process, this amendment has to go forward at this time. It is a
legitimate and substantive attempt to reduce the deficit, over a 5-year
period, by approximately $95 billion. That is a lot of money. But it is
something that has to be undertaken if we are going to be sure that the
trends which are presently occurring in the deficit area continue and
that we will continue to see a drop in the outyears in the Federal
deficit.
It is also a critical effort if we are going to address what should
be all of our concerns, which is that we not continually pass on to the
next generation more and more costs which are spent on funding this
generation.
There was a very interesting item in the President's budget which was
submitted just a couple of days ago, which talked about the fact that
the generation which is now coming up will be paying up to 50 percent
of their earnings over their lifetime to the Federal Government for
purposes of supporting the activities of the Government. That is a lot
of money. But the next generation after that, their children, are going
to end up paying upwards to 85 percent of their wages and earnings to
the Government to support the Government.
We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow ourselves to continue
to pass laws in our generation which benefit our generation but end up
being paid for by the next generation.
What this amendment attempts to accomplish is to start to address
that problem by putting in place a very substantive and very
thoughtful, some bipartisanly supported, spending reductions which are
appropriate at this time, because the procedure requires that it go
forward at this time.
I again congratulate the Senator from Nebraska for bringing it
forward.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from New
Hampshire, Senator Gregg. He has been involved from the beginning. If
Senator Gregg had prepared this amendment, it would probably be twice
as big as this one.
I do not recall a single situation, where one of the members in this
group said, ``I would like to do this,'' and the Senator from New
Hampshire said, ``No, if you put that on there, I will not vote for
it,'' clearly understanding that we have to vote for things that we may
not like under normal circumstances. We have to vote to reduce and in
some cases eliminate some things that we would prefer to have funded.
I appreciate very much the Senator's steadfast support of the effort
to say we have to reduce spending because we believe it will be good
for the economy. We believe it will give Alan Greenspan and the Federal
Reserve some room to move. We believe it will sustain a low-inflation,
low-interest-rate economic recovery if we do.
But now is not the time to rest on our laurels. Now is not the time
to sit down and say, ``Well, we went through all that mess last August,
and we got the deficit down to $176 billion, and, gosh, we know we took
a lot of heat for doing that, a lot of criticism for doing that, so let
us just hope the economy continues to grow.''
Mr. President, I do indeed see this connected to downward trends in
inflation that probably began with deficit reduction action in 1990. We
made some adjustments in some areas in 1993. We have taken additional
steps. This merely says that we have to keep going. Now is not the time
to stop. There is never a good time to do this. But economically there
has never been a better time. The economy is growing, interest rates
are down, inflation is down. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board
has given us an indication of what he intends to do if he sees the
economy overheating. We can help the Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board by accepting this amendment.
Mr. President, I would also like to take a little bit of time to
point out one of the more difficult and contentious problems that we
have in all of this, and that has to do with the mandated programs.
There is no question that there are large numbers of other things. I
heard the distinguished Senator from California talk about other
appropriated items that could be reduced. There is no question that
there are still some areas out there that I would vote to reduce if we
thought we could put together a majority.
But, Mr. President, I will read again the numbers of the President's
budget--$177 billion in Medicare and $96 billion in Medicaid; $273
billion just on those two health care programs. That does not include
the VA, does not include the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.
It does not include the National Institutes of Health. Probably $330 or
so billion of total Federal health care spending.
By the way, bringing some reality into some of the argument that I
have heard on this floor, people say they are against a big-Government
takeover of health care. Mr. President, the Government started taking
over health care long ago. And $330 billion is a significant
contribution, over 30 percent of the bills being paid right now, with
taxpayer money. Regrettably, we do not fund all of that. We deficit
finance about 20 percent of it.
We basically say, yes, we want the doctors to take care of us when we
get sick and, yes, we want hospitalization and, for gosh sakes, we do
not want to have to turn anybody away if they have a need, but we just
do not want to pay the bill.
What we are going to do instead is borrow about $60 billion of that,
sell Treasury bonds for about $60 billion and say to our kids, ``Even
though our interest rate is not a big deal, only about $60 billion of
additional interest, you can pay. We need these hospital bills paid.
But we do not want to pay the bills. We would rather it not come out of
our earnings, for gosh sakes. We want it to come out of your
earnings,'' which is what interest represents, Mr. President.
In addition to that, we have $335 billion of Social Security, $65
billion in military and civil retirements, $273 billion of health care
spending--$400 billion of retirement spending--and then another $117
billion, totaling 844 mandated programs.
We are going to debate these things this year. We did not debate them
last year. All the rancorous debate we had about the budget last year,
there was not a single word--we had one opportunity to vote to control
the growth of entitlements, but other than that, they just go on.
It is a $32 billion increase, by the President's estimate--CBO
actually estimates more than that--an increase from President Bush's
first budget to President Clinton's second budget, a $32 billion
increase in spending that is going to occur with almost no debate at
all.
If you add that interest in, out of a $1.6 trillion budget, $1.56
trillion goes for essentially checks that we are writing out to
individuals and institutions. with almost no debate at all, almost no
concern at all. We are really only arguing whether we come to cutting
the budget with $541 billion for discretionary spending. We make an
attempt to get into it here with military and civil retirement.
I must say, I cannot stand here and say with a straight face that the
method we are using is altogether fair. But what we said was we are not
going to be able to do anything with Social Security. We cannot do
anything really significant with Medicare. So we will just make some
kind of a gesture to indicate to all people in this country that we
have to keep our economy growing if we want to maintain the safety net.
It just is a mistake, whether the issue is health care or the issue is
retirement, for us to say to the American people: All I have to do is
give you a card to make you eligible and that secures your income. It
does not.
I support President Clinton's effort to get the American people a
health security card that declares we are all eligible for the same
system. I do not think it is going to happen, but I support that
effort. I think we ought to have simplified eligibility. But it is
wrong for us to say in the process of handing somebody a card that that
card guarantees him or her high-quality health care. It does not.
Nobody here in Congress can do that.
We can pass a law and say you are eligible. We can guarantee
eligibility by the law. But the law does not guarantee high-quality
health care. Only our ability individually and collectively to generate
wealth and income determines whether or not we have high-quality health
care, as well as the willingness of people to train themselves and
educate themselves to acquire the skills to do the job.
This safety net we began to erect in 1935 with the enactment of the
Economic Security Act, that we began to fund in 1940, and we added
disability income, we added health care income--that safety net all of
us want to provide because we know the marketplace can be cruel. We
know we cannot just let the marketplace run to take care of people. All
of us are proud about what Medicare has done, about what Social
Security has done. Nobody wants to reverse that. Nobody wants to leave
individuals out there in the lurch.
Our ability to build that safety net rests upon our capacity to
generate increased income in goods and services. Even though I believe
that this deficit reduction action will enable our economy to grow
faster and strengthen that safety net, it also alarms me that I am
mostly going after discretionary accounts that are already under
assault. All of us know, who have any military bases at all close to
us--and we have a wonderful one at STRATCOM, in Omaha, NE--that these
reductions in defense do not just mean we are getting dangerously close
to lowering our guard too much. It also means we have to lay somebody
off.
We have seen the stress, the turmoil that occurs when that happens.
These reductions in expenditures are opposed because somebody is going
to lose his or her job over it in defense, or National Endowment for
the Arts, or for legal services, or any other account.
Somebody is out there getting a paycheck. I am conscious of that. I
am conscious even when we build a $600 toilet seat, which is a
disgrace, even when we waste money in discretionary accounts, at least
somebody has a job in the process.
I must say, and I am sure other colleagues feel the same way, when we
get away from Washington, DC, and these hallowed Halls and listening to
ourselves talk about all sorts of grand things, and go home and talk to
the American people, we find out, oddly, at the end of the cold war
when we ought to feel this enormous exhilaration now we no longer live
in fear that tomorrow we may blow ourselves up with nuclear weapons--
that was the fear in 1988 when I was campaigning for this job; that is
no longer there--you would think the American people would feel some
sense of exhilaration, some release from this fear. But instead, what I
am hearing people saying is: Something is going on here we do not like.
There is a deeper fear. It has to do with making an observation we have
rapidly increasing crime being perpetrated by 14-, 15-, 16-, 17-year-
old children who, instead of looking out there and seeing opportunity,
have become predators.
It comes, instead, from people saying moms and dads do not have the
time to take care of their kids. They are not providing the support for
their children. We are not investing, as the President has said over
and over and over, enough in our children and families.
We voted yesterday to approve the School-to-Work Program, a $100
million program. I voted for that program; $100 million we are going to
be able to appropriate. It will hardly get the thing going, hardly get
the thing started. When we cut these domestic discretionary accounts,
as we do, sometimes it is waste. Sometimes it is unnecessary. And we
tried--I say with great respect to anybody who has been touched by
these cuts--we have tried to express priorities. We tried to be
careful. And we tried to set an example by saying we have to give up
something, too.
But I must say, I am alarmed by what I think is going to happen this
year. I think, as a consequence of President Clinton's leadership, we
are going to be spending more on children and families. We are going to
try to begin to invest in people who have, in my judgment suffered a
disinvestment in the 1980's. But we are still going to fall way short.
And we are going to fall way short, in my judgment, not just because we
have not been willing to go after those appropriated items that need to
be cut--and there are still plenty that could be on anybody's list.
I heard the distinguished Senator from California say she sees this
amendment as being well intentioned but slowing down the supplemental.
I assure my colleague, now for the fourth or fifth time, I will accept
a time agreement, so it does not interfere with the progress of the
supplemental. And she has some others I would put on. I am sure there
are others to go on here. The Senator from Massachusetts, Senator
Kerry, organized a group of people last fall and they had an amendment
to the rescission bill we are now dealing with that and other items.
The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin has been a leader in going
after items that are wasteful, that are fraudulent, that ought not to
be a part of our budget.
I just have to tell my colleagues, when we look at the hard numbers
here of what is going on in the mandated programs versus the
discretionary programs, in my judgment we are beginning to get down to
our seed corn. We are beginning to get to a point where it is going to
be awfully difficult for us to say with a straight face we are
providing the infrastructure and investment that is necessary.
The State of Nebraska in this budget will receive about $22 million a
year over the next 5 years to invest in our interstate highway system.
It ought to be $50 million a year over the next 5 years, but we do not
have the money in the discretionary accounts any longer. We do not have
that money. It makes me ashamed that that is the case.
The source of that shame is this fact. My dearly departed mother and
father built the interstate highway system with cash, because they
wanted my future to be better than theirs. They cared more about me
than they did about themselves. They did not come to Washington, DC,
and say take care of me, me, me. I received letters from citizens that
say, ``Yes, do anything you want, but do not touch my benefits and do
not touch my taxes. Go after somebody else besides me.''
That was not the attitude that my parents had. They built that
interstate highway system with cash. They were concerned about the
future. They were grateful to be alive. They were grateful to have
survived, won the Second World War. They came home with gratitude. They
had gone through the Depression and knew what it was like to be
without, and wanted to make sure their children were not without. And
they did so by putting their money where their mouths were.
Mr. President, we are not. Instead, we have a budget that, in my
judgment, satisfies an increasing attitude that says, ``It is me, me,
me. Take care of me right now. Do not take care of tomorrow. Do not
take care of 20 years from now.''
You hold a graph up today that shows the GAO analysis saying our
standard of living will be higher in the year 2015 and people say, ``My
gosh, 2015, I will never live that long. Why should I be concerned
about 2015?''
I hope Members realize we are not trying to do anything to this dire
emergency supplemental to slow it down. I just believe very strongly we
need to take a second step. I say with respect to colleagues who will
look at this list and say, ``My gosh, it has things on it I do not
like;'' there are things on it I do not like. There are things on here
I wish were not, and there are things that are not on here that I wish
were on here. This group has been working for almost 5 months now,
trying to put together a respectable, straightforward amendment that
addresses, I think, the problem that has economic consequences, that
has political consequences--not reelection, obviously--but political
consequences. The American people are losing their confidence that we
will do what they want us to do.
I think it has great moral consequences as well. It is difficult to
look at these numbers, it is difficult to look at the accumulation of
debt every single year and say we are doing the right thing. We are
not. We are satisfying the short-term interests and short-term fear we
have that if we go to the American people and say it is time for us to
pay the bills, that they are going to get angry.
Sure they are going to get angry. Fear of making somebody angry, it
seems to me, is not the sort of fear we ought to act upon. This
particular amendment, in my judgment, will enable us to continue a low-
interest rate, low-inflation economic recovery. Failure to take this
action, I think, is going to cause us at some point out there in the
future to say, ``Gosh, do you remember when the economy was growing
back there in 1994? Do you remember those good old days back in
February 1994 when the economy was booming and we had low interest
rates and low inflation? That was the time to do deficit reduction,''
we will hear. When the economy slows down people will then come and
say, ``Now is not time to do it. We should wait until the economy gets
going.''
There is never a good time. This is as good a time as any. With all
due respect to the Members who may look at particular parts of this,
saying, ``I wish it was not there''--I am prepared to accept change in
this. I am prepared to accept some alteration in this. I am prepared at
any stage in the game to sit down and say let us show the same
bipartisan verve and enthusiasm we do at the time it comes to pass a
dire emergency supplemental. There is no procedural roadblock at that
time we cannot conquer. There is no rule, no provision, nothing in our
way. We come together and we are patriotic Americans. And, because we
are generous Americans--and we are right to be so, Mr. President. But
when it comes time to cutting spending around here, all of a sudden,
``I have a procedural problem.'' All of a sudden I have 1,000 reasons
why I cannot do it: ``It's the wrong list, it's the wrong time, it's
the wrong day, it's the wrong something-or-other.''
I recognize this is going to be a difficult amendment for people to
vote for.
I am not standing here full of optimism that this amendment is going
to be adopted. I understand it is very likely this amendment is going
to be defeated. But under any circumstances, adopted or defeated, I
hope this year we take a second step; that we do not tremble and fear
for the consequences politically; that we, instead, tremble and fear
for the consequences of the long-term future of our children if we do
not take this action.
I see the distinguished Senator from Michigan is here, and I will be
glad to yield the floor.
Mr. RIEGLE. I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I have an important
item to present to the Senate. It is a matter separate from the
amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska. I asked his courtesy to
be able to make a unanimous consent request to put the Senate in
morning business for a period of 15 minutes so I can present this
information and then resume consideration on the matter that is now
before us. So I now make that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________